I found an interesting video of Chomsky talking about Trump, calling him a distraction and a conman. Chomsky knows a thing or two about conning people and creating distractions 🙂
Open thread: July 21, 2018
21 Saturday Jul 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
Pumpkin Person 
contra peepee-tard-ism, howard hughes was the richest man in the world from 1960 until his death in 1976 and he was a complete nutjob.
his net worth was $1.5 billion when he died. If that was enough to be world’s richest in 1976, it’s only 1% of what you need today. wonder what marx would say.
marx would say the same thing picketty says. the 60s and 70s were much less unequal than today and the return to capital exceeds the rate of growth in the economy, r > g. that is, the rich get richer at a much faster rate than wages increase, if they increase at all.
wikipedia said his estate was worth $2.5b when finally settled. it all went to HHMI.
and i just assume he was the richest in the world, because he was the richest american. as you can see the richest american every 5 years has never been a jew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_history#By_half_decade
well there’s only been several #1 richest americans in the decades since Jews have been on top. not a big enough sample size to show their representation.
Thats because the list doesnt actually audit all these people. The real richest americans are almost definitely not fully known.
False. Virtually all the richest Americans are known and about 36% of them are Jewish. That alone explains Jewish influence. You don’t have to makeup conspiracy theories about shadowy Jews who are secretly richer than Bill Gates.
[redacted by pp, july 23, 2018] You think the richest people want the IRS breathing down their neck. There are thousands of people with wealth offshore that nobody knows about. Least of all forbes journalists.
Pill, you’re a dirt poor schizophrenic from a trash background. You have no idea what forbes journalists know & how hard it is to hide billions from the IRS. Stop talking about topics you have no understanding of.
I have a lot more understanding about these topics than you do Puppy. A LOT more.
i’m having a psychotic break and realize pill was right all along! ever jew has toilet paper made of $100 bills and money printers in their kitchen installed by rob rubin!
I would agree with Phil because Forbes is only about professional wealth . There is much more than professional wealth. For example, the spouse of Strauss Kahn , disgraced head of the FMI, has been selling every 7 to 8 years a painting on average at 50 millions euros. Experts say she inherited among 100 and 600. So her wealth is between 5 bn and 30 bn but she is not listed anywhere.
I also an aristocratic family who owns buildings in Paris for 12 bn (80k square meter at 15k the meter). They are not listed among the people with more than 50M in France despite their having at least 24 times that amount only in buildings !
Still in the 50, 80% of the 100k building in Paris were the property of 800 families (meaning around 100 building per family). They sold out (except maybe 100 families. But they are nowhere to be found in wealth ranking !
I am pretty sure the Forbes list only capt between 50% and maybe only 10% of the billionnaires . The fact that Lazard bank owner is meant to have 700M (it was 150M 10 years ago) when some partners of its bank made 30M a year – and this family is around since 200 years – is a pure joke. I am pretty sure he must be at least above 50 billion .
Some years ago, CEO pay was only fix part around 500k in France . Then we learned they had incentives around 5M (10 times more). And a big part is still not known because CEO invest privately in deals from their firm thanks to their position and that’s not tracked . Some must ear 50M or more exactly like private equity people …
Journalist are really lazy and stupid and corrupted persons …
You and pill are too gullible. These European aristocrats are nowhere near as rich as they pretend to be. And you only see their assets, not their incredible debt. Wealth inequality has exploded in the years since their family fortunes were made, leaving most of them way behind.
disgraced head of the FMI, has been selling every 7 to 8 years a painting on average at 50 millions euros.
50 million Euros equals only $58 million US. Sinclair would need 17 of them to be a billionaire.
So, is Sinclair a billionaire? No, but she sure is rich. Her art collection, plus sales of her grandfather’s most valuable works, look to be worth between $100 million and $200 million. The couple’s residences tack on another $15 million — a rounding error when looking at candidates for Forbes rich lists, but handy when coming up with a bond guarantee for an alleged sex criminal husband.
Experts say she inherited among 100 and 600. So her wealth is between 5 bn and 30 bn but she is not listed anywhere.
What experts? 100 to 600 million? What currency?
I am pretty sure the Forbes list only capt between 50% and maybe only 10% of the billionnaires .
Forbes looks at much more than just professional wealth. Saying they only find 10% of billionaires is like saying biologists only find 10% of living species. Hiding great wealth is not as easy as you think. In order to generate a huge fortune in the first place, you generally have to sell something to a lot of people or rise to a position of power and that puts you and your heirs on the public radar.
The fact that Lazard bank owner is meant to have 700M (it was 150M 10 years ago) when some partners of its bank made 30M a year – and this family is around since 200 years – is a pure joke. I am pretty sure he must be at least above 50 billion .
Pretty sure based on what? Your worship of aristocrats? The idea of someone hiding a $50 billion net worth from the world is about as likely as a living mammal bigger than an elephant being unknown to biologists. Possible, but unlikely.
No pumpkin. All the data I gave your are certain :
Sinclair has between 100 and 600 paintings that have a value each above 30 millions. She inherited that from her art dealer parent. They are in free taxes warehouses (legally) in Europe (Italy and Switzerland ). So the really has between 3 and 18 billions (depending on art market prices). Journalist estimations are wrong .
The family I talked you about has no debt related to the buildings (not even inheritance tax debt). . I know it for sure (but can’t document it, but I had the official details). Sure I can’t say how many people like that there are in France but it should be easy to know the share of the GDP wich is not related to national stock market (patrimonial and private professional wealth. Private equity fortunes are estimated because of trades fund declaration. Pure PE is not valued …)
CEO in top 500 make 10 billions. More than most people estimated. But that doesn’t include private deals . For example, if you CEO of Marriott, and they hire the building and don’t own it . Your position allow you to privately – or through a fund – buy the building and rent it to your own firm. After 5 years, you sell it, and you got a profit free of tax wich has the same value of the building (for some people, they can make 60M a year , wich multiply by 4 the package.). People who thinks that most CEO earn less than private equity managers are wrong.
So yes, there lots of elements making me think that journalist list of reach people are just part of the story and that there are more billionnaires than 2000 persons.
I cited an article saying her art is worth between $100 & $200 million. Provide a source that it’s worth in the billions.
Fortune 500 CEOs make tens of billions? Most sources say they average over $13 million a year, with the most successful making over $100 million a year.
Your numbers seem off by orders of magnitude. Perhaps you’re just not used to U.S. dollars.
😂
10 bn for 500 CEO so its 20M on average . And I said if you took into account private deals, we would discover it’s more in the 40 to 80 M per CEO per year .
For Sinclair, I read articles who disappeared focused on art tax heaven in Europe (not on Sinclair/Rosenberg).
But if you read the wiki page of her grand father, he had 2000 paintings in 1940. He is currently missing 70. One Monet has been discovered recently for 45M. So what I read, and heard here in Paris, that she still have between 200 and 1200 paintings and she owns 50%, all free of taxes. Our current head of constitutional court, son of another art dealer, as a head of treasury in the 80 passed laws to exempt arts from most taxes. But Sinclair isn’t concerned because hers are in a tax haven in places considered extra-territorial. Since more than 40 years, they sell 1 every 6 or 7 years. So she needs 3M of year (40/6.5/2) to finance her lifestyle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rosenberg_(art_dealer)
I don’t know if I was able to post the following message (few battery left, I am on the beach ) :
CEO salary is an analogy to fortune ranking and indetifying . The press was very long to discover the full extent of CEO revenues ( and haven’t yet discovered the private investment part of it). It’s not to imply that CEO become billionnaires , because they stay only 5 years on average (so by my calculation they gain 250 millions, with only a portion heavily taxed).
Probably one day they ll do more research to know the extension of non professional wealth . I believe Forbes précise that it’s ranking is only about professional wealth (and it doesn’t include pure privately hold capital of non traded assets as I said ). So I guess that betwee 50 and 80% is unreported as Phil implied
I believe Forbes précise that it’s ranking is only about professional wealth (and it doesn’t include pure privately hold capital of non traded assets as I said ).
