Zone1 REPARATION NOW! The US Owes $350,000 To Every Black American

[Hector12]

I thought eugenics meant reducing the number of blacks by not allowing them to reproduce. Am I mistaken?

To the best of my knowledge no American advocate of eugenics advocated sterilization of all Negroes.

 

[Lisa558]

To the best of my knowledge no American advocate of eugenics advocated sterilization of all Negroes.

I disagree with that completely. It’s immoral.

That’s not to say that conditions for continued welfare, regardless of race, is immoral. If a woman has two illegitimate children and we are supporting them, she can choose to get sterilized in order to keep the money spigot on.

 

[JoeB131]

The consensus of experts is sometimes mistaken as it was for Copernicus and Galileo.

I think you kind of misunderstood what that whole thing was about.

When Copernicus published his heliocentric model finding, it wasn't a big deal. He gave his calculations to the Church, the Church made the appropriate adjustments to the Calendar and really didn't make a big deal about it. What got Galileo in trouble was that he said the bible had to be wrong in key passages that only worked with the Geocentric/Pteomolic model of the universe. How Could God make the sun stop in the sky if the Sun was at a fixed point? Then you had Giordano Bruno, who got burned at the stake for saying there might even be life on other planets!

If someone was clinging to an outmoded view of things, it was the "race realists" who concluded that the luck of the draw in history confirmed the "superiority" of white people. One by one, their theories have fallen out of fashion as new data disproves their assumptions.

Here's the problem with people who believe in master races... they always assume that the race THEY belong to is it.

The consensus about genetically caused non cosmetic average differences is coerced. I am confident that many scientists say publicly what they do not believe in order to save their careers.

Or they just might be decent human beings... but I don't think you understand that concept.

Here's the thing, natural selection doesn't really apply to humans because we don't weed people out through natural selection. We create food distribution systems to avoid hunger, create medicines to eradicate diseases, etc.

It could well be in 100 years, we will all be able to directly interface with the cyber-world, making individual intelligence kind of meaningless. Why be smart when you can just "Google" the data you need by thinking about it?

Eugenics is becoming increasingly important in order to counter the current trend toward dysgenics.

Nope, Eugenics has always been garbage science.

Take the following story...

"About the termination of pregnancy - I want your opinion. The father was a syphilitic, the mother tuberculous, of the children born the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was tuberculous. What would you have done?”

"I would have ended the next pregnancy.”

"Then you would have murdered Beethoven.”

Since I'm on a composer kick today.

Since I am on a kick about composers. Let's take Wolfgang Mozart. His father, Leopold, was a moderately talented Composer, but his son was a true genius. Wolfgang himself married Constanza Weber, the cousin of Carl Marie von Weber, another noted composer. So some really good genes, there. Should have produced a whole litter of musical geniuses.

Um.
Nope.
They had six kids. Four of them died in infancy. The older son, Karl, had nothing to do with music. The younger son, Franz, was trained as a musician (ironically, by the much Maligned Antonio Salieri) but produced very little original content and was kind of mediocre.

Genius is not inherited. Are some people smarter than others? Sure.. but the environment plays a much larger role.

 

[JoeB131]

To the best of my knowledge no American advocate of eugenics advocated sterilization of all Negroes.

No Nazi was saying, "Kill all the Jews" in 1934, either.
In fact, the main reason why most German Jews didn't take Hitler seriously as they should have was that they thought it was just another goyim politician using them as a whipping boy.

 

[JoeB131]

I disagree with that completely. It’s immoral.

That’s not to say that conditions for continued welfare, regardless of race, is immoral. If a woman has two illegitimate children and we are supporting them, she can choose to get sterilized in order to keep the money spigot on.

Of course, most people on welfare are white and are only on it for a few years, and 35% of kids are born out of wedlock now. (This despite having birth control and abortion!)

Instead of whining about "illegitimacy," we stop penalizing poor people for getting married? Part of the idiotic welfare reform of the 1990s (all of which was rolled back when the recessions hit) was to insist that parents of kids out of wedlock had to identify the sperm donors so the government could try to squeeze blood out of a stone. Didn't work.

Also, why stop at sterilizing the poor?
Let's sterilize anyone who has a family history of cancer! Cancer patients eat up trillions in medical resources!
Let's sterilize anyone with a history of mental illness. Those people are never going to be as productive. If you have a crazy sister, you should be sterilized!

Sorry, I don't want to live in the live-action version of "GATTACA", and neither do you.

 

[Hector12]

If someone was clinging to an outmoded view of things, it was the "race realists" who concluded that the luck of the draw in history confirmed the "superiority" of white people. One by one, their theories have fallen out of fashion as new data disproves their assumptions.

That is a distortion of what race realists assert. Race realists talk in terms of tendencies and averages, rather than absolute categories.

Race realists assert that Orientals tend to be more intelligent and to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites of European descent, who in turn tend to be more intelligent and to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than Negroes. It is easy to document the truth of these assertions.

