Jared Taylor on Diversity versus Standards.

 

18 replies
  1. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    How will this culminate in anything except our eventual extinction? It all begins with the destruction of statues, icons, memorials, graves, careers and books. It ends with execution pits.

  2. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    It is really sickening. I would just say that I wish all those whites leaving/fleeing California (the Bolshevik state par excellence) could be stopped because I am quite sure that the majority of them were/are liberals/democrats who supported this crap. Let’s face it, California has been overwhelmingly Marxist/Liberal/Democrat for decades. The problem is that when the Mexicans and black that they profess to love so much become the majority and turn their neighbourhoods into hellholes, the f… hypocrites leave. Most whites are cowards that won’t fight. They deserve everything they get.

  3. David Schmitt
    David Schmitt says:

    Starting while a teaching assistant in graduate school, then in the 1990s, while teaching in colleges, I obsessed over grading tests. I was scrupulous about the quality of each question of the exam: I did not want to waste time on any question that did not accurately reflect the material taught, but I also want to make sure that the questions were not trivial nor give-away items with embedded clues, and so on. Grading the essays would take me well into the night for days and would fill up my weekends. The product of all of this effort in my formative years were tests that were rigorous, but fair. I then developed an algorithm that would curve the exam grades so as to extract the influence of me, the test writer. Though this was the principal reason, there are other reasons for employing a curving mechnism and it can be done in a way that maintains high standards. What most teachers and students think of as a curve is merely adding so many points to everyone’s score, thereby shifting the distribution of scores. But this kind–or kink–of equality or marxo-equity is insidiously not just, nor does it reflect reality in Nature. What I had not set out to do, explicitly, was to craft a device for measuring intelligence. But that is what, in fact, I managed to accomplish—I am quite certain. Of course, I did not have access to student IQ scores. That would be the definitive, next step in the argument. Embarrassed of that evidence, however, would you like to bet on what a statistical comparison of the results of my scoring and a distribution of IQ scores would demonstrate? In retrospect, that achieving a fair and valid test and scoring of the same would tap into that metric called “g” should not be surprising. A good test in any field (again, one that is fair and valid) presents to the test taker with a sample, or reflection, of reality. It approximates the real world. And the real world is the fair and valid intelligence test of ultimate concern. Not all tests are fair and valid, as you might expect. In fact, since our college’s policy, like many, was to post the test scores and course grades outside of the doors of our faculty offices, I was able to perform little studies on the modes of grading exhibited by my colleagues. It is possible, given the similarity of studet makeup within the department, to statisitically draw some conclusions regarding the degree to which the professors digressed from expected metrics of likeihood for the distribution of their class grades. The deviations from these expectations were always in the direction of grade inflation. One faculty member would, as a matter of monotonous policy, provide every one of his students with a course grade of “A.” Yeah! A complete disregard for standards! I even called in to a local radio station in San Francisco to expose that situation to the morning-drive listeners. Naturally, that case did not require any statistical sweat to make proper inferences about the integrity of that particular inividual’s grading practices. Other cases were a bit more subtle, but not much–really–when you devote just a little perception and thought to recognizing grading fraud. You can bet too that the fraud was, given the altered demographics of the faculty, anti-White. I am more than just guessing about this based on anedotal case observations. Another problem is that teachers, professors and instructors of all sorts are–given the lax environment in all sectors of society–unable to resist the wheedling of students or other complainants. You can be additionally assured that this wheedling is amplified in its potency when generous references are made to racial, sexual or other eggregiously codified identity. And if that insinuation does not immediately work on the faculty member (although now it is almost guaranteed to work), then a curling of the force vectors up through the dean’s office and back down to the faculty member will do the trick. Never have more cowardly beings been created than most managers, administrators, upper-level bureaucrats, milirary brass, religious prelates and corporate executives. Oh indeed English bard, with the lawyers done, we’d just begun.

  4. HUGO FUERST
    HUGO FUERST says:

    Jared is an asset. He is just the sort who would make a patriotic POTUS; and he looks good and talks well too. And no carping about the Yoonohooze, please.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        I agree that Taylor is an asset, though less what an investor means by the term than an asset of the sort that is portrayed by Clive Owen and Karl Urban in the first two of Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne films.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I wonder whether Taylor’s mom would have laid it on as thick as you have, Ned/Oscar/Hugo.

