What makes poor people poor?
What makes poor people poor?
There’s an op-ed in the NY Times, What Makes People Poor?
People are poor for two primary reasons: (1) genetically low IQ; and (2) bad behavior.
Of course the op-ed completely ignores reason #1, so it’s missing half of the story. And the op-ed doesn’t really have anything useful to say about #2.
Some blog readers may think that if poverty is caused by genetically low IQ, then there’s nothing to do. And I say that’s wrong because that’s only half of the problem. Bad behavior can be changed.
However our policies are entirely focused on #1 which is the part we can’t fix. Our educational system is all about trying to make poor people smarter, which just doesn’t work. No matter how hard they try, test scores just won’t go up. All children can’t read at grade level because grade level is what the average child is reasonably capable of, and half of children are less intelligent than average.
If instead, our educational system had much more of a focus on teaching better behavior, many problems of poverty could actually be solved. Many of the problems of poor neighborhoods such as crime, graffiti, gangs, domestic violence, rampant drug abuse, unmarried mothers, etc., could all be fixed with better behavior.
This is such common sense, why isn’t it being done? Because liberals control educational policy, and liberals will not give up their false belief that there is no such thing as genetically determined IQ, and liberals belief that teaching people how to behave better is racist, so they bitterly cling to their belief that everything can be fixed by better teaching so that children can score higher on tests. Even though this has proven to be a failed policy that doesn’t work.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
Well “bad behavior” is just as heritable as is low IQ. Behavioral expression depends on the overall context. Changing that in a way so you get the results you want isn’t as easy as it sounds.
JayMan
September 4, 2014 at 5:58 PM
exactly. low IQ and bad behavior are inextricable
grey enlightenment
September 5, 2014 at 6:25 AM
Bad behavior is more learned than IQ. If one grows up in an area with few if any married couples, I doutt it is genetics that is causing that person to never get married.
superdestroyer
September 5, 2014 at 7:31 AM
@Superdestroyer:
The work of Amir Sariaslan and others looking at Swedish population studies is seriously weakening the idea that “bad neighborhoods” and other environmental factors contributes much to behavioral outcomes.
JayMan
September 5, 2014 at 8:01 AM
From “The impact of neighbourhood deprivation on adolescent violent criminality and substance misuse: A longitudinal, quasi-experimental study of the total Swedish population” http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/4/1057.short The conclusion is ”
“We found that the adverse effect of neighbourhood deprivation on adolescent violent criminality and substance misuse in Sweden was not consistent with a causal inference. Instead, our findings highlight the need to control for familial confounding in multilevel studies of criminality and substance misuse.”
Mr. SWariaslan seems to be proposing more research because it cannto determine if it is the neighborhood or the family. But isn’t the family also affected by the surrounding neighborhood?
superdestroyer
September 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM
When it comes to public policy, it seems the left is always years behind the right. Edsall is referring to research that basically just rehashes the premise of Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart.” Single parent homes diminish outcomes for kids? They are just NOW figuring this out?
Simple wisdom just isn’t simple anymore. 50 years ago, we didn’t need schools to teach behavior and correct choices, parents did that. And the schools used to know that some kids are just dummies and can only be educated as far as getting a trade. Now, that would be heresy at any public school. With the predictable, society crushing consequences we’ve seen.
Mike Street Station
September 4, 2014 at 6:10 PM
Murray is a hick.
He is DIVORCED.
He’s divorced from an ASIAN.
He was arrested for burning a cross.
Neither of his parents attended college let alone graduated.
He remarried a QUAKER.
(For those who don’t know, Quakers are rich, smart, and liberal.)
He has an AFFECTED (faux upper class) accent (Just like Peggy Noonan).
He is a statistical illiterate. He doesn’t even understand what h^2 means.
You might as well quote a professional wrestler. He’s an EMBARRASSMENT to white people.
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 10:52 PM
What DOES h^2 mean? I find nothing when I google and I don’t think I’ve ever run into this nomenclature before.
CamelCaseRob
September 5, 2014 at 8:22 AM
I get it Duke, you don’t like Murray. Now that the personal attacks are out of the way, why don’t you explain what it is that you disagree with of his thesis in Coming Apart and what your counter argument is to the data?
Mike Street Station
September 5, 2014 at 9:23 AM
CamelCaseRob, assuming you’re not being sarcastic, h2 means heritability. It’s squared because the correlation between IQ and genes is the square root of the percentage of IQ variability explained by genes:
http://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/heritability-iq/
pumpkinperson
September 5, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Mike,
I think I should have been clearer.
It’s not that Murray is a hick. It’s that he makes his living calling other people hicks. He’s living a lie. And even then who care? Well one should care because he’s so typical of the GOP.
Elite GOP = arriviste
Elite Dem = old money or Jewish
But whatever Murray’s “data” he’s operating with the “unknown known” that so many conservatives have…
that society is no more than a collection of atomic individuals and has no influence on individuals.
Or to extend the HBD nonsense…
That the reason why almost no elite men have facial hair today and why so many non-elite men have both facial hair and tattoos is that the facial hair and tattoo genes were “fit” in a Darwinian sense and their absence “fit” in a social status sense. Whatever…it’s just mouth breathing.
Duke of Leinster
September 6, 2014 at 2:47 AM
If only tattoos were found only on the lowest classes …
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 6, 2014 at 10:18 AM
Because liberals control educational policy, and liberals will not give up their false belief that there is no such thing as genetically determined IQ, and liberals belief that teaching people how to behave better is racist, so they bitterly cling to their belief that everything can be fixed by better teaching so that children can score higher on tests.
A straw man. What “liberals” really think is:
1. h^2 figures are systematically overestimated.
2. Even though blacks and Mexicans have less potential, they achieve LESS of the potential they have.
What “conservatives” really think is:
I hate niggers and spics.
It’s Vermont vs West Virginia.
Which state would you rather live in? They’re equally white.
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 6:16 PM
Can you refrain from the slurs? It demeans you and this blog.
Dan
September 4, 2014 at 9:35 PM
If you’d read what I’d written you’d realize it was your comment which “demeans” this blog.