Race realists go further and assert that these average racial differences are largely genetic. This is an assertion that will be proved or disproved when more is learned about human genetics.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Scientific Truth is determined by a consensus of experts, and Eugenics was rejected by the majority back in the 1940's and thoroughly disregarded now.




Actually, never going to happen, mostly because there really isn't "affirmative action" in hiring. There are laws preventing discrimination in hiring.

Here's why companies won't ditch DEI policies.

The last thing they want is a lawyer rooting through HR Files to determine if someone was the best hire or not. For every "unqualified token", there is an equally unqualified idiot nephew who go the job over a deserving woman or minority. The only way to keep them from suing is by showing, "See, we hired two blacks and five women last year for positions!"

You are wrong, Scientific Truth isn’t consensus of opinion, no matter how widely held. It is the result of experiments, that are repeated with identical results. Opinion or consensus aren’t facts. Scientific consensus once held that the sun orbited the earth, disease was caused by bad humors in the air and that the earth was flat. On the last, the scientists refused to listen to the sailors who knew the earth was round because land fell below the horizon as they sailed away.

 

[JoeB131]

That is a distortion of what race realists assert. Race realists talk in terms of tendencies and averages, rather than absolute categories.

Race realists assert that Orientals tend to be more intelligent and to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites of European descent, who in turn tend to be more intelligent and to have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than Negroes. It is easy to document the truth of these assertions.

Race realists go further and assert that these average racial differences are largely genetic. This is an assertion that will be proved or disproved when more is learned about human genetics.

Genetics isn't destiny, bud. A few years ago, there was a crazy theory that men with an extra Y Chromosone were more likely to be violent. Then they did a study and found this not to be the case, and the ones who were just had bad environmental factors.

The problem with your argument about Asians is that most Asians live in abject poverty. The only countries in Asia without a lot of grinding poverty are Japan and South Korea, and those countries are only affluent because America pumped them with a shitload of your hard-earned tax dollars. China is getting there, but they are just as likely to flop on their face as time goes on. Vietnam, the Philippines, North Korea, etc. All grindingly poor countries.

You are wrong, Scientific Truth isn’t consensus of opinion, no matter how widely held. It is the result of experiments, that are repeated with identical results. Opinion or consensus aren’t facts. Scientific consensus once held that the sun orbited the earth, disease was caused by bad humors in the air and that the earth was flat. On the last, the scientists refused to listen to the sailors who knew the earth was round because land fell below the horizon as they sailed away.

You are kind of making my point.... All those beliefs were based on superstition and popular belief, not science. Just like Race Realism, which reflects the racist attitudes of white people.

Oh, nobody really thought the earth was flat. People knew in ancient times the world was round.

 

[Hector12]

The problem with your argument about Asians is that most Asians live in abject poverty. The only countries in Asia without a lot of grinding poverty are Japan and South Korea, and those countries are only affluent because America pumped them with a shitload of your hard-earned tax dollars. China is getting there, but they are just as likely to flop on their face as time goes on. Vietnam, the Philippines, North Korea, etc. All grindingly poor countries.

Orientals have low crime rates even when they are poor. What I mean by Orientals are Chinese, and nations that learned civilization from China: Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

 

[Hector12]

Just like Race Realism, which reflects the racist attitudes of white people.

You are confusing race realists with white nationalists. White nationalists do not like to be told that Orientals tend to be more intelligent, successful, and prosperous than white Gentiles. Because of my high opinion of Orientals, I like pointing that out to them.

Race realism is based on assertions that can either be proved now, or that will be testable when more is learned about human genetics and human evolution.

Jared Taylor claims to be a race realist, but it is not where his heart is. Where his heart is is what he calls "white advocacy," AKA, white nationalism.

 

[JoeB131]

Orientals have low crime rates even when they are poor. What I mean by Orientals are Chinese, and nations that learned civilization from China: Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

But that's cultural, not racial. Burmese, Thai, Filipinos are also "Oriental" by race, but you don't like to talk about them because they don't fit into your nice narrative as the poorer relations.

You are confusing race realists with white nationalists. White nationalists do not like to be told that Orientals tend to be more intelligent, successful, and prosperous than white Gentiles. Because of my high opinion of Orientals, I like pointing that out to them.

I'm sure most Asians would find you as repulsive as I do.

Race realism is based on assertions that can either be proved now, or that will be testable when more is learned about human genetics and human evolution.

Actually, these theories of racism were debunked years ago. Sadly, that didn't happen before the Holocaust occurred. Telling Jews that they are "White Enough" now is not much of a consolation... except for Jews like Lisa who are happy to get the promotion, I guess.

 

[Hector12]

But that's cultural, not racial. Burmese, Thai, Filipinos are also "Oriental" by race, but you don't like to talk about them because they don't fit into your nice narrative as the poorer relations.

Based on the data from the Ulster Institute, there is a significant variation in average IQs among countries. The countries with the highest average IQs are Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the People’s Republic of China, all with average IQs above 104. On the other hand, countries such as Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Niger, Antigua and Barbuda, and Rwanda have the lowest average IQs, all below 71.

