- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

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

02 Jan '04

I composed and sent this message, and one following it, last night. Lne.com has not yet forwarded either, 10 hours later. I checked Eric's message and he said new _subscriptions_ will no longer be accepted after 04-01-01 and mail will no no longer be forwarded after 04-01-15. Perhaps he is halting operations early. All things must end. Begin forwarded message: > From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> > Date: January 2, 2004 12:03:39 AM PST > To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com > Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey > > > On Jan 1, 2004, at 10:06 PM, Riad S. Wahby wrote: > >> "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org> wrote: >>> Why the BedSty student Tim? >> >> Uhh, read more carefully. He was responding to a specific point from >> Tyler Durden. >> >>> You have some incredible moments of lucidity and insight, and >>> occasionally, >>> we are the lucky recipients of these fleeting events - but then, >>> just as sure >>> as the sun coming over the horizon every morning of every day, you >>> slip back >>> into the pseudo-intellectual racist crap. What's wit dat? >> >> I don't think Tim is racist as such. He hates everyone equally. :-) >> But seriously, calling it racism seems wrong-headed. Racism is "I >> hate black people because they're black." Tim hates (some, most, >> all?) black people because he percieves them as benefitting unfairly >> from his hard work. I'm pretty sure, all other things being equal, he >> wouldn't hate a black person who, through his own hard work and >> without taking a penny from the government, turned himself into a >> successful, tax-paying "source." Or, at least, I'm not convinced he >> would hate such a person, which is to say I'm not convinced he's a >> racist. > > I admire many negroes. Shelby Steele, who wrote "The Content of our > Character," for example. And Thomas Sowell, an even more prolific > author (and Stanford professor). And Niger Innes (son of the lefty Roy > Innes...a lot of children of 60s liberal negroes are now libertarian > or conservative, e.g., Adam Clayton Powell's son). And Clarence Thomas > (who has argued forcefully that the Supremes ought to do a very > thorough review of gun laws, with the hint that the right decision > would be to restore the Second Amendment to first class status). And a > bunch of others, including Ward Connerly, of California, who has been > leading the effort to have "race" removed as the basis for _any_ > government actions, including hiring quotas, special admissions > requirements for negroes and Asians (at opposite ends of the test > score spectrum), and so on. > > I don't admire the politics of Condie Rice and Colin Powell, but there > is little doubt that they are accomplished, bright people. > > My problem is that negroes are 80% in solidarity on a bunch of > disgusting, anti-liberty things: affirmative action, racial quotas, > minority setasides (but not for successful minorities--they want > limits on the number of Asians admitted to UC schools), welfare, > increased benefits, etc. > > Further, they, as a whole, have a "plantation mentality": always > demanding that Massa in the Big White House give them more stuff. > Instead of excelling and grabbing the stuff for themselves, as Chinese > and Korean and Indian people have done in America, they think > setasides and quotas and special favoritism is "owed" to them. > > I used to not care much about what they did or thought. When I entered > college in 1970 I expected to mix with a bunch of different sorts of > people. What I found was that the negroes all sat at the same tables > in the dining halls, that whites who sat near them were chased off, > and that we non-blacks, including Asians, Indians, South Americans, > whites, etc., could mix with each other, but not with the "Panthers." > > And they ghettoized themselves into "Black Studies," which they had > "demanded" a couple of years earlier and had just gotten in 1969. > > In 1972 they formed various militant groups on campus. One obnoxious > woman named Judy became the student association president. When she > didn't like a decision, she ordered the Panthers, her enforcers, to > bar the doors and not let anyone out until the decision was reversed. > It was. > > I am not exaggerating. I included this, and the theft of ASU funds, > and the henchmen, and similar leftist actions by others (including the > MeCHA "Aztlanos"), in a letter to the Regents of the University of > California. It was published in the school newspaper, in a full-paged > spread, and I got replies from the governor of the state, Ronald > Reagan. I met with the Chancellor and he agreed that the situation at > the campus was deplorable, but that in the interests of keeping the > peace with the negroes and Mexicans, given the time (1973), there was > little they could do. He promised that his office was looking into the > allegations and already knew about most of them. > > When I joined Intel in 1974, I saw plenty of Chinese, Indians, a > handful of Koreans and Vietnamese (more later), but only one negro > engineer. And he had a major chip on his shoulder. When he was let go > in one of the RIFs, he claimed discrimination on the basis of his > melanin levels. > > Meanwhile, the excuses mounted all around about how "science is sexist > and gynophobic," about how the ancient Egyptians were actually black > Africans and had their advanced civilization (electricity, flying > cars, etc.) stolen by the "ice people" and similar such malarkey. The > Reverend Jesse Jackson, a racist hustler, tried to shake down Silicon > Valley corporations for payoffs to his Rainbow scam. (Meanwhile, > negroes avoided science, math, engineering, technology and preferred > to focus their efforts on lawsuits to get standards lowered, via "race > norming." The bullshit went on and on.) > > I look at the 75% bastard rate (compared to about 25% for whites