Zone1 Are Asian-Americans “The New Jews”?

[Coyote]

I will clarify and end this debate:

intelligence Is primarily an inherited trait but can be positively impacted to an extent by one’s environment.

Is intelligence determined by genetics?: MedlinePlus Genetics

Factors that affect intelligence include genes, education, nutrition, and others. Learn more about how genetics impacts intelligence.

medlineplus.gov

Like most aspects of human behavior and cognition, intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors.

Intelligence is challenging to study, in part because it can be defined and measured in different ways. Most definitions of intelligence include the ability to learn from experiences and adapt to changing environments. Elements of intelligence include the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, and understand complex ideas. Many studies rely on a measure of intelligence called the intelligence quotient (IQ).

Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Since it is difficult to separate the genetic and environmental influences of a trait like intelligence, these studies can be complicated. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. Studies have shown that intelligence has a genetic component, but they have not conclusively identified any single genes that have major roles in differences in intelligence. It is likely that intelligence involves many genes that each make only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence. Other areas that contribute to intelligence, such as memory and verbal ability, involve additional genetic factors. The genetic influences on intelligence is an ongoing area of research.

Intelligence is also strongly influenced by the environment. During a child's development, factors that contribute to intelligence include their home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and healthcare and nutrition. A person’s environment and genes influence each other, and it can be challenging to tease apart the effects of the environment from those of genetics. For example, if a person's level of intelligence is similar to that of their parents, is that similarity due to genetic factors passed down from parent to child, to shared environmental factors, or (most likely) to a combination of both? It is clear that both environmental and genetic factors play a part in determining intelligence.



When people over emphasize the role of genetics, in particular to apply designations of superior or infer er ior it is too much like eugenics.

 

[Hector12]

Sure it is. Once you've determined something is absolute garbage, you discard it from the discussion. This is why Astrology, Alchemy, Creationism, and Phrenology are no longer considered "Sciences". Eugenics is no longer considered a serious science, either.

Eugenics was never a science. It was a movement to increase the reproduction of intelligent people, while reducing that of unintelligent people.

 

[Coyote]

MIT Technology Review
Scientists have linked hundreds of genes to intelligence. One psychologist says it’s time to test school kids.
April 2, 2018
A year ago, no gene had ever been tied to performance on an IQ test. Since then, more than 500 have, thanks to gene studies involving more than 200,000 test takers. Results from an experiment correlating one million people’s DNA with their academic success are due at any time.

The discoveries mean we can now read the DNA of a young child and get a notion of how intelligent he or she will be, says Plomin, an American based at King’s College London, where he leads a long-term study of 13,000 pairs of British twins.

DNA tests for IQ are coming, but it might not be smart to take one

Scientists have linked hundreds of genes to intelligence. One psychologist says it’s time to test school kids.

www.technologyreview.com

---------

Crime Genes​

The MAOA gene is X-linked, and these men and others in successive generations all exhibited problem behaviour including impulsive aggression, arson and rape.

Crime Genes

Using genes as defence in court

www.rsb.org.uk

500 hundred genes linked to intelligence….LINKED…meaning an association, but not how they affect intelligence, interact with each other, are affected by environment etc. Environment is a significant influence.

 

[Hector12]

500 hundred genes linked to intelligence….LINKED…meaning an association, but not how they affect intelligence, interact with each other, are affected by environment etc. Environment is a significant influence.

This is just the beginning of what scientists are learning about the importance of genes in the determination of intelligence. Some geneticists are predicting the development of a DNA test to determine IQ.

 

[Coyote]

It’s not racial. Blacks with high IQs also tend to have children with high IQs.

MANY aspects of a person are inherited, and not just the physical - eye color, near-sightedness, hemophilia, and so forth - but personality traits as well. Introversion/extroversion is the most well-known, but other aspects are inherited as well, even extending to how motivated one is. I think we should face the evidence that shows intelligence is largely inherited as well.

You are over simplifying it. Eye color and others are very simple genetic traits influenced by only one or a few genes. Intelligence and personality traits are much more complex and more difficult to separate from environmental influences. They are influenced by genetics not caused by genetics.

 

[Hector12]

Sure it is. Once you've determined something is absolute garbage, you discard it from the discussion. This is why Astrology, Alchemy, Creationism, and Phrenology are no longer considered "Sciences". Eugenics is no longer considered a serious science, either.

