Archive for July 16th, 2007

Never Say Never?

Statistics teaches that everything has a FINITE probability, even if that probability is google to the google power squared.

I am sure SOMEBODY will say they don’t believe this statistics stuff, and I will believe them if they agree to take a flight in an AIRPLANE that was built entirely by people who “choose not to believe” in this statistics stuff, which is basic to ALL engineering.

So much for the BS.

So statistics says there is a probability that there is NEVER a case where something is absolutely certain in all cases. All things are POSSIBLE.

Strictly speaking, this is the LAST moment in time when the words ALL or NEVER can be used.

I use them. I refuse to give up the use of all and never and no one because they CANNOT be stringently true. I am open to contradiction, but there is a finite probability that we are all figments of each others’ imagination so the contradictions don’t exist either.

If people object to my use of these words, they really need to look at the BASICS. Strictly speaking, NO ONE should EVER use those words.

But to say that, I HAD to use those words. And there is a finite probability that statistics is a figment of its own imagination and those airplanes don’t really fly.

So let’s cut the crap.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments

Anti-Miscegenation Laws and Why is There a Fifteenth Amendment?

On the whole subject of antimiscegenation law, I read practically nothing that is accurate, as I explained below about wikipedia’s “The Future District of Columbia.”

The following explains the status of blacks, including in the Quaker State, which someone said abandoned its anti-intermarriage law in 1790. In 1856 blacks were not allowed on trolleys in Philadelphia:

http://www.primaryresearch.org/bh/research/lauranzano/index.php

When I lived in Massachusetts, I read a book written in 1867 called “The History of Slavery in Massachusetts.” Pasted on the inside of the cover was an 1867 book review, written in 1867, bemoaning the fact that someone would dredge all this up JUST when they had the South by the throat to punish for slavery.

In that volume I had a living witness to the abolition of the MA anti-intermarriage law in ****1863****.

It was SCHOOL SEGREGATION that the abolitionists fought and THAT was abolished in 1843, the date given for the 1963 act abolishing antimiscegenation law. I read the argument for integration in 1842 in the 1960s in a book called “Documents of American History.” This was the 1960s, and every document relating to American history was, as the author stated, there to prove that abolitionists were1960s integrationists. Trivia like the Constitution was left out.

In the 1960s, we said that integration would lead to intermarriage. Modern Opinion in 1960 said that integration had NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERMARRIAGE. In 1967 the Supreme Court abolished all laws against intermarriage.

This is such a continuum today that everybody who talks about intermarriage laws ALWAYS confuses them with antislavery laws, integration, as in the case of our commenter, and so forth.

We have the same problem with the very EXISTENCE of the Fifteenth Amendment, giving blacks the right to vote. According to present interpretation, the “right” to vote, LIKE THE RIGHT TO INTERMARRY, WAS already included in the fourteenth amendment.

Why IS there a fifteenth amendment? Not only was it assumed that the fourteenth did not give blacks the vote, much less marry whites, but it was harder to cheat through the fifteenth amendment than it was the fourteenth, even with all the congressmen from the Old Confederacy denied their seats and votes.

NO ONE ever thinks about WHY, if the fourteenth amendment gave “equal rights” to blacks, the fifteenth amendment EXISTS,

These were critical distinctions to earlier generations, even to the Radical Republicans. When THEY ruled the South during Reconstruction, THEY enforced antimiscegenation laws. It never occurred to ANYBODY then that integration and, God knows, intermarriage, could not be outlawed by a STATE.

The bottom line is that Vermont almost certainly DID have an anti-intermarriage law, though they had almost no blacks. It is amazing that they FOUND a black slave for the state court to free in 1775, but slavery was on the books until then.

This was a lot of WORK. I get TIRED every time someone decides to go into this. No one knows ANY of the real history.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

7 Comments

Mark

On “Prometheus” below, Mark says:

This has got to be the most enlightened and thought-provoking item I’ve ever read. Bob, if you don’t put a permanent link to this you will be doing all of us a great injustice. This piece hits home like nothing I’ve ever seen.
BRAVO!!!

ME:

Mark, links and such are the work of SysOps, BoardAd, and whoever else is now our technical team.

I didn’t even write this one, as you can see. One of US wrote it and it is up to one of US to link it right.

I got us going. But when something is written by Prometheus, praised by you, and linked, at your suggestion, by my team, I am in my GLORY!

Untouched by Whitaker hands, that’s the ticket! It means that when Whitaker HANDS it over, my work will not be wasted.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Stormfront Exchange With a Black Man

ShakaZulu, whites had damned well BETTER approve of “race relations” today if they are talking to ANY stranger, including a pollster.

Get serious, man. You and me both know what the “Yes, Massah” Syndrome is. Outside of people like you and me, the rest of the world just recognized it, and they call it The Stockholm Syndrome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShakaZulu
For many years now the Gallup Organization has done an annual poll on the public’s perception of black-white relations in the US. This year’s poll came out last week and it finds whites more positive about race relations than blacks.
http://www/galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=28072

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments