Liberals Ruined American Blacks, and Other Republican Lies

This comment was posted on the Liberal Race Realism Starting To Grow post by a conservative who blames liberals for the problems of Black folks in the US:

As what passes for a conservative in Massachusetts, I have to find this article amusing. You think that now that you’ve applied rational thought to one issue, you know it all? There’s a lot more coming.The fact is, the whole mess was made by liberals, starting with Kennedy and LBJ. Liberals were the ones that concluded that blacks weren’t smart enough to be helped to stand on their own two feet, and so created affirmative action to get them results without effort.
When Blacks took the philosophy behind affirmative action to heart, and themselves concluded they couldn’t make it on their own, liberals were the ones who set up a welfare system that perpetuated the Black cycle of poverty. And it’s liberals who set up a taxation system that provides major disincentives to work harder for Blacks who manage to break that cycle, just as it does for Whites and everyone else.
Don’t blame the Blacks, blame yourself.
If you ever understand what’s really going on, you’ll finally understand why the conservative agenda – the tough love of workfare and further limitations on welfare, lower taxation and uncapped child care deductions to let actual working people keep what they earn and have kids as easily as welfare families, and elimination of affirmative action and the racist prejudice that underlies it – is necessary if the problems of race in the U.S. are ever to be solved.
But you’ll never be able to do anything about it by voting for Democrats. We’ll see if you are smart enough to allow your brain to vote, instead of your liberal reactions.

This bit of Republican nastiness is particularly vicious because it masquerades as anti-racism when in reality, it’s going to have some real bad effects for Blacks once it’s put into practice. In this reworking of the world, reality is turned on its head, anti-racist liberals like Johnson and Kennedy (and me) are now the Liberal KKK, and racist Republicans like Reagan are the Republican MLK. This allows Republicans to peddle an objectively anti-Black under the guise of anti-racists while painting the opponents of the project, who work for Black interests, to actually be nasty racists like Bull Connor.
This is sort of the Starr Parker – Clarence Thomas line about Blacks. Many Whites have cynically latched onto this, and a few Black idiots have too. Parker and Thomas are two of those morons. Thomas and Parker are cynically used by frankly racist White conservatives to further the rightwing project which has nothing to do with helping Blacks and is all about conservative ideology and helping out the wealthier classes, which all conservatism is ever about really.
Conservatives, even Republicans, are racists because every time a Republican President gets in office, he defunds the Civil Rights Department. Prosecutions for discrimination in housing and employment plummeted under Reagan and Bush Sr. There’s no reason for any self-respecting, non-masochistic  Black person who cares anything about their people to be a Republican.
This won’t solve anything. It will just make things worse. Blacks do best under a socialist system. The more socialism, the better they do. The more free market pure capitalist with wide variables in wealth, the worse Blacks do.
Lower taxes always hurts workers. It doesn’t help them. Because you have to cut services when you cut taxes, and workers are the ones who use all the services. The only people helped by lowering taxes are people who make lots of money and have no need for government services, so taxation is a ripoff for them. If you make that much money, taxes are no disincentive to having kids. In my entire life, I have never heard one family say, “We want kids, but we can’t afford it due to taxes.”
As far as workfare, it’s Republicans who always killed that. Liberals wanted it. Republican “workfare” is some kind of a sick joke. Go find yourself a job, if you’re lucky with 9.5% unemployment. That’s it. That’s “workfare.”
OTOH, we liberals supported a workfare whereby you would get some government make-work type job (could be anything really) and then along with it, medical care for you and your kid and daycare for your kid. You can stay on it as long as you like, as long as you have dependent kids.
As is, the jobs that welfare recipients are likely to find will not pay enough for daycare for the kids, and will not have medical care for the kids or for the Mom. It’s just a disaster. Welfare “reform” has completely failed. We need to get rid of it and put back in some real workfare proposition.
Getting rid of “racist” affirmative action won’t help Blacks. What’s hilarious about Republicans characterizing AA as racism is that this is the only time they ever use the word “racism.” When it hurts White people. To Republicans, the only kind of racism that exists is anti-White racism. All the other kinds are illusions.
This is the rightwing lie: affirmative action told Blacks that they were helpless and incompetent, so they acted the part. Yeah right! So, we get rid of affirmative action, and Blacks will no longer believe that they are lame and incompetent, and will rise to the top like baking yeast! I would laugh except so many rightwing idiots actually believe this idiocy. It’s sort of understandable that idiots would fall for this crap, since it does have a nice ring to it, that is, until you actually sit down and think.
It’s true that affirmative action is at times unfair, but no way will getting rid of it help Blacks. Bottom line is getting rid of it is going to be bad for Blacks. How bad is a matter of debate. In this nasty Republican lie, we liberals who set up AA are racists because we think, in a racist manner, that Blacks can’t cut it, so they need quotas to compete. Well, the truth is that if you look at test scores in schools and on tests to get into various occupations, Blacks can’t cut it. They don’t do as well. So, getting rid of AA will mean not as many Blacks will get hired. Some will, sure, but many others won’t.
I suspect that the Republican liars who made up this lie actually know this and know that Blacks can’t compete on a level playing field, but they just say this because it feels so good. All right-thinking people want to believe that Blacks really can compete. Problem is, they can’t. Level the playing field, and many fewer Blacks will get in.
So…Blacks (in actuality, hardworking Blacks who have been enervated by liberalism) are just dying to get off welfare and get a real job and stand on their own two feet for once, but once they consult the local tax attorney and learn about the US tax code, they say, “Screw this! I’m staying on $400 a month welfare!”?
Yeah!
It’s so much more profitable than working for a living, what with the 10% tax rate at the typical $8/hour job they will get ($1,600/month), with the whole thing refundable at the end of the year probably, and then an EITC to boot for a negative income tax. Wow! With disincentives like that, it’s amazing we all aren’t on welfare living like Camelot on $400 a month!
This line is “Liberals made Black people poor!” LOL, come on man, please. Good God, conservatives are stupid. Either they are stupid, or they are just vicious cynical evil, and don’t believe a word of this obvious nonsense that they just feed to their Glen Beck cattle.
Seriously, I don’t even think that Jared Taylor believes this crap, but I haven’t asked him yet. He may be conservative, but Jared’s not stupid.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

72 thoughts on “Liberals Ruined American Blacks, and Other Republican Lies”

  1. That’s an interesting analysis. It does seem like a lot of people never see through this type of thing from the Republicans. The Republicans are really in rough shape.