This is not true. Forbes makes every effort to value all forms of wealth, and has even included drug lords like El Chapo among their billionaires. Of course Forbes has finite resources and can’t possibly know the value and ownership of every asset on the planet, but the bigger the fortune, the harder it is to hide it from the media.
So I would say the richer you are, the greater the probability of being on Forbes list, and once you get over $20 billion, the probability approaches 100%. If there were a significant number of multibillionaires not found by Forbes we would hear about a lot of them when they died. In rare cases we hear about someone leaving behind a 10 figure fortune not identified by Forbes, but typically this is some dictator who hid the wealth through so many different frontmen and proxy businesses that it was arguably never solely his fortune at all.
Maybe you are right . At least about decabillionnaires. I know the French ranking better. And I positively know 2 billionnaires families that aren’t included at all. I d love to speak about the subject with Forbes peoplento see wich proportion they are missing of billionnaires
In some cases forbes leaves off family fortunes if the wealth is divided up among so many family members that no single individual is a confirmable billionaire
It’s also possible you know of people Forbes missed since i doubt Forbes has many French sources. You should email them.
many of my physics colleagues say mathematics describes out physical reality at least in some approximate sense. i go further and argue it actually is our physical reality. —tegmark
atoms are perfect. —a jew chemistry teacher i had.
i know some facts and theories to be true independent of experience. namely, mathematics.
They’re trivially true…in the same sense that ‘language’ is true.
All math is is the purest example of language we have.
But is it really that profound to have a meaning attached to the word “chair” and then finding that objects in reality seem to match up sufficiently with the word for us to label the object as a chair?
It’s convenient. Sure.
^^^ More jewish nonsense.
My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. —haldane
eric weinstein was asked by dave rubin what the best argument for God was. he said what i would’ve said and the only argument hitch admitted he couldn’t answer. namely, the boundary conditions can’t be specified except by a specifi-er.
namely, the boundary conditions can’t be specified except by a specifi-er.
elaborate
whatever facts you know or theories you believe ask yourself why they could not have been otherwise than they are. why are the laws of physics what they are and not something else?
tegmark’s answer is that every universe which can exists exists. this universe is merely one of an infinite number. the anthropic principle is that this universe is one with laws wherein intelligent life can develop. it may be unique or one of an infinite number.
the answers to all the why questions do not rest on a firm foundation. they’re turtles on turtles.
therefore, the best answer is that of the gnostics. the human soul is trapped in this world like a prison and escapes it at death for other worlds.
Austits believe there is no god, in the same way the read a textbook and newspaper and think there is no agenda there.
And schizophrenics believe there is a God in the same way they think their dog is telling them to kill people.
Well, if there are an infinite number of universes with physical laws that vary, it’s expected that we one universe will have physical laws that are ‘just so.’
‘God’ is a metaphor for “ideas.” The fact that human beings can conceive of facts other than those before them, and not just facts, but entirely different realities.
“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
so the answer to the question, “is there a God?” is “is there gravity?”
…”is this world all there is?” is “that would be odd. why would that be?”
‘God’ is a metaphor for “ideas.”
it’s more than that even if you’re referring to the metaphor of the cave. ultimate reality is personal not thinglike. ego sum qui sum…deus caritas est.
no atheists and almost no religious people grok these arguments. i can guarantee that religions like christianity, judaism, hinduism, maybe some more would’ve developed in any world. it’s the ideas behind them that are universal. as garry wills says someone like jesus was an inevitable historical figure. sometimes those are hard to see. metaphor was once the primary means or the only means of communicating abstractions. flynn has commented on this. how even just 100 years ago people were much less capable of abstract reasoning. God speaks in the language of men at the time he speaks to them.
sam harris is a very silly man like raymond luxury yacht.
ultimate reality is personal not thinglike. ego sum qui sum…deus caritas est.
One step further then is I am love, I am god.
To believe this and to also despise hippies is to be truly virtuous.
Muggy can’t fathom the truth — that Aquinas was from the SOUTH.
Yes Pumpkin. For example, even for professional wealth, the French rankings (Capital and Challenge) put Michel-David Weill, hear of Lazard or general manager , investment bank like Goldman Sachs or Rothschild, at 700M with family. 10 years ago, he was ranked at 100M.
See what Forbes wrote about him and family :
All that overhead requires a steady income, and each year David-Weill and his wife, four children and sister take out about $100 million, 20% of Lazard’s 1999 profits. This is more than 50 times what a junior partner receives.
This guy is the heir of an investment bank that have made history with offices in New York and Paris . And he wouldn’t have 1 bn with his family …. It’s quite unlikely .
4
SCORE
6.942 TRENDING
Vault investment bank 2017 Rank
4 Lazard
Founded in 1848, Lazard has advised on some of the most significant mergers and acquisitions in Europe and the Americas since the beginning of the 20th…
https://www.forbes.com/global/2000/0904/0317044a.html
The other guy of the article is Vincent Bolloré (not Bollor), a French billionnaire.
Lazard is the 4th most prestigious investment bank for vault :
http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/banking/most-prestigious-banking-companies/
atheists are like people who see david copperfield and think he’s a real magician.
for admirers of bishop berkeley the so called strong anthropic principle is obviously true. that is, a universe wherein no observers can ever exist…it isn’t clear what it means for such a universe to exist. it’s just a mathematical abstraction.
esse est percipi.
Saw Trumpy interviewed by Carlson. Trumpy is acting that dumb. Its a total act. Almost camp.
Carlson kept asking why the ‘washington elites’ hate russia so much.
Trumpy kept saying brennan, comey, mccabe, strozk et al are ‘bad people’. And talking about chiiiiiina. Trumpy definitely knows why hahaha.
trump is like drunken master. his instincts are so good he doesn’t need to be smart.
Whats going on. And what goes on alot for certain social ‘movements’ is confluence.
So at the start certain ethnic minorities from Denmark might organise, fund and rabble rouse….but there really are people who stand to benefit from it obliquely that you wouldn’t have thought. For example, I don’t think most democrat politicans or officials truly believe Russia is a threat, but say it anyway to take out Trump, who they hate for ‘moral’ reasons (which itself is ironic, as these are invented by the same people too).
Then you have ‘average people’. People who work in white shoe firms, dentists, lawyers, doctors and other mensa types who read the media and cannot but be appalled and start backing russia out of anger.
The final group is foreign elements within a state that have an interest in getting rid of trump that are not jewish, like say the chinese or muslims or hispanic immigration groups.
Not everyone is ‘in on it’ like our danish friends.
This is why group 2 ‘average people’ laugh at the idea of conspiracy. Because they actually can see why they ‘believe’ in it for their own ends. And suppose the other groups are likewise – liberal journlaists, politicans, judges even.
They can’t fathom that it really is a plan. Just that their role is ‘useful idiot’.
It isn’t “a plan.” Ideology is not “a plan.” People join groups that offer them the most benefit and will adopt the beliefs of that group. That’s it. That’s all.
No they don’t. Youre an idiot.
That’s why the Pope isn’t Catholic, right?
Here. Join a group that meets your human needs — you get wine, women, affection, etc. See how “true” or “false” the group’s beliefs seem or become, then.
This requires going out and making friends and building lasting relationships, though.
That’s why YOU don’t understand.
There is no point talking to this hack.
You don’t know how to talk. You only know how to delude yourself. And the sad thing is that you can’t even be original or creative in your delusions.
Ideology is not “a plan.” [sic]
indeed! it’s a human trait, like big penises and boobs.
Im pretty certain most jewish elites believe in HBD even more than I do and know certain aspects and facts that even we don’t about black crime etc etc. They do not drink their own kool aid.
The one point id take is that these same elites send their children to harvard or other places to be brainwashed. Presumably the media and academics they listen to aren’t much different.
