Chain Rection: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics

[Hector12]

I have confidence in the power of truth. The Chinese have recovered from the nonsense of Maoist dogma and are moving boldly ahead in finding genes that determine intelligence.

Once they find these genes, I am sure they will find that they are more commonly found in some races than others. Every single assertion of Professor Rushton will be proved scientifically.

 

[JoeB131]

Since everything is wrong with the assertions of Professor J. Philippe Rushton, it should be possible for you to draw attention to one of his assertions and prove that it is wrong in your own words.

Professor Rushton has been denounced. He has never been disproved. He will be disproved when scientific evidence is found that the races are intrinsically comparable in non cosmetic characteristics.

The failure of every expensive effort to close race gaps in average intellectual performance is powerful evidence that Professor Rushton is correct in his assertions.

Except you've admitted that they have been closed, and denounce that the money was spent. (Again, circular logic.)

There should never be any taboos and sanctions against presenting scientific facts.

I'm sure there's a NAMBLA member out there who can find you a study that kids are fine after being molested.

If Rushton were presenting facts, then he'd have widespread agreement in the scientific community. Instead, you are claiming that a bunch of mostly dead cranks are right and the vast majority of Academia is wrong.

It is insufficient to assert “Rushton’s work is deeply flawed from a scientific standpoint.” It needs to be proved that Rushton's work is deeply flawed from a scientific standpoint. It never has been.

Sure it is... the point is, his work has been refuted multiple times, and no university teaches that crap.

The persecution of that brave man is a shameful chapter in the intellectual history of the West.

Naw, he's why they should bring back tarring and feathering. Desecrating his corpse might not be a bad idea, either.

 

[JoeB131]

I have confidence in the power of truth. The Chinese have recovered from the nonsense of Maoist dogma and are moving boldly ahead in finding genes that determine intelligence.

Once they find these genes, I am sure they will find that they are more commonly found in some races than others. Every single assertion of Professor Rushton will be proved scientifically.

Um, the Chinese still love Mao. They never threw him under the bus the way that the Russians did with Stalin.

He's still on the money. He's still heavily revered in China.

Now, although I love the Chinese people, let's get realistic. China is hardly an example we'd want to emulate. Just ask the Uyghurs, Tibetans, Mongols or any of the other ethnic minorities in China who aren't Han Chinese.

 

[Hector12]

Um, the Chinese still love Mao. They never threw him under the bus the way that the Russians did with Stalin.

He's still on the money. He's still heavily revered in China.

[The Chinese] also developed a state-endorsed genetic-engineering project.

At BGI Shenzhen, scientists have collected DNA samples from 2,000 of the world’s smartest people and are sequencing their entire genomes in an attempt to identify the alleles which determine human intelligence. Apparently they’re not far from finding them, and when they do, embryo screening will allow parents to pick their brightest zygote and potentially bump up every generation’s intelligence by five to 15 IQ points. Within a couple of generations, competing with the Chinese on an intellectual level will be like challenging Lena Dunham to a getting-naked-on-TV contest.

China Is Engineering Genius Babies

It’s not exactly news that China is setting itself up as a new global superpower. While Western civilization chokes on its own gluttony like a latter-day Marlon Brando, China continues to buy up American debt and lock away the world’s natural resources...

www.vice.com

 

[JoeB131]

[The Chinese] also developed a state-endorsed genetic-engineering project.

And we all saw how well that worked out at Wuhan.

 

[Hector12]

• News
• Published: 14 May 2013

Chinese project probes the genetics of genius​

The US adolescents who signed up for the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) in the 1970s were the smartest of the smart, with mathematical and verbal-reasoning skills within the top 1% of the population. Now, researchers at BGI (formerly the Beijing Genomics Institute) in Shenzhen, China, the largest gene-sequencing facility in the world, are searching for the quirks of DNA that may contribute to such gifts...

Earlier large studies with the same goal have failed. But scientists from BGI’s Cognitive Genomics group hope that their super-smart sample will give them an edge, because it should be enriched with bits of DNA that confer effects on intelligence. “An exceptional person gets you an order of magnitude more statistical power than if you took random people from the population — I’d say we have a fighting chance,” says Stephen Hsu, a theoretical physicist from Michigan State University in East Lansing, who acts as a scientific adviser to BGI and is one of the project’s leaders.

