January 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
by Tim May 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

Second of the items lne.com never sent to the list (that I have seen, 9-10 hours later). Begin forwarded message: > From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> > Date: January 2, 2004 1:02:20 AM PST > To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com > Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey > > > On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote: > >> So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new >> plan. "Relief" would be converted to a series of state and national >> programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of >> "relief" would be changed by the new and positive name "entitlement." >> >> Money handed out to various folks would be their "entitlement," >> something they were _owed_. Other related names would be "social >> services" and, of course, liberal mention of "children" and >> "nutrition." Ergo programs like WIC ("Women, Infants, and Children"). >> Ergo, "Head Start." > > And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new > welfare system: since the "entitlements" were not given to families > with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for > those wanting to get welfare. > > A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her > household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare > that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of > 14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, > paid for with taxes taken from working suckers. > > The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be > unexplainable to normal people: households solely dependent on > handouts from government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak > visits), a disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household > anxious to hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, > the crime that comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it > seems likely) that leads to lashing out at "whitey," and a > perpetuating cycle as the young girls seek to get their own "cribs" so > the process can repeat and expand. > > This is why so many black families today are into their third or even > fourth generation of welfare life. > > By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to "remove the stigma of > relief" was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad > for the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to > cities like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. > Partly they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly > because automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly > because they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north. > > But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. > (And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming > in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as > highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as > cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born > whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out > in the suburbs.) > > So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor > skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through > a shift to the suburbs. > > Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: > Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to > maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the > cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in > other countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 > million residents, most of them very poor.) > > But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad > effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set > his advisors to the problem of solving "urban poverty." They expanded > welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America "could afford it" > (the 1950s having been a prosperous period). > > Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to > flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare > spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. > Whoops. > > And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of > unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from > seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the > norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the > rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to > plantation life. The various "demands" by black leaders, the reverse > racism ("honkie mofo"), the whole hatred for learning ("reading be for > whitey") all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create > this gutterization of the negro. > > Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was > obvious even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and > say "Let's stop this train wreck." Nope, they said the problem was > "not enough money." So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more > Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea was to pay enough to get > people "back on their feet." But of course, human nature being what it > is, most took the higher payments and bought nicer stuff, hence the > color televisions found in every "crib." > > And the huge influxes of Mexicans during the 70s and 80s magnified the > problem (to turn down Mexicans for the same "entitlements" that blacks > were getting would not have been kosher, would it?). The effect was > that large chunks of cities now had urbanized Mexican ghettoes, paid > for with dollars coming from the taxed suckers out in the suburbs. > > Whoops. Another train wreck. > > And it continues. Finally, even Bill Clinton, a Democrat, tried to put > the brakes on welfare. It's worked in some ways, but not in other > ways. Just too many "entitlements" to stop the hemorrhaging of money. > > (To those who claim the biggest recipients of "welfare" are > corporations, review again what I wrote about "sources and sinks." And > look at the $40 billion hole California is in. It isn't because of any > "welfare to corporations." The "services" sector is a black hole > sucking in nearly all of the tax monies collected in California.) > > The problem is that some well-meaning social planners thought they > could fix a fundamental problem (poor people moving into cities) by > giving money to the poor people in cities. It not only didn't work, it > worsened the problem in multiple ways and largely caused the "racial" > divisions of today. > > > --Tim May > "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and > strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman > explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound" > > --Tim May "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams

1 0

Optical MicroMachines Be For Whitey
by Tyler Durden 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

Tim May wrote... "The last refuge of the scoundrel is to dismiss stuff as "secondary and tertiary sources," sort of like the fakers I used to meet in college who nattered on about having learned their physics from Newton's "Principia" instead of from secondary and tertiary sources." Oh, no...don't try to cram me into that category (or practically any other you can think of, for that matter). I'm a trained, degreed, published, and multi-patented physicsist. I regard as "Primary Sources" anything published in a fairly accepted journal or conference proceedings (though the latter can be hard to find, depending on the conference)....I might read a good review paper once in a while, but in the journals these are normally invited papers, and written by known people in the field they are summarizing. My admission of ignorance of that end of Von Neumann is precisely that: admission of ignorance due to not having read much ABOUT him, and having only read his more famous papers. As for a universal nano generator, that notion has seemed a little too science-fictiony for my tastes, though in the optical world some of my colleagues were developing some fairly amazing optical lab-benches on a chip, but these are more at the micron scale. You'll pardon my scepticism about a universal generator being a useful notion any time in the near future...the recently defunct Optical Micro Machines (OMM) couldn't even get a micron-scale 3-D optical cross connect to work reliably (nor could anyone else, including Lucent, MEMS-R-US, or hosts of others), so that nano-scale generator is at least decades away, if it will ever be possible. -TD >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey >Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:09:27 -0800 > >I'll comment on the sociology after commenting on the physics: > >(actually, looking over your sociology, I see it's just more of the liberal >whine and sleaze, so I won't bother commenting on it again) > >On Jan 1, 2004, at 6:34 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: > >>Tim May wrote... >> >>>Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von >>>Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating >>>machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the >>>cellular automata literature. >> >>As you can probably tell, I've never read many secondary or tertiary >>sources. (ie, as a physicist I've always considered it of dubious >>usefulness to read ABOUT physics...) I've only read the few more famous >>von Neumann journal articles I've come across w.r.t. cellular automata...I >>actually thought he had only written two or three, and I don't remember >>his ideas of self-replicating machines as including something like a GA, >>but then again it's easily possible I didn't pick up on the ramifications >>of what I was reading (which is granted when I was much younger). > >The last refuge of the scoundrel is to dismiss stuff as "secondary and >tertiary sources," sort of like the fakers I used to meet in college who >nattered on about having learned their physics from Newton's "Principia" >instead of from secondary and tertiary sources. > >I encountered von Neumann's work on self-replicating machines when I was in >high school (*). It came up in connection with the Fermi paradox and in >issues of life (this was before the term "artificial life" was au >courant...I was at the first A-LIFE Conference in '87...von Neumann >couldn't make it). > >(* And no, I don't know mean my high school teachers taught us about von >Neumann machines. 97% of the science I knew by the time I graduated from >high school I'd learned on my own, from the usual "secondary and tertiary >sources.") > >A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators and >general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general assembler, >hence all general assemblers are replicators. And in fact this is >necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as otherwise it takes >all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the world, if they could make >nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom of a test tube. GAs only >start to become possible after the replication problem has been solved >(which it has not, despite claims about self-reproducing software >structures and train sets and the like). > >If you are not aware of basic developments, recall Wittgenstein's maxim: >"Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent." > >> >--Tim May >"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a >monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into >you." -- Nietzsche _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

1 0

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

At 05:19 PM 12/31/2003, John Kelsey wrote: > > In the most morally neutral case, this is like one criminal gang attacking > another. If the Sopprano family invades the Bozini family's turf, takes > over their protection rackets, and hunts down their godfather, it could be > messy, and it really will be an initiation of force in the most literal > sense. But is this the same kind of "initiation of force" that we normally > talk about when, say, a mugger knocks me over the head and takes my laptop > and wallet? (And of course, it's not that morally neutral. It's more like > a bunch of vigilantes from the neighborhood next door getting rid of the > gang running your neighborhood, for reasons of their own, but probably to > your benefit.) Although I disagree with the personal benefit aspect, this is the way I view the two major US poltical parties: two mob organizations fighting over turf and tax spoils. I think its time to clean up the D.C. (Augean) Stables. ND

1 0

Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
by Tyler Durden 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

