http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-jews-jazz-socialism.html
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3613&cpage=1
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro
Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro
email: frankscott@comcast.net
Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in print in The Independent Monitor and online at the blog Legalienate
The politics over the Jewish IQ.
Dear Der weiße Engel:
You are not up to speed. On the other hand why would you or anyone else be up to speed.
Kevin MacDonald's (KMD's) trilogy was published in the 1990s. In 2001, I asked Prof. Richard Lynn at an American Renaissance Conference, if he agreed with the statement I made in the form of a question. My question was caught on tape and so was the bizarre response. The question (I am doing this from memory, so it may not be exact, but the essence is the same):
That if you sub-sect the European population by Northern and Western Europeans, just like the data on European Jewish IQ is separated from the Sephardic IQ, would it not be within a 4 point range and therefore it would be in the comparable range? Meaning statistically the same. (It is only when when the spread is 5 or more points do you notice a real difference on the charts.) I also added that the Gentile IQ for all White ethnies was almost a standard deviation higher (12 points) in spatial reasoning, than the Jewish IQ based on his data.
He answered in agreement with me. Before he could finish his answer, Prof. Rushton rushed to the podium and took over the mike. A perplexed Prof. Lynn stood aside. Then Prof. Rushton made it very clear that there must be something wrong with the data that Lynn compiled that showed a national IQ for Israel of 94. He went on to say that it must be around 110, with no data to back-up his claim. I am not making this up, it is on the DVD that the AR sells-for 2001. Prof. Rushton got the last word for a talk that was meant for Prof. Lynn.
After Richard Lynn's talk, Rushton avoided me like the plague even though he promised me from the podium that he would address my question in private. But, why in private? Finally, when I thought I got his attention he started to walk very fast (this is no exaggeration) in the opposite direction of me. Later, when I cornered him he gave me 5 seconds of his time. He told me in private that it was conjecture on his part. That he had no data to support a Jewish IQ in Israel for 110. To this day he still does not. And guess what his latest answer is? That it is anecdotal on his part, and he still stands by his answer.
Why? I had a strong hunch in 2001 but I kept it to myself. It would be over the years did my hunch convince me that Rushton is pushing for an agenda. He told two acquaintances of mine, two years apart from each other the following summation:
That the only way we (meaning Europeans) can succeed is to work with the political and economic power that Jews have in the Western Hemisphere –our Salvation is through the Jews. He wants Holocaust Revisionism to die out and wants to put Jews on a pedestal for salvation purposes. This, he believes, is how to save the White race from further shrinkage and to preserve European Civilization.
You can believe it or not believe it, but I have no reason to make this-up!
Over the years since 2001, the data has been vacillating over what the Jewish IQ is. Prof. Lynn wrote a paper increasing the Jewish IQ from 103 (when we spoke in 2001) to 107 based on some data showing 105, and then rounded it up to a 1/2 standard deviation by saying it is 107. Then KMD revises his own understanding and he revises his thinking from 115 down a 1/2 standard deviation to 107. Then Prof. Lynn comes out with another new paper with "anecdotal" data (sound familiar?) and arrives to a new number of 110. Then KMD agrees to the new paper by Lynn.
So in 2010, everyone is agreeing with the soft science of Prof. Rushton that I experienced in 2001.
Peace.
Michael santomauro
ReporterNotebook@gmail.com
917-974-6367
PS: The AR crowd at the conference was just as shocked as Prof. Lynn, at the behavior of Prof. Rushton. It never happened in AR history before or since that a speaker would be interfered by a separate speaker when the podium was meant for a sole speaker, in this case Prof. Lynn. And Prof. Rushton was sitting in the audience. Over 250 people were talking amongst themselves about it during the coffee break.
The politics over the Jewish IQ.
Dear Der weiße Engel:
You are not up to speed. On the other hand why would you or anyone else be up to speed.
Kevin MacDonald's (KMD's) trilogy was published in the 1990s. In 2001, I asked Prof. Richard Lynn at an American Renaissance Conference, if he agreed with the statement I made in the form of a question. My question was caught on tape and so was the bizarre response. The question (I am doing this from memory, so it may not be exact, but the essence is the same):
That if you sub-sect the European population by Northern and Western Europeans, just like the data on European Jewish IQ is separated from the Sephardic IQ, would it not be within a 4 point range and therefore it would be in the comparable range? Meaning statistically the same. (It is only when when the spread is 5 or more points do you notice a real difference on the charts.) I also added that the Gentile IQ for all White ethnies was almost a standard deviation higher (12 points) in spatial reasoning, than the Jewish IQ based on his data.
He answered in agreement with me. Before he could finish his answer, Prof. Rushton rushed to the podium and took over the mike. A perplexed Prof. Lynn stood aside. Then Prof. Rushton made it very clear that there must be something wrong with the data that Lynn compiled that showed a national IQ for Israel of 94. He went on to say that it must be around 110, with no data to back-up his claim. I am not making this up, it is on the DVD that the AR sells-for 2001. Prof. Rushton got the last word for a talk that was meant for Prof. Lynn.
After Richard Lynn's talk, Rushton avoided me like the plague even though he promised me from the podium that he would address my question in private. But, why in private? Finally, when I thought I got his attention he started to walk very fast (this is no exaggeration) in the opposite direction of me. Later, when I cornered him he gave me 5 seconds of his time. He told me in private that it was conjecture on his part. That he had no data to support a Jewish IQ in Israel for 110. To this day he still does not. And guess what his latest answer is? That it is anecdotal on his part, and he still stands by his answer.
Why? I had a strong hunch in 2001 but I kept it to myself. It would be over the years did my hunch convince me that Rushton is pushing for an agenda. He told two acquaintances of mine, two years apart from each other the following summation:
That the only way we (meaning Europeans) can succeed is to work with the political and economic power that Jews have in the Western Hemisphere –our Salvation is through the Jews. He wants Holocaust Revisionism to die out and wants to put Jews on a pedestal for salvation purposes. This, he believes, is how to save the White race from further shrinkage and to preserve European Civilization.
You can believe it or not believe it, but I have no reason to make this-up!
Over the years since 2001, the data has been vacillating over what the Jewish IQ is. Prof. Lynn wrote a paper increasing the Jewish IQ from 103 (when we spoke in 2001) to 107 based on some data showing 105, and then rounded it up to a 1/2 standard deviation by saying it is 107. Then KMD revises his own understanding and he revises his thinking from 115 down a 1/2 standard deviation to 107. Then Prof. Lynn comes out with another new paper with
"anecdotal" date (sound familiar?) and arrives to a new number of 110. Then KMD agrees to the new paper by Lynn.
So in 2010, everyone is agreeing with the soft science of Prof. Rushton that I experienced in 2001.
Peace.
Michael santomauro
ReporterNotebook@gmail.com
917-974-6367
PS: The AR crowd at the conference was just as shocked as Prof. Lynn, at the behavior of Prof. Rushton. It never happened in AR history before or since that a speaker would be interfered by a separate speaker when the podium was meant for a sole speaker, in this case Prof. Lynn. And Prof. Rushton was sitting in the audience. Over 250 people were talking amongst themselves about it during the coffee break.