Chinese project probes the genetics of genius - Nature

Bid to unravel the secrets of brainpower faces scepticism.

www.nature.com

 

[Hector12]

And we all saw how well that worked out at Wuhan.

I am confident it will work well in the future.

 

[Hector12]

I'm sure there's a NAMBLA member out there who can find you a study that kids are fine after being molested.

Sure it is... the point is, his work has been refuted multiple times, and no university teaches that crap.

It will be easy to disprove a "study that shows that kids are fine after being molested."

It has not been possible to disprove Rushton's assertions. That is why efforts have been made to suppress them.

 

[JoeB131]

I am confident it will work well in the future.

Yes, because humans are so much smarter than God and Nature when fucking with genetics.

It will be easy to disprove a "study that shows that kids are fine after being molested."

Quite the contrary, most victims of child S*****l abuse eventually grow up to live productive lives.

The bastards who did it them are sick, but if you are an awful human being, you can make that argument.

You can make any crazy argument you want, that's the point.

Which is why we have scientific consensus. - Race realism is bullshit, Child s****l abuse is wrong, and there is no fucking Bigfoot.

 

[Hector12]

Um, the Chinese still love Mao. They never threw him under the bus the way that the Russians did with Stalin.

He's still on the money. He's still heavily revered in China.

MIT Technology Review

China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced​

New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant to HIV may also have enhanced their ability to learn and form memories.
By

• Antonio Regaladoarchive page

February 21, 2019

The brains of two genetically edited girls born in China last year may have been changed in ways that enhance cognition and memory, scientists say.
The twins, called Lulu and Nana, reportedly had their genes modified before birth by a Chinese scientific team using the new editing tool CRISPR. The goal was to make the girls immune to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Now, new research shows that the same alteration introduced into the girls’ DNA, deletion of a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.
“The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains,” says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose lab uncovered a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory and the brain’s ability to form new connections.

“The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins,” says Silva.

China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced

New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant to HIV may also have enhanced their ability to learn and form memories.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[JoeB131]

MIT Technology Review

China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced​

New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant to HIV may also have enhanced their ability to learn and form memories.
By

• Antonio Regaladoarchive page

February 21, 2019

The brains of two genetically edited girls born in China last year may have been changed in ways that enhance cognition and memory, scientists say.
The twins, called Lulu and Nana, reportedly had their genes modified before birth by a Chinese scientific team using the new editing tool CRISPR. The goal was to make the girls immune to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Now, new research shows that the same alteration introduced into the girls’ DNA, deletion of a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.
“The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains,” says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose lab uncovered a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory and the brain’s ability to form new connections.

“The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins,” says Silva.

China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced

New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant to HIV may also have enhanced their ability to learn and form memories.

www.technologyreview.com

Again, guy, gene editing is not natural selection.

The problem here is that only the wealthy will be able to afford gene editing in the future. I just can't see this as a good thing.

Has nothing to do with your crazy race theories.

 

[Hector12]

Again, guy, gene editing is not natural selection.

The problem here is that only the wealthy will be able to afford gene editing in the future. I just can't see this as a good thing.

Has nothing to do with your crazy race theories.

What matters is that gene determine intelligence. That is why Head Start and No Child Left Behind failed, while similar efforts will fail, and why we should stop wasting tax money this way.

 

[JoeB131]

What matters is that gene determine intelligence. That is why Head Start and No Child Left Behind failed, while similar efforts will fail, and why we should stop wasting tax money this way.

Head start is glorified daycare, and NCLB was never more than a slogan.

 

[Hector12]

Head start is glorified daycare, and NCLB was never more than a slogan.

A lot of money was spent on both. With too few exceptions to be statistically significant, the illegitimate children of unmarried welfare mothers and violent street criminals cannot be educated, and they are unemployable.

