Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
Tim May
timcmay at got.net
Fri Jan 2 10:18:02 PST 2004
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 at got.net>
> Date: January 2, 2004 12:03:39 AM PST
> To: cypherpunks at 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 at 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."
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list