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 10:44 PM
Welcome to reality, dawg.
Ferguson Jones
September 4, 2014 at 10:45 PM
Really despicable post, Duke. Made worse by how dumb it is.
Homer_Jordan
September 4, 2014 at 10:54 PM
Liberals don’t think blacks and Mexicans have less potential. You are giving them way too much credit. Liberals are 100% captured by dogmatic idealism. The necessity of belief in an idealistic historic trajectory is as real to them, and just as superstitious in its essential nature, as the saving power of Christ is to a Christian or Allah to a Muslim.
Look at the regulative concept of The Patriarchy as a useful illustration. (And here I borrow from an earlier blog conversation).
What ‘patriarchy theory’ is is a type of ‘dogmatic’ idealism. It’s guilty of reification or hypostasis. ‘The Patriarchy’ is a second order, regulative concept. It is not real in a literal sense, it does not exist in the real world in any meaningful way, its existence is hypothesised, or speculated in order to explain the world as its experienced in subjective consciousness. The liberal feminist, or feminists in general perceive the world around them as having all this misogyny and gender discrimination, they then hypothesise ‘The Patriarchy’ as something that must exist in order for them to perceive the world in that way. That’s all. ‘The Patriarchy’ cannot be said to be the final cause of anything we actually, objectively experience, it’s not a first order concept.
Same goes for consequential racism and other second order concepts necessary to facilitate consciousness in a way that avoids unpleasant realities such as the existence of rational ethnic performance disparities. Racism as a major consequential driver of black under-performance is, in the main, a fiction that is nevertheless necessary for the liberal to continue envisioning a world where desired idealistic and dream-like boundaries remain intact and insulated from objective reality. Unlike John Lennon, for these folks the dream is never over.
Curle
September 5, 2014 at 12:32 AM
” Even though blacks and Mexicans have less potential, they achieve LESS of the potential they have”
No. Most liberals really believe blacks and Mexicans have the same potential, at least over a few generations. Liberals will almost always attribute glaring undeniable deficits visible today to environmental factors. Liberals may admit that the blacks we have right now are incapable of ever acheiving great things, but they will sincerely believe that the next generation, given the right “head start”, access to pre-schools, lack of discrimination, nutrition, etc. etc. will be the equals of white kids in every way. It is hard to make headway arguing with liberals, because there is an element of truth to their position. Of course all things being equal, a black child with access to a safe neighborhood, good home life, decent nutrition and a good school will gain a few, maybe significant, IQ points on a black child growing up in inner city squalor raised by a drug addicted mother. The disagreement between liberals and realists is what that ceiling is.
Peter Akuleyev
September 5, 2014 at 4:32 AM
Why would W. Virginians hate blacks or hispanics? The short answer is they don’t. They have little contact with them. I would probably prefer W. Virginia because it is a little warmer and much cheaper.
Why hate on W. Virginia? What have they done to you? or anyone for that matter?
not too late
September 7, 2014 at 9:48 PM
“and half of children are less intelligent than average.”
This is something Charles Murray likes to say a lot in order to create a shock and then explain to people how it mathematically has to be true. But that’s playing with definitions. Purely mathematically, you should expect to find half of the data points of any sample below the arithmetic mean. But IQ isn’t a purely mathematical thing, and saying “average intelligence” has a real meaning. MOST PEOPLE have average intelligence. When we say “average intelligence” we’re not talking about a subject whose IQ score has hit the arithmetic mean, we’re talking about a person whose cognitive profile displays average ability. Again, most people. Probably more than half of the people can be described as having “average intelligence.” It would be wrong to think of half of the people as having “below average” intelligence.
But yes, schools should be more serious about correcting behavior and teaching those kinds of values. I was walking through a low-income part of my city today and it really struck me how nice these places could be if only it weren’t for the behavior of the inhabitants. Convenient location, densely populated, varied enough architecturally/logistically to be able to make an interesting community life. It is sad that so many of the intelligent, responsible people in the US had to move to ugly, boring suburbs to escape dangerous behaviors of others and leave behind for them what should be vibrant, enjoyable places to live.
chairman
September 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM
But IQ isn’t a purely mathematical thing, and saying “average intelligence” has a real meaning. MOST PEOPLE have average intelligence.
Half of the population have IQ’s of between 90 and 110, while 25% have higher IQ’s and 25% have lower IQ’s: Not to mention, there’s a big difference between someone with an IQ if 90 and 110. To put this in perspective, the average janitor has an IQ of 92. The average high school teacher has an IQ of 107.
destructure
September 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM
A way around that tautology would be: would sort of intelligence would be consider acceptable or normal and how many of the general population are above it?
Gil
September 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM
What you seem to be arguing is that every though half the people are below the average (assuming a normal distribution) that many of the people “Below average” are close enough to average to be statistically insignificant.
OK, then the next question is what percentage of whites (use whatever definition of white you want but a good one is whatever gets you or keeps you from getting a government set aside contract) are far enough below average to be statistically significant versus how many blacks are far enough below average to be statistically significant.
superdestroyer
September 5, 2014 at 7:40 AM
What makes poor people poor? The obvious – failing to read Lion’s blog where they are so bombarded with messages about “future time orientation” that they can barely go to McDonald’s for three chocolate chip cookies and a cup of coffee without thinking “Now how could I have better spent this money so that it would benefit my future? I really need to stop wasting $4.30 like this. Someone will be calling me a prole! Heck, if this keeps up I’ll soon be getting my nails done every week. Someone will think………(horrors!) I’m from Staten Island!”
No kidding, though. Now I actually LOOK for ways to be future-oriented! The problem is that the people who could most benefit from this blog would probably never even give it a chance.
Maryk
September 4, 2014 at 6:33 PM
With the exception of Asians who grind as workers and students, I think the majority of Americans have low future time orientation, and the poorer ones such as NAMs have no priorities whatsoever, and just don’t have any resources to support their habit and save a dime.
JS
September 4, 2014 at 10:37 PM
As Heinlein might say, “They are poor because that is the natural state of mankind.” The question is not “why are they poor?” The question “Why are others rich?”
pmjones
September 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM
I have stated before that sociologists spend too much time studying poverty and not enough time studying wealth.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 4, 2014 at 9:41 PM
There’s a reason for this. The poor are more accessible than the rich. The poor have more time to fill out surveys and talk to researchers. And there are more of them too.
The rich don’t have time (or don’t want to make time) to talk to researchers, or fill out surveys. And there are fewer of them.
I think that finding out what makes people “not poor” (ie, lower-middle class and up) would be a profitable endeavor. And some people have tried that (the claim that if you finish high school, don’t have kids until you are married, and once you are married, stay married, is one). But its more fun to whine and complain about how unfair the system is, while imagining yourself as a revolutionary, than it is to blame the victim and become your father/mother.
Half Canadian
September 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM
@Half Canadian: I think that finding out what makes people “not poor” (ie, lower-middle class and up) would be a profitable endeavor.
Twenty years ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh advise that the way to avoid being poor is: 1) get a job (any job!) and keep it until you find a better job; 2) if you get married, stay married; and 3) do not engage in criminal activity.
Sounds easy enough.
E. Rekshun
September 5, 2014 at 2:02 PM
That would be insightful if what Heinlein meant by “poor” was “enough”.
After all, the bottom line of the income statement, …
The rich do live longer, but not that much longer.
Or, to put it another way: if your scheme for long life were getting rich…there are other much easier and much more reliable schemes.
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 9:52 PM
/\ /\ Duke Jorge Videla of Leinster????
Curle
September 5, 2014 at 12:42 AM
The best book ever written (in the modern era) about poverty is Edward Banfield’s “The Unheavenly City.” The author Oscar Lewis also wrote a lot of still-valuable essays on this topic. Although written in 1970, Banfield’s book is unbelievably timeless on the subject of the culture of poverty and why it is so hard to change.
An aside: Banfield wrote a book about a little village in Italy called “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society.” In this book he claimed that poverty in this village was due to a lack of trust embedded in Southern Italian culture – the villagers had a hard time coming together to pool their efforts to improve life in the village. For this he was vilified as anti-Italian. Ironic, since his wife was Italian-American. Although I haven’t read the book, his thesis sounds plausible to me. This lack of trust is another touchy subject for a lot of IAs, but it was a real problem in Southern Italy and it is something that, although greatly diminished from earlier eras, still adversely affects IA culture to this day.
Maryk
September 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM
“greatly diminished”? Not at all. Puglia, Calabria and Sicily are still very disfunctional and poor regions of Italy. Not much has changed since Banfield’s book other than a steady stream of subsidies and government jobs from Northern Italy. Southern Italy (or Albania as well) is a good example of how culture can overwhelm IQ. Usually Southern Italians who emigrate to higher trust cultures (like the US) manage to do fairly well.
Peter Akuleyev
September 5, 2014 at 3:45 AM
I was saying that the problem has greatly diminished among Italian-Americans, I don’t know how things are in Italy itself. But the inability to trust others is something that gets in the way of achievement, since few people achieve anything without the help of others. And to receive this help – from a friend, neighbor, teacher, employer, lodge member, etc.. you need to interact with others and make your interest in achieving something known (even if you don’t ask for help.) I read an article recently that said that in some people what seems like a self-discipline problem is really an inability to trust. Why bother to put in effort if you think that the people your success depends upon won’t treat you fairly?
Maryk
September 5, 2014 at 9:52 AM
my mom’s honduran attendant regales me with horror stories from a low trust culture. you can never display wealth or even having more than average or it is an invitation for a visit from a thug. her relatives must keep mum about the fact she’s in nyc because the level of extortion would increase. even ordinary people in the bigger towns are forced to pay a ‘tax’ to a local gang if they don’t want their lives made miserable.
it’s entirely rational that s. italians behave as they do. what’s the point in making money if it’s taken from you?
newyorker
September 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM
All good reasons for retiring to Florida instead of a third-world country that’s supposedly less expensive.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM
Yup, lion. When relieving my mom’s aide, I watch with her lame TV about folks relocating to some tropical paradise. Such as Costa rica, a relatively sane destination. But in the background one can see the barbed wire around properties close by. That tells me all I need to know.
newyorket
September 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Whatever lion. I’ll still be retired in Florida and rocking that 2.5 hour flight back and forth to the condo in Cartagena. Hot colombianas ftw.
driveallnight
September 6, 2014 at 1:15 PM
You can’t retire in Florida with $600 a month. But it’s possible with certain Latin American countries. Not every prole has enough means to live in Florida.
JS
September 6, 2014 at 3:20 PM
Why not? If you own a cheap condo, and have Obamacare, I think you could live on that.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 6, 2014 at 3:48 PM
You have to ask yourself…is the ability to bang and be loved by more beautiful, feminine women worth the increased risk of crime in the 3rd world? How risk-averse are you and do you believe the rewards to be worth it?
I have a Trustafarian buddy who goes on interminable, low-budget backpacking excursions in the 3rd world, hitchhiking and couchsurfing. He only spends about $400 per month.
He travels light, has never been a crime victim (some of that is obviously dumb luck) and pulls excellent poon.
ATC
September 6, 2014 at 4:49 PM
Someone who lives on $600 month, is not likely to own a condo in Florida.
Chr..
September 7, 2014 at 10:30 AM
Selection bias.
The better and more functional ones leave because they know they could do better in a better environment.
Losers don’t have the gumption to get up and go anywhere or do anything.
not too late
September 7, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Most IAs have no connection with the Italian Renaissance. The bulk of the Italian geniuses and talented artists came from regions north of Rome, and not from the Terroni.
Some proles in NYC become nationalistic when you mention Columbus or when his day arrives in October. Colombo was from Genoa, Italy, hardly anything to brag about if you’re from the Terroni.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Just curious about something. If a Jewish American from Nebraska is proud of Irving Berlin, Irving Kristol, Irving Thalberg, etc…. should he be told he has nothing to be proud of because “there are no impressive Jews who ever came out of bumble_uck, Nebraska. They call came from large cities or suburbs of large cities?”
