IMAGINE TRYING TO PROVE that smoking is bad for you! Think of trying to build a case that proves that cigarettes cause health problems such as cancer. Think of the difficulty of proving your case conclusively. First of all, on average, most smokers live well into their sixties. Some smokers live into their nineties or even beyond one hundred. How can tobacco be a deadly agent if you can live to be hundred and still be using it? Now, add personal bias in your listeners to your difficulties, bias formed by being exposed only to pro-smoking propaganda. If someone is set on believing that cigarettes are perfectly safe, there is no way to convince them that smoking is dangerous. You can produce statistics that show people who smoke on average die a few years earlier than nonsmokers, some much earlier, but they can produce people who smoke well passed the age when most nonsmokers are tucked away in their graves.
Now let's make the process even harder for you. Let us assume that the government says that smoking is not harmful. In fact it goes so far as to make it illegal for you be a nonsmoker. As a result, all of our schools start promoting the idea across the country that smoking is not harmful. The media kicks in and starts promoting the idea that smoking is not only safe, but it is the greatest thing that since sliced bread. Suddenly, there are organizations springing up which attack anyone who says anything against smoking, labeling those who promote nonsmoking, as erratic cranks, liars and hate-mongers. Picture yourself, trying your hardest to convince kids to not start smoking, and to convince adults to quit smoking. You know that they are killing themselves, but you can make no headway against the flood of opposition.
Such is the case that I find myself in. I can produce more evidence that integration has destroyed our school system than you can produce that cigarettes are harmful to those who use them. I can demonstrate with more certainty that diversity will destroy any society that embraces it than you can demonstrate that cigarette smoking is tied to lung cancer. And yet the government is promoting diversity, and integration as wonderful things. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of people who are independent enough to think for themselves, and actually identify the lying propaganda for what it is. The vast majority of people just go along with the flow, being far more interested in being "moderate" as defined by others, than in being well informed and correct in their views.
Any human who smokes cigarettes during a lifetime, will also be exposed to many other things in his life that just might produce cancer. Whether it is gasoline fumes, chemicals at work, or asbestos many factors are present in all lives. Some smokers are healthy and some nonsmokers are not. It is a very complicated process weeding out all of the variables and coming down to only the one factor of cigarettes, as being the cause of a particular individual's cancer. If you had to fight the active opposition from the government, the schools, and the media at the same time, I doubt that you could convince very many folks.
You see, in our society today, you will find that the government, the schools, and the media are all 100% in support of diversity. They are 100% in support of integration. They are 100% opposed to any serious forum which includes a frank, serious, and informed discussion on the subjects of race, diversity and integration. While you will see hundreds of movies, documentaries and news stories which support the government sponsored party line on these subjects, you will find zero which allow the other side to express their opinion without opposition. Does that bother you? Does it frighten you? It should.
Of course all the problems of society are not due to the invasion of Nonwhites, just like not all lung cancer comes from cigarettes. However, using the school system as an example, most of the new problems in schools today are indeed present as a result of integration.
First you must remember where we were before. The media uses all of its power to try and confuse that issue. The media wants you to either be ignorant of, or forget about, the fact that the schools in the USA in the 1950s were as good as any on earth. What happened? Why are our schools so terrible today? Why are they inferior to the schools I attended in the 50s?
1. The classrooms of the 1950s were populated with students who came to learn. They were well mannered, and if they weren't, they were quickly dealt with. A spanking was not out of the question, and my father warned me, that if I ever got a spanking at school, that I would get another one when I got home. The fact is that the parents who arranged this situation were White. You may discount this fact but you cannot deny it.
2. The teachers focused on teaching the basics. Reading, writing and arithmetic were intensely covered. There were spelling tests, and spelling bees. There were races at the board to see who could multiply the fastest. There were repercussions for doing poorly. The teachers were all White. The school faculty were all White. The students were nearly all White. Again, you can try and push that fact aside but it will not go away.
3. There were zero illegal drugs on the campus. There were a few fights, but there were no weapons brought on campus. The entire structure of the school was built upon the premise that good kids would be attending school, and bad ones would be quickly corrected or expelled. No other option was allowed, or expected. This allowed all students who wished to learn, to be able to learn, and there were no serious distractions allowed from those who did not want to learn. -- One of the biggest problems in many schools today is the fact that they cannot do anything about the Nonwhite students. When my son went to kindergarten, one day he came home with bruises on his legs. We went in to the principle to discuss what had happened, and we did not even get the chance to tell him who had done it, before he told us who had done it. He knew without being told that it was a little black kid who was always causing trouble. He told us that there really was nothing that he could do about it, because the kid was Black. I have received emails from parents all across this nation who have had the same type of thing happen to them. It is a big issue! And it is 100% as a result of integration.