Tim May wrote... "Because the Jews and negroes have demanded that all students be taught stuff they obviously will never use. Most inner city mutants should be taught practical skills, not abstract stuff their previous education has been bereft of." Well, I don't know who's responsible, but teaching what basically amounts to a liberal arts cirriculum is almost certainly useless in the inner cities, and black kids know this...they want something they can USE. Things like authomotive repair or, perhaps, airline baggage screening probably makes a lot more sense. "I don't give a shit whether they're "fully human" or not. I only care that they stop stealing from me, that liberal Jews stop saying that my taxes have to be increased to support these "fully human" bags of shit." Well, this is where you lose a lot of credibility on this list, despite your sometimes farily acute technical observations. Let's just say that your 'philosophy' has concluded that it's probably better for the "useless eaters" be burned off, and that this would be good for the planet (the scary thing is that it's becomming obvious that in the near future neither the planet nor human society will really need 6 billion or more people). So this is your "philosophy"...fine. But you seem to have little or no emotion or sympathy towards those 'lumpen proletariat' (cue commentary on term by James Donald)...in other words, these are people who love/hate/fear/lust/eat just like you, and who don't regard themselves as 'useless', and yet it would seem that history just might pass them by, and that there may be a large segment of human population that will (in the short run) be marginalized, and in the long run be wiped out (according to your philosophies), apparently in some terrible and painful cataclysm. That your philosophies seemed to have erased any interhuman emotion you may have in this context seems strange. And no, I'm not suggesting that you cry your way out of your ideas, but recognize that if your ideas are correct, they're tragic. That which is 'inevitable' and also cataclysmic and (arguably) avoidable may also easily be tragic. Hell...that's probably the very definition of tragic, and in the most pessimistic of appraisals (ie, yours) the fate of American black folks (with many, possibly millions of exceptions) might easily be tragic, and that's a shame, like all human suffering. >Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von >Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating >machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the cellular >automata literature. As you can probably tell, I've never read many secondary or tertiary sources. (ie, as a physicist I've always considered it of dubious usefulness to read ABOUT physics...) I've only read the few more famous von Neumann journal articles I've come across w.r.t. cellular automata...I actually thought he had only written two or three, and I don't remember his ideas of self-replicating machines as including something like a GA, but then again it's easily possible I didn't pick up on the ramifications of what I was reading (which is granted when I was much younger). >Snoop is razzlekamazzled by the negroes, who have the money they stole from >gullible whites, which is reason enough for niggers, whiggers, and chiggers >to all be jivin' like daze shit. Well, perhaps he's just wise to his market. >Those who steal need killing. Killing the guilty is about to get a lot more >efficient. Billions in the world need killing, and tens of millions in the >U.S. are part of this. If true, this is tragic. You might argue that it's necessary, "good" and inevitable, but it's still tragic. Some of these people will be living lives of very high quality, despite their "need for killing". If you got out more, you might know that. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx

4 4

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Harmon Seaver 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 01:59:50PM -0500, Sunder wrote: > If those are your beliefs, then by all means, set the first example, and > go kill yourself. Better yet, sacrifice yourself to your goddess... By > doing so, you'll also earn yourself a Darwin Award... unless you've > already fathered kids... But from your tone of voice, I'd say you've > probably castrated yourself years ago. No, I have offspring. But what makes you think I'm human? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

3 2

Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
by Tim May 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