Maryk
September 5, 2014 at 9:31 AM
And by the way, the divide between Northern Italians and the Southerners is a great example of a SWPL/Prole divide in Europe.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM
MaryK- I’m not sure if that’s a good analogy, given the fact that the identity and genetics of the Ashkenazi Jews is pretty much uniform with very small nuances in traditions and lineage regardless of the region they come from.
Northern and Southern Italians are very distinctively different people in cultural traditions, lineage, and partly different in genetics. And unlike the Ashkenazi, the regional and identity differences of Italians were separated a long time ago, during the times of the Romans. Although I have to say there differences are now slightly less pronounced because of intermarriage between the 2 groups.
And by the way, people many people from Spain (the Spaniards) to me, are just a bunch of self hating Jews who became Catholics because being Catholic was more prestigious than being Jewish. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, both had Jewish ancestry but were vehemently against the Jews and their ways, because they were seen as inferior, like the feelings of SWPLs who have a disdain for proles. Spaniards even those who come from inferior familes (those who had Jewish ancestry and even Muslim ancestry) botched their genealogical records to show they were of prestigious lineage known as the Limpieza de Sangre known as purifying the bloodlines.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM
Northern and Southern Italians are very distinctively different people in cultural traditions, lineage, and partly different in genetics.
What genetic differences? Physically both groups are very similar. Pope Francis’ family, for example, is Northern Italian yet the Pope would easily blend in with other Sicilians walking around New York if he weren’t already famous.
The primary genetic difference is Southerners have significant ancient Greek admixture dating to Hellenized Sicily (then known as Magna Graecia). Greek ancestry shifts their position on genetic charts to the East.
In terms of IQ, Italian Americans, who are overwhelmingly descended from the Mezzogiorno, have income and education levels as good or slightly better than other white Americans. If Southern Italians were significantly dumber than Northerners Italian Americans would underperform other whites.
The Undiscovered Jew
September 6, 2014 at 8:16 PM
How poor are proles in America? I expect many of them are not destitute, but are dysfunctional when it comes to behavior, where they blow all their money on recreational drugs and booze.
JS
September 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM
… and T-shirts with crosses on them that look like doilies.
brute force
September 5, 2014 at 9:47 AM
Hey maybe you should try reading Jayman sometime, because if you did you would know All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable (http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/). Personality traits have a heritability as high as IQ (around .8 or higher). Behaviors are very hard to change in the short-term.
Live-Evil
September 4, 2014 at 6:59 PM
1. IQ can be changed through eugenic policies
2. Besides IQ and bad behavior, the structure of the economy and economic policies also contribute to poverty (immigration, trade, minimum wage laws, redistribution, etc.)
vic
September 4, 2014 at 7:19 PM
1. IQ can be changed through eugenic policies
To the extent bad behavior can be reined in through environmental intervention, sterilization of the dysfunctional elements + citizenship/green card buyouts must be part of the policy.
To the extent they can be helped at all, fewer resources per capita are available to assist the poor when we’re importing third world genetic traits and they reproduce their problems.
The Undiscovered Jew
September 4, 2014 at 10:33 PM
Let’s start putting stuff in the water of NAM and white trash areas.
angryracistlibertarian
September 5, 2014 at 10:41 AM
I very much agree with this post especially this — “People are poor for two primary reasons: (1) genetically low IQ; and (2) bad behavior.”
However. I should point out that nothing MAKES people poor. Poverty is the natural state. If you do nothing then you’re poor. On the contrary, it takes positive action NOT to be poor.
destructure
September 4, 2014 at 7:50 PM
Only sort of.
Only, because for most of human history no one starved or was eve in danger of starving and the same savages who Europeans described as lazy actually lived longer than their colonists at the time and even today would live longer if the infectious disease decrement were removed from their mortality table.
That is, poverty within civilization is and has always been much worse than living “in a state of nature”. The homeless in NYC or in the black hole of Calcutta live in a man made hell.
Alexander Selkirk survived his self-imposed, and prescient, marooning, only to die within civilization.
It was only at the outbreak of the Great War that British farmers were as well off as they had been just after the Black Death in the 15 th c. Wipe out 20% of the labor force and wages go up. If only more self-identifying “conservative” economists actually were.
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Whether one lives in civilization or nature, poverty is the natural state. The relative condition of poverty in each is irrelevant. It still takes positive action not to be poor. Even primitive hunter gathers have to hunt and gather.
destructure
September 4, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Modern Anarcho-Primitivists don’t consider themselves poor. Conservatives don’t either. Neither do liberals. “Poor” is a defacto academic left construct. It’s usually used as a substitute term for what Marx called the Lumpenproletariat. Anarcho-Primitivists take their preparedness, what has been called “positive action” and “behavior” here, very seriously. If the poor “behaved” this way at this point in time, they wouldn’t be poor. Instead they would be very healthy.
Yes, behavior modification is possible. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
brute force
September 5, 2014 at 10:04 AM
What makes you think behavior is so alterable? You couldn’t make a cat act like a goat and vice versa.
AsianDude
September 4, 2014 at 8:25 PM
Poor people used to behave better than they do today, so we KNOW that it’s possible to at least get back to that level of behavior, if not exceed it.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 4, 2014 at 9:46 PM
“Poor people used to behave better than they do today, so we KNOW that it’s possible to at least get back to that level of behavior.”
No, because you’ve had generations of dysgenic breeding. Massively in the black community, significantly in the lower end of white communities. The worst behaved, aggressive alpha males have been sowing their seeds widely, spreading their traits. Similarly, the less intelligent women have been having more babies while the smarter ones escape and have fewer kids. The lower end of the white community also has been infected by cross-breeding with blacks and Hispanics.
The poor population of 2014 is quite different from that of, say, 1950. It is now significantly more difficult to control and to educate.
peterike2
September 4, 2014 at 10:02 PM
But perhaps they aren’t the same people. Perhaps. I doubt it. But that might be the conservative tack.
