Schools Slow in Closing Gap Between Races

Posted by rustymason on December 01, 2006, 11:21 AM | #

And if the schools weren’t so communistic, anti-White, and bureaucratic, just imagine how much smarter all the children would be! 

Homeschool Now.  Ask Me How.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 01, 2006, 05:31 PM | #

In fact, accepting the Jensenist hypothesis that the difference in intelligence is primarily heritable, with a small portion being environmental, the gap should be much narrower than it is, given the environmentalists’ hypotheses.

This puts them into the interesting position of having to become more radical in their environmentalism over time, attributing the constant performance gap to shrinking environmental differences (e.g., “stereotype threat”).

Posted by Guessedworker on December 01, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

Thanks Matt.  But is there meant to bea link to a Rushton article here?

Anyhow, let’s inject an idea or two.

It’s already an extraordinary state of affairs when psychometric and genetic knowledge is required to protect us against the political assault of egalitarianism.  We managed perfectly well without them for centuries, of course, because we properly deduced from our civilisational superiority that we were superior as a people.

But the middle years of the 20th century destroyed the basis for that.  What was only ever the inchoate virtues of common-sense and long experience have proved completely incapable of withstanding the stream of anti-white racism coming out of the political and cultural Establishment.

When I look at the present dispersment of forces it is not difficult to fall prey to pessimism.  We have science, but it is a battlefield in itself.  We have Nature.  We have the still surviving last redoubts of common-sense.  We are re-learning what these invaders are really like, and we are organising politically.  But it is slow, slow work.

On the debit side, we are frighteningly suggestible.  We have no guiding idea to sustain us against the egalitarian brainwashing, no sense of destiny, no general confidence.  Most of all, we have no philosophy, at least we English-speakers don’t (we never had an overt political nationalist strain in intellectual life, and Conservativism is notoriously non-philosophical).  That’s the reason we have collapsed so spectacularly before the vicious and relentless moralising that, let us not forget, originated only among a miniscule number of academics and political activists.

Against us now, though, are the forces of history, of the imperium, of demographics.  They cover a battlefield as wide as the West.  It should be obvious that IQ testing is only a rapier, and its best use is not in the broad area of popular conflict but in those tight corners where it would have greatest utility.  It needs to be delivered into the hands of those engaged in the practical debate over educational goals and expenditure and quota-based employment policies.  But right now the general tenor of debate is too anti-racist, and willing hands have absented themselves.

So we come back to waiting for change to well-up among our kind, and embrazen some of those in public life to speak the unspeakable.  It will.  We have to keep speaking.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 03, 2006, 02:58 AM | #

“how big money and a handful of scholars are able to use shady science, along with the media, to promote a religious agenda against science”  (—from the log entry)

Stephen Jay Gould’s favorite mention about the arbitrariness of the g-factor from test scores is totally unmentioned these days, because Gould didn’t understand factor analysis.

That’s not all he didn’t understand.  He didn’t understand honesty.  There can be no doubt but that he understood there are races and didn’t for one second believe his own race-denying sophistries.  He understood the science, all right.  What made him come out “against” that science was his inability to understand honesty.  Like most communists he wasn’t able to grasp that politics ends where scientific inquiry begins and from there on it’s one-hundred-percent commitment to object truth to the best of your ability.  Prof. Gould couldn’t get that.  He didn’t have the stuff within him — didn’t have the honesty stuff within.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on December 03, 2006, 06:23 AM | #

But right now the general tenor of debate is too anti-racist, and willing hands have absented themselves.

You’re telling me.

Posted by john on December 03, 2006, 07:50 AM | #

Here’sthe link to Prof. Rushdons site:
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

Posted by Guessedworker on December 03, 2006, 08:12 AM | #

Thanks John.  I have added that link and traced the original NYT piece and put that in as well.