May 2018 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine
by Sean Lynch 05 Oct '18

05 Oct '18

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <xorcist(a)sigaint.org> wrote: > > No, this is Putin's baby. He's set it up so that if he can't have > Ukraine, > > nobody will. > > No, it is quite likely that the coup in Ukraine was instigated and > organized by U.S. interests. > > There are a lot of interests that would have good reason to do so. > > Economic: Soros, Geithner, and pals have been looking to depress the > Russian currency for years. At least back to 2008, that I am aware of. One > can speculate why, the simplest reason is to make money themselves. > > NATO: Yanukovych's government was Russian-leaning, while there were > "Orange Revolution" leaning politicians, activists, and so on in Western > Ukraine. Having Ukraine be Russian-leaning, and theoretically independent > puts NATO in a difficult position. Poland and Romania are NATO members, > with Ukraine right between them. For supply-line and airspace reasons, it > is strongly desirable to NATO interests to bring Ukraine under the > umbrella. This also provides another, angle of attack on Moscow. > > Understand the situation: NATO is encircling Moscow. Estonia and Lativa to > it's NW, Lithuania due-West, with Belarus as a buffer. Both countries are > positioned to place rockets within 800km of Moscow. If Ukraine were to go > NATO, it also would be able to position rockets or troops within 800km of > Moscow from the SW, with no buffer. Assuming Russia is unconcerned about > Lithuania, trusting Belarus to be able to intercept any aerial attacks, > that still leaves the possibility for simultaneous attacks from two > directions. > > It is entirely unacceptable, from a purely strategic of view. These > nations going to NATO represents an existential threat to Russia. > > Putin's response, of "taking" Crimea, was quite measured, in my opinion. > The Black Sea is of vital national interest. Were NATO able to get a > carrier group into the to Black Sea, along with the other listed > positions, it would be impossible to stop the capital from getting > captured in an invasion. > > Finally, your suggestion that Putin is somehow not letting the "poor > Ukrainians" from exercising their rights is blinded. The fact is, there > are BOTH strong pro-Western, and pro-Russian sides to Ukraine. This is not > a recent development. The tensions have been there for several > generations. > > Whether you like it or not, it is Putin's job to protect his country and > to prevent the very ABILITY for foreign nations to have that potential, > regardless of whether or not you believe NATO has the will to do so. > Regardless of the will, it should not be POSSIBLE from Russia's > perspective. > > That said, it is also arguably NATO's job to expand, and to position > itself so that Russia joining NATO, becomes the only strategy left to the > Russians. > > This, of course, is called Empire I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

11 55

Government is Stupid About Money (and Taxation is Theft)
by grarpamp 24 Sep '18

24 Sep '18

https://twitter.com/lopp/status/917463355593502720 https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/75bjr1/some_day_well_look_back_at… If you're gonna thieve and force it, at least be smart with it. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=taxation+is+theft

2 1

Second SecureDrop Developer: Suicided (James Dolan, ref: Aaron Swartz)
by grarpamp 20 Aug '18

20 Aug '18

https://twitter.com/search?q=james+dolan+suicide https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7pcqba/second_developer_of_wik…

2 1

“Free speech is not just another value. It's the foundation of Western civilization.” - Dr Peterson
by Zenaan Harkness 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

“Free speech is not just another value. It's the foundation of Western civilization.” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 Toronto professor Jordan Peterson takes on gender-neutral pronouns By Jessica Murphy BBC News, Toronto, 4 November 2016

4 28

[WAR] The clear (+biblical) foundation of Israel - be aware.
by Zenaan Harkness 09 Aug '18

