- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Patriot Ants (was: Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings)
by Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net 14 Dec '03

14 Dec '03

From: Thomas Shaddack <shaddack(a)ns.arachne.cz> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, John Kelsey wrote: > > > Of course, there's a more fundamental problem with surrendering to the lone > > warriors. Imagine that there's such a wave of pro-life terrorism that we > > finally agree to ban abortion. You're a fanatically committed pro-choice > > activist. What's your next move? > > Two moves possible. > > The violent, far less effective and possibly somehow counterproductive > one: attacking the ones who enforce the measurement, by letal or nonlethal > means, to act as deterrent. I think you should the word possibly when referring to effectiveness of outcomes. One can never knows until one tries. Every monment in history is unique and the effectiveness of the use of a particular strategy can never be ascertained beforehand. Mine is based on at least two inspirations... "How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?" --Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago and Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. -- Louis D. Brandeis As Americans I'm sure we have been tutored by some of the best. Time to put into practice what we have learned. > > The nonviolent one: developing and deploying the technology necessary for > underground clinics to provide higher quality service, and for their > clients to find, order and pay for the services without being likely to > trace down by the Whateveriscurrentlythelaw Enforcement. Causing bad press > for them, keeping public awareness that alternatives to the law-compliance > exist. Learning from countries with similar bans in action, both from the > present and from history, how the alternatives developed there, and > building on this knowledge. > > Direct attack is not always the best route, however tempting. A house can > be brought down from the outside by a bomb, or from the inside by white > ants. The trouble with this method is that is generally requires a large percentage of the population to actively or passively support a position. This almost always occurs after a situation has become intolerable to the masses. I have no intention in placing my ability to enjoy what I consider my basic rights into the hands of a million Joe Sixpacks and await their enlightenment. "The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." -- Quintin H. Hailsham, The Dilemma of Democracy Get ready for a lot of abuse...

1 0

Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings
by Major Variola (ret) 14 Dec '03

14 Dec '03

At 10:12 PM 12/11/03 -0500, An Metet wrote: > >Given small numbers and absence of any other grouping factor there needs to be an "obvious" place for ZPs to refer to. Any obvious place that becomes even remotely attractive to ZPs will be immediately raided. Because ZPs have potential to be actually dangerous to the gang in power, as opposed to everything else I've seen so far. > >So we're back to square one - effective anonymous publishing is prerequisite for the regime change and executing post-natal abortions. And it has been for centuries. You need to think about the "lone warrior" scenario that the Gang worries about. McVeighs and Rudolphs. They were influenced by memes which were not immediately suppressed. Look at Al Q, Inc: you don't need explicit instructions from the Boss to motivate folks to do things. You see who is the enemy, you see opportunity. You don't need permission. There is also the "copycat" phenom ---remember how school shootings reccurred after the first big one? So the memes can get out. As Tim has mentioned here, the talkers can't be the doers. And watch out for COINTELPRO. >When I say "effective" I don't mean posting a message to Usenet via WiFI-ing into some sucker's open AP. No one gives a fuck for Usenet postings, blacknet etc Well, some do, but its not relevent for ZPs. >. - and ZPs are unlikely to educate themselves and search for them. Effective means untouchable web site with untouchable DNS entry. Fuck the web. The web is 0wn3d by the feds and run by largely spineless fedsucking sheep. The web is for talkers, not doers. >Effective means something doable by average determined person. Like tuning to Radio London from occupied Europe in WW2. I don't listen to shortwave, but I understand some of it can be fairly strong. I could easily see some lunatic fringe suggesting that deathbed xians blowing up medical clinics as a holy thing. (And I understand that shortwave is popular among lunatic xians.) As the US descends into statism, perhaps some agitators will pick better targets, like the oppressors. Perhaps some will simply begin to act, the news reports it, and others will clue in and repeat.

4 3

Re: [linux-elitists] Monday 15 Dec: first all-Open Source System-on-Chip (fwd from schoen@loyalty.org)
by Eugen Leitl 13 Dec '03

13 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Seth David Schoen <schoen(a)loyalty.org> -----

4 6

Anti-globalization
by Tyler Durden 13 Dec '03

13 Dec '03

The anti-globalization protests are a good example of something misunderstood by Libertarian old-farts. On some levels, these protests have a libertarian character...anti-globalization is not really about eliminating free trade per se, but eliminating "free trade", which is really just the selective and forceful application of free-trade ideas by the US and its cronies, in support of the "American Century" or, in other words, the "Iraq is better off now then under Saddam" approach to international relations. The current political clime is slowly being pushed in the vague direction of lefitst statism-lite, but only because of a philosophical vaccum and because the US has successfully portrayed itself as the embodiment of free-market, Lassaiz Faire capitalism. However, I don't see the strong support for Soviet or Maoist-style state control these days...these are vaguely romantic notions once in a while, but they don't have any deep ideological support like they might have in the 60s. -TD >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19 >Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:07:06 -0800 > >On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:11 AM, Bill Stewart wrote: > >>At 07:55 PM 12/7/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: >>>The Libertarian Party started at about this time, in 1972, and nearly all >>>of the volunteers, spear carriers, etc. were in their 20s. This is very >>>well known. >>> >>>(And today most of the LP volunteers and spear carriers are in their 40s >>>and 50s. A correlation here.) >> >>Yes, and one of the LP's problems is that we've largely turned into old >>farts there also.... > >Indeed. > >I can imagine a bunch of possible reasons for this development. In no >particular order: > >* In the 1950s and 60s, the effects of Rand and Heinlein were pervasive. >Many college kids in the 60s were reading "Atlas Shrugged." (I won't get >into how badly it's written, except to say I devoured it in 2 days in 1968, >when I was 16, and quoted from it to all who would listen in the next >couple of years. But I haven't been able to read it _since_. I can't get >past about page 10 before throwing it down. It's strong propaganda, but >badly written.) > >* The mood of the 50s and 60s was actually one of nearly boundless >possibilities for the future, at least in America. Not because of >socialists in Congress and JFK, but because of a booming economy, >technology, and all the usual things of the time. The generation which >entered the work economy in the 1960s through the early 1980s is the >wealthiest generation in history...especially those who did so in Silicon >Valley or similar areas. > >(My implication being that things were different for the generation which >came of age much later, with more of a sense of limited horizons, dead-end >jobs at Starbucks making lattes for Yuppies, etc. Maybe if I were 25, >working for $9 an hour at Starbucks, I'd shave my head and look like a >refugee from the Apple "1984" commercial too.) > >* A lot of these folks, the ones who came of age in the 60s and 70s, were >enthusiastic libertarians. Some of them joined the Libertarian Party, most >of them dislike government drug laws and redistribution of their income, >and so on. > >* A lot of the younger folks I see interviewed describe "income inequality" >and "discrimination" and "globalization" as the serious problems the world >and America face. They may favor drug legalization, as libertarians do, but >they certainly aren't sympathetic to most laissez-faire, "survival of the >fittest" libertarianism. > > >A couple of folks here have followed-up in this latest thread with claims >that the old farts, especially me, quash discussion of new theories, new >outlooks. > >Hey, this is an anarchy. I have absolutely no power whatsoever to quash >_anything_ related to this list! > >When we were a young list, but when I was still an old fart by most >standards (I was 40 in 1992), we didn't need any permission or approval to >post what we wished. And some of the folks then were even older than me >(Sandy Sandfort, Arthur Abraham, maybe Jude Milhon...). > >And new subscribers and young people who join the list today are perfectly >free to make good contributions. I recall few such newcomers, however. (One >of them was Dave Molnar, now a grad student in CS/something at Berkeley, >interested in many of the issues we are interested in. He was not >"censored" by the old farts when he had something interesting to say.) > >Bottom line is that this crap about how the old farts are suppressing the >young guns is bullshit. If someone has something to say, they should say >it. They may not get a positive response to calls for passing new laws to >raise taxes "on the wealthy," or to break up Microsoft, or to tell people >what kind of software they can write, but that's because the underlying >philosophy of the list is what it is: call it libertarian, call it >anarcho-capitalist, call it whatever, but don't call it "there ought to be >a law" sentiment. > > >--Tim May >"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a >monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into >you." -- Nietzsche _________________________________________________________________ Our best dial-up offer is back. Get MSN Dial-up Internet Service for 6 months @ $9.95/month now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

9 10

Fuck Them Dead
by Nomen Nescio 13 Dec '03

13 Dec '03

Off the Pigs!

1 0

Fuck em to death
by Nomen Nescio 13 Dec '03

13 Dec '03

Death to the Oinks!

1 0

Fuck Them All Dead
by Nomen Nescio 13 Dec '03

13 Dec '03

Off All the Pigs!

1 0

Re: [linux-elitists] Monday 15 Dec: first all-Open Source System-on-Chip (fwd from schoen@loyalty.org)
by J.A. Terranson 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

So, what we need to complete the picture is a good old-fashioned top-posted CASCADE!!! On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 rtusers-lists-fsck-com(a)jal.org wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:22:58 -0500 > From: rtusers-lists-fsck-com(a)jal.org > To: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> > Cc: J.A. Terranson <measl(a)mfn.org>, cypherpunks(a)lne.com > Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] Monday 15 Dec: first all-Open Source > System-on-Chip (fwd from schoen(a)loyalty.org) > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Tim May wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2003, at 5:58 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Tim May wrote: > > > > > >>On Dec 12, 2003, at 12:16 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >> > > >>>----- Forwarded message from Seth David Schoen <schoen(a)loyalty.org> > > >>>----- > > >>> > > >>>From: Seth David Schoen <schoen(a)loyalty.org> > > >>>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:32:31 -0800 > > >>>To: Jason Spence <jspence(a)lightconsulting.com> > > >>>Cc: linux-elitists(a)zgp.org > > >>> > > >> > > >>Please STOP forwarding traffic from other lists to the CP list. > > > > > >Why don't you just filter it Tim: the rest of are capable of making > > >our own > > >reading decisions. > > > > > > > > > And so why don't you just filter _my_ comments, twit? > > > > It's bad enough that that Eugene Leitl has made himself the new Choate, > > now you have made yourself the new Detweiler. > > > > --Tim May > > Hey! I'm the forth person to meta-comment about the list in this thread. > Do I win a prize? Are we sufficiently indistiguishable from Usenet? Is > there life on Saturn? I hear Detweiler is changing the litter for Andrew > Loeb! > > (With apologies to poor Zippy,) > > -j > > > > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org Father, you are a great and mighty God. Help our governments to remember the lessons of our history and to appreciate the purpose of your son Jesus. Teach our representatives not to be so arrogant as to speak in one way, but doing another, for surely this not the way of truth. Help us to understand that your will is not death but life, not the darkness of hatred but the light of friendship in Christ. In the name of Jesus we pray. Amen. Merle Harton, Jr.

1 0

Re: ALTA/DMT privacy [was: Re: (No Subject)]
by Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

-------- Original Message -------- From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> Apparently from: owner-cypherpunks(a)minder.net To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com Subject: Re: ALTA/DMT privacy [was: Re: (No Subject)] Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:13:59 -0800 > -- > On 10 Dec 2003 at 15:19, Nostradumbass(a)SAFe-mail.net wrote: > > If you > > fund you accounts using money orders, you may be safe > > (depending on whether you've employed others to purchase the > > money orders or your physical identity is being captured at > > the money order agent during the transaction). > > Some people offer a cash to e-gold service. Though this is mostly discovered through direct communications, for obvious reasons. > > Deposit a bundle of notes in their account, they will sell you > e-gold. You use the low order bits of the amount as an ID. Others have used the serial number of one of the bills submitted (e.g., the one highlighted with a yellow marker). > > > ALTA/DMT does have a certain degree of un-linkability in that > > once accounts are deleted all db references in the system to > > that account are also deleted from all ALTA/DMT dbs. > > Trust us. Would we lie to you? This info was obtained from discussions with the developers, experiments with the system and examination of the code.

4 5

Re: Anti-globalization
by Nostradumbass＠SAFe-mail.net 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

From: Neil Johnson <njohnsn(a)njohnsn.com> > What I object to are corporations who utilize their power (money) to influence > governments to make laws that benefit them at the expense of others. > > - The DMCA > - Tariffs AND Free Trade Agreements > - H1-B visas > > Even Ayn Rand weaves this into "Atlas Shrugged" where the competitors of > Reardon Steel get the government to try and force him to give them his > formula for his high-strength steel because it's putting them out business > and "unfair". "Corporations shall not be considered to be 'persons' protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within the Second Class Township of Porter, Clarion County, Pennsylvania." Only a small handful of very large corporations abuse these rights to deceive people, hide crimes, or make politicians violate the will of their own voters. The millions of ethical corporations will thus be freed from the tyranny of the few while democratic government will be returned to its citizens. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1219-06.htm

1 0