Below is the second of four installments of the appearance by Thilo Sarrazin on the TV program “Talk in Hangar 7” (previously: Part 1).
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Thilo Sarrazin is a Social Democrat and former board member of the Bundesbank who caused a firestorm in Germany back in 2010 with his book Deutschland schafft sich ab, “Germany abolishes itself”. In his book Mr. Sarrazin gathered statistical data about Muslim immigration into Germany and demonstrated the irreparable harm it was doing to the country, not least by genetically lowering the IQ of the population. He and his book were repudiated by the (leftist) establishment, and he was cast into the Outer Darkness to keep company with racists, xenophobes, Nazis, etc.
The following video is the first of four parts from a recent appearance by Thilo Sarrazin on a television discussion program called “Talk in Hangar 7”. Mr. Sarrazin has a new book out, and was there to discuss it. An Austrian teacher named Susanne Wiesinger, who has also written a book, was a fellow guest on the panel. As counterpoint, an imam named Abdul Adhim Kamouss was there to present his own point of view.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Social Justice: An Analysis
by Richard Cocks
Who gets to be a student?
In the 1980s in New Zealand, university students tended to be the children of parents who had also been university students. This was at a time when only five percent of the population was admitted to college. Universities were funded by the government at great expense and reserved for the academically capable. Standards were high, with no grade inflation. Every student was literate and/or numerate and tended to be interested in his studies. Nearly every student pursued his own reading agenda and most would take an interest in classical literature and foreign (i.e., difficult) movies.
This fact about the parentage of university students was presented as a problem.
However, far from being unfair, it only stands to reason. The children of academically successful people are likely to have inherited a higher genetically derived intelligence. They are more likely to be exposed to a larger vocabulary from their parents, along with relatively sophisticated concepts. Their parents are likely to read to them and to treat education as valuable and important. There will likely be easy access to books with frequent trips to the library. The parents are more likely to be exemplary role models in their own reading habits. Academic subjects might be treated as interesting and discussed around the dinner table.
Many of these New Zealand students grew up wanting to be educated and knowledgeable. Some of it was just vanity and fear — not wanting to be the only person at the party who did not know about, say, Freud.
In my own case, long before attending university, “The Academic Calendar,” a bound book in which all university courses were listed along with their reading requirements, would be eagerly examined. Practically salivating at the books that would be read and discussed, fantasies of alternative course loads ensued. Imitating a friend of the family meant wanting from the age of seven to be a philosophy professor, before even knowing what philosophy really was.
The advantages of having university-educated parents were ones of class, family and genetic inheritance. Are those advantages fair? They are neither fair nor unfair. They are certainly an undeserved good fortune a.k.a. luck.
Crucially, what is the alternative to such a state of affairs?
Social justice would require “fixing” these advantages. One problem with this is that a student who is less able, less literate, less motivated, less interested, with a smaller vocabulary, having read fewer books would take the other’s place. This is a poor use of resources and creates its own unfairness. The other problem is that social justice attempts a kind of unknowable counterfactual — one of putting someone where they would have been had not social, familial and genetic factors counted against him. Sowell points out that social justice requires non-existent God-like abilities to determine what might have been.
Unintended consequences of social justice
One thing that was attempted in many countries to try to counteract disadvantages acquired “through no fault of their own” was to take children away from parents who were poor, unemployed, perhaps drug- or alcohol-addicted, unsuccessful, with bad attitudes towards education and industriousness and to put those children in more middle-class and successful households. This happened to Australian Aboriginal children and to Native American children among others. This attempt at cosmic justice is now regarded as an abomination, though it was well-meaning. Ripping such children from their birth home changes their likely educational and employment attainments positively, but destroys families and the parent/child bond. It is now completely out of fashion and widely condemned.
However, the desire for cosmic justice continues in other forms and similar sorts of things result from it.