  2. According to the commenter, “Blacks took the philosophy behind affirmative action to heart” and concluded that they couldn’t make it on their own.
    I don’t think this accurately describes the way Black people perceived affirmation action.
    White liberals did not have to sit down and make a “sales pitch” to Black people that there was this liberal idea called Affirmative Action, and that Blacks would really benefit if they would get onboard. As far as Black people were concerned, Affirmative Action was America finally saying that opportunities were not going to be denied to them anymore because they were Black.

  3. Isn’t this why Lincoln wanted separation – he realised that different average abilities meant there would be large inequalities & that would create problems?
    What is incredible is that European countries allow in large number of blacks naively assuming that they will perform differently to those in the US.

    1. What “abilities” could blacks be expected to have after newly being freed from slavery other than picking cotton?
      African immigrants actually do pretty well in the west as far as education and income. I’m talking about the legal immigrants, not the ones coming across in rickety boats.

    2. Been a long time bro. Blacks stopped being enslaved from pickin cotton about 150 years ago. Plenty of time to grow lots of nice shiny new abilities. This “legacy of slavery” shit is getting real old, don’t ya think?

    3. African immigrants actually do pretty well in the west as far as education and income. I’m talking about the legal immigrants, not the ones coming across in rickety boats.
      You do realize that this is because we are extremely selective about WHICH Africans we let in here, correct? There is a world of difference between a Kenyan grad student and some thuggin, gangbangin clown with two Baby Mommas from Compton.
      I mean, if we just opened the doors and let Africans in willy-nilly, the result would be catastrophic. Average Nigerians and Kenyans would just recreate Lagos and Nairobi.

    4. Most Blacks (unless they have a lot of White blood in them) really aren’t fit to do many higher-level jobs or skills because they are mentally as well as morally unfit to do so. Black Africa isn’t really a great beacon of human civilization, ya dig?
      Back in the day, Blacks were considered to be just a small step above laboring farm animals in the American South, various Caribbean islands, and in the colonies in South America that used Blacks as slaves…that is, they were only fit for tedious manual labor because their mental and moral faculities weren’t very high, though they of course had great physical stamina down there in the very hot sunshine and high humidity compared to the Whites who were used to the much cooler and less sunny climes of Europe.

    5. After recently doing some traveling around parts of the Deep South, I’ve thought lately about how Black Africans will probably go extinct before Whites and Asians because Whites/Asians will probably end up wiping out Black Africans sooner rather than later.
      I don’t mean next week or next year or anything, but maybe starting in just a few more decades or centuries or so. Eventually, in the brutally Darwinian competition for increasingly scarce resources around the world, Whites and Asians will just take over Black African lands/resources and will likely exterminate large numbers of them. The Darwinian maxim “survival of the fittest” will be used to justify this — as Black Africans are, according to many, clearly not fit enough to thrive in the modern world.
      Thus Black African DNA probably won’t continue to live on before it’s wiped out except in very diluted form amongst those Blacks who have already been absorbed in to the gene pools of other races. This is a brutal view but I think it’s realistic nonetheless.

    6. Hi WP. I don’t agree with this at all. You may have a point about Black Africans and maybe even Caribbeans, though Caribbean societies seem ok.
      The African IQ is only 67.
      The Caribbean Black IQ is only 71.
      However, the US Black IQ is 86.8
      (All three setting US White IQ at 100.)
      An 87 IQ in world terms is not so bad at all. Many societies with IQ ranges around there do fairly well for themselves. So while I wonder if Caribbeans and Africans are smart enough for modern society, there’s no way we can lump US Blacks into that mix too. US Blacks are a different animal altogether. I’m not sure what happened to them, but I suspect they may have done some evolving here, plus they benefit for an enhanced environment.
      The scenario you play out is very interesting. It reminds me of Civil War 2. I wonder, if these horrible events went down, if US Blacks would be good at guerrilla warfare?
      One thing you underestimate about Blacks is that they are very much survivors. In thinking about “Black intelligence” and how the IQ tests don’t measure low African IQ well, that one keeps coming back to me. Blacks know how to survive. This even takes the form of “jerry-rigging” or, racist, “n-rigging” things.
      Blacks seem to be experts at improvisation, making do with what they have, improvising temporary “quick and dirty” solutions that work for the time being, etc. A lot of Black males are very good car mechanics for the same reason.

  4. The top 100 negroes in America couldn’t rally 50 negroes, less came up with Affirmative action in the first place. Jews started the civil rights movement. Anyone that knows just a little about jews know that jews started it, financed and led the CR.
    What the jews does is that they pit people against each other. The jews couldn’t care less about black people. What it was all about was pitting black against white people and create racial tension.
    The jews hate white people, they are all Nazis to the jews, and their plan is to make white people a minority in their own country. Just look at Ivy League. White american are what 20 percent? 50 percent jews and the rest non-whites.

