The ugly reality of how the unknown civil rights movements has stripped Americans of basic liberity & given America the laws of a Bannana Republic

I'm like a sucker at the momement.

Why?
Well i'll tell but the reason why may shock you and may hopeful demolish some of the largest myths you have.

The reason why is that i've been reading Steve Sailer's brillant writing on Sotomayor and Ricci and "disparate impact" and rapidly i see one after another, the most basic freedoms that are non existent today as a result of that holyiest of holy entitys The Civil Rights Movement. It's nearly as much of a third rail to speak uncoventionally about as the Holacaust is. But i following Orwells adage, will have the integrity to follow reason anywhere no matter how unpopular a place. So out with: The greatest myth in american society today is that of the "holy"Civil Rights Movement that keeps on-a-chugging today not fighting any real discrimination or racism but doing all it can to make America's claim to be a land of colorblind freedome and justice look like a terrible joke.

(don't worry i will get to exsplaining why)

Where i went to school, the civil rights movement was taught a 100 times more than the founding, Kig might as well have been Washington, Malcolm X John Adams.
But oddly they basically just hammered into us again and again the same images and basics-"i have a dream", ruby bridges walking into school, roots the movie, harriet tubman and the underground railroad.

IN the end as me and my piers leave high school i realize how we really were never even taught about the civil rights movement just the fantasty. LBJ was never mentioned, the civil rights bills were not exsplained, busing neither, and certainly not any talk of the curtailed basic liberitys and never any discussion of why people like William f. Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed unconstuitional civil rights laws, my piers don't even know who either men are nor of any "constuitional issue in regard to civil rights laws". And i know now for ceratian there terrible education on this so called civil rights movement (that for some reason only took rights away) was not a accident. To produce hordes of children with a entireely facile view of the civil rights movement is good for the left and its agenda. They prodice adolcents who know nothing about the civil rights movements laws, nor why many whites were angered by forced and unconstuitional integration and don'tt even know what "busing" is. Rather the see the civil rights movement literally in black and whites, good vs. evil, northern liberal angels and minoritys vs. evil southern republicans (they don't about the dixiecrats).This false version of the civil rights movement is taught like the liberal creation myth, which solifidys the totally rigtousness of the left and the instinstic dark racist motives of the right forver in young impressionable adolcents minds.


For kids to be taught about the actual civil rights movement is something the left must avoid occuring by all means. The 60's fantasy they teach like sunday school t eachers tecahing scripture, covers up the wholly opposite reality of what the civil rights movement was really like.

King is symbolic as the indivdual diety of this deified movement, for those "extremist" facts about his life show his deification to be just as false. I should not here that in saying that King and the movement he was figurehead of are not the dietys we known them both as, i am not then claiming either to be absolutely bad or amoral but human and mixed like most people and things, gray rather than all white or all black. There is the life MLK lead that we all know and were taught endlessly and not very well but his actual life is rather different and his full collection of views drawl a quite different picture than the diety laid before everyday children.
In reality he was not a saint but a plagarist, a adulterer, a supporter of large scale legalized racism, a likely private communist, a non-believer in numerous basic rights and freedoms enshrined by the constuition and a hypocritical preacher who lived as a rabid adulterer after church (the FBI tapped his rooms and recorded his fallandering on the day of his death he beded multiple women and was recording shoutied "i'm f*** for jesus!"). Copious friends of MLK say (most with glee) that he was probably a closet communist and many of his closet friends and partners claim that he confessed to being one in private. The fact that some of his closest associates were Soviet connected communist party USA leaders and that he had apaulling tolitrian (soviet like) views on wealth distrubition, taxes, and other matters suggest that MLK if not a secret pro-communists was pretty close to being so. As for his support of large scale legalized racism: it wouldn't suffice to merely exsplain that he longed for extreme tolytrian racial quoatas without specficying how extreme the quoata's he favored were: he once said that if a city had a 40 percent "negro" population that then "negros" should then rightly hold 40 percent of jobs in companys in that city.

The glaring contrast between the real MLK and the mythical MLK, when the full facts are reviwed, reflects the same contradiction betweem the civil rights movement myth propogated in public schools and the civil rights movement of reality.

Where are the magical fruits of this so called movement for basic rights? where are these new rights?

(Before i answer those 2 questions let me say that the improvement in race relations and the living consditions of african americans has been a unqaulfied good.)

But where are these new civil rights?

The sad answer is that the Civil Rights Movement produced no new rights (unless i missed them) only took away rights.

For 45 years now the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced. Those 45 years of good hearted unconstuitionality has resulted in a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women among other causes of white guilt.

Thanks to the Civil Rights Movement:

1. you no longer have the right-as a business owner-to not let romanians (or any minority group or gender) into your store if you don't like romanians (for whatever reason). a rather basic right, me thinks?

2. if your a bank, you no longer can give loans to whom ever you want, you can and will recieve massive discrimination lawsuites if you do not give enough loans to blacks compared to whites

3. you no longer, can treat female and male employees that differently.

4. if you do not hire enough black people you may be also recieve a discrimination lawsuite.

5. the goverment can force your kid to be bused 40 miles away to a inner city school instead of the neigborhood school down the block and parents can do nothing about it.

