The Public Space With JF Gariepy – Schools Impose Diversity (4-30-18)

Posted on April 30, 2018 by Luke Ford

MP3

Comments:

* (((Luke is only half Joo, does he get half parenthesis?

* Luke’s goal is to prove that one a non-biological Jew can be as submersive as a real Jew.

* Thank you Luke, I really enjoy your videos. You ask great questions and are conscientious of history, politics, and philosophy in meaningful ways that help explore the issues of the modern day.

* I just listened to JF talk to Luke Ford, another Jew. It was a fascinating description of why Jews win and whites lose. Ford was explaining him how to be tactical and win but JF rather chooses romantic heroism and certain defeat. Very sad.

* Luke, I admire and envy your ability to stay an intellectual course in the face of so much non-intellectual banter. Your chat is full of toxic alt-righters, likely kids, who want any viewpoint other than simplistic advocacy for AR to be “kicked” or gassed. Youtube is getting blowback from SPLC and ADL about the “gassing” comments so freely exchanged in chat, that this entire online house of cards will collapse. too bad it will take some really fine thinkers down with it. But this is an example of your point yesterday. Given the gift of expression, how do you use it to bring others to your side? By saying “GAS LUKE”, “GAS AL”? Not exactly. As long as 13 year olds make up the shock troops of the AR online , the movement will go nowhere.

* We don’t always agree, Luke, but you were polite and interesting with JF. I think your point was 100% clear to the intelligent viewer. Choose your battles, don’t get emotional and do stupid things to get yourself fired, or your close relationships severed. Because we all know extreme views take easier hold in those whose lives are marginal or damaged, They reach out and say “its not you, its THEM, join us”. when in fact for an idiot who flushes his life and family down the drain, it very much is their fault.

* Good show, you made good points. I have non-substantive constructive criticism though.

JF will only very rarely interrupt and jump in; quite different from most interweb discussions and certainly different from ones you’re used to on your stream or among your community.

Therefore: dude, you gotta pause to let the other person come in some more. Your points were good (if often familiar to those who watch your stuff), but to be a good co-host with JF you have to take a pause and throw it back to him more often than you did.

Like you often do on your own stream when you’re hosting.

It was good but I think people got exasperated a bit, and I imagine JF got exasperated a bit, by the extended monologuing. He did jump in occasionally but normally he does not do that very much (I only watched him a few times but I have noticed this). So it will be up to you to pause and throw it back to him.

I look forward to the next one.

* Al has a sort of manic intensity. He reminded me of the scene in Apocalypse Now, when the photo journalist first meets Captain Willard.

* Going into hostile territory and pushing through, Luke was as nervous as I’ve seen him on JF’s stream yesterday. He has my respect for that, even though I didn’t agree with many of his points of strategy.

There’s an interview that was shot sometime in the 80s on line with a Russian dissident who stated that the ideology he, as a Soviet propagandist, inculcated into Western minds could not be altered by reason. Like addiction, it’s only when they realise that what they’ve been taught is not going to lead to the promised land they rebel. While the process globalism is still in motion most of them cannot be reached. Most of us have tried reason and subtlety to reach liberal colleagues, friends and family to no avail. They simply dig in and demonize the messenger in the process.

* Great job Luke! You did very well. You made excellent points & made total sense. JF is still pretty young. He, & other red pilled young men, may not appreciate the subtlety of your argument, but it’s good you were able to make it. It’s understandable that these folks are eager for change, but anyone with half a clue knows your approach is the way to go.
Hope you get invited back soon. It was a great watch!

