Racism: Wrong or incorrect?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Racism is one of those very interesting topics to discuss because
large areas of the discussion are forbidden territory.

Is racism wrong or is it incorrect?  The most generally held belief in
the United States is that it is wrong to express racist ideas
publicly, but that many of these ideas are, in fact, correct.  Most
white Americans truly believe in their innermost hearts that black
Americans are fundamentally more violent, less intelligent, and to be
pitied.  At the same time, many of these white Americans believe they
are committing some sort of sin in having these beliefs.

If the belief is true, how can it be sinful to believe it?  If it is
not true, then why believe it?

A good friend was driving through the American South recently.  He is
not of the dominant racial group.  He was involved in more than one
scary incident on his drive.  What was initially surprising to me was
that he said he sort of preferred the South to the North because at
least in the South people were more "up front."  When you think about
it for a minute that makes a lot of sense.  Who would want to spend
time with people who are patronizing?

This can be seen in just about every aspect of the racial policies of
the United States government.  The fundamental assumption of an
affirmative action program is that nobody would actually want to hire
a member of the subordinate ethnic group.  When somebody chooses to
hire based on ethnicity it doesn't hurt their business in most cases.
The advocates of affirmative action claim not be racists, yet we
rarely find them promoting racial integration in the work place by
advertising the fantastic deal which is available by hiring people who
are irrationally discriminated against by other employers.  We must
conclude that many advocates of affirmative action believe that the
subordinate group is actually inferior in many ways.

It's good for people to discuss their ideas.  That's how we arrive at
truth and mutual understanding.  It is terribly unfortunate that
discussions of racism, which is allegedly an important topic, have
been methodically discouraged for a number of decades in the United
States.

On one hand, I would prefer Tim had not made his "go now, chop chop"
posts.  I would like to see Nobuki Nakatuji stay around, write code,
master English, American culture, and Cypherpunk Life.  Tim's comments
may not promote that.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's a good idea to discourage
anyone's explorations into certain highly forbidden areas.  Somehow
the work of Robert Crumb comes to mind.  Crumb has dallied with a
number of forbidden racial and sexual ideas.  I can't even say I like
the feeling or the tone of his work, yet, somehow, there is something
of value there which is hard to articulate.

Of course, what is most interesting about Tim's comments is that he
appears to be out on the end of three bell curves in the United
States:

1. He does not believe (I think) that it is morally wrong to have a
racist belief.

2. He does not believe racist beliefs are a correct description of
reality.

3. He says what he thinks.

Another curious aspect of the taboos on racial discussions is the
weird racially defined double standard of conduct.  Black power is
more or less an acceptable topic of discussion.  White power is
absolutely not.  Why?

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNG5Jv5aWtjSmRH/5AQEHCgf+KL2HDx4yhn/pDPPuEs4cEW9R6FI4sIfn
LJvbuKAEdl0GRs5HmMRvM9I8OtYHJVCNDsmetneHo7ME6Qhc5s5ilvA4mu7oCfcy
YKfQmQSM+OvtkHtladI0CY5xUvFkoazzBuXNfnopdK5uY22xm80brT/8tOymdIT6
avSYGbHdNkL70TZ0rRNLmUVTYCO1HLVpuPnL3EbZye51f6vnBkV4R22lr+1NDKPi
6LLpO+WqjZAma7Pymqy6RCzztsnt9YbvxbCZOOWxCrGJAK36ZBFtKs//jp9oenRV
Bq7h9Uyut81W9sw5kER1C+CgN+k1ZCM+6UDpGNI6n89uQSHX/x/wog==
=hVb9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 6:38 AM -0700 11/15/97, Monty Cantsin wrote:

>Racism is one of those very interesting topics to discuss because
>large areas of the discussion are forbidden territory.
>

"Forbidden territory"? Not to me it isn't. I've seldom shied away from such
debate, except for a brief period in college when the local black
potentate, Judy McClellan, had her squad of black enforcers to beat up
anyone who spoke out against the black view on things. (Shades of Winnie
Mandela, multiple murderess.)

Since then I've acquired guns, and moved far away from where blacks
congregate in large numbers.


>Of course, what is most interesting about Tim's comments is that he
>appears to be out on the end of three bell curves in the United
>States:
>
>1. He does not believe (I think) that it is morally wrong to have a
>racist belief.
>
>2. He does not believe racist beliefs are a correct description of
>reality.
>
>3. He says what he thinks.

You left out I.Q. and general common sense. As Hettinga would put it:  ":-)".

(Period moved outside of quotes, despite rules of grammar, to avoid
confusion with the smiley.)

In any case, yes, I write what I think. I worked long and hard to ensure
that I can say whatever I damned well please.

>Another curious aspect of the taboos on racial discussions is the
>weird racially defined double standard of conduct.  Black power is
>more or less an acceptable topic of discussion.  White power is
>absolutely not.  Why?

Indeed, the "Black Student Union" is acceptable, but the "White Student
Union" is not only nonexistent on U.S. campuses, but it would probably be
forcibly shut down by law enforcement, or lawuits (same difference, these
days).

Ditto for "Black Studies." How many "Aryan Studies" programs do you see?

(I am well acquainted with the dominant leftist paradigm: "All fields,
espeically scientific fields, are expressions of the dominant whitemale
dead European cracker dominance of discourse. Marginalized peoples must
reclaim their voice by establishing safe havens for expression of their
racial and cultural aspirations.")

Seems some kinds of racism are more equal than others.


Fuck these racists.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."