Liberals have declared war on reason

secondly there are natural variations between all groups because Mother Nature does not believe in equality.

Agreed. Across all people of the world, some are clever and some weak, some strong and some weak, some agile, some disabled.

Sorry - but what has that got to do with race?

The average person in the U.K. or USA today, if you covert their money to Indian Rupees and look at the purchasing power in India, they are very strong, but in their own context, many are holding two or three jobs just to pay their bills.

Gosh - talk about mixing apples, oranges and bad metaphors. I was thinking more along the lines of - if you want a job in the world and especially one that pays a lot of money, are you going to be ultimately interviewed by a white person or a black person?

Its a fair question. But I find it sad that you pick on this organisation rather than the inequality that sees the majority of Oxbridge students coming from privately educated backgrounds. These students have access not only to the very best education money can buy, but influence and networks that allow them to tap straight into Oxbridge elite.

Yet you choose to criticise an organisation that aims to help the most disadvantaged of disadvantaged people in the country. Odd!

Why not target all disadvantaged people? A fair point. But as a white disadvantaged person applying to Oxbridge you are already significantly more advantaged than your black peer.

No it’s no a they did it too argument - it’s a don’t be blind and don’t have an agenda and only target one group for having slaves when all groups had slaves.

BLM, no ALM. Same nonsense. Look at your own faults first, not at others.

This is American census bureau income by ethnicity data from 2015.

Rank Race Median household income (2015 US$)
1 Asian 74,245[1]
2 White 59,698[1]
3 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 55,607[1]
4 Some other race 42,461[1]
5 American Indian and Alaska Native 38,530[1]
6 Black or African American 36,544[1]

Asian people earn more than whites, and it’s no coincidence that race and IQ studies found them to be the smartest group.

This shows that this income disparity is not actually caused by racism but simply by group performance.

"But I find it sad that you pick on this organisation rather than the inequality that sees the majority of Oxbridge students coming from privately educated backgrounds."

Cambridge 2016 : Home Applicants

State educated Applications: 66%
Private schools: 28%
Other: 6%

I 'find it sad' when you make such statements without first checking your facts.

"These students have access not only to the very best education money can buy, but influence and networks that allow them to tap straight into Oxbridge elite."

It is too crude a measure to say private school good; state school bad. In some areas of the country, selective state schools have been completely abolished and it is a stark choice between the local sink school or go private. Hard-pressed parents downsize their houses; increase their debt and struggle like mad to allow their children to study without fear; not for any likelihood of buying elite influence. Meanwhile many state schools are in very wealthy areas; academically selective and provide better resources than most private schools.

Yet you choose to criticise an organisation that aims to help the most disadvantaged of disadvantaged people in the country. Odd!"

Apart from being black, students need to be 'high attainers'; the website for Target Oxbridge makes no reference to the students needing to be disadvantaged.
The most disadvantaged group in society educationally are now white working class boys: just Google it.

I stared this thread to comment on liberal double standards and inability to see the balance of truth.

Therefore my comment on the subject of slavery is liberals seeing white owned slavery but not the slavery that the rest of the planet owned.

Yet you are accusing me of not looking at my own faults first! I perfectly well acknowledge white owned slaver and all other people’s owned slavery. It’s not be that has the double standard, it’s liberals!

What you are trying to insinuate is that by not having a double standard I don’t acknowledge my own faults or the historic faults of my own people. You don’t need double standards to acknowledge faults.

That is the difference between the liberal view and the centre alt-right view (as opposed to extremist alt-right view) which liberals think is horrible and racist for not having their double standards.

Fair play. I didn't fact check. But 30% is still way higher than the 6.5% of students educated privately in this country. Put it this way - you are more significantly more likely to go to one of the best universities in the country if you are privately educated. My argument holds.

And those hard pressed parents who downsize and extend their mortgage to move into catchment? Where have you been? They are not the impoverished "hard working families" some might like to portray. They are the not-quite-middle class brigade who can't quite afford private education but can at least leverage their position in society by moving into good catchments. That said, the price is high for some. If you want your little Bessie to go to Altringham Girls Grammar school, you are looking at £1 million+ to move into catchment.

So what were you saying about the genuinely underprivileged again?

And just for reference, white working class boys are actually third in terms of attainment, behind service children and traveller's children. But that is about attainment in school, not about life chances overall.

I said working class white boys are now officially the most disadvantaged group in education, but no Target Oxbridge for them I'm afraid. There are some horrendously underprivileged students in our society, but they won't in general be helped by schemes like Target Oxbridge and Oxbridge Summer Schools.

Agreed. So isn't it thankful that Target Oxbridge is targeting some underprivileged students?

Or are you advocating that because it is only hitting some students and not all, it should therefore be disbanded?

Are the only choices to target specific ethnic groups or disband it, or is there a third option, to target all ethnic groups?

Depends who's paying I guess. There is nothing to stop the funding of whoever you like.

If you feel white working class boys are being disadvantaged, why don't you set up a charity to target them?

The main thing is that Target Oxbridge is just one example of a situation where white people are being excluded which you denied existed.

I never denied that at all. Life is unfair. People of all colours and creeds are excluded. But in society as a whole, black people are denied access to jobs, opportunities and services on a daily basis. Something you seem unable to accept.

It is true that white working class boys do worse at school, but once they are in the real world, their opportunities are massively increased over a black person in a similar place in life. That is the point of Target Oxbridge.

. But as white people, we don't experience racism on a daily basis. We are not prevented from getting jobs, or being served in shops, or stopped and searched by the police frequently, or any other manner of social barriers simply because of the colour of out skin. If we did understand and experience that, perhaps we might have a little empathy for people like this Nigerian chap you mentioned and his motives for Tweeting what he did.

The difference is more like the difference between a Collie and a Poodle. I was just using dog and cat as an analogy for merging different categories into one.