Zone1 Let's Talk About "Merit"

[Hector12]

Well, for you, nothing. Whatever happened to you early in life has clearly damaged you beyond repair.



The truth is that bigots like you try to rationalize your own failings in life by clinging on to an artificial racial identity.



Jensen has been debunked, multiple times. Even his own university has disowned him. Jensen has proven the foolishness of giving cranks positions for life because they've acheived tenure.
Melvin Konner of Emory University, wrote:



Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould criticized Jensen's work in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. Gould writes that Jensen misapplies the concept of "heritability", which is defined as a measure of the variation of a trait due to inheritance within a population (Gould 1981: 127; 156–157). According to Gould, Jensen uses heritability to measure differences between populations.[citation needed] Gould also disagrees with Jensen's belief that IQ tests measure a real variable, g, or "the general factor common to a large number of cognitive abilities" which can be measured along a unilinear scale. This is a claim most closely identified with Charles Spearman. According to Gould, Jensen misunderstood the research of L. L. Thurstone to ultimately support this claim; Gould, however, argues that Thurstone's factor analysis of intelligence revealed g to be an illusion (1981: 159; 13-314). Gould criticizes Jensen's sources including his use of Catharine Cox's 1926 Genetic Studies of Genius, which examines historiometrically the IQs of historic intellectuals after their deaths (Gould 1981: 153–154).



We can only hope so...

The following diagram confirms Professor Jensen's assertions:

 

[EvilCat Breath]

As a rule Negroes are stronger; whites are smarter. This is because the Negro race represents an earlier stage of human evolution.

No. That's not why. Stand an African American next to an African. The American is huge. The African is smaller with much less muscle mass.

American blacks are stronger because they are the beneficiaries of generations of selective breeding by slave breeders who spent years and fortunes breeding slaves like prize livestock. They kept meticulous records so we know exactly what they did.

 

[JoeB131]

The following diagram confirms Professor Jensen's assertions:

You can make up any horseshit chart you want, especially when your goal is to rob poor people to give tax breaks to billionaires.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Whites are developing alternatives to fossil fuels, Blacks are not.

Why would they? Blacks depend on whites for their livelihoods. They don't make, create, or even innovate. The most evil thing the white man ever did was send the UN to Africa to feed the people. That's worth a place in hell.

UN feeding stations are all over Africa. In too many places generations of standing in line waiting to be fed has resulted in the people forgetting how to provide for themselves. They can no longer hunt. They forgot how to gather. Increasing income means robbing a convoy. Because Africans are relieved of the responsibility of caring for themselves they have a lot of leisure time. They spend their time chewing quot and staying pleasantly high.

The lifestyle is mirrored here. Generous welfare and social programs provides feeding programs. Crime pays for luxuries. Getting and staying high passes the time.

This does not create a people that is capable of creating anything much less an alternative to fossil fuels.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Everything is racist to you sorry little Moon Bat turds.

You pathetic White Guilt pukes all have penis envy to the Blacks so you think you should kiss their asses.

Please please. Put the penis envy to bed so to speak. There is far too much porn out there to maintain the fiction of the big, black Cock. Everyone knows. Everyone.

 

[IM2]

Why would they? Blacks depend on whites for their livelihoods. They don't make, create, or even innovate. The most evil thing the white man ever did was send the UN to Africa to feed the people. That's worth a place in hell.

UN feeding stations are all over Africa. In too many places generations of standing in line waiting to be fed has resulted in the people forgetting how to provide for themselves. They can no longer hunt. They forgot how to gather. Increasing income means robbing a convoy. Because Africans are relieved of the responsibility of caring for themselves they have a lot of leisure time. They spend their time chewing quot and staying pleasantly high.

The lifestyle is mirrored here. Generous welfare and social programs provides feeding programs. Crime pays for luxuries. Getting and staying high passes the time.

This does not create a people that is capable of creating anything much less an alternative to fossil fuels.

Wrong. Whites have depended on us for theirr livelihood.

Its documented.

“By a conservative estimate, in 1860 the total value of slaves was at least ten times more than the gold and silver then circulating nationally ($228.3 million, “most of it in the North,” the authors add), total currency ($435.4 million), and even the value of the South’s total farmland ($1.92 billion). Slaves were, to slavers, worth more than everything else they could imagine combined.”

