Вчера он написал пару интересных (на мой взгляд) длинных писем, долженствующих объяснить его отношение к неграм (но сбивающихся по дороге опять-таки на отношение к либералам, в том числе). Я привожу эти письма целиком, потому что мне они кажутся интересной, ярко выраженной, идеологически чистой (с точки зрения крайнего либертарианства) точкой зрения; кроме того, в них немало интересных аргументов, основанных на недавней американской истории (или её интерпретации, точнее). Хочу специально подчеркнуть, что я не разделяю описанных в них сентиментов и общей точки зрения. Мне не свойственны ни крайний либертарианизм, ни расовое мышление, включающее в себя грубые расовые обобщения, вызывающие у меня чувство крайней неприязни. Тем не менее, несмотря на то, что точку зрения автора этих писем я не разделяю, она мне кажется интересной и ярко, во многом убедительно аргументированной; поэтому я и копирую эти два письма ниже. Если кто-то хочет согласиться с автором этих писем или оспорить его аргументы, добро пожаловать в комментарии; буду рад, если возникнет интересная дискуссия по их поводу.
Я немного подредактировал процитированный контекст в начале первого письма, чтобы было ясно, на какие именно обвинения в расизме Тим Мэй отвечает в своём пространном письме. В начале второго письма он цитирует самого себя из первого письма, чтобы показать, о какой именно теме он хочет написать более подробно.
From: Tim May [email protected]
Date: January 2, 2004 12:03:39 AM PST
To: [the cypherpunks mailing list]
Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
"J.A. Terranson" [email protected] wrote:
>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 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.
From: Tim May [email protected]
Date: January 2, 2004 1:02:20 AM PST
Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
> 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.