09 Aug '18

That which we have no awareness of, can certainly impact upon us, our lives and our loved ones and so it can be useful to learn a little. Perhaps this is one of the most important foundations for the fellow Souls of our age to comprehend. Courtesy the ever poignant “The Saker”. Be aware, https://russia-insider.com/en/israels-aggressive-behavior-embodied-and-prop… Israel's Aggressive Behavior is Embodied and Prophesied in the Hebrew Bible Source: The Saker How Biblical is Zionism? http://thesaker.is/how-is-biblical-zionism/ by Laurent Guyénot for the Saker Blog "Even the nuclear policy of Israel has a biblical name: the Samson Option" The biblical mind of Israel’s founding fathers ---------------------------------------------- The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is for the committed Jew as much a record of his ancient origins, the prism through which all Jewish history is interpreted (is not the “Holocaust” a biblical term?), and the unalterable pattern of Israel’s promising future. That is why the Bible, once the “portable fatherland” of the Diaspora Jews as Heinrich Heine put it, remains at the core of the national narrative of the Jewish State, whose founding fathers did not give it any other Constitution. It is true that the earliest prophets of political Zionism — Moses Hess (Rome and Jerusalem, 1862), Leon Pinsker (Auto-Emancipation, 1882) and Theodor Herzl (The Jewish State, 1896) — did not draw their inspiration from the Bible, but rather from the great nationalist spirit that swept through Europe at the end of the 19th century. Pinsker and Herzl actually cared little whether the Jews colonized Palestine or any other region of the globe; the first thought about some land in North America, while the second contemplated Argentina and later Uganda. More important still than nationalism, what drove these intellectual pioneers was the persistence of Judeophobia or anti-Semitism: Pinsker, who was from Odessa, converted during the pogroms that followed the assassination of Alexander II; Herzl, at the height of the Dreyfus affair. Nevertheless, by naming his movement “Zionism,” Herzl himself was plugging it into biblical mythology: Zion is a name used for Jerusalem by biblical prophets. And after Herzl, the founders of the Yishuv (Jewish communities settled in Palestine before 1947) and later of the Jewish State were steeped in the Bible. From their point of view, Zionism was the logical and necessary end of biblical Yahwism. “The Bible is our mandate,” Chaim Weizmann declared at the Peace Conference in Versailles in 1920, and David Ben-Gurion has made clear that he only accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan as a temporary step toward the goal of biblical borders. In Ben-Gurion, Prophet of fire(1983), the biography of the man described as “the personification of the Zionist dream,” Dan Kurzman entitles each chapter with a Bible quote. The preface begins like this: “The life of David Ben-Gurion is more than the story of an extraordinary man. It is the story of a Biblical prophecy, an eternal dream. […] Ben-Gurion was, in a modern sense, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, a messiah who felt he was destined to create an exemplary Jewish state, a ‘light unto the nations’ that would help to redeem all mankind.” For Ben-Gurion, Kurzman writes, the rebirth of Israel in 1948 “paralleled the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the land by Joshua, the Maccabean revolt.” Yet Ben-Gurion had never been to the synagogue, and ate pork for breakfast. According to the rabbi leading the Bible study group that he attended, Ben-Gurion “unconsciously believed he was blessed with a spark from Joshua’s soul.” “There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible,” he used to say.[1] He wrote in his diary in 1948, ten days after declaring independence, “We will break Transjordan [Jordan], bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight — we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo,” then he adds: “This will be in revenge for what they did to our forefathers during biblical times.”[2] Three days after the Israeli invasion of the Sinai in 1956, he declared before the Knesset that what was at stake was “the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon.”[3] Ben-Gurion’s attachment to the Bible was shared by almost every Zionist leader of his generation and the next. Moshe Dayan, the military hero of the 1967 Six Day War, wrote a book entitled Living with the Bible (1978) in which he justified the annexation of new territory by the Bible. More recently, Israeli Education minister Naftali Bennett, a proponent of full-scale annexation of the West Bank, did the same.[4] Zionism is biblical by ideology, but also in practice. As Avigail Abarbanel wrote, the Zionist conquerors of Palestine “have been following quite closely the biblical dictate to Joshua to just walk in and take everything. […] For a supposedly non-religious movement it’s extraordinary how closely Zionism […] has followed the Bible.”