• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Race For 2024

Opinion | What America Would Look Like in 2025 Under Trump - The New York Times - Feb. 2, 2022
One clue is that Donald Trump is an Orban worshiper — that’s Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, a case study in the aggressive pursuit of a right-wing populist agenda.

In his Jan. 3 announcement of support for Orban’s re-election, Trump declared: “He is a strong leader and respected by all. He has my Complete support and Endorsement for re-election as Prime Minister!”
noting
How Hungary’s Viktor Orbán destroyed democracy, and what it means for America - Vox - Sep 13, 2018, 9:30am EDT - A new kind of authoritarianism is taking root in Europe — and there are warning signs for America.

Author Zack Beauchamp said that it could be called "soft fascism",
a political system that aims to stamp out dissent and seize control of every major aspect of a country’s political and social life, without needing to resort to “hard” measures like banning elections and building up a police state. One of the most disconcerting parts of observing Hungarian soft fascism up close is that it’s easy to imagine the model being exported. While the Orban regime grew out of Hungary’s unique history and political culture, its playbook for subtle repression could in theory be run in any democratic country whose leaders have had enough of the political opposition.

The Viktor Orban Effect: Why U.S. Conservatives Love Hungary - The New York Times - Oct. 19, 2021 - "Some U.S. conservatives are taking a cue from Prime Minister Viktor Orban — how to use the power of the state to win the culture wars."

As opposed to saying "Have faith that the market will provide."
In contrast to conservatism as practiced in the United States, Zerofsky wrote about Hungary under Orban: “Here was this other, European tradition of Catholic conservatism that was afraid neither of a strong state nor of using it to promote a conservative vision of life.”
The Real Crisis of Global Order | Foreign Affairs - December 14, 2021 - "Illiberalism on the Rise"
The Conservative Political Action Conference, “a major forum of the American right, plans to hold its 2022 annual meeting in Hungary,” Cooley and Nexon wrote. What has Orban done to deserve this attention?

The two authors briefly summarized his record: “Orban consolidated power through tactics that were procedurally legal but, in substance, undercut the rule of law. He stacked the courts with partisans and pressured, captured or shut down independent media.”

Cooley and Nexon demonstrated a parallel between what has taken place in Hungary and current developments in the United States: “Orban’s open assault on academic freedom — including banning gender studies and evicting the Central European University from Hungary — finds analogies in current right-wing efforts in Republican-controlled states to ban the teaching of critical race theory and target liberal and left-wing academics.”
 
The flags are ready

1infq265jrcb1.jpg
 
He also said that his admin would round up “the homeless, the drug addicted and the dangerously deranged” and put them in “thousands and thousands of high-quality tents” on “large parcels of inexpensive land in the outer reaches of the cities.”
The Third Reich used huts.

So this is completely different from what they did.

Not a shred of similarity.
 
MTG gave a speech ranting about socialism. What is socialism according to Majory Taylor Dimwit? Medicare, Medicaid, ACA. Education programs. And on and on. Cementing her place as stupidest congress person for 2023.

 
No Labels Board Member: If MLK Were Alive, He’d Be a Centrist - "Manchin and a group of failed moderate politicians assembled in New Hampshire on Monday to tout No Labels’ 73-page centrist manifesto."
At the No Labels luncheon at the Puritan Backroom in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Monday, the punchline was hard to miss. A who’s who of failed moderate politicians and politicos — including former Sen. Joe Lieberman, former Govs. Pat McCrory and Jon Huntsman Jr., and former Reps. Fred Upton and Joe Cunningham — gathered alongside Sen. Joe Manchin. They were assembled to tout their political program in the form of a 73-page centrist manifesto outlining the path forward for a moderate American presidency. Neither press nor clergy were seen entering the private event, where, in a literal backroom, the fading stars of a puritanical third way met to further a plan that they have all but described as political blackmail.