But then maybe their brains are psychopathic like their parents and so don’t pay attention to these things anyway.
no they don’t.
you are way too into conspiracy theories.
most people are “true believers.” the vast majority.
people can believe multiple contradictory things simultaneously swank.
i guarantee most jews think jews are superior for genetic reasons even if they say otherwise or even believe otherwise.
the problem with constant promotion of race issues is whites feel anxiety around blacks they wouldn’t otherwise. they’re afraid of making a micro-aggression or something like that. this actually leads them to simply avoid blacks. no anxiety. it is much easier in the south where there are so many blacks. they don’t stand out like a sore thumb the way they do in maine for example. part of the reason for jim crow was rich whites keeping poor whites down. they could always say to themselves, “at least i’m not black.”
swank’s model of the human mind is autistic.
muggy we agree about how whites hate poor whites…why keep bringing it up to me? false consciousness was really hip….freshman year of college.
I “guarantee” you most people aren’t thinking anything like that. People who are ‘elite’ and who get to the top are LESS LIKELY to believe that “genetics” played a role. They either believe merit got them there or that circumstance did, and this tends to correlate with how nouveau the status is.
The only people who buy into “fixed” identities of any kind are people who are NOT ‘elite.’ It’s not an accident that those who feel like losers ruminate on fixed qualities that they uncoincidentally possess.
^^ Swank really is pushing it.
I can’t name what group he may or may not be affiliated with because of moderation. But certainly, this is the type of comment theyd endorse.
Here is the main quote summarizing it all, Ronnie-phil:
In the past, white men have hated white men quite as much as some of them hate the Negro, and have vented their hatred with as much savagery as they ever have against the Negro. The best educated people have the least race prejudice. In the United States the poor white were encouraged to hate the Negroes because they could then be used to help hold the Negroes in slavery. The Negroes were taught to show contempt for the poor white because this would increase the hatred between them and each side could be used by the master to control the other. The real interest of the poor whites and the Negroes were the same, that of resisting the oppression of the master class. But ignorance stood in the way. This race hatred was at first used to perpetuate white supremacy in politics in the South. The poor whites are almost injured by it as are the Negroes.
This is…
CORRECT.
And a jew didn’t say it.
baldwin?
and peepee claims “chomsky has taught me well.”
[redacted by pp, July 24, 2018]
Philo, you know that German – to get reunification – welcomed 180k Russian Jews . Do you think that following migration as something to do with this installation ? And how ?
Portugal and Spain are hoping to welcome around 20k Jewish sefardies (now they have 10k in total). It could be a laboratory to test McDonald theories. And research should be done for Germany because it s a complete ab initio implantation of a Jewish population there (essentially Berlin).
See wich good and bad follows …
A lot of black friends and people I know, personally and otherwise, argue for segragation. These are semi successful and educated blacks. They think theyd do better in a society wherebeveryone in their community was black. I agree. I think theyre very creative and definitely capable of pursuing their magic negro tendencies when their society would be all black.
it’s interesting how polynesians are so much better looking than other east asians. at least from a european perspective. i think it’s that they’re robust. i find robust women more attractive too. like, “ingrid was a big girl she broke my child’s bicycle.” women who look like a leaf…not attractive. this is the audrey hepburn look pill likes. i want a woman i can put to work in the fields.
i want a woman with wide hips for birthing yuge headed chillens.
That isn’t why.
They just look more mixed.
Mixed looking people tend to be more attractive on average.
From an “ethnic genetic interest” standpoint it makes sense. They kind of look like they could belong to a lot of groups.
To test this theory, I’d suggest studying mixed race people and their personality types. If what I’m saying is true, they should be more extroverted and less attached on average, probably with other dark traid-ish traits favoring short-term rather than long-term mating strategies — because they can freely move among groups, even if they may not be allowed top status in any of them.
“i want a woman i can put to work in the fields.”
This explains a lot.
they are NOT better looking.
i should’ve said, “those who are good looking among them are better looking than the good looking among chinks.”
Well, according to most white people they are. Me included.
https://www.psypost.org/2018/01/study-men-women-view-mixed-race-male-faces-attractive-white-faces-50614
I experienced this first-hand with the midget (even compared to me) mixed-race guy I once knew — no homo but he was really dreamy.
Seth: Are you out of your mind! Look at Jules’ dating record ok. She dated Dan Remick who’s had a 6 pack since like kindergarten, Jason Stone who looks like ****ing Zack Morris, and Matt Muir, Matt Muir, he’s the sweetest guy ever! Have you ever stared into his eyes? It was like the first time I ever heard the Beatles.
seriously…there’s no comparison!
if there’s a sexier woman than ingrid in casablanca i’d like to see her.
and the ideal for rr and swank is even more robust, anna magnani.
in this picture she had shaved her moustache.
More like…
5’3 Martin Scorsese was married to Isabella Rossellini.
Italians are just…heroic.
Even the court jesters.
you know that isabella’s mother was ingrid right?
I did not know that.
I owe you a. Coke.
madison should be a hero to swank. he was 5’4″, the shortest president.
Napoleon is the patron saint of short men at 5’7.
i’ve posted my GRE scores. peepee won’t let anyone else post his scores, because anyone else doesn’t exist.
it’s easy. block out all identifying info and scan to your computer. then upload to tinypic.
peepee will never let us see swank’s LSAT or g-man’s SAT.
Take the Wonderlic. https://footballiqscore.com/
As good as any IQ test I can think of.
36% because ethnic networking.
peepee doesn’t grok this.
12% would be fine…but even then…
(((their))) fortunes are very concentrated in certain secotors. finance, real estate finance, and media.
IQ per se simply does NOT explain the FACTS.
I agree IQ alone can’t explain it. The overrepresentation is too extreme.
if IQ were the sole explanatory variable (((their))) fortunes would be distributed fairly evenly across all sectors AND (((they)))’d be at most 12% of the forbes 400.
there are OTHER variables.
No because all sectors are not as g loaded. And their low spatial aptitudes with high verbal and numerical predisposed them for speculation : money, laws, trade, professional services.
Jews are the best musician but have few composers
What power art thou
Who from below
Hast made me rise
Unwillingly and slow
From beds of everlasting snow
See’st thou not how stiff
And wondrous old
Far unfit to bear the bitter cold
I can scarcely move
Or draw my breath
I can scarcely move
Or draw my breath
Let me, let me,
Let me freeze again
Let me, let me
Freeze again to death
Let me, let me, let me
Freeze again to death..
that ski-er girl was two grades ahead. nothing happened. jimmy was right about that.
had a yuge crush…then my advisor suggested i be advanced a grade in the highest math class for the grade…she was in my class…it was a big hs…she was the worst student in the class…the teacher was a minister who had to teach…not much money in the lord…the classroom was vacant…the teacher there before had taught accounting…he died from AIDS…no kidding…the hs president was in the class…he was a midget but good at tennis…she liked him…one day he told me about Sympathy for the Devil…like all politicians, his favorite song…
coincidences are bound to happen from time to time, but they’re still uncanny. i turned on the radio when i got home…immediately it was that song from the beginning. meaningless to sam harris but still note-worthy.
anastasia screamed in vain.
while i was masturbating to gay porn i got the call. “dad died.”
july 17, 2018…100 years to the day the romanovs were whacked by the bolshies.
coincidences are inevitable, but still interesting…and scary.
i take the eric weinstein position. the via media between peepee and pill.
1. some things can have personal significance which feels as if there is a God, and some things can have social significance which feels as if there is a conspiracy.
2. one should NOT deny these feelings, but he should not claim he understands. one should be humble. he should admit he doesn’t know. and that…
3. this is what i call “trusting your mangina”.
Human beings have a bias towards themselves and personalizing their reality to begin with…as a result of the just world bias, probably. The next step is whether they realize that they are in control of whatever concept of ‘self’ everything relates to.
If you have accepted someone else’s view of yourself, then you will naturally try to avoid cognitive dissonance and uphold the just world bias. In order for the world to be just and for you to be some vision of what is ‘good,’ such as ‘white’ or ‘Episcopalian,’ reality against those ideas must be reconciled.