How strangely Orwellian it is to find that the legacy of the civil rights movement is not more liberity and freedom but the stripping of the most basic rights and freedomes and an a imposition of a new rigourous kind of legalized racism that digs deeper and deeper into places Legalized racism do not belong (not that it belongs anywhere).

Obama is a liar and a enemy of black educational advancment

Why, Barak? why?

watch

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/777.html

http://www.reason.tv/picks/show/771.html


It's settled: obama is a fucking liar. and the kids of DC should spit in his goddamn face.

this is shameful. and our terrible media has yet to ask him about it! yet they will ask about his new dog!

the war on boys and our educational crisis

If the teacher unions ruled the world (which they almost do) this is what they'd make school children everywhere do for their dear leader, the bold protectorate of their monopoly, Mr.Obama.

http://www.blip.tv/file/1312572

I luridly rembeber begiging made to do this degrading type of sing along nonsence a couple times a year at my elementray school up until some absurdly embarrsing age. I hated it.

I believe there's alot to this argument about the feminization of boys and the war on boys. I often felt growning up that i was a boy attending a girls nursery school.

This video is quite persuaive in that respect. Call me crazy but i could see it shown a couple decades from now in the trial of one the boys in this video who grew up to be a gay child molester.
The acts shown in the video would strike me as just fine if they were doing this sort of thing in a girls school. There's something very peverse and disturbing about seeing these epicene little boys in this video, in their baby blue Obama t-shirts swaying gayily. It's seems like they've already been thorougly sterilized and stigmatized for their male agressive, compeitive instinstics. This is a national epdmic in my view. They've gotten rid of dodgeball which most young boys devootely love and look forward to because it's too "mean spirited and agressive" a game. They've replaced it with sing alongs about Obama and flowers and love.

This is what you get when you only let people who go to teacher college teach: a bunch of women, who are pretty dumb punishing boys for not acting like little girls. That's just elementrary school. Then when they get to high they don't learn their constuition but learn about the evils of America and get indoctrinated into liberalism. Entire generations are being despoiled.

American education is in crisis, and it's not even being talked about in the presidential race.

the ny times magazine interview you must read

below is by far, in my view, the best, most heated and fierce debroah solmon ny times magazine interview ever conducted.
The interview is with Charles Murray, who just wrote the great and real short "real education". He is a undoubtly a national treasure whom i find its nearly impossible to disagree with. i love how bold he is on Palin at the end. i really think this interview ended up with intellectual blows exchanged.

a must read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21wwln-Q4-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Although attending college has long been a staple of the American dream, you argue in your new book, “Real Education,” that too many kids are now heading to four-year colleges and wasting their time in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree. Yes. Let’s stop this business of the B.A., this meaningless credential. And let’s talk about having something kids can take to an employer that says what they know, not where they learned it.

You’re not the first social scientist to knock the liberal arts, but you may be the first to insist that only 20 percent of all college students have the brains and abilities to understand their assigned reading. Eighty percent are not able to deal with college-level material, traditionally understood. Someone can sit down with Paul Samuelson’s textbook and stare at the pages and know what most of the words mean. That does not mean that they walk away from it understanding economics as it is taught in the textbook.

What do you propose that 18-year-olds do instead of trying to learn the difference between macro- and microeconomics? Oh, the world of work out there!

I’m sure you’re aware that unemployment is very high right now. There are very few unemployed first-rate electricians. I can get a good doctor in a minute and a half. Getting a really good electrician — that’s hard. If you want jobs that are in high demand, go to any kind of skilled labor. And by labor, I mean things that pay $30 or $40 an hour.

Do you see your new book as an extension of the “The Bell Curve,” which caused an uproar in 1994 by suggesting that people are only as promising as their I.Q. scores? In many ways, it is a distillation of things I’ve been thinking since “The Bell Curve.”

Europeans have historically defined themselves through inherited traits and titles, but isn’t America a country where we are supposed to define ourselves through acts of will? I wonder if there is a single, solitary, real-live public-school teacher who agrees with the proposition that it’s all a matter of will. To me, the fact that ability varies — and varies in ways that are impossible to change — is a fact that we learn in first grade.

I believe that given the opportunity, most people could do most anything. You’re out of touch with reality in that regard. You have not hung around with kids who are well in the lower half of the ability distribution.

Have you? For nearly two decades, you’ve been at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank in Washington. Why would a self-declared libertarian, the party that glorifies individualism, spend his career on the dole? But I am not spending my career on the dole. People are voluntarily giving money to A.E.I. — there is no government money — because they think the work we do is valuable.

Aren’t think tanks basically welfare for intellectuals? Actually, the interesting thing there is the extent to which it’s the think tanks in the last 15 years that have been producing the stuff that has had the most effect on the debate, as opposed to colleges.

What do you make of the fact that John McCain was ranked 894 in a class of 899 when he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy? I like to think that the reason he ranked so low is that he was out drinking beer, as opposed to just unable to learn stuff.

What do you think of Sarah Palin? I’m in love. Truly and deeply in love.

She attended five colleges in six years. So what?

Why is the McCain clan so eager to advertise its anti-intellectualism? The last thing we need are more pointy-headed intellectuals running the government. Probably the smartest president we’ve had in terms of I.Q. in the last 50 years was Jimmy Carter, and I think he is the worst president of the last 50 years.

education, immgration?

why was immgration and education not brought up in the debate questions!?

a scandal.