and > about 5% for Asians in America), the black on white crime, the black > on black crime, the crack hoes, the disrespect for learning....all > this and I can draw only one conclusion" that though there are many > fine, competent, bright negroes, on the whole it is a gutter race. > > Harsh phrase, but true. A race that, in America in the last 40 years, > has become a race of beggars, whiners, wheedlers, chiselers, whores, > crack addicts, dropouts, and unwed mothers. > > Charles Murray laid out a lot of the reasons in his book "Losing > Ground." ("Dat be a racist book!," said his detractors.) > > The seminal event was the arrival on the scene of the collectivist > JFK. Kennedy ordered his bunch of eastern elitists to look into the > "relief" system which had provided very limited and very temporary > economic assistance to folks in bad situations. For those few here old > enough (I am, just barely), this used to be called "general relief," > and it was mostly administered at the county level, in the states that > offered it. What Kennedy's brain trust found was that "relief" was > seen as an embarrassment, as a negative thing, something to avoid > getting on if at all possible and to get off of just as fast as one > could. Which is as it should be, of course. > > 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." Oh, and meddling in foreign countries with things > like the Peace Corps (which, the feministas are slowly coming to > realize, did much to break "primitives" of things like breast-feeding, > while giving the baby formula industry a new world market). > > Kennedy got zapped for his many crimes, but the Good Ole Boy who took > over turned out to be just as big a collectivist as Kennedy had been, > and LBJ continued the Kennedy welfare/entitlements/handouts and called > it "The Great Society." (I don't recall if Kennedy had formally named > his progressive plan.) > > And that year was the year that negroes got to vote in all 50 states, > which of course was a good thing. The part of the Civil Rights Act > that dealt with voting rights was good. The Constitution applies to > all people. > > However, most of the Civil Rights Act was terrible, for obvious > reasons. Between it and new interpretations of the 14th Amendment > (lawyers can quote the language), and some terrible Warren Court > decisions (*), the effect was to interfere in the ability of people to > choose who to do business with, who to rent to, who to associate with, > all of the things which liberty means. > > (* The Supreme Court took a case where a negro had been denied service > at a diner in the south and used a weird series of logical steps to > argue that if negroes couldn't buy food at this diner then napkin and > ketchup and hot dog sales might be affected, and since some of that > stuff came from other states, that would be interfering in interstate > trade and only Congress can regulate that, blah blah, and so racial > discrimination was outlawed under the fucking Commerce Clause of the > Constitution! Of course, by the same logic, if Apple decides to change > suppliers of disk drives, and this means Illinois gets the business > instead of Idaho, this has also changed interstate trade. But logic > was not the point of what the Court was doing...they were looking for > any excuse to stop "discrimination.") > > OK, what of discrimination itself? Good or bad? > > Most of us probably agree that telling a black person he cannot shop > in some bookstore, told by the bookstore owner that is, is not cool, > to use a technical phrase. We might call it tacky, or unethical, or > just plain dumb. (And if the government tried to say blacks could not > enter a bookstore, this would be both interfering with the property > rights of the bookstore owner AND violating the colorblind standards > of the Constitution.) > > But libertarians argue--and this was the natural system for 170 > years--that what a property owner does with his property is, assuming > he is not violating real rights (*) of others, up to him to decide, > whether his decisions are uncool, stupid, unwise, etc. > > (* I mean real rights, as in property, personal safety, economic > ownership, etc., not some "right to enter the stores I wish to enter." > No more so than anyone has a "right" to be invited into someone's > house, or into a club, etc.) > > So, during just a couple of years of the Great Society, this > confluence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the new interpretations of > the 14th Amendment, and Supreme Court decisions, the ability of people > and corporations to choose whom they wished to deal with, or hire, or > fire, ended. "Racial discrimination" became the new word to demonize > anyone or any group. When civil libertarians like Barry Goldwater said > this restriction on liberty was a bad direction to move in, he was > dubbed a "racist." > > I could write much more on this whole sorry episode. It's a sorry > episode not because I have any desire to exclude negroes or women or > cripples or queers or any other of the "protected groups" (added over > the years), but because it erases the concept of liberty. If I can't > rent to whom I choose, I have no control over my own belongings. > > If I can be told I must hire a certain percentage of negroes (later > dubbed "tokens'), this not only interferes with freedom of association > (which applies to groups and corporations, obviously) but it also has > a corrosive effect on those hired and how those around them think > about them. ("Token blacks" in departments of companies are often > thought of as having been hired to get the EEOC stooges off the > company's back.) > > I have the fundamental right, via ownership of my property and my > freedom of association, to hire or fire based on merit, based on whim, > based on astrology, whatever. It may not be wise, but it's my choice. > > I have the fundamental right to have only Muslims in my company, or > only Jews working in my bookstore, or to have only buxom women working > at my strip club. (Recall the "discrimination" suits filed over such > policies, including males claiming they were discriminated against, > women in wheelchairs or with mastectomies claiming they have a "right" > to be hired by a strip club that doesn't want them, and so on.) > > The can of worms that was opened when liberty was cancelled is still > with us, getting worse and worse. Feminista attorney sued a California > gym for excluding women, and the courts ordered gyms to admit > women....ah, but the same order did not ban women only gyms, and these > are now common in California. > > A church which refused to hire a Satanist was ordered to do so. (This > was later rescinded...apparently even the courts can't deal with the > Alice in Wonderland-like situation where discrimination is banned.) > > This is what Shelby Steele, the black I referred to earlier, is saying > in "The Content of our Character," that blacks should be judged on the > content of their character, not the color of their skin. (He is > quoting Martin Luther King, of course.) This does NOT mean that this > maxim gets enforced by the government, and that discriminating on the > basis of color should be illegal. He, and King (some think), is > arguing that this is the "right" thing to do, but is not something > government should be enforcing. > > Note of course that most businessmen will not turn away customers. > Things in the deep south were skewed by the War of Northern > Aggression, and it took time for sentiments to change. But in many > cases the apartheid in the south was managed and enforced by local > _governments_, with the public restrooms being "White" and "Colored." > > (As in South Africa, where companies like IBM wanted to hire blacks > but were ordered not to by the RSA government.) > > Anyway, I resent deeply being told I may not associate as I wish, may > not rent or sell my property as I wish, must meet certain hiring > quotas or face EEOC fines, must promote based on race not character or > skills, and so on. I resent deeply the whole can of worms that > involves "discrimination against gays" and "handicapped-friendly" > policies, and the whole enforced "niceness" bullshit (which is not > actually making people nicer...just the opposite, as when I had to > deal with a token we had in our department and was ordered to not do > anything that might cause him to file a discrimination lawsuit against > us). >> > > I see the success the Chinese and Indians and other Asians have had in > America...none of it do to quotas, to forced hiring, to the nonsense > the negroes keep pulling. > > (I haven't talked much about Mexicans, by the way. Many Mexicans are > perfectly fine...hard-working, friendly, etc. Often they are not very > academically-oriented, so few are in engineering positions. And many > are as bad as many of the negroes. Worse, the issue of "illegal > aliens." As Tom McClintock pointed out so cogently in his debate with > Schwarzenegger, et. al., the real issue is that these illegal aliens > (perhaps as many as 10 million now) are CUTTING IN LINE, cutting in > line ahead of those waiting patiently and legally to enter the U.S. > from Russia, Romania, India, Thailand, etc. And we gave the Mexican > and Latin American illegals an "amnesty" in the mid-90s: > Simpson-Mozzoli, a promised one time only deal. Ah, but the cynics, > including me, were right: more aliens swarmed in, looking for another > amnesty. As a pure libertarian I would have no problem with truly open > borders, provided there were absolutely no taxpayer-funded programs or > services, and provided the piles of rotting corpses were not used as > an excuse to give "services." But open immigration is not going to > happen. Meanwhile, giving these illegal aliens permanent residency > status would be a fucking disaster. As with the Simpson-Mazzoli > illegals, once amnestied they have a strong tendency to sign up for > all of the "entitlements" JFK and LBH and RMN established. Which is > why my local town has a hospital that is facing insolvency, as the > swarms of Mexicans use the services mandated by law and collection is > nearly impossible. And the State of California is facing insolvency, > as you all know. Enough about Mexicans.) > > So, to wrap this up, I see plenty of brown-skinned people from India, > Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. doing very well without chanting about > "racist discrimination" and demanding that some version of "Ebonics" > be used to teach their children (just the opposite, they really WANT > their children to be fluent and precise in standard English). And I > see Chinese, Korean, and other Asian immigrants doing well, not > bellyaching that the reason they're failing is because The Man is > holding them down, that Massah has passing out enough freebies. > > And the black libertarians and conservatives I cited earlier share > this view. They don't put it quite as bluntly as I do, that the negro > in America is becoming a gutter race, but they obviously think the > trends of the past 40 years are disturbing and not good for the bulk > of their fellow negroes. > > --Tim May > > "According to the FBI, there's a new wrinkle in prostitution: suburban > teenage girls are now selling their white asses at the mall to make > money to spend at the mall. > ... > Now, you see, the joke here, of course, is on White America, which > always felt superior to blacks, and showed that with their feet, > moving out of urban areas. "White flight," they called it. Whites > feared blacks. They feared if they raised their kids around blacks, > the blacks would turn their daughters and prostitutes. And now, > through the miracle of MTV, damned if it didn't work out that way! " > > --Bill Maher, "Real Time with Bill Maher," HBO, 15 August 2003 > > #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal." #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed." #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals." #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean." #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