[5] The paradox is only apparent, because for Zionists, the Bible is not a religious text, but a textbook of history. And so it should be obvious to anybody paying attention that Israel’s behavior on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible’s underlying ideology. Prophecies and geopolitics -------------------------- Only by taking account of the biblical roots of Zionism can one understand why Zionism has never been a nationalist movement like others. It could not be, as Gilad Atzmon remarked, from the moment it defined itself as a Jewish movement, aimed at creating a “Jewish state”.[6] Jewish exceptionalism is a biblical concept that has no equivalent in any other ethnic or religious culture. Neither can Zionism be correctly assessed as a form of colonialism, despite Jabotinsky’s effort to do so. For colonialism seeks not to expel the natives, but to exploit them. If Zionism is colonialism, it can only be in the sense of the colonization of the world by Israel, according to the program laid out by Isaiah: “The riches of the sea will flow to you, the wealth of the nations come to you” (60:5); “You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (60:16); “You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (61:5-6); “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and the nations will be utterly destroyed” (60:12) Christians find hope in Isaiah that, some day, all peoples “will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles. Nations will not lift sword against nation, no longer will they learn how to make war” (Isaiah 2:4). But more important to Zionists are the previous verses, which describe these messianic times as a Pax Judaica, when “all the nations” will pay tribute “to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the god of Jacob,” when “the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem,” so that Yahweh will “judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples.” No wonder Isaiah is the biblical prophet most often quoted by Zionists. In a statement published in the magazine Look on January 16, 1962, Ben-Gurion predicted for the next 25 years: “All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”[7] The launching of the Iraq War was a decisive step toward that goal of a new world order headquartered in Jerusalem. It was the context for a “Jerusalem Summit” held in October 2003 in the highly symbolic King David Hotel, to seal an alliance between Jewish and Christian Zionists. The “Jerusalem Declaration” signed by its participants declared Jerusalem “the key to the harmony of civilizations,” replacing the United Nations that had become “a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships”: “Jerusalem’s spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world’s unity. [. . .] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.” Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the Henry Scoop Jackson Award.[8] When Israeli leaders claim that their vision of the global future is based on the (Hebrew) Bible, we should take them seriously and study the Bible. It might help, for example, to know that according to Deuteronomy Yahweh plans to deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them…” (7:1-2). As for the kings of these seven nations, “you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (7:24). The destruction of the “Seven Nations,” also mentioned in Joshua 24:11, is considered a mitzvah in rabbinic Judaism, included by the great Maimonides in his Book of Commandments,[9] and it has remained a popular motif in Jewish culture, known to every Israeli school child. It is also part of the Neocon agenda for World War IV (as Norman Podhoretz names the current global conflict in World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, 2007). General Wesley Clark, former commandant of NATO in Europe, wrote in his book Winning Modern Wars (2003), and repeated in numerous occasions, that one month after September 11, 2001, as he was paying a visit to Paul Wolfowitz, a Pentagon general showed him a memo “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”[10] In his September 20, 2001 speech, President Bush also targeted seven “rogue states”, but included Cuba and North Korea instead of Lebanon and Somalia. The likely explanation to that discrepancy is that Bush or his entourage refused to include Lebanon and Somalia, but that the number seven was retained for its symbolic value, as an encrypted signature. Without question, the neocons who were writing Bush’s war agenda were Zionists of the most fanatical and Machiavellian kind. But the neocon viper’s nest is not the only place to look for crypto-Zionists infiltrated in the highest spheres of US foreign and military affairs. Consider, for example, that Wesley Clark is the son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and the proud descendant of a lineage of rabbis. It is hard to believe that he never heard about the Bible’s “seven nations”? Is Clark himself, together with the Amy Goodmans who interviewed him, trying to write history in biblical terms, while blaming these wars on the Pentagon’s warmongers? What’s going on, here? A lesson from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah -------------------------------------------- To understand how the crypto-Zionists have hijacked the Empire’s military power into proxy wars, a lesson can be learned from Book of Ezra and its sequel, the Book of Nehemiah. At the time of Ezra, the