On Jan 1, 2004, at 2:35 PM, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > Tim May wrote: > >> I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar >> machines are running full-tilt, "24/7." To wit, Beowulf-type >> clusters, the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in >> the world, and so on. None of these machines is reported to be >> burning up literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are >> running background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization. > > I will admit to a degree of skepticism myself even though I am > describing overheating as a likely outcome. But what is your actual evidence, as opposed to your belief that overheating is a likely outcome? I have said that I know of many machines (tens of thousands of CPUs, and probably many more I don't know about directly) which are running CPU-bound applications 24/7. I have heard of no "burning up literally" cases with the many Beowulf clusters, supercomputers, and 24/7 home or business screensavers and crunching apps, so I suspect they are not common. If you have actual evidence, as opposed to "likely outcome" speculations, please present the evidence. > > First, if you lose a fan on an Intel CPU of at least Pentium III > generation or an AMD equivalent, you will lose your CPU to thermal > overload. This is a well-known and well-documented problem. One > question is can stamp work thermally overload and damage a CPU. > Second question is how much stamp work can you do without thermally > overloading the CPU. This is true whether one is running Office or a stamp program. You are just repeating a general point about losing a fan, not about stamp generation per se. Boxer fan lifetimes are usually about comparable to hard drive lifetimes, which also kill a particular machine. You are not presenting anything new here, and the association with stamp generation is nonexistent. > > Large clusters have more careful thermal engineering applied to them > than probably most of the zombies out there. I have seen one Beowulf > cluster constructed out of standard 1U chassis, motherboards, fans > etc. and frequently 10 percent of the systems are down at any one > time. The vast majority of the failures have been due to thermal > problems. Most clusters use exactly the same air-cooled machines as are available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. In fact, the blades and rackmount systems are precisely those available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. You are presenting no evidence, just hypothesizing that your stamp protocol somehow burns out more CPUs than render farms do, than Mersenne prime apps to, than financial simulations do, etc. Yet you present no actual numbers. > > so, will we see a Pentium IV spontaneously ignite like a third tier > heavy-metal group in a Rhode Island nightclub? No, you're right, we > won't. I think it's safe to say we will see increasing unreliability, > power supply failures, and failures of microelectronics due to > increased thermal load. Which is good enough for my purposes. Evidence is desirable, belief is just belief. --Tim May "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau

1 0

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
by Tyler Durden 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

