This is a Scientist?
I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A SCIENTIST, at least that is what she called herself. The conversation did not get very far. Alas, when I responded to her, I was very tired from a week long business trip to the New England area, where I was able to participate in the joys of a Nor'easter, along with several feet of snow. This led me to respond with less than my normal civility, and her feelings were hurt. All was not lost however, for I have salvaged the original email and will list it here with my remarks interposed at appropriate points. I also put in a couple of points at the end, from another email she sent to me.
Please understand that I speak not of rhetoric, nor am I doing this under any compulsion to disprove you. I know that the arguments of this little girl will do nothing to change the opinions that you have set in stone. I simply want to understand why you have these opinions.
Later in this email, this "little girl" told me that she is a geneticist. She wishes me to accept all her statements concerning genetics, rather than studying other sources of info, because of her occupation, and her personal work "in the lab." In a later email, she said, "Don't buy what books tell you." So, obviously she has a very high opinion of her own opinion, and is using this method of phrasing ("little girl") in an attempt to pour condescension upon myself, and the I Love White Folks Page. She also appears to be less than honest as to what her motives are. In many places on my web page I have stated the reasons for my opinions. I have found that my personal experience has been validated in the data presented by such works as The Bell Curve and My Awakening, and numerous Internet sources. Since I have already stated this on my web page, it is clear that she has either chosen not to read my web page, demonstrating a complete lack of desire to know what I think, or she has read what I wrote, and is simply feigning ignorance. Either way, there is no real desire to do anything but to put forward her view, not to understand mine.
I want to know how you explain trailer parks. These are all-white neighborhoods that are low-class, and extremely uneducated.
Well, let me see, trailer parks are locations where people can park mobile homes, within which they can live. It is generally a cheaper source of housing than are houses permanently mounted upon an unmovable foundation. Therefore, people who earn smaller amounts of money, can more easily afford such housing. As a general rule the less educated and less intelligent people in a community are the ones who end up living in a such a park. However, you can find older people on a fixed income, some even with college degrees, living there. But alas, the people living in these communities are not always all-White. Contrary to the assertion made here, you can even find minorities living in trailer parks!
I've lived in both inner-city schools, and I've lived by trailer parks.
I wonder what it is like to live in an inner city school? And she has lived in both of them. (There are only two?) We could have a lot of fun with the poor arrangement of words used in this sentence of hers, but let us let that pass, and focus on what she was trying to say. Note that the writer of this email was willing to state that she had lived in an inner-city school, but only lived by a trailer park. She, the self proclaimed scientist, has done the "scientific study" of attending an inner city school, and living near a trailer park, and casually absorbed certain feelings about the relative merits of the two types of people there.
It is my experience that those who lived in trailer parks were less likely to make something out of themselves than those who lived in inner cities, and were black. I cannot name one child from the trailer parks who has gone to collage, where almost a third of the children who have gone to inner city schools are going to college, and doing quite well.
I have to laugh at this comment, when I think of the later emails she sent complaining that items on my page did not include the criteria of the surveys, and the methods and practices used to come up with the information. What sort of study is this? She is asserting that in her "experience," she cannot remember a single instance of a White child from a trailer park ever amounting to a single thing worthwhile, while one out of every three of her Black friends in the inner city went on to become college graduates. Why, the ghetto must be gone by now, since all those living there are all doing so well. I view these products of her "experience" with great skepticism. For example, I think a little study would show that some of those poor White kids have gone on to do great things.
It is no wonder that we have to import high tech people from foreign lands, if the lady who wrote this email is the sort of "scientist" we are producing with our school system today. Remember that this lady claims that she makes her living by doing statistical studies!
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the "statistics" this lady has presented, as fact. I ask you, have you ever heard of a single politician say on the news, "I am sponsoring a bill to create a program to help poor White children do better in school?" Have you ever heard of any social program specifically targeted at helping "trailer park" White kids? Have you ever seen a documentary show which was directed at studying the success of poor White kids, or in "raising the consciousness" of Americans to the plight of trailer park kids? Of course you have not.
Now think a moment and tell me how many politicians you have heard on the news say, "I am supporting a bill to create a program to help poor inner city children do better in school." (You probably can count a number of presidents in that group!) How many social programs specifically targeted at helping inner city Black kids have you heard of? How many documentary shows directed at studying the success of poor Black kids, or in "raising the consciousness" of Americans to their plight, have you seen?
While the poor White children of our land are considered insignificant by our government and our schools, the Black inner city children are focused upon with billions of dollars in special programs. While a Black child, who can sign his name, is given a diploma and college scholarship, the poor White kid must compete again the middle class White kids who have a lot on the ball, in order to get to college. People like the one who wrote this email are not at all concerned about a White child who grew up in a trailer park. And neither is our government.
Most of these children are better at doing their homework and turning it in on time than the spoilt children of both races.
Again, here is an assertion with no supporting evidence. Most, means greater than half. So, this statement says that over half of the inner city children are better at doing their homework and turning it in on time than children of both races that are "spoilt." What is a child that has been spoiled? It would appear that all children who are not inner city children, are spoiled children. Are we to believe that over half of the inner city children not only turn in their homework more regularly than the rest of the children in America, but also actually produce better work in their papers?
This is an absurd claim on the face of it. If inner city children were doing superior homework, they would be learning a superior amount of material, and they would be cutting higher SAT scores when they reached that point in their education. However, Blacks are seriously underrepresented in the higher regions of SAT scores. Inner city students do far worse on SAT testing than do Whites, or even other minorities. This lady's assertion is not only unsupported, it is ridiculous.
Almost none of my friends who were black used affirmative action to get in. They left the "race" part blank. As my friend Kanesha said "I don't want to get by on being black!"
Note this highly scientific terminology: "Almost none." We must assume that she means only a few, or perhaps only one, but then why did she not say so? We are also left to guess at what she is referring to these friends getting into. It could be jail, but I assume she means college. For a so-called scientist, this lack of ability to speak succinctly is a bit surprising. If she is talking about college, she does not tell us which college. Was it an inner city college? If so, putting "Black" in the blank marked "race" probably would not have gotten them very much extra. If we were talking about Harvard, it would be a lot more impressive, and a lot less believable. Since the name of the college was not mentioned (or even if college was what she was talking about) we can safely assume that it was not a prestigious institution, where a very high SAT score and excellent marks (and/or a black skin) were required to gain admittance. There is little doubt that with a name like "Kanesha," and an inner city school listed on her transcripts, the college could figure out this was not a White child they were dealing with.
Second, how do you explain the fact that we are more genetically similar to the black race than any other race on earth? This is not rhetoric: I am a geneticist and it surprised me too. The truth is, though, that Native Americans and Asians are a lot more genetically different. Many scientists theorize that blacks and whites separated into two different races as little as three thousand years ago.
For anyone who has done any reading at all on this subject, they know that this is just plain absurd. American Indians are Asians; they are from the same racial stock. And White men were walking around the edges of the glaciers, hunting and farming tens of the thousands of years ago.(1) Three thousand years ago the White race had already built several sophisticated societies, including Egypt, Greece and the Hittite empire.(2) It is truly frightening that someone who has a degree in genetics could be so completely confused on something as basic as this.
Third, how do you explain the inconsistencies in the "Bell Curve"? There were a few inconsistencies, and a lot of white children who did as well as the black children. It was unexplained until they decided to work the statistics from another angle. They tried using a different factor to compute who would statistically do worse, rather than race, as was originally used. The bell curve worked out, much to the surprise of those who were looking at it. This new variable that they calculated was poverty.
Have you read the Bell Curve? If you have, you know how completely ridiculous this assertion is. First off, this "scientist" neglected to specifically mention a single inconsistency. (If you look at The Bell Curve graphs there are millions of Blacks and Whites who scored the same, so that cannot be an inconsistency.) One of the things that The Bell Curve does address is poverty. And it shows that people with low IQ s are far more likely to live in poverty. Speaking of children who live in poverty it says, "In all, 93 percent were born to women in the bottom half of the IQ distribution. Of all the social problems examined in this chapter, poverty among children is preeminently a problem associated with low IQ - in this case, low IQ among the mothers." (3) Of course the lower the IQ of the parents, the more likely it is that a child will have a low IQ. Therefore, a child in poverty is far more likely to do poorly on IQ tests. The Bell Curve obviously does not ignore this fact.
I am not trying to convince you. I am seeing if you have any answers to these questions.
What is surprising is not the misguided questions, but the completely absurd foundation upon which they are constructed. It is amazing that someone who supposedly has graduated from college and is also supposed to be trained in thinking logically could be so far afield in her basic knowledge. Mistakes in grammar are one thing, but presenting accurate data is something impossible to do without for a "scientist."
I have answers, but I doubt you would like them. These are not things that I heard from someone, but raw facts that I have personally observed.
I assume that the "raw facts" she is speaking of are similar to the ones listed above. Facts are not to be liked or dislike. They are to be known, or not known. It is the mind twisting egalitarian who is not interested in helping students to learn facts and useful techniques, but is instead only interested in whether or not they feel good about themselves. He is intent upon forcing students to focus on unconditional self esteem, rather than learning how to earn esteem. When a so-called scientist is as free and loose with the facts as this one is, you can be sure that no fact is safe from being twisted to suit the Leftist.
I am proud of my own race, and like who I am. I do not believe in welfare. I do not believe in affirmative action. I am an egalitarian, though, and I am just as disgusted by "White Power" as I am by "Black Power". I shall not tell you what you can or cannot do, though.
Whatever the race of this lady, it is clear from the indicators in this email (e.g. sentence construction), no matter what degrees she may hold, that she is not well educated. She claims to be a "scientist," while being unscientific. Couple with that her comments about attending inner-city schools, and we are left with the feeling that Affirmative Action was applied in her favor in order for her to be where she is. Maybe it was the egalitarian promotion of a feminist woman? It is hard to know for sure. It certainly was not her ability to dazzle one with brilliance.
It is not surprising to find that this lame excuse for a scientist is in support of egalitarian philosophy, for how else could she have reached her current level of incompetence? She is disgusted by "White Power" and "Black Power" and loves the diversity model of racial destruction: Not because it will make America better, or White society better, but because it will promote her and her friends beyond the point that they could earn for themselves on their own merits. How can you be "proud of your own race" when you are willing to destroy it with racial mixing in a egalitarian nightmare society? Obviously you cannot. So, she ended her email as she started it, with a deceitful comment.
In a later email she raised an absurd point about inbreeding, as if only breeding with our own race were the same as breeding with our own family. This sort of ridiculous confusing of terms by a so-called scientist is unbelievable. The White race has a tremendous amount of genetic diversity within its hundreds of millions of people. Diseases of inbreeding, such as hemophilia, are not a problem unless breeding comes close to your own family. Such arguments are a demonstration of this "scientist's" ignorance rather than of her education.
She made another assertion that I was completely amazed at. She said, "Without wars to kill our week [sic], our race will wither and fail." [Note -- Just think of the public relations beating that the Nazis have taken for decades for their projects to kill off the weak. Isn't it something to hear nearly the same idea coming from an egalitarian?] She made that statement in support of the idea of diversity, with a clear admission that diversity, will produce racially motivated fighting between the different people. (So much for the happy, feel good, rainbow celebration of peaceful diversity. Even this Leftist admits it will be a bloody tooth and claw existence.) How ignorant of White history would you have to be to not realize that no other race in the last few centuries had been anywhere near as much of a threat of fighting the White race in a war as the White race has been of fighting itself? We have killed tens of millions of our people in wars. As if that part of her claim were not stupid enough, the further assertion that wars kill off the weak is even worse. Wars kill the young and the strong. Soldiers will be taken first from the young and healthy.
Is this woman really a scientist who works in the field of genetics? If so, it does not indicate that our scientific future is very bright. When the simple, and the ignorant can successfully strut around as scientists we are not destined to progress very far towards great scientific discoveries. It is a precursor of what the egalitarian philosophy is going to do to our society, and our scientific capabilities.________________________