In the 1960s liberal judges argued that amateur criminals often implicated themselves in ways that professional offenders would not. Bizarrely, the judges wanted to even the playing field for the amateurs and instituted the Miranda Rights rule. This means more violent criminals wandering the streets, getting off on technicalities, and more difficulty in prosecuting them. A certain number of extra victims will have died as a result of judges’ wanting amateur criminals to avoid conviction as often as the professionals. Those living in high-crime areas such as inner cities will have particularly suffered, and a very high proportion will have been black. Similarly, justices wanted hard-luck stories concerning murderer’s childhoods to be considered, even though there is no way to tell how much this contributed to their offending. These kinds of considerations mean murder trials commonly extend for three years at great expense, while violent criminals are out on bail.
“Social justice” for criminals means more victims, rapes and deaths, especially among the poor.
Traditional justice means one rule for all. Social justice for vicious murderers means the punishment will vary depending on how bad the killer’s childhood was. This means a different punishment for two criminals who commit the same crime. A criminal who could prove he had a particularly harsh childhood could expect a reduced punishment. Reducing the punishment means there is less of a disincentive to offend. If anything that contributes to his greater chance of offending should mean a lighter sentence, then the rule that criminals with bad childhoods should get lighter sentences will justify giving criminals even lighter sentences, thereby reducing the disincentive to offend, ad infinitum.
Affirmative action programs in California, for instance, were shown to actually reduce the graduation rates of blacks and Hispanics. By putting such students in colleges for which they did not qualify based on their grades, the students found themselves outgunned and at the bottom of their classes. This discouraging state of affairs tends to undermine self-confidence and reduce graduation rates. When the University of California system was forbidden by legal decisions to engage in affirmative action admission policies, the graduation rates of blacks and Hispanics rose by 55%.The number of doctorates among that group in the sciences went up 25% after affirmative action policies were banned. 
Scandinavia is [in]famously fractured. The deep divisions are becoming more apparent by the week.
Now comes Dr. Turley to describe a surprising move by the Danes to consciously re-create a more cohesively Christian cultural outlook:
Even though polarized and secular Sweden is just across the bridge from Copenhagen, it might as well be on a different planet. It’s difficult to picture the Integrate-or-Leave program Denmark is setting up for those immigrants receiving state benefits ever filtering over to multi-culti Sweden.
[Poor Sweden — or rather it will be poor and increasingly lawless unless there are robust policy changes that allow it to move into the 21st century. Yes, I know: about as likely as it is that Minnesota might suddenly become reality-based. Both Minnesota and Sweden share the shmoo gene. That’s the fN gene — not just “nice” but fatallyNice. Can you say “cloud cuckoo land”?]
I doubt this move toward a more Christian-based culture will threaten Danish atheists/agnostics because it is clearly being led by their Queen, Margrethe II. Besides, a culture based on “Christian ideals” is not the same at all as a “Christ-centered culture” — which would lead, eventually to a theocracy of another sort. In her autobiography, M II revealed her personal regrets regarding the ways in which Denmark failed to limit immigration and then failed again to integrate into Danish culture those aliens who did arrive. As I recall, she labeled her own behavior as “lazy”.
Ahead of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s 95 theses nailed on the door of the Wittenberg church, the Queen, the titular head of Denmark’s Lutheran state Church, traveled to Germany to participate in the celebrations. She planted a flowering ash tree in the church garden and donated her own needlework (a year-long project) to the newly renovated Castle Church. Scroll down the page to see images of the beautiful antependium she designed herself and then embroidered for the altar. Notice the white rose, an especially meaningful symbol of Lutheranism: it was used by the group of Germans, including the martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who rebelled against Hitler. As usual, the Daily Mail has the best pictures of her work and of the church.
I don’t agree with some of the details in Denmark’s enculturation project. For optimal outcomes — i.e., cheerful, creative and compliant children — mothers and infants/toddlers to age three are best not separated in order to avoid attachment disorders. Indeed, if anything, these mothers need as much “culture” as their children do, if not more. A wiser alternative would be to make attendance for mothers compulsory also, thus removing the burden of responsibility from the women’s shoulders. Their excuse to their compatriots? “I’m doing it for the money”.
