RSS

Bill O’Reilly on American’s Race Problem

15 Jul

Almost a year ago, Bill O’Reilly made a compelling case against race hustlers and apologists for black violence and crime.   The best of his “Talking Points” begins about 3:05 into the following  8:15 video.

 

 

But O’Reilly’s argument, though compelling, was misleading and incomplete.

O’Reilly’s case was based on the notions that blacks aren’t forced to into promiscuity, crime and violence by Whites, but choose to have children out of wedlock; that blacks choose to embrace a culture of violence and crime–all of which is, broadly speaking, true.

But O’Reilly’s focus on black “choice” is misleading in this regard:  By focusing on black “choice,” O’Reilly implies that the only thing that’s necessary for blacks to succeed in this society is to make better choices.  Resolve the “race problem” is just that simple

But it’s not that simple.  In fact, O’Reilly’s recommended solution (better choices) is “racist” insofar as it suggests one solution (better choices) for all blacks.  The truth is that some blacks can make better choices, but some cannot.

O’Reilly traces most race problems to the fact that 73% of black babies are born out of wedlock and raised without fathers.  If black women would choose to stop bearing illegitimate babies, the race problem would largely disappear. Theoretically, O’Reilly is right.  But while some black woman could make that choice, some cannot.

I might similarly pontificate on the relationship of sugar to the tooth decay problem. I could brilliantly observe that if we’d all stop choosing to eat candy and other sweets, the tooth decay problem would virtually disappear.  It’s just that simple.  Except for one little thing, I doubt that more than 10% of us are inclined or able to absolutely give up sugar.   Likewise, I doubt that all Black women will or even can give up on unprotected sex and illegitimate pregnancies.  Sex can be just as sweet a sugar, so most Black women are no more likely to give up on illegitimate pregnancies than they are to give up on ice cream and cake.

O’Reilly implies that the foundation for American’s race problem is a poor system of values among blacks.  O’Reilly implies that once blacks learn proper values and make choices based on those values, the race problem will diminish or even disappear.

But I don’t think that it’ll be that easy.

Canadian professor of psychology J. Phillipe Rushton wrote a book entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior in the mid-1990s.  That book advanced one or more theories and conclusions about race that were at least controversial.

But Rushton’s evidence was scholarly and hard to refute.  In part, he offered evidence of numerous IQ studies from around the world that tested and compared the relative intellects of the three fundamental races (White, Negro and Asian).  According to this global evidence, the average IQ for African Negroes was 70, the average IQ for American Negroes was 85; the average IQ for Whites was 100; and the average IQ for Asians was 105.

If Asians are often more talented in math than Whites, it’s no accident or simple result of culture.  Asian IQs are, on average, 5 points higher than Whites.  Asians are innately more intelligent than Whites and therefore better able to comprehend complex disciplines like mathematics.  Admitting this inequality is not evidence of racism. It is simply a fact of statistics.

Likewise, when Whites, on average, do better at math or science than American Negroes, it’s not simply a result of a dysfunctional black culture or bad black “choices”.  According to Rushton, the average White’s IQ is 15 points higher than the average American black’s.  Thus, a significant percentage of American blacks cannot “choose” to become mathematicians, scientists, corporate executives, small business owners or even cops because they don’t have enough intelligence to perform the technical aspects of those jobs.  Admitting this disability is not evidence of racism.  It’s simply an observation of statistical facts.

These observations of low IQ as a disability don’t apply only to American blacks.  Lots of Whites and Asians are also born with low IQs.  But on a percentage basis, there are more unintelligent Blacks than there are unintelligent Whites, and there are more unintelligent Whites than there are unintelligent Asians.   I’m not arguing that all Blacks are unintelligent.  Witness Obama.  He’s half-white and more intelligent (but also less ethical) than most Blacks, Whites or Asians.  I’m not arguing that all Whites are more intelligent than all Blacks or that all Asian are more intelligent that all Whites or Blacks.  To make blanket statements about all members of any race is racists.  To make honest statements reflecting the statistical average of a particular race is not racism but a simple statement of truth.

Insofar as these intellectual differences exist, on average, between the races, there are some people who are Blacks, some who are Whites, and some who are Asians who are so unintelligent that they’re incapable of even understanding the choices that O’Reilly advocates, let alone making intelligent choices.

