Hardric:
The Mantra and bolding.
One time I gave the same math exam to two different groups of students, with one exception. In one question I bolded a critical part of the question.
The results were remarkable. Those who took the exam with the bolded emphasis did much better on that question than the other group.
So here is a possibility: But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race for making a critical emphasis in the Mantra.
#1 by Persev on 10/09/2007 - 3:19 pm
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against the WHITE race…
Wording and emphasis more important when others can’t see who you are, we should all strive to be as effective as possible. Good point by the way, how can we better cause others to really think about what we are saying or writing rather than just reading through it just to get through it? See you even made me think.
#2 by mderpelding on 10/09/2007 - 6:08 pm
A thought…
Doesn’t a good exam question contain superfluous information as a means of discriminating between those few students who grasp the basic concepts and those who don’t?
In the above example, wouldn’t “bolding” the important phrase defeat the purpose of the exam?
If we as racially aware people need to put an important phrase in bold lettering, aren’t we actually just being guilty of poor editing?
Or maybe sloppy thinking?
Hey, I’m just as guilty as the next person when it comes to verbosity and the use of scare quotes and bold lettering.
Let’s keep the message simple. And if anybody thinks that a phrase needs to be put in bold lettering or caps or quotes, maybe we need to do a bit of editing.
Clarity is everything. We don’t ever want to start sounding like our educated friends on the left.
#3 by cl on 10/09/2007 - 6:22 pm
mderpelding:
I see what you mean, but the mantra isn’t for WNs. It’s not a test of ideological purity. It’s not an exam at all. It’s an advertising slogan for the thinking. We’re trying to make it easier for our customers to absorb our message.
#4 by Hardric on 10/09/2007 - 7:02 pm
mderpelding: In the above example, wouldn’t “bolding” the important phrase defeat the purpose of the exam?
You haven’t taken one of my math exams.
The bolding avoided careless (incorrect) solutions, not those based on a lack of understanding. If you didn’t understand, you could forget it from the git go.
No one ever complained that the exams were too easy. One student described them as being hit by an atom bomb.
You might be referring to social science exams. With wonderful questions like this.
Why was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves considered to be one of the greatest presidents?
A) Because he freed the slaves
B) Because his beard was cute
C) Because he put up with his wife Martha
D) Because he was lanky and wielded a mean axe.
In this case bolding would definitely slant the results. 🙂
#5 by mderpelding on 10/09/2007 - 8:12 pm
Hardric…
My quotes…”The bolding avoided careless (incorrect) solutions, not those based on a lack of understanding. If you didn’t understand, you could forget it from the git go. ”
So then you are guilty of writing poor math exams?
And I am totally non-plussed by your Abe Lincoln reference.
Was he a math wiz?
Stay on point.
#6 by Hardric on 10/09/2007 - 9:08 pm
RE: So then you are guilty of writing poor math exams?
I have no idea what you are talking about, but in the era of affirmative action and grade inflation, I suppose exams which require the student to actually understand the subject and be able to solve problems would be poor indeed. 🙂
RE:And I am totally non-plussed by your Abe Lincoln reference. Was he a math wiz?
Nah, just taking a knock at the social scientists. One of my favorite activities. Soon as they start washing their hands, I’ll move on. 😉
#7 by Tim on 10/11/2007 - 8:42 am
Fjordman alert. He finally ‘gets it’! He was a Neocon who said the brownies just need to assimilated. Not anymore. It’s as if Bob hit him over the head. He is widely read in European and Neocon circles.
Read this:
“I have been told all of my life that skin color is irrelevant, but this balancing act gets a lot more difficult when somebody declares war against you because of your race.”
“The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past colonialist history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and thereby have no legitimate claim to their own countries.”
“Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a history and a culture, and that we thus “gain” a culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and cultures and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage all Westerners share in. The funny part is, the next second we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus nothing to preserve, anyway.”
“I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter.”
“I suspect future historians will call this era the Age of White Masochism. The white man conquered the world and then suffered a nervous breakdown, a kind of collective neurosis shared by an entire civilization. However, I sense that this era is slowly coming to an end.
I would use two arguments as to why the current mass immigration the West should be halted:
1. Whites, too, have a right to exist. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own and where they can live in dignity.
2.The ongoing immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence.
I believe whites in the 21st century should desire a room of our own where we can prosper, live in a major Western city without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries out of their own free will. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I am being entirely honest if I say that I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own.”
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3601&cid=1&sid=104
Moving right along.
#8 by woundednietzsche on 10/11/2007 - 9:32 am
Tim, thanks for posting this article by Fjordman. There is strength and urgency in these arguments. Our message is ALIVE and growing stronger.
On a recent thread where I posted the mantra (takimag), there were two distinct streams of conversation. The first was dominated by the usual white-hating intellectuals who were debating among themselves about the evils of Catholicism and Colonialism. The other stream contained persons concerned about the genocide of whites world-wide. Those in the first thread were actively ignoring the raging debate that was going on all around them that focused on preserving the white race. I see this as an example of how this discussion is going to play out. The respectables and intellectuals will continue living in the past and debating among themselves, becoming more and more irrelevant. We are beginning to dominate this conversation.
Let’s see them try to take it back. They are like fake professional wrestlers and we are like Fight Club. Who do you think is going to win this debate?