Eugenics is not a science. It is a movement to encourage intelligent people to have more children than unintelligent people. It is becoming more important as computer technology increases the relationship between intelligence and income.

 

[Hector12]

In the foreseeable future a DNA test will be a better predictor of life time success because it will reveal characteristics missed by a paper and pencil IQ test, such as motivation, and mental health.

 

[Kruska]

Again, you're Cliff Claven, claiming Filipinos are European and the people of Taiwan write in Kanji, and Europeans never did anything bad in Africa (lately).

Moron - I never claimed or stated that Filipinos are European
Moron - I never claimed that the Taiwanese write in Kanji, nor solely in Kanji
Moron - I never claimed that Europeans never did anything bad in Africa

Three moronic statements from a moronic Lefty&Lib - keep going, since you ain't capable of anything else.

 

[Hector12]

Moron - I never claimed or stated that Filipinos are European
Moron - I never claimed that the Taiwanese write in Kanji, nor solely in Kanji
Moron - I never claimed that Europeans never did anything bad in Africa

Three moronic statements from a moronic Lefty&Lib - keep going, since you ain't capable of anything else.

JoeB131 is a nasty piece of work, but I up vote him on the rare occasion that he posts a comment worth thinking about. Unfortunately, his posts rarely have more intellectual content than what one can read on the walls of public rest rooms.

Mainly his posts are insults and name calling. He even writes these poorly.

 

[IM2]

These white supremacists are not going to quit arguing this lie.

 

[irosie91]

It’s not racial. Blacks with high IQs also tend to have children with high IQs.

MANY aspects of a person are inherited, and not just the physical - eye color, near-sightedness, hemophilia, and so forth - but personality traits as well. Introversion/extroversion is the most well-known, but other aspects are inherited as well, even extending to how motivated one is. I think we should face the evidence that shows intelligence is largely inherited as well.

all true-----but the issue thrown around on this board is "INTER RACE SUPERIORITY" which does not exist------I happen to know that black jews are just as smart as white jews------I live in a MIXED Mizrachi/Ashkenazi household. Guess what---there have been studies in Israel about this very topic----I read them long ago in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

 

[Kruska]

These white supremacists are not going to quit arguing this lie.

The only one constantly lying and making up nonsense is foremost you and friends

 

[Kruska]

They are influenced by genetics not caused by genetics.

Sure, his DUI alcohol result, was influenced by alcohol - not caused by alcohol.
or, they are influenced via manipulation - not caused via manipulation

Intelligence and personality are predetermined via genetics at birth - the social-environment then can influence to positive or negative these existing intelligence and personality factors.

 

[Kruska]

Environment is a significant influence.

Exactly - see Africans. - and I am not talking about the climate nor vegetation. It's called correctly "Social Environment"
And a social environment needs to be CREATED/DEVELOPED and lived by people - it doesn't grow on trees, nor can it be bought.

The Malayan world had created a social environment - equal to that of the European world of 1000 B.C. - by themselves latest by 500 B.C. and was further developed from 600 A.D. due to influence and partial colonization by India. And again further developed from 1100 A.D. due to the Arabs.
It's culture and social environment was suppressed by the European colonialists from 1550 A.D. onward - however further social development was not hindered - but factually replaced with European aspects of social environment.

That the further development of the original Malayan culture and customs were severely impacted is undeniable. They factually lost their original identity - but continued to live in a progressing social environment, dictated by the Europeans.

In 1957 Malaysia - a part of the previous Malayan world, became a sovereign and independent country. It was on the exact same social environment status/level as it's Colonial master Britain. It's infrastructure and industry was on a comparable level with the British standard of the 1930'ies.

It took Malaysia and it's population around 35-40 years to attain the same overall standards in 1995, as Britain had to show for in 1995.

There was NEVER slavery in the Malayan world - since it would have been incompatible with their culture. As such neither the Arabs, nor their colonial overlords, the Portuguese, nor the Dutch and nor the British ever considered to take or trade Malays as slaves. Simply because Malay's were not traded or held by their own kind as slaves.

So how about e.g. Tanzania? a former German colony, and under UN mandated British control, gained independence in 1962.
Partially influenced before - from the 11th century onward till the Germans arrived in 1885, by the Arabs. - just like e.g. Malaysia.

