Birmingham, no. Molenbeek, however:

[Quadibloc]

Saw this article:

http://europe.newsweek.com/isis-brussels-belgium-bureaucrats-terrorism-islamic-state-europe-paris-440658?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rss

Sadly, Belgium has had problems.

Now, this news item

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/25/ted-cruz-anti-muslim-sentiment-dangerous-trump-groups-warn

does have me feeling that the advisers of Ted Cruz criticized here have gone too
far. Islam is a _bona fide_ religion, and most Muslims are just about as peaceful
as people of any other faith.

I do think there's a problem with Islam, but it's not the simplistic one that
following Islam properly means you'll be a terrorist.

The problem with Islam is that the religion itself legitimizes, rather than
serving as a counterweight to tend to correct, bigotry and discrimination against
non-Muslims. On the other hand, Christianity played a role in bringing Negro
slavery to an end in the United States.

For the most part, though, Muslim bad behavior isn't much different from
Christian bad behavior prior to, say, 1900.

The problem is that the world is a small and fragile place now, with no room for
terrorism. Ensuring it just doesn't happen any more is going to become
increasingly demanded if further attacks take place. That this is going to have
some impact on innocent people who just also happen to be Muslims, however
regrettable that may be, is going to be very difficult to avoid entirely.

John Savard

[Scott Lurndal]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>Saw this article:
>

Which had nothing to do with science fiction. Please at least
attempt to remain on-topic.

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Which had nothing to do with science fiction. Please at least
> attempt to remain on-topic.

True, I should at least have included an [OT] tag.

But I remember when the "terrorism expert" got it wrong in talking about Birmingham - but much of the criticism seemed to imply that there were *no* such places anywhere in Europe, that he was making it all up. Now, we know better.

Oh, and here's something more wildly off-topic. Here is a recent article from a British newspaper with photos of George Harrison. However, they didn't quite look like what I would have expected...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3509148/Fun-sun-George-Harrison-squeezes-ample-assets-tiny-blue-bikini-frolics-beach-Tenerife.html

Apparently someone else is a namesake of the late Beatle.

John Savard

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 03:47:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:d340a706-c88d-41e5...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> Which had nothing to do with science fiction. Please at least
>> attempt to remain on-topic.

> True, I should at least have included an [OT] tag.

> But I remember when the "terrorism expert" got it wrong
> in talking about Birmingham - but much of the criticism
> seemed to imply that there were *no* such places
> anywhere in Europe, that he was making it all up.

He was.

> Now, we know better.

We know better than you, certainly. Even Molenbeek doesn’t
really fit his picture of Birmingham.

[...]

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <d340a706-c88d-41e5...@googlegroups.com>,

And wasn't there a persistent rumour going about, back in the
day, that he was dead? Back when he was still alive, I mean?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 10:00:15 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> And wasn't there a persistent rumour going about, back in the
> day, that he was dead? Back when he was still alive, I mean?

The rumor I remember was about Paul McCartney, because he was wearing white on
the cover of the Abbey Road album, and supposedly "I Buried Paul" was spoken
softly on the album.

However, there could be other rumors, including the one you're referring to,
that I don't specifically recall.

John Savard

[hamis...@gmail.com]

There's rumours that damned near every celebrity is dead at some stage in their career.

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 4:47:34 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > Which had nothing to do with science fiction. Please at least
> > attempt to remain on-topic.
>
> True, I should at least have included an [OT] tag.
>
> But I remember when the "terrorism expert" got it wrong in talking about
> Birmingham - but much of the criticism seemed to imply that there were *no*
> such places anywhere in Europe, that he was making it all up. Now, we know
> better.

And yet again, another act of pure evil:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/bomb-blast-at-pakistan-park-kills-dozens-1.2833865

A suicide bomber blows himself up in Pakistan to kill women and children in a
park.

Ah, but they're *Christians*, celebrating Easter, in a country where the
majority are Muslims. And where there are even people who go around in public
making a hero of Osama bin Laden.

Not that the suicide bomber is any more typical of Pakistanis than the Ku Klux
Klan is typical of America. But Muslims pose a risk to Christians, just as
white people pose a risk to black people.

So putting black people in a position where they could live in an economically
viable independent political unit in which only a few white people could visit,
and they were watched while they were there, would enhance their safety too.
(When a few Mexicans start talking about building their own wall, then we will
know we have successfully helped Mexico to build its economy and stand on its
own feet.)

John Savard

[Cryptoengineer]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:4901c8a5-b532-4617...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 4:47:34 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> > Which had nothing to do with science fiction. Please at least
>> > attempt to remain on-topic.
>>
>> True, I should at least have included an [OT] tag.
>>
>> But I remember when the "terrorism expert" got it wrong in talking
>> about Birmingham - but much of the criticism seemed to imply that
>> there were *no* such places anywhere in Europe, that he was making it
>> all up. Now, we know better.
>
> And yet again, another act of pure evil:
>
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/bomb-blast-at-pakistan-park-kills-dozens-1.
> 2833865
>
> A suicide bomber blows himself up in Pakistan to kill women and
> children in a park.
>
> Ah, but they're *Christians*, celebrating Easter, in a country where
> the majority are Muslims. And where there are even people who go
> around in public making a hero of Osama bin Laden.
>
> Not that the suicide bomber is any more typical of Pakistanis than the
> Ku Klux Klan is typical of America. But Muslims pose a risk to
> Christians, just as white people pose a risk to black people.
>
> So putting black people in a position where they could live in an
> economically viable independent political unit in which only a few
> white people could visit, and they were watched while they were there,
> would enhance their safety too.

BTDT. It's called Liberia.
(Those who fail to study history repeat the mistakes of the past.)

Is this the first time Quaddie has openly espoused racial segregation?

pt

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-03-26, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> < http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3509148/Fun-sun-George-

> Harrison-squeezes-ample-assets-tiny-blue-bikini-frolics-beach-Tenerife.html >
>
> Apparently someone else is a namesake of the late Beatle.

Oh, 'HER' generous bustline. Bah.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[art...@yahoo.com]

I imagine nobody is going to make a movie of "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed" anytime in the near future.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> BTDT. It's called Liberia.

Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
on the liberated slaves.

Racial segregation, in practice, is bad because it's a technique used to
exploit minorities. Truly independent equality, though, would make everyone
happy: i.e., think of a 1950s all-white America, but then have equivalent
all-black, all-Asian, and so on countries for everyone else so that *everyone*,
regardless of color, enjoys freedom, prosperity, and dignity... nothing wrong
with that.

And if people of different colors can get along in full equality and peace in
the same country, I have no objection to that either... _but I'll believe that
when I see it_.

If you have historical examples that demolish *that* argument for the "right
kind" of segregation, I'd like to see them.

Not that I think trying to _implement_ segregation right now is a good idea,
because we do all know - even I know - we would just get the "wrong kind" of
segregation instead.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> Is this the first time Quaddie has openly espoused racial segregation?

Or, to quickly summarize the text of my previous reply:

I want equality for all the races - NOW, not in the sweet bye-and-bye when
tolerance and understanding conquer all our hearts.

Each ethnic group having its own economically viable sovereign state would
achieve this.

Segregation, in the sense of a majority shoving its disadvantaged minorities
into ghettoes to protect itself and further exploit the minority, would not.

So I advocate the former but condemn the latter. Zionism for all, and apartheid
for none.

John Savard

[Cryptoengineer]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:24953ebd-29b3-4191...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
>
> Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax
> perpetrated on the liberated slaves.

If you knew history, you'd know that that Liberia was founded in
1822, and declared indendence in 1847, long before the Civil War.

The Americo-Liberians (descendents of American blacks) actually did
pretty well for a very long time, sitting as a cultural elite on top
of the natives of the area. Their high status ended only in 1980.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:9eef13c4-b853-4b13...@googlegroups.com:

Advocating Zionism as a model? The Palestinian people would like a word
with
you.

pt

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 10:28:09 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 10:00:15 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> > And wasn't there a persistent rumour going about, back in the
> > day, that he was dead? Back when he was still alive, I mean?
>
> The rumor I remember was about Paul McCartney, because he was wearing white on
> the cover of the Abbey Road album, and supposedly "I Buried Paul" was spoken
> softly on the album.