In Harlen County USA a documentary about a coal miners’ strike in Eastern Kentucky in the early 70s, the strikers are all white, of course; they have bad teeth, but:
they have no tattoos, no facial hair; they’re thin; they wear no legible clothing; etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County,_USA
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 10:21 PM
Derrr,
Should have been Harlan County …
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 10:25 PM
peter rike is correct Dull white people are more ‘trainable’ than dull blacks or hispanics
grey enlightenment
September 5, 2014 at 7:49 AM
Peter, natural selection is fast but not that fast.
angryracistlibertarian
September 5, 2014 at 10:41 AM
I think natural selection works quickly in an environment of brutal culling as was the case in the mid 19th cent in big American cities. It did not depend on a cruel upper clsss; there was simply not much that could be done for the dysfunctional medically or socially.
For example the irish, gobsmacked by a society they were unfamiliar with, were winnowed
by disease like to tb and habits of drunkeness. I say this as someone half irish. Nowadays these dysfunctional folks would survive long enough to have children. This is an utterly modern phenomenom.
newyorket
September 5, 2014 at 9:45 PM
Just wait until we all have our own personal robots (programmed by the authorities to never leave our sides and never allow anti-social or stupid behavior) — problem solved. All that is required is post-scarcity.
CamelCaseRob
September 4, 2014 at 8:29 PM
Poor people are a necessity in whatever you wish to call today’s capitalism. They strike fear into the hearts of the middle class, keeping them compliant. They act as justifiers to create government largesse which is then manipulated by the super rich for their own benefit.
Despite HBDers love affair with IQ it doesn’t correlate with wealth in the way they thought. There is more to the story then.
Poor people will be created out of hard working, industrious, law abiding people if and as necessary, just as they were in the past.
If lots of effort went into behavior modification the super rich would still find another way to screw them, or you, or whomever wastes their time on such.
Poor people are poor because it is socio-structurally necessary to have them be so.
Allzen
September 4, 2014 at 8:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
Howie Stern
September 5, 2014 at 6:03 AM
No, that’s not it.
Allzen
September 6, 2014 at 1:32 PM
Nonsense. Increasingly free Capitalism has been the major force ending poverty. The poor of today are as wealthy as the middle class of 1972.
rob
September 5, 2014 at 6:42 PM
Rubbish. Highest earnings were in 1972. One earner could afford house, often more than one, kids, etc, in a major urban area.
Allzen
September 6, 2014 at 1:33 PM
***Because liberals control educational policy, and liberals will not give up their false belief that there is no such thing as genetically determined***
I think they will change their tune if it becomes possible to engineer smarter people. This talk by UK policy advisor Dominic Cummings at Science Foo seems to suggest this possibility (Cummings got in hot water last year for suggesting that education policy tends to ignore the reality that IQ is mainly genetic):
“‘Biohacking’. Biohacking is advancing faster than Moore’s Law. CRISPR editing will allow us to enhance ourselves. E.g. Tibetans have evolved much more efficient systems for coping with high altitude, and some Africans have much stronger bones than the rest of us (see below). Will we reengineer ourselves to obtain these advantages?”
http://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/standin-by-the-window-where-the-light-is-strong-de-extinction-machine-intelligence-the-search-for-extra-solar-life-neural-networks-autonomous-drone-swarms-bombing-parliament-genetics-amp/
Julian
September 4, 2014 at 9:11 PM
The 800 pound gorilla is of course immigration. The wages of Americans generally and people on the left end of the bell curve especially have been particularly crushed by the huge unskilled labor supply of uncontrolled immigration.
Dan
September 4, 2014 at 9:38 PM
Which is a reason to RAISE the minimum wage. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/the-minimum-wage-cure-for-illegal-immigration/
“Mexicans come here to do work ‘mer’cans won’t do”, said President George W. Hick.
The GOP is NOT the anti-immigration party any more than the Dems.
America is what happens when government is by whoever pays the most.
“America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea.” — Bolivar.
It was true 200 years ago, and it’s true today.
And it’s not just about immigrants. Who opened the borders?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Should have been:
Give me your white trash pieces of shit…My cunt-ry will become the focus of evil and bad taste in the modern world, an international bully, and a promoter of neo-liberal bull shit, until all are Eatin’ Good in the Neighborhood and listening to Howard Stern while tweeting and updating their Facebook page.
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM
I’m amazed people repeat this tripe.
The expulsion of Mexican semi-( not un-) skilled laborers starting in 2007 was like getting rid of a large state. It meant that managers had no one to manage, landlords had no renters to pay their mortgages, and expansion plans for small business to serve them went belly-up. The domino effect was the current recession and college BA’s in Mexican jobs or on the dole.
The smart kids in the US get rich by exporting themselves to where the labor that can’t come in is–abroad.
rob
September 5, 2014 at 6:48 PM
Are you serious? We’ve expelled no one and that “large state” you want is an economic sink.
doombuggy
September 5, 2014 at 11:25 PM
And what makes rich people rich. This fascinating piece was posted by a commenter at Sailer. It’s about an Asian company that for tons of money helps get your little Asian prince or princess into top tier American colleges. Of course for every Asian invader that gets in, an American doesn’t. But nobody seems to think that matters. Diversity uber alles.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-03/college-consultant-thinktank-guarantees-admission-for-hefty-price#p1
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. While the Asian invasion into America isn’t nearly as numerous as the Hispanic invasion, it will ultimately be far more destructive to what used to be America.
peterike2
September 4, 2014 at 10:19 PM
Unz says there is an Asian Ivy League quota. Libertarian economics is about free market capitalism under a meritocracy. If foreigners are more qualified, they deserve the position. Quotas for anyone, be it Whites or Asians, are bad.
grey enlightenment
September 5, 2014 at 7:47 AM
sailer isn’t libertarian in the least bit.
uatu
September 5, 2014 at 8:35 AM
The Ivy League quota is mostly due to their not being able to expand given local zoning and other laws.
Cornell has no such problem and has expanded: ‘The Harvard guy works for the Cornell guy using the inventions of the Caltech guy.’
Other high-level US Colleges have begun to open foreign branches abroad.
rob
September 5, 2014 at 6:53 PM
“Libertarian economics is about free market capitalism under a meritocracy…”
It’s more about free exchange which Libertarians see as encompassing both communism and capitalism in a Libertarian-led federation of societies, and in fact any economic system so long as voluntary.
rob
September 5, 2014 at 6:57 PM
Libertarian economics is like Sharia law: sounds good on a Friday night at the Mosque, but not so much in actual practice.