  5. I don’t think affirmative action began out of any belief that blacks can’t cut it thus need a boost. It began because there was an acknowledgement that we had caste system in this country for 400 years, every bit as pervasive as India’s caste system that kept blacks, qualified or not from rising. That much is undeniable. Whites had affirmative action. What was the homestead act that gave poor whites millions of acres of free land. This wasn’t given to blacks. Affirmative action wasn’t some acknowledgment that blacks couldn’t compete, it was an attempt to play catch up.
    Furthermore, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white females, not blacks. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. Here was a woman clearly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Nobody can tell me that if it was a man with Palin’s same exact qualifications, he’d have been chosen. She was chosen because she was a woman. Interesting how the right never got mad about that case of affirmative action.
    And one last point, few blacks ever got a job because of affirmative action. When I hear whites complaining about it, it’s the biggest joke. Nobody is sitting there monitoring what company hires what. There is no law that says all companies must hire exactly 13% blacks. No law anywhere that says. Affirmative action programs in private sphere are voluntary. It is illegal to discriminate and you may be brought to court if found liable, but nothing says you must hire the same proportion of blacks that are in the general population. There is no affirmative action czar in the government that watches over private corporations and make sure of such. Studies show that black resumes are still 2x as likely to be discarded as white ones even when qualifications are identical. So for all the belly-aching people do about affirmative action putting white men out of work, I don’t see any evidence of it.

    1. Oh no way! It’s a fact! LOTS of Blacks have jobs due to AA, and that’s for sure. Especially in the government at all levels, state, federal and even lower. Furthermore, LOTS of Blacks are at universities due to AA. That’s an empirical fact! And there is no denying it.
      Another thing that AA has done is that many places have just dumbed down tests. The test for the New York Transportation Authority was so dumbed down by the mid 1990’s that it was ridiculous. If you dumb the test down enough, plenty of Blacks are goinig to pass (along with most of the Whites) then you can pick and choose and get your quotas and whatnot. I’m concerned about this though, because I worry about possible ill effects from dumbing down tests to get jobs. At some point, you may get some real idiots on the job who make some mistakes. Some mistakes may just cost money and cause inefficiency, while others may cause property damage, injuries and even deaths.
      It’s a FACT that Whites are rejected over less qualified Blacks in university admissions and in a number of government jobs where AA is in effect. It’s never happened to me, but it’s happened to a number of folks that I have known. A friend of mine just lost a fireman’s job to a Hispanic who scored lower on the test, but was let on due to AA. Happens all the time man.
      True, AA is voluntary in the corporate world, but hardly anyone is complaining about that anyway. The complaining about AA is in hiring for public jobs, as you noted the only place it exists anyway.
      Once again, you are not really answering the question. The question was AA, and you answered it by saying that there is no AA in the private sector, but we all know that.
      I’m well aware that there is still some discrimination in hiring, but most large corporations now have diversity goals, diversity advisers and whatnot so IMHO they have come a long way.

    2. Another thing that AA has done is that many places have just dumbed down tests. -Robert-
      —–
      heg: lt’s the same thing in Sweden. Every test is being dumbed down, teacher, medic, fire, police and ambulance. ln some areas the test is down to the level of retards. But it’s working very well for the jews plan to make white people a minority in their own country. That is what AA is all about.

  6. AJC was started by Jacob Schiff, one of the, if not the biggest jewish gangster in America 1880 to his death 1920. AJC had max 30 members, the jewish “elite” with unlimited money.
    l can tell you to the day when the jew mafia took control of the American state, Dec 15 1911. That is the day Taft caved into the mafia jew Jacob Schiff’s demand that America cut off the trade deal with Russia from the 1830s.
    A trade deal between the two biggest countries in the world is not just something you can have or cut off like that. lt’s a big deal. The jews made congress vote 300 to 1 to cut the trade deal.
    Since 1911 senate and congress ALAWAYS have voted at least 80 percent as the jews have told them to vote.

  7. Furthermore, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white females, not blacks. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. Here was a woman clearly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Nobody can tell me that if it was a man with Palin’s same exact qualifications, he’d have been chosen. She was chosen because she was a woman. Interesting how the right never got mad about that case of affirmative action.
    —–
    heg: What a braindead nonsense. Palin got chosen because she is a very stupid women. Good looking and one heck of a speaker, but stupid. The jews wanted a black as puppident. The jews have been training Obama NoBody since 1992 to be their first black puppident.
    The jews selected the most stupid person to run for puppident, John McClown and Stupid Palin.
    “Furthermore, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white females, …”
    heg: That is the most stupid thing l have ever read.

    1. WP said: “Most Blacks (unless they have a lot of White blood in them) really aren’t fit to do many higher-level jobs or skills because they are mentally as well as morally unfit to do so. Black Africa isn’t really a great beacon of human civilization, ya dig?”
      I think there’s a segment of society that not only believes in black mental inferiority, but seems to take some sort of perverse pleasure in believing in it, just reading this and other comments you leave, I believe you are in that category.
      I for one am not closed off the idea that there may be cognitive differences between various population groups. However, I don’t believe that African IQs are naturally at 70. Just as Asian IQs and height started rising with things like better nutrition and diminished poverty(didn’t Chinese used to have much lower IQs?), I thing if an African baby were raised in a middle class western family, his IQ would not be 70. Who knows, it may not be 100 either, maybe it’ll be 90, I don’t know but I don’t believe for a second it would be 70. We had a discussion in this group already that for most people IQs in that 60-70 range would be functionally retarded and would not be able to do even the most basic of tasks without assistance, things such as driving a car for example. Equatorial Guinea tests out at IQ 59. Yet someone from that country can function independently without a personal caretaker to wipe their ass for them. So I don’t have confidence in the way African IQs are being tested and think it’s extremely unfair to just castigate an entire group of people as “dumb” without understanding more about what’s going on here.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
      Just something interesting I noticed. It shows Iraq is an IQ 87 nation. Yet their ancestors basically created civilization, the wheel, arithmetic, the first system of writing, the first large city-states, etc. Another reason I have to take this stuff with a grain of salt.
      Even something like a pregnant woman being exposed to pollution can effect her kid’s IQ by 5pts: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/20/health/main5173842.shtml
      Environment I think accounts for the vast majority of global IQ differences. I don’t necessarily think Abos and Jews would test exactly the same under 100% controlled environmental circumstances, I just don’t think the gap would be anywhere near as large as it presently is.
      You may also have in some cultures, a propensity for people with the lowest IQs to reproduce the most. So there may be nothing inherently wrong with that race’s intellect, but if those at the lower end of the bell curve start having more kids then it drags down the entire group. What would happen to white American’s IQs if the low intelligence trailer park whites started breeding like rabbits for the next 100 years? If you are a strict hereditarian, then you must believe that it will cause the white average to plummet. Wouldn’t of course mean there’s anything inherently wrong with white people, but the smart ones allowed themselves to be outbred by the dumb ones.

