HERE IS A POP QUIZ for you:
1. A man is suffering from a deadly and highly contagious disease. What is the most compassionate thing to do:
(A) Quarantine him immediately, avoiding any further spread of the disease
(B) Allow him to go and kiss every member of his immediate and extended family goodbye at a going away party?
2. A man has raped a least 5 little girls under the age of 10. What is the most compassionate thing to do:
(A) Ensure that he never has the opportunity to do it again by either executing him, or locking him up until he dies,
(B) Allow him to sleep in your 5-year-old daughter's room because he sorely needs the companionship?
3. A child has an IQ rating of 85, which places him in the "slow" category when compared with the rating of 100 which is average for normal students. What is the most compassionate thing to do:
(A) Put him into a separate school with others who are equally slow where he will fit in as normal
(B) Place him into a normal, high paced classroom where he will be exposed to a lot more material but will absorb little of it and be an outcast?
4. In a sanitarium there are 75 people with an IQ of 70. There are also in this building, a small group of 25 people with a normal IQ rating of 100. What is the most compassionate thing to do:
(A) Place the 75 retarded individuals in the care and safe keeping of the 25 normal people, and allow the 25 to make decisions as to what is safe, economical, and right for the whole group to do,
(B) Give everybody in the sanitarium an equal voice in what is safe, economical and right for the group to do?
5. A large family in a small town has demonstrated repeatedly a predilection for criminal activity. The father, who is in prison, and two uncles and over one half of the young boys in the family have been arrested for at least one serious violent offense, and a few of the boys have been arrested several times. Even though the family is living off charity dollars from Uncle Sam and the local churches, the girls who are 14 or older, have either had children or are pregnant even though none of them are married. No other family in the town has had more than one child in trouble with the law, while most have not had any problem at all with the law. What is the most compassionate thing to do:
(A) Run the family out of town
(B) Continue to treat them just like everybody else?
Here is how you grade the test:
Give yourself 20 points for each "A" answer and zero points for each "B" answer. Anything less than 100 points is a failure!
For any who might have missed one or more of these, or if you had a question on one of the ones you got right, there follows a discussion of why "A" was the correct answer and what significance that the correct answer has to the real world.
Question 1 had to do with what is the appropriate response by society to a contagious disease. Any time a contagious disease which is fatal hits, it is critical that we limit the number of people who are exposed to the disease. If the disease were spread by swimming in a river, the swimming area would be closed. If it came from a restaurant, that establishment would be closed until the contagion was eliminated. If the disease is carried through airborne exposure, or contact, then the person who is infected must be kept away from others. Of course answer "B" where a contagious man would be kissing his family goodbye would only expose them to risk of infection and no truly compassionate society would knowingly let a man do that to other people.
This may seem like a simple question and there is no way that the wrong answer would be selected but alas that is not true. In our own society we have allowed those infected with the deadly HIV virus to infect person after person with virtually no effort whatsoever to stop the disease. We, as a society have gotten the answer to this real life question wrong! We have been so "compassionate" in protecting the ones who are infected that we have allowed the disease to run rampant through certain of our communities.
In the United States HIV is passed mainly through two avenues: 1) Homosexual sexual activities and 2) intravenous drug use. The homosexual form of sexual intercourse is one in which bleeding occurs, opening a portal to the HIV virus and hence the high infection rate among those who practice that particular perversion. The drug user is destined for death anyway, but they pass used needles around between themselves, and once one is infected they all will be sooner or later.
Once that these mechanisms were detected, we should have slammed the door on the disease, closing the homosexual bath houses where the homosexuals were passing on the disease to as many as 30 different partners a night. Those infected should have been quarantined from others and not allowed to continue to spread the disease. What happened instead is a low point in American history. We let the homosexuals continue to infect each other (and many of the hemophiliacs in our nation through homosexuals giving blood) and at the same time we generated a scare campaign in the heterosexual community in order to create a climate where money could be directed away from cancer and other legitimate research in order to try and stop a virus from spreading among the homosexuals. Heterosexual sexual intercourse will actually infect a person in only 1 of 1000 times of having sex with an infected partner.1. For anyone who has a normal sex life, with limited number of partners, there is almost no chance of picking up AIDS. But our government lied to us in order to make you and I afraid that we would get the disease, in order to convince us to pay for the medical research which they hoped would allow homosexuals to continue have anal intercourse with multiple partners without fear of dying from it.