If foreigners are more qualified, they deserve the position.
From what I’ve seen, foreigners aren’t more qualified. It is just a fashion/status thing to bring in a different people.
And that is such a micro-economic view of the world. At some point one has to defend a people and their land. If an alien race lands on Earth; and they prove to be twice as productive as Earthlings; do we cede the planet to them; and roll ourselves out of the game? Of course not.
doombuggy
September 5, 2014 at 11:34 PM
If Asians are so smart, why can’t they just build their own awesome institutions? Why do they need to come here?
not too late
September 7, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Asian invaders become a problem for proles, but not for upper middle class Whites and above. The SWPL classes are generally untouchable from Asians because the pyramid scheme in America, only favors the most educated and wealthier Whites. Further, affirmative action has help SWPL women the most, and has harmed Prole males the most.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 1:52 PM
Peterike. The asians getting into ivy leagues are way smarter, ambitious, hard working than your low class proles. They are not denying anyone anything.
wt
September 5, 2014 at 2:11 PM
When it comes to coasting by in college and getting a job, SWPL women have it easy, at least the ones in NYC. Choosing an easy major like marketing and fashion design, which requires very little brainpower and studying, and being attractive helps. A job awaits for them after college graduation day. Many of them become admin assistants or even better, executive assistants that pay more than 50K entry level per year with no bearing to their college major. The more ambitious females go to law school. Believe or not, it’s the prole types who go into STEM, where ROI is null and years of strenuous study takes a toll on them, competing with the beta/omegas, many of whom are foreigners who just landed here. SWPL women like Marissa Mayer being attractive and tech oriented are a few and far between, and are definitely outliers.
I have a friend who is a marketeer for an alcoholic beverage company. Majored in marketing and rakes in about 80K for a job that is fun and self actualizing. She gets to travel to Europe at the expense of the company and never cooks, because her company pays for all of her meals while she’s presenting her products to clients just about every weekday evening.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 7:47 PM
The Ivy League uses “holistic admissions”, don’t they? So they can address this problem any way they like. (I wonder how much of the secret sauce of that company is “donations”?)
Glengarry
September 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM
peterike2
September 4, 2014 at 10:02 pm
—————————————————————–
Back before before all this civil rights and desegregation BS, blacks knew they’d get shot dead. And they weren’t allowed to live near the very people they want to rob/rape/murder.
Ferguson Jones
September 4, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Of course Lion is making at least two huge assumptions.
1. That the bad behavior and/or lack of ability of poor people is NOT merely relative.
2. That if the bad behavior were corrected there would be no poor people.
Although the global pie is growing, it’s NOT clear that good behavior is (absolute or) sufficient to get every poor person out of poverty, because what constitutes good behavior may not be fixed.
(Hasidic Jews are poor and breed like rabbits. That’s bad behavior.)
That is, whatever the “dispensation”, there will be some who are better and some worse either in morality or ability,and consequently a society with no poor people would either have to be very rich or rich enough to afford redistribution of income.
Duke of Leinster
September 4, 2014 at 11:25 PM
Hasidic Jew have bad behavior? What the…?
I am sure there are some bad apples, but puhleeze.
not too late
September 7, 2014 at 10:15 PM
“However our policies are entirely focused on #1 which is the part we can’t fix.”
Maybe not fix, but can we ameliorate? Doesn’t the Flynn effect say something is going on? Iodized salt. Removing lead paint. Etc.
As far as behavior, well, what’s the yardstick? Is not crime down from, say, 1988? What changed?
ModernReader
September 5, 2014 at 1:06 AM
1. eugenics is a good long-term solution to all sorts of problems like entitlement spending and crime
2. Why crime has declined? eugenic effect of birth control and more incarceration with longer sentences. thank broken window crime prevention
grey enlightenment
September 5, 2014 at 7:27 AM
Encouraging poor people to behave better would necessarily involve being judgmental and discriminating against certain behaviors (and of course, those demographics who engage in destructive behavior).
Today’s leftist elite, thoroughly indoctrinated in cultural Marxism, will not and cannot be judgmental because the elite’s entire ideology and raison d’etre is based on the bedrock principle that disadvantaged groups (namely, minorities of all sorts and the poor in general) cannot improve their lot in any way by themselves, and that they require constant financial support from taxpayers and guidance by an enlightened liberal elite. However, judgmentalism of any sort (except when exercised against right wing enemies, who deserve extirpation, being bigoted monsters) is simply unthinkable to the modern leftist mind.
Thus, the SWPL elite in the Democratic top-bottom coalition cannot instruct their downscale wards and improve their dysfunctional behavior, they can only throw money (with little or no strings attached) at the poverty problem, money extorted from the steadily shrinking middle class, with threats of social chaos and violent upheaval from lumpenprole shock troops should the benefit transfers ever stop.
Oswald Spengler
September 5, 2014 at 2:07 AM
this is all true. we’re throwing money at an intractable problem
grey enlightenment
September 5, 2014 at 7:35 AM
Low IQ leads to poverty in the US because we live in a “meritocratic” system that places a high emphasis on IQ to succeed. In Japan low IQ people are given work to do and a chance to make a decent living, and trained to live in a fairly rigid predictable system that is easier for low IQ to manage. The same is true in Germany to a somewhat lesser extent, but Germany compensates with a stronger welfare state.
Peter Akuleyev
September 5, 2014 at 3:36 AM
Agree. The post-2008 American economy is more cutthroat than ever. The socioeconomic benefits of high IQ have never been so great. Tyler Cowen is right that average is over.
grey enlightenment
September 5, 2014 at 7:38 AM
Time to leave America as I have been saying all along. There’s no incentive to be here, even for the successful who will live among the restive population when things get bad.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM
@ JS,
>> Time to leave America….
