the Southern Poverty Law Center? Because the blurbs that I've seen there are a little less flattering:

"One thing that separates Taylor from much of the radical right, however, is his lack of anti-Semitism; he told MSNBC-TV interviewer Phil Donahue in 2003 that Jews "are fine by me" and "look white to me." That view may be related to his wife, who some in the movement have said is Jewish."

Doesn't seem to be the words of an "opponent of antisemitism". See here, and here.

"A good example is Jared Taylor of National Renaissance. Although he does not take a position on the preeminent Jewish role in the anti-White efforts of media, politics and academia, and although he has had Jewish speakers, even rabbis at his conferences, he does not promote the lie that there has been no Jewish role in egalitarianism, or that somehow we should now support the same Jewish power structure that is wiping our heritage off of the map. That is the right way to do it. Speak about what you want to focus on, but don’t condemn those who go further in telling the truth about the real forces behind the racial disaster facing us." David Duke

"Doesn't seem to be the words of an "opponent of antisemitism". See here, and here."

Those the SPLC's words not mine.. considering they don't pull any punches about their opinion of Taylor on other matters, why don't you ask them..? Apparently they see (as well as I..) something you can not..or will not.. acknowledge..

Duke sees (or used to see... as I said he now apparently believes Taylor is in with or controlled by "the Jews"..) what he wanted to see in Taylor..
I am repeating myself but it appeared that Taylor was trying to guide Duke et al away from his antisemitism but he failed. If you wish you may continue this discussion at Amren which has both Jewish writers and posters.. perhaps you have gleaned something more than the SPLC or the many ethnic Jews who have worked with Taylor over the years have failed to see.

Funny, the one relatively innocuous comment I made there never made it's way onto the board.

So no, I don't think a discussion at American Renaissance will be possible.

Semantics aside, Taylor is a racist. He is diplomatic and well-spoken, making his arguments in carefully couched terms. But that doesn't make him less of a racist, it makes him a more clever racist.

To go back to a previous point, if we were to conduct a study on people who make public comments about the undesirable qualities of Black people, I'm confident that we'd discover that such people are at significantly increased probability of committing crimes directed at Black people. Shall we use this data as justification to cavity-search Mr. Taylor every time he crosses a border? Shall we bring him in for questioning every time there is a hate crime in Virginia?

If not, why? It's only profiling, after all, and Jared should be willing to subject himself to the same indignities he proposes for Black people. Shouldn't he?

And what about you? Shall we assume that you're aiding and abetting? I mean, it's difficult to argue with statistics, and I am quite sure the actuarial data would suggest such a course.

I have no knowledge of attendance other than I plan to be there. Will you?

Where is the evidence for racial equality? I see none in the real world. And it's not just black/white. Consider the saga of the Chinese in Malaysia. Brought in to man hoes and socially abandoned by the Bumiputras, they developed their own schools for their young. Within several generations they dominated Malaysian society economically just as the Indian immigrants did in Kenya.

In the US 25-30% of the Forbes 400 are Jews, yet they remain only about 2% of the population. What percent are black? The list of the 100 most influential people in the US (Vanity Fair) was almost 50% Jewish. How do you explain these facts other than by biological ethnic and racial differences in IQ and other characteristics? Chance? Chance fails when the situation (like black levels of crime) are worldwide.

Here Linda Gottfredson explains the issue in a well reasoned way.

<link>

Louis Andrews, Realist

Gottfredson takes a novel approach to the straw man approach (the multiple straw man approach) that conveniently glosses over the profound ambiguity in this research - ambiguity associated with the nature of "g", it's measurement, the measurement of correlated variables, and terribly misleading heritability estimates that in effect attribute all interaction effects to "genetics", and thus produce an egregiously over-estimated impact of genes. Finally, should the genetic explanation be validated, there is a huge assumption about what that genetic difference represents - one that is completely unwarranted, given our state of conceptual toddlerhood in regards to the complex interplay between genes and the environment.

The "racialists" of the day are uninterested in such specifics, but would rather focus their efforts on providing "evidence" for changes in social policy that, in essence, further disenfranchise vulnerable minorities (and serve to reinforce the entire sequence that leads to such misleading observations).

No, I'm not interested in attending - I would much rather participate in solutions to these problems, rather than exacerbate them. Besides, if Jared Taylor can't even publish a fairly innocuous comment on his site (a two-liner and link, for God's sake), the idea that he is supporting an environment of free and open discourse is rather undermined, don't you think?

But you feel free to participate with your group of smug racists, who are seemingly incapable of taking a step back for long enough to consider that the evidence they think they have doesn't adequately support the conclusions they wish to support.

Funny, seems like there are a number of Jewish commentators who have arrived at conclusions contrary to yours (here's one).

"Jewish speakers were gone after 2002. The 2004 conference featured Paul Fromm, who had long been associated with the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial movements, as well as Sam Dickson and Joe Sobran, who spent most of his speech attacking Israel. By 2006, a mere 12 years after the first AR conference, the audience consisted largely of non-Jewish, non-religious men without any ties to the mainstream conservative movement. Moreover, this was the first conference that Jared Taylor allowed David Duke to attend. A large contingent of devotees of Stormfront, the largest neo-Nazi website, were also present."

As expected you don't address any of the issues I raised.

The problem is that we see the world so differently that you are incapable of granting any moral authority to people like Jared Taylor or me. The link to a great paper by a liberal (Professor Jonathan Haidt) below explains why. Liberal egalitarians have a two factor morality while those like me have a five factor morality (which includes your two factors). I am capable of understanding you, but you are morally incapable of understand people like me. Read the article and you might understand the abyss that separates us.<link>

Louis Andrews, Realist

I guess you're not much one for Kohlberg, eh? How about Dialectics?