Anyone who is familiar with our luck against viruses should be aware that what we did was to place heterosexual people into a position where they will now die. Why? Because the funding for overcoming the diseases that they will contract in the future, has been misdirected into a project that will not conquer HIV anyway. The only thing that will conquer HIV is to stop the activity which spreads it. I should suggest that if someone would rather die than to give up anal intercourse, that they choose to die in a faster way and a way less harmful to others.
Our government has made no real effort to control this disease. Instead all of its efforts have been to protect the rights of homosexuals to go on killing themselves without being interfered with: Death by AIDS. We have gotten the answer to that question wrong, very wrong!
Question 2 is a related issue. Sexual perversion is once again the topic. This is a question that I am sure that you got right. If you missed this one, you and I have nothing in common whatsoever. The idea of setting a man free who has raped little children is so disgusting to me that I cannot even conceive of the evil that it would take in the heart of a person in charge of that portion of our legal system which oversees "justice" in this area, who would set a rapist of children loose, back into society where he can, and will do it again.
We, as a society, have gotten this one wrong too! There is a local radio talk show that has a weekly segment where he lists all of the new child rapists who have been released that week and where they are currently living. Why does he do this? Because the government will not even notify the parents of small children living around this degenerate animal when he is released and moves next door to them. I wonder sometimes how a father, of a little child who has been raped by one of these repeat offenders, holds back his anger and avoids not only killing the animal who did that to his child, but all of those who had anything to do with the animal's release.
There is no justification for turning a vile creature back on the street who has ever willingly taken an innocent life, committed forcible rape on an adult, or most of all, who has raped a child. Our system of justice has been distorted beyond belief today, and the number of people who get the chance to do it again after having been convicted the first time of a horrible crime, is a clear indicator of that distortion. Once again our society has gotten the answer to the question very wrong.
Question 3 is focused on education. Here once again there seems to be no problem picking the right answer. A child is slower than the normal kids, so he is asked to do less. It is only compassionate and reasonable to do so. In his own school he will run and play with those at his own level. He will not feel like he is inferior or that he is an outsider. His school time will be a happier time.
If, as in answer "B" the child is forced into a classroom of brighter children, he will feel stupid. He will not be able to keep up. He will not be able to intelligently join in with discussions going on. His only contributions would be disruptive. He might engage in clowning or insult. The one thing that he will not engage in is real learning. As the years go by he will develop a bitterness towards those who are brighter. Using normal defensive mental tricks he will not see his own limitations as the problem, but will instead look upon the others as receiving special treatment beyond what he got. He will see them as his "oppressors."
You may find it hard to believe that our society has once again gotten it wrong. They have, through the courts, chosen to take children with an average IQ of 85 2. And put them into the classrooms with children who have an average IQ of 100. Ever since that has happened our school system has deteriorated and decayed. Now we have to worry about guns and drugs in our schools. We now see our students graduating from school without knowing how to read and write or to do simple arithmetic. We have our kids learning very little because they have slowed the school pace down to the level of a child with an 85 IQ. Still the more intelligent children do better in school than the slower ones but they have been robbed of their own excellent education that they could have, and should have, had.
In the book The Bell Curve it brings to the table the fact that black Americans have an average IQ of 85. It also shows that Whites have an average IQ of 100. This is a significant difference, and places the vast majority of all Blacks mentally well below the average Whites. When you move into the region of those smarter than average Whites, the number of blacks in the same area of IQ rating is very small indeed. There are blacks who fall all along the intelligence spectrum but as you move from the value of 100 IQ to higher levels, the number of blacks becomes extremely small.