    2. I think tulio makes some excellent points here.
      As far as “Black inferiority” I don’t even like the phrase. A logical race realist position is that Blacks are better in some areas and worse in others, so inferiority is a tough call. Anyway, it really bothers me to discuss areas where Blacks come up short. OTOH, most race realists are just racists who delight in discussing Black inferiority. That mindset makes my stomach churn.
      No one knows what IQ’s Chinese used to have. No one knows how long it took current groups to develop their present IQ’s. It need not have taken 1000’s of years. I have an article that says that the E Asian advantage may have only occurred in the past 200 years, since they did not do a lot culturally prior.
      I do have a post that shows how East Asians have gone from 97 IQ to 105 in only a couple of generations in the US. They were below Whites and now they surpass them. No one knows how they did this, but some think it’s environment.
      As far as 3rd World people in the West, there seems to be a gain of 5-15 IQ points in the second generation in the West (the children of the immigrants born in the West). That’s pretty much across the board for all groups. Jamaicans went from 71 IQ to 86 with the second generation in the UK. I figure Black Africans could maybe go from 67 IQ to 82 IQ or so after they move to the West. That’s not real high, but it should be good enough. I’d much rather have an 82 IQ society than a 67 IQ one.
      Dysgenics can have effects, but eugenics can have effects too. I believe Blacks have been breeding eugenically in the West for the last 100 years, and this may account for their increased IQ over the Africans. Also, Black heads have grown much larger in 100 years. Concomitant with that was a 22 pt IQ rise. I think that the two are related.

    3. “Dysgenics can have effects, but eugenics can have effects too. I believe Blacks have been breeding eugenically in the West for the last 100 years, and this may account for their increased IQ over the Africans.”
      William Shockley looked at the evidence and found the opposite. Blacks were undergoing worse eugenics than whites. That’s also what Richard Lynn found.
      http://hbdbooks.com/2009/06/shockleys-crusade/
      http://hbdbooks.com/2009/06/the-fall-of-man/
      It’s not hard to see why. It’s really hard for someone with an IQ of 120+ to understand how a person with an IQ below 85 (half the black population) thinks. A large percentage of the black race simply can’t foresee the consequences of their actions.

    4. Yes but Lynn and Shockley have no evidence of Black dysgenics, zero. In fact, Black IQ has been rising steadily since 1900. Further, Black skulls have changed dramatically since 1900. They have gotten much larger and they are mover towards a more progressive phenotype (they are looking more and more like Whites). They changes were in part nutritional and in part genetic.
      If the changes were genetic, this means that Blacks in the past 100 years have been selecting for a more progressive phenotype. That is, the Blacks who look “Whiter” were breeding more or were more sought as partners. That’s the only way to explain the data. Whites have also been eugenically breeding for a more progressive phenotype for over 200 years – Whites with more progressive and less archaic features were selected more as partners.

    5. “Yes but Lynn and Shockley have no evidence of Black dysgenics, zero.”
      Um, actually, they did and I linked to it.
      Here’s from the review of Shockley’s work.
      “The exact same racial disparities that we see today were recognized by Shockley. When accused of being a white supremacist he would say that he had no problem recognizing the intellectual abilities of Asians or Jews. Colleagues told him that his views would have a much better chance of getting a hearing if he didn’t talk about black people or race. He found hiding his views objectionable and besides, as someone who was concerned by the exploding rates of crime and illegitimacy that he saw in 1960s America, the unpleasant topic couldn’t be avoided. Also, the dysgenic trend was worse among blacks than whites. The census showed that rural black women had 5.4 children each while college educated black females had 1.9. He at one point estimated that 70 inner-city black children with IQ potential below 75 were born every day. A score of 70 is legally retarded, meaning that these blacks would be taken care of by the tax payer and couldn’t be legally held responsible for their crimes. One shudders to think how many are born today.”
      RL: “Further, Black skulls have changed dramatically since 1900. They have gotten much larger and they are mover towards a more progressive phenotype (they are looking more and more like Whites). They changes were in part nutritional and in part genetic.
      If the changes were genetic, this means that Blacks in the past 100 years have been selecting for a more progressive phenotype. That is, the Blacks who look “Whiter” were breeding more or were more sought as partners. That’s the only way to explain the data. Whites have also been eugenically breeding for a more progressive phenotype for over 200 years – Whites with more progressive and less archaic features were selected more as partners.”
      People have also gotten taller over the last 100 years and it is not a genetic change. The same thing happened with intelligence. It’s completely possible that there could have been a genotypic decrease but a phenotypic increase in IQ. To cite myself once again…
      “While science has shown that traits for IQ and socioeconomic status are heritable and those with poor genes are outbreeding those with good genes, actual performance on IQ tests in the industrialized world has risen over the last century. How can this be? This seeming paradox is called the Flynn effect, after the scientist who estimated IQ gains of about 3-4 points per decade over the 20th century.
      We can rule out the effect of increased familiarity with written tests or better education because these gains are present in children as young as two years old. It is doubtful that it is due to increased stimulation because adoption studies show that the effect of shared environment is negligible; two biologically unrelated people raised in the same house are no more alike than any two random strangers. Lynn’s explanation is that the Flynn effect is due to better nutrition. This seems like the best explanation, as over the same time period height and brain size have increased by one standard deviation: the same as the increase in IQ.
      So while genotypic intelligence, which can be seen as underlying genetic quality, has decreased, actual performance, phenotypic intelligence, has seen an increase. This increase can’t last forever and the evidence shows that in the developed world, with even the poorest suffering from obesity, the Flynn effect has hit its ceiling. We can now expect a decrease in observed intelligence in the developed world even discounting low IQ third world immigration. “