For O’Reillly to imply that all Blacks need to do to succeed is make better choice is equivalent to someone telling me that the reason I never got to play center for the LA Lakers is that I should’ve make a better choice to play guard.  The truth is, I never had the opportunity to choose between being guard, forward or center on a high school, college or profession basketball team because I never had the talent to play the game.  The choice between playing center and playing guard was not available to mer or anyone else with a similarly low level of talent.  Similarly, a disproportionate percentage of American Blacks don’t have sufficient intelligence to understand or make the choices that O’Reilly advocates.  As a result, they don’t have the opportunity to make O’Reilly’s choices.

Result?  The American “race problem” is going to fester until somebody figures out a way to equalize Black and White IQs.

In the meantime, what can we expect from those Americans (Black, White or Asian) who have enough intelligence to covet what the rich and even middle-class possess and enjoy, but lack sufficient intelligence to earn for themselves?

There are probably several answers to that question, but among them are “criminal behavior” and “violence”–especially so long as most Black folk are encouraged to believe that the reason they don’t prosper is discrimination by Whitey, when the real reason is that a significant percentage of Blacks (30%?  40%?  More?) don’t have enough inherent intelligence to successfully participate in a technological society.

And for those you who are White or Asian and inclined to gloat over low Black intellect, just wait–your turn is coming.

We’re living in a world that’s increasingly over-populated by both people and by labor-saving devices.  More people means more demands for food, clothing, shelter and rising prices.  More labor-saving devices around the home and in industry means less jobs.  How are we going to feed, clothe and house increasing populations at the same time we’re having decreasing employment?  Welfare for all?

Right now, half of the American Black community has an IQ of 85 or less.  That half of Black America may already be too intellectually disabled to realistically hope to ever make their way into the middle class.

Yes, I know that some people with low IQs but high levels of motivation and a solid system of values learned from their parents can prosper.  IQ isn’t everything.  Not by a long shot.

Nevertheless, how long will it be before our society becomes so technological that anyone with an IQ below 100 will find it virtually impossible to work their way into the middle class?  If and when that day comes, half of America’s Whites (and something like 75% of Blacks) will be restricted from entering the middle class by virtue of low intelligence.

It’s even possible to imagine that if technology continues to become more complex and produce more labor-saving devices, that the day is coming when you’ll need an IQ of 120 to get even an entry-level job.

If that day ever comes, what are we going to do with the 85% of Whites and 95% of Blacks who have IQs lower than 120?  Feed them? Clothe them?  House them?  For free?  Put them all on welfare?  Let ’em screw around and make babies like chickens laying eggs?  Or will government sterilize them?  Even exterminate them?

C’mon, O’Reilly–what choices do you recommend that’ll be available to virtually all Americans just twenty years from now?

I guarantee that those choices won’t simple, pretty or painless.

We’re coming to a Mathusian moment where, one way or another, by famine, epidemic, pestilence, government decree, WWIII, or even widespread interpersonal violence of the sort already seen among American Blacks–the world’s population will be dramatically reduced.  Those with low IQs may be among the first to be culled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
9 Comments

Posted by on July 15, 2014 in Race, Values, Video

 

Tags: , , ,

9 responses to “Bill O’Reilly on American’s Race Problem

  1. BAF

    July 15, 2014 at 4:28 PM

    “the average IQ for Asians was 105.”

    Not so.

    The average IQ of all Asian countries is below that of all European countries. To be accurate, the average of Japan, Korea, and China is around 104, (China 102), but they represent only three of all the Asian countries. Other Asian countries typically have IQ’s of 85, with a few exceptions.

    Germany’s IQ is higher than Japan, Korea and China, according to Richard Lynn (107-109 – Wealth of Nations, League of European IQ’s,) (Vinko Buj – 110, reference in IQ and Wealth of Nations) (James Flynn – 111, The Flynn Effect).

    Therefore, comparing all European countries to three Asian countries with the highest IQ’s is comparing apples to oranges. More accurately, the comparison should be made between all European and all Asian countries, or between one Asian country and one European country. For example, highest IQ Asian country, Japan, to highest IQ European country, Germany. The Dutch have similar IQ’s to Germans.