The only thing that stuck in small parts with Tanzania's population was the conversion to Islam. They were not WILLING to adopt any aspects of the Arab world in regards to a social environment - except providing slaves and raw goods - just like all over Sub-Saharan Africa.

Dar es Salaam on the mainland and Zanzibar island were by far the largest slave trading-posts, harbors on the entire East-African coast - now how come the Arabs chose this place on the Eastern African coast? Because slaves were in abundant supply - and they offered no problems to Arabs and Europeans since they were absolutely familiar with already being or having become slaves for sale.

After the Germans left (barley 30 years)- they possessed large agricultural farms with own refineries (therefore selling end products) (whose initiation they opposed bitterly - uprisings) Mining and Industrial companies were also setup (Therefore selling end products) - they possessed a rudimentary railway - (which they love until today). And every larger settlement possessed a hospital and a school. (Which they seem to have forgotten). 90% of the German Askari (3000) were recruited from Sudan - since the local population proved to be unreliable and ill suited, aside from being employed as porters in their thousands.

From 1918 till 1962 Tanzania was governed by the British - generally investing and increasing the existing infrastructure and economy that the Germans had left behind.
Tanzania today (2023) is industrial and infrastructural wise on a level of Britain or Germany from the 30'ies. Due to massive help and investments, foremost from China since the 60'ies. Their entire school and medical system and infrastructure was brought in by China - until today.
Their social environment - aside from major cities displaying high-rise buildings, is exactly the same when Germany came in and when the Arabs came in 900 years ago and when the British left 60 years ago. So why unlike e.g. Malay's, those living in Tanzania never managed to develop, nor copy, aka adopt a social - environment/culture comparable to what Malays already possessed 1400 years ago?

Because their tribal neolithic culture, ruled and controlled over by tribal chieftains, simply never permitted the people towards progressing.
And every-time the respective colonial power tried to encourage or even impose progress - those tribal chieftains with their tribal warriors (excluded from being a slave or traded as a slave) made sure that an uprising was certain. Today they love to point out such occurrences as massacres and genocides conducted by those evil Colonialists.

See the USA - the Europeans had the numbers and simply (cruel but true) wiped out the resisting indigenous population till their resistance simply crumbled. Those Red-Indians that adapted, live and enjoy the same lifestyle and social environment of any other European-American aka Caucasian-American - those that did not adapt (mostly those in reservations) hang around and complain that they don't have clean drinking water. - just like Africans.

Until today this plagues Africa - the respective Black governments (beholding some educated people) are not able to control their neolithic tribal chieftains and it's culture. Unlike any other cultures or race/ethnicity - e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa was never conquered or united by a tribe or culture that would have been strong enough to impose such changes (e.g. India's influence onto Java) - nor could they have imposed changes - because they ALL share the same neolithic tribal attitude and culture.

See the Zulu-Nation's conquest of Southern Africa - the only thing that changed in those 400 years - was as who is to becomes a slave now, and who has to pay tribute to who. Absolutely nothing else ever changed.

And every-time a Black government starts to impose/enforce change - we get to read and learn in the Western Press about genocides happening throughout Africa (incited and ordered by those tribal heads and their warrior-cast gangs) - exactly as to those claimed, during Colonial rule by lefty&lib ignorant morons as having been the result of exploitation and suppression by Europeans - pure BULLSHIT.

That some colonists or some members of the colonial powers, treated the local population just as bad as they have been treated by their own kind for the past 4000 years is certainly true. However the vast majority of European colonists in Africa treated them far better then they had ever been treated by their own kind, especially in countries like former Rhodesia or Apartheid South-Africa.


Therefore, unlike Lefty&Lib morons, I am fully aware about the factual problem that governs and plagues Africa and Africans - if this neolithic tribal culture is due to genetics, or simply being dumber then other races, due to not having intermixed with other races and ethnicity (mixing, exchange and therefore further development of existing cultures), see North-Africa, Middle-East, Europe parts of the Americas and Asia) - I leave that discussion to others.

It is however interesting to note that the "African tribal issue" also applies toward those, who also did not participate in significant cultural exchanges - e.g. The Australian Aborigines, Papua's, the Papua related folks on the Solomon's or the Amazon Indians. Despite partially practicing cannibalism (probably the lowest form of a human civilization) - NONE of these ethnics ever beheld a slave culture or traded slaves.