Sometimes the contrast is so stark that the only rational explanation, given the priors, is a conspiracy.
But, let’s be honest — no one cares enough about you to conspire against you to that degree.
“What you got ain’t nothing new. This country is hard on people. You can’t stop what’s coming. It ain’t all waiting on you. That’s vanity.”
Which is also why revenge is stupid.
Not because justice and injustice.
But because….why devote such effort?
Bruce Wayne is a retard.
Chris Mathews rules out revenge as a motive in politics because “nobody can afford revenge”
meLo (who i think is pronounced mee-lo),
What are your thoughts on the GSCE data from britain?
What are your thoughts on the Wilson effect? do you think its true?
“meLo (who i think is pronounced mee-lo),”
It’s pronounced “mellow” as in marshmellow.
“What are your thoughts on the GSCE data from britain?”
Can you be more specific?
“What are your thoughts on the Wilson effect? do you think its true?”
The wilson effect is a real phenomena due to synaptic pruning occurring more frequently as the organism matures. It’s why Heritability of IQ increases as humans get older. Not because genetic variance is suddenly becoming stronger, but because Intelligence becomes considerably more malleable
here’s a decent study on the issue:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929315301043
Unfortunately though the study only finds moderate results which i deduce is because they didn’t take epigenetic feedback loops into account.
the eea is false
Irrelevant.
“Can you be more specific?”
There has been some discusions on its correlation to G, the gap between ethnic groups being due to selection of unrepresentative genomes of the nigerian population. Some samples using the CAT test. Do you think the smaller differences in GCSE and CAT scores give us any insight into the malleability of afrian intelligence?
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/uk-blacks-now-matching-uk-whites-on-achievement-tests/¨
Click to access glassessment.pdf
Swank and PP had an long discussion about this:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/31/the-impressive-intelligence-of-african-immigrants/
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/05/more-thoughts-on-the-high-iqs-of-african-immigrants-in-britain-2/
“Not because genetic variance is suddenly becoming stronger, but because Intelligence becomes considerably more malleable”
So is it peoples initial advantage in iq during youth and life circumstances that determines the environment that the more malleable brain molds in during adulthood, and therefore increases heritability since the correlation between genotype and environment increases as low iq environments isolate capable people from sucess and therefore IQ thanks to their more malleable brains being stuck in a rut thanks to an bad environment feedback loop?
Becuase increased malleability sounds like an decrease in h^2 within conventional twin study methods, as environmental variance would be larger than brains not maleable. I dont understand how your view on HBD works, also youve said you arent entierly fond of Lynn or Rushton.
You also cite small correlations around .3 to prove fysiological traits are associated with intelligence, and state that they are evidence for an possible non iq meassurement of intelligence, thats construct valid as there would be a near 1-1 relationship between it and IQ. Am i right in my assesment on your opinion on construct validity?
“Do you think the smaller differences in GCSE and CAT scores give us any insight into the malleability of afrian intelligence?”
I’ll be honest, I don’t really care. From what I know of the brain, there is no reason blacks cannot reach intelligence levels to that of Whites and East asians. But requires cultural change and many generations of sustaining this change. Im very skeptical of the selection bias hypothesis.
“Becuase increased malleability sounds like an decrease in h^2 within conventional twin study methods, as environmental variance would be larger than brains not maleable. I dont understand how your view on HBD works, also youve said you arent entierly fond of Lynn or Rushton.
You also cite small correlations around .3 to prove fysiological traits are associated with intelligence, and state that they are evidence for an possible non iq meassurement of intelligence”
Sorry It’s kind of hard to understand what you’re asking me. You may want to rewrite this. I made a typo is should say less not more malleable.
IQ is not a perfect measure by any means but it is construct valid. The Study showed the ability differences were present at a young age, the authors assumed it’s because there was no relation, but they did not account for epigenetic feedback loops. Plus, In all reality the correlations are still going to be small because synaptic pruning is not the whole story.
Hepburn is amazing. Its hard to compete with that. Anderson Coopers mother when she was young was also amazing.
Cooper turned out gay. Very sad.
Breakfast at Tiffanys is partly modelled on his mother. Truman Capote was a good writer I must say.
Vanderbilts were one of the main familys behind the attempted fascist coup against FDR. General Smedley Butler blew the whistle on the plot. The newspapers buried it.
But these people did eventually get their way and removed JFK.
Its interesting to see jews having Vanderbilts on tv talking lies.
Carlos Slims family was on the pro christian fascist side of the lebanese civil war. They butchered a lot of palestinians in refugee camps under Israels beckoning. This is why Slim gets to own the NYT nominally, as a gesture for loyalty.
BTW this also explains why hes the richest man in Mexico.
but, but, but, there must be thousands of jewish mexicans way richer than slim because jews are God and hide trillions offshore. Me schizo and so have high social IQ
Theres a big story in german football about a turkish descended player retiring because of the ‘racism’ he received after taking a photo with erdogan.
Bowl around the head. Amazing. They all go to the barber and say – make it look like a bowl around the head.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.vox-cdn.com%2Fthumbor%2FTpFzfaY7N3x8zDJLMD96t7mKldc%3D%2Fcdn0.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F3995788%2Fbillgates1986.jpg&f=1
Theres Bill before his PR person said he needed to look less like an extraterrestrial lifeform.
i think that’s a bill gates impersonator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn
All of these people should be put onto a ship and sent out into the ocean so that people are allowed think radically again.
yep. and rr thinks these people are legit. there are several reasons for this “turn”. all of these reasons also explain the “turn” in economics.
1. it’s safe. no bad thoughts. no thoughts threatening to master.
2. more professors means not enough people actually capable of thinking. so they have to do something else.
3. math, physics envy. philosophy professors want to think of themselves as professionals.
if philosophy departments exist at all they should be like literature departments or theology departments. but it would be better if they were just shut down.
but there’s one legit reason. namely, math departments don’t like to hire logicians, because in general mathematical logic has no use for the rest of mathematics.
I genuinely think he reminds me of Rain Man.
If Neitsche or Marx were brought to life and sat in a room. I would say in about 15 seconds theyd walk out.
sat in this room#
Autism really is increasing. Not just better methods for detecting it.
If you read 18th or earlier century literature, its never mentioned. Nothing even approaching it.
My theory is that autism is selected by the economic system. It is basically non existent in non civilised parts of the world. It would be interesting comparing autism rates in China and Mongolia.
If Im right, Mongolia will have much less. And those that are autistic in mongolia will have significant han chinese parentage.
This means that:
1. The work of Professer Shu will just lead to even more autistic people like Terry Tao. Rather than anyone helpful.
2. More and more men will not get laid.
3. The system as a whole will become weaker to R selected males from barbarian places.
4. Jews will continue to rule.
5. We may not see any intellectual breakthroughs outside of inanimate objects and computer science for a long while.
6. Outright feudalism will eventually happen, as the stationary bandits at the top feel emboldened by their serfs.
However, at the bottom of the pyramid, Master also desires refugees and 3rd world garbage to come to make it easier to rule the last sane Westerners. These people will multiply a lot quicker than employee of the months will have autism babies.
So Master may need to eventually correct this once it starts hurting economic progress.
Or maybe not. All wealth is relative anyway.
in earlier times most of them would simply have been known as idiots or morons, the high IQ ones as eccentrics.
If you read 18th or earlier century literature, its never mentioned. Nothing even approaching it.
Meaningless.
My theory is that autism is selected by the economic system.
Like every other “psychological trait.”
It is basically non existent in non civilised parts of the world
How would you know?
Autism, like any other “disorder” in the DSM is defined relative to the person’s culture.
The definition was relaxed so is it truly “on the rise”?
Actually schiz doesn’t make you dumb. I was reading the papers on it. It actually seems more likely than the medications make you dumb rather than the ‘inflammation’. Its also likely that the bad lifestyles and poor nutrition of such people would have an effect.
