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