February 2022 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Restored lost post from back-up
by professor rat 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Anarchist says e-mails harmless; feds disagree https://buttdarling.insanejournal.com/129512.html?mode=reply

1 0

COVID-19 vaccines are not all honey-over-cornflakes
by professor rat 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Returning to Fox Business, Neil Cavuto credits vaccination with saving his life. Bummer. Hopefully strong AI will be able to tweak the cure so only those deserving get it.

1 0

Batshit Crazies bum-buddy
by professor rat 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Batshit-crazies intellectual bum-buddy, Yasha Levine, used to rant and rave about the dramatic technonazi fascism loose in Silicon Valley. He even wrote a book about it. The problem was his ' Surveillance Valley " couldn't have been half as bad as he and his Nazbol-Turd mates made out. His next book was on evil doings in the Almond trade! Not all Nazbol-Turds are stupid - but most of them are stupid. Nuts.

1 0

New York Post : With media targeting truckers' donors, say goodbye to anonymous free speech
by jim bell 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

New York Post : With media targeting truckers' donors, say goodbye to anonymous free speech. https://nypost.com/2022/02/20/media-targeting-donors-to-canadas-protest-lea… In Canada, first the doxing, then the struggle session. This week, one of the most popular small-donor fundraising sites for the Canadian truckers protesting the COVID vaccine mandates, GiveSendGo, was hacked. The names of donors were shared with the public. We know about this mostly because erstwhile news organizations, such as Reuters, have showered attention on the breach as if they were providing a public service. Indeed, many of the same outlets that refused to report specifics about the Hunter Biden email scoop in 2020 (though the story was obtained in a completely ethical journalistic manner) or share specifics from the Democratic National Committee email hacks in 2016 (illegally obtained, but with high news value) have no compunction highlighting a site that takes aim at ordinary people who have done nothing but engage in political dissent. In Canada, the doxing has already begun. Tammy Giuliani, a small-business owner who employs 40 people, was forced to shut down her gelato shop because of threats made against her employees after her $250 donation to the truckers’ cause was disclosed, according to the Ottawa Citizen. The Citizen’s Blair Crawford doesn’t marvel at the fact that a person who lives in a (nominally) liberal democracy can be intimidated for engaging in political protest, but instead strongly insinuates that Giuliani had it coming: “Giuliani made her Feb. 5 donation on the second weekend of the demonstration, when Ottawa police were describing it as ‘volatile and dangerous’ and lawyers were seeking a court injunction to silence the constant blaring of air horns in the downtown core.”

1 0

Signs of victims mentality
by professor rat 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Signs for victim mentality https://www.healthline.com/health/victim-mentality#signs Mong helps those who help themselves

1 0

The Liberal-Democratic Objection to Anarchism
by professor rat 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Liberal-Democracy, or non-fascist conservatism, is afraid to make direct criticisms of Anarchism because to do so undermines the whole reasoning of Liberal-Democracy. It therefore resorts to falsification https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/albert-meltzer-anarchism-arguments-…