[I wonder what Nicolai Sennels had to say about this mother/child separation? I find his ideas about developmental psychology to parallel my own, so if anyone has a link to his thoughts on this project by the Danish government please leave it in the comments. I’ll bet his reservations about this plan are much the same as mine. Unless, of course, the Danish “secret plan” is to chase as many immigrants as possible over the bridge. Just sayin’…]
Social Justice: An Analysis
by Richard Cocks
Differences in achievement by sex and ethnic groups
Black players make up 70% of the NFL despite black males being just 6.5% of the population. Similarly, blacks are the majority of NBA players, 74%, and are routinely the top stars. The best Olympic sprinters and marathon runners are usually black. These are gross differences of achievement with social and genetic causes.
The idea that racial disparities are inherently a problem does not seem to apply when blacks outperform whites. Likewise, when it comes to the sexes, areas where women far outnumber men or do better are ignored. Sometimes the mathematics simply does not work. 75% of psychology majors are women; not a problem. 33.7% of philosophy majors are women; a problem. Since women are only 50.5% of the population, there are not enough of them to equal men in every field and also to be a large majority in other disciplines. However, to rectify this situation, numerically women would have to stop choosing psychology and other majors where they dominate simply to produce numbers more pleasing to those obsessed with “equality.” This would mean restricting freedom and choice to the detriment of women. This kind of social engineering pressure can be seen when stay-at-home mothers are frowned upon by their feminist peers.
There is evidence that the more egalitarian a society is the more the sexes make different occupational and educational choices. Being able to freely choose exacerbates differences and thus “inequalities.” Women as a group gravitate more towards socially-oriented jobs if they are given the opportunity. This is why women who do well in STEM subjects frequently choose non-STEM careers.
Consider that Finland excels in gender equality, its adolescent girls outperform boys in science, and it ranks near the top in European educational performance. With these high levels of educational performance and overall gender equality, Finland is poised to close the sex differences gap in STEM. Yet, Finland has one of the world’s largest sex differences in college degrees in STEM fields. Norway and Sweden, also leading in gender equality rankings, are not far behind. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as this general pattern of increasing sex differences with national increases in gender equality is found throughout the world.
Three factors probably contribute to male ascendency in STEM areas. One is that men tend to be more “thing” and abstract-concept oriented, e.g., scientific theory, than women. Young girls are likely to draw social scenes, young boys an action scene. When women are interested in science, they tend to be more interested in living things — fields such as biology, or veterinary science. Another is that sexual selection pressures from women favor men who earn more money with the associated high social status which STEM careers provide. Women who earn large salaries, on the contrary, find it harder to marry, especially given their proclivity to marry across and up the social strata. Finally, many males who have high math skills have a correspondingly low emotional intelligence. There is no such correlation with women. Women who are good at math are good readers more often than men. So, men gifted in STEM subjects tend to have fewer career options than math-savvy women with their superior social, linguistic and verbal skills.
When [women] first gained the opportunity to enter the workforce there were far more women in engineering [and computer science] than there is now. Numbers grew and then dropped steadily. Countries like India and Iran have higher numbers of women in engineering, even though they are far less equal. The reason [appears to be that] women wanted an education, regardless of what it was. In Scandinavia as women saw that they can choose what they’re interested in, as opposed to just choosing a college course for the sake of going college; we see that women choose socially oriented subjects.
Less egalitarian areas of the world have numbers like Central Asia (47.2%), Latin American and the Caribbean (44.7%), Central and Eastern Europe (39.6%), and the Arab States (39.9%) while the USA has (29%).
The so-called wage gap between men and women is often presented as a problematic inequality. Sexual selection pressures account for some of this; women choosing high-earning men disproportionately. This forces men into different occupational choices — male-dominated jobs tending to have highly unattractive features like exposure to the elements, hard physical labor, poor chances of reaching retirement in that career and high chances for injury and death. These include firemen, policemen, loggers, roofers, contractors, miners, truckers, linesmen and so on. Consequently, supply and demand push up men’s wages.
This teacher throws in the towel after ten years. How did she ever manage to last so long?
I have known some “at-risk” kids, but for the most part, they were quiet and passive. However, after six years of public “education” they were no less resistant to change than the thugs she describes.