imperial power was Persia. After the Persians had conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, some of the exiles and their descendants (42,360 people with their 7,337 servants and 200 male and female singers, according to Ezra 2:64-67) returned to Jerusalem under the protection of King Cyrus, with the project of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus begins the Book of Ezra: “Yahweh roused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia to issue a proclamation and to have it publicly displayed throughout his kingdom: ‘Cyrus king of Persia says this, Yahweh, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me to build him a temple in Jerusalem, in Judah.’” (Ezra 1:1-2). For acting on behalf of Yahweh, Cyrus is bestowed the title of God’s “Anointed” (Mashiah) in Isaiah 45:1. “Thus says Yahweh to his anointed one, to Cyrus whom, he says, I have grasped by his right hand, to make the nations bow before him and to disarm kings: […] It is for the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, that I have called you by your name, have given you a title though you do not know me. […] Though you do not know me, I have armed you.” (Isaiah 45:1-5) A succeeding Persian emperor, Darius, confirmed Cyrus’ edict, authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple, and ordering gigantic burnt offerings financed by “the royal revenue.” Anyone resisting the new theocratic power backed by Persia, “a beam is to be torn from his house, he is to be impaled on it and his house is to be reduced to a rubbish-heap for his offense” (Ezra 6:11). Then another Persian king, Artaxerxes, is supposed to have granted Ezra authority to lead “all members of the people of Israel in my kingdom, including their priests and Levites, who freely choose to go to Jerusalem,” and to rule over “the whole people of Trans-Euphrates [district encompassing all territories West to the Euphrates]” (7:11-26). In 458 BCE, the priest Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem, accompanied by some 1,500 followers. Carrying with him the newly redacted Torah, Ezra called himself the “Secretary of the Law of the God of heaven” (7:21). He was soon joined by Nehemiah, a Persian court official of Judean origin. The edicts of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes are fake. No historian believe them authentic. But the fact that Persian kings granted to a clan of wealthy Levites legal authority for establishing a theocratic semi-autonomous state in Palestine seems historical. What did these proto-Zionists give the Persian kings in return? The Bible does not say, but historians believe that the Judeans exiles in Babylon had won the favor of the Persians by conspiring to help them conquer the city.[11] What is of interest in this biblical narrative is the blueprint for the Zionist strategy of influencing the Empire’s foreign policy for its own advantage. In the late 19th century, the empire was British. Its foreign policy in the Middle East was largely shaped by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Born in a family of Marranos converted back to Judaism in Venice, Disraeli can be considered a forerunner of Zionism, since, well before Theodor Herzl, he tried to include the “restoration of Israel” in the Berlin Congress’ agenda, and hoped to convince the Ottoman Sultan to concede to Palestine as an autonomous Jewish province. He failed, but succeeded in putting the Suez Canal under British control, through funding from his friend Lionel Rothschild (an operation which also consolidated the Rothschilds’ control over the Bank of England). That was the first step in binding British interest and fate to the Middle-East[12]. In short, Disraeli was a modern-day Ezra or Nehemiah, capable of steering the Empire’s policy according to the Jewish agenda of the conquest of Palestine, a dream he had cherished ever since his first trip to Palestine in 1830, at the age of 26, and which he had expressed through the hero of his first novel, The Wondrous Tale of Alroy: “My wish is a national existence which we have not. My wish is the Land of Promise and Jerusalem and the Temple, all we forfeited, all we have yearned after, all for which we have fought, our beauteous country, our holy creed, our simple manners, and our ancient customs.” A quarter of a century after Disraeli, Theodor Herzl also failed to convince the Sultan. It therefore became necessary that the Ottoman Empire disappear and the cards be redistributed. Zionists then played the British against the Ottomans and, by means now well-documented, obtained from the former the Balfour Declaration (in fact a mere letter addressed by Secretary of State Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild). But when the British started to limit Jewish immigration in Palestine in the 1930s, the Zionists turned to the rising new Imperial power: the United States. Today, the stranglehold of Zionists on US imperial policy is such that a few Jewish neocons can pull the US into a series of wars against Israel’s enemies with a single false flag attack. The capacity of Israel to hijack the Empire’s foreign and military policy requires that a substantial Jewish elite remain in the US. Even Israel’s survival is entirely dependent on the influence of the Zionist power complex in the United States (euphemistically called the “pro-Israel lobby”). That is also a lesson learnt from Ezra and Nehemiah’s time: Nehemiah himself retained his principal residence in Babylone and, for centuries after, the kingdom of Israel was virtually ruled by the Babylonian exiles. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Babylon remained the center of universal Judaism. The comparison was made by Jacob Neusner in A History of the Jews in Babylonia(1965), and by Max Dimont in Jews, God and History (1962). The American Jews who prefer to remain in the United States rather than emigrating to Israel are, Dimont argued, as essential to the community as the Babylonian Jews who declined the invitation to return to Palestine in the Persian era: “Today, as once before, we have both an independent State of Israel and the Diaspora. But, as in the past, the State of Israel today is a citadel of Judaism, a haven of refuge, the center of Jewish nationalism where dwell only two million of the world’s twelve million Jews. The Diaspora, although it has shifted its center through the ages with the rise and fall of civilizations, still remains the universal soul of Judaism.”[13] Conclusion ---------- In the words of the Zionists themselves, including Herzl himself, Zionism was supposed to be the “final solution” to the Jewish question[14]. In 1947, the whole world hoped that it would be, except for Arab leaders who warned against it. But Israel’s existence has only resulted in changing the “Jewish question” into the “Zionist question”: the question about the true ambitions of Israel. Part of the answer is to be found in the Hebrew Bible. The Zionist question is the Biblical question. Zionists themselves tell us so. Their mouths are full of the Bible. On March 3, 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dramatized in front of the American Congress his deep phobia of Iran by referring to the biblical Book of Esther (the only Bible story that makes no mention of God, incidently). It is worth quoting the heart of his rhetorical appeal to a US strike against Iran: “We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”[15] Netanyahu managed to schedule his address to the Congress on the eve of Purim, which celebrates the happy end of the Book of Esther — the slaughter of 75,000 Persians, women and children included. This typical speech by the head of the State of Israel is clear indication that the behavior of that nation on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible’s underlying ideology. Such is the main objective of my new book, From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, translated by Kevin Barrett. May those who still want to believe that Zionism has nothing to do with the Bible think twice. Even the nuclear policy of Israel has a biblical name: the Samson Option.[16] And let them read the Prophets: “And this is the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the nations who have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet; their eyes will rot in their sockets; their tongues will rot in their mouths.” (Zechariah 14:12) Notes: 1. Dan Kurzman, Ben-Gurion, Prophet of Fire, Touchstone, 1983, p. 17-18, 22, 26-28. 2. Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications, 2007, p. 144. 3. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, 1994, p. 10. 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Png17wB_omA 5. Avigail Abarbanel, “Why I left the Cult,” October 8, 2016, on mondoweiss.net 6. Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto, Skyscraper, 2017, pp. 66-67. 7. David Ben-Gurion and Amram Duchovny, David Ben-Gurion, In His Own Words, Fleet Press Corp., 1969, p. 116 8. Official website: www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/declaration.php 9. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961561/jewish/Positive-Comman… 10. Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, Public Affairs, 2003, p. 130. 11. For example, Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (archive.org) vol. 1, p. 343. 12. On Disraeli’s proto-Zionist policy, read my article : https://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/02/13/515416tracking-the-roots-of-zion… 13. Quoted in Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon: Those Who Reign Supreme, American Free Press, 2009, p. 27 14. The first Zionist association inspired by Herzl’s program, the National-jüdische Vereinigung Köln, declared as its goal in 1897: “The Final Solution of the Jewish Question lies therefore in the establishment of the Jewish State” (quoted in Isaiah Friedman, Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897–1918, Transaction Publishers, 1998, p. 17). Herzl wrote: “I believe I have found the solution of the Jewish Question. Not a solution, but the solution, the only one,” repeating further that Zionism was “the only possible, final, and successful solution of the Jewish Question” (The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Raphael Patai, Herzl Press & Thomas Yoseloff, 1960, vol. 1, p. 118). 15. “The Complete Transcript of Netanyahu’s Address to Congress,” on www.washingtonpost.com 16. Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991.