Average IQ by Country 2023 - Wisevoter

The average IQ is generally considered to be reflective of the overall well-being of a country, as the average IQ of a population is closely related to a variety of factors such as education, health, income inequality, and government financing of education can all have a significant impact on IQ...

wisevoter.com

 

[Hector12]

I'm sure most Asians would find you as repulsive as I do.

I have never known an Oriental I did not like. I have never known one who disliked me. I doubt they would have been fond of you.

 

[Hector12]

Actually, these theories of racism were debunked years ago. Sadly, that didn't happen before the Holocaust occurred. Telling Jews that they are "White Enough" now is not much of a consolation... except for Jews like Lisa who are happy to get the promotion, I guess.

The failure of Head Start and No Child left behind substantiate the assertions of Charles Murray, Jared Taylor, and Professor's Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton

 

[JoeB131]

Based on the data from the Ulster Institute, there is a significant variation in average IQs among countries. The countries with the highest average IQs are Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the People’s Republic of China, all with average IQs above 104. On the other hand, countries such as Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Niger, Antigua and Barbuda, and Rwanda have the lowest average IQs, all below 71.

Guy, we weren't talking about those countries. How do you explain poor countries like the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia? They are racially "Asian" and poorer than shit.

For the record, the Valedictorian of my class at my elite Catholic HS was a Filipino. The Saluteadictorian was a black guy.

I have never known an Oriental I did not like. I have never known one who disliked me. I doubt they would have been fond of you.

Asian people love me. Especially the one I married. Probably because I don't fetishize her and use terms like "Oriental".

 

[JoeB131]

The failure of Head Start and No Child left

Why do you keep lying.

Head Start is barely glorified Day care, and NCLB was a slogan, not a policy.

The main reason they failed was why most things fail... a lack of effort.

 

[Hector12]

Why do you keep lying.

Head Start is barely glorified Day care, and NCLB was a slogan, not a policy.

The main reason they failed was why most things fail... a lack of effort.

The War on Poverty After 50 Years, the Heritage Foundation​

September 15, 2014

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This...

www.heritage.org

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 838299

The War on Poverty After 50 Years, the Heritage Foundation​

September 15, 2014

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This...

www.heritage.org

Why do you keep repeating the same shit?

First, your chart is a lie. It says ALL KIDS not just the black ones, failed to show an increase in scores over time. So it wasn't just that black kids failed to get smarter, no one did.


So you are already off to a bad start.

Same thing with the war on poverty. Anti-Poverty programs - less than 500 billion a year in a 30 Trillion economy - didn't just benefit blacks, but they didn't alleviate poverty for a simple reason... that was never the goal. The only goal was to keep people from starving, because starving people tend to get violent. This is what our government figured out looking at Revolutions in Russia and China. Just give the poor enough to keep them paficied, not to end poverty.

 

[Hector12]

Why do you keep repeating the same shit?

First, your chart is a lie. It says ALL KIDS not just the black ones, failed to show an increase in scores over time. So it wasn't just that black kids failed to get smarter, no one did.


So you are already off to a bad start.

Same thing with the war on poverty. Anti-Poverty programs - less than 500 billion a year in a 30 Trillion economy - didn't just benefit blacks, but they didn't alleviate poverty for a simple reason... that was never the goal. The only goal was to keep people from starving, because starving people tend to get violent. This is what our government figured out looking at Revolutions in Russia and China. Just give the poor enough to keep them paficied, not to end poverty.

What my chart from the Cato Institute and my and quote from the Heritage Foundation both demonstrate is that vast expenditures of tax money frequently yield disappointing results.

Your argument is that if still more money was spent to close the race gap in academic performance and standard of living the results would be favorable for the first time in history.

To me that sounds like a Republican claiming that if the Reagan administration had reduced taxes for the rich even more, the budget would have been balanced by 1983, like he promised in his 1980 debate with President Carter.

 

[JoeB131]

What my chart from the Cato Institute and my and quote from the Heritage Foundation both demonstrate is that vast expenditures of tax money frequently yield disappointing results.

Well, to start with, the expenditures weren't vast.

Also, not specifically directed towards black people, MOST of that money went to white people.

Your argument is that if still more money was spent to close the race gap in academic performance and standard of living the results would be favorable for the first time in history.

Nope, that's not my argument at all. True, we do need to spend more money, but we also need to spend it smarter. For instance, we spend way too much money on Special Education when Corky the Retard isn't going to be anything other than a retard, but they'll spend three times as much on him as a kid who is going to actually be in the workforce someday.

We need to get rid of the Teacher's unions because they promote and defend mediocrity. (I'm usually pro-union, just not here.)

We need to get rid of the inequities in School spending. The white suburban kid already has huge advantages, why does he get the nicer school with the up to date textbook?

We need to stop teaching to the test. Test preparation has overtaken actual education, and that's a huge problem.

To me that sounds like a Republican claiming that if the Reagan administration had reduced taxes for the rich even more, the budget would have been balanced by 1983, like he promised in his 1980 debate with President Carter.

That's a poor analogy even for you, buddy.