That is a conservative estimate, meaning the amount could be far more. In 1860, Slaves were worth more than the gold, silver, total U.S. currency, plus all the farmland in the South combined in 1860, but did not receive a dime.

During slavery, wealthy slave owners securitized slavery. Slave owners created and sold slave-backed securities. Let me repeat, slave owners securitized slavery, and the securities were sold internationally. Wall Street should be called Slavery Street; this is the cold reality on which American capitalism has been built. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:

In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.
Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Wrong. Whites have depended on us for theirr livelihood.

Its documented.

“By a conservative estimate, in 1860 the total value of slaves was at least ten times more than the gold and silver then circulating nationally ($228.3 million, “most of it in the North,” the authors add), total currency ($435.4 million), and even the value of the South’s total farmland ($1.92 billion). Slaves were, to slavers, worth more than everything else they could imagine combined.”

That is a conservative estimate, meaning the amount could be far more. In 1860, Slaves were worth more than the gold, silver, total U.S. currency, plus all the farmland in the South combined in 1860, but did not receive a dime.

During slavery, wealthy slave owners securitized slavery. Slave owners created and sold slave-backed securities. Let me repeat, slave owners securitized slavery, and the securities were sold internationally. Wall Street should be called Slavery Street; this is the cold reality on which American capitalism has been built. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:

In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.
Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

What a good idea. White guys are always thinking.

 

[IM2]

What a good idea. White guys are always thinking.

And that's an example of why you owe us reparations.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And that's an example of why you owe us reparations.

You keep thinking about those reparations.

 

[JoeB131]

And that's an example of why you owe us reparations.

Um, wasn't that already paid through emancipation?

The point was, all those slave owners who took out mortgages on their slaves were left high and dry when Lincoln freed them all. Do you think those banks said, "Aw Schucks" and forgave those loans? Heck, no, they went in there and scooped up the land. This is why the "Carpetbaggers" (White Northerners who moved South to take economic advantage) and "Scalawags" (White Southerners who collaborated with reconstruction) were even more hated than the freed blacks.

Leaving aside the immorality of one human being owning another, these people were deprived of their property and punished for being on the losing side of a war.

Carpetbaggers & Scalawags - Definition, South, Reconstruction | HISTORY

Carpetbaggers and scalawags were the terms for northerners who took advantage of post-Civil War upheaval and southerners who supported Reconstruction policies.

www.history.com

The biggest problem with reconstruction was that it upended the economic order of the South, didn't really invest the money or the time to create something better, and when white southerner did regain their franchise, they did it with a vengeance.

I do think we need to do a lot of work to fix all of this, but handing black people bags full of money for what happened to their ancestors is just throwing good money after bad.

 

[Hector12]

Wrong. Whites have depended on us for theirr livelihood.

Its documented.

“By a conservative estimate, in 1860 the total value of slaves was at least ten times more than the gold and silver then circulating nationally ($228.3 million, “most of it in the North,” the authors add), total currency ($435.4 million), and even the value of the South’s total farmland ($1.92 billion). Slaves were, to slavers, worth more than everything else they could imagine combined.”

Slavery only benefited the small number of whites who could afford slaves. In 1860 a young healthy slave could cost as much as $1,000. To give an answer of what that was worth, a private in the Union Army during the Civil War was paid $13 a month.

In slave states family farms could not compete economically with plantations. Nearly every trade and profession paid less in slave states than in free states. Most European immigrants moved to free states, because that was where the economic opportunities were.

The South has always been the economic backwater of the United States. The industrial revolution happened in the North. The computer revolution is happening on the West Coast.

Currently Negroes are a burden to the United States, and particularly to the Democrat Party, because they discredit the idea prevailing before 1965 that the government could bring desirable results.

This is because poor whites and poor blacks usually respond differently to efforts by the government to help them. During the 1930's the New Deal transformed unemployed whites into a law abiding, tax paying working class.

During the 1960's the Great Society turned low income blacks into an unemployable underclass, who live on welfare checks, and the gains from criminal activity. From 1966 to 1975 there was actually a The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). This encouraged blacks to quit their jobs and to go on welfare.

 

[Lisa558]

Slavery only benefited the small number of whites who could afford slaves. In 1860 a young healthy slave could cost as much as $1,000. To give an answer of what that was worth, a private in the Union Army during the Civil War was paid $13 a month.

In slave states family farms could not compete economically with plantations. Nearly every trade and profession paid less in slave states than in free states. Most European immigrants moved to free states, because that was where the economic opportunities were.