* Interesting guest, much better than your previous guests. I’m not really Alt-Right and I don’t really understand the fear of whites disappearing. Here’s the basic facts: From about year 0 to 1600 Europe accounted for from 15 to 20% of the world’s population, so let’s say about 1 human out of 6 was “White”. After 1600 Europeans experienced a population explosion and expanded to the Americas and Australia, and their share of the world’s population peaked at around a third in 1925. At that time you had around 600 to 700 million Whites out of a world population of around 2 billion. Since then the rest of the world has grown much faster. The White population has doubled to around 1.2 billion, but the world’s population has increased to 7.4 billion, so Whites now find themselves back in the 15%-20% range that they were at from year 0 to 1600. The world’s population is expected to peak at around 10 billion around 2100, then slowly decline because of low birthrates. Whites have already begun that process, so there may be around 1 billion whites by the time the population peaks at 10 billion, so Whites will be about 10% of the World’s population. Whites may be only 10% of the world’s population, but that will still be a billion people, which is far from disappearing.

* Wow that’s a great point about competition being the only thing that can raise a student from his slumber. So many intelligent boys in my school were bored and dropped out.

* Great show JF!
Luke is fantastic. His insights are so thoughtful, precise & wise. The AR is in desperate need of all these qualities.

If the AR is concerned about achieving political power & legitimacy, it would benefit enormously from listening to Ford.
He’s unique in that, on one hand, he’s got no skin in the game, yet, on the other, he understands the AR as a dissident movement extremely well.

So, as a smart, engaged, yet neutral observer, his advice & proclamations are rooted in utter honesty.

The AR would do well to listen up & take his analysis seriously.
Bring back Luke as often as possible. Great guest!

* Agree or disagree this was probably the most high IQ discussion in this show so far.

* Luke Ford is like Rachel Dozelal—the sole reason he does not look as stupid as her is that Jews look a tad like whites. He is really a sad individual, going from having a dad who is an academic and christian theologian to working in the porn industry and trying to be a jew..

* At the end I think Luke Ford’s advice is good for most people, but we also need a continuously growing body of people who just come out and say what needs to be said despite what others think, and the silent group needs to fervently support those who speak out on the issues which they themselves cannot.

* Luke’s disingenuous, amoral, Machiavellian “might makes right” mentality is utterly cancerous. First of all, he’s tacitly admitting that if everyone else subscribed to the beliefs that he does, then they would have every reason to destroy the Jews, including him, if they could.Secondly, he is completely undermining the whole idea of nuclear disarmament, and basically encouraging any and all nations to attempt to procure as many nukes as possible. What a psychopath.Us “evil Nazis” are peace-loving flower children and hippies by comparison!

* Is he wrong though? If you’re not completely beholden to the states and allow international corps and bankers to use your country as a playground, you better have a nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear disarmament is never going to happen with the USA.

* Taken from Luke Ford’s amazing interview. Luke Ford is Jewish by the way, and his interview with Richard is the best Spencer interview I’ve ever listened to. At the end of this 2-hour interview, Richard lets Luke know that he’d like Luke to interview him ‘once a year or once every six months.’ I really hope for the latter rather than the former. Luke’s original interview is found here..

Here are some possible topics for tonight’s show:

* I would like to talk about North Korea because I have a perspective I don’t hear often in the MSM. My view is that North Korea is not an independent agent, rather, they do what China tells them to do. When you have a superpower on your border, you don’t get to choose your own foreign policy.

Nukes make a loser country into a winner, at least relative to where they (and especially their leader) would be without them. Contrast and compare the fate of Kaddafi, who gave up his nuke program, with that of the Kims, who held on and now are on the cusp of dominating the Korean peninsula. Wanna be a winnar? Go Nucular! Only fags oppose nukes for their countries. Also, had Saddam gone big on his nuclear program, either he or one of his sons would still be in charge there, and thousands of American lives would not have been lost in a pointless war.

Japan should draw the correct conclusions, and begin to go nuclear as well, in a staged and sensible manner. Missiles and delivery systems first, in parallel with the necessary uranium enrichment and work on building bomb cores, with their assembly last. Saudi Arabia needs to go nuclear, as Iran certainly will sooner or later.
Not to be left out, Egypt too, needs nukes. And, if they are really thinking about the future, Poland. Poland needs nukes and missiles. And Ukraine.

A friend says:

You can take the position that this is a diplomatic breakthrough accomplished only because of Trump’s tough talk. If you want to do this, all you have to do is echo Fox News, Lindsey Graham and Gordon Chang (and others)
Or you can take the position that Kim is doing nothing more than playing for time and playing Trump the same way he or his father played Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Or you can take the position that this is happening because of Chinese pressure on Korea. See Mike Whitney in today’s Unz. This is corroborated by Trump himself who tweeted thanks to China’s president for his help.

I think in any analysis it is wise to consider at least two things: What is in each country’s national interest and to what extent does the personality of that countries leader affect policy.

North Korea is both diplomatically and economically isolated. If Nuclear Weapons are preventing normalization of relations with other countries both diplomatically and economically, and assuming North Korea wants better relations, by agreeing to denuclearize, what can North Korea get. Aside from the fact that Kim wants to survive, and ignoring that his government has been implicated in many criminal activities from drug smuggling to counterfeiting, what is it that the other countries want. There are six that matter: North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Since the leader of the South Koreans, Moon, wants to normalize relations with North Korea, he is willing to (1) sign a peace treaty formalizing the division left in place after the Korean War armistice, have the U.S. Nuclear forces (both land and sea based) moved off of the Korean Penninsula. This is definitely welcomed by the Russians and China as both countries are really close to North Korea (China shares a long border with North Korea) and they don’t like either U.S. offensive nuclear weapons stationed that close and they don’t like the anti missile defense systems (THADD) that the U.S. has in South Korea

President Trump is both susceptible to flattery and a world class flatterer himself. I don’t know how susceptible the Asian leaders are to flattery. My suspicion is that they all (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) take it with a big grain of salt. But Moon is also playing on Trump’s vanity by flattering him by saying he should get the Nobel peace prize.

You have to throw out a lot of other information as well. It appears the North Korean testing site may be ruined and not suitable for conducting future tests. You have a regime (the north) that has been fully demonized as robotically following the siren call of an evil dictator, the closest thing to 1984’s Big Brother that has ever rule. Its fascinating to watch the Western press back off in their anti Kim articles in anticipation of peace with the South and the summit with Trump. What is the truth about North Korea? What is the truth about South Korea? Is it a true democracy, or has the U.S. been pulling the strings since the end of the Korean war. Do those who have been pulling the strings have different agendas than those of Trump?

What do you think Bibi’s bombing of Syria beforehand symbolize? Why did Bibi bomb Syria right before releasing the nuke files?

Some Jews exaggerated Jewish suffering in late 19th century and early 20th century, so when the Holocaust came around, people didn’t believe them. Perhaps Bibi has cried wolf too many times on iran’s nukes? This story has little significance for American interests. If Israel were wiped off the map, America’s strategic interests would not be greatly damaged.

A friend says:

Regarding Israel and Iran. The Iranians are right, the Israelis have been warning that Iran is but months away from an operational atomic bomb for years. Now they claim to have a cache of top secret Iranian documents which appear to show that in 2004 the Iranians had a plan to develop nuclear weapons, plans the Israelis claim the Iranians never gave up.. It is easy for Israel to point to these documents and to name names, even though international inspectors have concluded Iran is abiding by the agreement and the fissionable fuel has been removed from the country. I have to wonder how the Israeli’s obtained this information, and more important than verifying it, how do they know what plans the Iranians are following through with post the Iran treaty deal.

The problem is that the U.S. has two countries, Saudi Arabia and Israel, that for very different reasons want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Even worse they want to prevent Iran from normalizing relationships with other countries to the extent possible. Although the Israelis will fight a war if necessary, and have no compunction about killing even peaceful protestors as a way of sending a message to others, they are very reluctant to engage Iran directly, although they will attack Iranians in Syria. If they attack Iranians in Syria, the Iranians are some what constrained from retaliating by both their Syrian hosts and b y the Russians in the country but if Israel attacked Iran, there is a very large conventional missile threat to Israel from Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.