Its very hard to tell if someone is actually dumb or just really medicated. But what is true is that schiz is a trailer trash disease as pumpkin says or the ‘blacks mans disease’ [redacted by pp, july 24, 2018]
Which is to say, it is definitely a sign of being undomesticated and probably not fit for certain thought patterns and mental activities that civilised people are bred for i.e. math type thinking maybe. *although Godel and Nash are prominent counter examples
My personal theory is that schiz is a problem of perception rather than cognition and that psychiatrists should look for medications that focus on sensory input pathways. This is why drugs that numb dopamine receptors work traditionally.
Yes see the mask test . It’s linked to pure
Down – top perception with inability of the higher functions to team the ancient (and more adapted ones). So the person is’rules by its instincts and imagination .
Autist is either (non exclusive) a bad or too strong intervention of the cortex blocking the automatic processes . It deprived the person of valuable mechanisms . Like if the consicous brain tries to manage the liver ! Dead would ensue in a few minutes …
Most psychiatry is looking at chicken entrails. Especially if you have aspergers or you are an idiot like my old psychiatrist. They will literally change their opinion based on a few sentences you say, because they have no theory of mind. They should be doing charity work in Africa or helping jews by protesting gentile men, not messing with peoples lives in ‘healthcare’.
But thats not the same thing as observing that psychiatry can help people if done correctly, theoretically. Because these are reall illnesses and there are proven ways to treat them.
I sometimes think anyone with a Phd is a retard. It means you’ve listened really intently to the jews nonsense.
But people with Phds in scientific subjects like geology or chemical engineering are not totally hopeless. Even if they can’t reason properly outside of lego blocks.
So the “Hsu boundary” (http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-hsu-boundary/) was finally hit: 1.1 million people GWAS. And it’s as funny as you’d expect:
Kirkegaard is now saying we need to GWAS 100 million people to capture the ultra-small functionally relevant SNPS that (supposedly) lead to cognitive trait variance. I called this last year, that when this “Hsu Boundary” was hit that they’d up the number with some BS excuse.
11 percent in regard to EA! Hilarious! Hsu’s boundary was nothing; now the “HBDers” will clamor for 100 million; then 1 billion; then 10 billion. They’ll probably figure something out to save their reductionist paradigm soon enough.
Haha. PGS “explains” 11-13 percent of variance in EA, whereas for “”cognitive performance”” variation “explained” was 7-10 percent.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3.epdf?referrer_access_token=_VxMWmGo9EFNuyJCMVMt9tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nqad92v-7y1ilkmPqR7KMJgq_vv2M-jr2gmZ9CcUCxjKaLpN9-yY9v4iDlGgVeSLr5ogKvfcTUJbNZx0yDurIQhJFRlQfUM4ioAQoTiRCItaE_CPHGgFy3bMcv4KjAJ08graB4GBRZWdd7zJvSlJOCtM6H7igLQNcTpdwZBcQt09J2Jgrqm4SfNIz7_Jav-4TfXhzSyQJ3sb6x1oaijVzlCPYY777gbrkMzDupS7dATQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theatlantic.com
So Hsu’s hypothesis was falsified.
GWAS is a failed research programme, along with PRS and PGS. It’s over; time to stop wasting money on this garbage.
what IQ test was given to these 1 million people RR? The VNR? Sorry proper IQ tests take 2 hours, not 2 minutes.
One million people GWAS has come (and was talked about 2 months ago on twitter…). Results are, of course, no where near expected and even if they were, there’s no testing for functionality in the genes they’ve “associated.”
What would administering any other test accomplish? More “genes”? Higher “variance explained” near 80 percent like Hsu et al promised to match heritability estimates gleaned from twin studies?
Remember when Hsu said last week that it was “game over” and a look over at the paper showed large problems with pop stratification? That’s what is being captured.
RR please calm down
If they used a test that was twice as g loaded, then variance explained would quadruple
And this is only common additive variance. It doesn’t include rare variants and non-additive effects
game over
How do you know? What’s the g-loading for the VNR? Richardson and Norgate 2005 covered additive variance. It’s no “game over”, the “Hsu boundary” is here, and there’s nothing new. I explicitly stated that when the “boundary” was passed that variance “explained” would be ~15 percent which would lend credence to Richardson’s hypothesis. I was right.
How do you know?
Logic
What’s the g-loading for the VNR?
Probably only around 0.45
Richardson and Norgate 2005 covered additive variance.
Go on
It’s no “game over”, the “Hsu boundary” is here, and there’s nothing new.
That’s cause a million people still haven’t taken an IQ test, they’ve taken a 2 minute substitute for a 2 hour IQ test.
For no other trait would we accept such crappy data. Imagine if we were studying physical strength and the only data we had was the strength of your pinky finger.
“Logic”
What’s the logic?
“Probably only around 0.45”
“Probably”? “Only”?
“Go on”
Various interactions at various levels confound additive variance regarding twin studies (which is what GWAS is essentially attempting to validate).
“That’s cause a million people still haven’t taken an IQ test, they’ve taken a 2 minute substitute for a 2 hour IQ test.”
If one million people take the WAIS and were GWASed, what would happen?
“Imagine if we were studying physical strength and the only data we had was the strength of your pinky finger.”
Horrible analog.
Various interactions at various levels confound additive variance regarding twin studies (which is what GWAS is essentially attempting to validate).
Not when heritabiliy is measured via MZ twins raised apart
If one million people take the WAIS and were GWASed, what would happen?
The amount of variance explained would double, if not quadruple.
“MZ twins reared apart”
Yea, “reared apart”, in one study the twins were separated by a fence: they lived next door to each other. I guess that’s “reared apart” but cohort effects explain similarities.
“double, if not quadruple”
Based on what? And if and when this the time comes and the prediction doesn’t come to pass, then what? Which explanations would you use to save the failed GWAS research programme?
Yea, “reared apart”, in one study the twins were separated by a fence: they lived next door to each other. I guess that’s “reared apart”
I’ve already responded to this:
but cohort effects explain similarities.
Not for IQ they don’t, because IQ is normed for age
“double, if not quadruple”
Based on what?
Based on the fact that the Wechsler is far more valid and reliable than the VNR, and only reliable valid measures can be heritable.
And if and when this the time comes and the prediction doesn’t come to pass, then what?
Then I’m wrong, but until then I’m not too concerned because there’s such an OBVIOUS explanation for the low heritability.
“I’ve already responded to this.”
You have two choices:
(1) accept the EEA and the fact that greater behavioral similarity is due to genetic similarity or (2) reject the EEA and state that greater behavioral resemblance is due to nongenetic (environmental) factors and this discard any and all genetic conclusions from twin studies. But accepting (2) does not mean that “twin studies overestimate heritability, or that researchers should assess the EEA on a study-by-study basis, but instead indicates that the twin method is no more able than a family study to disentangle the potential influences of genes and environment” (Joseph, 2016: 181).
Cohort effects are much more than age, read Joseph, 2014.
The Weschler isn’t construct valid.
There is no “OBVIOUS” explanation why they’re low. The research programme lies on false premises.
For no other trait would we accept such crappy data
Yet for the heredetarianism position on IQ, “crappy data” has been the norm and accepted for over a century now.
peepee’s just making shit up as usual. the g-laoding of VNR is 100% IRRELEVANT. all that matters is how heritable it is in twin studies and GCTA.
[redacted by pp, July 24, 2018]
One predicts the other Mug of Pee. If it’s low g it’s low h^2 in twin studies
height is low g too.
[redacted by pp, July 24, 2018]
g only matters cause it’s stable, reliable, valid & biological
Height is also all those things
Its partly genetic. But we don’t have the methods or tools to measure it at this point. The human genome project only happened 20 years ago.
Come to think of it, nothing major has happened in medicine for a long time. The only advances seem to be in doping athletes. In psychiatry most of the drugs they use are from 60 or 70 years ago. The new generation anti psychs only benefit is different secondary symptoms, not even reduced secondary ones per se and no improved performance.