As such Sub-Saharan Africans, in respect to evolutionary terms, were obviously just slightly ahead of these aforementioned primitive neolithic ethnicity's or cultures - when the Arab and European world come into contact with Sub-Saharan Africa.

I am aware that this post is too long for you to read and to comprehend - But at least no one could state that I didn't give it a try.

 

[JoeB131]

Eugenics was never a science. It was a movement to increase the reproduction of intelligent people, while reducing that of unintelligent people.

It was more than that, and it culminated in what Hitler tried to do. Hitler decided that Jews, Slavs, the disabled, Roma, etc had to be eliminated to purify the race. Today that sounds crazy, but it made sense at the time to some truly shitty people.

Why someone would still advocate it today like you do, promising you will get it right because you like SOME Jews and "Orientals" is just, silly.

Eugenics is not a science. It is a movement to encourage intelligent people to have more children than unintelligent people. It is becoming more important as computer technology increases the relationship between intelligence and income.

See, now you are using it in the present tense... even though no one sane is advocating it. If anything, encouraging intelligence isn't really that important, and popular culture is dumbing us down. With AI coming along, we don't need that many "smart" people. We need to find purpose for people who aren't blessed.

In the foreseeable future a DNA test will be a better predictor of life time success because it will reveal characteristics missed by a paper and pencil IQ test, such as motivation, and mental health.

Again, I have no desire to live in such a world. Neither would you, really.

JoeB131 is a nasty piece of work, but I up vote him on the rare occasion that he posts a comment worth thinking about. Unfortunately, his posts rarely have more intellectual content than what one can read on the walls of public rest rooms.

Guy, we don't want to hear about where you went Cruising and met Jamal. You need to get over it.

 

[Hector12]

It was more than that, and it culminated in what Hitler tried to do. Hitler decided that Jews, Slavs, the disabled, Roma, etc had to be eliminated to purify the race. Today that sounds crazy, but it made sense at the time to some truly shitty people.

Why someone would still advocate it today like you do, promising you will get it right because you like SOME Jews and "Orientals" is just, silly.



See, now you are using it in the present tense... even though no one sane is advocating it. If anything, encouraging intelligence isn't really that important, and popular culture is dumbing us down. With AI coming along, we don't need that many "smart" people. We need to find purpose for people who aren't blessed.

The Nazi effort to exterminate the most intelligent race in existence does not mean that eugenics is unnecessary. Computer technology and automation eliminate jobs those of below average intelligence are able to learn.

If we subsidize these people on welfare we should consider the ancient folk wisdom, "The Devil finds work for idle hands."

 

[Hector12]

Guy, we don't want to hear about where you went Cruising and met Jamal. You need to get over it.

I am not that way. I have never known anyone named Jamal. Have you asked him if he knows who his father is yet?

 

[Hector12]

Exactly - see Africans. - and I am not talking about the climate nor vegetation. It's called correctly "Social Environment"...

I am aware that this post is too long for you to read and to comprehend - But at least no one could state that I didn't give it a try.

Kruska,

This is an interesting and informative essay. I hope it does Coyote some good.

I would add that gene alleles shape culture. Jews and Orientals create thriving, low crime societies even when they are poor and discriminated against. Negroes move into thriving, safe white working class neighborhoods and turn them into crime infested slums.

 

[Coyote]

Exactly - see Africans. - and I am not talking about the climate nor vegetation. It's called correctly "Social Environment"
And a social environment needs to be CREATED/DEVELOPED and lived by people - it doesn't grow on trees, nor can it be bought.

The Malayan world had created a social environment - equal to that of the European world of 1000 B.C. - by themselves latest by 500 B.C. and was further developed from 600 A.D. due to influence and partial colonization by India. And again further developed from 1100 A.D. due to the Arabs.
It's culture and social environment was suppressed by the European colonialists from 1550 A.D. onward - however further social development was not hindered - but factually replaced with European aspects of social environment.

That the further development of the original Malayan culture and customs were severely impacted is undeniable. They factually lost their original identity - but continued to live in a progressing social environment, dictated by the Europeans.