...
Their whole plan, ahead of the 2024 election, is to raise $70 million to back a potential third-party run for president should Democrats and Republicans fail to coalesce around No Labels’ hypercentrist political vision. Manchin has emerged as the most likely candidate for the job, flirting publicly with No Labels while dodging questions from the media about his plans.
No Labels's Manifesto: Ideas of the Common Sense majority

Most of it is rather trivial, but one bit of it stands out: "America must strike a balance between protecting women’s rights to control their own reproductive health and our society’s responsibility to protect human life."

Seems like it's on the fence about abortion.

And for an hour and a half, Huntsman and Manchin played the hits: bringing down the deficit, marginally increasing background checks for gun purchases, and means-testing social safety net programs. “This is not about me or anybody else,” Manchin told the crowd. “It’s about two parties that have gone to their respective side, the extreme right and extreme left, and the middle has been left behind. There’s no voice for the middle.”
 
But given the composition of the No Labels board and political supporters, the idea that all of its members are aligned with a pro-Trump plot seems unlikely. The former politicians in attendance saw their centrist political clout erased after the rise of Trump. Manchin, meanwhile, emerged from the Trump years with stronger influence over the Democratic Party — yet his determination to maintain a corporate centrist line in West Virginia has led to plummeting polls in recent years and an all-but-certain defeat next November to Republican Gov. Jim Justice should he run for Senate.

In short, none of the No Labels headliners stand to gain from a second Trump presidency. According to former Manchin lieutenant and West Virginia political operative Scott Sears, Manchin isn’t trying to throw the election. He’s trying to attract as much attention as possible to buy himself airtime, exposure, and a plumb appointment in the next administration, a tactic that could similarly explain others’ participation in the organization.
So he's an attention whore.
 
One of No Labels's board members is Benjamin Chavis, a former assistant of Martin Luther King, Jr. Author Daniel Boguslaw asked him how MLK's legacy could possibly fit in with No Labels.
“Dr. King was a centrist,” Chavis told me. “If he were alive today, he would be a member of the No Labels party.” I moved to remind Chavis of King’s words in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” in which he decried the white moderate as one of the main roadblocks to justice. (“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ ‘Councilor’ or the Ku Klux Klanner,” King wrote, “but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.”) But before I could get an answer, Chavis was whisked away.
MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail

Corporate Executives Fund No Labels 2024 Presidential Ticket – Sludge - "A new disclosure revealing a fraction of No Labels' donors shows the group has been fundraising from corporate executives, many of whom sit atop private equity firms."
 
I'll now consider the feasibility of ethnic and racial targeting of bioweapons.

Understanding Human Genetic Variation - NIH Curriculum Supplement Series - NCBI Bookshelf - "In fact, research results consistently demonstrate that about 85 percent of all human genetic variation exists within human populations, whereas about only 15 percent of variation exists between populations."

Though that 15% includes the more visible sorts of differences, like what goes into such traditional racial classifications as  Caucasian race Caucasoid people include Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, and South Asians -- essentially Western Eurasians.
So? Want to make a white world? You target the dark skin gene. It doesn't matter that most genes are the same.
The Genetics of Human Skin and Hair Pigmentation | Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics - journal paper, very technical -- several genes are involved in human skin and hair and eye color, involved both in making melanin and in regulating its production.  Human skin color -  Human hair color -  Eye color

Furthermore, light-skin and dark-skin versions of at least some genes are not very different: point mutations. Also, Europeans and East Asians ("Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids") seem to have gotten bleached separately, with separate mutations in their skin-pigmentation genes.  Dark skin and  Light skin

So it would be very hard to select by skin-color genotype. Skin-color phenotypes seem easier: detect how much melanin the skin makes. But that will be difficult for a respiratory-tract virus, and it would be very broad-spectrum. For light skin, that's all except the southernmost Eurasians.

Another variation that one might target is  Lactase persistence -  Lactase is an enzyme for digesting lactose, a sugar in milk. If one can't digest it, some microbes digest it instead, causing nasty digestive problems. Ancestrally, only babies can digest it - lactase production gets switched off as one grows. But some present-day people keep the ability into adulthood, mostly in northern and western Europe, and in the Arabian Peninsula. This ability is the result of point mutations in a bit of genome upstream of the lactase gene itself.