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Bonfire of the Currencies, WarOnCash, CBDCs
by grarpamp 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/cash-cryptocurrencies-future-of-m… https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674258440 https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178363/the-curse-of-cash https://blogs.imf.org/2021/10/01/crypto-boom-poses-new-challenges-to-financ… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-15/crypto-market-retakes-2-… https://ur.booksc.eu/book/78468213/2295bd https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2000/02/17/e-cash-20 https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/32/5/1798/5427781 https://www.sanddollar.bs/ Two recent books by renowned economists have set the stage for today's great debate over the future of money in a digital age. In particular, public and private moneys are entering into a sustained rivalry, with far-reaching implications for markets and politics. Eswar S. Prasad, The Future of Money: How the Digital Revolution Is Transforming Currencies and Finance, Harvard University Press, 2021. Kenneth S. Rogoff, The Curse of Cash: How Large-Denomination Bills Aid Crime and Tax Evasion and Constrain Monetary Policy, Princeton University Press, 2017. Ready or not, the financial world is being forced to face the possibility of a future without traditional notes and coins. Is cash going the way of the dodo? Should the prospect of its extinction be welcomed or feared? And what would its disappearance mean for domestic and global markets and politics? Two recent books by renowned economists have set the stage for the coming debates, highlighting two questions in particular. The first is whether cash should disappear. The second is whether it actually will disappear. Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Eswar Prasad of Cornell University have much to say on both issues. DOES MONEY MAKE THE WORLD GO AROUND? For Rogoff, cash is a curse. Paper currency, he argues, “lies at the heart of some of today’s most intractable public finance and monetary problems,” and thus should be phased out as quickly as possible. He highlights two big problems. On one hand, by permitting large recurrent and anonymous transactions, cash facilitates tax evasion and other crimes. High-denomination bills like US “Benjamins” ($100 notes) or Switzerland’s 1,000 franc note play a starring role in a broad range of criminal activities, from drug trafficking and money laundering to racketeering and extortion. On the other hand, cash handicaps monetary policy. The availability of currency effectively sets a “zero lower bound” on interest rates. Returns on Treasury bills or other fixed-income securities cannot fall much below zero so long as people have the option of holding paper money, which at least pays zero interest. Cash therefore ties central bankers’ hands, inhibiting negative-interest-rate policies. The Curse of Cash represents the culmination of a campaign that Rogoff has waged for more than two decades, and he pulls no punches in his advocacy of a “less-cash” economy. Written in accessible if somewhat colorless language, it is a clarion call for action – in effect, a manifesto for our times. The sense of urgency is palpable. Prasad, by contrast, is more in the forecasting business. He believes we are in the midst of a financial revolution that is being driven by “FinTech” – the ongoing wave of innovations in financial technologies that are dramatically disrupting traditional ways of doing business. In the vanguard are cryptocurrencies, a new class of financial instruments that threaten to displace conventional notes and coins. “The era of cash is drawing to an end,” Prasad declares, though he hesitates to offer any firm predictions concerning what will come next. Prasad’s text is relatively easy to read, showing flashes of humor despite the complexities of the subject. Its analysis, however, is ultimately inconclusive, because most of its discussions end cautiously (and rather unhelpfully) with words like “seem,” “may,” or “could.” In a book that aspires to be virtually encyclopedic in its coverage, Prasad’s takeaway message is that there remain “many unanswered questions.” THE FINTECH DISRUPTION Cryptocurrencies have become one of the hottest sectors in finance, led by Bitcoin, which is barely a decade old. New cryptocurrencies have since proliferated like dandelions; according to the International Monetary Fund, there are around 9,000 digital tokens listed on various exchanges today. Earlier this year, the market value of all crypto assets surpassed $2 trillion – a tenfold increase in not much more than a year. The roots of the crypto boom go back to the dawn of the digital age in the last years of the twentieth century. Traditional notes and coins are creatures of an analog world, physical in nature and reliant on face-to-face interactions. Cryptocurrencies, by contrast, are digital – that is, based on encrypted strings of zeros and ones – and transferable through vast