- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Fort Detrick the US Empires Unit 731
by mattd 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/unit_731.html For forty years the grisly activities of Japan's Unit 731 and sister units, remained the best kept secret of World War two. The victorious Allies were desperate to secretly acquire the expertise and know how of the Japanese Biological Warfare research. Fulsome records of the human experimentation undertaken, were especially sought. Hindered at home by social repulsion to such activities, human experimentation data was viewed as the jewel in the crown. Scientists and medical experts from Fort Detrick, Maryland - the American top secret BW facility - raced to interview Japanese technicians. Barely one of them stopped to consider the ethical implications. Having assessed the facts, an intelligence cable coldly informed the War Department, Washington DC, that the "foregoing information warrants conclusion that Japanese BW Group, headed by Ishii did violate rules of land warfare." The message added pragmatically: "this expression of opinion is not a recommendation that group be charged and tried as such." None of those implicated in Japanese BW research were brought to trial by the Allies.

1 0

Injecting shrub with embryonic cells "could restore brain function."Proffr.
by mattd 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

EMBRYONIC stem cells injected into the brain corrected the symptoms of Parkinson's disease in rats by transforming into neurons that made dopamine, a key brain chemical. In a study appearing today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, showed in tests that in rats whose brains had been chemically damaged, embryonic stem would spontaneously convert to correct the Parkinson's symptoms. Some experts said the study was significant because it showed embryonic stem cells may be used to treat brain disorders, but they cautioned that the cells also possibly could cause tumours. Dr Ole Isacson, senior author of the study, said that if further experiments were successful, there could be human trials of the technique in about five years. Federally funded research on human embryonic stem cells is limited because producing such cells requires the death of human embryos. President George W Bush last northern summer approved some such research, but limited it to cell colonies that already exist - about 60 cell lines. Many researchers believe that embryonic stem cells hold the promise of creating new organs or cells to replace or renew ailing hearts, livers...There you go mr president! http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,3556967%255E4…

1 0

Orange Crush
by mattd 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

Perth has a heavily contaminated site as well as Derby in west au.The story is ongoing and the water table in perth is said to be affected.The WA agriculture minister is calling for more information on the alleged heat damaged batch believed imported between 69-71 disguised as another chemical.Said to be 200 times worse than the now banned 245T.The EPA has been called in.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,3553659%255E2702,00.html A lot of 'hot spots' in the bush are old sheep dips.No comment on Columbian round up? Your taxes at work could killya.

1 0

Dear Declan
by mattd 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

Do you have an opinion on the last 2 posts by Peter Trei? IE When did you stop beating your wife? (or meat,dog,etc) Four hundred billionaires now possess wealth equal to that of the 3 billion poorest people on the planet. This capitalist system is inherently violent, oppressive and exploitative. Capitalism cannot be reformed, and that's why we need to abolish it. "Liberty without socialism is privilege,injustice;socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Bakunin.

1 0

Re: Seveso near St Louis.Professor Rat "concerned."
by mattd 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

>>Not to put too fine a point on it, but why are you posting 10 year old reports. As interesting as this is, follow up reports and studies would be far more useful. Ken.<< Interpol stole my Dell,I believe they are using it to run a CoinTelPro style operation on cypherpunks.I am posting this from an internet cafe at "eMails that cross themselves in the night"...when the Ice Weasels cum all over Lance Cotrelll (If that is his *real* misspeled name...) I'd like to thank everybody for all those wonderfully supportive eMails that they wrote me--and then thought better of it and deleted them and reformatted their hard drive...3 times... "Be Flayed...Be *VERY* Flayed" ~Warden Hiritoto, FCI-Three Rivers, Texas

1 0

Re: How to defeat spyware
by mattd 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

>>I think those who violate the C. should be killed. --Tim May<< Best defence is attack,Laph Goch by the numbers.Look at this for a APster target. http://www.pir.org/cgi-bin/nbonlin6.cgi?_ARMITAGE_RICHARD_L I've raised 2 proffr dollars on this fat jerk already,Please indicate your support for open source Apster.Add 1. "When cryptography is outlawed only V? PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t* 5+++ X R* tv b+ DI+ D++ G++>+++ e>++ h-- r++ y+

1 0

Re: Snitches out themselves.Canarypunk stool pigeons,peter Trei a nd declanMc Crapface.
by mattd 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

>>I got back to the email universe to find 440 cypherpunks postings from mattd. Much as I love Ozzy anarchists I wasn't tempted to read them. Ken<< Did you see the ones on 20/20? I haven't read them yet.Some Ozzie anarchists think I'm 'right-wing' for championing Jim Bell's APster.When the going gets weird...If you only read one make it the mattblog that ate cypherpunks...Oh and thanks for rubbing Peter traitor's and declan Mc Crapfest's (he's contributing to the security thread's even now!) names in it.We may house train them yet. We've got to fight them in America, and one of the best ways to combat your enemy is to be alert and be mindful -- be situationally aware. "We're strong as can be/A dream of power and energy/We go for the goal/Together we hold/On to our vision of global strategy..."

1 0

Fw: What is WEF? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:14:18 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph K." <joseph.k(a)onebox.com> To: <fsproject(a)topica.com>; <lrsh(a)qc.edu>; <rtsnyc(a)lists.tao.ca> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:26 PM Subject: What is WEF? > > This is kinda long and, frankly, it's not exactly Dostoyevsky > (sorry), but it does pretty much cover the bases, I think. It's > adapted from an Australian website that was used to organize around > a previous regional WEF meeting, and it's probably stuff we all > need to know before we go screaming our heads off in front of > the national media. > jTuba > > > What is the WEF? > > > "As the world around us has become smaller, the Forum has grown > in both size influence." > > > >From Jan. 31-Feb. 4, the World Economic Forum (WEF) will be meeting > at the Waldorf-Astoria in Manhattan for it's annual summit. Alexander > Downer, who attended the 1998 Summit, describes the Summit as > the world's 'Business Olympics'. The yearly meeting, usually > held at WEF headquarters in Davos, Switzerland, was rescheduled > to meet in New York as a token of support for the injuries our > city sustained on September 11th. > > The WEF is, in a way, a big cocktail party for the global corporate > elite. As an organization, it has no power to actually set policy, > but it creates a space in which international "leaders" can hash > out their vision for the rest of us. In their own words, "they > are fully engaged in the process of defining and advancing the > global agenda." More specifically, it's our globe, but it's their > agenda. > > The Forum was born in 1971 as a yearly 'European Management Forum' > of Euro-corporates. It was funded by the European Commission until > 1987, when it became the WEF and started to claim global reach. > Its membership reflects its class orientation, and includes the > most prominent transnational corporations, 1000 of which make > up the WEF 'Foundation Members'. In addition, there is a club > of 'Global Growth Companies'; 300 'Industry Governors'; 300 Global > Leaders of Tomorrow'; 'World Economic Leaders' from both politics > and business; 'World Media Leaders' from 100 media groups; 100 > 'World Cultural Leaders'; and 'Forum Fellows' from academia and > the heads of national economic research organizations. > > The WEF aspires to be an agenda-setting Forum. It is, in its own > modest opinion, 'the foremost global partnership of business, > political, intellectual and other leaders of society committed > to improving the state of the world'. With the diffusion of neo-liberalism, > and consequent advances in corporate globalization from the 1980s, > the WEF has taken on an unprecedented role as a rallying point > for global elites, and as a vehicle for class power. Clearly the > WEF can't set the agenda and certainly can't determine the outcomes > - it is not a conspiratorial cabal standing over society. Rather, > it is a class grouping, fully embedded in social relations, that > self-consciously takes on the role of planning for collective > class interests. It seeks to influence the political agendas and > respond to the prevailing challenges - and in this respect, as > Kees van der Pijl argues, it is the first 'true International > of capital'. > > The Forum has been remarkably successful - since 1971 the 'state > of the world' has dramatically improved for many of the participating > corporations. WEF strategizing drove the neo-liberal agenda in > the 1980's, bringing together politicians from the 'pretender' > states of the newly industrializing world, as well as from the > OECD states, to map out an agenda with transnational business > executives. It offered a proactive forum, removed from the public > gaze, and played a central role in diffusing neo-liberalism. The > model was presented as the solution to the crises of accumulation > experienced in the 1970s and early 1980s, and was highly effective > in extending the reign of the market. > > This success has come at the price of built-in uncertainty and > instability. Globalized neo-liberalism had led to a dramatic redrawing > of the boundaries of capitalism (or rather, an unbounding of capitalism > altogether). Temporal boundaries have melted away with the speeding > up of circulation; spatial boundaries have been superceded with > the growing transnational reach of corporations; even socio-psychological > boundaries have lifted, with the increased commodification of > life. A newly empowered transnational capitalist class has emerged > triumphant, presiding over the new landscapes of accumulation. > But class hegemony is by no means assured - uncharted territory > imposes incalculable risk. Speeding circulation compresses business > cycles; confidence rests on ephemera; ideological symbols are > presented as so-called 'fundamentals'; frenzied speculation rules. > Corporate transnationalism exhausts social and physical environments; > deeper commodification disassembles social solidarity and generates > powerful imperatives for cultural survival, often carried through > the new modes of social communication. > > As a result, since at least the mid 1990s, neo-liberal prescriptions > have been widely discredited (just look at the present crisis > in Argentina). Exponential rises in executive salaries, and in > corporate accumulation, along with a dramatic concentration of > economic power across all sectors, offer clear evidence of the > success of neo-liberalism as a class strategy. But neo-liberal > globalization has also brought unprecedented levels of global > inequality, and undreamed-of degrees of financial instability, > environmental exhaustion and social dislocation. The neo-liberal > triumph has created new sources of opposition, the impacts and > responses have been unrelenting, and advocates have been forced > to go on the defensive. The high water mark was 1995, when the > OECD declared it was marking out a 'global vision for the year > 2020, a New Global Age'. But already a political revival, inspired > by social democratic ideas, and expressed in a new form of social > liberalism sometimes described as the 'Third Way', was sweeping > the OECD. > > As neo-liberal prescriptions have unraveled, there has been an > urgent revision of the WEF's neo-liberal project. The WEF has > left behind its market fundamentalism, and now is charting a new > agenda for corporate globalism, one that embraces rather than > rejects 'the social'. The massed ranks of analysts, consultants > and advisers, from credit ratings agencies, management consultancies, > inter-governmental institutions and non-government organizations, > have entered the fray, battling to define the new accumulation > paradigm. There are continuing efforts to enhance 'market discipline', > to suppress the advancing crises, to institutionalize transnational > class power, and render neo-liberal globalism irreversible. Yet > there is also deepening dissent amongst policy-making groups. > There is a rethinking of neo-liberalism even amongst the most > elite institutions: as Hans-Peter Martin and Herald Schuman demonstrate, > many of the most powerful players in global capitalism are questioning > the 'dictatorship of the market'. Primary advocates and beneficiaries > of neo-liberal globalism, such as George Soros and Ted Turner, > both of whom had embarked on paternalist interventions - the imaginatively > branded 'Soros Foundation' and 'Turner Foundation' - began expressing > sincere regrets at the social costs of neo-liberalism. Other elements, > as van der Pijl highlights, went further and increasingly have > been rethinking and explicitly 'mobilizing against yesterday's > prescriptions'. These have much wider ramifications, potentially > enabling 'a deepening of democracy, a reappropriation of the public > sphere by the population, and eventually a more fundamental transformation > away from class society'. > > Recent developments have only strengthened the leverage of this > dissenting segment. Institutional crises of legitimacy have accumulated, > with the OECD shelving its 'Multilateral Agreement on Investment' > in 1998, the temporary ditching of the World Trade Organization's > 'Millenium Round' in 1999, and the advancing crisis in the International > Monetary Fund's global regime of 'structural adjustment'. Add > into the equation the continuing crisis in 'transitional' post-communist > societies, especially Russia, and the severe jolt delivered to > the 'Newly Industrializing countries' of East Asia by financial > 'contagion' in 1997-8, and the impending bursting of the infotainment > bubble, then the challenges to neo-liberalism begin to seem irresistible. > Expressing this, there have been the dramatic public explosions > against neo-liberal globalization: Geneva 1996, Cologne 1998, > Seattle 1999, Washington 2000, Montreal and Genoa 2001. > > For the first time in many years, 'anti-capitalist' protest has > returned to the capitalist heartland, and to the global stage. > These protests open up the ideological space for the articulation > of alternative guiding principles, putting on the agenda the possibility > of transformation away from the current malaise. As the promotion > of capitalist discipline is questioned, protest targeted at the > agents of neo-liberal globalization gains remarkable political > leverage. In this political climate WEF meetings start to take > on a special significance. Since 1996 the WEF has attracted increasingly > militant opposition, and it has responded by attempting to re-chart > the neo-liberal project. The WEF response is to deliberately avoid > the appearance of backroom strategizing, and instead to seek a > higher public profile, attempting to reground its legitimacy by > being seen to engage with prominent advocates of the emerging > alternatives. The WEF is thus placing itself at the center of > debates about the revision of neo-liberalism, asserting that it > can play 'important role in forging the new geometry'. > > Reflecting this, the WEF has reached out to those 'excluded' by > neo-liberal globalization - notably non-OECD governments, such > as Mexico and South Africa, and critical Non-Government Organizations, > such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). > At Davos in 1998 Hillary Clinton argued the role of NGOs and other > representatives of 'civil society' had to be enhanced, while John > Sweeney, from the AFL-CIO, focused on issues of distribution, > arguing markets had to 'work for the majority and not simply for > the few'. In 1999 Vice-President Al Gore appeared with Kofi Annan, > who appealed for a 'global compact' between business and the UN > founded on 'core values in the areas of human rights, labor standards, > and environmental practices'. In 2000 President Clinton shared > the Millennial limelight - somewhat blurred by Seattle - with > Tony Blair. Davos policy debates are now couched in terms of 'institutional > accommodation', 'corporate responsibility' and 'global dialogue', > with sessions in 2000 on 'responsible globality', 'inclusive prosperity' > and 'sustainable development'. Perhaps most cynically, the WEF's > 'World Competitiveness Scorecard' - a yearly league-table of 'how > national environments are conducive or detrimental to the domestic > and global competitiveness of enterprises' - was supplemented > by an 'Environmental Sustainability Index' at Davos 2000. At the > same time, as Jane Kelsey highlights, a new 'World Economic Community' > internet link-up between 10,000 key economic decision-makers - > an internet 'hotline' for concertizing corporate responses - is > being constructed. > > The contest is on to establish a revised normative and institutional > framework for the global economy. The WEF is claiming a central > role in shaping the agenda, and some, such as the ICFTU, are participants > in the process, taking heart in the WEF's apparent willingness > to become an advocate of 'globalization with a human face'. But > the key question is whether the WEF should be permitted to drive > this agenda. Should a forum that is dominated by corporate interests > be encouraged to take on the role of mapping out future frameworks > for global governance? Should it be granted recognition and legitimacy > in this agenda-setting process? Or, rather, should its role be > challenged, and alternative sources of legitimacy be asserted? > > There was a telling moment at Davos 2000 when the assembled executives > refused to vacate the conference chamber to enable a security > check before Clinton's speech. The US President's Security Service > was forced to back down after a corporate 'sit-in'. Clinton's > speech went ahead: even the President of the US has to respect > the wishes of the corporate club. Perhaps he should have joined > the 1000 protestors outside the conference venue, and joined the > democratic movement against corporate power. > > There will be similar protests outside New York summit of the > WEF later this month. In 1999 the summit lobbied for regional > governments to back the coming WTO 'Millennium Round', arguing > that trade liberalization was inevitable and needed to be extended > into 'free and fair competition, protecting intellectual property > and foreign investment'. In > 2002 we can expect much rhetoric about inclusiveness and sustainability. > There will be plenty of ironic moments and opportunities to politicize > globalized neo-liberalism. > Information on the anti-WEF protest is available at http://www.s11.org > > Sources: > Kelsey, Jane, 2000, Reclaiming the Future, Bridget Williams Books, > Wellington; > Martin, Hans-Peter and Schumann, Harald, 1997, The Global Trap, > Pluto, Sydney; > Kees van der Pijl, 1998, Transnational classes and international > relations, Routledge, London. > The website of the World Economic Forum: http://www.weforum.org > > James Goodman, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University > of > Technology Sydney (UTS), PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia, > > Tel: 9514 2714, Fax: 9514 2332, Email: james.goodman(a)uts.edu.au > Website: http://www.uts.edu.au/fac/hss/Research/protglob > > > > > > > Destroy it. > Enjoy it. > -slits > > > __________________________________________________ > FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. > Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com >

1 0

Take A Look At This 23719
by ronfowler31＠yahoo.com 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

1 0

Collect Your Free Cell Phone Here 20346
by redherring97＠yahoo.com 08 Jan '02

08 Jan '02

1 0