Reply #4: The roots of privatizing Public Schools:

[formercia]


<2> Bush's assurances of equality and opportunity stand in stark contrast to his past actions and family history. The seeming diversity within this administration is quite literally, skin deep. All of GW's cabinet appointees - including his minority appointees and advisors - are associated with right wing think tanks and foundations connected to white supremacists, the CIA or eugenics, the pseudo-science of racial superiority. Many - including Stephen Goldsmith, Tommy Thompson, Elaine Chou, John Ashcroft, Marvin Olasky, Linda Chavez, Karl Rove and Spencer Abraham - are colleagues of or are organizationally associated with Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve. 
<3> According to the Bell Curve, Blacks are genetically inferior. Having a low IQ, they can't help but have out of wedlock children, live in poverty or resort to criminal activity. This conclusion is then used to justify building more prisons, privatizing schools and eliminating affirmative action, welfare and many social programs. 
<4> Undoubtedly, some people share this view of African Americans. Re-packaged as, "compassionate conservatism" - a motto coined by the CIA's Manhattan Institute - this kind of subtly-coded racism is exactly why Bush appealed to many white voters. 
<5> However, it's not just Blacks and Jews who need to be concerned about the Bush presidency. Bush's cabinet has striking parallels to and many of the exact same corporate players as the IG Farben oil, pharmaceutical, chemical and munitions cartel that formed the industrial base of Nazi Germany. By means of their vaccines, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and pollution these corporations and their modern day subsidiaries have already caused the death, illness and injury of more people than the Nazis did. 

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/jewish_pespective.htm






Policy recommendations

The book argued the average genetic IQ of the United States is declining due to the tendency of the more intelligent to have fewer children than the less intelligent, for the generation length to be shorter for the less intelligent, and through the large scale immigration to the United States of those with low intelligence. The United States will become increasingly like Latin America, with high IQ whites and Asians living in fortified enclaves protected by high fences and armed guards from "the menace of the slums" below.
In a discussion of the future political outcomes of an intellectually stratified society, they stated that they "fear that a new kind of conservatism is becoming the dominant ideology of the affluent - not in the social tradition of an Edmund Burke or in the economic tradition of an Adam Smith but 'conservatism' along Latin American lines, where to be conservative has often meant doing whatever is necessary to preserve the mansions on the hills from the menace of the slums below".<1> Moreover, they fear that increasing welfare will create a "custodial state" in "a high-tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation's population." They also predict increasing totalitarianism: "It is difficult to imagine the United States preserving its heritage of individualism, equal rights before the law, free people running their own lives, once it is accepted that a significant part of the population must be made permanent wards of the states".<2>
Herrnstein and Murray recommended the elimination of welfare policies that encourage poor women to have babies:


We can imagine no recommendation for using the government to manipulate fertility that does not have dangers. But this highlights the problem: The United States already has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women. "If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility." The technically precise description of America's fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. We urge generally that these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended. The government should stop subsidizing births to anyone rich or poor. The other generic recommendation, as close to harmless as any government program we can imagine, is to make it easy for women to make good on their prior decision not to get pregnant by making available birth control mechanisms that are increasingly flexible, foolproof, inexpensive, and safe.<3>
This claim spurred later research in economics and sexology, which considered that welfare programs for women had a doubly negative effect on aggregate IQ within the transfer group, by allowing the female partner to forgo a full consideration of the male's ability to serve as a provider of familial resources, instead placing greater emphasis on desirable physical or social characteristics (presumed to be not as positively correlated with IQ). Neither of these claims, as originally embodied in text and the follow-on research, dealt with race as such, but rather demonstrated concern that large numbers of minorities were positioned as recipients, leading to a continual worsening of the measured divergence in intelligence. However, two years later, the 1996 U.S. welfare reform substantially cut these programs.
The book also argued for reducing immigration into the US which was argued to lower the average national IQ. It also recommended against policies of affirmative action.

--snip--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve


This book should have been titled:

Privatizing Public Schools, a roadmap for Reich-Wankers.