Not since the war of Independence has the Israeli civilian population had much in the way of casualties inflicted upon them. The Israelis may think that if the U.S. attacks Iran with the intent of taking out Iran’s hardened nuclear development facilities, Iran may not strike back against Israel. But in any event Israel seems ready to subject its population to attack if the U.S. launches an attack on Iran. Perhaps the calculus is as follows: U.S. launches a strike only against identified nuclear facilities. Iran attacks U.S. Navy ships in Persian Gulf, attacks Saudi oil fields and has Hezbollah attack Israeli targets including cities. This then triggers the U.S. to launch an all out war on Iran. There is also the issue of how the Europeans, who don’t want the Iran nuclear deal trashed, and the Russians will react.
Netanyahu keeps saying Iran lied because they claimed they didn’t have a nuclear weapons program when they did, before the deal. He also says work continued on the bomb after the deal under the guise of peaceful uses of nuclear material. I do not know that there is actual proof that Iran was continuing work n a development of a bomb. It looks like most of these documents were locked away for the time when the nuclear deal expired (it was to last 10 years.) In other words despite all the sound and fury, it is not clear that there is really anything new in these documents. There may be and they may prove Iranian perfidy, but based on the articles I have read, I am not sure they reach that point. There is a lot of smoke and a lot of inference, inferences which are easier to believe since Iran has a very repressive, Islamic government.

But Trump’s pulling out of the deal means nothing unless he can reimpose stringent sanctions, something that requires the other signatory’s cooperation. These documents are being released to help the U.S. argue for reimposition of sanctions against Iran.

Fred Kaplan says: “However, the larger message of the archive—and Netanyahu’s briefing—is that the Iran nuclear deal, now more than ever, is worth preserving. Netanyahu pointed to documents suggesting that Iran had plans—he talked of secret documents, charts, presentations, and blueprints—for every aspect of designing, building, and testing nuclear weapons. What he neglected to point out is that the deal gives international inspectors highly intrusive powers to verify whether Iran is taking any steps to pursue those plans.”

Another friend says:

Hey Luke — if people bring up US aid to Israel consider mining this bit for insights.

It’s much cheaper to give Israel ~$3b — 75% of which is earmarked for purchasing military equipment made by men and women in Oregon, Washington state, etc. than it is to have Israel send us a bill for all the sigint and humint that they collect. You lack all perspective.

Essentially, the point is that US aid and weapons are given to Israel, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia in order to draw them into the US military-industrial technology base. This means that they require parts, training, technology upgrades from the United States indefinitely if they want to retain their ability to wage war in the future.

It gives us incredible amounts of leverage over them geopolitically.

Evidence for that? No two countries which are part of our military-industrial technology base have ever gone to war with one another.

This is the premise behind the Carter Doctrine. And it’s what effectively ended Israel’s large scale wars with its neighbors. Wars which were routinely fought every few years between 1948 and the early 1980’s.

The Israeli ultranationalists WANT us to pull the plug on giving aid to Israel in order that they’d have a free hand to deport all the Arabs, drive the Arabs out of Gaza, send tanks over the Jordan river, etc.

They’d finance it by allying themselves with China. They could make $30b a year by turning Israel into the arms factory for Beijing. Let the Chinese leapfrog 30 years ahead of where they are.

But important points are that it’s as much a subsidy for US defense manufacturers since ~80% of the funds are earmarked for purchases of US technology.

That no two countries which depend upon US tech have ever gone to war.

And that the US gives $1.8b to Egypt every year and $1.2-1.3b to Jordan every year.

This is about the same as what the US gives to Israel every year. ~$3b.

It’s a way of keeping them all safely dependent upon us.

* I’d think that Heartiste could offer some insight on why gen Z is having less sex.

Likely the result of female hypergamy in the era of tinder.

Probably more chads juggling multiple broads on tinder, and betas getting the scraps. Possibly also a symptom of higher female obesity.