     
  2. Roger

    July 15, 2014 at 5:52 PM

    “We’re coming to a Mathusian moment where, one way or another, by famine, epidemic, pestilence, government decree, WWIII, or even widespread interpersonal violence of the sort already seen among American Blacks–the world’s population will be dramatically reduced.”

    Well, that’s the New World Order’s fantasy, in any case. And they’re marketing their Malthusian scheme like fiends – largely by selling the perception of its inevitability: a classic technique of propaganda – especially through their outlets in the mainstream (e.g. Hollywood, network TV) and false-alternative (e.g. anarchist) media.

    Another way the New World Order is pushing a Malthusian outcome is by engineering disintegration of the nation state and the social infrastructures that go with it. This they also market by creating a public perception of inevitability.

    In fact, some of the New World Order’s media weasels even recruit unwitting citizens to their genocidal cause by inducing them to put hard-earned money into investments that pay off only in the event of a Malthusian-type disaster.

    How’s that for serpentine subtlety?

     
    • Adask

      July 15, 2014 at 7:30 PM

      The world’s population has nearly tripled from 2.5 billion in A.D. 1950 to 7.2 billion today. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if the world’s population triples again by 2078, we’ll have a population of close to 22 billion.

      The current demand for food is challenging man’s capacity to produce it. As food becomes more scarce, our immunities may degrade. As time goes by, we’ll live in ever higher average population densities making us more susceptible to epidemics. Some diseases have already developed immunities to our best antibiotics. It seems certain that, sooner or later, one way or another, some sort of epidemic may kill millions.

      I know that Malthus isn’t popular and is sometimes ridiculed. But clearly, this planet can only provide for some limited number of people. At the rate we propagate, that number will probably be reached in the foreseeable future. At the very latest, that’ll be our Malthusian moment. Then what happens?

      Do millions of us just hop off the earth to go live on the moon or Mars? Will disease, starvation, or war thin our numbers? Do we voluntarily stop having sex and stop procreating?

      One way or another, our population will someday face an horrific thinning. I don’t want to be here when that happens. I don’t even want to be here during the ten years before it happens.

      That kind of catastrophe might not happen for another 50 years. But, if some strain of super-flu broke loose, it might happen next winter.

      Sooner or later, we’ll have that Malthusian moment when the global population is dramatically thinned.

       
  3. Henry

    July 15, 2014 at 7:37 PM

    sup, Roger

    Think of the false-alternative anarchist media as a genre of dystopian fiction.

    Audiences are proven to go for such stuff: e.g. Brave New World, 1984, Logan’s Run, Soylent Green, and so on. Naturally, the ads delivered with your dystopian fiction work well with the fantasy being promoted.

    Also note that the dystopia promoters in the false-alternative anarchist media never actually say what they’re promoting isn’t fiction.

    Indeed, their presentations are heavily peppered with weasel words and other disclaimers, lest they be held liable when someone acts on their scary scenarios as fact.

     
  4. JWM

    July 16, 2014 at 12:31 AM

    It has been argued, in more recent times, that the IQ study you refer to is flawed. The main error or faulty assumption comes from the fact that IQ tests are written by and for whites. African American communities use a different form of English linguistics with a wholly different set of rules and definitions. AA’s aren’t less intelligent than whites, it’s that we are using a ruler normed on whites to measure blacks. I believe there is a test called the B.I.T.C.H. (Not joking) that is used to illustrate this concept.

     
  5. Adask

    July 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM

    It’s true that IQ tests are designed to reflect a “white” (rather than “black”) culture. It’s also true that the “white” culture laid the foundation for most of what passes for “civilization” and economic prosperity in the world. If you, your family or your nation want the “civilization” and economic prosperity that “white” cultures tend to produce and enjoy, you’ll have to embrace the “white” culture that measured (in some regards) by the standard IQ tests.

    On the other hand, if you want the poverty, promiscuity, criminality and violence that’s often associated with the “black” culture, then all you need to do is adopt the values of the “black” culture that underlie the (alleged) “B.I.T.C.H.” test.