      Even though your opinion of Jared Taylor is widely shared within the see-no-Jewish- evil community, you ought to do others the courtesy of not instructing them as to what they may and may not carp about. I for one shall carp as I much as I please about Taylor’s refusal to acknowledge that Jewish influence is central to our present plight.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Ah?! Is Ned/Oscar/Hugo a Jewish apologist/ignorer of the issue?
        Right. That makes sense. I was pulling him up for something ridiculous he said, i don’t think it was specifically about Jews, or maybe it was.
        Either way, it just proves, lie to yourself and/or others, about such things, and you get yourself into all sorts of embarrassing messes. Plus you leave yourself wide open to get publicaly apart ripped sumit sore, by non-educated underclass plebs such as myself.
        I’m as irresponsible as they come, more than one father has told me I’m the epitome of the type of guy they tell their daughters to stay away from. I’ve accomplished absolutely nothing in my life-in the the status/materiel realm, but even I can smell BS at 100 paces, and know like I know the sky is blue that you really have to just tell the truth as you see it, to avoid others seeing right through you.
        Any little lies, dodges, avoidences, just give you away like you’ve got a neon LIAR sign flashing brightly above your coupon.
        EVERYTHING has to be on the table, Jews, holohoaxes, Adolph Hitler, 9/11, the Protocols, (is it just me, or is there a pattern linking all this hard-core verboten materiel?)or we all end up inextricably on a non-stop ride to full censorship & Loserville, or Conservative Inc to give it it’s respectable name.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          … is there a pattern linking all this hard-core verboten material?

          Yes indeed. What’s more, the Jews and their allies have a specialized term for the ability to spot a pattern wherein Jews are involved. They call it “anti-Semitism.”

          Apropos Ned/Oscar/Hugo, he has now invented another identity: Desert Flower.* DF and Hugo are “dialoguing” vigorously on the thread under the excellent article by the newcomer Liv Heide. DF’s and Hugo’s primary concern seems to be, as usual, to “cancel” opposition to their own point of view.
          _________________________
          * Is the name Desert Flower meant to suggest Ned’s hardiness and fortitude in even the most inhospitable conditions? Seems a trifle grandiose, wouldn’t you say?

  5. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    I wonder whether Taylor’s mom would have laid it on as thick as you have, Ned/Oscar/Hugo.

    Even though your opinion of Jared Taylor is widely shared within the see-no-Jewish- evil community, you ought to do others the courtesy of not instructing them as to what they may and may not carp about. I for one shall carp as I much as I please about Taylor’s refusal to acknowledge that Jewish influence is central to our present plight.

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      Mr. de Craon, it is an interesting question, in any struggle, whether all need to maintain a coherent and uniform front in the opinion- and analysis-space, or whether coalitions are to be built from the addition of vectors which have–at least–a small vector in the direction one desires or sees as an accurate representation of things. I understand the push, and the tolerance, for both.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Coalition building is generally a good thing, David, and establishment or maintenance of an ideological, analytical, or rhetorical united front is something that reasonable men can differ about—and frequently do—depending on the situation and on what said reasonable men expect to gain from the presence or absence of a united front.

        The matter in dispute here, however, is a horse of an entirely different color. Specifically, it concerns whether a semi-closeted proponent of avoidance of “extremism” in all things having to do with the Jews (viz., Ned/Oscar/Hugo) ought to be permitted to go unchallenged when—in one of his three or four different, albeit clumsily disguised, screen identities—he instructs watchers of Taylor’s emotionally contrived, analytically lightweight video what they are not permitted to think about or discuss if they wish to stay in his good books.

        In the present day, the heavy hand of powerfully resurgent Judeo-Bolshevism is using every resource at its disposal to bring discredit, even harm, upon anyone who fails to march in lockstep with its dictates in any of a score of matters wherein an American’s wonted freedom of thought and expression is no longer even accorded the hypocritical courtesy of pro forma acknowledgment. Given that I am resisting our enemies wherever and whenever I can and as publicly as I can, I hardly think it’s either reasonable or civilized for even a fair-weather friend—again, Ned/Oscar/Hugo—to issue similar marching orders and not expect to get called out for his conduct.

        • David Schmitt
          David Schmitt says:

          Pierre: quite right. My pedagogical analogy for coalition building based upon vector algebra does not, as presented, provide for deception. It needs to, and I need to work on that immediately.

          The existence of a widespread and highly-effective, false propaganda and mind-control machine discourages many and is a cause, as well, for great anxiety in them and others. But clever propagandists–especially the deceptive ones–must give away some novel truths as bait. Of course they admix the truth with lies, the principal “big lie” that they want to advance. But we can discern the morsels of truth from internal and external evidence and put it to good use with truth that we can garner elsewhere. Also, there is good signal–when properly inverted–even in their lies, if one knows how to use it as a contrast agent.

    • HUGO FUERST
      HUGO FUERST says:

      Several specific Jewish influences, motivations and actions are a crucial factor, but need to be examined with meticulous accuracy and opposed with effective propaganda; e.g. the threat to free speech about Holywood, 9/11, WW2, wokeism.

      An unsophisticated spluttering combination of monomania and pontification, however, is a free gift to the ADL, AIPAC, SPLC &c.

  6. HUGO FUERST
    HUGO FUERST says:

    @ P. d’Ennui & David Schmitt

    Free speech, open debate, careful analysis of available evidence, all round.
    Allez-y!

Comments are closed.