* You can’t have a love life without having a social life and Americans are less social because of diversity and other reasons.

From Politico:

Too Much Netflix, Not Enough Chill: Why Young Americans Are Having Less Sex
By W. BRADFORD WILCOX and SAMUEL STURGEON

American adults, on average, are having sex about nine fewer times per year in the 2010s compared to adults in the late 1990s, according to a team of scholars led by the psychologist Jean Twenge. That’s a 14 percent decline in sexual frequency. Likewise, the share of adults who reported having sex “not at all” in the past year rose from 18 percent in the late 1990s to 22 percent from 2014 to 2016, according to our analysis of the General Social Survey…

There is certainly a correlation between the rise of smartphones and the decline of physical sex among young adults. The share of young adults who had a smartphone rose above 50 percent in 2011 and has now reached almost total ownership. The surge in smartphone ownership coincides with the marked, recent declines in sex among young adults and teenagers. The evidence is growing that the spread of highly entertaining and diverting technology discourages in-person socializing, including—we think—one of the most fundamental forms of socializing—sex.

Dating has fallen precipitously in recent years, at least among teens, as smartphones and screens have become more popular. In the past 10 years, the share of high school seniors who reported ever going out on dates fell from about 70 percent to approximately 55 percent. We don’t have data for dating among adults, but “socializing offline” is down among them, too. For all the talk about young adults’ “Netflix and chilling,” many young men and women may end up just bingeing on Netflix, not chilling.

Porn is also likely to be a factor. A decent amount of young men’s screen time and attention is devoted to virtual sex rather than the real thing. “A look at shifting attitudes and behaviors from 1973 to 2012 finds porn viewership has increased substantially among young adults,” noted a research team headed by the economist Joseph Price. For those young adults devoted to porn, Twenge speculates, “Why risk rejection, sexually transmitted diseases, relationship arguments or having to meet up with someone when you can watch porn in the privacy of your own bedroom and do things your way?” Pornhub, the leading vehicle for online porn in the United States, saw its viewership rocket from 10 million daily visits in 2009 to 25 million in 2012 to 75 million in 2017.

* Steve Sailer: Upper West Side Parents Not Pleased with Public School Diversity Push

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I think that the problem isn’t racial animus, it’s mental dullness animus. The parents don’t want their kids in with dumb kids where the class will by force of necessity have to be dumbed down and slowed down and most of the teacher’s time spent with the remedial kids.

It would be helpful if someone could quantify this: In that neighborhood what would the average white kid’s IQ be, and what would the effect be of letting the top 25 percent of the poor kids in? What is their average IQ? How would that affect the teaching, exactly? Whatever is wrong with the mental ability of the poor kids, it’s not going to be fixed in the first week of a diverse class, so everyone suffers.

I love the guy who talks about giving $5,000 worth of tutoring to each poor kid, as though that is the problem and things would be equalized. Test tutoring is mostly a placebo even for rich kids, but it would have zero effect on poor kids. You don’t torture naturally poor musicians and athletes by forcing them to take tutoring. This is like gay conversion therapy.

As far as diversity goes, the way it was done in my high school in Los Angeles in the early 1970s was that a few black kids were bussed in, and then everyone was tracked according to his ability in academic classes. You had a few black kids in the smart classes, but mostly they were in the normal classes. The diversity happened on the athletic field, the band, orchestra, choir, and drama classes, home ec and shop, and places like that. You didn’t try to mix people with different brain power in cognitive classes. People made friends in those classes. It left the black kids who were dumb with some self respect, since they weren’t forced into classes where they would not do well, in front of everyone else. Common sense. We no longer have that. Of course we no longer have a lot of these non-academic classes anymore.

* This guy went to University of Arizona, but subsequently did his higher level stuff at — Northern Arizona University. And now he’s running the New York City Public Schools.