On the other hand, you are providing an elegant example of the manner in which intellect can serve to facilitate self-deception - a point I've mentioned a couple of times. As is so often, and so obviously, the case in polarized internet debates, both sides begin to point fingers that would more accurately be pointed at themselves. I just have to say, I continue to find that fascinating in it's implications. I am impressed, however, at the conceptual lengths you are reaching for in the service of undermining my credibility.

Jared Taylor (and yourself) are unable to grant credence to the perspective of your detractors, and now you're assuming a stance of moral superiority. If these issues were not so serious, I'd laugh. In the most generous interpretation, Jared Taylor is a deluded utilitarian.

I will look at your link later, however.

Again, I'll look at your link later.

If one accepts a framework of moral/ethical development that is hierarchical in nature (which I assume you do, given your comment), what impact do you suppose threat assessment has on the calculus employed in a given situation? Can you understand how this applies to the discussion we're (in the collective sense) having on this topic today? Further, do you think this extends to cognitive functioning? (hint - it does). Last, do you think it's possible, or even plausible, that this extends to epigenetic influences?

You assume I've come to cognitive closure on the topic. Actually, what underlies my entire objection is that I am quite convinced that cognitive closure on this topic is very, very premature. I wonder - how does that fit in to your ethical calculus?

I've got to go earn some daily bread, but I'll look at your link later. If these are topics you are willing to explore, this discussion might actually become interesting.

GeneralDisarray, Uberrealist

Again, I'll look at your link later.

That would help as we are talking past each other.

If one accepts a framework of moral/ethical development that is hierarchical in nature (which I assume you do, given your comment), what impact do you suppose threat assessment has on the calculus employed in a given situation? Can you understand how this applies to the discussion we're (in the collective sense) having on this topic today? Further, do you think this extends to cognitive functioning? (hint - it does). Last, do you think it's possible, or even plausible, that this extends to epigenetic influences?

That is an example of how we are talking past each other. I'm not talking about development which is Kohlberg's big issue, but about the factors involved in adult moral reasoning. There is no hierarchy involved here.

You assume I've come to cognitive closure on the topic. Actually, what underlies my entire objection is that I am quite convinced that cognitive closure on this topic is very, very premature. I wonder - how does that fit in to your ethical calculus?

That's very good as there may hope for you yet! The evidence on the validity of g and that of race differences in IQ is huge. The existing black/white IQ gap has been know and tested for almost 100 years some but little change. My ethical calculus encourages me try to get folks without cognitive closure as environmental egalitarians to just look at the evidence for differences and compare it to the lack of evidence for the no differences argument.

In terms of the quality of the arguments, look at the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. The entire issue is devoted to the topic of race differences. Note the difference in the quality of the arguments. The difference is astounding.

Louis Andrews, Realist

Never mind, I guess - I just got hopeful there for a minute.

Well, as a last ditch I'll ask this - by your model of ethical reasoning (whatever it is), does the moral calculus change as a function of threat assessment, and if so, how?

So far as the arguments are concerned - yes, there is an internally cohesive, persuasive argument being presented. That it is fundamentally flawed never gets considered from within the conceptual frame the arguments' authors insist it be considered in. Thus, we have a profound communication breakdown (as you say, we are talking past each other). Each considers the other to be on the other side of a distorting lens. Only one of us, however, seems to be considering the manner in which lenses are universally distorting.

But I'd be happy to have a conversation with you about Lynn's ridiculous MMPI study. If this is the type of scientist upon which you are relying, I'm afraid I have some terrible news for you...

GeneralDisarray, Ocularrealist

Well, as a last ditch I'll ask this - by your model of ethical reasoning (whatever it is), does the moral calculus change as a function of threat assessment, and if so, how?

It really depends on the clarity and detailedness of the underlying "fixed" premises. If it is merely "do not kill another human," then it would (or should, for some it might not) change if one is confronted by someone with a gun or knife intent on harm. If the underlying premise was expanded to include such situations, then it would not need to change as "a function of threat assessment." Level of moral thinking depends to some extent on intelligence, thus whites and Orientals have a capacity for higher moral thinking than subSarahan Africans or American blacks as a group, but not necessarily individually. (See Levin, Why Race Matters on Banfield and Kohnberg)

So far as the arguments are concerned - yes, there is an internally cohesive, persuasive argument being presented. That it is fundamentally flawed never gets considered from within the conceptual frame the arguments' authors insist it be considered in. Thus, we have a profound communication breakdown (as you say, we are talking past each other). Each considers the other to be on the other side of a distorting lens. Only one of us, however, seems to be considering the manner in which lenses are universally distorting.

What is the "conceptual frame" you are writing about?I don't believe the lenses "are universally distorting."

But I'd be happy to have a conversation with you about Lynn's ridiculous MMPI study. If this is the type of scientist upon which you are relying, I'm afraid I have some terrible news for you...

I know Richard Lynn well and have published his last two books (Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis and IQ and Global Inequality - with Tatu Vanhanen). He is an amazing and productive scholar. BTW the MMPI piece you refer to was a short version of a much more detailed study he published in the peer-reviewed Personality and Individual Differences, published in London by Elsevier, a rather respected name in academic publishing.

Louis Andrews, Realist

Louis:

Could youp please name and link (to the original source) the top 10 studies that show White-Black IQ differences on the order of a standard deviation or more. Preferably the ones that most control for environment directly and preferably done after 1985.

Are men more intelligent, as measured by IQ, than women by 5-6 IQ points?