- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
by Freematt357＠aol.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

December 15, 2003 Uncle Sambs Guantanamo Prison: Outside the Rule of Law By Brigid ObNeil* http://www.independent.org/tii/news/031215ONeil.html The latest news from Guantanamo Bay is beginning to sound like a modern-day Simpsons episode. After two years of imprisoning more than 600 alleged enemy combatants without charge or counsel in a Cuban prison camp, the Administration announced earlier this month that two detainees -- one a U.S. citizen -- would be permitted limited access to an attorney. As any Simpsons buff will tell you, itbs a classic Mr. Burns move: put on a show of improving work conditions at the nuclear power plant by dressing Homer in thermal underwear. While it might be an amusing tag line typical of the most noxious character in the Simpsons repertoire, itbs a sad metaphor for the U.S. governmentbs abysmal treatment of designated enemy combatants. News of the American prisonerbs counsel came one day before the Justice Department filed a brief at the Supreme Court, adding to suspicions about the Administrationbs motives. Their brief asks the court to affirm the governmentbs indefinite detention of Americans declared b enemy combatants,b without counsel or the ability to dispute the allegations. The Constitutional liberties at risk in this case, including the right to a fair trial and due process, constitute a grave danger for Americans and foreign nationals alike. And nowhere is the startling consequence of Constitutional b concessionsb more apparent than the state of Guantanamo Bay. >From the beginning, Guantanamo Bay was wrought with strife. The Geneva Convention, with its guarantee of certain fundamental rights for all prisoners of war, was quickly sidelined by the Administration in favor of its own rules for the treatment and investigation of detainees. In the absence of any rule of law, it didnbt take long for the media to pick up reports of inhumane treatment -- or what one former intelligence officer brazenly called, b torture-lite.b These reports include: firing rubber bullets at those in restraints, beatings for anyone who b made a call to prayer,b sleep deprivation, and forced confessions. The situation became so dire that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the only non-government organization to visit the camp, broke a long-standing policy of silence and called the prisoner circumstances an b intolerable situation.b After reading the latest official statements on the health of the detainees, it becomes shockingly clear why the ICRC took such an unprecedented move. According to national news reports, 35 detainees have attempted suicide, 110 have been placed on a suicide watch list, and 1 out of every 5 detainees now receive medication for what one military official can only describe as b clinical depression.b In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal protections, much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the camp, the Administration has yet to charge any detainee with a crime or bring a case before a military tribunal. Thus, the public has no way to determine what alleged crimes these men are charged with committing, much less whether or not they are guilty. In the absence of any formidable opposition to the Executive Branchbs actions, the Supreme Court has finally stepped into the ring. In a matter of months the Justices will decide two cases that will rule on a host of alleged constitutional abuses. In the first case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court will determine whether a U.S. citizen has the right to an attorney before disappearing into a military stockade without charges or contact with the outside world. The second case, involving the two appeals of Rasul v. Bush and Odah v. U.S., will decide if Guantanamo detainees can have access to civilian courts to challenge their detention. The most pressing issue in both cases calls into question the newly claimed Executive Branch power to detain any person indefinitely and without any recourse to judicial review. Given the blatant lack of any legal protections for these alleged combatants, it is no wonder that former prisoner-of-war Senator John McCain expressed concern this week about what he saw after a recent visit to Guantanamo. Even prisoners suspected of serious crimes deserve fair and open legal proceedings -- after all, our very Constitution was founded on the right to due process and a presumption of innocence. By holding suspected enemies to our highest rule of law and honoring established international treaties, we set a precedent for the treatment we expect of U.S. troops in enemy hands. To undermine this rule of law risks the very livelihood of our Constitution and threatens the way our citizens are treated both at home and abroad. No minor concessions by the U.S. government can change the impression that the secrecy and lack of due process for detainees at Guantanamo Bay resembles that of the Soviet gulags of old. And it doesnbt take the antics of a Mr. Burns or the gullibility of Homer Simpson to figure it out. *Brigid ObNeil is a researcher at the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. For further articles and studies, see the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org.

1 0

Re: Speaking of Reason
by Freematt357＠aol.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

In a message dated 12/11/2003 10:04:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, declan(a)well.com writes: > If that is true, why can't it simply be called "capitalist?" > > I suspect because actual capitalists would have some problems with it. Sterling makes a comment betraying what Ludwig Von Mises called the anti-capitalist mentality when he quipped to Godwin: "Sure, we hate Exxon because they're huge and they're everywhere." Sterling is a capitalist in the same way that Brin is a libertarian. I think what it is, both are uncomfortable with really labeling what their true ideology is and therefore feel some need to candy coat their statism. Regards, Matt Gaylor-

3 4

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Tyler Durden 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

"You can't predict what "the crowd" will say, and the Arab "crowd" is no more symplistic than the American one. It does "work" somewhat differently, and does display different "mentality", whatever that means, but none of it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair psychologising." Again, I think you're missing the point here. All you need is one bin Laden to cause us a decent amount of agony. Half a dozen multimillionares with a fanatical hatred of the US and we might have a regime change over here. As for the rest of your post, you didn't respond to the one point so obvious I didn't bother making it: Israel. Add to that images of us running around any country with a drop of oil or two and they have the right picture: "You Arabs can continue living here as long as our access remains unimpeded." And again, the politics and local history are very near irrelevant. The US is there in Saudi, Israel, Iraq, and wherever...not the French, not the Italians, and not the Chinese or the Russians. -TD >From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon(a)pobox.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:08:46 +0200 > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > > A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into > > non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. > >I thought it was trivial all along. > > > The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in > > particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to > > forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great > > Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. > >Oh please. They (well, many of them) sure didn't forget their dislike of >the US when they saw those newsreels of the twin towers tumbling down. > > > For them it's almost certainly > > going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and > > fucked them over all these years. > >Actually, they mostly systematically manipulated and fucked themselves >over, with occassional help from different factions in the rest of the >world. > >And they already have a "symbol of how we've", etc. - American military >presence in the most holy of Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia. That's >one of the largest reasons for Al-Qaeda growth in recent years. Compared >to infidel military bases somewhere near Mecca and Medina, whatever's >done to some dictator who has presided over a mostly secular regime is >insignificant. And American military presence in Saudi Arabia is >actually subsiding now because Iraq is no longer a threat. > > > They're not going to respect our "Power", > > they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first >place. > > They're just going to get angrier. > >This is just so much armchair psychology. Most of it is silly >theoretising that has no grounding in reality. > >One side says: look, we had to humuliate him publicly, because those >Arabs only understand power, they only respect you if you clearly show >them who's the boss, bla bla bla. > >The other side says: we shouldn't humiliate him, because the Arab >culture is built around the all-powerful concept of pride, and they'll >never forget how we hurt their pride, bla bla bla. > >Both sides are spewing idiotic garbage with some marginal relevance to >reality, which is much, much more complicated than that. You can't >predict what "the crowd" will say, and the Arab "crowd" is no more >symplistic than the American one. It does "work" somewhat differently, >and does display different "mentality", whatever that means, but none of >it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair >psychologising. > > > Look for bin Laden to grow in status > > until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. > >This is inane. > > > That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will > > soon be nearly irrelevant. > >Truth is always relevant. > >-- >avva _________________________________________________________________ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings
by Major Variola (ret) 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

(resend) At 11:52 AM 12/13/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: >At 09:19 AM 12/12/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >... >>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. > >One interesting property of the lone warriors is that they can't actually >make peace. Good points, but not entirely true. For instance, we could stop the Jihad (tm) (including future Jihads by other parties) by stopping all foreign aid, following the good general's advice, "Trade with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements." If you take yourself out of the game, you are not seen by a player which can be influenced. Or which influencing would do any good to a given cause. A government can take itself (and thus the proles that fed the NYC rodentia the second week of Sept 01) out of the game, while individuals (corporations) continue to trade freely, and at their own consensual risk. The point is that while the soldiers are independent, their motivations are not. So you can reduce the cost of the lone warriors to you by not annoying them any more. >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? Rudolph bombed clinics, not random people because the govt allowed the clinics. Contrast with a distributed jihad which attacks citizens to sway a govt. If the US went neutral, whether Halliburton was in Arabia would be entirely an economic question, involving the cost of paying off widows or hiring Islamic workers, or buying the goods through a third party. Instead its a policy question, the only way to influence it is to bring it home ---"the only language the American people understand is dead Americans." -EC --- "Can you hear me now?" -UBL, 11.9.01

4 3

The RIAA Succeeds Where the Cypherpunks Failed
by James A. Donald 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

-- Clay Shirky: http://www.shirky.com/writings/riaa_encryption.html tells us "The RIAA Succeeds Where the Cypherpunks Failed" [...] The Government's failure to get the Clipper implemented came at a heady time for advocates of digital privacy -- the NSA was losing control of cryptographic products, Phil Zimmerman had launched his Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) email program, and the Cypherpunks, a merry band of crypto-loving civil libertarians, were on the cover of the second issue of Wired. The floodgates were opening, leading to... ...pretty much nothing. Even after the death of Clipper and the launch of PGP, the Government discovered that for the most part, users didn't want to encrypt their communications. [...] [...] In response to the RIAA's suits, users who want to share music files are adopting tools like WINW and BadBlue, that allow them to create encrypted spaces where they can share files and converse with one another. [...] Note that the broadening adoption of encryption is not because users have become libertarians, but because they have become criminals; to a first approximation, every PC owner under the age of 35 is now a felon. [...] And the second effect, of course, is the long-predicted and oft-delayed spread of encryption. The RIAA is succeeding where the Cypherpunks failed, convincing users to trade a broad but penetrable privacy for unbreakable anonymity under their personal control. In contrast to the Cypherpunks "eat your peas" approach, touting encryption as a first-order service users should work to embrace, encryption is now becoming a background feature of collaborative workspaces. Because encryption is becoming something that must run in the background, there is now an incentive to make it's adoption as easy and transparent to the user as possible. It's too early to say how widely casual encryption use will spread, but it isn't too early to see that the shift is both profound and irreversible. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wLK7Dc2wMIugparyQpFCHa89wES4ntXo7L+st+YX 4hxJwRJeTzuUKuQ0sTXvnvLTI/EeUy2RRjum92Pp8

1 0

Re: [dgc.chat] Fwd: [NEC] #2.12: The RIAA Succeeds Where the CypherPunks Failed
by Steve Schear 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

At 12:39 PM 12/17/2003, Patrick Chkoreff on the dgcchat@lists wrote: >Well, Clay Shirky has done it again, writing a very insightful article >on the current digital scene, this time on the unintended but >beneficial consequences of RIAA's crackdown on file sharing. > >Here is one particularly telling excerpt: > >>Note that the broadening adoption of encryption is not because users >>have become libertarians, but because they have become criminals; to a >>first approximation, every PC owner under the age of 35 is now a > felon. http://www.shirky.com/writings/riaa_encryption.html I'm not sure if Clay ever hung out on the cypherpunks list. None of this comes as a surprise. Most knew early on that widespread adoption of crypto would require a killer app and that cypherpunks were not delivering these apps because one could not predict what they would be. They would surely not be PGP and other encrypted email nor digital cash unless and until there was a small but lucrative market that could be addressed by such technology or a large market with broad citizen support. That file sharing could be it was also recognized a long time ago on the cypherpunks list. The really interesting aspect of this is what it portends for the future. If, as Clay suggests, the current situation is like Prohibition from citizen perspective can we expect a similar repeal of government surveillance? If not, what will happen as large numbers of citizens adopt P2P systems that not only flaunt copyright law but communications more dear to those in power? steve "For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." -- Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921

1 0

Spy News
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NYT reports today on a new book, "Blind Man's Bluff," which reports on the US's success at placing surveillance devices on Soviet subsea communications cables around the world. With much technical detail about how it was done, beginning with the simple but overlooked idea of locating shoreline warning signs about undersea cables then tracking from there. The devices, some up to 20 feet long for housing elaborate processing equipment, captured electronic emanations, thereby eluding detection measures aimed at physical taps. One was found by the Soviets but most were not and much information on the program is still classified. AT&T and Bell labs built many of them. The US Navy will not comment on the book, citing national security restrictions. The Times also has an obituary for Tommy Flowers, the gent who guided construction of Colossus machines at Bletchley Park to break top-level German codes during WW II. There's still interesting debate about the Paul Dore story of picking up signals from space, which he first thought were from aliens, but which seems more likely to be from a surveillance satellite, and possibly from a type not publicly known. Not enough data yet to show that the story is not a hoax, or disinformation by US/UK spy agencies, but it has led to informative discussion of what such signals could indicate. Notes on this at: http://jya.com/project415.htm More commentary welcome, here or privately. Some will recall a vigorous discussion here a few years back about listening in on US undersea cables, commencing at the landfall points (dense packs of them here in the NYC area), many handily marked on coastal seafaring maps. Or, for more up-to-date technology, setting a receiver to point in the direction of those on TLA bases (needing an x-ray of the concealing radome).

3 2

4 Horseman not so bad..
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:52 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Chip Mefford wrote: >> but some peope are scared of >> drugs/paedophiles/terrorists etc, so thats the way in for the jackboots. >> To oppose it we need to reduce fear. > >Thats the most interesting POV I've ever heard >of in these discussions, seems like for the most part, >we counter fear arguments with other fear arguments, >Never saw this before. Bears more examination. Right. The new Happy Net campaign. Druggies.. why, they're friendly enough to be elected officials in such peaks of civilization as D.C. and L.A. And the more successful recreational pharmaceutical merchants are luxury-car and mobile telecomm early adopters! Pedophiles. Well, consider that Kennedy and his babysitter.. You'd still vote for him, right? Terrorists. Well, shoot, everyone needs to express themselves some times. One day you're a terrorist, the next you're boosting the POTUS's ratings a few points with a handshake.

2 1

Re: your mail
by Joel O'Connor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I traveled by train all the way to Florida from Rhode Island once. 24 hours straight it took man and I swore I would never do it again. 40-50 people per car and basically one bathroom per car. Come morning time man, the lines for the bathrooms stretched out of the cars. Screw that, I could have flown and made it in 3 hours. Plus it's easier for the gov't to stop trains and search them, I'd rather go with the flight. ---Chip Mefford <cmefford(a)video.avwashington.com> wrote: > > > > Where possible, > > fuk a bunch of airlines anyway. > > Travel by train is a lot more enjoyable, relaxing, fun. > Folks that travel by train could fly, but would > preferr to enjoy the ride, cause it ain't no cheaper, > > except, !! > > you can pay with cash and show no id and go > where you would like in the lower 48. > > anonymously. > > On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Anonymous wrote: > > > At 02:43 PM 10/26/98 -0400, Robert A. Costner wrote: > > >At 01:15 PM 10/26/98 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: > > >>9. "I do not posses any government-issued photo ID and thus cannot travel > > >>to the location stated in the subpoena. > > > > > >ROTFLMAO... > > > > > >This last one is too funny to not use. I don't have a subpoena, but I can > > >just see myself writing back explaining this and requesting assistance with > > >a plane flight to solve this problem. > > > > Actually you don't need state id to fly, legally. But the airlines will > > hassle you and not put your bags aboard til you are. There > > are references on the net to flying without state id. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == Ogre bounces like sonar. . .Peace. Ogre _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

Why porn must be stopped at all costs, by Jodi Hoffman
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Wow. First time I've ever been personally accused of being "a major reason for the downward spiral of society." --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:53:27 -0500 From: Jodi Hoffman <jlhoffm(a)ibm.net> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Why porn must be stopped at all costs..... ALL: I've forgotten how long I've been on this email list. Maybe too long. Try as I might, I cannot forget standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building with my husband and 10 year old daughter in the freezing drizzle. I really thought we could make a difference, standing there with our banner and signs, one of which read, "DON'T SACRIFICE MY CHILD ON THE ALTAR OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT." Stupid me. As the saying goes...we've come a long way, baby. As I wander back through all the posts on this list, it finally dawns on me what this is all about, this 'fight censorship' rhetoric. It's nothing more and nothing less than a lot of egotistical, self-serving brats who absolutely refuse to grow up, including you, Declan. Don't you realize that YOU are a major reason for the downward spiral of society? Instead of trying to protect children, you want to empower them. Even a moron knows that when you do so, that power has to be taken from someone. Unfortunately, that someone is the parent. I have to ask myself just how many on this list have children. Not many, I would say. Someone on this list, I forget who, has made numerous attempts at convincing us that pornography 'does no harm' to children. It is exactly at this point that I must draw a line. Studies have shown that an event which lasts even so much as three-tenths of a second, within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change in the brain. Exposure to porn causes actual brain damage, especially in a child. So, keep protecting your porn-induced orgasms. That's exactly what happened with the Hitler youth, etc... After all, I'm sure it does help to blur the lines of reality. ===================== Please PRINT THIS OUT and save for later reference. Rules number 1 through 7 have already been put into effect. Rule number 8 is currently being implemented. Numbers 9 and 10 are already in the beginning phases. If you're not yet convinced that you are contributing to the ruination of America, I would hope you will be by the time you finish reading this. Paul and Jodi Hoffman Weston, Florida "When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side", I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already..." --Adolph Hitler, speaking about the schools and their indoctrination of the Hilterjugend (Hitler Youth Corps). ================================================== LENIN'S BLUEPRINT FOR WORLD DOMINATION These 'Rules' are meant to be a loose parody of the Ten Commandments, and are particularly emphasized at the Lenin School of Political Warfare. They are practical rules that are being implemented all over the world -- with special emphasis on the strongest foe of Communism, the United States. Study these Rules very carefully. And then reflect upon what is happening in our society right now. Perhaps this list will provide answers to some of the questions that seemed --until now -- to have no answers. Lenin himself said that it didn't matter that three-fourths of the world be destroyed, just so the remnant were good Communists. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #1: CORRUPT THE NATION'S YOUTH THE RULE: The future of any nation lies with its youth. So corrupt them; since religion teaches moral virtue, erode the churches and divert the young from religion. Make them interested only in themselves. Get them involved in drugs, alcohol, and sex. Get them addicted to privileges and rights. THE REALITY: Many of today's youth are grossly overprivileged, committed to fashion, physically flabby and lazy, and mentally undisciplined. If they don't want to do something, they simply will not do it. And if they want to do something to indulge themselves, no law or moral standard will hold them back. They feel that they are entitled to the 'good things in life,' not as a reward for hard work, but as an expected gift, to be received without effort and even without asking. And where do they learn such slovenliness? Just spend two hours in front of a television watching a random selection of situation comedies to find out. Unfortunately, kids who fit the above description usually model themselves after their parents. Such parasitic habits would not be tolerated in the former Soviet Union. The prevailing attitude among today's pampered American youth is one of nihilism ( I am nothing, life has no meaning, I don't care) -- and for good reason. Over 75 percent of America's high school boys now think it's acceptable to rape a girl at any age. Wonder why anymore? RULE FOR REVOLUTION #2: CONTROL THE MASS MEDIA THE RULE: Since the media shapes the minds of the people, infiltrate it and control it. Dominate television, radio, and the newspapers, and you control the minds of the people. THE REALITY: It is quite obvious that traditional values are considered ridiculous to all branches of the media. Christians, clergy, and even Christ Himself are held up as objects of scorn and mocking laughter by television, motion pictures, radio, artists, and songwriters. In the place of decency and morality, a constant stream of Left-wing values is presented. Homosexuality, abortion, violence, and contempt for all parental and governmental authority is the prevailing order of the day. A particularly powerful form of media is represented by the so-called "arts community." Some latter-day "artists" actually make a pretty good living by mocking traditional values and Christianity. Consider Andres Sorrano's "Piss Christ" (a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine) or Robert Mapplethorp's photos, which include one showing a bullwhip protruding out of his rear end. This media bias is not a fantasy of a few right-wing whiners; this is cold, hard reality. The extreme leftward tilt of the media has been documented by impartial observers and study managers, and has even been acknowledged by the press itself. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #3: ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INDIFFERENCE THE RULE: Cause the people to become disinterested in their own government and in world affairs. Get them to feel disenfranchised. Get them to ridicule and lose respect for government leaders. THE REALITY: Americans now vote at a lower rate than at any other time in our history. Every American knows how disenfranchised and powerless the average voter feels. The media constantly trumpet instances of hypocrisy and corruption in our government, despite the fact that we have the most open and honest political system in the world. The United States Supreme Court has wrested much of the State's power from them with judicial activism. This means that the people's representatives at the State level -- and therefore the people themselves -- have much less of a voice in their own government. On the state level, when people or local legislators finally manage to pass a conservative law regarding abortion, pornography or homosexuality, it is invariably challenged by Neo-liberal groups and struck down by higher courts, leading voters to ask themselves "Why bother participating in the process? We have no real voice in how things are run anyway!" RULE FOR REVOLUTION #4: ENCOURAGE PUBLIC BICKERING THE RULE: Divide the people into hostile groups. Divide them against themselves by getting them to squabble about inconsequential social issues. THE REALITY: Never before have so many trivial issues captured so much air time. Major construction and other projects are halted due to sometimes trivial environmental concerns. Critical research which uses animals is halted or impeded by animal-rights groups. Sodomy rights, old- growth timber, anti-fur, and dozens of other Neoliberal causes (and the conservative backlash) cause more friction among our nation's people than in any other nation in the world. Meanwhile, the real issues of importance are either entirely neglected or paid weak lip service: Crime, poverty, hunger and, beneath all of them, the moral disintegration of our country. All of these have lead to despair among those affected and encourage violent change at any cost, with no thought given to the kind of change being fought for. Naturally, when conservatives react to Neoliberal initiatives with concrete action, they are painted as agents of "divisiveness" and "disunity," further leading to the impression that American society is composed entirely of squabbling special-interest groups. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #5: SEIZE POWER, THEN CENSOR THE RULE: Always preach true democracy, but seize power as completely and ruthlessly as possible. Vigorously censor viewpoints that conflict with ours. THE REALITY: If the slightest complaint against pornography in our schools is raised by concerned parents, People for the American Way (PAW), the ACLU, and other left-wing groups instantly shout "censorship!" But they say not a word when it is pointed out that the Bible and all mention of morality in textbooks have been ruthlessly hounded from the schools. Religion has literally disappeared from our children's textbooks. The media relentlessly suppress the reasoning behind conservative and traditional viewpoints while reporting their version of the facts and claiming "impartiality." Artists' demand that the people pay for their atrocities. When the people balk, the 'artists' whine about censorship. All traditional groups and viewpoints are fair game for ridicule; yet when was the last time you saw any 'artist' making fun of sodomites or women? In other words, the censorship is all one-way. And the "pluralism" valued so much by the Neoliberals is entirely unilateral (one way only). Communist atrocities which have killed more than 150 million all over the world are glossed over or ignored, but the most trivial international action by the United States brings immediate and forceful condemnation. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #6: BANKRUPT THE GOVERNMENT THE RULE: Encourage government extravagance on every front. Get the government deeply into debt. Get the people dependent on government by providing for their every need. This destroys their independence, motivation and strength. THE REALITY: The United States is flat broke. It is the number one debtor nation on earth, with a deficit of more than $5,000,000,000,000 (five trillion dollars). Social programs pay for everything from abortion and homosexual-run "sensitivity training sessions" to comprehensive sex education. We are the most truly Socialistic society on earth, a nation of people addicted to entitlements, unable to break away from the ample government teat, people who scream at the top of our lungs if any cutbacks in services are proposed. And yet, the Neoliberals want to spend even more. They want us to fund family benefits for sodomites, a comprehensive health care plan that will inevitably turn into a Britain-like socialized horror, and "art" that is blatantly obscene. RULE FOR REVOLUTION #7: DESTROY NATIONAL VALUES THE RULE: Cause a breakdown of indigenous national values. Destroy all tradition in preparation for the bright dawn of glorious Socialism. Ridicule religion, patriotism, and honesty. The people must be led to have only one interest: Themselves! THE REALITY: >From the public schools to the pulpits of Christian "churches," moralrelativism and situational ethics are the rule of the day. The highest goods are compassion, nonjudgmentalism, and tolerance. Any individual weakness is treated as a problem of society, not of the person, and this relieves everyone of the responsibility of improving themselves. Why should there be any effort to take responsibility for one's own faults when "society" is so conveniently ready to take the blame for all one's sins? Society has made the sacrifice. So criminals, addicts, alcoholics, child molesters, wife beaters, and others can always blame their problems on society. We have truly become the "me generation." RULE FOR REVOLUTION #8: ATTACK GUN OWNERSHIP THE RULE: Control or register all firearms if possible. This will make their confiscation much easier when the time comes for revolution. THE REALITY: When the Communist Revolution occurs in the United States, the last thing the Red Armies want to face is ten million determined and well-trained guerrillas (gun owners) taking potshots at them from around every corner. The Communists don't want the equivalent of ten Afghanistans in the United States. Although the objective of inhibiting gun ownership has not yet been completely met, there are dozens of bills and initiatives being submitted all over the country for compulsory gun registration, permitting, and other controls. The Second Amendment is disregarded entirely as Neoliberals trumpet for all guns to be totally banned. After all, they say, thousands die from gun-related accidents and crimes every year. They fail to see that criminals will always get guns, a parallel to their own argument stating that, if abortion becomes illegal, women will still get abortions. RULES FOR REVOLUTION #9 AND #10: UNDERMINE THE ARMED FORCES THE RULES: Destroy the reputation of the armed forces. Cause the young men to perceive military duty as distasteful and ridiculous. Fight registration of any kind, and encourage defections within the ranks. Cause the people to desire peace at any cost. Cause them to oppose any and all of their government's actions regarding the strengthening or use of their armed forces. THE REALITY: Our country's armed forces consume a vast percentage of our gross national product. We possess the best and most advanced weapons systems in the world. But our armed forces are a joke for two reasons: (1) they are completely restrained in their actions by a hostile Congress, and (2) the armed forces have been saddled with such a bad reputation that it is virtually impossible to fill the ranks with volunteers, even in the new and streamlined armed services. Where serving in the armed forces was once considered patriotic and honorable (as it was in the former Soviet Union), it is now looked upon as foolish and 'anti-progressive.' Servicemen are ridiculed and denigrated at every turn. People say that, if you can't make it on the outside, you wind up in the armed forces. Every serviceman is considered to be a useless gobbler of tax money. FINAL REALITY: WELCOME TO AMERIKA, COMRADES. ================================================================ The 'Rules for Revolution' described here are the most important actions that can be taken to weaken a country in order to prepare it for armed attack or a skillful coup d'etat. These rules are summaries that are extracted from a number of books written by professional revolutionaries from the former Soviet Union, from other Communist-dominated countries, and from the United States itself. They are most concisely summarized in the 2,225 page, three-volume set Lenin: Selected Works , distributed in English by Progress Publishers, 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow. These general principles, dedicated to one of the most famous revolutionaries of all time, Vladimir Lenin, are studied by every Communist political scientist, and by every ambassador or emissary of any type who leaves the former Soviet Union. They are also studied in great detail by many Americans. -- Jodi Hoffman R.A.M.P. http://www.gocin.com/ramp Victimization of Children/Research & Education Council of America 1304 SW 160th Avenue, Suite 122 Weston, Florida 33326 Phone: (954) 349-0366 Fax: (954) 349-0361

20 34