* Rich people assume that the policies they apply to the lower classes won’t affect them, and then get to claim moral superiority while their kids are all unaffected because of private schools or things like Manhattan’s school system. If you hang out in a private golf club, your kids go to private school, diversity just means lower greens fees.

* I have been to a few dinner parties where after a few bottles of wine, arguments have broken out over this very school district. Not exactly chair throwing fights, but the Extremely Upper Middle Class Jewish version of chair throwing fights, if such a thing exists.

Basically, my richest friends have bought homes in this Upper West Side District and then virtue signal to their merely affluent friends that they send their children to NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!! because of their commitment to diversity and equity. My friends who live in merely affluent neighborhoods, but not one affluent enough to have excellent public schools, then explode in anger to the accusation that the merely affluent parents are not fully committed to public schooling, diversity and equity because they send their children to Jewish schools or private schools.

Because I have a screw loose in my head, I invariably point out that the most affluent only embrace public school education because they are rich enough to buy into one of the five public school districts in New York City with excellent schools. Stating this obvious truism, then makes me the enemy of everyone and I am not invited to the next dinner party.

* These parents may look rich on paper, from a national perspective, but from a Manhattan perspective their status is probably perilous. If they were Manhattan rich, their kids would be in private schools already. They’ve been walking a tight rope to live in one of the best neighborhoods in America while keeping their kids in good schools; this threatens to knock them off, hence the anger in the meeting.

But this should concern the Manhattan rich too, as these families are the buffer that keeps their neighborhoods as nice as they are.
* How long until the option to send your kids to private schools is taken away? Rich people may have outsized influence. And whites with children may be able to vote out politicians at this point. But those days are coming to a close. Pretty soon angry blacks and Hispanics will be the ones voting out politicians, and I foresee a day when the education of kids is decided by the state, not by parents. Non-white parents will be pissed that whites are able to escape the public schools and will see that the politicians put an end to that by regulating charters more strictly.

The only hope that I can see is that religious schools will be found to be constitutionally protected, and there will be a sudden increase in religiosity (as with so many atheist Jews who send their kids to Jewish schools now).

But what if vouchers are given that can be used at, say, Jewish schools, and black parents want their kids to go there? What if they claim to identify as Jewish? In this day and age, why not?

Once whites are clearly in the minority I foresee a post-Vichy France sort of metaphorical pogrom on whites. It’s going to be very nasty. Want a jury of your peers? They’re all going to be black and Mexican.

* People never mention the damage to White Boys’ self-esteem from sport. NAMs mature earlier & sport is important at that age: they can’t compete on a level.

* And that will be the beginning of the end of the multicultural scheme. You don’t mess with people’s kids. In 1970, desegregation busing seemed like the logical consequence of the civil rights laws, so they tried it, but by 1990 desegregation was a dead letter. Whites were just not going to put up with it, no matter what. They used whatever safety valve they could find to get their kids out of it, usually moving out of the city. Those bused white kids probably constitute the vanguard of the alt right now.

If they try to close all the safety valves with some kind of federal law, it will not be tolerated. It isn’t going to matter whether whites are in the minority. It will not be tolerated.

* Figure that on the Upper West Side the average white kid (some combination of Ashkenazi/WASP/Asian, sometimes all in the same person) has an IQ of around 115. For every one black with an IQ of 115 there are maybe 1,000 white people. In NYC the odds would be a little better – let’s say it’s 50 to 1 (which is an overstatement, but let’s go with it). That would mean 0 or 1 black kids in every elementary school class, not 25%. There just aren’t that many high IQ blacks around. The few that there are, are fought over with scholarships to prestigious private schools looking to boost their diversity credentials. Most of the time they are not even Michelle Obama (American slave descendant) blacks anyway, they are Barack type blacks (half white and raised by white mothers/grandparents or African-African) or Eric Holder black (Caribbean blacks who do everything possible to keep their kids away from the influence of African American culture). But there just aren’t that many of them, not enough to fill 25% of the seats at that elementary school. Not even close.