 

[JoeB131]

A lot of money was spent on both. With too few exceptions to be statistically significant, the illegitimate children of unmarried welfare mothers and violent street criminals cannot be educated, and they are unemployable.

Give me figures on what was spent, keeping in mind NEITHER program benefited black kids exclusively.

Let's start with NCLB. It resulted in a DOE spending increasing from 42 Billion to 54 Billion over four years. in short, a paltry 7% increase per year.

in fact, all it really did was create additional bureaucracy for local school districts to deal with to prove they are compliant. By 2015, they found it was more of a hinderence than a help and scrapped it.

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Head start is even MORE paltry. It's 2024 budget was only 12 Billion.

Now, one of the few things I'll agree with the Wingnuts on is that the Department of Education is kind of useless. It just creates additional levels of bureaucracy while not providing adequate funds. to make a difference.

 

[Hector12]

Give me figures on what was spent, keeping in mind NEITHER program benefited black kids exclusively.

Let's start with NCLB. It resulted in a DOE spending increasing from 42 Billion to 54 Billion over four years. in short, a paltry 7% increase per year.

in fact, all it really did was create additional bureaucracy for local school districts to deal with to prove they are compliant. By 2015, they found it was more of a hinderence than a help and scrapped it.

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Head start is even MORE paltry. It's 2024 budget was only 12 Billion.

Now, one of the few things I'll agree with the Wingnuts on is that the Department of Education is kind of useless. It just creates additional levels of bureaucracy while not providing adequate funds. to make a difference.

60-Year Anniversary of the War on Poverty - Are We Winning or Losing?​

Word on the Street Via National Review:

• “Six decades later, the nation has made tremendous strides… Yet we have not won the war. Success has come almost entirely from government transfer payments to poor households, not from improvements in the foundational aspects of a flourishing life.”
• “The foundation of a thriving life reflects our collective values, such as getting an education, working hard, and raising a family. However, many of our safety-net policies do not align with these objectives. Our safety-net programs disincentivize work and marriage, and many low-income children still cannot access quality education due to our government’s policies.”...

The federal government operates nearly 100 interrelated welfare programs, spread across 14 government departments and agencies, and nine budget functions.

Federal welfare spending costs taxpayers more than $1 trillion each year. Over the next decade, the federal government is projected to spend more than $12 trillion on welfare programs. This sum of aggregate spending doesn’t include the billions of dollars in state government contributions to federal welfare programs.

Despite this massive government investment, as of 2022, 37.9 million people were living in poverty. Welfare enrollment in 2022 was even higher in many programs than at the height of the pandemic and government lockdowns in 2020. As enrollment has grown, welfare spending has skyrocketed. Outlays for welfare programs have grown significantly even in inflation adjusted terms.

60-Year Anniversary of the War on Poverty - Are We Winning or Losing? | The U.S. House Committee on the Budget - House Budget Committee

The Official U.S. Congressional website of The Republican Budget Committee

budget.house.gov

---------

Speaking for myself, for the poor I draw the same distinction between the working poor and the underclass that Karl Mark did. He called them the proletariat and the lumpen proletariat. The proletariat is what he called the working class. He described the lumpen proletariat as "that passively rotting mass."

The working poor earn minimum wage incomes, or little else, and no benefits, for providing useful services. They play the game by the rules but win none of the prizes. They are the salt of the earth. For them I recommend a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation. This would certainly include universal health coverage.

For the underclass I recommend no more welfare for their litters of illegitimate children, and a much harsher criminal justice system.

 

[JoeB131]

60-Year Anniversary of the War on Poverty - Are We Winning or Losing?

We are easily winning.

Speaking for myself, for the poor I draw the same distinction between the working poor and the underclass that Karl Mark did. He called them the proletariat and the lumpen proletariat. The proletariat is what he called the working class. He described the lumpen proletariat as "that passively rotting mass."

That's nice. It's not the 19th century anymore, bud. You wouldn't last a week in the 19th century without a white immigrant showing his superiority by robbing you and beating you bloody.

The working poor earn minimum wage incomes, or little else, and no benefits, for providing useful services. They play the game by the rules but win none of the prizes. They are the salt of the earth. For them I recommend a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation. This would certainly include universal health coverage.