4. Classes could move at a rapid pace in the 1950s. The average IQ of the White students in school was 100. It is obvious from this fact, that half of the kids had an IQ that was over 100. That allowed the classes to move at fairly quick pace. By the end of 12 years of school, the average student had a great deal of knowledge tucked away in his head. Today's classes must deal with the lower IQ brought to school by the Black student. It is a fact that Blacks have lower IQ's and you can debate whether it is due to cultural differences, as all the liberals believe, (which Asian students never seem to have, even being raised in an alien culture) or genetic differences (which is the only realistic answer in my opinion since the lower IQ rate is universal for Blacks all around the world, no matter what culture they were raised in) but you cannot deny that the differences exist, and it is impossible to ignore the impact of the difference. The average American Black has an IQ of 80. (See the Bell Curve.) While that is not quite retarded, it is a very significant difference from the average White. It is the same size of difference between an average guy on the street and a medical doctor. When you move down in intelligence from where the average guy on the street is, by the same amount as you have to move up to get to be where a doctor is, you can see that the people with the 80 IQ will be handicapped in an integrated school.
The book, The Bell Curve provides some graphs which I have included here. They very clearly depict what our schools are up against. Graph 1 shows the relative size of the White and Black populations, as well as the relative distribution of IQ level for the members of both races. Note that the absolute number of Blacks who have an IQ above the average IQ of Whites, is miniscule. If you looked at the dark portion of the graph as if it were a mountain, which represents the entire Black population, you would climb all the way up one side, go over the top, and come nearly all the way down the other side before you finally reached the small section that is of above average intelligence. When you get up to the part of the graph showing the IQ level of 120, which is the average IQ of doctors, you see that the number of Blacks who have that IQ are extremely small. Even in Graph 2, where the Black and White populations are depicted as being equal in size, you can see that those Blacks with an IQ of 120 or above, are much smaller than the number of Whites. If you compare the graphs you will see that the percentage of Whites who are over the 120 level, is about the same as the percentage of Blacks over the 100 level. At every point above the point of average intelligence for Whites (100), you can see that the number of Whites far outnumber Blacks, both absolutely and relative to their percentage of total population. It is important that we understand this as we continue. For a randomly chosen group of Blacks, 75% to 80% of them will have below average intelligence. Half of them will have an IQ that is below 80!
Let's look at what happens in a classroom where you have a group of students who are sitting well below 100 IQ. They are trying to compete with students who are mentally quicker than they are. What is the teacher going to do? Is he going to fail the slow students? Does he slow the whole class down so that the slow students can compete? Now throw in the NAACP and other leftist organizations. Your school system had better not fail the huge majority of Black students or it will be criticized as being racist! And the Black students feel they are being picked on when they fail. So, they develop an attitude, and think the system is racist. Of course they never think it could, in any way, be their own inadequacy (an IQ that is below 80 in most cases) that is the cause of their failure.
What is going to happen to a school in this sort of turmoil? The classes will slow down, the level of education will become lower, the Black kids will be unruly, the White kids will get bored with the speed of instruction and they will start looking for distractions. Thanks to the racial component of this mess, there is a great deal of political pressure on the school not to expel Black kids when they do things that are against the rules. Disruption becomes the norm. Black parents are all too often not available for their kids, and the school gets no support from them. In fact those parents many times are openly hostile to the system, or towards any attempt to reign in their often violent children. This means that the school must find a way to continue to function in circumstances that are similar to the one faced by a swimmer who is trying to remain afloat with a mill stone around his neck. The schools put up metal detectors, hire security guards, and academically pass students to the next grade, who are essentially uneducated, when compared with their own grade level. Leftist politicians demand that the schools cannot do anything that would make Black kids feel inferior. The spiral goes on down and the school deteriorates.
Would you care to put up the test scores for any racially heterogeneous school against any racially homogenous school? There is no doubt that the homogenous school would win hands down. The racially diverse schools are significantly more likely to have continual problems among the students themselves, and between the students and the teachers. Those problems will not add anything to the learning process, but will take a great deal away from it. The schools in the 1950s were the best in the world. They took a back seat to no other schools anywhere. Ever since integration hit, that has ceased to be true, and there appears to be an inverse correspondence between the amount of diversity in a school, and the level of education that occurs.