* Years ago, a friend and I crashed one of those middle-aged, upper class Jewish dinner parties in a Manhattan brownstone. My favorite part of the evening was the look on people’s faces when my friend told them that we became friends in church Sunday school.

* Tony Blair famously wanted to rub the white working and middle classes face in diversity but he pulled strings to get his own children into an all white school in Fulham, one that was miles away from where he was living at the time, Islington. Other members of the Labour Party establishment pulled stings to get their children there too, so that the school was eventually pulled over the coals by the regulators for its policy of keeping out blacks.
Gordon Brown moved to a small all white village in Scotland to endsure his own children attended an all white school, yet he was the one who called a native Engluish woman a bigot for complaining about eastern Europeans driving down wages and overcrowding schools for ordinary working English people.
Harriet Harman was another Labour politician who sent her son to a school far away from where they lived to escape diversity.
Billy Bragg, a folk singer and left wing supporter of multiculturalism lives in Burton Bradstock, Dorset, probably the whitest part of England it is possible to find. Ben Elton, a left wing comedy writer, moved to Perth in Australia to escape diversity
In the USA the Clintons live in the whitest part of the USA. The horror writer Stephen King who fills his novels with racist uneducated white people lives in a neighbourhood that is exclusively white.

* If you can’t afford $15,000 to $40,000 per child for 13 years private school tuition you aren’t wealthy.

NYC jews still have their bizarre attachment to the public school system. Maybe it’s because Bubbe went to Hunter in 1960 when it was still a prestige women’s college right up there with Penbroke, Vassar, Radcliffe etc. now it’s just another black Hispanic low rated city college

Maybe their hatred of Catholicism still keeps them away from the thousands of catholic schools in NYC.

These parents may think they are wealthy. The reporter trying to survive in high cost NYC may think they are wealthy.

But if they can’t afford private school they are not wealthy.

I too would rather live in a beautiful 1900 condo rather than an ugly box of a suburban tract home. But if you’re going to pick beautiful architecture over safety and decent public schools, better provide for public schools and personal security.

I have no sympathy for NYC Whites. They hate the rest of us. The grandparents and great grandparents of these people donated millions to ADl, AJC ACLU and the rest to pay for the lawsuits that destroyed the public school system with hordes of savages

5 percent black kids in a school cause 90 percent of the problems. At 10 percent the destruction starts. At 15 percent it’s all over.

The only thing that can turn around NYC public schools is a mass invasion of Asians and Hispanics. It’s worked in California, even in Watts and Oakland.

Daily Wire:

Samantha Bee’s Husband Fights To Keep Poor, Black Kids Out Of His Children’s School

Jason Jones is not only a former “correspondent” for the left-wing Daily Show, he is also husband to Samantha Bee, one of the leftist leaders of the so-called Resistance Movement against President Trump. Oh, and Jones doesn’t want the city of New York to move his children’s school to a location that would make it more accessible to poor, black kids.

Both Samantha Bee and Jason Jones are wealthy and very white.

According to the Civil Rights Project, New York is not the Liberal Utopia it is advertised to be, at least if you are not white and wealthy. Just like when Democrats ran the South, Democrat-run New York has managed to create the most racially-segregated schools in the country:

New York has the most segregated schools in the country: in 2009, black and Latino students in the state had the highest concentration in intensely-segregated public schools (less than 10% white enrollment), the lowest exposure to white students, and the most uneven distribution with white students across schools. Heavily impacting these state rankings is New York City, home to the largest and one of the most segregated public school systems in the nation.

Slate reports that one of the reasons for this is that in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the most left-wing part of this left-wing state, there is never-ending resistance — if you’ll pardon the use of that word — to opening up predominantly-white schools to under-privileged, minority students.

In other words: these rich, white left-wingers want their schools to remain rich and white.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see Amazon.com). My work has been covered in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and on 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (Alexander90210.com).
This entry was posted in Blacks, Diversity, Education, Israel, JF Gariepy, Korea. Bookmark the permalink.