Going the phenotypic route again, lactase is secreted in the small intestine, also out of place for a respiratory virus.
No--make a virus that infects everybody but basically harmlessly. It's just that only in the presence of certain exact genes does it turn deadly.

Now, ensuring it's stable to produce only that result is another matter...
 
make a virus that infects everybody but basically harmlessly. It's just that only in the presence of certain exact genes does it turn deadly.
This is Dunning-Kruger on stilts.

It's a sci-fi trope being confused for actual understanding of an insanely complex issue, and I am going to stick my neck out and say that you have no education in either biochemistry or molecular biology, and as a result are blissfully unaware of how incredibly hand-wavy that "just" actually is.

How, exactly, do you arrange for a virus to "turn deadly", and how do you propose to use the mere presence of certain genes to achieve this?

Bear in mind that the majority of harm done to people infected with harmful viruses is actually a consequence of the immune system's response, and that viruses themselves are tiny - they carry almost no information in their genomes other than that for making copies of themselves, and even for that purpose, they mostly co-opt the host's equipment, as coded for by the host's genome.

Further, it's worth remembering that the genetic code isn't much like computer code. There's no language as such; Just chemistry.

It's not something you can hack in the way that a programmer can hack code to do almost anything for which it has sufficient permissions and/or access; You can't execute arbitrary code in a human cell, though you can tell the cellular machinery to make an arbitrary sequence of amino acids into a protein. Guessing what effects (if any) will result from building a given primary protein sequence is essentially impossible, and is three stages of vast complexity away from the quaternary structure, that (if you could miraculously make it to your hoped for design) might or might not catalyse or suppress the reaction(s) you're interested in, which in turn might (or might not) have the effect you're hoping for in a particular tissue, which yet again in turn may or may not lead to the medical symptoms you wanted.

Three and a half billion years of evolution have made today's complex organisms, including humans, incredibly resistant to viral attacks, and viruses have been in an arms race with immune systems for as long as immune systems have existed.

Any "engineered from scratch" viruses are therefore likely to be complete failures, and bioweapons are basically just modified versions of naturally occurring pathogens (or in some cases, just the unmodified wild-type pathogens collected and then placed in an environment where they are usually not found, or not expected). This severely limits what can be engineered; If you wanted to build a helicopter, but were limited to using only unmodified parts from motorcycles, you'd struggle to produce anything effective - and that analogy seriously understates the problems with building a bespoke and controllable dangerous virus using only existing natural viruses as your starting point.

It makes a great basis for a cyberpunk novel; But it's no more realistic as a proposal in the real world than saying "Build a spacecraft like the shuttle, and just add a system that can fold spacetime, so you can travel to the stars in less time than the oxygen takes to run out".

Easy to imagine. Not easy to do.
 
Speaking virtually during an event hosted by Heal the Divide, a super PAC with ties to far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green and embattled Rep. George Santos, Kennedy said that he both wants to “exempt the conversion of Bitcoin to the U.S. dollar from capital gains taxes” as well as “back the U.S. dollar with real finite assets, such as gold, silver, platinum, and Bitcoin.”
o_O
 
Disease agents vary widely in virulence, from nearly harmless to quickly deadly, and some of them make different symptoms over the course of their infections. At the beginning of an infection, the host usually has no symptoms (the incubation period) and will not spread the organism (the latency period), so to be a good bioweapon, one must engineer an organism so that it will spread asymptomatically or with very mild symptoms, then turn up the virulence.

Some disease symptoms are ways of the disease organism to spread to new hosts. Coughing, for instance, or diarrhea. The rabies virus has a very sadistic way of doing so: make its host have difficulty swallowing, so that host will have plenty of saliva in its mouth, and also make its host want to bite potential hosts.

Detecting genes may be possible for a virus, but if the virus stays in the cytoplasms of the cells that it infects, it won't be able to do that. Detecting proteins would work for both viruses and cellular organisms, and the same for other phenotypic features. Most proteins don't differ very much across human populations, but their expression may be more variable, like lactase expression. To detect variations in that, one either has to look at the lactase gene promoter, where tolerance variations are due to point mutations, or else visit the small-intestine surface cells, the cells that make lactase.