    This is no game. This is real life. Almost none of us can swagger, glower, claim to be oppressed wear our trousers around your hips, have several “baby momma’s,” celebrate the “thug lifestyle” and the “black culture” . . . and also enjoy the sense if civilization, security and prosperity that tends to flow from the “white culture”.

    The IQ tests don’t simply measure mental ability. They also measure your fundamental system of values. Some people think that the cultural bias in IQ tests is terrible and/or “racist”. I think that cultural bias is wonderful.

    I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that a man of modest intelligence who adopts the values of the white “culture” will do better in this life than a man of high intelligence who adopt the value of the black “culture”. If that’s true, a culturally-biased IQ test may tell as much about your prospects for success in this life as it does about your raw intellect.

    We live in a world where we’re encouraged to respect and even celebrate everyone’s “culture” as if they were all “equal”. Cultural equality is an idiotic concept. We need to learn that no matter how colorful, “soulful,” simple or otherwise attractive a particular culture (and it’s fundamental system of values) may be, some cultures can put a man on the moon and keep him alive to age 90 while others can barely feed their people, regard wooden wheels as a technological marvel and offer a life expectancy of 45.

    If you want to embrace the “black culture” and the “black” system of values, it’s OK with me. But just understand that when you embrace that “culture,” you’ll also have to accept living in the lower middle class or even in poverty. You’ll have to accept that your kids will be growing up in the “hood”. If you want to accept and celebrate “black” values, you’d better enjoy poverty, family disintegration, crime and violence.

    If you don’t enjoy those results, you’ll need to adopt another system of values that can produce the results you covet. I suggest you consider the “white” system of values that are at least implicit in the typical IQ test.

    If you won’t or can’t change your system of values from “black” to “white,” then, Welcome to hood!

    Many blacks seem determined to hang onto their black “culture” as if it was something to admire. The black culture is somewhat similar to an airline company that insists that all of its pilots be drunk or stoned on drugs before they can take off. After that airline company sees enough crashes, deaths and lawsuits, that airline should change its policy (it’s system of values) on “flying drunk”. If that airline won’t or can’t change its policy, that airline will be correctly seen as either inferior, stupid and/or self-destructive. If the airline keeps “flying drunk,” it will perish from a lack of effective values.

    If I recall correctly, O’Reilly said that young Black men are 10 times as likely to shoot and/or kill others as are Whites or Hispanics. TEN TIMES. Blacks are scary. Blacks like to intimidate and they do. But who do you suppose Blacks mostly kill? Whites? No. Mexicans? Nope. Blacks? Yeah, buddy. The Black system of values is full of murders of other Blacks. The Black “culture” is self-destructive.

    The rates of drug use among Blacks are high. Drug addiction is a form of self-destruction. The Black “culture” is self-destructive.

    According to some reports, Black women abort over 50% of their children (the rate for white women is said to be less than 5%). Abortion is racially self-destructive. The Black “culture” is self-destructive.

    There’s a high probability that by the end of this century, there may not be any more American Blacks who are descended from slaves. By then, they may have exterminated themselves with violence, drugs and abortion. The only Blacks left in this country may be those who recently emigrate here from Africa.

    The Black “culture” is self-destructive. Those who want to cling to that culture can expect a life characterized by poverty, violence and early death. That Black “culture” is to some degree measured by the “B.I.T.C.H.” test. To do well on that test is to admit that you’ve embraced a culture that is fundamentally self-destructive.

    On the other hand, if you’d like to live a life that may be characterized by a good income, reasonable security, and longevity, you should begin to learn and adopt the system of values that’s implicit in the stand IQ tests.

    In the final analysis, America’s “racial problem” is not about the color of your skin–it’s about the “color” of your values.

    Some values lead to prosperity. Some lead to self-destruction. Take your pick.

    But don’t bitch if you choose a system of values that tends towards self-destruction and you’re deprived of prosperity, security and longevity.

    Values are no game. They aren’t merely intangible concepts to talk about, debate, but otherwise ignore. They are your fight plan. They’re your “order of battle” in your struggle to survive and even prosper in this life. The values you choose to embrace will generally determine the course of your life and the extent to which you (or your family, community, race or nation) win or lose your earthly struggle.