1 0

RE: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
by Major Variola (ret) 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

At 11:51 AM 1/1/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >"Stay In School!" > >In other words, schools keep the crime rates down, as is a well-known >statistic. They are basically storage facilities. For real schools we white >folks with $$$ can move out to the suburbs or send our kids to private >school. Right. And the value of an uneducated result of an unaborted fuck 18 years ago is so useful that schooling is unnecessary, just part of the Man (tm) keeping the People (tm) down. Ayup. Plenty of grubs to be dug if that's what you prefer. The rest of us prefer personal capitalism, ie investment, ie education. There's a reason the Jews and Asians (etc) suceed and other --often more fluent-- cultures don't, and it has to do with the value some cultures put on education. The truth will set you free, or not. Your choice.

1 0

Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
by Major Variola (ret) 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

At 12:14 AM 1/1/04 -0800, Eric Cordian wrote: >Of >course, they still need one to determine who gets the shit-hauling jobs, >and the usual method of doing this is to hide the class system in the >education system. Now you don't get the shit-hauling job because you are >an untouchable. You get it because you "didn't do well" in school, or >you "dropped out, and "you could have been successful if you had just >tried harder." Seems that someone has a problem grasping natural variation. Perhaps you would prefer that the majority starve, or live in pre-agricultural poverty, rather than accept a comfy (if low-status) niche made possible by large foreheads. Tsk tsk.