The South has always been the economic backwater of the United States. The industrial revolution happened in the North. The computer revolution is happening on the West Coast.

Currently Negroes are a burden to the United States, and particularly to the Democrat Party, because they discredit the idea prevailing before 1965 that the government could bring desirable results.

This is because poor whites and poor blacks usually respond differently to efforts by the government to help them. During the 1930's the New Deal transformed unemployed whites into a law abiding, tax paying working class.

During the 1960's the Great Society turned low income blacks into an unemployable underclass, who live on welfare checks, and the gains from criminal activity. From 1966 to 1975 there was actually a The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). This encouraged blacks to quit their jobs and to go on welfare.

I will point out that the Republicans wanted more work requirements for those on welfare, but the Democrats acted like they were evil for requiring people to….shudder….get jobs. You have to admit that Democrats want blacks as dependent on government handouts as possible, and requiring them to work might actually lead to self-sufficiency.

 

[Lisa558]

Slavery only benefited the small number of whites who could afford slaves. In 1860 a young healthy slave could cost as much as $1,000. To give an answer of what that was worth, a private in the Union Army during the Civil War was paid $13 a month.

In slave states family farms could not compete economically with plantations. Nearly every trade and profession paid less in slave states than in free states. Most European immigrants moved to free states, because that was where the economic opportunities were.

The South has always been the economic backwater of the United States. The industrial revolution happened in the North. The computer revolution is happening on the West Coast.

Currently Negroes are a burden to the United States, and particularly to the Democrat Party, because they discredit the idea prevailing before 1965 that the government could bring desirable results.

This is because poor whites and poor blacks usually respond differently to efforts by the government to help them. During the 1930's the New Deal transformed unemployed whites into a law abiding, tax paying working class.

During the 1960's the Great Society turned low income blacks into an unemployable underclass, who live on welfare checks, and the gains from criminal activity. From 1966 to 1975 there was actually a The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). This encouraged blacks to quit their jobs and to go on welfare.

There’s another difference between between poor whites and poor blacks, although the root is the same: children they can’t afford, and failing to complete their education.

Only the blacks blame racism, and anyone who points out that their own behavior is what leaves them in poverty promptly gets called a racist.

 

[Hector12]

I will point out that the Republicans wanted more work requirements for those on welfare, but the Democrats acted like they were evil for requiring people to….shudder….get jobs. You have to admit that Democrats want blacks as dependent on government handouts as possible, and requiring them to work might actually lead to self-sufficiency.

A growing percentage of Negroes will never be self sufficient because the jobs they have the intelligence to learn are being replaced by computer technology and automation.

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery only benefited the small number of whites who could afford slaves. In 1860 a young healthy slave could cost as much as $1,000. To give an answer of what that was worth, a private in the Union Army during the Civil War was paid $13 a month.

Again, Hector, your reasoning is flawed.

I don't personally own the factory I work at, but I gain an economic advantage from its existence. I don't own Zelle, Google, Yelp, or Thumbtack, but I couldn't run my side business without them.

The inbred southern whites DID gain economic benefit from the few rich white people who owned slaves, and their world was upended as well when those newly freed blacks could compete for the same jobs they could.

This is how the rich game racism to keep us divided, you see. The minute they got you to think of black people as "the enemy", is the minute you became an unwitting collaborator in your own oppression.

The real problem being, that after slavery ended, neither party pushed very hard for equality after that until the Democrats finally picked a side in the 1960's.

Meanwhile, the North felt disillusioned, like almost every country does after a war. War is almost never worth the costs, even if you are on the "winning" side. (WWII might be an exception, at least for the US).

Currently Negroes are a burden to the United States, and particularly to the Democrat Party, because they discredit the idea prevailing before 1965 that the government could bring desirable results.

Or that idea was just plain wrong. When did you ever know Government to not fuck things up? And this isn't really a partisan thing, although I think when Republicans fuck things up, it's more of a design feature than a bug.

The real problem is that what they did in 1965 SHOULD have happened in 1865. It didn't. Instead the North was very quick to acquiesce to Southern demands to run their own affairs.

This is because poor whites and poor blacks usually respond differently to efforts by the government to help them. During the 1930's the New Deal transformed unemployed whites into a law abiding, tax paying working class.

