Occasionally one must take a step back, and look in awe at the ability of leftists to ignore, or perhaps more accurately, distort the data which sits plainly before them. A recent piece in the New York Times bears the headline “Rich White Boys Stay Rich. Black Boys Don’t.” The data it contains confirms what you and I already know, that throwing resources at blacks doesn’t correct the genetic deficiencies which cause their inability to compete economically with whites.
If you are familiar with the New York Times though, you’ll be less than surprised to find that the writers ignore that reality, and continue to blame white racism for the inequality.
As it turns out, growing up in a rich household does little to solidify a prosperous future for black boys. White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth. Black boys raised at the top, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households. Those of us who actually care about the truth of such things, refer to this phenomenon as regression to mean. Ethnonationalists thus seek to discriminate against even the smartest and most accomplished blacks, knowing that their offspring are unlikely to rival their achievements.
Black and white girls on the other hand, from families with comparable earnings attain similar individual incomes as adults. The similarity of outcomes for white and black women, the piece says, eliminate the possibility that cognitive capacity has anything to do with the gap.
The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.
A more likely possibility, the authors suggest, is that test scores don’t accurately measure the abilities of black children in the first place.
Mind you, that IQ tests have already been bastardized to be “culturally fair” thanks to exactly this kind of thinking.
Since black and white women achieve more similar outcomes than black and white men, it is presumed that “society” irrationally associates black men with criminality. Where anybody might get such an idea, is apparently a mystery to the authors.
The possibility that expectations of men and women in society differ, never seems to cross their minds. Odd indeed, considering how frequently the publication complains of sexism. That women would find themselves in positions with lesser cognitive demands, which perfectly explains the frequently debunked “gender pay gap,” is conveniently and conspicuously absent from the analysis.
The study was conducted by the Equality of Opportunity Project, the name of which obviously implies more of an interest in promoting an agenda than actually finding explanations for things. You might be less than surprised to find out that running the Coincidence Detector on the “Team” page comes back with a lot of parenthesis.
Repeating lies and conveniently forgetting that their lies have already been debunked are a common feature of the Jewish dialectic. As Adolf Hitler put it in Mein Kampf;
The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.
Gradually I began to hate them.
424-3-GO-NAZI or Radical Agenda on Skype if you would like to be on the pogrom.
Join us, this and every Monday, as well as Wednesdays and Fridays from 5-7pm Eastern for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about radical, crazy, off the wall things like inequality.