I hear this all the time. Where are on earth would you go? Who would take you? Do you think that the few nice countries in this world have an open door immigration policy for disgruntled Americans who wish to emigrate? I’ll bet that you are thinking of Australia, New Zealand or Canada. None of those countries welcome Americans, unless they are connected and rich. A Sri Lankan or Indonesian has a far better chance of gaining entry to Australia than a white American. This is it, we are stuck here. This is all we got. You better f****ing treasure it because you have no place else to go.
Daniel
September 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM
Dan — I suggest STEM students and those into their careers to look into other 1st world nations, especially Canada which welcomes those in the science and technology fields, unlike here the states where STEM has low prestige and the social dynamics in this country are way beyond f*cked!
JS
September 5, 2014 at 2:40 PM
Whatever the heritability of both IQ and personality traits, these can and are shaped by society/education.
I actually find it quite remarkable that almost everyone (I do not know the cutoff, but probably IQ 80 or so is sufficient for basic reading) can be taught to read.
Until very recently in human history noone could read, then just a tiny percentage for the few thousand years some cultures had developed alphabets. Of course one factor is that printed letters are easier to read, that one may read in his mother tongue, not Latin or whatever and maybe also a little evolution within the last 500 years. Still, it’s quite amazing that most people are smart enough to read when we never evolved for such a task. (And just think what even a “progressive” of 1600 would have thought about the idea that almost everybody could and should be taught to read.)
As for bad behavior, even if evolution works sometimes very fast (like from the middle ages to now for the Ashkenazim IQ), I find it very hard to believe that two generations since 1950 would be enough for dysgenic breeding leading to a prevalence of thuggish behavior. There have to be different causes at work.
nomen nescio
September 5, 2014 at 3:46 AM
According to Chomsky, humans are hard wired for language . yeah dull kids can be taught to read, just not very well. Usually at a 5th grade level at best which is good enough to carry out most basic functioning. Not that amazing
grey enlightenment
September 5, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Blacks never had a written form before the arrival of Whites.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 9:12 AM
I was able to read quickly and with excellent comprehension at a very young age. Unfortunately, I went to prole schools and had to put with lots of dumb kids. Reading with a partner was absolutely torture.
angryracistlibertarian
September 5, 2014 at 10:45 AM
@angryracistllibertarian: Reading with a partner was absolutely torture.
Yes, I remember that too. Tracking started in 7th grade, but before that, it was excruciating to listen to the dumb kids try to read a paragraph in reading class.
E. Rekshun
September 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM
Agreed. The dumbest clerk in the US would have been protected from the death penalty and lived well compared to others as a genius Medieval clerk.
rob
September 5, 2014 at 7:04 PM
Isn’t the lesson of Ferguson that if you try to impose proper behavior on poor blacks that they will eventually riot and that the only thing to do let them have their way and leave them to wallow in their dysfunction?
I was a lot more enthusiastic about your way of thinking before the recent events in Ferguson
Howie Stern
September 5, 2014 at 5:04 AM
Ferguson was caused by the liberal media.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 5, 2014 at 6:39 AM
Ferguson was also caused by the willingness of blacks to riot at the slightest opportunity.
angryracistlibertarian
September 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM
It was not members of the media who set fire to stores; they just fanned the flames.
silberstreak
September 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Two days after the shooting and before the media arrived rumors spread through social media regarding the location of the store that called the police on Michael Brown and a mob burned down (the wrong) convenience store and wrote snitches get stitches on the wall.
http://fox2now.com/2014/08/11/quiktrip-sprayed-with-graffiti-set-on-fire-during-overnight-looting-near-ferguson/
Howie Stern
September 5, 2014 at 12:31 PM
Walter Williams wrote an brilliant essay on “How Not To Be Poor.”
Here’s a quote that gives the essentials:
“Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior.”
The rest of the article is worth reading:
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2005/05/11/how_not_to_be_poor/page/full
Gerald
September 5, 2014 at 8:48 AM
How not to be poor? Have money.
peterike2
September 5, 2014 at 9:38 AM
This is incorrect. College students do not have money, but they are not considered “poor.” Poverty is more than just a poverty of money, but also and even more importantly a poverty of good behavior.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM
There used to be expressions like “poor but clean” or “poor but proud.”
Such expressions went out of fashion as liberals stopped holding the poor to any real standards of decent moral conduct.
Oswald Spengler
September 5, 2014 at 1:05 PM
The English used to distinguish among the poor those who were “deserving” and those who were “undeserving”–or they did at any rate in Broadway musicals.
Jonathan Silber
September 5, 2014 at 3:31 PM
Lion is right.
rob
September 5, 2014 at 7:07 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-03/college-consultant-thinktank-guarantees-admission-for-hefty-price#p1
poor people are poor because they can’t afford services like the above
jjbees
September 5, 2014 at 9:41 AM
^didn’t realize someone already posted this, feel free to delete these comments.
jjbees
September 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM
#1) low IQ…………… in a global economy that rewards high IQ horsepower.
#2) bad behavior …It is useful to parse the poor into subgroups of 1) working poor, 2) Government-Dependents, and 3) Government-Assisteds.
The working poor are mostly men (and nonparous women) with no dependents to qualify them for the basket of government goodies. Money subsumes them. They readily trade status for money.
Gov.Dependency absolves one of personal responsibility. They are assured of a stream of subsistence, without accountability. They answer to no one. They lack incentive to use manners, civility, nor to be attractive. Married to the government, the women morph into masculinized beasts. Subsistence is dependent upon aggressive demands from the producers. This is reflected in their elected politicians , such as Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee.
The Gov’t-Assisteds are held accountable at work, observe the ways of the middle class, have incentive to appear attractive, and use manners.
What about the children? The children of the poor can find their way out if they have the opportunity to observe and learn the ways of the middle class. Traditionally, they observed the middle class at public schools, churches, places of employment, and on television. Television now skews ghetto, so that opportunity is lost.
The oft discussed income gap is more accurately a loss of the lower class to access the middle class, even just to observe their ways.
jz
September 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Excellent points!
E. Rekshun
September 5, 2014 at 6:17 PM
When the rap album coming out?
A Norwegian husband and wife were asked about Norway’s safety hammock by an American. The American was just playing the role. He’s a Seattle boy after all.