electronic networks. Once computers and the internet came to be part of our daily life, smart operators realized that it might be possible to create units of purchasing power that would be fully usable through cyberspace. The race was on to produce “virtual” money that could be employed as easily as conventional paper money or coins to acquire real goods, services, or assets. The earliest attempts to achieve this, going back to the 1990s, aimed simply to facilitate the settlement of payments electronically. These initiatives, which The Economist once playfully labeled “e-cash version 1.0,” included diverse card-based systems as well as network-based systems. Operating on a principle of full pre-payment by users, each scheme functioned as not much more than a convenient proxy for conventional cash – in effect, something akin to a glorified traveler’s check. Few caught on with the general public. Subsequent models, “e-cash version 2.0,” were more ambitious, aspiring to produce genuine substitutes for traditional notes and coins. Examples included Flooz (using the comedienne Whoopi Goldberg as a spokesperson) and Beenz. But the impact of these schemes, too, was limited, because most were offered as a reward for buying products or services from designated vendors – constituting, in effect, updated electronic versions of ancient scrip. Vendor-specific media live on in airline mileage programs and the like; but they failed to provide a direct substitute for traditional currency. Most disappeared after the brief downturn in financial markets at the turn of the century. REVOLUTIONARY DAWN Then came Bitcoin, a revolutionary innovation introduced in 2009 by a person (or persons) who remains anonymous. Bitcoin could be called “e-cash version 3.0.” Designed as a decentralized payments system independent of governments and private financial institutions, the currency has soared in popularity. Since Bitcoin’s unheralded inception, its price has skyrocketed from $1 per unit to as much as $66,000 earlier this month. Many other digital currencies, including increasingly well-known rivals such as Ether, Litecoin, and Ripple, have followed in its wake, especially over the past year. Prasad calls Bitcoin the “granddaddy” of cryptocurrencies. Digital money is now an established part of the global financial ecology, and has been declared legal tender in two countries, El Salvador and Cuba. Prasad finds it hard to conceal his enthusiasm for Bitcoin, which he describes as “truly ingenious and innovative.” Words like “magic,” “genius,” and “elegant” are liberally sprinkled throughout his discussion. For anyone who really wants to understand how the currency works in all its technical splendor, there is no better introduction than Prasad’s fourth chapter, which dwells on the Bitcoin revolution in elaborate detail. There you will find a step-by-step tutorial on the currency’s underpinnings – the so-called blockchain technology that enables Bitcoin to function without any trusted central authority to manage it. No government agency or private institution is needed to validate transactions. Instead, blockchain relies exclusively on a public consensus mechanism managed through a peer-to-peer network that alerts participants to every exchange in real time. A publicly shared ledger of transactions is created and maintained in a decentralized network. The ledger is called a blockchain because once transactions coming into the network are grouped into blocks of data and validated, the blocks are then chained together. The “magic” comes from delegating trust and verification to the public square. As Prasad breathlessly puts it, “This is people power, backed up by computing power, at its finest.” People power to manage money is obviously attractive to libertarians and others who, taking inspiration from the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, have long argued for the “denationalization” of currency. Governments, driven by politics, all too frequently abuse their control of “state” money, sooner or later generating runaway inflation. In recent years, we have seen that ruinous process devastate countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Cybercurrencies, by contrast, are designed to rely on market forces to keep the growth of money supply in line with real economic activity. Inflation, crypto enthusiasts contend, will be contained by the wisdom of crowds. THE CRACKS IN CRYPTO But there are also downsides, and they are not insignificant. First and most obvious is the danger that competition among cybercurrencies could lead their sponsors to take ever greater risks. Many of the thousands of digital tokens currently available are backed by nothing more than flimsy promises. Even so-called “stablecoins” like Tether or USD Coin, which in principle are fully backed by conventional reserves, are in practice often quite lacking in transparency. Observers frequently liken today’s cybercurrencies to the private bank notes that circulated in the United States during the co-called free-banking era of