Tim May wrote (and fairly cogently, I might add)... "If a person thought he was not being paid enough, it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own business, etc. If a business wanted to raise or lower prices, their option. Customers were free to purchase or not." This is an idealization, of course, and to the extent that it was true I agree with some of the main conclusions here. Another idealization is that, once in a while, someone will get caught in a downsizing or without a job for a while. Knowing that some small cushion existed allowed those with fairly minimal capital to take the kinds of risks implicit in what you're talking about. "The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that both are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of capitalism--are popularizing is the one that says that what made companies successful was *government spending*, not this compact which needed little or no government role, and that this makes government intervention in business justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim that those who worked hard and risked their capital by investing in companies are profiting at the expense of the "less privileged." " Well. I wasn't exactly trying to say that. At least, "Intel was successful because the government gave it tax breaks..."...that's what I'm NOT saying. However, add my point above to the notion that the whole American social fabric probably can not be separated into small discete chunks, and you get my point. Or at least, the logic that compels one to conclude that the murder of 40 million African Americans is justifiable should somehow make one take those notions with a grain of salt. Intel or National Semiconductor doesn't and never did exist in a vacuum. They were started by great engineers and physicsts that were educated in places like Stanford, or that worked in Bell Labs. And this isn't an argument for tax-and-spend 'statism' per se, but simply that there's a social/political/economic environment that can't be diced and sliced. You'd dice and slice an African American population, but then again it's from these inner cities that much of popular American culture has arisen (ie, between pro sports, various forms of music and so on...). Who knows the impact these people have had in terms of providing 'content' for the chips and TV screens and so on. Am I therefore arguing that this justifies US tax policies? Hell no. I might bother trying if I thought $$$-towards-blacks amounted to anything more than mere mollification and storage. (Hell, my household probably pays more than the whole rest of the Cypherpunks list in annual taxes...including May, I'd bet.) No, blacks aren't the enemy. I'm not even convinced that the basic notion of the "state" is the enemy. But those who currently adminster the state and utilize it for various ends have morphed themselves, and (most likely) the American State into the defacto enemy that billions of people throughout the world are starting to resent. For that reason I'd like to cut out the cancer that eats my hard-earned resources and utlizes them to benefit a preselected few. -TD PS: Is there any comment that Mr May would like to profer on the issue of having been rejected by some hot black tail back in the day? (ie, aside from "I'd like to see you are your infant children stripped of epidermis and dipped in seasalt") >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:06:29 -0800 > >On Dec 31, 2003, at 10:51 AM, Tim May wrote: >>> >>>Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life >>>(from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and >>>landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or >>>physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as >>>there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. >>>That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking >>>(well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily >>>afford. >> >>Nonsense. The chip companies were NOT "payed for by somebody else's >>taxes." (Nor was the invention of the IC or the microprocessor paid for by >>DARPA or anyone else in government, despite factually incorrect lore to >>the contrary. I was there, at least for the onset of the micro, and I can >>say precisely what role government contracts played: none.) >> >>Engineers and scientists who work an estimated 8 months out of each year >>to pay their taxes (Federal plus state plus local plus payroll plus >>property plus sales plus.....) see the minority layabouts working not one >>_day_ for their "entitlements" and "benefits" and "social services." > >I'm going to elaborate on this point, as there seems to be a growing meme >in the tech culture (especially amongst the anti-free trade, >twentysomething, self-described "geeks") that somehow government built or >paid for technology, business, high tech, etc. > >What built our "system" was essentially a _compact_, an agreement codified >in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even centuries of common law that >a bunch of things would happen: > >-- that interference in the business choices of a business would be minimal > >-- that failing businesses would not be bailed out (and, indeed, none of >the leading companies in 1850 last much beyond 1900, few in business in >1900 are still dominant, etc.) > >-- that owners, employers, etc. and their employees, customers, etc. would >themselves negotiate wages, prices, benefits, etc., without a top-down >order about who might be employed, at what rates, etc. > >(This of course began to change when the socialists assumed power in the >1930s, and then dramatically changed when the Great Society socialists >assumed power in 1961. It then came to be seen as the role of government to >set wages, to force businesses to deal with those they wished not to, to >let debtors off without repaying debts or even having their kneecaps >smashed, etc. This was the start of the Era of Entitlements, when some >ethnic groups decided that reading be for whitey and that they would coast >on freebies paid for by the "suckas" still working.) > >This compact, based essentially on voluntary interaction in trade, >employment, and investment, worked quite well for many decades. This >compact, this way of doing things which is usually called "liberty" or >"laissez faire," was not "built" by government...until relatively recent >times the size of government was small and tax rates for most workers and >investors were low. What made the system work was that the system largely >worked on the "non-initiation of force" principle, which is what begets >voluntary transactions. If a person thought he was not being paid enough, >it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own business, etc. If a >business wanted to raise or lower prices, their option. Customers were free >to purchase or not. > >The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that both >are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of capitalism--are >popularizing is the one that says that what made companies successful was >*government spending*, not this compact which needed little or no >government role, and that this makes government intervention in business >justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim that those who worked hard >and risked their capital by investing in companies are profiting at the >expense of the "less privileged." > >"You are successful because of the taxes paid by the less-privileged, so >now it is right that you be taxed at high rates so that welfare benefits >can be maintained." is the essential message here. > >This is hokum. Very few U.S. or even European and Asian businesses were >built with public funds. Neither Sony nor Honda, two examples of post-war >successes, were built by MITI (MITI, in fact, frequently criticized Sony >and Honda for the courses they pursued...meanwhile MITI was funding the >now-defunct TRON microprocessor and the Fifth Generation Computer, utterly >missing out on workstations, PCs, modern microprocessors, CAD, routers, and >the Internet). > >None of Intel's achievements, whether the first dynamic RAM (the 1101), the >first EPROM, the first microprocessor, the first single board computer, the >first...., etc., was paid for by any kind of DARPA or DOD or government >grant. In fact, the military was pissed off at us for not developing their >kind of "mil-spec" components, for not bidding on military contracts. We >made our products by selling to those who wanted to buy them. Period. And >we risked our savings by buying stock in the company and others of its >kind. > >Make a list of companies of the past 50 years, in the U.S., Japan, and >Europe, and virtually none of them had significant U.S. funding. Sure, some >of them had a lot of government purchases...aircraft companies, for >example, will almost always end up selling heavily to national governments. >But Boeing beat out Convair (on the 707 vs. 880 race) for very basic >reasons. Likewise, Boeing again "bet the company" on the 747, between 1965 >and 1970. It succeeded, and only partly because of government purchases. >Mostly it was just competency. > >And so on. The best examples are in Silicon Valley, now being taxed at >cumulative rates exceeding 75%. For what? To pay mostly for things they >will not, and cannot, ever benefit from. > >This is one of the reasons Intel and other companies are expanding so >rapidly in other countries, places where the work force is not made up of >increasingly illiterate high school kids, mall rats, and whiggers. In China >and India and Malaysia they have no translation of "reading be for whitey." > >In 30 years America and Europe are going to be in a precarious position. > >--Tim May > > >"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the >people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some >rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no >majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin of the New >York Historical Society, October 7, 1789 _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

