- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Survival of the Richest
by Ryan Carboni 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

In the great struggles of mankind, between men, nothing is greater than to protect one's own bloodline. Still, one could be at the bottom of Cheyenne and not be safe. To abdicate one's responsibility is to forfeit authority. https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1 Which region will be less impacted by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? Is Google really building Ray Kurzweil a home for his brain, and will his consciousness live through the transition, or will it die and be reborn as a whole new one? Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked, “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” For all their wealth and power, they don’t believe they can affect the future. ... This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.

1 0

Re: Blast from the Past. Declan McCullagh, David Friedman,
by Punk-Stasi 2.0 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:53:36 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen(a)freedbms.net> wrote: > Unfortunately it seems he's so unbelievably stubborn, yet blind, that > there's always the chance he could encourage one or two equally > stupid and stubborn individuals to join him in his quixotic windmill > fight, and just happen to throw civilization into a lorenzian > butterfly chaotic alternator. > > I know some would prefer a period of total chaos to what we have now, I vote for chaos. It's the only thing that can prevent "the ultimate revolution" Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution (Berkeley Speech 1962) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30 disclaimer : I got the idea from assange who said something like "only a global catastrophe can stop the surveillance state". Not any of those words prolly because I can't find the original quote =/ But you get point... > but the consequences of living in that post-AP world look quite > possibly very unpleasant from where I stand.. I think Jim is either partially confused, or baiting and switching. An hypothetical tool to eliminate tyrants (or anybody else), and the production of security in a libertarian enviroment, are two different things. Yet Jim confuses them.

3 2

Twice Russia helped the United States against the British/Rothschild Empire - [PEACE]
by Zenaan Harkness 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

Speaking of true allies, Russia, on a nation-state basis, is about as good as it gets for a true ally of the USA (Australia notwithstanding). "Twice Russia helped the United States against the British/Rothschild Empire; first by openly supporting them in the Independence War, and again in the Civil War, when Rothschild’s were funding the Confederates to politically break down the nation to bring it back in the British colonial Empire’s coop. Russia also destroyed Napoleon and the Nazis, whom were both funded by international banks as tools to crush economically independent nations. Independence is in their DNA." ... "Central bankers and the US shadow government are still hanging on to their dying plan, because without a victory in Syria, there’s no enlarging Israel, thus ending the century-old fantasy of uniting the Middle East oil production in the hands of the New World Order. Ask Lord Balfour if you have any doubt. That’s the real stake of the Syrian war, it’s nothing short of do or die." Before you LOL at "Trump is an anti-narcissist", think: could that be true? And if so, how? Here to suggest an alternative view (or rather, whole bunch of interesting views, one of which I disagree with) is Sylvain LaForest via Oriental Review: Everything You Need To Know About Trump (But Were Afraid To Admit You Wondered) https://orientalreview.org/2019/11/15/about-trump/ https://www.zerohedge.com/political/everything-you-need-know-about-trump-we… ... "If you still believe that the «Commander in chief» is in charge, explain why every time Trump ordered to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan, more troops came in? As I’m writing this text, US and NATO troops pulled out of the Kurdish zones, went to Iraq, and came back with heavier equipment around the oil reserves of Syria. Donald has a lot more of swamp draining to do before the Pentagon actually listens to anything he says." ... "One has to realize how much trouble the US army and spying agencies have been going through in creating false-flag operations for more than a century, so that their interventions always looked righteous, in the name of democracy promotion, human rights and justice around the planet. They blew up the Maine ship in 1898 to enter the Hispanic-American war, then the Lusitania in 1915 to enter WW1. They pushed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941, knew about the attack 10 days in advance and said nothing to the Hawaiian base. They made up a North Vietnamese torpedo aggression on their ships in the Tonkin Bay to justify sending boots on the Vietnamese ground. They made up a story of Iraqi soldiers destroying nurseries to invade Kuwait in 1991. They invented mass destruction weapons to attack Iraq again in 2003, and organized 911 to shred the 1789 Constitution, attack Afghanistan and launch a War on terror. This totally fake mask of virtue has to be preserved for controlling the opinion of the American citizens and their domestic arsenal, who have to believe that they wear the white cowboy hats of democracy. "So how did Trump react when he learned that American troops were re-entering Syria? He repeated again and again in every interview and declaration that «we have secured the oil fields of Syria», and even added «I’m thinking about sending Exxon in the region to take care of the Syrian oil». Neocons, Zionists and banks were thrilled, but everyone else is outraged, because the vast majority doesn’t understand that Trump is swallowing this pill solely for its after-effects. On this single bottle is written in fine print that «the use of this drug might force American-NATO troops out of Syria under the pressure of the united world community and flabbergasted American population.» Trump made the situation unsustainable for NATO to stay in Syria, and how he’s been repeating this deeply shocking, politically incorrect position clearly shows his real intention. He destroyed over a century of fake virtue in a single sentence. "Trump is a historical anomaly Trump is only the fourth president in US history to actually fight for the people, unlike all 41 others, who mainly channeled the people’s money in a pipeline of dollars that ends up in private banks. First there was Andrew Jackson who was shot after he destroyed the Second National Bank that he openly accused of being controlled by the Rothschild and The City in London. Then there was Abraham Lincoln, who was murdered after printing his «greenbacks», national money that the state issued to pay the soldiers because Lincoln had refused to borrow money from Rothschild at 24% interest. Then there was JFK, who was killed for a dozen reasons that mostly went against the banks and military industries profits, and now is Donald Trump, who shouted that he would «Give America back to the people». ... [If you have the time to continue, and love a litany of twists and turns, this one's got a couple more at least ...]