One thing that was good was the polio vaccine and now AIDS sufferers (people experimented on by the CIA i.e. the american gay community and africans) can live much longer with the drug regime. Can’t think of anything else in the last 30 years.
Plastic surgery might have improved actually.
Its partly genetic
Such a meaningless statement.
nothing major has happened in medicine for a long time
Because medicine is a proto-science.
the statins are a yuge thing. the immuno-therapies for cancer are the second biggest thing that’s happened recently.
one of the interesting things about AIDS is that…
1. a small group of very motivated (dying) people can have a yuge effect on funding…even though those people are for the most part very UN-sympathetic (sodomites). who screams the loudest.
2. lots of funding does have an effect. AIDS was turned from a death sentence to something like type 1 diabetes in 1996 due to the introduction of HAART.
rr beat me to it. it’s even worse than he knows.
a comment at sailer’s: The abstract is misleading and conclusions in the paper are misleading. 1,271 SNPs or as they call them: “lead SNPs” explains only 3.9%. They do not say they had to toss in 998,729 extra non-lead SNPs to push the 3.9% up to 11%…The question is is how larger was sample: “independent data that was not included in the GWAS” because using 1 million variables and 1.2 million subjects is very close to the guaranteed over-fit.
and it didn’t work on negroes at all.
where were these 1m people from?
GAME OVER!
You’re right. It is worse. And it, as you said, has no predictive power for blacks. The death shots keep coming at GWAS, it’ll be dead eventually with a few more blows.
I think like 300000 people were genotyped through 23 and me as well.
what’s PRS?
Polygenic risk score.
Actually thats an interesting question:
– Why do you think AIDS spread to the American gay community in the late 70s and not to the canadian, or other western european ones to such a degree.
BTW the CIA has admitted it gave blacks syphilis in the Tuskegee experiments. Look it up.
My hunch is that they also did this to american gays.
Of course, since most of you are socially retarded you’ll say the CIA would never do anything bad to american citizens. e.g. shoot the president, assasinate domestic enemies, fake attack american citizens with anthrax to create a panic, kill israel’s overseas enemies etc etc. etc.
Swanky would argue all those things are ‘consitutional’ and the founders would have no problem with an undemocratically elected 3rd column dictating events in the US under the watch of the days aristocracy because hes a fuckin moron who needs to stay in the synagogue instead of rambling here.
I would not argue that they are constitutional.
I would argue that the Founders likely would not have had much of an issue with the CIA or NSA.
You can’t see the difference “because you’re a fuckin moron who needs to stay [in your mom’s basement] instead of rambling here.”
Swank thinks reperations to blacks who were sold to jewish, arab and white slaveowners by mostly other black chieftains and warlords is justified, but abolishing the secret police is abhorrent to Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson actually OWNED slaves btw and lived with legal slavery in his time on earth but we have to pretend he would pay reparations and endorse AA.
This proves you are an imbecile. What Thomas Jefferson thought about AA/slavery/etc. is IRRELEVANT because of the 13th and 14th amendments.
The same is true about “secret police”….because stare decisis. Muggy abhors it…I’m fine with it.
We don’t need to pretend anything beyond what would produce a result that appears fair and is accepted by the populous.
he’s not an american maybe, so he doesn’t know that those amendments were passed long after jefferson was dead.
he’s had time to research what has been told to him several times…that is what proves he is a MORON.
Im well aware of the 14th amendment. And thats the exact same story. Look at Lincolns legislative history and his statements on blacks.
So basically Swank has goodfeelz for captured barbarians but badfeelz for average citizens living under a modern day Stasi. Makes sense.
No you fucking retard.
The entire point of my saying that positions on free speech and the 4th amendment that we take for granted were NOT the positions on those matters held by the founders is NOT to state that I disagree with those positions but instead to show that “judicial activism” has produced great results — probably America’s greatest wrt free speech — and that “original intent” is not the only jurisprudence. AINEC.
there are two types of jurisprudence:
1. borkism
2. usurpation (this goes by many names)
1. Is either (a) pure fantasy and has never been deployed beyond a legal academic’s imagination or (b) a convenient means to (2).
Now we can probably agree that this is how it is.
You say it ought to be some other way.
I disagree.
A judge should always consider what is fair, first.
When a judge is deprived of this discretion, you get drug war sentencing schemes.
1.borkism
“/.,
2. whatever i can get away with.
Let’s go to the scoreboard:
“Original intent as the only jurisprudence”
Dred Scott
Statements like….”[t]his Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Cass Sustein’s famous list:
“1. States can ban the purchase and sale of contraceptives.
2. The federal government can discriminate on the basis of race — for example, by banning African Americans from serving in the armed forces, or by mandating racial segregation in the D.C. schools.
3. The federal government can discriminate against women — for example, by banning them from serving in high-level positions in the U.S. government.
4. States are permitted to bring back segregation, and they can certainly discriminate on the basis of sex.
5. Neither federal nor state governments have to respect the idea of one person, one vote; some people could be given far more political power than others.
6. States can establish Christianity as their official religion.
7. Important provisions of national environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, are invalid.”
And we can try to No True Scotsman this or that as not the ‘REAL’ original intent, but it’s the same general way of thinking about the law…
“Fairness as the overriding principle”
Free Speech
Desegregation
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment
Making the 4th amendment mean anything at all via the exclusionary rule
Miranda rights
Prohibition of abortion
Protection of gay marriage
Perhaps some of the latter’s results have been a bit questionable, but in terms of risk-reward, the result is obvious from just free speech alone.
*prohibition of anti-abortion laws
i AGREE with swank that if the legislature, the voters, had directly or indirectly empowered judges to “do what they think is right” then anything goes.
this is not REALITY.
as bork himself said, judges are esteemed by the populace because they are thought to be “learned men” not legislators or solomons or rabbis.
i AGREE with swank that if the legislature, the voters, had directly or indirectly empowered judges to “do what they think is right” then anything goes.
this is not REALITY.
Oh…really?
Article III, section 2, clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution: “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”
“The federal courts’ equity jurisdiction, rather than encompassing certain types of suits, pertained to situations that could arise in virtually any sort of litigation. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist , no. 80, “there is hardly a subject of litigation between individuals, which may not involve those ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship, which would render the matter an object of equitable rather than of legal jurisdiction.” Hamilton elaborated in Federalist, no. 83, that “the great and primary use of a court of equity is to give relief in extraordinary cases, which are exceptions to general rules.” Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who authored Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence in 1836, echoed Hamilton, writing that “cases must occur to which the antecedent rules cannot be applied without injustice, or to which they cannot be applied at all.”
then anything goes.
And no, it is not and never will be “anything goes.” There is still a YUGE constraint on a judge’s discretion —- the preservation of legitimacy.
swank is grasping at straws.
i’ve drowned him in reason.
sad!
muggy the black continues on…
the case for “judicial activism” or whatever other high-falutin’ words you want to use as a symbol for it comes down to two words:
FREE SPEECH
The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 was a seditious libel prosecution for Zenger’s publication of criticisms of the Governor of New York, William Cosby. Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger and argued that truth should be a defense to the crime of seditious libel, but the court rejected this argument. Hamilton persuaded the jury, however, to disregard the law and to acquit Zenger. The case is considered a victory for freedom of speech as well as a prime example of jury nullification. The case marked the beginning of a trend of greater acceptance and tolerance of free speech.
What judges actually do is what they ought to do because what they do allows the government to respond to the needs of the populous quickly…
….(2) is Ali vs. (1).
what if judges really did grok what truly is fair….
..in a way that most people do not and cannot.
would this qualify them to make such determinations within the confines I’ve described?
[redacted by pp, July 25, 2018]
conclusion: there is no good reason except that the comment asserts P. P is true. [redacted by pp, July 25, 2018]
Mug of Pee lacks the social IQ to realize people can believe things that aren’t true, so even lies must be suppressed
Swank is a complete hack. Complete. Maybe even worse than Afro. Because at least Afro had momentary spells of intellectual sobriety now and then whereas swank seems to take the wrong position on every single issue almost for trolling reasons.
By Swanks own definition. What Hitler did to the Weimar Constitution is 100% intended by the writers of the Weimar constitution.
Even if swank was right about ‘popularity contests’ being the sole heat test….you realise even the 14th amendment was passed after a civil war right? That meant people disagreed with it….still less the Warren Courts rabbi rulings.
If you polled americans and gave them a list of the CIAs true function and activities…instead of Masters lies in the media, the CIA would be about as popular as Swankys other positions [redacted by pp, july 25, 2018]
This is the problem when debating with [redacted by pp, July 25, 2018]. He basically asserts in the end his fundamental raison d’etre once you get through all the crap rhetoric – i.e. the law is whatever you can get away with and then turns around and says more juju talk about that position actual being more moral and legitimate…even by the founders own standards.
The reality being rulings are NOT popular and NOT endorsed by large swathes of the population outside of certain areas of the country and [redacted by pp, july 25, 2018]
Roe V Wade is a 100% political decision by the judges. It makes life easier I agree. Its probably slightily more popular than the anti abortion position. But the jewish judges saying this is what the founders intended by citing the due process clause is RIDICULOUS. It makes NO FUCKIN SENSE. In fact the due process clause could be argued to ban abortion.
phil, I quoted the constitution itself and what the Founders thought about equity. they agreed with me. even Blackstone favored “legislating from the bench.”
and “popular” is not exactly the same as “can accept without outright revolting or disobeying.”
But the jewish judges saying this is what the founders intended by citing the due process clause is RIDICULOUS.
phil has a law IQ of 60 because he still can’t grok that analysis of the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the Founders; he’s confused the historical analysis that goes with “substantive due process” (a murky area of nearly nonsense law, sure) with the judges caring much about what the Founders thought.
They meant equity in terms of tort law type affairs like burglary or something, not social issues. Nobody legislates from the bench ruling on a burglary you moron.
Here, because you can’t read:
““The federal courts’ equity jurisdiction, rather than encompassing certain types of suits, pertained to situations that could arise in virtually any sort of litigation”
And here, because you can’t understand…
What is involved here is the right to vote guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. It has always been the rule that, where a federally protected right has been invaded, the federal courts will provide the remedy to rectify the wrong done. Federal courts have not hesitated to exercise their equity power in cases involving deprivation of property and liberty. Ex parte Young, supra; Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496. There is no reason why they should do so where the case involves the right to choose representatives that make laws affecting liberty and property.
Hugo Black’s dissent in Colegrove v. Green.
So if the equity power is understood (by brilliant legal minds such as Hugo GENTILE Black) in cases involving undue deprivation of property and liberty, and there’s a clause concerning just that in the constitution, what does that mean…
and indication of how rich howard hughes was.
Hughes’ $2.5 billion estate was eventually split in 1983 among 22 cousins, including William Lummis, who serves as a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Hughes Aircraft was owned by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which sold it to General Motors in 1985 for $5.2 billion…
Revenue (2017) US$2.38 billion[1]
Expenses (2017) US$936.5 million[1]
Endowment US$22.6 billion[1]
if one had invested $2.5b in 1983 in the s&p 500 total return, today he would have more than $100b.
whereas the buying power of $2.5b would only be about $6.25b. as you can see the rich, the majority of stock market owners, have gotten much richer since hughes died in 1976 relative to everyone else.
Contrary to schizo, autistic with high IQ, would t be convinced by the stupid actor selling gold on Fox News !
AIDS isn’t the only example. juvenile cancers are another. that is…
1. juvenile and young adult cancers are so sympathetic they get lots of funding. yuge resources on a per patient basis have been devoted to juvenile cancers.
2. there have been results. cancers which were a death sentence have been cured 90%. leukemia, hodgkin’s disease, etc..
as swank just said and as i have said repeatedly…
it’s not as if the western world without much if any jewish influence was some kind of paradise. white people have treated white people like shit forever. (((christianity))) has been a moderating influence. that is, outside the west, co-ethnics are even shittier to each other.
it’s fine if jews think gentiles should be their slaves as long as they don’t have the power to make it so.
And the power comes from what is broken within the societies. That is why anti-semitism is self-defeating. All it does is lend support to the notion that jews are God’s chosen people aka instrument of wrath.
And really, with that kind of narrative behind you, it’s hard not to act with a little chutzpah, I’m sure.
the power comes from what is broken within the societies
that’s hegel in a nutshell.
looked like my dad at the end, but hegel was younger.
ah, hegel steps up eager to answer our questions….
sure thing. ask.
You’re a pioneer in going trans female and converting to lesbianism full-time…
….did you do this to create an antithesis to the male experience?
Christianity is a big reason Jews were suppressed in Europe.
They did not like it at all.
Christianity grew because of the disciples (who were Jews) but not because of orthodox Judaism. (Talmud say bad things about Jesus)
No jews but converts wanted Christianity to grow as it did.
the talmud has two parts. the mishnah and the gemara. the mishnah was finalized 100 years AFTER the new testament. the gemara 700 years AFTER.
in this sense christianity is an OLDER religion than contemporary judaism.
the “pharisees” of the new testament are what 99% of jews became. “pharisaism” is another word for “rabbinic judaism”. 1% of jews became “karaites”.
The “pharisees” believed in the spirit world and the resurrection of the dead.
The “sadducees” did not.
The book of Acts tells us this.
(((unz))) is talking ’bout the jew bloshies in his latest.
what happened that he doesn’t highlight?
the jews lost under stalin BIG TIME.
putin has done what stalin did.
(((msm))) knows this. the real cause of the antipathy.
“the jews lost under stalin BIG TIME.”
Some conspiracy theorists say Jews wanted communism in Russia.
Stupid if they lost power from it.
Times have changed
And we’ve often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today
Any shock they should try to stem
‘Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.
In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.
If driving fast cars you like,
If low bars you like,
If old hymns you like,
If bare limbs you like,
If Mae West you like,
Or me undressed you like,
Why, nobody will oppose.
When ev’ry night the set that’s smart is in-
Truding in nudist parties in
Studios.
Anything goes.
When Missus Ned McLean (God bless her)
Can get Russian reds to “yes” her,
Then I suppose
Anything goes.
When Rockefeller still can hoard en-
Ough money to let Max Gordon
Produce his shows,
Anything goes.
The world has gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today,
And day’s night today,
And that gent today
You gave a cent today
Once had several chateaux.
When folks who still can ride in jitneys
Find out Vanderbilts and Whitneys
Lack baby clo’es,
Anything goes.
If Sam Goldwyn can with great conviction
Instruct Anna Sten in diction,
Then Anna shows
Anything goes.
When you hear that Lady Mendl standing up
Now turns a handspring landing up-
On her toes,
Anything goes.
Just think of those shocks you’ve got
And those knocks you’ve got
And those blues you’ve got
From that news you’ve got
And those pains you’ve got
(If any brains you’ve got)
From those little radios.
So Missus R., with all her trimmin’s,
Can broadcast a bed from Simmons
‘Cause Franklin knows
Anything goes.
if the world were just southern italians and genetically INFERIOR people…
vito and michael corleone would be the masters.
chinese people LOOK retarded.
sad!
“chinese people LOOK retarded.”
It depends. You just need to use google and you can find pictures of Hot looking Chinese women. By contrast, you can find retarded looking white women on google.
no contest.
what every straight man feels some time and hates himself for it. it’s so UN-manly.
if mass media were NOT curated, all of these “racist” thoughts would be…
1. disproved OR
2. proved NOT UN-reasonable.
the suppression of speech suggests ALWAYS that the suppressors have something to hide.
as chomsky has said…the ONLY thing truly great about the US is…
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …
if that is true, then the greatest thing in the United States came from (1) ignoring the law and (2) judges recognizing this social attitude and actively changing the law.
free speech is the ultimate proof that swank is right not just about is but about ought to.
but what muggy can’t do is…
Such a clown.
phil is trying to hide the fact that he laughed out loud.
the length of denials of X is directly proportional to how UN-deniable X is.