2 1

Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
by Tyler Durden 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

"Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national security state." Yes...that's the thing I don't fully get. If we assume that Mr May made a big chunk of $$$ at Intel, isn't it rather naive of him to assume that the same system that helped make Intel the global $$$-generator it is isn't the same system that keeps black folks quiescent and so on? I think it's doubtful that Intel could have become what it is in any other country in the world. Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life (from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking (well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily afford. This doesn't necessarily annhilate his "arguments" or main thesis, but in this light the call for the killing of millions so that he can afford a few more landmines seems perplexing. As for the middle east and US foreign policy, I'd be more convinced if Mr May and others pointed to that as a main reason to stop paying taxes and back out of the system. In other words, that there may or may not be any 'inherent' flaw to a fairly light form of "statism", but that it's defacto application (in the case of the US) is creating a seriously destabilized global political environment, while decreasingly serving (though a piss-poor education system) those that ought to benefit from taxes and spending. (This was why I became interested in "Crypto-Anarchy".) Of course, I'll add the usual boiler-plate notion invoked by physicists, mathematicians, and hard-scientists almost universally, in their heart of hearts: Only mathematics and experimental physics (as a thought system or philisophy) are truly reliable and able to make definitive conclusions about the world...all other so-called systems of thought (including sociology, political 'science', economics and so on) are half-baked hodge podges at best. Therefore, any thought system that has as a corrollary "...and 40 million negros should die..." should immediately be suspect of having been based on a foundation of non-mathematical muck, likely relating to penis envy and getting rejected by some hot black chick Mr May tried to date back in 1957 or whatever. -TD >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:38:04 -0800 > >What's pleasurable about reading the fiction of ideologues like >Tim is the smack-down tone of their prejudices. Fake, fake, >fake. > >Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest >beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and >wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with >the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national >security state. No US institution has been uncontaminated >by the wealth generated by the illusion of US enemies and the >raping of the economy to simulate battle with such fictional >threats, at home and abroad. > >Welfare is puny by comparison, and Tim's castigation of >it is like the master of the house bitching about health needs >of his servants while requiring them to wipe his ass. Standard >nouveau riche conceit which reveals a fear of again being >a poor asswipe himself, the stench of self-loathing inescapable. > >The favorite mindlessness of the ideologue, is to rehash endlessly >comfortable old prejudices, chanting repetitively the same >accusations, avoiding self-criticism in the manner of the >self-righteous, professing of certainty to conceal doubt, >working hard to present an image of confidence, most often >by blaming and attacking easy targets. > >The rich fear the poor, and rightly so, for they know who pays >for their perks. And the answer to this fear is always threats >of violence, the dominant paradigm of those who reap the >most benefits from house rules of the United States. > >Cloaked, as ever, in blind faith in the "Constitution," or another >rigged fat cat document used to fleece the peasants at home >and abroad, based as they always are on justification of the >supremacy of the over-privileged. > >Eveready to shoot those who disagree, send them up the >chimneys, the teenie-bopper ideologue struts mightily >against imaginary demons. > >Wasn't it a leftist who coined Goldwater's most memorable >phrase? Extremists are all alike, full of shit and hatred, their >own worst enemy. Suicide prone, but afraid to go alone. _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

4 4