It is often claimed that blacks are held down in this "racist" society. This is simply not true. When earnings are plotted against IQ it is found that Blacks, Latinos and Whites all make the same amount of money on average for those with the same IQ. 3. That should be a wake up call to any who are being lulled by the Media Lords' lies. If those with the same IQ, regardless of race, make the same money, there is no discrimination by race in America. Yet blacks are still way behind Whites in their standard of living. The only answer is that Blacks are also way behind in mental capability.
Once again our society got the answer to the question very wrong!
Question 4 appears to be directed at health care. With very little consideration the correct answer should jump right out at you. Those of limited intelligence are not going to be able to see the world clearly enough to be able to judge what the right thing is to do in the areas of safety, justice, finance and so forth. Those of normal intelligence must look out for them and protect them from the world and each other.
As they say, "This should be a 'no-brainer.'" However, once again our nation got it wrong. Have you ever heard of Apartheid? Our country got on a big band wagon and we drove Apartheid into the ground and destroyed it. We bullied the Whites of South Africa into giving up control of their country to the blacks. The Whites in South Africa have an average IQ of 100, while the Blacks of that country, who have not mixed with whites, as the Blacks of America have, have an average IQ of 70. What they have effectively done by turning their country over to the Blacks is lower the IQ of those who run the country from 100 to 70. Guess what that means? Oops!
South Africa is rapidly failing. The institutions, the infrastructure, the legal system and government are all coming apart rapidly, since they have been placed in the charge of those who are not capable of handling these complex entities. White South Africans are fleeing that sinking ship and it is our fault that it is going down! One more question that we got very, very wrong.
Question 5 has us looking at a small town with a problem family. This family has no intention of ever living by the same rules as the rest of the town. It is a family that is breeding (rapidly) those who would disrupt and harm. If allowed to continue in their present course all parties are going to suffer. Therefore the only answer is to run them out of town.
To continue to treat them as if they were law abiding citizens will only encourage them to continue what they are doing. It is better that they live somewhere else rather than to protract the time out into the future where obviously more evil will be done to the person and property of the citizens of this small town.
Perhaps after they leave, this family of misfits can find more people like themselves with who they will feel more at home, living together in peace. Have you noticed? We got that one wrong too!
We had families like these living outside of town already before the 1960s. They were criminals and produced more than their share of bastards but not as many as today because they had to support them themselves. The towns were not often disrupted by them and they were usually left alone by the townspeople.
Then the change came. Suddenly the courts said that all those misfits were to be given houses right in the town. They could no longer be run out of town. They had to be tolerated.
Suddenly the crime rate jumped up. People's cars were stolen, and their houses broken into. The town women were forcibly raped by the misfits and life became worse for all concerned.
Integration of the Blacks into White society has been a dismal experience. We find that half of black males are in serious trouble with the law sometime before they reach the age of 25. Many have multiple repeat offenses. We find that over two thirds of black babies are born out of wedlock, and they expect us to pay for them. They are happy when a Black man like OJ gets away with killing a white girl. They, by and large, do not have any natural feeling for the rule of law that White people do. They are not white people with black skins. They are not comfortable in our neighborhoods, nor will they ever fit into a quiet, crime free society. They honestly feel that enforcement of laws is racist, because they are not capable of staying within the civilized White laws.
On this question, we are living with Answer 'B' and paying the price for picking the wrong answer yet once again.
Is it not time that we found some leaders who understand how to pick the right answers on a simple multiple choice test? Shall we not start viewing things once again as law abiding White folks who know the difference between the true answer and the lie which the Media Lords have fostered on us? We have taken enough abuse from these heartless people. It is time that we stop taking it laying down, stand up on our feet and start giving it back.
1. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS page 48; Fumento
1 in a1000 is the male to female infection rate.
The female to male infection rate is even less
2. The Bell Curve page 276; Herrnstein and Murray
3. The Bell Curve page 323; Herrnstein and Murray