And that leads off the 10 items on this video,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrSHk6TBymg

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 5:16:33 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:9eef13c4-b853-4b13...@googlegroups.com:

> > So I advocate the former but condemn the latter. Zionism for all, and
> > apartheid for none.

> Advocating Zionism as a model? The Palestinian people would like a word
> with you.

Well, Zionism for all, and apartheid for none means an independent Palestine
rather than one ruled over by Israel. Of course, that requires a responsible
independent Palestine which doesn't shoot rockets into Israel every now and
then: but most Palestinians apparently are willing to have that. It's just the
few terrorists like Hamas that need to be dealt with on the one hand - and the
radical settlers on the other.

John Savard

[Robert Bannister]

On 28/03/2016 5:28 am, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
>
> Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
> on the liberated slaves.

You could also say it was the first time the US government invaded and
formed a new country in somebody else's lands before it did the same
thing in Palestine, although I must admit I though Liberia was mostly
owned by Goodyear.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[J. Clarke]

In article <9eef13c4-b853-4b13...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
> > Is this the first time Quaddie has openly espoused racial segregation?
>
> Or, to quickly summarize the text of my previous reply:
>
> I want equality for all the races - NOW, not in the sweet bye-and-bye when
> tolerance and understanding conquer all our hearts.
>
> Each ethnic group having its own economically viable sovereign state would
> achieve this.

So how do you plan to go about providing this "economically viable
sovereign state" and persuading all members of its official ethnicity to
move there?

[J. Clarke]

In article <dlriht...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

>
> On 28/03/2016 5:28 am, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> >
> >> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
> >
> > Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
> > on the liberated slaves.
>
> You could also say it was the first time the US government invaded and
> formed a new country in somebody else's lands before it did the same
> thing in Palestine, although I must admit I though Liberia was mostly
> owned by Goodyear.

History is clearly not your strong suit. Israel was largely a product
of Britain, with little US involvement. The Israeli military during the
first Arab-Israeli war was largely armed with Czech equipment of German
design. Their air force started out with Czech imitation Me-109s.

As for Liberia, who, exactly was invaded in the establishment of
Liberia, and what specific US military units invaded them? As for being
"owned by Goodyear", rubber was a big cash crop for them for a while,
what of it?

[David Johnston]

Lieutenant Robert F. Stockton of the United States navy negotiated a
treaty at gunpoint to get a local West African ruler to give some land
to start it. The Kru and Grebo peoples fought the settlement's
expansion but were outgunned by the Liberians.

[Greg Goss]

I remember a claim from Usenet sometime in the middle nineties. A guy
claimed that JOHN was severely injured in a motorbike accident (thus
the Ontario Provincial Police uniforms supposedly on the Sgt Pepper
album). This guy had a complex story about winning a McCartney
look-alike contest, and was hired to disappear to feed into the
McCartney is dead manufactured rumour to distract people from any
rumors of John. Thirty years later, after making millions from some
internet startup, he no longer needed the lifetime pension for keeping
silent, so went public.

I've always liked over-complex conspiracy theories.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>And if people of different colors can get along in full equality and peace in
>the same country, I have no objection to that either... _but I'll believe that
>when I see it_.

Nobody "sees" Irish as being a different race anymore. But if you
read stuff set a century ago, lots of people thought that way. Even
though I still hear bigotry against south Asians, blacks, hispanics
and first nations people (my country's term for "Native Americans"), I
don't think I've heard anyone critical of east asians in a very long
time. Second (or higher) gen Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans are "just
people" in any social context I've encountered in a decade or two.

[Cryptoengineer]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:24953ebd-29b3-4191...@googlegroups.com:

Besides, 'races' aren't cleanly separated. The blend, and blend more
as time goes on. My neice (on my wifes side, not a blood relation)
is Irish-American. She married an Afro-American, and they have 5 kids.

Where, in your 'good segregation' world, would they live?

In fact, I suspect that *most* African Americans have significant
portions of Caucasian inheritence.

pt

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 23:40:52 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In fact, I suspect that *most* African Americans have significant
>portions of Caucasian inheritence.

Someone did a DNA study of a supposedly-representative sample of
African-Americans in hopes of getting an idea of just which African
tribes had wound up where. The single largest ethnicity identified
was not Yoruba or Hausa or anything like that; it was German.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <MPG.316264a56...@news.eternal-september.org>,
j.clark...@gmail.com says...

>
> In article <9eef13c4-b853-4b13...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
> >
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> >
> > > Is this the first time Quaddie has openly espoused racial segregation?
> >
> > Or, to quickly summarize the text of my previous reply:
> >
> > I want equality for all the races - NOW, not in the sweet bye-and-bye when
> > tolerance and understanding conquer all our hearts.
> >
> > Each ethnic group having its own economically viable sovereign state would
> > achieve this.
>
> So how do you plan to go about providing this "economically viable
> sovereign state" and persuading all members of its official ethnicity to
> move there?

How will he persuade all memebers of the official ethnicity that they
are of that ethnicity?

--
Juho Julkunen

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> So how do you plan to go about providing this "economically viable
> sovereign state" and persuading all members of its official ethnicity to
> move there?

The _former_, indeed, is a problem. The latter is not, since my goal is Zionism
for all, but apartheid for none; it is not to expel people for being of the wrong
ethnicity, but to provide people with an opportunity to escape persecution and
discrimination.

John Savard

[Peter Trei]

You might want to look up 'Bantustans', which were a similar attempt
to racially unscramble society.

You're still not addressing the problem that there are a *very* large number
of people of more or less mixed ethnicity. Zionism works partly because there
are fairly objective tests for Jewishness; even there, there are corner cases
such as the Falashas.

Much of the world looks very different from Calgary.

Indeed, any attempt to provide a 'list of ethnicities' is doomed to failure.
Any attempt to pigeonhole everyone into one entry on such a list will also
fail.

Beyond that - the world is fully occupied. Where are you going to create all
these Bantustans, and how are you going to persuade people to move? The
Antarctic ice sheet is vacant, but I don't think it meets your requirement for
'viability'.

pt

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 22:04:59 -0600, Greg Goss
<go...@gossg.org> wrote
in<news:dlror9...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

I suspect that some of them have in fact encountered
prejudice, just not so widespread or so blatant.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Peter Trei]

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:20:19 AM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 22:04:59 -0600, Greg Goss
> <go...@gossg.org> wrote
> in<news:dlror9...@mid.individual.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >> And if people of different colors can get along in full
> >> equality and peace in the same country, I have no
> >> objection to that either... _but I'll believe that when
> >> I see it_.
>
> > Nobody "sees" Irish as being a different race anymore.
> > But if you read stuff set a century ago, lots of people
> > thought that way. Even though I still hear bigotry
> > against south Asians, blacks, hispanics and first
> > nations people (my country's term for "Native
> > Americans"), I don't think I've heard anyone critical of
> > east asians in a very long time. Second (or higher) gen
> > Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans are "just people" in any
> > social context I've encountered in a decade or two.
>
> I suspect that some of them have in fact encountered
> prejudice, just not so widespread or so blatant.

Unless they're trying to get into college.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html

pt

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 07:59:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:f6db475c-c5bd-426d...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

I was talking only about Canada. Had I been talking about
the U.S., I’d have said ‘know’, not ‘suspect’.

[Robert Bannister]

On 28/03/2016 11:18 am, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <dlriht...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> says...
>>
>> On 28/03/2016 5:28 am, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
>>>
>>> Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
>>> on the liberated slaves.
>>
>> You could also say it was the first time the US government invaded and
>> formed a new country in somebody else's lands before it did the same
>> thing in Palestine, although I must admit I though Liberia was mostly
>> owned by Goodyear.
>
> History is clearly not your strong suit. Israel was largely a product
> of Britain, with little US involvement.

Most of the money for equipment and buying land came from the US. I
understand quite a lot of Israel's income still does come from that source.

The Israeli military during the
> first Arab-Israeli war was largely armed with Czech equipment of German
> design. Their air force started out with Czech imitation Me-109s.
>
> As for Liberia, who, exactly was invaded in the establishment of
> Liberia, and what specific US military units invaded them?