2 3

Cointelegraph: Bitcoin Revolution Meets Protestant Reformation, Crypto Drives Change?
by jim bell 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

Cointelegraph: Bitcoin Revolution Meets Protestant Reformation, Crypto Drives Change?. https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-revolution-meets-protestant-reformat…

3 2

Re: cypherpunks Digest, Vol 77, Issue 88
by Rob Avina 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

How in the holy Universe would one ever distinguish that this "system" over time was working anymore than random chance? Also, what is the difference between your system that Assassinates Politicians and a duplicate system in which one donates small amounts of cash to sway peoples opinions away from said politicians views, call it Political(instead of Character) Assassination. One says the correct phrase out loud/online/wherever, enough times, it will take away power from their political rivals. Make people listen, because you have effectively muted your rival. What would be the difference, minus the permanency of death? I would say MY ideas is far superior, as yours does not take into account in any way shape or form the fact that even without computers, for centuries, good bad and even many indifferent ideas had been remembered, from people who were in fact, long dead? Oh my gosh though, I believe I have just invented the internet! People talking about shit they prefer instead of shit they don't! GENIUS! Sorry there's not enough murder for ya. Plus, encryption breaks and your "anonymity" just went out the window. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:59:35 +0000 (UTC) > From: jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> > To: coderman <coderman(a)protonmail.com> > Cc: "cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org>, > "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks(a)tfwno.gf> > Subject: Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to > Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech > Message-ID: <867038435.799941.1573930775711(a)mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 10:38:14 AM PST, coderman < > coderman(a)protonmail.com> wrote: > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > ... > > >>Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a > killing that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco > (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians > who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of > murder! Merely for self-defense. > > > >a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all! > > > I didn't say it wouldn't be, but you are implying that you can somehow > 'choose' this outcome, to effectively force it on all participants. My > response? I'd say the worst outcome is one that actually happened: These > Feds got away with murder, with no real punishment in the end for them. > Because that sets up future Ruby Ridges, future Wacos, with the precedent > that none of them had gotten punished. > And, I'd also respond that the end you claim "would be better" could > actually be achived, if an AP system were functioning. How do you think > the Feds at Ruby Ridge and Waco would have acted, differently, if they had > known they were going to be targeted by donations from the public if they > ended up killing some of the Weavers, and the Branch Davidians? I'd > suggest that they obviously wouldn't have done what they did!!! They > would not possibly have risked it. So nobody would have died. PRECISELY > the end you claim would be "better". > > > >Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that > would be involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP > essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, > I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 > 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, > hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 > Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, > well-meaning person choose? The fact that the latter choice was then not > possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice. > > > >again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better > to not kill anyone! > > > I've already explained how that could be achieved. Maybe you just don't > like the idea that Feds could be deterred from engaging in what most of the > people would call murder. Ensure that if the Feds knew that if they > killed somebody unjustifiably (in the public's opinion; not theirs!) they > themselves will be killed, and nobody will kill anyone. > > > > >Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never > killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying! > > > >if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are > needlessly dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this > too! ;) > > > > > > Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the > ability to defend themselves. You can morally choose to be a pacifist for > yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice > for themselves. > > > >i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using > murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice > nor moral. > The issue is PREVENTION. If a system is set up to ensure that the public > can retaliate for outrageous actions, don't you think the frequency of > those outrageous actions will be greatly reduced? > > > best regards, > > >

1 0

Re: Blast from the Past. Declan McCullagh, David Friedman,
by Punk-Stasi 2.0 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 22:07:14 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I think I first heard of Cato at least as in the early 1980's, and probably in the late 70's. > yes and? > You are repeatedly inventing claims, as I think you usually do, that state or imply that somebody else did something wrong. what claims have I repeatedly invented. Tell me. > That's false,and rude as well. Oh come on. What's next? AP should be used against people who 'offend' you? =) Now, please tell me about ayn rand. Tell me about american libertarians. Who are they? What have they done since 1776? Let's see who 'invents claims'..

2 1

Iatrogenics - ~230,000 deaths per year in the USA alone - "health" "care" - [PEACE]
by Zenaan Harkness 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

So getting surgery, going to hospital, and/ or a doctor prescribing drugs for you which you thereafter consume, can be a life ending event. In fact, around a quarter of a million such deaths, every year, in the USA alone. That's a quarter of a million people dying, unnecessarily, year in, year out, due to medical errors or other "unfortunate" and avoidable problems. Consider exercising ... <sinister musak> discrimination </> ... before getting surgery or going to a doctor (but if you really do need to go, do of course go). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis#Epidemiology

1 0

Pro-Cartel, Pro-Islam, Pro-Foreign, our Press
by Ryan Carboni 16 Nov '19

16 Nov '19

https://twitter.com/nataliejohnsonn/status/1192578784366649346

1 0

Blast from the Past. Declan McCullagh, David Friedman, AP, etc.
by jim bell 16 Nov '19

16 Nov '19

http://mailing-list-archive.cryptoanarchy.wiki/archive/1997/04/b56db382612a… Check that out. From: jimbell(a)pacifier.com (Jim Bell) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT) To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: David Friedman and assassination politics Message-ID: <199704202015.NAA01741(a)mail.pacifier.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain At 00:36 4/20/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >These ideas is of course not new to cypherpunks. We've been talking about >them for years. But these ideas are slowly infiltrating the DC body >politic. Assassination politics, here we come -- right, Jim? Want to give >a speech at Cato? I'd be proud to do it. Even after everything that's happened so far. Strike that; ESPECIALLY after everything that's happened so far! The way I see it, they're going to have to deal with this issue eventually, and it's possible that it won't be obvious to them that libertarianism and AP mix. Indeed, I think they MUST mix; we have no choice in the matter. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 4

Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
by John Young 16 Nov '19

16 Nov '19

Correct. Any method for killing humans is fatally! flawed unless it includes simultaneous killing the author, supporters and/or applicator of the method. Untold millions have been slaughtered by those who expect to avoid what they preach others to do. Truly courageous killers kill themselves and nobody else to satisfy their lust to be god. Still, the killing industry and homicidal faiths persist by promising the killers they will be honored by their cowardly manipulators. At 01:38 PM 11/16/2019, you wrote: >âââââââ Original Message âââââââ >On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >... >>Not clear who says this, but let's remember >>that "murder" is simply a killing that the >>government declares is illegal. If the >>attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, >>which we know happened, the Branch Davidians >>who shot back in self-defense...would have been >>labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for self-defense. > >a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all!

1 0