the nineteenth century. But that system was fragile and frequently subject to “runs,” owing to the ebb and flow of public trust. Crowds did not always show the greatest wisdom. Why should we expect today’s cybercurrencies to be any less prone to panics and wild price fluctuations? Just in the last year, Bitcoin has traded up and down by over 50%. Prasad calls it “wacky ... a wild roller-coaster ride.” Others might call it a bubble that could burst any time. Second, the prospect of unfettered price volatility limits cybercurrencies’ usefulness as a medium of exchange. Who wants to accept payment in a currency whose value might drop through the floor tomorrow? Admittedly, there will always be some market actors, particularly criminal elements, who might value cryptocurrencies’ supposed anonymity enough to take the risk. It stands to reason, then, that Rogoff’s complaints about the role of cash in facilitating tax evasion and other nefarious activities apply to cybercurrencies as well. But Rogoff himself suggests that the real threat from cybercurrencies lies elsewhere. “Yes,” he says, “digital currencies raise important questions for the future, but more as competitors for other financial instruments and institutions, not so much for paper currency.” Prasad agrees, suggesting that the allure of digital currencies for illegal activities is wearing off. Some scholars, however, estimate that criminal activities still account for as much as 50% of Bitcoin transactions. Moreover, the legitimate business world does not appear to be attracted to the quotidian use of cybercurrencies. Instead, cybercurrencies have primarily become a vehicle for risk-loving investors, serving as a class of speculative assets reminiscent of the seventeenth-century tulip mania in the Netherlands, when a single bulb sold for the equivalent of a mansion on the Amsterdam Grand Canal. In a sense, the “cybercurrency” label is a misnomer, because none of these new creatures actually perform all three of the traditional functions of money: medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value. They are, at best, liquid quasi-moneys. THE STATE VS. CRYPTO Looming over the entire incipient debate is the possibility of a real threat to state authority in monetary affairs. The more that ordinary transactions come to be conducted in cryptocurrencies, the more difficult it will be for monetary authorities to manage existing payments systems via traditional interest-rate policy or open-market operations. If traditional cash becomes largely extinct, so, too, does much of the power of central banks. That is why we now see mounting interest around the world in the development of central-bank digital currencies (CBDCs). As Prasad points out, there is nothing mysterious about central-bank digital money. It is simply an existing fiat currency that is issued by a monetary authority in digital form as a complement to or in place of conventional notes and coins. For a clear guide to the merits and risks of such an innovation, readers could do worse than to consult Prasad’s sixth chapter, which provides a careful point-by-point examination of the case for CBDCs. The rationale for CBDCs is simple: fight fire with fire. If conventional paper money really is going the way of the dodo, monetary authorities should create a more attractive alternative. In any competition with privately issued rivals, CBDCs would have the advantage of being firmly backed by the full faith and credit of their sovereign governments. One country, the Bahamas, has already created a CBDC of its own – the sand dollar – and others like Sweden and Uruguay are quickly moving in the same direction. Who will prevail? Writing some five years ago, before the cryptocurrency craze really took off, Rogoff expressed confidence in governments’ ability to fend off any competitive threat from the private sector. This is not the first time, he points out, that currency innovations have emerged from the private sector to leapfrog ahead of publicly issued money, at least for a time. In every previous instance, he insists, innovations were either tamed by regulation or appropriated by governments, which have broad advantages in providing a safe guaranteed asset. Some governments, most notably China, have already begun cracking down on cryptocurrencies. “If the private sector comes up with a much better way of doing things,” Rogoff observes, not without a touch of cynicism, “the government will eventually adapt and regulate as necessary to eventually win out.” But Prasad is not so sure. Writing more recently, he notes that cryptocurrencies have come a long way in the last half-decade. Yes, he concedes, central banks are likely to remain central. But that does not rule out sustained rivalry between the private and public sectors. Privately issued digital currencies have competitive advantages of their own, including faster, lower-cost transactions and broader access to financial products and services. A “glorious future” beckons, Prasad concludes – before adding, “perhaps.”