    6. Shockley and Lynn have not proved a thing. As evidence, Black IQ has been rising for 80 years. Hence, there is no objective evidence that any dysgenic effect is occurring in Blacks. And we need evidence. They can’t produce it.
      The study was based on skulls. They looked at skulls from a variety of periods dating back to colonial days. White skulls have been changing for 200 years, getting larger and more progressive (less archaic). The researcher concluded that the changes were in part due to nutrition, but also due to genetics. The increased skull shape was nutritional, but the increased progressive features were genetic.
      The same was found in Blacks, but it only started in them in the last 100 years. The only conclusion is that both races have been selecting for a more progressive phenotype. In the Black community, females with more progressive features are highly sought as partners. Males with more progressive features may have been more intelligent, made more money and were more likely to pass as White. Therefore, they were more desired as partners.
      I know Jim Flynn and I have talked to him quite a bit. I’ve also researched the Flynn Effect a lot. It’s not all explained by nutrition. No one quite knows what’s causing it, but increased complexity of our modern environment seems to be part of it. The FE has NOT hit its ceiling in the developed world. It’s still going quite strong here in the US and other places. And it’s going like gangbusters in the 3rd World.
      You’re making a projection about declining intelligence in the developed world, but you’re just guessing. You’re just a guy looking into a crystal ball.

  8. The memory is short but if you go back and look at the puppident race, you will see clearly that once Obama NoBody was chosen to run for dem, the WHOLE jew owned propaganda-machine, what you call “media” was all out in favor of Obama NoBody. He was the new Messias that should save the world and l don’t know what.
    He probably promised he had a pill that would lower gas milage by 20 percent and cure cancer.

  9. The jews chosed the most stupid and war mongering one they could find, John MaClown an the stupid Palin to make sure their puppet Obama NoBody got elected puppident.
    None can deny that the jew owned “media” was all out on Obama NoBody.

    1. Well, obviously the comments are posted in quick succession, and the point of each of them is about the same, and it would look less like you are spamming the comments thread. Also, it would probably look more thought out, in that it would look like you were backing up your major point with a ton of evidence. I don’t care that much one way or the other, just saying.

  10. RL:”Blacks do best under a socialist system. The more socialism, the better they do. The more free market pure capitalist with wide variables in wealth, the worse Blacks do.”
    Of course Blacks do best under socialism…it’s because they get to live on Whitey’s money!

    1. No, Blacks have done very well in all-Black societies like Mozambique and Dominica that are/were heavily socialist or fairly equal. They don’t do well with extremes of wealth and poverty. That seems to spur Blacks into committing lots of crime. They also do well in Cuba too.

  11. “You may also have in some cultures, a propensity for people with the lowest IQs to reproduce the most.”
    That’s happening in the US apparently:
    “The black trendline is more volatile because of an overall much smaller number of black than white respondents (Ns = 473 for blacks and 8,909 for whites). Even so, high IQ blacks do seem to show a more pronounced trend toward having fewer children relative to high IQ whites over the period. ”
    http://congenialtimes.blogspot.com/2009/03/idiocracy-hitting-blacks-harder.html
    “As you can see, whites of above average intelligence and below average intelligence don’t have markedly different fertility rates. However, blacks of below average intelligence have much higher fertility rates than blacks of above average intelligence, who seem to be reproducing at the same rate as whites. This is a bad trend which, in the very long run, will only increase whatever portion of the black-white IQ gap, if any, is due to genetics and exacerbate present inequality.”
    http://congenialtimes.blogspot.com/2009/03/idiocracy-hitting-blacks-harder-part-ii.html

  12. “Conservatives, even Republicans, are racists because every time a Republican President gets in office, he defunds the Civil Rights Department. Prosecutions for discrimination in housing and employment plummeted under Reagan and Bush Sr. There’s no reason for any self-respecting, non-masochistic Black person who cares anything about their people to be a Republican.”
    If there really is discrimination against blacks in employment, then why doesn’t some firm come around, swoop up all these competent people and see their business take off?
    Steven Farron has shown that even Nazis would still shop at Jewish stores and hire Jews when it was in their economic self-interest (http://hbdbooks.com/2009/07/even-nazism-couldnt-produce-equality/). That’s because even though people may dislike a certain group, nobody practices what they preach if there’s an economic cost.
    There is no economic discrimination against blacks and that’s why Republicans don’t fund these Department of Justice witch hunts. As Steve Sailer has shown, the civil rights industrial complex goes after people for inequality of results, not based on evidence of actual discrimination.
    Besides that, I agree with what you’re saying. Blacks benefit when government discriminates in their favor. That should be a no brainer, but conservatives don’t want to be caught dead defending white people. We’re at the point when the only way you can argue against anti-white discrimination is by pretending not to be pro-white, but concerned for blacks.