     
    • JWM

      July 16, 2014 at 5:13 PM

      http://www.susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=170

      I’m not interested in living in a black cultural paradigm (ie Detroit). But I do know quite a bit about IQ tests from graduate school. I believe you missed my point. The data can be skewered in any direction to prove any point depending on who writes the rules. AA’s aren’t ignorant. But yes, their cultural values are their own downfall.

       
  6. henry

    July 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM

    American freedom and prosperity has drawn people from many lands to come here. The Asians that figured a way of getting here were smarter than those who remain in Asia. The Blacks that came were not smart enough to avoid capture which would imply that the smartest Africans are still in Africa but the statistics that you noted states otherwise. Perhaps it is because many of the Black people in America today have genetics from both Africans and Europeans. Or, the theory of intelligence and race needs to be questioned.

    Jews have maintained their identity over the centuries. The pattern is that smart, risk taking, Jews move to a country. They work hard solving problems of the new country. Within a few generations, they are wealthy. The non-Jewish population becomes resentful. Over a period of time, they come to think that if they killed the Jews then they would have the Jews wealth. The more intelligent Jews see the predicament and move to safety. The not so smart Jews die. This pattern has replayed itself throughout history. This unnatural selection mechanism could be a reason that Jews have a higher IQ than the general population.

    Every action that you take is done so to maximize what you perceive to be pleasurable and minimize what you perceive to be painful. The different choices are weighted based on your event horizon. That is, if you can’t see ten years down the road, then you weigh long term goals less. If everybody in America was given $1,000 with no strings attached, the people with a short event horizon will spend the money for immediate desires. Some will pay off bills and others, with a long event horizon, will invest the money.

    The “assistance” that the government gives black people does not help them out of poverty. By telling them that their needs will be met by government, it tells them that they do not need to think long term so it shortens their event horizon and they become poorer. By giving money to women with children if the woman is not married gives black girls a financial incentive to have illegitimate children. Does the government know that it is creating poverty?

    Also, forced medication on the black population is an issue. Harvard University, and others, have shown that Fluoride reduces IQ. Your toothpaste package warns not to swallow the paste. It warns that if you swallow it you should call for help to report the poisoning. The amount of fluoride that is poisonous in a serving of toothpaste is the same amount in ten ounces of fluoridated municipal water. The water in the inter-cities is fluoridated while the white suburbs are not.

    By using the term “Black community” you are adding to the problem. A community is a group that has members. The community leaders and organizers do the thinking while the members do not. The owners of the planet do not want the black population to think. They have created neo-plantations. With the collapse of the economy and the influx of Latin American newcomers they have designs on putting you on the plantation. If they want to put black people on a plantation, I’ll object. If they want to put me on the plantation, well that’s a different story. They only way to avoid that you and your progeny end up on the plantation is to end the plantation system.

     
  7. PatriotOne

    July 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM

    “… More labor-saving devices around the home and in industry means less jobs. How are we going to feed, clothe and house increasing populations at the same time we’re having decreasing employment? Welfare for all?”

    Hmmm? Assuming that I, as in “WE”, have any responsibility to perform for anyone other than I, or me.

    Why does any man need ’employment’? Why cannot I work for 1 or 5 or 10 years (or inherit $1000k) patent my 1 or 5 or 10 acres, park my butt, and be let alone? Why should I (or any other asian-white-black man) be required to be productive for anyone other than my-self?

    Is it because GovCo (a gang of men and women) demands that man be productive in his forced support and sustaining of GovCo?

    Are the 100+ IQ’ers too stupid to recognize the slavery they inflict upon their selfs and others by creating and accepting GovCo as their authority? Is it that the 65 IQ’ers simply want to be let alone but the 100+ IQ’ers can’t find a way to let them alone?

    Freedom is nothing more than being let alone. If I let you alone, and you let me alone, together we are free, at least from each other.

    I see the problem as… the 100+ IQ’ers cannot let ANYONE alone, therefore they form gangs of governments, use the tools of deception and force (including some IQ test results to justify their position(s) as law / rule makers) “for the common good”.

    O’Riley is a self sucking buffoon. If he had any real IQ he’d simply let all other people alone and free from his “superiority”.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s