1 1

Cryptocurrency: Maxi's Lies About BTC+Lightning For Everyone
by grarpamp 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Honest analysts know BTC current cannot scale onchain, and that Lightning is fraught with numerous technical and meta level problems, including censorship, privacy, centralization, kyc, breaking offline p2p on the fly, etc. Yet BTC Maxi's have continued to lie and propagandize for years about this, with Saylor becoming the latest high profile victim of Lightning propaganda. People need to call Bitcoin out. Others need to make better cryptos that maximise for txrates first, then worry about extending that through other methods. BTC's blocksize cap and unbounded growth of required disk storage space does not and cannot do that, and Moore's Law they rely on for that is trending to flatness. Holding gold has no purpose or utility if you can't get your transaction into the queue. Since BTC can only handle ~550k transacting users per day, and the planet has 4 Billion readily coin-bankable users, Maxi's (now aka hypocrite wealthy bankers) are full of shit on this... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+bad https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+sucks https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+flaws https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+problems https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+failed https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+risks https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+unsafe https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+scam https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lightning+network+fraud https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew2MWVtNAt0 Partial list of flaws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMgNsAdaNm8 Even Andreas Can't Deny Basic LN Problems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AtEGcl7nJY LN worthless if users can't settle onchain Propaganda and Lies... America's Forgotten Seven Million: Unlocking Financial Freedom Through Bitcoin https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/america-unlocking-bitcoin-financial-fre… Bitcoin is about people, not price. While the U.S. continues to focus on bitcoin as an investment asset, other parts of the world are showing us the true use cases of Bitcoin. In countries like Argentina, El Salvador and Nigeria, Bitcoin is a means to financial inclusion. The emerging markets demonstrate that Bitcoin has the power to connect the unbanked and underbanked to the larger global financial ecosystem. They are providing a strong foundation for the West, showing us how Bitcoin can reduce wealth inequality and solve some of the world’s greatest financial challenges. In 2021, 18% of American adults were either unbanked or underbanked. The unbanked, often from underinvested communities, did not even have access to a basic bank account, while the underbanked were shut out from banking services based on income or a lack of education. Bitcoin finally changes this narrative, offering a solution for the millions ignored by today's financial system. Peer-to-peer finance provides a real and sustainable alternative to traditional finance for the 99% and beyond, giving the next generation a new chance at economic opportunity. EDUCATION FOR THE PEOPLE Education on Bitcoin and its true use cases remain the biggest challenge in the U.S. Bitcoin has the power to reduce barriers to wealth for the forgotten seven million who remain unbanked. It is access to financial opportunity for the 100%, bridging the gap for the underrepresented. When mayors from cities like New York and Miami begin to call for Bitcoin education to be taught in schools, we know that our time is now. We’re seeing progress happen across the country. In places like the Bronx, New York, students are being taught the value of peer-to-peer networks as a tool for financial freedom. And at universities, Bitcoin courses are being integrated into their curriculum. But, this is just the beginning of unlocking the true power of Bitcoin education. Through Bitcoin, the people have the opportunity to take financial power back into their own hands, and it’s our responsibility to do our part to fill this gap. By staying connected to the streets, businesses and leaders in the space can utilize their platforms for good. Take El Salvador for example. At Paxful, we’re seeing the need for education on the ground. While the country became the first to roll out bitcoin as legal tender, the biggest challenge for the people remains education. In response, we’ve launched La Casa del Bitcoin, a new education and training center in San Salvador. The center is providing free, no-cost education to anyone interested in learning about the power of Bitcoin and giving them the tools they need to succeed. BITCOIN IN AMERICA Bitcoin is a borderless and permissionless technology that was built for the world. It is a tool that can move value across borders and change the way people access the global economy. For Renata Rodrigues, a Paxful user (and employee) in the U.S., bitcoin is a means for supporting her family overseas in Brazil. By buying and selling bitcoin, she is able to avoid expensive remittance fees while also earning a little in return. Addressing the issues of both price and speed in traditional methods of remittance, Bitcoin solves this. The next wave of Bitcoin adoption has begun. With cryptocurrency making its debut at America’s biggest sporting event of the year, we know that we’re on our way to reaching mass adoption. But Bitcoin will never reach its full potential in the U.S. if we continue to view it solely for speculation and investment rather than connecting to its real use cases. Let’s not make the mistake of mirroring it after traditional financial systems and use education to drive financial freedom. Because global Bitcoin adoption begins and ends with education. It’s time to put the “greed is good” narrative to bed and start working for the people.

1 0

Freedom Protests: The Neoliberal War On Dissent In The West
by grarpamp 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Greenwald: The Neoliberal War On Dissent In The West https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-neoliberal-war-on-dissent-in When it comes to distant and adversarial countries, we are taught to recognize tyranny through the use of telltale tactics of repression. Dissent from orthodoxies is censored. Protests against the state are outlawed. Dissenters are harshly punished with no due process. Long prison terms are doled out for political transgressions rather than crimes of violence. Journalists are treated as criminals and spies. Opposition to the policies of political leaders are recast as crimes against the state. [65][IMG][66]Police in Canada deployed to dislodge the final truckers and protesters from downtown Ottawa, aimed at bringing an end to three weeks of demonstrations over Covid-19 health rules. (Photo by Dave Chan / AFP) (Photo by DAVE CHAN/AFP via Getty Images) When a government that is adverse to the West engages in such conduct, it is not just easy but obligatory to malign it as despotic. Thus can one find, on a virtually daily basis, articles in the Western press citing the government's use of those tactics in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and whatever other countries the West has an interest in disparaging (articles about identical tactics from regimes supported by the West — from Riyadh to Cairo — are much rarer). That the use of these repressive tactics render these countries and their populations subject to autocratic regimes is considered undebatable. But when these weapons are wielded by Western governments, the precise opposite framework is imposed: describing them as despotic is no longer obligatory but virtually prohibited. That tyranny exists only in Western adversaries but never in the West itself is treated as a permanent axiom of international affairs, as if Western democracies are divinely shielded from the temptations of genuine repression. Indeed, to suggest that a Western democracy has descended to the same level of authoritarian repression as the West's official enemies is to assert a proposition deemed intrinsically absurd or even [67]vaguely treasonous. The implicit guarantor of this comforting framework is democracy. Western countries, according to this mythology, can never be as repressive as their enemies because Western governments are at least elected democratically. This assurance, superficially appealing though it may be, completely collapses with the slightest critical scrutiny. The premise of the U.S. Constitution and others like it is that majoritarian despotism is dangerous in the extreme; the Bill of Rights consists of little more than limitations imposed on the tyrannical measures majorities might seek to democratically enact (the expression of ideas cannot be criminalized even if majorities want them to be; religious freedom cannot be abolished even if large majorities demand it; life and liberty cannot be deprived without due process even if nine of out ten citizens favor doing so, etc.). More inconveniently still, many of the foreign leaders we are instructed to view as despots [68]are [69]popular or even every bit as [70]democratically elected as our own beloved freedom-safeguarding officials. As potent as this mythological framework is, reinforced by large media corporations over so many decades, it cannot withstand the increasingly glaring use of precisely these despotic tactics in the West. Watching Justin Trudeau — the sweet, well-mannered, well-raised good-boy prince of one of the West's nicest countries featuring such a pretty visage (even on the [71]numerous occasions when marred by blackface) — invoke and then harshly impose [72]dubious emergency, civil-liberties-denying powers is just the latest swing of the hammer causing this Western sculpture to crumble. In sum, you are required by Western propaganda to treat the two images below as fundamentally different; indeed, huge numbers of people in the West vehemently denounce the one on the left while enthusiastically applauding the one on the right. Such brittle mythology can be sustained only for so long: [73][IMG][74]Reuters, Aug. 8, 2019 (left); BBC, Feb. 15, 2022 (right) The decade-long repression of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, standing alone, demonstrates how grave neoliberal attacks on dissent have become. Many are aware of key parts of this repression — particularly the decade-long effective detention of Assange — but have forgotten or, due to media malfeasance, never knew several of the most extreme aspects. While the Obama DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder [75]failed to find evidence of criminality after convening a years-long Grand Jury investigation, the then-Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), [76]succeeded in pressuring financial services companies such as MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and Bank of America to terminate WikiLeaks’ accounts and thus banish them from the financial system, choking off their ability to receive funds from supporters or pay their bills. Lieberman and his neocon allies also [77]pressured Amazon to remove WikiLeaks from its hosting services, causing the whistleblower group to be temporarily offline. All of that succeeded in crippling WikiLeaks’ ability to operate despite being charged with no crime: indeed, as the DOJ admitted, it could not prove that the group committed any crimes, yet this extra-legal punishment was nonetheless meted out. Those tactics pioneered against WikiLeaks — excluding dissenters from the financial system and coercing tech companies to deny them internet access without a whiff of due process — have now become standard weapons. Trudeau's government seizes and freezes bank accounts with no judicial process. The "charity” fundraising site GoFundMe first [78]blocked the millions of dollars raised for the truckers and announced it would redirect those funds to other charities, then refunded the donations when people pointed out, rightly, that their [79]original plan amounted to a form of stealing. When an alternative fundraising site, GiveSendGo, raised millions more for the truckers, Canadian courts [80]blocked its distribution. And it was just over a year ago when Democratic politicians such as Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) [81]successfully pressured tech monopolies Google and Apple to remove Parler from its stores and then [82]pressured Amazon to remove the social media site from its servers, at exactly the time the social media alternative became the single most-downloaded app in America. (This morning we [83]published a new video report on Rumble that traces the emergence of this new anti-dissent tactic first pioneered on WikiLeaks and now widely used against dissent generally: “Banishment from the