Not a military invasion so much as a take-over by the American
Colonization Society. I admit it would be problematical now to work out
whose land was stolen, but it certainly wasn't terra nullius.

As for being
> "owned by Goodyear", rubber was a big cash crop for them for a while,
> what of it?

I just remember looking at a map of Liberia in the 50s and it seemed
that a huge part of the country was taken up with Goodyear rubber
plantations. It is hard to imagine that they didn't influence Liberian
politics for a while.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dlubo4...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com

says...
>
> On 28/03/2016 11:18 am, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <dlriht...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 28/03/2016 5:28 am, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
> >>> on the liberated slaves.
> >>
> >> You could also say it was the first time the US government invaded and
> >> formed a new country in somebody else's lands before it did the same
> >> thing in Palestine, although I must admit I though Liberia was mostly
> >> owned by Goodyear.
> >
> > History is clearly not your strong suit. Israel was largely a product
> > of Britain, with little US involvement.
>
> Most of the money for equipment and buying land came from the US. I
> understand quite a lot of Israel's income still does come from that source.

Uh huh, the US bought a bunch of equipment from the Soviets to send to
Israel. Right. Sure it did.

And what land was bought? Palestine was owned by the Turks. The
British took it away from them. The British created Israel from it.
What was "bought"?

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 5:14:06 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> And what land was bought? Palestine was owned by the Turks. The
> British took it away from them. The British created Israel from it.
> What was "bought"?

Sovereignity over land is one thing, title to land is another. Thus, many people in the United States own land, rather than it being owned by the Federal government.

Jewish settlers in both the British mandate of Palestine and in the Ottoman
empire before it bought land from Turkish landlords. Unlike the Turkish
landlords, they proceeded to occupy that land themselves rather than renting it
to the Palestinians - who descended from those from whom the Turks stole the
title to the land.

So the Turks basically taxed the Palestinians, but still allowed them to live
there, while the Zionists, although they didn't actually steal anything from
anyone who owned it, were pushing them out and no longer permitting them to
continue their lives as farmers... since it wasn't as if there was other
farmland nearby available to rent.

If you have no place to live, no way to earn one's daily bread, that it's a
condo conversion instead of an outright theft is small consolation.

John Savard

[Joe Bernstein]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 2:28:28 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> Racial segregation, in practice, is bad because it's a technique used to
> exploit minorities. Truly independent equality, though, would make
> everyone happy: i.e., think of a 1950s all-white America, but then have
> equivalent all-black, all-Asian, and so on countries for everyone else
> so that *everyone*, regardless of color, enjoys freedom, prosperity, and
> dignity... nothing wrong with that.

Of course, there actually is plenty wrong with that, as already
discussed at length, but anyway...

> And if people of different colors can get along in full equality and
> peace in the same country, I have no objection to that either... _but
> I'll believe that when I see it_.
>
> If you have historical examples that demolish *that* argument for the
> "right kind" of segregation, I'd like to see them.
>
> Not that I think trying to _implement_ segregation right now is a good
> idea, because we do all know - even I know - we would just get the
> "wrong kind" of segregation instead.

You seem to be in some confused place halfway to conservatism. [1] You
recognise that human nature screws up a bunch of utopian schemes, but
don't recognise that that's intrinsic to human utopian schemes; you
seem to think it's just one unlucky situation after another.

A conservative analysis would note that segregation on a greater scale
than what has emerged already requires a big complicated human activity,
and this is quite likely to go wrong (see, again, human nature), so is
probably best not done. Granted, it's hard to get everyone to get
along as things are; but what makes you think segregation would fix
that? You aren't aware of the skin colour-based hostilities in places
like Brazil and South Korea, or in the historical ghettos of the US?

More to the point, you aren't aware, say, of the regionally based
antagonisms of South Korea, the language based ones of Belgium, and
so forth?

"Divide and conquer" has been top of the Evil Overlord List for
thousands of years before there was such a list. You divide based on
whatever is convenient. It helps if it reproduces a historically
significant division, but it doesn't have to; the goal is to get
people hating one another *now*.

Note, in particular, the ease with which "anchor baby" anger in the US
was turned from Latinos to Asians, some months back.

It's better to focus energy on stopping would-be Evil Overlords from
dividing us further than to use it enshrining existing divisions in
geography.

Joe Bernstein

[1] It's probably well enough established on this group that I'm a
leftist, but I also consider myself a conservative, and a radical. Yeah,
it's complicated.

--
Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <j...@sfbooks.com>

[Peter Trei]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 5:28:28 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> If you have historical examples that demolish *that* argument for the "right
> kind" of segregation, I'd like to see them.

No, John. You're proposing something new and radical, and the onus is on you
to show that its likely to work, not for me to show that it won't.

But I can do it anyway: While this kind of resegregation has been attempted
many times, Liberia, SA Bantustans, the partition of India, Stalin's relocation
of ethnic groups, all of these have one thing in common: they failed, at great
cost in life and misery.

One of the pop psych definitions of insanity is 'repeats the same actions,
expecting a different result'. How many failed attempts at unscrambling have
to occur before you realize that its a no-go?

pt

[David Johnston]

On 3/29/2016 5:13 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <dlubo4...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> says...
>>
>> On 28/03/2016 11:18 am, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <dlriht...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 28/03/2016 5:28 am, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
>>>>> on the liberated slaves.
>>>>
>>>> You could also say it was the first time the US government invaded and
>>>> formed a new country in somebody else's lands before it did the same
>>>> thing in Palestine, although I must admit I though Liberia was mostly
>>>> owned by Goodyear.
>>>
>>> History is clearly not your strong suit. Israel was largely a product
>>> of Britain, with little US involvement.
>>
>> Most of the money for equipment and buying land came from the US. I
>> understand quite a lot of Israel's income still does come from that source.
>
> Uh huh, the US bought a bunch of equipment from the Soviets to send to
> Israel. Right. Sure it did.
>
> And what land was bought? Palestine was owned by the Turks. The
> British took it away from them. The British created Israel from it.
> What was "bought"?

The actual parcels of land owned by private parties, (mostly Turkish
absentee landlords).

[David Johnston]

On 3/27/2016 3:28 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
>
> Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
> on the liberated slaves.
>

> Racial segregation, in practice, is bad because it's a technique used to
> exploit minorities. Truly independent equality, though, would make everyone
> happy: i.e., think of a 1950s all-white America, but then have equivalent
> all-black, all-Asian, and so on countries for everyone else so that *everyone*,
> regardless of color, enjoys freedom, prosperity, and dignity... nothing wrong
> with that.

But that's impossible. I mean what idiot would actually give the good
land to the racial minorities they were exiling?

[Peter Trei]

If the angels of our better natures were actually strong enough for people to
sincerely implement a 'good' resegregation/Zionism/bantustan system such
as Quaddie is proposing, we wouldn't need to implement such a thing in the first place.

pt

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:22:13 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:

> But I can do it anyway: While this kind of resegregation has been attempted
> many times, Liberia, SA Bantustans, the partition of India, Stalin's relocation
> of ethnic groups, all of these have one thing in common: they failed, at great
> cost in life and misery.

> One of the pop psych definitions of insanity is 'repeats the same actions,
> expecting a different result'. How many failed attempts at unscrambling have
> to occur before you realize that its a no-go?

You raise an important and serious objection to what I propose.

However, I do have a reply.

For one thing, if one wants to talk about trying the same thing over again
which failed before, surely trying to persuade people to give up animosities
and love one another has been tried and has failed a lot.

In terms of specific examples, I think Stalin's relocations and South Africa's
Bantustans can be rejected out of hand as being actual attempts to try anything
remotely close to what I'm suggesting.

I don't know enough about Liberia to comment on its history. At present, the
descendants of those who came from the U.S. are apparently the dominant group
in that country, causing problems for its original inhabitants.

But I will review the partition of India.

Based on one popular account of that partition which I have read - and this may
not be a balanced account, as it made the hero of the piece a British official
whose family happened to supply the writer with the information he worked from
- the story seems to be the following:

Under British rule, Hindus and Muslims lived together uneasily. Due to serious
differences in their beliefs and customs, they disliked one another. But this
did not lead to a great deal of open violence.