In 1957 Malaysia - a part of the previous Malayan world, became a sovereign and independent country. It was on the exact same social environment status/level as it's Colonial master Britain. It's infrastructure and industry was on a comparable level with the British standard of the 1930'ies.

It took Malaysia and it's population around 35-40 years to attain the same overall standards in 1995, as Britain had to show for in 1995.

There was NEVER slavery in the Malayan world - since it would have been incompatible with their culture. As such neither the Arabs, nor their colonial overlords, the Portuguese, nor the Dutch and nor the British ever considered to take or trade Malays as slaves. Simply because Malay's were not traded or held by their own kind as slaves.

So how about e.g. Tanzania? a former German colony, and under UN mandated British control, gained independence in 1962.
Partially influenced before - from the 11th century onward till the Germans arrived in 1885, by the Arabs. - just like e.g. Malaysia.

The only thing that stuck in small parts with Tanzania's population was the conversion to Islam. They were not WILLING to adopt any aspects of the Arab world in regards to a social environment - except providing slaves and raw goods - just like all over Sub-Saharan Africa.

Dar es Salaam on the mainland and Zanzibar island were by far the largest slave trading-posts, harbors on the entire East-African coast - now how come the Arabs chose this place on the Eastern African coast? Because slaves were in abundant supply - and they offered no problems to Arabs and Europeans since they were absolutely familiar with already being or having become slaves for sale.

After the Germans left (barley 30 years)- they possessed large agricultural farms with own refineries (therefore selling end products) (whose initiation they opposed bitterly - uprisings) Mining and Industrial companies were also setup (Therefore selling end products) - they possessed a rudimentary railway - (which they love until today). And every larger settlement possessed a hospital and a school. (Which they seem to have forgotten). 90% of the German Askari (3000) were recruited from Sudan - since the local population proved to be unreliable and ill suited, aside from being employed as porters in their thousands.

From 1918 till 1962 Tanzania was governed by the British - generally investing and increasing the existing infrastructure and economy that the Germans had left behind.
Tanzania today (2023) is industrial and infrastructural wise on a level of Britain or Germany from the 30'ies. Due to massive help and investments, foremost from China since the 60'ies. Their entire school and medical system and infrastructure was brought in by China - until today.
Their social environment - aside from major cities displaying high-rise buildings, is exactly the same when Germany came in and when the Arabs came in 900 years ago and when the British left 60 years ago. So why unlike e.g. Malay's, those living in Tanzania never managed to develop, nor copy, aka adopt a social - environment/culture comparable to what Malays already possessed 1400 years ago?

Because their tribal neolithic culture, ruled and controlled over by tribal chieftains, simply never permitted the people towards progressing.
And every-time the respective colonial power tried to encourage or even impose progress - those tribal chieftains with their tribal warriors (excluded from being a slave or traded as a slave) made sure that an uprising was certain. Today they love to point out such occurrences as massacres and genocides conducted by those evil Colonialists.

See the USA - the Europeans had the numbers and simply (cruel but true) wiped out the resisting indigenous population till their resistance simply crumbled. Those Red-Indians that adapted, live and enjoy the same lifestyle and social environment of any other European-American aka Caucasian-American - those that did not adapt (mostly those in reservations) hang around and complain that they don't have clean drinking water. - just like Africans.

Until today this plagues Africa - the respective Black governments (beholding some educated people) are not able to control their neolithic tribal chieftains and it's culture. Unlike any other cultures or race/ethnicity - e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa was never conquered or united by a tribe or culture that would have been strong enough to impose such changes (e.g. India's influence onto Java) - nor could they have imposed changes - because they ALL share the same neolithic tribal attitude and culture.

See the Zulu-Nation's conquest of Southern Africa - the only thing that changed in those 400 years - was as who is to becomes a slave now, and who has to pay tribute to who. Absolutely nothing else ever changed.

And every-time a Black government starts to impose/enforce change - we get to read and learn in the Western Press about genocides happening throughout Africa (incited and ordered by those tribal heads and their warrior-cast gangs) - exactly as to those claimed, during Colonial rule by lefty&lib ignorant morons as having been the result of exploitation and suppression by Europeans - pure BULLSHIT.

That some colonists or some members of the colonial powers, treated the local population just as bad as they have been treated by their own kind for the past 4000 years is certainly true. However the vast majority of European colonists in Africa treated them far better then they had ever been treated by their own kind, especially in countries like former Rhodesia or Apartheid South-Africa.