Financial System: the War on Dissent"). That the U.S. and UK Governments have kept Assange himself — one of the most effective dissidents in the West in decades — in a cage for years with no end in sight by itself highlights how repressive they are. But the precipitating cause of Assange's apprehension from the Ecuadorian Embassy has been forgotten by many and it, too, illustrates the same disturbing trend. In 2017, [84]mass protests erupted in Barcelona as part of a movement in Catalonia for more autonomy from the Madrid-based Spanish government, culminating in a referendum for autonomy on October 1. In 2019, even [85]larger and more intense protests materialized. The methods used to crush the protests shocked many, as such domestic aggression had been rarely seen for years in western Europe. Spain treated the activists not as domestic protesters exercising their civic rights but as terrorists, seditionists and insurrectionists. Violence was used to sweep up Catalans in mass arrests, and their leaders were charged with terrorism and sedition and given lengthy prison sentences. About the crackdown, a protest video [86]proclaimed that Spain had just witnessed “a degree of force never seen before in a European member state.” While a fact-check by the BBC [87]failed to affirm that maximalist claim, it documented multiple grave attacks by the police on protesters in Catalonia. Meanwhile, “Spanish police engaged in excessive force when confronting demonstrators in Catalonia during a disputed referendum, using batons to hit non-threatening protesters and causing multiple injuries,” Human Rights Watched [88]concluded, adding that though the protesters were "largely peaceful,” some “hundreds were left injured, some seriously. [89]Catalonia’s Health Department estimated on October 2 that 893 people had reported injuries to the authorities.” >From the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange, in both 2017 and then again in 2019, used WikiLeaks’ platforms to vocally publicize and denounce the actions of the Spanish government — not to express support for Catalonian independence but to denounce the civil liberties assaults used to crush the protest movement. Assange made multiple media appearances to object to the use of violence by the state police, and WikiLeaks’ Twitter account, virtually on a daily basis, was publicizing videos and other testimonial evidence of the crackdown. Spain's National Police brutalize voters in Catalonia polling center (a school) today in an attempt to suppress [90]#CatalanReferendum vote. [91]pic.twitter.com/jh4xA8u8Bb — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) [92]October 1, 2017 It was Assange's reporting on and denouncing of violence by the Spanish government against its own citizens that was the final cause of Ecuador's decision to rescind its asylum. The Spanish government made clear to Ecuador how indignant they were that Assange was publicizing their abuses. It was just several months after the first protest movement that Ecuador [93]announced it was cutting off Assange’s internet access, claiming the WikiLeaks founder had been "interfer[ing] with other states” — meaning speaking out on the civil liberties abuses by Madrid. And it was the following year that Ecuador, pressured by the U.S., UK and Spain, [94]withdrew its asylum protection and allowed the London police to [95]enter its embassy, arrest Assange, and then put him in the high-security Belmarsh prison where he has remained ever since despite being convicted of no crime other than a misdemeanor count of bail-jumping. All of this reflects, and stems from, a clear and growing Western intolerance for dissent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This last decade of history is crucial to understand the dissent-eliminating framework that has been constructed and implemented in the West. This framework has culminated, thus far, with the stunning multi-pronged attacks on Canadian truckers by the Trudeau government. But it has been a long time in the making, and it is inevitable that it will find still-more extreme expressions. It is, after all, based in the central recognition that there is mass, widespread anger and even hatred toward the neoliberal ruling class throughout the West. Trump, Brexit and the rise of far-right parties in places where their empowerment was previously unthinkable — including [96]Germany and [97]France — is unmistakable proof of that. Rather than sacrifice some of the benefits of inequality that have generated much of that rage or placate or appease it with symbolic concessions, Western neoliberal elites have instead opted for force, a system that crushes all forms of dissent as soon as they emerge in anything resembling an effective, meaningful or potent form. So many of the controversies over the last decade, often analyzed in isolation, have been devoted to this goal. The pervasive surveillance systems constructed by the West — revealed during the Snowden reporting but only partially reined in at best since then — are crucial tools, as surveillance powers always are, for monitoring and thus stifling dissent. We have now arrived at the point where the U.S. Government and its security state is [98]officially and explicitly clear that it regards the greatest national security threat not as a foreign power such as China or Russia, and not as non-state actors such as Al Qaeda or ISIS, but rather “domestic extremists.” For years, this has been the unyielding message of the DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA and DOJ: our primary enemies are not foreign but are [99]our fellow citizens who have embraced ideologies we regard as extremist. This new escalation of repression depends upon a narrative framework. Those who harbor dissenting ideologies — and particularly those who do not embrace that dissent passively but instead take action to advocate, promote and spread it — are not merely dissenters. The term "dissent,” in Western democracies, connotes legitimacy, so that label must be denied them. They are instead domestic extremists, domestic terrorists, seditionists, traitors, insurrections. Applying terms of criminality renders justifiable any subsequent acts of repression: we are trained to accept that core liberties are forfeited upon the commission of crimes. What is most notable, though, is that this alleged criminality is not adjudicated through judicial proceedings — with all the accompanying protections of judges, juries, rules of evidence and requirements of due process — but simply by decree. When financial services companies [100]“choked” WikiLeaks back in 2010, they justified it by pointing to the government's claim that the group was engaged in crimes and therefore in violation of the rules of the platforms ("‘MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal,’ spokesman Chris Monteiro [101]said" when explaining its shutting of WikiLeaks’ account). The [102]same was