    1. Capitalists are idiots. They don’t hire the best and brightest. I know several people with very high IQ’s who are simply not being hired to do anything in capitalist society. Capitalist society wastes people and wastes talent. The notion that capitalism automatically snaps up all the brainy and talented people has got to be some kind of a joke.
      There surely is discrimination against Blacks in employment and everyone knows there is lots of discrimination against Blacks in housing. They are also turned away from restaurants and whatnot. The notion that there is no employment discrimination against Blacks in the US is insane.
      Republicans don’t fund those departments because Republicans agree that Whites should have the “freedom of association” right to discriminate against Blacks in stores, housing, employment, etc. It’s been this way ever since Reagan, and it really all started with Nixon’s Southern Strategy. Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign by going to that town in Mississippi where the civil rights workers were killed and saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake and should never have been passed.
      Reagan was racist to the core from Day One and it never ended. Also, anti-discrimination law is a regulation of business, and Republicans don’t believe in regulation of business. But they won’t go after governments that discriminate either. There was ongoing discrimination at Baylor University that required constant government supervision. This supervision ended under Reagan and Baylor went back to discriminating.
      Housing discrimination is epidemic in the US.
      I can’t believe that Steve Sailer says that there is no employment discrimination against Blacks in the US anymore. Incredible. He’s just getting more and more racist all the time. Too bad.

    2. If blacks faced wide spread discrimination, you don’t think that there would be ONE corporation/capitalist out there in each field who would hire this overlooked black talent and destroy the competition? There are no unracist people amongst the elites who rule America?
      See what black income is compared to whites when you control for IQ (for those with IQs of 85+. There’s a minimum threshold intelligence you need to have to even be able to benefit from AA) and you’ll see who’s really advantaged.

    3. There is discrimation out there. Not a tremendous amount, but there is some. Lots of talented Blacks get hired these days.
      As I said, I find it hilarious that capitalists hire the best and brightest. Capitalists waste the best and brightest, they don’t hire them. No greater invention for wasting human talent has ever been devised than capitalism. How can I make sense of the fact that so many very high IQ people I know are not being hired by capitalists to do good jobs? These people are completely wasted by capitalist society.
      Socialist countries tested everyone and utilized all talented and bright people to their fullest.

    4. “There is discrimation out there. Not a tremendous amount, but there is some. Lots of talented Blacks get hired these days.
      As I said, I find it hilarious that capitalists hire the best and brightest. Capitalists waste the best and brightest, they don’t hire them. No greater invention for wasting human talent has ever been devised than capitalism. How can I make sense of the fact that so many very high IQ people I know are not being hired by capitalists to do good jobs? These people are completely wasted by capitalist society.
      Socialist countries tested everyone and utilized all talented and bright people to their fullest.”
      Why don’t they utilize them to get out of poverty?
      I’d like to know how anybody after looking at the last 100 years can still be a socialist/communist/Marxist. When you compare two racially similar populations with one having adopted capitalism and the other communism, (Japan and South Korea Vs. North Korea and China, US and Western Union Vs. USSR) it’s clear that capitalism is superior. And that’s not even counting the you know, tens of millions killed by the commies.

    5. Those of us who still believe in Marxism recognize the very serious problems of Marxist socieites, and we mostly use it as a tool to analyze capitalism. Marxist analysis shows how capitalism really does suck in so many ways. Plus you can never understand capitalism until you grasp Marxism.
      China has wiped out poverty pretty much. You really need to compare like with like. China and India started out the same. Now India has maternal mortality of 400/100,000 and China has a rate of 13/100,000.
      Further, Indian capitalism has killed about 150 million people due to failure to follow the Chinese path (China and India were the same in 1949, but life expectancy has increased so much in China that we can show 150 million excess deaths caused by Indian capitalism). To me, socialism is all about life. Capitalism is really about death. I don’t care so much for economic growth. I care about saving lives.
      If you look at Cuba, they have wiped out hunger (2% malnutrition), they have about the lowest infant mortality rate and the highest life expectancy in Latin America, they have the best educated population in the region, with 1% of the population, they have 10% of the scientists, they have the highest test scores. Everyone has a job or an income, everyone has good clothes to wear, proper shelter, clean water to drink, electricity and indoor plumbing.
      Capitalism in Latin America has failed because it can’t even provide these basic things. It can’t even feed its own people. It can’t wire them up for electricity, give them clean water, give them plumbing, give them a job, access to education, to free medical care, to clean clothes. So you see, in a way, Cuba has succeeded where all the others have failed. It depends on your rubrics. You measure economic growth. We measure stuff like what I just described.
      Admittedly, North Korea is a mess, but it’s still suffering the collapse of the USSR in 1990. Overnite the price of oil went up 10X and they lost all their trading partners. It ruined the economy, the factories fell apart, agriculture collapsed.
      Japan has a social democratic system, which I support. Europe also has a social democratic system. Comparing social democracy to Communist socialism, it’s hard to make a case that Communism is better, but we are just comparing two kinds of socialism. It’s clear that socialism is superior, even if it’s social democracy. The future is going to be some kind of socialism.

    6. RL:”How can I make sense of the fact that so many very high IQ people I know are not being hired by capitalists to do good jobs? These people are completely wasted by capitalist society.”
      One way to make sense of that fact — lots of people with a high IQ have many ‘personal quirks and foibles’ shall we say that prevent their full integration in to general society, the economic milieu, and the mainstream culture. In other words, many people with a high IQ are socially retarded/awkward and thus do not meld well in the economic climate of many highly driven, unreflective, and very greedy hypercapitalist nations.

    7. Actually ‘capitalism’ is very nepotistic in its hiring practices, which makes sense since it is largely Jewish in origin (at least finance-capitalism), and ethnic networking is the stock-in-trade of the Chosenite tribe.