Like the vigorous denial of evolutionary theory by the American public over the last century or so…?
Oops. I meant to say creationism to…
wtf?
do creationists make longer comments on blogs than believers?
…
btw,
like rr i do NOT believe in evolution…that is the official story.
like lion i do NOT believe global warming threatens the human species.
but not believing is NOT the same thing as dis-believing.
swank: you have heard of old “a nation of laws and not of men” and “rule of law”, but today i tell you the best is rule by judges of sicilian ancestry.
the Catholic Church essentially created the concept of equity within Anglo common law, so…
…you may just be right.
Scalia, whether you realize it or not, was one of the greatest justices.
Because he got it.
The best jurisprudence is a consistent jurisprudence.
But why?
Because the justice has subordinated himself to something.
And this promotes the appearance of fairness and upholds legitimacy.
But then, despite rubbish legal academic acumen and scholarship, so was….
…
…
Earl Warren.
Why, though?
Youre an idiot. On the one hand everyone agress Warren was a hack, now youre saying hes a brilliant legal mind.
How can someone be inept and also brilliant.
Ill tell you – HE CANT
Equity does not mean open borders or 24/7 surveillance…it means giving children more resources in the case of the death of a alcholic dad or something. But you KNOW this. Nobody can be that socially inept not to see what they mean. You just take it to mean open borders and touching blacks.
now youre saying hes a brilliant legal mind.
No, I didn’t say that.
Here’s what I actually said:
rubbish legal academic acumen and scholarship.
I just said he was one of the greatest justices.
How can someone be inept and also brilliant.
The absent-minded professor is just this stereotype, which means you seriously asking this question proves once again that your social IQ is an abortion.
Equity does not mean open borders or 24/7 surveillance…it means giving children more resources in the case of the death of a alcholic dad or something.
Equity means fairness, jedrool.
I didn’t say anything about the borders, asstard.
it’s hard not to tell swank is not a lawyer.
“equity” is a technical term meaning: the body of law which was developed in the English Court of Chancery and which is now administered concurrently with the common law…Equity was the name given to the law which was administered in the Court of Chancery.
it’s easy to tell muggy is Dunning-Kruger about the law:
“Creation of the equity as a system of law was to serve as a means through which a legal system could strike the balance between the rule-making process and the need to achieve fair results in individual and separate circumstances”
‘On the contrary, equity refers to a set of legal principles, in jurisdictions following the English common law tradition, which supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly. Where the law is found to be essentially correct but proving to be too severe or unfair, the equity system serves to allow for a different course of events in the legal world.”
Equity = fairness.
The world operates as I say it does.
The greatest results for this society have come from it operating as I say it does.
What do you have on your side…exactly?
No one actually seems to follow it.
And Dred Scott.
Rearrange the deck chairs all you like…
the fact..
is…that…
you just can’t…
Because both of you have MISUNDERSTOOD the issue…
the law of equity is concerned with ensuring just and fair results.
Not only that, but hey….here’s an ancient principle from way back in England that where the common law and equity conflict, equity will prevail, but equity also follows the law.
Where facts not contemplated by the legislature are before the court, fairness SHOULD BE the Court’s primary concern….according to the law of equity. Where the facts were contemplated by the legislature and appear as such from the law, then the letter should be followed unless it is too harsh or unfair.
That is the historical power of the courts of equity, and that same power is given to the court via the U.S. constitution, which is why your arguments about judges ‘ought not’ to have such discretion are silly — ‘original intent’ says otherwise.
once again swank is unable to distinguish between is and ought. and even worse swank can’t see that the more power judges have the more their power can be used for both good and evil. he thinks it always only for good because he’s retarded. he thinks a “scoreboard” is relevant when it’s 100% irrelevant. swank wins arguments no one was having with him in the first place.
dred scott was an activist decision. it was only the second time that a law had been declared unconstitutional. read the decisions, majority and dissent, then get back to us and tell us how it was or wasn’t borkism.
swank: lawyer :: americans: ?
a. american football
b. obesity
c. association football
d. speaking only one language
e. cricket
the correct answer is c.
but almost all JDs know less than non-JDs about jurisprudence. the reason is what is obvious to all non-lawyers is conveniently non-obvious to lawyers. and this because if lawyers saw what is obvious to all non-lawyers they would have less power.
but e will also be given full credit.
once again muggy is unable to take reality on its own terms and divorce himself from the model of how he thinks reality ought to work.
the fact is that free speech could not have come from anything but judicial activism.
there are many other examples of this, such as the 4th amendment’s modern conception, but free speech — in the uniquely American sense — is enough. and muggy, deep down, knows it.
there is no answer from the judicial restraint camp to free speech.
dred scott was an activist decision
up must be down, because no one but muggy believes that to be the case.
read the decisions, majority and dissent, then get back to us and tell us how it was or wasn’t borkism.
No True Scotsman on display.
Both can be examples of ‘original intent’ of course…because ‘original intent’ can and often does lead to results that are contradictory.
Which is consistent with what swank has said.
but almost all JDs know less than non-JDs about jurisprudence.
Like all non-scientists know more about scientists about science, right?
because if lawyers saw what is obvious to all non-lawyers they would have less power.
Lawyers who are cut out for the law are the only people in a society who are able to see how it operates, exactly.
Obvious is mostly shorthand for “my slice of ideology.”
The truly obvious comes down to two words: free speech.
and even worse swank can’t see that the more power judges have the more their power can be used for both good and evil. he thinks it always only for good because he’s retarded.
Name a decision commonly thought of as activist that was evil in its result.
I hope it isn’t Roe or Brown.
Swank basically takes one word ‘equity’ and then quotes it out of context. They said equity in individual and separate cases .
What do you think that means?
So the court ruling on NSA wiretapping 2 years ago was judging: the constitution vs ‘fairness’ for Robert Rubin and the cabal. What a joke. (The court ruled correctly it was illegal by the way).
Its not applicable to broad cases which is why the word ‘individual’ is used. Not to be mistake with cases with broad societal implications.
‘Equity’ isn’t a loophole for judges to make up shit. If it was a judge could literally justify anything under ‘liberty’ or some such abstract term. Of course, Swank knows all this. Im just saying what he knows. Nobody can be that obtuse.
If you asked Warren what ‘equity’ meant….and his biographer literally is quoted on his wiki page saying this. He meant – the right result regardless of what the law or constitution says. The biographer said that, look it up. Warren was not concerned with technical law rulings. He was completely driven by some weird agenda that I personally believe to be blackmail or something similar. Nobody in the 1950s, running as a republican politican, wakes up 1 morning and things, gee we need to dismantle the social fabric to help the jews. Nobody.
If it was a judge could literally justify anything under ‘liberty’ or some such abstract term.
or under “penumbras, formed by emanations”. https://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/09/emanations-and-penumbras.html
consulting a magic 8 ball would also be 100% consistent.
step 1. magic 8 ball tell me which side to decide for.
step 2. write opinion supporting that side.
Yea muggy, that is correct.
The old system of justice , trial by ordeal, was pretty much random….and WORKED for a long time.
….but why?
i bought a mattress today. my last mattress’s springs broke and cut me, so i wanted a foam mattress. cost $299.95. i had no idea amazon sold mattresses. on amazon it would’ve been half that at most. but store was without ac. it stank. i was the only customer there. the dad of some kid i played soccer with was still selling. he owned the store. this guy should’ve been retired. just my phone number confused him no end. i felt guilty. and like a good goy i didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings who wasn’t a black lesbian sociopath.
a yuge example of how planning + entrepreneurship is MOST efficient.
GOVERNMENT…
PLANNING.