Think back to the cigarette analogy again for a moment. If the media were trying to promote smoking the way it is promoting diversity, what would it do? It would search out each and every case of death by lung cancer, and emphysema which had occurred to a nonsmoker. They would give national coverage to those deaths, and they would ignore most, if not all of the cases of death by those causes involving smokers. The public would get the impression over time that smoking was not a contributing factor to these diseases, and actually would begin to think that smoking was safer than nonsmoking. Every day on the news they would see stories of joggers who smoked, racquetball players who smoked, and of old smokers who have lived well passed the average life expectancy for their sex. Who would have the guts to oppose such a tactic, especially one that had been going on for 40 years? And if someone did have the guts, who would listen to him?
"Our" media does this type of reported EVERY DAY. For example, I am sure that you remember that event in Jasper, Texas where the Black man was dragged to death by three White men. Every day for weeks after it happened, we heard about it. The anchormen for the major news networks actually went down to Jasper to show how important this story was. Then later, as each of the three defendants came up for trial another media circus began in order to gather all the political juice possible from this one event. That an example of broadcasting a story about a cancer death by a nonsmoker. Yes, it happens. But it happens rarely. Very rarely. What you do not hear in the media is the type of story of where the "smoker dies of cancer," or in reality, the crimes against Whites by Blacks that happen every day.
There was a White lady who was dragged to death by a Black man in Illinois, two months after the Jasper event. Since then, another White lady was dragged to death by a Black man, and young boy was very recently dragged to death by a Black man, and not a whisper made the national papers or news shows. No calls from "president" Clinton to the families of the victims, no news anchormen running down to the site of the crime. No follow up on the trials of the Black murderers. Nothing! The very same week as the Jasper, Texas dragging death, a White 14 year old girl was gang raped by a Latino gang, sexually tortured with a broomstick, driven out to a remote area, stabbed to death and dropped into a ditch. What did you hear of this? Unless you lived in Denver, Colorado I'll bet you never even heard a thing about it. This sort of distortion occurs every day in your media.
I am saddened by the number of people who stupidly try to use the recent shooting in our schools to justify diversity, as if that were somehow a plus for integrated schools. Have you researched the numbers on the students killed by violence in our society? Those handful of kids killed by White school shooters are nothing compared with the number of kids killed in the ghetto and other racially diverse locations. Just because a kid is killed on his way home from school instead of in school doesn't mean he is any less dead. Perhaps you have not noticed that the last school shooter was a 6 year old Black kid?
Count them up. How many kids of all races have been shot by White shooters in school? 20? Less I think. One school bus accident could kill that many easily. The areas of this country where Blacks make up a high percentage of the total population, you will find that the most common cause of death for kids is gun shot. That adds up to hundreds if not thousands of Black kids shot every year by Blacks. Compare that with the number of kids killed by Whites and you begin to see a clearer picture. Using the recent school shootings as a reason to justify integrated schools, is like trying to throw the handful of deaths by lung cancer of nonsmokers in our face as an example of why smoking is safe.
The murder rate for Blacks is 10 times as high as the murder rate for Whites. Now, it is true that not all Blacks are going to commit murder, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with White folks wishing to separate themselves from a group of people who are 10 times more likely to kill, 10 times more likely to rob, 10 times more likely to assault, and whose men are 200 times more likely to rape a White woman as a White man is to rape a Black woman. Just like there in nothing wrong for a man to want his family to all be nonsmokers. He knows that they may live to be 100 smoking up a storm, but he knows the odds are very much against that happening.
Life in the United States has been severely altered by what was once OUR government. The government that is supposed to be for the people, turned upon them with a vengeance. The White American people who made up 90% of the population of the United States in 1960, have been under constant attack ever since, and they are being wiped out. They have fallen to 70% of the total population, and some believe they are far less than that already. The government policies in place are producing conditions that will obliterate the White race in the United States of America within the next century. It is amazing that such a proud and powerful people as the Whites who created America would lay down and be exterminated without a struggle in this fashion. They have been conditioned to believe that lung cancer comes from nonsmoking, or rather that diversity is one of our strengths. They have been led to believe that the tailspin that our schools have been in, ever since they were integrated, has nothing at all to do with that integration. The media continues to say, "Smoke, smoke, smoke that diversity cigarette!" It is about time that someone rose up and said, "Take that disgusting diversity habit of yours and break it off, COLD TURKEY!"