    8. One way to make sense of that fact — lots of people with a high IQ have many ‘personal quirks and foibles’ shall we say that prevent their full integration in to general society, the economic milieu, and the mainstream culture. In other words, many people with a high IQ are socially retarded/awkward and thus do not meld well in the economic climate of many highly driven, unreflective, and very greedy hypercapitalist nations.
      Thx WP, this does make a lot of sense to me. It’s true, some high IQ types I know are sort of weird people, but one would think that capitalism would still find something for them to do. I think capitalists just don’t care. They’re all about pretty faces and appearances and the right color matching suit and tie and manners and business etiquette and all that crap.
      This whole notion that capitalism automatically gobbles up all the best and brightest and puts them to work making profits has always struck me as preposterous, but capitalist apologists like Richard like to repeat it.

    9. Good point Prole. Capitalists hire their buddies. They don’t necessarily hire the best and brightest at all. It’s a zero-sum game of ethnic or friendship networking whereby ethnic or friendship networks meld together to try to monopolize as much of the loot as possible on the principle of, “Everything for us, nothing for anyone else.” And the resulting competition is between various groups with this same mindset.

    10. “Good point Prole. Capitalists hire their buddies. They don’t necessarily hire the best and brightest at all. It’s a zero-sum game of ethnic or friendship networking whereby ethnic or friendship networks meld together to try to monopolize as much of the loot as possible on the principle of, “Everything for us, nothing for anyone else.” And the resulting competition is between various groups with this same mindset.”
      __
      And an even greater elaboration of these truths, Robert!
      It is through the vehicle of ‘capitalism’ that a *certain* people think they are going to inherit the earth, and all the wealth and riches in it (since, of course, it was ‘promised’ to them, after all 😉 ).
      *This is further why, in spite of all capitalism’s bullshit rhetoric, it is far more globally centralizing than the Socialist countries could ever even dream of.

    11. Y’all make some good points about the pitfalls of international capitalism which is, paradoxically, both rootless yet increasingly centralized at the same time.
      I am generally pro-capitalist as long as businesses remain small/medium-sized and local as opposed to massive and international; however, the thrust of modern history, thanks to the influence of rootless urban/international finance (spearheaded mostly by the Judeoplutocracy and their greedy allies), is clearly tending toward the latter, and thus more and more centralization is occurring nowadays in what the JudeoMarxists sometimes refer to as “late capitalism.”
      Capitalism is great at ‘building up’ places, but not very good at maintaining them — in the long term, after areas and regions have already been ‘built up’ by the capitalists, it’s pretty obvious that capitalism then tends toward stagnation, overproduction, gluttony, greed, social ennui, etc…exactly what the USA is suffering from right now.
      Certain parts of the ‘undeveloped’ world could use a good dose of capialistic drive and ambition, places like Latin America, Africa, etc…however, this would need to be led by the local native populace instead of rootless international megacorporations which are often headed by the urban Jewish plutocratic overclass who reap all the benefits and just use and abuse local native workers as they see fit.
      I am a pro-White socialist who believes in socialism for Whites only (though I wouldn’t mind if other ethnic/racial groups set up their own types of ‘ethnosocialism’), but socialism is a very difficult concept to put in to practice because it goes against Nature and the especially the generally predatory mammalian spirit of humankind (and nearly all other living things) which is to compete for the necessary resources for survival. Thus the generally futile cycle of ruthless and cut-throat ‘jungle capitalism’ will be very difficult to truly break until more humans manage to evolve a ‘higher’ and less materialistic consciousness. This will involve actively opposing the very materialistic and mercantilistic-focused Judaic worldview which has been forcibly hoisted on to White/Western peoples in the last few centuries.

    12. WP,
      Speaking of Jewish chauvanism and the tendency for them to hijack movements and use them to their benefit, and to their opponants detriment (as with capitalism), check out this Jew getting nervous (and a little envious) when Whites even hint at thinking of the relationship between themselves and possibly being superior in any way … and articulating such feelings –
      “The True Implications of HBD”
      http://hbdbooks.com/2009/09/the-true-implications-of-hbd/comment-page-1/#comment-13896

    13. “This whole notion that capitalism automatically gobbles up all the best and brightest and puts them to work making profits has always struck me as preposterous, but capitalist apologists like Richard like to repeat it.”
      Yes, and we all know government never unfairly favors one group of people over the other.
      The question isn’t whether capitalism is perfect, but whether it’s better than government. We have empirical proof that in the US IQ and welath are correlated. Does any such proof exist for socialist societies?
      Why is it hard to believe that people are motivated by a desire to make a profit? Is it easier for you to believe that they would form a society based on care for people that they don’t know?
      You can see how government favors the incompetent by looking at how overrepresented blacks are as employees for the US government.
      http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2007/001_blacksFY2006.htm
      I lived in a major city with a 30% black population. The only place blacks made up a majority or near majority of employees were government facilities like the DMV and post office. The service was ubearably bad and the employees extremly rude. More government = having to deal more with low IQ idiots.

  13. “If the changes were genetic, this means that Blacks in the past 100 years have been selecting for a more progressive phenotype. That is, the Blacks who look “Whiter” were breeding more or were more sought as partners. That’s the only way to explain the data. Whites have also been eugenically breeding for a more progressive phenotype for over 200 years – Whites with more progressive and less archaic features were selected more as partners.”
    While it is certainly a mating advantage in black America to be light skinned and have a more mulatto appearance, I don’t see any shortage of dark skinned more African looking women pushing strollers either.

    1. Both Blacks and Whites have been selecting for more progressive and less archaic features. They have been selecting against prognathic jaws and in favor of more receding jawlines and more prominent chins. The result is that Blacks and Whites today look more like each other than either one looks like their ancestors of 200 years ago.
      That is, Whites now look more like Blacks than the Whites of 200 yrs ago and Blacks now look more like Whites than the Blacks of 200 yrs ago. The races are sort of converging. The changes are genetic, so there must be some selection going on. Heads have also been getting bigger, but that’s in part due to nutrition.