1 1

Signal on the Desktop, Plays FBI Subpoena
by grarpamp 26 Jul '18

26 Jul '18

https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/10/04/2144202/encryption-app-signal-wins… http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/signal-subpoena-privacy-gag-order/ https://apnews.com/2bed090d3ec042cab375278b636ff5e5/US-subpoena-tests-priva… http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/technology/subpoenas-and-gag-orders-show-… https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/open_whisper_docume… Signal, widely considered the gold standard of encrypted messaging apps, was put to the test earlier this year when a FBI subpoena and gag order that demanded a wide range of information on two users resulted in a federal grand jury investigation in Virginia. The makers of Signal, Open Whisper Systems, profoundly disappointed law enforcement. The app collects as little data as possible and therefore was unable to hand anything useful over to agents. "That's not because Signal chose not to provide logs of information," ACLU lawyer Brett Kaufman told the Associated Press. "It's just that it couldn't." "The Signal service was designed to minimize the data we retain," Moxie Marlinspike, the founder of Open Whisper Systems, told the New York Times. The subpoena came with a yearlong gag order that was successfully challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. Signal's creators challenged the gag order as unconstitutional, "because it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." The challenge was successful. In addition to being popularly considered the best consumer encrypted messaging app available, Signal's technology is used by Facebook for Secret Conversations, WhatsApp for encrypted messages, and Google's Allo. Confronted with the subpoena, Marlinspike went to the ACLU for legal counsel. The ACLU responded with a letter saying that even though Signal did not have data the FBI sought, it still strenuously objected (PDF) to the fact the FBI wanted so much information.

4 3

[LIBERTY] [MINISTRY] SCOTUS: Bundy's exonerated, Judge slams “outrageous” abuses and “flagrant misconduct” of FBI and "Justice" Department
by Zenaan Harkness 13 Jul '18

13 Jul '18

Well here's a rare breath of fresh air for Murricans in a Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS ) decision exonerating the Bundys - one for the history books, and well done folks, well firetrucking done!‼! Perhaps the Ruby Ridge $3 million payout will give precedent for the Bundy's (not that that can ever compensate for what the govt did on Ruby Ridge), but what's really needed is for you folk across the pond to get some proper grand juries going against the FBI and DOJ - the govt shills will shout "you citizens can't do that!!!" from the rooftops and every forum, but that won't stop a small committed and determined group from achieving their careful and well-planned approach to this "problem". Good luck, Government's Misconduct In Cliven Bundy Case Stems From Ruby Ridge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-15/governments-misconduct-cliven-bun… (Quite a few links in the linked article) Federal judge Gloria Navarro slammed the FBI and Justice Department on Monday, Jan. 8, for “outrageous” abuses and “flagrant misconduct” in the prosecution of Cliven Bundy and sons, the Nevada ranchers who spurred a high-profile standoff with the FBI and Bureau of Land Management in 2014. Navarro condemned the "grossly shocking” withholding of evidence from defense counsel in a case that could have landed the Bundys in prison for the rest of their lives. Navarro, who had declared a mistrial last month, dismissed all charges against the Bundys. Navarro was especially riled because the FBI spent three years covering up or lying about the role of their snipers in the 2014 standoff. The Bundys faced conspiracy charges because they summoned militia to defend them after claiming FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at this claim but newly-released documents vindicate the Bundys. In an interview Saturday, Ammon Bundy reviled the feds: “They basically came to kill our family, they surrounded us with snipers. And then they wanted to lie about it all like none of it happened." Many of the heavily-armed activists who flocked to the scene feared that the FBI snipers had a license to kill the Bundys. Their reaction cannot be understood without considering a landmark 1990s case that continues to shape millions of Americans’ attitude towards Washington: the federal killings and coverups at Ruby Ridge. Randy Weaver and his family lived in an isolated cabin in the mountains of northern Idaho. Weaver was a white separatist who believed races should live apart; he had no record of violence against other races — or anyone else. An undercover federal agent entrapped him into selling a sawed-off shotgun. The feds then sought to pressure Weaver to become an informant but he refused. After Weaver was sent the wrong court date and failed to show up, the feds launched a vendetta. Idaho lawyer David Nevin noted that U.S.: “Marshals called in military aerial reconnaissance and had photos studied by the Defense Mapping Agency. They prowled the woods around Weaver’s cabin with night-vision equipment. They had psychological profiles performed and installed $130,000 worth of long-range solar-powered spy cameras. … They even knew the menstrual cycle of Weaver’s teenage daughter, and planned an arrest scenario around it.” On August 21, 1992, six camouflaged U.S. Marshals carrying machine guns trespassed onto the Weavers’ property. Three marshals circled close to the Weaver cabin and killed one of their dogs. A firefight ensued and 14-year old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back and killed as he was leaving the scene. Kevin Harris, a family friend, responded by fatally shooting a federal marshal who had fired seven shots in the melee. The next day, the FBI sent in its Hostage Rescue Team snipers with orders to shoot to kill any adult male outside the Weaver cabin. A federal appeals court ruling later noted that: “FBI agents formulated rules of engagement that permitted their colleagues to hide in the bushes and gun down men who posed no immediate threat. Such wartime rules are patently unconstitutional for a police action.” FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of his cabin, wounding him. Horiuchi then shot and killed Vicki Weaver standing in the cabin door holding their 10-month old baby. A confidential 1994 Justice Department task force report concluded: “The absence of a (surrender demand) subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack.” Weaver and Harris surrendered after an 11-day siege. At their 1993 trial, federal prosecutors asserted that Weaver long conspired to have an armed confrontation with the government. The feds bizarrely asserted that moving from Iowa to a spot near the Canadian border in 1985 was part of Weaver’s plot. After an Idaho jury largely exonerated the defendants, federal judge Edward Lodge slammed DOJ and FBI misconduct and fabrication of evidence in the case. Regardless of the judge’s condemnation, FBI chief Louis Freeh in 1995 exonerated the FBI for its actions at Ruby Ridge. That year, after I slammed Freeh’s whitewash in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, Freeh denounced my “inflammatory and unfounded allegations.” Five months later, I snared a confidential 542-page Justice Department report on Ruby Ridge, excerpting its damning findings in a Wall Street Journal piece. The coverup unraveled and the feds paid the Weaver family $3.1 million to settle their wrongful-death lawsuit. A top FBI official was sent to prison for destroying key evidence. But the FBI sniper who killed Vicki Weaver never faced justice. When Boundary County, Idaho, sought to prosecute Horiuchi in 1998, the Clinton administration invoked the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (which blocks local and state governments from challenging federal power) to torpedo their lawsuit. Solicitor General Seth Waxman absolved the sniper because “federal law-enforcement officials are privileged to do what would otherwise be unlawful if done by a private citizen.” While that claim may sway federal judges, it often fails to charm jurors. A Justice Department brief in the Bundy case revealed that prosecutors dreaded jury nullification — “not guilty” verdicts due to government abuses. That specter spurred prosecutors to withhold key evidence from both the court and the defense counsel, resulting in a mistrial and dismissal of charges. Judge Navarro rightly declared that “a universal sense of justice has been violated” by federal misconduct in the Bundy trial. Americans’ trust in the FBI and Justice Department will not be restored until those agencies are compelled to obey the law and the Constitution. Until that happens, federal prosecutors should continue fearing verdicts from Americans who refuse to convict those whom the feds wrongfully vilify. * * * James Bovard is a USA Today columnist and the author of 10 books, including “Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty” (St. Martin’s Press, 1994).

5 7

"Too much netflix and youtube syndrome" affecting 'Merican children
by Razer 07 Jul '18

07 Jul '18

A friend of mine about her four year old: "My daughter was doing a little song and dance this morning and was really boogieing down. She paused for a second and said,"I'm buffering" Rr

9 13

Solzhenitsyn - enduring in/out of Rus, on Crimea, something other than "neo-Communist hysterics"
by Zenaan Harkness 30 Jun '18

30 Jun '18

Without doubt, Alexander Solzhenitsyn's legacy shall continue to grow as one of the historical “carers of humanity” of all time. The latest rise is of course thanks to Jordan Peterson's not infrequent (and glowing) references to Solzhenitsyn's “Gulag Archipelago” - though this was by no means his only foundational written work. The Untz Review floats this “preamble to Kholmogorov’s yet-unpublished Solzhenitsynean magnum opus” to guage interest in the possibility of The Untz Review doing a full 4-part series on Solzhenitsyn - so if you find this worth the time to read, forward it and we might see some more. Continue to create your world fellow Souls, ** Alexander Solzhenitsyn - A Russian Prophet https://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413… ------------------------------------------------------------ by Yegor Kholmogorov The Unz Review (881 views) on Sat, May 5, 2018 Translator’s Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus) Almost by necessity, all previous Kholmogorov translations have been those of his older texts, with a “lag” between the original and the translation varying between several days and several months. What you see now is a much rarer treat. Kholmogorov has just finished a long and engrossing article on Alexander Solzhenitsyn, clocking in at 16,000 words, to be published by a Russian conservative outlet. Publishing a complete translation on The Unz Review would require the text to be split into three or four parts, and would be an exercise in futility if the figure of Solzhenitsyn doesn’t attract enough attention from the readership in the first place. Go Vienna¦ ** 'Comrade Jew' - Vienna Jewish Museum Highlights Jewish Role in Soviet Communism https://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413… ------------------------------------------------------------ by TNO Staff The New Observer (670 views) on Sat, May 5, 2018 The Vienna Jewish Museum is currently holding a special exhibition highlighting the Jewish role in the creation of the Soviet Union and Communism, titled “Comrade Jew: We Only Wanted Paradise on Earth” (Genosse. Jude. Wir wollten nur das Paradies auf Erden) using a Soviet era cartoon of Karl Marx in a Moses pose holding tablets inscribed with “Das Kapital” and the “Communist Manifesto.” According to the Museum’s official website, the exhibition marks the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, and runs until May 1, 2018. According to the write up which accompanies the official leaflet, the exhibition focusses on the fact that the Communists “attracted many Jews seeking a radical break after centuries of anti-Semitism in the Czarist empire,” and that the “utopian idea of an egalitarian society prompted them to support the new state.” In Austria, the museum adds in its write up, “antisemitism in the bourgeois parties in particular made the workers’ movement into a political option for Jews, and there were close links between Russian and Austrian Marxists. “The exhibition focuses on the failed dream of a better world. We look at the idea of an egalitarian society from an Austrian Jewish perspective and trace diplomatic, political, social, and cultural connections,” the exhibition introduction states. …The NYT journalist, Jason Farago, feels obligated to tell his readers that “You don’t need me to tell you that this is still hot stuff, a hundred years on. …“Jews did make up a disproportionate percentage of leftist utopians. …“A copy of the Russian newspaper Pravda, edited by the exiled Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) from Vienna, bellows for workers of the world to unite. …“El Lissitzky, who earlier printed folksy lithographs of Passover stories, now painted geometric collisions such as ‘Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge’ (1920).” …The NYT journalist of course cannot complete the article without referring to the “danger” of Austria’s Freedom Party. As it says: “But downstairs, in the Jewish Museum’s permanent collection display, I saw something I have never before seen in a historical museum: a screenshot of a Facebook post, presented with the same care and regard as centuries’ worth of Judaica. “The post features an image of a fat, sweaty banker, with a hooked nose and stars on his cuff links, gorging on delicacies while a starving fellow diner, labeled “the people,” has only a bone to eat. “The man who posted it is Heinz-Christian Strache: the leader of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party and, since December, the country’s vice chancellor. A specter is haunting Europe today, and it is not the one these comrades foresaw.”

1 1

Re: American Culture
by juan 14 Jun '18

14 Jun '18

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:25:58 -0800 g2s <g2s(a)riseup.net> wrote: > Ben Franklin was the only president of the United States who was > never president of the United States oh sorry, my bad, I got him mixed up with washington, another slave owner. And granted, frankling only owned 2 slaves apparently, so he really was an American Humanist, but a poor one, who couldn't afford many slaves. > -Firesign Theater, Everything > You Know Is Wrong Rr -------- Original message --------From: juan > <juan.g71(a)gmail.com> Date: 1/27/18 11:31 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cp > <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> Subject: American Culture [Redacted crap] > > signed : american founding fucker, president, and slave owner, > > franklin. > > > > > > > > > > >

2 2