Um, yeah, about that. The sad reality is white people collect more welfare and entitlements than black folks do. And we really can't afford it. Social Security and Medicare alone consume 2.5 TRILLION in the federal budget, while programs like SNAP, Section 8, etc. consume less than half a billion.

For the underclass I recommend no more welfare for their litters of illegitimate children, and a much harsher criminal justice system.

We've tried that. It hasn't worked. We've created a Prison Industrial Complex, we lock up more people than Communist China, and it's barely put a dent in crime rates.

I should also point out as much as you whine about welfare, most welfare is a business incentive. There's a reason why the Department of Agriculture runs SNAP; it's meant to keep demand for agricultural goods high. Same with Section 8. The government got out of running "the projects" and just gave poor people vouchers. That was a big boon to landlords.

A couple of years ago, they bought out the Condo Association I was living in and turned the whole thing into Section 8 housing. (IT was already heading in that direction, as most of the owners didn't live on sight because they didn't have the good sense to impose an "owner occupancy" rule. )

 

[Hector12]

We are easily winning.

View attachment 1013570



That's nice. It's not the 19th century anymore, bud. You wouldn't last a week in the 19th century without a white immigrant showing his superiority by robbing you and beating you bloody.



Um, yeah, about that. The sad reality is white people collect more welfare and entitlements than black folks do. And we really can't afford it. Social Security and Medicare alone consume 2.5 TRILLION in the federal budget, while programs like SNAP, Section 8, etc. consume less than half a billion.


We've tried that. It hasn't worked. We've created a Prison Industrial Complex, we lock up more people than Communist China, and it's barely put a dent in crime rates.

I should also point out as much as you whine about welfare, most welfare is a business incentive. There's a reason why the Department of Agriculture runs SNAP; it's meant to keep demand for agricultural goods high. Same with Section 8. The government got out of running "the projects" and just gave poor people vouchers. That was a big boon to landlords.

A couple of years ago, they bought out the Condo Association I was living in and turned the whole thing into Section 8 housing. (IT was already heading in that direction, as most of the owners didn't live on sight because they didn't have the good sense to impose an "owner

Negroes are far more likely to be on welfare than whites. That is because they have lower IQ averages and a much higher percentage of them have illegitimate children.

If the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action in hiring, as I hope it does, millions of Negroes will be fired from jobs they never should have received. This will open up jobs for whites and Orientals who will perform those jobs well.

Black poverty will increase. So will the affluence of whites and Orientals. As intelligence becomes more important to our economy Jews will benefit the most.

 

[JoeB131]

Negroes are far more likely to be on welfare than whites. That is because they have lower IQ averages and a much higher percentage of them have illegitimate children.

If the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action in hiring, as I hope it does, millions of Negroes will be fired from jobs they never should have received. This will open up jobs for whites and Orientals who will perform those jobs well.

Black poverty will increase. So will the affluence of whites and Orientals. As intelligence becomes more important to our economy Jews will benefit the most.

Negroes are far more likely to be on welfare than whites. That is because they have lower IQ averages and a much higher percentage of them have illegitimate children.

There are more white people on welfare than blacks.

And there are more white people collecting "entitlements" (AKA White People Welfare) than minorities. Frankly, it's more pragmatic to invest in a kid who is going to be part of the workforce than an old person who has outlived his usefulness. But we are a compassionate society and can and should do both.

If the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action in hiring, as I hope it does, millions of Negroes will be fired from jobs they never should have received. This will open up jobs for whites and Orientals who will perform those jobs well.

Even if it does, companies will keep DEI programs, because they're good business. While I'm sure you masturbate at night at the thought of Jim Crow returning, the reality is companies are global now...

Black poverty will increase. So will the affluence of whites and Orientals. As intelligence becomes more important to our economy Jews will benefit the most.

Yes, yes, your angry rants, upset when black people do well, upset when they don't...

You have a very sad life, Cockroach. Old, bitter and alone.

 

[Hector12]

There are more white people on welfare than blacks.

If you had gone to college, like you claim, you would understand percentages.