  14. “If you look at Cuba, they have wiped out hunger (2% malnutrition), they have about the lowest infant mortality rate and the highest life expectancy in Latin America, they have the best educated population in the region, with 1% of the population, they have 10% of the scientists, they have the highest test scores. Everyone has a job or an income, everyone has good clothes to wear, proper shelter, clean water to drink, electricity and indoor plumbing.”
    I don’t know dude, you seem to be looking at Cuba with very rosy glasses. Cuba depends heavily on tourism for their economy and look at how many people are floating on makeshift rafts across shark-infested waters trying to get out. Probably as many as you have trying to flee Haiti.

    1. Lots of places depend on tourism. At least Cuba uses tourism money for their people. 20,000 Cubans get to the go the US every year. There’s also an orderly departure program for most other people who want to split. What’s fascinating is that they never want to go to the capitalist paradises in Latin America, they only want to go to the US. Cuban refugees, 100%, are economic refugees.
      If there was shark-infested waters between the US and Mexico, how many Mexicans would die? Cubans are coming for economic reasons, just like the Mexicans. More money in the US. Plus Cuba has lots of problems, but everything I said above is fact. The US embargo hits them for about $4 billion/year.

    1. Hardly any Jews in Cuba. Very, very few. But some of those anti-Castro Cuban lunatics in Florida are Jewish, I think. I guess what few Jews there were took over pretty early. But clearly, there WERE Cuban Jews, and there may still be a few around in Cuba. I think there is a synagogue in Havana.

    2. “… the number of Jews in Cuba was about “30,000 at their peak and [was] reduced to 15,000 by 1959. Most of those fled to the United States after the revolution.”
      Link below. As l have said many times, communism is a jewish fraud and the whole thing is about jews taking control of the state. Castro diden’t understad that and took the jews possessing too. lt was not that way communism was supposed to work, so Castro told the jews to take a hike.
      And now them expelled jews is whining in Florida that Castro “stole” their property. MOHAHAHA … 8D))))

    3. Yeah, a lot of Jews did get kicked out of Cuba and/or expelled once Castro came to power.
      Before Castro, parts of Cuba were just one huge beach resort, gambling area, and general decadent party-area for Western vacationers, honey-mooners, and so on….Jews tend to run those types of worthless and exploitative businesses like gambling, swanky hotels/resorts, bars/alcohol, etc — thus a lot of Jews did indeed lose a lot of ‘their property’ after the Commies came to power there. Many of them however, just migrated to the U.S. or Mexico and set-up similar types of socially-destructive ‘businesses.’

    4. Also, there were major Mafia connections down there in Cuba before Castro came to power and ran those Mafia rats out of there — and Jewry has been involved in Mafia-esque activities for a very long time now…

      So English set out to find out what American mobsters were really up to for his recently released nonfiction book “Havana Nocturne: How the Mob Owned Cuba and Then Lost It to the Revolution” (William Morrow, $27.95).
      What he found after years of research and interviews — both in the U.S. and Cuba — make any previous fictional account pale in comparison.
      People didn’t know about the extent in which mobsters owned banks and controlled financial lending institutions in Cuba,” says English.
      Cuba’s strongman Gen. Fulgencio Batista emerges in English’s fascinating account as much more than an enabler who allowed the Mafia to build casinos all over Havana’s malecón.
      “I would say [Batista] was an equal partner with the mobsters,” says English, a 50-year-old New Yorker of Irish background who is the author of several books about the mob.
      “The mafiosi — Meyer Lansky, Santo Trafficante — couldn’t have done what they did without their relationship with Fulgencio Batista.”
      According to English, the American Mafia interest in Cuba goes all the way back to Al Capone in the ’20s, but only took shape after the fabled 22-member conference at Havana’s Hotel Nacional in December 1946.
      Over the following decade, New York-based Jewish mobster Lansky presided over an unprecedented empire of casinos that took over the whole island’s economy.
      “Literally every tunnel that was built, every highway — and there was a lot of construction going on in Havana at the time — was being financed by money from the mobsters,” says English.
      Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2008/07/18/2008-07-18_book_reveals_extent_of_mafias_cuban_empi.html#ixzz0QavrN4TK

  15. l knew it was the jews. Here is why Fidel’s Cuba is under international boycott, led by the jew controlled America. lt’s the jew …
    “In January 1966, at Havana’s Tri-Continental Conference attended by communists, revolutionaries and worldwide terrorist organizations, a resolution was passed calling for the breaking of all treaties with Israel, total economic and cultural ostracism of Israel and its expulsion from all international organizations.”
    http://www.brookesnews.com/062310castro.html

    1. Once you understand what, how and why the jews do as they do and that America is totally controlled by jews, that communism is a jewish fraud to take control of the state, with the help by stupid goyim, it’s SOOOOOO predictable.

  16. Castro expelled the jews from Cuba. That is another expell on the list where the jews have been expelled more then 130 times the last 2000 years.

  17. From Tulio:

    I for one am not closed off the idea that there may be cognitive differences between various population groups. However, I don’t believe that African IQs are naturally at 70. Just as Asian IQs and height started rising with things like better nutrition and diminished poverty(didn’t Chinese used to have much lower IQs?), I thing if an African baby were raised in a middle class western family, his IQ would not be 70. Who knows, it may not be 100 either, maybe it’ll be 90, I don’t know but I don’t believe for a second it would be 70.

    Excellent comment.

    1. No offense to black people, but it seems the real probem with a lot of them is laziness, not IQ. They could do something, but choose not to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *