November 2016 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [WAR] A brief bit of Hillary history.
by Zenaan Harkness 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

My question was, is and shall continue to be, who of the various candidates in the upcoming USA elections, who might get elected to run the USA war machine, would be the least likely candidate to push Russia and or China and or the rest of the world into World War 3, when the economic crunch time for North America finally hits the fan. We know a massive global financial crash is coming, and in previous points of financial collapse, history shows us an almost certainty of a major war following. This bodes EXTREMELY PRECARIOUSLY for all of us on this little blue planet, and suggests that those who vote in the upcoming North American elections ought think carefully about the question above. Those who are onlookers might consider being in contact with anyone they know who will be involved/ voting in the upcoming USA elections, and discover their thoughts on this fundamental question - who is most and who is least likely to start World War 3. Also, look into the preference voting system (like we also have in Australia) if you will be voting, and figure out how your candidate's votes might be applied to other candidates, should your chosen candidate not receive enough votes to be elected. That, or choose your own preferences! Be informed, and let's do our bit towards avoiding World War 3 - if this issue of the potential for the next world war is not handled by us humans, we may just find that sometime in the next 4 years, that we are all faced with a reality where NO OTHER QUESTION EVEN MATTERS, and it's too late to argue or say sorry or I told you so or anything else so pathetic in the face of the lack of the action required to have stopped the problem in the first place. Good luck fellow humans, Zenaan ----- Forwarded message ----- Subject: FW: nothing has changed! they are all the same. http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-h… ----- End forwarded message -----

12 33

[MONEY] Meanderings on the looming global currency shifts
by Zenaan Harkness 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

Dollar Disaster Looming: China and Russia’s Currencies Break Away. http://uncensored.co.nz/2016/09/10/dollar-disaster-looming-china-and-russia…

3 8

[RUS] citizen diplomacy, visit to Crimea, on the Russian "invasion"
by Zenaan Harkness 04 Feb '17

04 Feb '17

Western Propaganda for a New Cold War Western propaganda portrays Russia as the aggressor and NATO as the victim, but the reality looks almost opposite from the ground level https://consortiumnews.com/2016/07/14/western-propaganda-for-a-new-cold-war/ (Alt: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/western-propaganda-new-cold-war/ri156… )

1 1

Global warming/climate change
by YoungerDryas 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

> Zenaan Harkness: > I see no one disputing climate change. Here is some clarification. Joe Rogan Experience #725 - Graham Hancock & Randall Carlson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8 Watch/listen to the whole thing but the first 15min should be enough context to drive further interest. A snip from Randall Carlson: "We're not really seeing the genesis of civilization, we're seeing the rebooting of civilization, in the aftermath of these [global warming and cooling] events." Joe Rogan Experience #606 - Randall Carlson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ This one goes in depth more on climate and adjacent science. Jumping to 18 or 19 minutes should be enough context to drive further interest. Snips: "We're in the infancy of understanding the climate of this planet." "My concern is that we're going to get so focused on carbon change that we're not looking at any of these other factors." Joe Rogan Experience #501 - Randall Carlson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R31SXuFeX0A For those who want to start at the beginning. Skip to 6min to avoid radio ads. All the Graham Hancock ones are wonderful as well, if anyone wants to dig in deepah. These guys are cpunks. #For those who avoid video: http://youtube-dl.org/ #Please God, water my plants with your teardrops.

8 16

Astonishing Lie by Hillary regarding Trump "Choke"
by jim bell 12 Jan '17

12 Jan '17

I'm really floored about how disgustingly low Hillary (and her cronies) will go to criticize Trump. A few months ago, both were invited to see the Mexican president; only Trump went. When Trump returned, he was asked by the MSM (mainstream media) if he had discussed who would pay for the wall. Trump said that he hadn't. For a few days, there was criticism of Trump for FAILING to negotiate this matter. That criticism re-surfaced within the last day or so (October 20), with Hillary claiming Trump had "choked". Well, as radio commentator Paul Harvey would have said, here's the rest of the story. It turns out that there is an American Federal law called the Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomatic activity with foreign nations. It's been around for 200+ years, and violation is a felony...although there have never been any convictions and only one indictment in that entire time. It does not prohibit a person from merely meeting with a foreign government official, just engaging in diplomacy with him. (What amounts to "diplomacy" has not been tested, due to the virtual lack of prosecutions.) Hillary Clinton is supposed to have at one point been a lawyer. Not a good lawyer, I have to conclude. In fact, she must have been a very bad lawyer. But she has now outdone herself for criticizing Trump...for Trump's FAILURE to commit a Federal felony! You see, she has actually claimed Trump "choked": That Trump DIDN'T negotiate this matter, apparently not to Hillary's satisfaction. So, indeed, Hillary is blasting Trump for FAILING to engage in diplomacy with the Mexican president: For FAILING to commit a felony! And don't try to suggest that maybe, Trump did indeed secretly try to negotiate with the Mexican president, but simply failed to get an agreement. While such a hypothetical scenario might be called a violation of the Logan Act, at the same time it couldn't ALSO be called "choking": To raise the issue during the meeting, but to merely fail to get positive results wouldn't be a "choke", of course. So, by calling Trump's supposed actions (or lack of actions?) "choking", Hillary has essentially admitted that she DIDN'T believe that Trump had attempted to negotiate, and thus had not violated the Logan Act. But others in the media were even more clueless. And it's not that I'm the first person to raise this issue: Do a Google search for 'hillary trump mexico wall Logan', and you can even find some articles within the first few days of Trump's Mexican visit, claiming that Trump DID violate the Logan Act. If Trump had actually said he negotiated, you can be sure that Hillary would have accused him of committing a crime. But no, he didn't, so now she's accusing him of, in effect, NOT COMMITTING a crime. Failure to negotiate as a private citizen with the President of Mexico. Failure to commit a Federal felony. How awful! How cynical can a person be to try to prepare not one, but in fact TWO separate, and opposite traps for her opponent: If Trump tried to negotiate, she would accuse him of a crime. If Trump failed to try to negotiate, she would, and in fact did, accuse him of "choking". Is it possible to engage in a more disgusting and devious fraud in front of the entire world, and not be called out on it? How dishonest can a person get? To be sure, I'm still going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, as I always do. But I feel I must challenge anyone who would otherwise vote for Hillary Clinton: Do you feel proud that your chosen candidate is such a massive liar, fraudster, influence-peddler, scam-artist, and deviously corrupt woman? "And those are her GOOD qualities", I hear her supporters fawning. Jim Bell

10 26

Scientific Progress
by coresamples＠sigaint.org 03 Jan '17

03 Jan '17

> Juan: > Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites, > pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists. The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the spiritually dyslexic, and the philosophically depraved. To put it into other terms: If you want happiness in this crazy world, you do not talk sex to eunuchs. These "scientists" are emotional, spiritual, and philisophical eunuchs.

13 55

Hawking Says: We're Fucked, And It's Our Fault
by grarpamp 27 Dec '16

27 Dec '16

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2016/11/17/stephen-hawking-we… http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344664 In January, during a BBC Reith lecture, Hawking said humankind is inching closer to demise, and it’s our fault.

3 3

Assange assasinated?
by Cannon 16 Dec '16

16 Dec '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790074503472746496 We will release a statement tomorrow about Assange. Our editor is safe and still in full command despite reduced communications with staff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYDVxwAAoJEAYDai9lH2mwwUkP/jhyG7TBpWGHQ+9NULWMW0Ap jTy9A0bzG7mGfO3YfEwceyon6o8CPHuONHtr6Ec4AX8yoM7HDcQDOPzxWQyQP+2J xVvj/VE1g4KgsddoggK4gAfcc+XMegIO4BEBOVdreYWPiRkHrnGsFdTp0FoYkOTC 6j4WIdC2RzYZIslOBFcyLrFICS31C4RIUY3pBiGovfk3X586hDTL12kh8MIygpAs KijZo36fExKgAQf+pCQfU2GUAXtuXue3n4gOUvbhM7uDp0baV4Cmi4R64XkcNdU7 cTAqJExHuiInKzIOnYhAQz5FUqOY5axjwtR5DKwUTUbOWTVrEfsD8hkdllboGJ7a pKx3Blk6j0328c9Zs/tAknRWM578KUl8fULYcJ58eRnp3crTdicRKdv1uDf/G+yb 0gNBQG/MxLAxOsOJXmWspBuo3rBQIgWxI59RuATRltMWSXLi8K/bXbk8CniFV505 QTGyMh++2p3zI9iaxa/VZ/VlJsKIW4Q1q34PkvX9slETgaFJhD11OYGnnWBIdvL/ K/0b8Y+HZp58PWNDOrLFiRNBtrMRNTSXc2pR0yLsWA/He00ya3Xi4ct4iPn2rTLP NwwYHcl5BCe+No7vPK9cAG6pEJxKmcapCjHiO3vbwriRB/8Y8giwsFEtNYdEoaeZ hz3H/2nA3+uFepbnkKY3 =6Bzp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Cannon PGP Fingerprint: 2BB5 15CD 66E7 4E28 45DC 6494 A5A2 2879 3F06 E832 Email: cannon(a)cannon-ciota.info

7 12

Re: CNN - asking the right questions
by z9wahqvh 11 Dec '16

11 Dec '16

a more reasonable right-wing definition of fascism is one offered by the guy who invented it, Benito Mussolini (actually mostly by his court philosopher Giovanni Gentile). Here's just one important part (more here: http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp) For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the > nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign > of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of > decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and > of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies > and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising > again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire > demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense > of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical > working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the > necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would > oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth > century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the > nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to > undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for > never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction > and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a > thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our > time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact > that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very > powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and > died for it. > notice all that emphasis on "decadence," on the expansion of Empire, on the "strength" of "the nation," on militarism? it's pretty hard to make that work with the creation of social security and welfare programs (aka The New Deal), or FDR's patent lack of interest in the kind of militaristic nationalism that -- oh, he eventually went to war against, but only after being dragged kicking and screaming, mostly through the US being attacked directly. but what did Mussolini know about fascism (despite being the leader of the actual movement that gave us the word)? On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:26 PM, z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:37 PM, juan <juan.g71(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> I wonder what an 'updated' new deal is considering that the >> Original New Deal was chemically pure fascism... >> >> > in which Juan-who-swears-he's-not-an-authoritarian-right-winger > demonstrates that he gets his analysis of fundamental political categories > from authoritarian right wingers (the only people--especially Hayek himself > and National Review editor Jonah Goldberg--who describe the New Deal as > having anything whatsoever to do with fascism, which it did not). > >

5 9

Rising carbon dioxide is greening the Earth - but it's not all good news
by Zenaan Harkness 10 Dec '16

10 Dec '16

Thought someone posted a link like this back in the April thread - could not find that, so posting here. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is a genuinely good thing. CO2 is making Earth greener—for now http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ If you squint a bit and read a little too quickly, the caption on the image reads "This image shows the change in leaf across the globe from 1982-2015." which bodes really well for peace pipes around the world. And please, read carefully the last paragraph - even scientists know their "scientific models" are flawed and always "being improved" (aka, changing, since the previous iteration was wrong). At least some of them acknowledge this fact. CO2 fertilization greening the Earth http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html Global Warming Produced a Greener, More Fruitful Planet http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/global-warming-produced-greener… Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth' http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346 Rising carbon dioxide is greening the Earth - but it’s not all good news http://theconversation.com/rising-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth-but-…

6 13