done to 1/6 protesters who have been punished in countless ways prior to conviction. And now Canadian truckers have been magically transformed into criminals [103]without the inconvenience of a trial; “‘we now have evidence from law enforcement that the previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation, with police reports of violence and other unlawful activity,' GoFundMe said” when explaining why it shut down fund-raising accounts. Last June, PayPal [104]announced a new partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whereby the liberal activist group would identify individuals and groups whose ideology is, in the eyes of the ADL, “extremist.” This would enable not only PayPal but financial services companies around the world to then terminate their accounts and exclude them from the financial system. Clearly, once the ADL declares a person or group to be “extremist” and PayPal banishes them, no other mainstream corporation will want to be accused of hosting them. As PayPal's founding Chief Operating Officer David Sacks [105]warned at the time the partnership was announced, the purpose of this program is “shutting down people and organizations that express views that are entirely lawful, even if they are unpopular in Silicon Valley.” Comparing this to the [106]spate of unified Silicon Valley censorship that has erupted over the last several years, Sacks explained why this power is so alarming: As for the notion of building your own PayPal or Facebook: because of their gigantic network effects and economies of scale, there is no viable alternative when the whole industry works together to deny you access. Kicking people off social media deprives them of the right to speak in our increasingly online world. Locking them out of the financial economy is worse: It deprives them of the right to make a living. We have seen how cancel culture can obliterate one’s ability to earn an income, but now the cancelled may find themselves without a way to pay for goods and services. Previously, cancelled employees who would never again have the opportunity to work for a Fortune 500 company at least had the option to go into business for themselves. But if they cannot purchase equipment, pay employees, or receive payment from clients and customers, that door closes on them, too. This is why it is so imperative for the Democratic Party and their media allies to describe the four-hour riot at the Capitol on January 6 as an insurrection and attempted coup. If those are mere protesters or even just rioters, then all the standard protections and legal safeguards apply to them, as liberals demanded be applied to protect BLM and Antifa protesters, even ones who used violence. If, however, they are part of a broader insurrectionary movement — an ongoing attempt to overthrow the U.S. Government — then they are elevated from ordinary political adversaries into a faction of sustained criminality, and anything and everything, from censorship and detention to extra-legal means of banishment such as no-fly lists and exclusion from the financial system, becomes justified, even necessary. (Note that such repressive tactics, cheered by liberals and even many on the left, have often [107]swept up anti-establishment voices on the left, such as when PayPal banned Antifa-linked individuals along with Proud Boys members, and when [108]animal rights activists are targeted for persecution by the FBI along with Oath Keepers, but such is the inevitable outcome of censorship and dissent-repressive schemes). 67. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1495432214489796608 68. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792456768/how-vladimir-putin-has-continued-t… 69. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/30/792456768/how-vladimir-putin-has-continued-t… 70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3177111 71. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49763805 72. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ccla-lawsuit-emergencies-act-1.6355846 75. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlik… 76. https://www.wired.com/2010/12/wikileaks-congress-pressure/ 77. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-amazon/amazon-stops-hosting-wi… 78. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/05/gofundme-removes-donation-pag… 79. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gofundme-freedom-convoy-under-investigation-fo… 80. https://news.yahoo.com/canadian-judge-blocks-money-truckers-005116199.html 81. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolist… 82. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/apple-google-parler.html 83. https://rumble.com/vvgyol-banishment-from-the-financial-system-the-war-on-d… 84. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/world/europe/catalonia-independence-prot… 85. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/18/catalonia-general-strike-prot… 86. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41677911 87. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41677911 88. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/12/spain-police-used-excessive-force-catal… 89. https://twitter.com/salutcat/status/914778176781537280 90. https://twitter.com/hashtag/CatalanReferendum 91. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/914434002345431040 92. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/914434002345431040 93. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/28/julian-assange-internet-conne… 94. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/16/julian-assange-ecuador-spain-… 95. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737 96. https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-europe-germany-health-co… 97. https://www.politico.eu/article/how-france-pivoted-to-the-right/ 98. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/politics/domestic-terror-white-suprem… 99. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/us/politics/biden-domestic-terrorism-ext… 100. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-… 101. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/mastercard-pulls-plug-on-wi… 102. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congresss-16-committee-claims-absolute 103. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60267840 104. https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-partners-with-paypal-to-research-how-extr… 105. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/get-ready-for-the-no-buy-list 106. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-pressure-campaign-on-spotify 107. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/09/paypal-proud-boys-antifa… 108. https://outsidevoices.substack.com/p/the-targets-of-bidens-war-on-domestic

1 0

His posts are very direct threats
by professor rat 21 Feb '22

21 Feb '22

https://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@minder.net/msg59040.html

3 2