Therefore, unlike Lefty&Lib morons, I am fully aware about the factual problem that governs and plagues Africa and Africans - if this neolithic tribal culture is due to genetics, or simply being dumber then other races, due to not having intermixed with other races and ethnicity (mixing, exchange and therefore further development of existing cultures), see North-Africa, Middle-East, Europe parts of the Americas and Asia) - I leave that discussion to others.

It is however interesting to note that the "African tribal issue" also applies toward those, who also did not participate in significant cultural exchanges - e.g. The Australian Aborigines, Papua's, the Papua related folks on the Solomon's or the Amazon Indians. Despite partially practicing cannibalism (probably the lowest form of a human civilization) - NONE of these ethnics ever beheld a slave culture or traded slaves.

As such Sub-Saharan Africans, in respect to evolutionary terms, were obviously just slightly ahead of these aforementioned primitive neolithic ethnicity's or cultures - when the Arab and European world come into contact with Sub-Saharan Africa.

I am aware that this post is too long for you to read and to comprehend - But at least no one could state that I didn't give it a try.

A lot of material to read, spoken with the arrogance of presumed racial superiority.

I will keep this short.

You are comparing very different cultures and colonial experiences and drawing wrong conclusions. Some of your information is simply false.


1. Tribal Systems
Much of the world is governed by tribal suystem. It is human nature as a social hierarchical species. Tbe concept of nations is simply a more expansive tribe where nationalism replaces tribal or ethnic or religious identity. Many nations that were the product of colonialism were the product of “divide and conquer” pitting tribes against each other in order to control a large area. Modern boundaries were drawn without regard to local ethnic/tribal groups. The result is often a weak federal system that cannot or will not represent or protect all its citizens, and a high degree of corruption. When the central government cannot offer security then allegiances shift to ethnic, tribal or religious ties over state. This is not. Unique to Africa by a long shot. Look at Iraq, the Balkins, Indonesia…

2. Malaysia and Tanzania. Tanzania, pre-colony, was a thriving center of trade with Arabs, Persia, China and India. one of its major trade cities was among the first to use money. In 1525 they were conquered by the Portuguese and then later the Arabs gained a foothold. That is when Zanzibar became a center for the slave trade.

Slavery existed in Malaysia.

Swettenham referred to two distinct forms of slavery in Malaya. First, there was slavery in the traditional sense involving the capture and enslavement of individuals by the chieftains of a rival clan as booty or the random seizure of the inhabitants. This was particularly the case with the indigenous people, the Orang Asli, who, if they could not escape, were virtually powerless to resist capture.

The second form of slavery was debt-bondage which arose where a person usually went to the Rajah, or person of rank or wealth, requesting a loan of money or goods and if he failed to comply with the terms of repayment he was forced to enter their service until the debt was repaid. The debtor’s wife and children also entered into bondage, and all became the property of the creditor who was free to commit cruelty and abuse. Work performed by the debtor did not count as repayment of the debt. Even if repayment was offered by the debtor or a third party the creditor could refuse and release could be denied indefinitely. The Rajah who administered the laws had the power to impose fines on his subjects for perceived offences which if unpaid also resulted in bondage.


There is more but I am out of time this morning and will come back to it.

 

[JoeB131]

The Nazi effort to exterminate the most intelligent race in existence does not mean that eugenics is unnecessary. Computer technology and automation eliminate jobs those of below average intelligence are able to learn.

If they were that smart, they'd have gotten out of the way before the bad stuff went down. It wasn't like Hitler made any secret of his intent. He spelled it all out in Mein Kampf.

(To be fair, the affluent Jews of Austria and Germany DID get out of the way. It was the poor Jews of Russia and Poland who got the worst of it.)

If we subsidize these people on welfare we should consider the ancient folk wisdom, "The Devil finds work for idle hands."

Most people on welfare programs have jobs, just not jobs that pay well enough. Walmart and McDonald's don't provide enough money to live on, but they will instruct their employees how to get on Medicaid and Food Stamps.

I am not that way. I have never known anyone named Jamal. Have you asked him if he knows who his father is yet?

Oh, I would say your obsession with black people would indicate otherwise. What awful thing did Jamal do to you that engenders this level of hate?