Wikipedia's  Ethnic bioweapon very disappointingly does not discuss the feasibility of creating such weapons. Could you make a genetically targeted weapon? | Science | The Guardian from 2004:
Others say the concerns are exaggerated. "Trying to find a weapon that affects quite a few of one ethnic group and none of another ethnic group is just not going to happen," says David Goldstein, who studies population genetics at University College London. "Because all groups are quite similar you will never get something that is highly selective. The best you would probably do is something that kills 20% of one group and 28% of another."
Data and genetic manipulation for race specific bioweapons not an impossibility - The Sunday Guardian Live - July 14, 2021
RACE SPECIFIC BIOWEAPONS: The International HapMap Project of 2002 to 2010 developed a human genome map and provided a massive genotype data from Caucasian, African and Asian population samples. Many differences in susceptibility to some diseases, and response to certain drugs between different ethnic groups were reported in a 2015 study in bmcgenomics. Multiple reports in scientific journals in 2016 such as in Oncotarget, in Cell and from Pasteur Institute in Paris, found differences in antibody responses and cellular immunity between those of African ancestry and Caucasians. Those of African ancestry had a stronger inflammatory response and immune overreaction like cytokine storm and autoimmune diseases. Genetic differences affecting the immune system lead to racial differences in the response to infections, drugs and vaccines. In a pandemic, racial differences exist in mortality rates and vaccine efficacy and complications. Genetic data from blood samples about racial differences can be used for racially targeted bio warfare.
Do other labs find similar racial differences in immune response? I couldn't find anything.
 
Bioweapons Targeting Specific Ethnicities: A Threat And Nanotechnology’s Promise For Defence – OpEd – Eurasia Review
The practicality of bioweapons to target specific ethnicities has been widely debated. Several factors determine the practicality of bioweapons, such as the agent’s virulence, mode of transmission, and resistance to treatment. However, the practicality of such weapons is questionable.

Firstly, the genetic differences between different ethnic groups are relatively small, and it would be challenging to create a weapon that is specific enough to target only one group without causing unintended harm to other groups.
Then discussing
  • Infectious Agent Selection
  • Mode of Transmission
  • Resistance to Treatment
One won't be able to design a bioweapon from scratch, so instead one starts with some existing organism and then genetically engineers it.
 
make a virus that infects everybody but basically harmlessly. It's just that only in the presence of certain exact genes does it turn deadly.
This is Dunning-Kruger on stilts.

It's a sci-fi trope being confused for actual understanding of an insanely complex issue, and I am going to stick my neck out and say that you have no education in either biochemistry or molecular biology, and as a result are blissfully unaware of how incredibly hand-wavy that "just" actually is.

How, exactly, do you arrange for a virus to "turn deadly", and how do you propose to use the mere presence of certain genes to achieve this?
The virus contains code to produce something deadly but it uses the protein produced by the gene as a precursor, the virus doesn't code for it. Thus the reaction only proceeds in someone expressing that gene.

Bear in mind that the majority of harm done to people infected with harmful viruses is actually a consequence of the immune system's response, and that viruses themselves are tiny - they carry almost no information in their genomes other than that for making copies of themselves, and even for that purpose, they mostly co-opt the host's equipment, as coded for by the host's genome.
There's no evolutionary reason for something like this to happen but that doesn't make it impossible.

Any "engineered from scratch" viruses are therefore likely to be complete failures, and bioweapons are basically just modified versions of naturally occurring pathogens (or in some cases, just the unmodified wild-type pathogens collected and then placed in an environment where they are usually not found, or not expected). This severely limits what can be engineered; If you wanted to build a helicopter, but were limited to using only unmodified parts from motorcycles, you'd struggle to produce anything effective - and that analogy seriously understates the problems with building a bespoke and controllable dangerous virus using only existing natural viruses as your starting point.
We aren't to the point of engineering such a targeted virus. That doesn't mean we will never be.
 
Here's the full video of the meeting.



Tswizzle, you should really stop consuming bullshit media. It'll stain your teeth.
 
Back
Top Bottom