Along came Mohandas K. Gandhi, whose campaign for the equality and human
dignity of the people of India in particular, and people of color in general,
caused great embarrassment to Britain, leading it finally to agree to make
India independent on the schedule he set.

This led to panic among many in the Muslim community of British India, because
they were a minority, and they felt that without continued British rule, they
would be helpless in the face of a Hindu majority.

This was understandable. What was not understandable was that the Muslim
Brotherhood resorted to terrorism to press their demand that India be
partitioned prior to independence.

Since Britain was under enormous pressure to make India independent, it had to
partition it in haste, leading to some places being on the wrong side of the
border, and that led to massacres after partition.

Now, from this, I don't draw the lesson that partition _caused_ bloodshed. Not
partitioning India, and making it independent, could have had much worse
consequences - like a full-scale civil war between Hindus and Muslims.

Instead, to my mind, the proximate cause of the bloodshed was not doing things
in a slow and deliberate fashion. First you carry out partition over a span of
years with both sides still being under British rule, guaranteeing fair
treatment for both groups, and making border adjustments possible.

Then each homogenous nation can become independent without there being
minorities within them that would fear what would come after independence.

But Britain did not have the moral courage to say "No" to Mahatma Gandhi - to
explain that independence would take time in order to avoid bloodshed. Of
course people will tell you that Britain should have obeyed Gandhi completely,
and also not partitioned India, because Hindus are nice civilized people, and
are just as capable of not committing genocide against their Muslim minority as
Americans have managed not to commit genocide against their African-American
minority.

But just because they will say that doesn't make it... not misleading.

I say "not misleading" instead of "not true", because the _basis_ of that
argument is valid - India's Hindus are not genetically inferior to white
people, and they're not uncivilized savages either. But that's not really the
point; other forces make ethnic politics more likely to be deadly in the Third
World, as we've seen time and again.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:40:25 PM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:

> If the angels of our better natures were actually strong enough for people to
> sincerely implement a 'good' resegregation/Zionism/bantustan system such
> as Quaddie is proposing, we wouldn't need to implement such a thing in the
> first place.

I'm thinking in terms of this sort of thing either being imposed by an outside
disinterested third party, or being done when the need for something like that
is not yet at a crisis point.

In the case of black Americans, the need is not at a crisis point. But the loss
of New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina was keenly felt; apparently it was the
only major city in America where black people could live in dignity without
constant fear of police harassment.

New Orleans isn't what I'd call a "Bantustan", and thus it seems there is a
need for more places like what it was.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:24:41 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> But that's impossible. I mean what idiot would actually give the good
> land to the racial minorities they were exiling?

I admit the notion is, at present, impractical for the good reason that there
isn't enough good land to go around. Often, there are no good answers, nor any
quick fixes.

But if history is any indication, it will be easier to colonize Mars than to
conquer hatred in the human heart.

John Savard

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:50:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:1b478256-5540-416a...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:40:25 PM UTC-6, Peter
> Trei wrote:

>> If the angels of our better natures were actually strong
>> enough for people to sincerely implement a 'good'
>> resegregation/Zionism/bantustan system such as Quaddie
>> is proposing, we wouldn't need to implement such a
>> thing in the first place.

> I'm thinking in terms of this sort of thing either being imposed by an outside

> disinterested third party, [...]

There is no such thing.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:44:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:d39e71c7-8c08-4886...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> India's Hindus are not genetically inferior to white
> people, and they're not uncivilized savages either.

It’s the civilized savages who are the real problem.
People like Radovan Karadžić. People like David Duke.
People like John Yoo. People like you.

[...]

[Robert Bannister]

On 29/03/2016 7:13 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <dlubo4...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> says...
>>
>> On 28/03/2016 11:18 am, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <dlriht...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 28/03/2016 5:28 am, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 1:59:58 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTDT. It's called Liberia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but it's not really economically viable, it was a cruel hoax perpetrated
>>>>> on the liberated slaves.
>>>>
>>>> You could also say it was the first time the US government invaded and
>>>> formed a new country in somebody else's lands before it did the same
>>>> thing in Palestine, although I must admit I though Liberia was mostly
>>>> owned by Goodyear.
>>>
>>> History is clearly not your strong suit. Israel was largely a product
>>> of Britain, with little US involvement.
>>
>> Most of the money for equipment and buying land came from the US. I
>> understand quite a lot of Israel's income still does come from that source.
>
> Uh huh, the US bought a bunch of equipment from the Soviets to send to
> Israel. Right. Sure it did.
>
> And what land was bought? Palestine was owned by the Turks. The
> British took it away from them. The British created Israel from it.
> What was "bought"?

Some Israelis will tell you they bought the land fair and square from
the Arabs, when in fact they offered rock bottom prices and if they
weren't accepted, the unwilling vendors got beaten up until they did
accept. Britain certain never owned Palestine. It was a mandate. The
actual land was owned by a mixture of Arabs and Jews and others.

[Kevrob]

.... in descending order of connection to real atrocities?

I might have placed Yoo behind Karadžić and before Duke.

AFAIK, Quaddie has been all talk, so far.

Kevin R

[Greg Goss]

We scorn Quadi's proposal, but it's very similar to one that Spider
proposes in Night of Power. (each thread needs SOME on-topic
references.)

[Peter Trei]

Underpants pervert comic book writers are rarely noted for deep, well
informed, social commentary.

pt

[Peter Trei]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 5:44:43 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:22:13 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:
>
> > But I can do it anyway: While this kind of resegregation has been attempted
> > many times, Liberia, SA Bantustans, the partition of India, Stalin's relocation
> > of ethnic groups, all of these have one thing in common: they failed, at great
> > cost in life and misery.
>
> > One of the pop psych definitions of insanity is 'repeats the same actions,
> > expecting a different result'. How many failed attempts at unscrambling have
> > to occur before you realize that its a no-go?
>
> You raise an important and serious objection to what I propose.
>
> However, I do have a reply.
>
> For one thing, if one wants to talk about trying the same thing over again
> which failed before,

You're argument comes down to "they didn't do the unscrambling right; with
better people it would have worked."

The reminds me a lot of the western apologists for communism and socialism;
everytime an attempt to create a Socialist Utopia falls into authoriatarianism
and mass murder, they also claim 'it wasn't done right'. After enough failures,
the sane response is to stop; there must be critical factors the theory doesn't
account for, and which lead to the observed results.

You can't point to a *single* example where ethnic cleansing/resegreation has
worked, but continue to advocate it.

> surely trying to persuade people to give up animosities
> and love one another has been tried and has failed a lot.

Incorrect. The numbers show you're wrong.

Such persuasion is actually working pretty well. Aside from a few
hotspots (such as ISIS), conflicts and intolerance are becoming rarer;
deaths caused by people, whether state actors or individuals, are
consistently dropping over time.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/homicides/
http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/minorities-violence-racial-tolerance/
http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/cascade-of-rights/

I'd rather go with what we know works, then retry something which experience
shows always fails.

pt

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:3f702cd2-66a1-4242...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:04:28 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:44:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>> in<news:d39e71c7-8c08-4886...@googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> India's Hindus are not genetically inferior to white
>>> people, and they're not uncivilized savages either.

>> It’s the civilized savages who are the real problem.
>> People like Radovan Karadžić. People like David Duke.
>> People like John Yoo. People like you.

> .... in descending order of connection to real atrocities?

A reasonable guess, but no: in descending order of current
salience in the news. And my ear liked the ‘Yoo / you’
finish.

[...]

[Joe Bernstein]

Um. Spider Robinson wrote comic books? The Grand Comics Database isn't
aware of this. Are you sure? Or do you mean by "comic books" "books
that aim to be funny" ?

(I won't address the presumably personal insults.)

<Night of Power> was the most serious book of his career up to the early
1990s, whenever I stopped reading him. It may not have been deep, but
it was certainly better informed than much other writing by whites about
race in America at that time.

That said, he normally wasn't just a comic writer. (Of course, this is
also the case with most others identified as comic writers, but anyway.)
His first novels were <Telempath> and <Stardance>, neither of which is
noted for humor (and the first of which has a black protagonist); an
early collection is titled <Antinomy>, and taught me the word, which is
a technical term related to tragedy.

I'm using the past tense partly because I did stop reading him in the
early 1990s and don't want to refer to anything later, but also partly
because the ISFDB, though not fully informed about his early career,
seems not to know of books later than 2008 (when he turned 60! my, time
flies) or stories than 2012 (and that, a single story, nothing else
after 2008). English Wikipedia attributes this to health issues - his
own (a 2013 heart attack) and family members' (unspecified, but the SFE
notes that his wife died in 2010) and says, as of when I don't know,
that he's still working on another novel.

Joe Bernstein

[Peter Trei]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:27:55 PM UTC-4, Joe Bernstein wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 8:12:59 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:19:37 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>
> > > We scorn Quadi's proposal, but it's very similar to one that Spider
> > > proposes in Night of Power. (each thread needs SOME on-topic
> > > references.)
>
> > Underpants pervert comic book writers are rarely noted for deep, well
> > informed, social commentary.
>
> Um. Spider Robinson wrote comic books? The Grand Comics Database isn't
> aware of this. Are you sure? Or do you mean by "comic books" "books
> that aim to be funny" ?

Mea culpa. Wrong 'Spider'. I was thinking of the guy in red and blue spandex.

pt

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

That's Spider-Man.

_The_ Spider, now, was a pulp hero who wore a mask and overcoat.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <6o2ofbdatsbnpv36j...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:27:55 PM UTC-4, Joe Bernstein wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 8:12:59 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:19:37 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>>>
>>> > > We scorn Quadi's proposal, but it's very similar to one that Spider
>>> > > proposes in Night of Power. (each thread needs SOME on-topic
>>> > > references.)
>>>
>>> > Underpants pervert comic book writers are rarely noted for deep, well
>>> > informed, social commentary.
>>>
>>> Um. Spider Robinson wrote comic books? The Grand Comics Database isn't
>>> aware of this. Are you sure? Or do you mean by "comic books" "books
>>> that aim to be funny" ?
>>
>>Mea culpa. Wrong 'Spider'. I was thinking of the guy in red and blue spandex.
>
>That's Spider-Man.
>
>_The_ Spider, now, was a pulp hero who wore a mask and overcoat.
>

And The Black Widow (Marvel) & The Tarantula (DC). I don't think many
other spiders have great name recognition.

Well, there's the brown recluse, but it's hard to imagine The Brown Recluse
as either a hero or villan name..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[David Johnston]

On 3/30/2016 11:48 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <6o2ofbdatsbnpv36j...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:27:55 PM UTC-4, Joe Bernstein wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 8:12:59 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:19:37 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> We scorn Quadi's proposal, but it's very similar to one that Spider
>>>>>> proposes in Night of Power. (each thread needs SOME on-topic
>>>>>> references.)
>>>>
>>>>> Underpants pervert comic book writers are rarely noted for deep, well
>>>>> informed, social commentary.
>>>>
>>>> Um. Spider Robinson wrote comic books? The Grand Comics Database isn't
>>>> aware of this. Are you sure? Or do you mean by "comic books" "books
>>>> that aim to be funny" ?
>>>
>>> Mea culpa. Wrong 'Spider'. I was thinking of the guy in red and blue spandex.
>>
>> That's Spider-Man.
>>
>> _The_ Spider, now, was a pulp hero who wore a mask and overcoat.
>>
>

> And The Black Widow (Marvel) & The Tarantula (DC).I don't think many

> other spiders have great name recognition.
>
> Well, there's the brown recluse, but it's hard to imagine The Brown Recluse
> as either a hero or villan name..
>

The most authoritative villain in the online game City of Villains was
the spidery Lord Recluse. There's always a way.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bernstein
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote
in<news:c6b920fb-3f55-4ad6...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> [A]n early [Spider Robinson] collection is titled

> <Antinomy>, and taught me the word, which is a technical
> term related to tragedy.

It may be, though a quick search turns up no evidence for
such a term. Its usual modern sense, however, is ‘a
contradiction between principles or conclusions that seem
equally necessary and reasonable; a paradox’, followed by
the older sense ‘opposition of one law, principle, or rule
to another; contradiction within a law’. And of course
Kant used it in a technical sense closely related to the
first sense given above.

[Robert Carnegie]

Huntsman seems to be getting second billing in film titles
where the Snow White story is being addressed.

The animator who produced "The Trap Door" series has recently
died, I'm sorry to say, and that was just about a trap door -
with comical creepy things underneath it. Basically each
episode had them sneaking out and causing mischief and Berk
had to push them back in. Then there's at least one live
action feature with a lot less comedy...

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:57:16 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 18:48:10 UTC+1, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <6o2ofbdatsbnpv36j...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> > Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> > >On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
> > ><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:27:55 PM UTC-4, Joe Bernstein wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 8:12:59 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:19:37 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > > We scorn Quadi's proposal, but it's very similar to one that Spider
> > >>> > > proposes in Night of Power. (each thread needs SOME on-topic
> > >>> > > references.)
> > >>>
> > >>> > Underpants pervert comic book writers are rarely noted for deep, well
> > >>> > informed, social commentary.
> > >>>
> > >>> Um. Spider Robinson wrote comic books? The Grand Comics Database isn't
> > >>> aware of this. Are you sure? Or do you mean by "comic books" "books
> > >>> that aim to be funny" ?
> > >>
> > >>Mea culpa. Wrong 'Spider'. I was thinking of the guy in red and blue spandex.
> > >
> > >That's Spider-Man.
> > >
> > >_The_ Spider, now, was a pulp hero who wore a mask and overcoat.
> > >
> >
> > And The Black Widow (Marvel) & The Tarantula (DC). I don't think many
> > other spiders have great name recognition.
> >

There's the Quality Comics archer of the 1940s...
His strip was called: "Alias, The Spider."

http://www.toonopedia.com/spider.htm

Fox features had The Spider Queen, complete with webshooters,
looooooooooong before Lee and Ditko.

http://www.toonopedia.com/spiqueen.htm

....and Quality also had "The Spider Widow."

http://www.toonopedia.com/spidrwid.htm

Spider-related would be MLJ (now Archie) hero "The Web."

http://www.toonopedia.com/web.htm

> > Well, there's the brown recluse, but it's hard to imagine The Brown Recluse
> > as either a hero or villan name..
>

DC Comics have a Brown Recluse villain. He's a flunky of the Doom
Patrol nemesis General Immortus, and appeared in FINAL CRISIS:
AFTERMATH.

> Huntsman seems to be getting second billing in film titles
> where the Snow White story is being addressed.
>
> The animator who produced "The Trap Door" series has recently
> died, I'm sorry to say, and that was just about a trap door -
> with comical creepy things underneath it. Basically each
> episode had them sneaking out and causing mischief and Berk
> had to push them back in. Then there's at least one live
> action feature with a lot less comedy...

This brings to mind the SFnal writers' group, "The Trap Door Spiders."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_Door_Spiders

They inspired Asimov's Black Widowers, among others.

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 4:55:19 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> Fox features had The Spider Queen, complete with webshooters,
> looooooooooong before Lee and Ditko.

> http://www.toonopedia.com/spiqueen.htm

Now this is a fascinating bit of history. And as the character went into the
public domain, Marvel decided to revive the name... so as to prevent anyone else
from doing so without wading into a legal minefield.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

You are quite wrong. Spider Queen remains in the public domain, free
for anyone to use. There is no legal minefield there as long as their
version of Spider Queen has never become German agent in World War II.
The only reason why she hasn't been used by other companies because she
wasn't very good, unlike the Black Terror who is cool enough that five
different companies have him in five different continuities.

[Kevrob]

The ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN radio show had a "Scarlet Widow*" who was
reworked into "The Spider lady" in first of Supes' movie serials.

Kevin R

* Not a cross between the Scarlet Witch and the Black Widow,
however interesting that might be to contemplate.

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:54:58 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> You are quite wrong. Spider Queen remains in the public domain, free
> for anyone to use. There is no legal minefield there as long as their
> version of Spider Queen has never become German agent in World War II.

Well, it's true you can't take things out of the public domain. But blurring
the lines between something in the public domain and your own version is
something that has happened a lot - Universal Pictures and Frankenstein, Disney
and Snow White. It can be tricky to navigate how to base a modernized version
of a Golden Age character without in any way modernizing the character in the
same way as someone else's modernized version.

Of course, this _does_ mean that it's easier to devise your own proprietary
character with web-shooters, as that individual element is no longer original
with, and hence proprietary to, Marvel.

John Savard

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 6:52:04 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 7:48:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > > So how do you plan to go about providing this "economically viable
> > > sovereign state" and persuading all members of its official ethnicity to
> > > move there?

Yeah, seriously, who's going to pay for this, George Soros?

> > The _former_, indeed, is a problem. The latter is not, since my goal is
> > Zionism for all, but apartheid for none; it is not to expel people for
> > being of the wrong ethnicity, but to provide people with an opportunity to
> > escape persecution and discrimination.
>
> You might want to look up 'Bantustans', which were a similar attempt
> to racially unscramble society.

That's allegedly exactly what Quaddie doesn't want, but it seems unavoidable.

> You're still not addressing the problem that there are a *very* large number
> of people of more or less mixed ethnicity. Zionism works partly because there
> are fairly objective tests for Jewishness; even there, there are corner cases
> such as the Falashas.

My wife incorporated at least five.

> Much of the world looks very different from Calgary.

"White as me, darker than me, other" seems to about cover it.

> Indeed, any attempt to provide a 'list of ethnicities' is doomed to failure.

Of course it will. For starters, just look at how different parts of the world see fit to segregate themselves. Many examples completely puzzle me since "they all look the same to me", though they can tell each other apart. I still don't see the point.

> Any attempt to pigeonhole everyone into one entry on such a list will also
> fail.

Well, there's DNA testing, and you could go by majority-ethnicity-per-person, but there are an awful lot of "one-drop"attitudes around the world. Besides, is it even possible to tell ethnicities apart by DNA? If not, what makes them different?

> Beyond that - the world is fully occupied. Where are you going to create all
> these Bantustans, and how are you going to persuade people to move? The
> Antarctic ice sheet is vacant, but I don't think it meets your requirement
> for 'viability'.

"Fully occupied" by what metric, because one group controls so many hectares? For that matter, "controls" in what sense?

Also, there's more than one way to "occupy" a given piece of land, depending on what population density your culture prefers. Westernized societies could easily shrink their borders drastically if they eliminated land that wasn't covered by cities and actively-tilled farmland frinst. I mean, you could pack most of Europe into the US and the populated areas wouldn't anywhere near overlap. Nomadic cultures not so much, but there are some that share land for different purposes at different times of the year.

I'm sure we can think of SFnal examples of the latter...


Mark L. Fergerson

[David Johnston]

On 3/28/2016 5:48 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 8:44:47 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> So how do you plan to go about providing this "economically viable
>> sovereign state" and persuading all members of its official ethnicity to
>> move there?
>

> The _former_, indeed, is a problem. The latter is not, since my goal is Zionism
> for all, but apartheid for none; it is not to expel people for being of the wrong
> ethnicity, but to provide people with an opportunity to escape persecution and
> discrimination.
>

> John Savard
>

That's an approach to colonize the galaxy after you invent dirt-cheap
FTL. It has no relevance to the Earth where in order to give a country
to someone who doesn't already have it, you have to take it away from
someone else.

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:41:43 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> That's an approach to colonize the galaxy after you invent dirt-cheap
> FTL. It has no relevance to the Earth where in order to give a country
> to someone who doesn't already have it, you have to take it away from
> someone else.

That is... _partly_ true. In cases where one group is clearly oppressing
another group (i.e. the Christians in Pakistan) no injustice is done by making
the aggressor group pay the cost of providing security to the victim group.

I make no apologies for putting... practicalities... aside for later.

Yes, in a world where Russia and China have nuclear weapons, perfect justice
will evade us. In a world that is grossly overpopulated, and where attempts at
governmental population control seem to require a dictatorship ruling by
cruelty and brutality, human misery seems inevitable.

However, you can't *get* what you want if you don't *know* what you want.

The aliens arrive. Their technology is vastly ahead of ours. Their ray-beams
zap out and neutralize the nuclear arsenals of Russia and China. They talk to
the representatives of the NATO allies about their plans for Earth.

Their technology is sufficient to feed Earth's present billions, but not even they can accommodate exponential growth forever.

They have studied the human race, and have a pretty good understanding of it.
They have found some... contradictory characteristics... of humanity which
complicate the achievement of their goal - universal peace, freedom, and
happiness for humanity. Thus, they're discussing the matter with some actual
humans to see if they might provide some helpful insights.

Although a survey of the human literature on politics, economics, and kindred
topics makes that seem a vain hope. But at least some representatives of
humanity will be aware of why it is taking the aliens longer than might be
expected to achieve this goal.

So:

It is simple enough, a mere matter of technology, to provide good housing,
adequate food, and various simple luxuries, to everyone on Earth.

Were this enough to make everyone - except a few wicked malcontents -
satisfied, happy, and content, then the few who want to bully and dominate
others and who resort to criminal violations of the rights of others to achieve
that end, could simply be dealt with harshly and unmercifully without regret.
Problem solved.

Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:14:09 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that.

And this, of course, is where I launch into the vat-girl manifesto.

Given that the numbers of males and females are equal, in the past, when women
were subordinated and had few options, nearly every man had a wife in
non-polygamous cultures.

Now that the rights of women are recognized, a significant fraction of them are
viewing a long-term relationship with a man as... not worth the bother, and
often for good reason.

And so, to forestall the apocalypse, in which lonely and frustrated men do
destructive things like voting for Donald Trump, while still respecting the
rights of women and not denying them their freedom, the only thing left is to
change the human sex ratio.

This way, nearly all men can be reasonably content, instead of being pushed by
a basic survival drive to harbor unrealistic economic ambitions - _pace_ Lake
Woebegone, it isn't possible for everyone to be above average.

I focus first on what men want, because males are hormonally inclined to be
more aggressive, and they dominate politics, law enforcement, and war.

What women want, though, also creates problems. Once again, I'm focusing on
what _most_ women want, because its people as statistics, not as individuals,
that cause the big systemic problems.

It seems that the typical woman is more interested in cute adorable little
babies than handsome men.

So, if one is focusing on making men happy in the first instance, this may fall
apart if practical considerations prevent men from giving women what they want.
As noted, even the hypothetical technology of aliens far in advance of us can't
keep up with exponential growth forever.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 4/1/2016 7:14 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:41:43 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> That's an approach to colonize the galaxy after you invent dirt-cheap
>> FTL. It has no relevance to the Earth where in order to give a country
>> to someone who doesn't already have it, you have to take it away from
>> someone else.
>
> That is... _partly_ true. In cases where one group is clearly oppressing
> another group (i.e. the Christians in Pakistan) no injustice is done by making
> the aggressor group pay the cost of providing security to the victim group.
>
> I make no apologies for putting... practicalities... aside for later.

Well you should. Proposing plans to make the real world a worse place
is not a good thing to do.

[Peter Trei]

<quaddie>
But its so much easier for me to solve problems if I ignore real world
constraints, and use ideal models instead!
</quaddie>

pt

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-01, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 6:52:04 AM UTC-7, Peter Trei wrote:
>> Much of the world looks very different from Calgary.
>
> "White as me, darker than me, other" seems to about cover it.

Um. It occurs to me - do we have any objective knowledge of just what tint
John's skin might _be_?

Dave, probably not curious-george-yellow

ps:

> Besides, is it even possible to tell ethnicities apart by DNA? If not, what
> makes them different?

It is really a Very Hard Puzzle to extrapolate phenotype (what the final
organism looks like, outside and in) from genotype. One can look for gene
segments that all of the (tested) one ethnicity share but none of the other
(tested) one(s) do... but that's no guarantee it's coding for ANYTHING that
could be recognized by visual/aural/olfactory/gustatory inspection. Or that
the next tested person wouldn't screw things up.
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-01, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:14:09 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that.
>
> And this, of course, is where I launch into the vat-girl manifesto.

Well, given the date, of _course_ it is!

> As noted, even the hypothetical technology of aliens far in advance of us
> can't keep up with exponential growth forever.

Sure. But when has exponential growth EVER gone _forever_ yet?

Dave, practical considerations towards implementing HappyNet

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-01 15:33, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> Westernized societies could easily shrink their borders drastically
> if they eliminated land that wasn't covered by cities and
> actively-tilled farmland frinst. I mean, you could pack most of
> Europe into the US and the populated areas wouldn't anywhere near
> overlap.

Europeans are used to living where there's arable land and an adequate
water supply. How would you convince them to move to land that, for good
reasons, nobody wants?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 11:27:10 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Apr-01 15:33, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > Westernized societies could easily shrink their borders drastically
> > if they eliminated land that wasn't covered by cities and
> > actively-tilled farmland frinst. I mean, you could pack most of
> > Europe into the US and the populated areas wouldn't anywhere near
> > overlap.
>
> Europeans are used to living where there's arable land and an adequate
> water supply. How would you convince them to move to land that, for good
> reasons, nobody wants?

What do you mean, "nobody wants"? Cities are where they are for specific reasons- they weren't dartboarded onto the map at random. As in Europe, most American cities were port cities, originally sited on or near transshipment points for cargo of one sort or another that could be moved by ship or animal-powered wagons. With the advent of motorized land transport (rail, trucks on highways) that changed somewhat, but with few exceptions (Phoenix, Denver, and some others) most cities in the US are port cities. With rail transport available, which is why Phoenix and Denver are big, prosperous transport *hubs*, you could put say Berlin or Paris thirty miles from where I live in the wilder part of western Washington state, in the wilds of West Virginia, or anywhere else in the country that wasn't a good place to put a port city.

Farms were sited, naturally, on fertile ground with reliable water, that was near enough to cities that food could be shipped there without excessive spoilage. Nowadays you can site farms pretty much wherever you want (given water of course, but we do have the tech if not the political will to pipe nuke- or solar-desalinated seawater anywhere on the continent) because of refrigerated railcars and trucks.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, or that we should do it, but if we really wanted to or really had to, we could.

The same applies to much of the rest of the world, given a local climate acceptable to a given city's population.

The world is hardly "fully occupied".


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:33:54 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>I mean, you could pack most of Europe into the US and the populated areas
>wouldn't anywhere near overlap.

But that example is backwards. Europe rightfully belongs to the Europeans. It's
the Western population of the Americas that needs to be put somewhere.

Of course, that's forgetting the Basques...

Presumably the science-fiction scenario would involve all the descendants of
the Beaker people moving back to... Lithuania. Or the ancestral homeland of the
Hittites. In, of course, gigantic skyscrapers to house the people of India,
Europe, and the Americas.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <0e4eea57-d75f-44dd...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

You are aware are you not that somewhere along the line we would have to
reverse-engineer the Neanderthals back into existence and give them most
of Europe?

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:43:13 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> You are aware are you not that somewhere along the line we would have to
> reverse-engineer the Neanderthals back into existence and give them most
> of Europe?

The difference between the Neaderthals and the Basques is that the latter are
still alive and standing upright; hence, they have *standing*, and can have
rights to inherited property.

This is unlike trees, although they are alive and stand upright, since trees
don't have brains or feelings.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <969434ee-8c92-4f74...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

So you're fine with taking somebody's land as long as you kill all of
the descendants?

[John Halpenny]

Has anyone ever protested a _successful_ genocide?

John

[Greg Goss]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-Apr-01 15:33, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>> Westernized societies could easily shrink their borders drastically
>> if they eliminated land that wasn't covered by cities and
>> actively-tilled farmland frinst. I mean, you could pack most of
>> Europe into the US and the populated areas wouldn't anywhere near
>> overlap.
>
>Europeans are used to living where there's arable land and an adequate
>water supply. How would you convince them to move to land that, for good
>reasons, nobody wants?

Sometimes technology changes desirability. Large portions of the
Canadian prairies were only settled after varieties of wheat were
developed that could get by with a much shorter growing season.

There were local residents already. Treaties were signed, but I'm not
clear on what coercion went into the signing. (I grew up in a region
where the governor at the time refused to sign any treaties, with the
result of major legal problems 150 years later.)
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Kevrob]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:43:30 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:33:54 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> >I mean, you could pack most of Europe into the US and the populated areas
> >wouldn't anywhere near overlap.
>
> But that example is backwards. Europe rightfully belongs to the Europeans. It's
> the Western population of the Americas that needs to be put somewhere.
>
> Of course, that's forgetting the Basques...
>

We do have Basque-descended folks in the Western USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_Americans

I could visit a Basque Bistro for dinner in the town
where I work.

> Presumably the science-fiction scenario would involve all the descendants of
> the Beaker people moving back to... Lithuania. Or the ancestral homeland of the
> Hittites. In, of course, gigantic skyscrapers to house the people of India,
> Europe, and the Americas.

Not Caves of Steel?

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> So you're fine with taking somebody's land as long as you kill all of
> the descendants?

No, but if somebody else has _already_ killed them, it would be a pity to let it
go to waste.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 12:40:51 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> Not Caves of Steel?

Even if we have to give up free enterprise for socialism, people should be free
to spend their stipend, however large or small it may be, on items of their own
choosing - rather than being fed standardized meals and issued standardized
clothing for efficiency.

As well, the use of robots to improve productivity should benefit everyone. If
it's used as a way to "declassify" people instead, then that is not achieved.

John Savard

[T Guy]

On Monday, 28 March 2016 14:52:04 UTC+1, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 7:48:17 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

... my goal is Zionism

> > for all, but apartheid for none; it is not to expel people for being of the wrong
> > ethnicity, but to provide people with an opportunity to escape persecution and
> > discrimination.

> You're still not addressing the problem that there are a *very* large number
> of people of more or less mixed ethnicity.

There's about fifty million in the British Isles, for a start. I'm accounting for the original inhabitants, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes and Vikings and the more recent migrants. They all tend to cross-breed. I suppose that those from the last century or so (Jews, Indians, et cetera) might still be monoracial or whatever the term is.

[Moriarty]

Step one: assume the Earth is spherical...

-Moriarty

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 3:43:30 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:33:54 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > I mean, you could pack most of Europe into the US and the populated
> > areas wouldn't anywhere near overlap.
>
> But that example is backwards. Europe rightfully belongs to the
> Europeans. It's the Western population of the Americas that needs to
> be put somewhere.

Why are you even responding when that wasn't the point at all?

The context YOU SNIPPED was that the world is fully occupied, which it clearly is not.

Your idiotic response, presumably having something to do with "ancestral homelands", is typically short-sighted. What the fuck is a "European"? Is that some new ethnicity I haven't heard of?

If we all have to go back to our ancestral homelands, I will say this once more, loudly, so you'll hopefully get it this time,

ALL SEVEN BILLION OF US HAVE TO MOVE BACK TO OLDUVAI GORGE.

That clearly won't work. Also clearly, "ancestral homelands" is a bullshit concept until somebody nails down how many ancestors we're willing to count, and WHICH ONES.

I WILL NOT move back to mine since I can't live in both Germany and Portugal at the same time and more to the point I don't WANT to live in either place.

The "Western population of the Americas" (do you even realize how stupid that phrase is? What about Japanese-Americans, can they stay?) also rightfully own the land we live on, according to many different tried-and-true legal principles.

If you disagree, when do YOU plan to abandon the continent for wherever your forebears came from?

> Of course, that's forgetting the Basques...

Fuck the Basques unless they can win a war.

> Presumably the science-fiction scenario would involve all the
> descendants of the Beaker people moving back to... Lithuania.

What the fuck FOR?

> Or the ancestral homeland of the Hittites. In, of course, gigantic
> skyscrapers to house the people of India, Europe, and the Americas.

Stupid bullshit.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:46:12 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:43:13 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > You are aware are you not that somewhere along the line we would
> >have to reverse-engineer the Neanderthals back into existence and
> > give them most of Europe?

No need for that...

> The difference between the Neaderthals and the Basques is that the
> latter are still alive and standing upright; hence, they have
> *standing*, and can have rights to inherited property.

Seriously? Legal "standing"? Where do you get this crap?

Unless all of your ancestors are from Africa you have from 1% to 4% Neandertal DNA meaning they ARE still alive, WE ARE THEIR DESCENDANTS.

Go ahead, tell me that 4% isn't enough to include a given person in a given ethnicity.


Mark L. "Neandertal-American" Fergerson

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-04-03, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> But that example is backwards. Europe rightfully belongs to the

Neanderthals.

Dave, fixed that for ya

[David DeLaney]

And of course English, as pointed out epigramatically by our own Mr. Nicoll,
is entirely a cross-breed LANGUAGE; we'll all have to give IT up and start
speaking the Babel of our ancestors.

Dave, at least then everyone will understand everyone else

[Greg Goss]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2016-04-03, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> But that example is backwards. Europe rightfully belongs to the
>
>Neanderthals.
>
>Dave, fixed that for ya

Where does Heidelbergensis fit into this argument?

[Don Bruder]

In article <dme4cc...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2016-04-03, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> But that example is backwards. Europe rightfully belongs to the
> >
> >Neanderthals.
> >
> >Dave, fixed that for ya
>
> Where does Heidelbergensis fit into this argument?

Second cabinet to the left, right-hand side, on the third shelf behind
the dry-erase markers.

--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:10:48 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> ALL SEVEN BILLION OF US HAVE TO MOVE BACK TO OLDUVAI GORGE.

No, I stop before then. Why? Because there is no one to benefit from that. That
is, to go back to Olduvai Gorge would presume that the rest of the world belongs
to some _other_ humans who wouldn't be going back to Olduvai Gorge.

The living creatures that are not human don't have national rights to territory.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:18:09 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> Unless all of your ancestors are from Africa you have from 1% to 4%
> Neandertal DNA meaning they ARE still alive, WE ARE THEIR DESCENDANTS.

> Go ahead, tell me that 4% isn't enough to include a given person in a given
> ethnicity.

But do we identify as Neanderthals? Do we speak their language? Is their culture
our culture?

Let us say a technically more advanced culture comes to a geographical region
with indigenous people. The indigenous people are disadvantaged and
marginalized. But there is some interbreeding between them and the dominant
population.

What is the appropriate rule for sorting this out?

If a man from among the invaders, through his superior wealth, ends up getting an indigenous woman to bear him children...

to give those children a share of what belongs to the indigenous ethnos would normally be unfair; historically, the social view of this is that males reproduce themselves through women - a society may maintain its numbers with its own women, or through stealing women from elsewhere.

So to sort things out...

The area is given back to those people who are of indigenous origin _through the direct male line_.

As those of mixed ancestry are likely discriminated against, a chunk of the invader's territory of origin is taken and given to them as their national homeland.

The invaders are sent back where they came from.

That is the theoretically just solution.

In practice, of course most situations like this cannot be so rectified at this
time. The survival of freedom is at stake, and a strong America - with allies
like Canada and Australia as well - is needed.

That is all very well. First, we recognize _what our abstract moral duty is_,
and then we go on living in the real world, hoping (and working) for the day
when we can, at an affordable cost to ourselves, finally act justly and remedy
the sins of our ancestors. And, yes, this includes long-range projects.

John Savard

[Peter Moylan]

In the 1950s there was a lot of optimism about the ability of automation
to increase productivity and profitability. There were (at least) two
schools of thought as to the likely consequences. One said that working
hours could be reduced, to perhaps 10 hours/week, with the workers
continuing to get the same weekly wages for reduced hours. The other
said that the increased profits could be distributed to the benefit of
the whole society.

And, indeed, it has turned out that productivity and profit have gone
way up with the new machinery and methods. Unfortunately, someone forgot
to do the distribution part.

On present trends, the use of robots would lead to most of the
population being unemployed and miserably poor.

[T Guy]

On Monday, 4 April 2016 03:57:40 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2016-04-03, T Guy <tim.b...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 March 2016 14:52:04 UTC+1, Peter Trei wrote:
> >> You're still not addressing the problem that there are a *very* large number
> >> of people of more or less mixed ethnicity.
> >
> > There's about fifty million in the British Isles, for a start. I'm accounting
> > for the original inhabitants, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes and Vikings
> > and the more recent migrants. They all tend to cross-breed. I suppose that
> > those from the last century or so (Jews, Indians, et cetera) might still be
> > monoracial or whatever the term is.
>
> And of course English, as pointed out epigramatically by our own Mr. Nicoll,
> is entirely a cross-breed LANGUAGE; we'll all have to give IT up and start
> speaking the Babel of our ancestors.
>
> Dave, at least then everyone will understand everyone else

I think we needn't go back that far. I find this a convenient point at which to stop: http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/Uncleftish_Beholding.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 10:24:20 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> That is all very well. First, we recognize _what our abstract moral duty is_,
> and then we go on living in the real world, hoping (and working) for the day
> when we can, at an affordable cost to ourselves, finally act justly and remedy
> the sins of our ancestors. And, yes, this includes long-range projects.

But to get to something concrete: we do have, derived from this, some moral
duty in the real world at the present day.

And that is to ensure that each and every indigenous people continues to
survive - to keep their culture, to keep their language, to retain genetic
diversity - so that when, in the future, more resources can be made available
to them, their descendants will be present to make use of them.

John Savard

[Peter Trei]

John Savard, the man who puts (brown) humans in zoos.

pt

[David Johnston]

These things you want to preserve do not have sufficient value to
justify such a course of action.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:ndunjo$rm9$1...@dont-email.me:

Said every genocidal racist, ever.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Cryptoengineer]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA5E098E1F45...@69.16.179.43:

> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
> news:ndunjo$rm9$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 4/4/2016 3:38 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 10:24:20 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is all very well. First, we recognize _what our abstract
>>>> moral duty is_, and then we go on living in the real world,
>>>> hoping (and working) for the day when we can, at an affordable
>>>> cost to ourselves, finally act justly and remedy the sins of
>>>> our ancestors. And, yes, this includes long-range projects.
>>>
>>> But to get to something concrete: we do have, derived from
>>> this, some moral duty in the real world at the present day.
>>>
>>> And that is to ensure that each and every indigenous people
>>> continues to survive - to keep their culture, to keep their
>>> language, to retain genetic diversity - so that when, in the
>>> future, more resources can be made available to them, their
>>> descendants will be present to make use of them.
>>
>> These things you want to preserve do not have sufficient value
>> to justify such a course of action.
>>
> Said every genocidal racist, ever.

[David Johnson: Check your clock and timezone]

If I understand Quaddie's proposed 'course of action', it involves
forcing everyone who isn't living on their "indiginous stomping
ground"[1] to move back to that location. So, for a start, the
white populations outside of Europe should all move back there.

His plan would probably kill billions. So, who's genocidal?

[1] Quaddie seems to have a notion that there was a time when
there was a place for everyone, everyone was in their place,
and all races were pure.

pt

[David Johnston]

No, no of course not. Quaddie's ethnic group would stay exactly where
it is. It's the "bad" ethnic groups that would be compelled to give up
territory in order to build the reservations.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA5E0C6C737...@216.166.97.131:

"I don't want brown people living near me" is not inconsnstent
with Quaddie's past statements. Nor is "And I want to nuke them is
the resist."

> So, for a start, the
> white populations outside of Europe should all move back there.
>
> His plan would probably kill billions. So, who's genocidal?

Just because one wingnut is genocidal doesn't mean all the rest
aren't just as genocidal. Any statement that includes "not worth
preserving" always comes from someone who - in their own opinion -
"is worth preserving." His plan is wonderful, as long as he's not
one of the ones forced to assimilate.

>
> [1] Quaddie seems to have a notion that there was a time when
> there was a place for everyone, everyone was in their place,
> and all races were pure.

He has a lot of insane, delusional ideas. He's hardly unique in
that. Or even mildly noteworthy.