Wow... so often wrong. The problem wasn't employment, because prior to the Great Depression, there were plenty of jobs to go around. Even for Blacks. That's why so many blacks migrated north, and why the South instituted "Debt Peonage" and other laws to keep them from fleeing. For instance, one law that could get you put into Debt Peonage was "Walking along the railroad tracks". Why? Because poor blacks were walking along those tracks to make their way north where the good jobs were, and the South wanted to continue to exploit their labor.

The problem was that workers of any color had no rights. This is what FDR did that was revolutionary, he shifted the support of government away from the investor class and towards the working class. The biggest problem with the New Deal is that because FDR's coalition combined Northern Liberals with Southern Conservatives, almost all the programs he instituted had a "not you" when applied to black people. Southern Conservatives often became the loyal opposition party, as by 1936, the GOP was down to only 86 seats in the House and 17 in the Senate, essentially becoming a non-factor in American politics.

During the 1960's the Great Society turned low income blacks into an unemployable underclass, who live on welfare checks, and the gains from criminal activity. From 1966 to 1975 there was actually a The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). This encouraged blacks to quit their jobs and to go on welfare.

Again, you keep lying about welfare.

A large percentage people on poverty assistance programs have jobs. The rest are women, children, the disabled and the retired. While your image of a black welfare queen lives in your mind, the fact is, black unemployment never got higher than 19% and spikes in black unemployment often mirror spikes in white unemployment.. Like so...

 

[JoeB131]

There’s another difference between between poor whites and poor blacks, although the root is the same: children they can’t afford, and failing to complete their education.

Only the blacks blame racism, and anyone who points out that their own behavior is what leaves them in poverty promptly gets called a racist.

Because it is largely due to racism, Lisa.

You whine about stuff that happened to people in another country 80 years ago, but you think stuff that is happening RIGHT NOW in this country isn't a factor.

A growing percentage of Negroes will never be self sufficient because the jobs they have the intelligence to learn are being replaced by computer technology and automation

Actually, if anything, Technology and Automation makes life easier for the stupid.

If anything, most white folks have become too soft to engage in any real hard work. It's why the trades are often undermanned. They are a clubbish thing for white people that white people don't really want to join anymore.

 

[Hector12]

Again, Hector, your reasoning is flawed.

No, yours is. You simply ignored the facts I pointed out. You seem to exist in a parallel universe.

 

[JoeB131]

No, yours is. You simply ignored the facts I pointed out. You seem to exist in a parallel universe.

Yes, I live in the world with real facts and figures, not whatever you guys pass around on racist websites.

 

[Hector12]

Or that idea was just plain wrong. When did you ever know Government to not fuck things up? And this isn't really a partisan thing, although I think when Republicans fuck things up, it's more of a design feature than a bug.

The U.S. government, under the leadership of President Roosevelt did a good job of ending the Great Depression and winning the Second World War. In 1964, in answer to the question, "Do you trust the government to do whatever is right just about always or most of the time," 80% of Democrats said "Yes," and 73% of Republicans agreed.

Barry Goldwater ran against that consensus. Consequently he lost the 1964 presidential election to President Johnson in a landslide. The Democrats won two one majorities in both houses of Congress.

In 2022 29% of Democrats agreed with that statement. 9% of Republicans agreed.

Between 1964 and 2022 trust in government has fluctuated, but it never reached the height it reached in 1964. What changed? Can it be said that the quality of American politicians has declined? By what criteria?

Can it be said that the quality of government employees has declined? Actually it can be because of affirmative action. That observation leads me into the area of speculation.

I think what happened after 1964 were disappointments connected with the civil rights legislation and the war on poverty. When white racial moderates voted for President Johnson and Congressional Democrats they thought that by supporting civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty they were going to be rewarded with racial peace.,

When they got instead five years of black ghetto riots, and more enduring increases in black social pathology, they felt betrayed. Consequently, they lost faith in the government, and began voting Republican.

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan appealed to hostility toward blacks. That would not have been possible if by 1968, and certainly by 1980, most blacks behaved and performed as well as most whites.

 

[Hector12]

Yes, I live in the world with real facts and figures, not whatever you guys pass around on racist websites.

Where are your facts? Where are your figures?

Is the United States Department of Justice a racist website?

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

What about the College Board?

SAT and ACT Scores by Race/Ethnicity

Does it lie about low average test scores for Negroes?

The burden of proof is on those who maintain that the races are intrinsically equal in average intelligence and behavior.