The Norwegian husband responded thus (I paraphrase):
“Norwegians are less afraid of taking risks. Therefore it’s good for economic growth and innovation.”
And, obviously, even conservi-tard ‘mer’cans would agree with him if they lived in Norway.
America and the Americas are race, race, race, …. and, I almost forgot, race.
But because Americans don’t see how race is a sine qua non of their politics they’ve got the ridiculous RAP of the GOP.
Duke of Leinster
September 6, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Learning and understanding a spoken language (as a child) is VERY different from the cognitive and pattern recognition skills necessary for reading, so Chomsky’s language module does not come into play here.
Dyslexia is to my knowledge neither correlated to general IQ or verbal IQ; still those kids have trouble to write (and also to read, I think). Anecdotal, but I just met a 10 yo boy on holiday who seemed very eloquent, almost precociously so with a big vocab, but when he had to read something he was, to my surprise, closer to the level of a first grader than a 4th grader, so he apparently had a particular weakness.
nomen nescio
September 5, 2014 at 10:37 AM
I once read an argument about dyslexia that seemed persuasive. Namely, that dyslexia didn’t really exist back when reading was taught 100% via phonics. With the introduction of see-and-say reading techniques — basically, trying to teach a phonetic language like a ideographic language, as if English were Chinese — it became rampant. But it’s not really “dyslexia,” it’s not something going wrong in the brain, it’s just the natural result of learning to read by sight rather than by sound. Which makes perfect sense. If English is taught as mere pattern recognition it’s much easier to confuse which order the letters go in, or to mix up dog and hog and bog and log. Phonics is probably the core skill needed in any education. Without it, you’re probably doomed.
PS – Some argue that Chinese is in fact a phonetic language, but whatever, the point is the same.
peterike2
September 5, 2014 at 12:07 PM
I think there must be something to that. I learned to read back in the days when it was taught via phonics and I’ve had a life long love of reading. For people who learn via see and say, it seems to be more of a task.
Mike Street Station
September 5, 2014 at 2:23 PM
One can only wonder at what the lightworkers at the Departments of Education across the country must have cost us in human capital formation.
Glengarry
September 8, 2014 at 4:09 PM
Slightly OT – Google to donate $190K to train black, Latino teen girls in computer programming
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/google-donate-190k-diversify-male-dominated-tech-industry-article-1.1928682
It’s probably better to train female NAMs because their testosterone driven boyfriends make poor IT candidates, with issues involving impulsivity and low future time orientation, coupling with their lower IQs, undesirable traits which are unsuitable for any IT work.
JS
September 5, 2014 at 10:54 AM
“The six-hour session will use a simple development kit that allows the amateur coders to create apps using programming ‘blocks’ similar to puzzle pieces. Each block represents different commands and functions that, when combined, animate a program.”
So in other words, they aren’t learning programming.
peterike2
September 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM
It’s not a bad use of a Sunday. No, a six-hour class won’t magically turn someone into computer programming genius.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 5, 2014 at 1:38 PM
And if the participants demonstrate they can assemble blocks correctly, a job awaits them at Google, right?
Jonathan Silber
September 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM
Acquiring some minimal competence at some sort of computer skill (probably not programming which is difficult) will allow them to get hired over a more qualified white male because of diversity hiring.
Lion of the Blogosphere
September 5, 2014 at 5:44 PM
To interest a kid in becoming a jockey, do you take him for a pony ride?
Jonathan Silber
September 5, 2014 at 3:59 PM
Sorry, not impressed that Google is donating the change it found in its cushions for something like this.
When they start offering internships to kids from the wrong neighborhoods, then I’ll be impressed.
Half Canadian
September 5, 2014 at 1:30 PM
Google to donate $190K to train black, Latino teen girls in computer programming
One look at the beta instructors and the NAM girls will surely be dissuaded from pursuing computer programming as a career. They’ll re-enroll in the neighborhood for-profit beauty school or CNA course.
E. Rekshun
September 5, 2014 at 2:21 PM
Black kids with the smarts to write code are unlikely to be to drawn to a Mickey Mouse course like this one.
Jonathan Silber
September 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM
I know a number of NAM’s men with highly paid jobs at the G. In Ad Sales, Ad Analytics.
uatu
September 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM
The NYT posted the following comment of mine, which was recommended by 27 people. People who read Lion or Steve Sailer should also comment on “mainstream” sites to remind people of IQ and HBD realities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/opinion/what-makes-people-poor.html?comments#permid=12716718
‘The words “IQ” or “intelligence” never appear in this article, although The Bell Curve documented the correlation between IQ and income. There are some explanations that the author considers taboo.’
Beliavsky
September 5, 2014 at 12:50 PM
This is a fantastic idea.
angryracistlibertarian
September 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM
[…] From Lion of the Blogosphere. […]
Why are their poor people? | Racist Libertarian
September 5, 2014 at 1:43 PM
LotB: People are poor for two primary reasons: (1) genetically low IQ; and (2) bad behavior…If instead, our educational system had much more of a focus on teaching better behavior, many problems of poverty could actually be solved.
Beautifully said!
Of course the op-ed completely ignores reason #1, so it’s missing half of the story. And the op-ed doesn’t really have anything useful to say about #2.
Thanks, I won’t wast my time.
E. Rekshun
September 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM
“If instead, our educational system had much more of a focus on teaching better behavior, many problems of poverty could actually be solved. Many of the problems of poor neighborhoods such as crime, graffiti, gangs, domestic violence, rampant drug abuse, unmarried mothers, etc., could all be fixed with better behavior.
This is such common sense, why isn’t it being done? Because liberals control educational policy, and liberals will not give up their false belief that there is no such thing as genetically determined IQ, and liberals belief that teaching people how to behave better is racist, so they bitterly cling to their belief that everything can be fixed by better teaching so that children can score higher on tests.”
this is why i read the lion.
great stuff, my man. A+
rivsdiary
September 5, 2014 at 7:37 PM
[…] the lion, in peak form. […]
Stop stealing and stop killing! | Rivelino's Diary
September 5, 2014 at 7:43 PM