1 0

Brazilians reciprocate on US travel policy
by Michael Kalus 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimes/newsst/newsst1073024337.asp SAO PAULO - Brazilian police photographed and fingerprinted all arriving Americans on Thursday - tit-for-tat for a similar US program that begins next week. In all, 230 American citizens were thus identified Thursday at Brazil's largest international airport here under what a federal police spokesman called a "judicial decision." That decision was handed down earlier in the week by Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva of the federal bench in the central Brazilian city of Mato Grosso based on "the principle of reciprocity," although it could still be annulled by the federal government. The identification measures were not immediately put into effect at the airport in Rio de Janeiro, where federal police said they had not yet received official instructions, according to the Brazilian press agency, Agencia Brasil. Beginning January 5, immigration officials at all US international airports will vet visitors' passports and visas and pose the usual questions - before taking their fingerprints and photographs. That is phase one of US-VISIT, a 380-million-dollar effort to track down terrorists. Visitors from 27 countries whose citizens do not need visas to enter the United States - mostly in Europe, are exempted. By 2005, every port-of-entry on land, sea and air will have the fingerprint and photographic technology. All US visas and passports will eventually include photos and fingerprints - called "biometric identifiers." The program takes effect after the United States raised its terror alert to its next-to-highest level in December. Intelligence indicated that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack airliners for a repeat of its September 11 attacks in which 3,000 died. /AFP/ -

1 0

Statement on H.R. 2417
by Michael Kalus 02 Jan '04

02 Jan '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031213-3.html Statement on H.R. 2417 Statement by the President Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2417, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004." The Act authorizes funding for United States intelligence activities, including activities in the war against terrorists of global reach. Section 506A(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, as enacted by section 312(b) of the Act, purports to require the President to request that the Congress enact laws appropriating funding for a major intelligence system procurement in an amount set as a cost estimate by an entity subordinate to the President or to explain why the President instead requests amounts below those levels. Moreover, beginning with the submittal to the Congress of the President's budget for FY 2006, section 312(d)(2) of H.R. 2417 purports to condition the obligation or expenditure of funds for development or procurement of a major intelligence system on the President's compliance with the requirements of section 506A. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of exclusive authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair the deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties. Section 341(b) purports to require the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence, acting through particular offices subordinate to them respectively, to establish certain policies and procedures relating to espionage prosecutions. The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the authority committed exclusively to the President by the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Similarly, sections 1102(a) and 1102(c) of the National Security Act, as enacted by section 341(a) of the Act, purport to mandate that the Director of Central Intelligence use or act through the Office of National Counterintelligence Executive to establish and implement an inspection process for all agencies and departments of the U.S. Government that handle classified information. The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch. The executive branch shall construe and implement section 376 of the Act, relating to making available classified information to courts, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security and consistent with the statutory authority of the Attorney General for the conduct of litigation for the United States. Many provisions of the Act, including section 106 and subtitle D of title III of the Act, seek to require the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress on various subjects. The executive branch shall construe the provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties. The executive branch shall implement section 319 of the Act in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Section 502 purports to place restrictions on use of the U.S. Armed Forces and other personnel in certain operations. The executive branch shall construe the restrictions -in section 502 as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Section 106 enacts by reference certain requirements set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the House-Senate committee of conference or in a classified annex. The executive branch continues to discourage this practice of enacting secret laws and encourages instead appropriate non-binding uses of classified schedules of authorizations, classified annexes to committee reports, and joint statements of managers that accompany the final legislation. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, December 13, 2003. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP/VGomlCnxcrW2uuEQKyAgCbBvlu57NoR+uvNMgDIVT+mUYItRoAoOXj erAm6POoymt4dXbaxNKQbCN0 =Cfai -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

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