lower

hi

her

Blacks are about two-and-a-half times more likely to abuse children

, as compared with Whites,

Part 2. My letter to the government of Finland.

Part 3. Comments of mine censored or temporarily held for moderation on the "Get Schooled" blog of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"Forty-year-old Ohio mother Kelley Williams-Bolar was recently released after serving nine days in jail on a felony conviction for TAMPERING WITH RECORDS. Williams-Bolar’s offense? Lying about her address so her two daughters, zoned to the lousy Akron city schools, could attend better schools in the neighboring district. Williams-Bolar has become a cause célèbre in a case that crosses traditional ideological bounds. African American activists are outraged, asking: Would a white mother face the same punishment for TRYING TO GET HER KIDS A BETTER EDUCATION? (Answer: No.)"

"But kids are getting hurt right now, every day, in ways that take years to play out but limit their life prospects as surgically as many segregation-era laws. We can debate whether lying on school paperwork is the same as refusing to move to the back of the bus, but the harsh reality is this: We may have done away with Jim Crow laws, but we have a Jim Crow public education system."

"Consider the recent results from a test of 15-year-olds around the world. White and Asian Americans are still in the upper echelon. But African American and Latino students lag near the bottom quartile of world standards."

"Williams-Bolar lived in subsidized housing and was trapped in a failed system. In a Kafkaesque twist, she was taking courses to become a teacher herself — a dream she now will never realize as a convicted felon. It’s America’s version of the hungry man stealing bread to feed his family, only to have his hand cut off as punishment."

There's a myth, created and published by leftists, that whites perpetrate child abuse with a disproportionately high rate. It isn't true.Among child abusers in the United States,White: 51%Black: 25%Hispanic: 15%Amerindian: 2%Asian: 1%Source: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/ Source: http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm

Furthermore, according to the FBI, arrests for "Offenses against the family and children" are distributed as follows:White: 66.6%Black: 30.8%Hispanic: not given, probably distributed among whites & blacksAmerindian: 1.9%Asian: 0.7%Source: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html I'll assume that the former list, which gives the percentage of Hispanic US residents, makes an accurate correction to the information from the FBI.Of the US population (2010 estimated),White: 67.4%Hispanic: 14.5%Black: 12.5%Asian: 4.8%Amerindian: 0.8%Source: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/detail/d2001_10.pdf Correcting these percentages for the numerical size of their respective racial populations, we get these results:Amerind: 2.50Black: 2.00Hispanic: 1.034White: 0.757Asian: 0.208Hispanics abuse children in almost exact proportion to their demographic representation. Whites and Asians abuse children at a ratethan their population percentage. Amerindians and Blacks abuse children at a ratethan their population percentage.In Canada, whites perpetrate child abuse at about the same percentage as they occur in the population, so their proportionate rate is 1.0. But Canada's resident blacks perpetrate child abuse 2.5 times more frequently than their proportion of Canada's population.So, in either country, the answer is thatleftist lies to the contrary notwithstanding.Remember, when the members of several groups in the same study are present in different numbers, youadjust the total in each data category by the fraction of the population comprised by the group to which it pertains. Probably, someone observed that 51% of all US child abusers are whites, and failed to consider the significance of the fact that 67.4% of US residents are white.Note: I'd forgotten, but I had previously investigated this question. You can find what I wrote then here (see Part 2). That time, I concluded that, on a per capita basis, Blacks are 2.82 times more likely to molest children than non-Hispanic whites. So the numbers I got both times are in the same ballpark.I would like to ask you to repeal all of the hate speech laws in Finland. You claim to be a republic, and the majority of your people do not like these laws, which are sending honest and reasonable men to the prisons for longer than the dishonest and violent men must stay there.What the "racists" are saying about racial differences is the truth. I am an American, and I've lived in the United States all my life. The United States has had brown and black minorities for hundreds of years. We know them better than you do—though, to be sure, you should also know them plenty well by now.You can count crimes as well as anyone can. You know that these non-white immigrants are not only more violent and less honest than your native Fins, but they are also more violent and dishonest than any immigrant Frenchmen would be. Or immigrant Englishmen. Or immigrant Irish. Or immigrant Poles, Estonians, or Germans.The non-whites you are accepting into your country through immigration will kill your country by killing its native people, whose hands you have tied to prevent them from defending themselves.Get rid of those nasty hate speech laws. Your country claims to allow freedom of speech. Are you so stupid that you don't understand that you cannot have freedom of speech and also restrict speech according to subject matter? It is one, or it is the other.Leftist propaganda trick detected!! It's the old "switcheroo," a shift in justification from one thing to another.Obviously, tampering with records and trying to get one's children into a better school are two different things. Ms. Bolar was punished for tampering with records. A white woman convicted of that crime would probably receive much more punishment than merely nine days in a jail, since felonies generally entail punishments of a year or more in a prison.A white woman, serving her punishment for the very same crime, would spend a lot longer, in a much worse place. By making it seem as if the black woman was treated with special harshness, the article stands the racial-political facts on their head. The suggestion is the very opposite of the truth.It is not a crime per se to try to get a good quality education for one's children, though you can certainly commit crimes while doing that, of course. Just as you can commit crimes while trying to obtain food to feed your family. But seeking a good education for your kids isn't, in and of itself, a crime.However, white people create good educations because good educations are in their power to give. And since white parents beget white children, it is not surprising that white children usually receive better educations than black children do. The difference in the quality of education is related to the difference in the distribution of intelligence between the two races.The reason you don't often see white moms committing this crime is because they have no incentive to try getting their white kids into an inferior black school.Desperate or not, blacks have no claim on whites that whites ought to serve blacks a good education at white expense. Let the blacks do as well as they can, while leaving us alone. We won't begrudge them any success that they shall have earned honestly.That's because the misleadingly named "Civil Rights Laws" only took away from whites their freedom to choose their associations by race. They did not also take away from whites their right to flee. Which is what white parents often do when blacks move into their neighborhoods and schools.You see, it isn't some Nebulous Evil Force that causes black schools to be more violent and less educationally effective, as compared with white schools. Rather, the cause is the blacks, themselves. Where they go, they carry all those problems with them. That's why whites have spent, are spending, and will continue to spend, thousands of dollars just getting away. Going somewhere else. They also want the best in education with the least danger for their kids.And however much lip service white parents may give to politically correct theories about economic disparities and histories of oppression, they aren't really fooled. At the least, their subconscious minds know that the truth is racial genetic differences, and their flight behavior is rooted in that knowledge.But, somehow, all of the concern is for blacks. For what they claim to "need." For their rights, or, rather, for what they claim their "rights" are. Such as getting educational benefits paid for by white people.Wait a minute. Let's try to be clear about the scope of these (test?) results. Whites and Asians IN GENERAL, i.e. EVERYWHERE, tend to be upper echelon. That's a world-wide phenomenon, not merely an American one. Blacks, whether resident in the United States, Africa, or elsewhere, tend to be found near the bottom. Again, it's a world-wide trend, not an American thing only.Indeed, if there's a difference between blacks resident in the USA and African blacks, it's that US-resident blacks are usually smarter. The average IQ of US-resident blacks is 85. The average IQ among black Africans is 70. Want to guess why that is so? Here's a very strong hint: US-resident blacks are about 25% white by ancestry.Ms. Bolar has no one but herself to blame for her loss of opportunity. She knew the risk. She took the gamble. She lost. So she pays. The Akron schools probably have not "failed" so much as suffer from low quality. Why? Because they're full of blacks. Why else? Or, to the extent that the Akron schools have failed, the failure is because of the inadequacy of blacks to administer, the incompetence of blacks to teach, the inability of blacks to learn, and the hereditary predilection of blacks to conduct themselves in violent and vulgar ways.

Maureen wrote: “…didn’t get the tools needed to do well on the SAT…”

What “tools” might those be? Are they computers? Then how is it that I did well on the SAT in 1978, before computers were introduced to high schools? The SAT measures a student’s ability to read, to write, and to do math. If a student has become accomplished in those skills, then he/she will do well on the SAT.

You DON’T need computers to do well on the SAT. Likewise for special gadgets, for presentations on special media and for fancy visual aids. What you think are necessary tools are really only gimmicks that leftists used to make it seem as if racial gaps in academic achievement stem from economic inequalities instead of stemming from biological ones, as is actually the case.

Aristotle could teach a bright kid math and science without even a textbook. And yet here you are implying that “tools” are somehow necessary for shoehorning knowledge into a student’s mind. Nonsense.

I’ll put the context back in.

Maureen wrote: “Class rank will capture the kids in low-achieving rural schools who didn’t get the tools needed to do well on the SAT but still strove to place at the top of their class.”

A fish in a pond full of minnows thinks that he’s a big fish and that the minnows are the little fish. Then he gets put into a lake and finds himself regarded as a little fish by nearly all the other fish, and is promptly eaten. That’s what will happen if you take the “near the top of the class” kids with “high GPAs” from low-standards high schools-for-losers and put them into college.

It’s such a simple process; I can’t imagine why you don’t see it.

Any college (having a uniform standard for academic performance) that accepts only A-grade-average students, but accepts them from any high school, will find that the accepted students from the toughest schools will almost always perform better than the accepted students from the schools having the lowest standards.

No matter how much make-up you put on a dog, the dog is still a dog, and as soon as you begin to examine him that fact will quickly be discovered.