- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[MINISTRY] the “Holocaustification of politics”
by Zenaan Harkness 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

Nothing new to those appraised of Ministry-speak - one of the less shocking/ generally agreeable Stormer/Anglin articles: Germany: Antifa Accidentally Assault Leftists https://dailystormer.ai/germany-antifa-accidentally-assault-leftists/ “… Six people were seriously injured in a mass brawl in front of “Conne Island” on Friday evening. It was all only a misunderstanding. … You would perhaps think that this sort of incident would make leftists think: “hey, maybe this whole ‘political violence’ thing isn’t such a great idea after all.” You would be wrong. They don’t have any choice. In every western country, the tides are turning, so the system must train these violent thugs to send out on the street and randomly attack people they think disagree with the government. There is no room for debate or discussion. It simply must be shut down. That is the only option. We could call this the “Holocaustification of politics,” given that it has always been the policy on the Holocaust that debate simply is not allowed – you have to accept the story as it is told to you, or you will be silenced by any means necessary. … ” In other news, Germany is now over 25% immigrant, or born to at least one immigrant parent. The homogeneous world is coming to you... https://dailystormer.ai/a-quarter-of-the-population-of-germany-is-foreign/

2 3

[RUS] Putin's Valdai speech - heartfelt
by Zenaan Harkness 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

One thing the naysayers against Putin have failed so far to produce, is any evidence - that is, actual facts - in support of anything other than Putin as a genuine and heartfelt man who cares passionately for his country and further not only for the Russian people both in Russia and the diaspora abroad, but for all humans on this planet. Putin is nothing if not consistent. >From his Crimea speech to his UN 75th anniversary speech, and this recent Valdai Club speech, Putin is always consistently "fatherly" is perhaps the best word - in the --actual words he speaks-- ‼! We in the West have (pretty rightfully it's hard to not agree) disdain for pretty much any purported "leader" on the world stage - but it would behoove us to occasionally check out dichomatic reactions (undoubtedly well programmed/ schooled) - if a man or woman cannot be taken at face value, until and unless contrary facts demonstrate they are a human who deceives, and whilst such a person's actions do indeed match their words, then are we not doing ourselves a disservice if we accept "popular “wisdon”" handed down by the lame stream media? Here is Putin's latest speech. The RI article has Dmitry Orlov's solid prefix for those who enjoy that, see here: Putin to Western Elites: You Flunked! http://russia-insider.com/en/putin-western-elites-you-flunked/ri21355 Otherwise, here's just the transcript: "I am not sure how optimistic it will sound, but I am aware that you had very lively discussions over the last three days. I will try, as has now become customary, to share with you what I think about some of the issues. Please do not take it badly if I say something that has already been said as I did not follow all the discussions. To begin with, I would like to welcome Mr Karzai, Mr Ma, Mr Toje, our colleagues and all our friends. I can see many familiar faces in the audience. Welcome everyone to the Valdai Club meeting. By tradition, this forum focuses on discussing the most pressing global political as well as economic matters. This time, the organisers, as was just mentioned again, have come up with a fairly difficult challenge asking the participants to try to look beyond the horizon, to ponder over what the coming decades may be like for Russia and the international community. Of course, it is impossible to foresee everything and to take into account all the opportunities and risks that we will be faced with. However, we need to understand and sense the key trends, to look for outside-the-box answers to the questions that the future is posing for us at the moment, and will surely pose more. The pace of developments is such that we must react to them constantly as well as quickly. The world has entered an era of rapid change. Things that were only recently referred to as fantastic or unattainable have become a reality and have become part of our daily lives. Qualitatively new processes are simultaneously unfolding across all spheres. The fast-paced public life in various countries and the technological revolution are intertwined with changes on the international arena. The competition for a place in the global hierarchy is exacerbating. However, many past recipes for global governance, overcoming conflicts as well as natural contradictions are no longer applicable, they often fail, and new ones have not been worked out yet. Naturally, the interests of states do not always coincide, far from it. This is normal and natural. It has always been the case. The leading powers have different geopolitical strategies and perceptions of the world. This is the immutable essence of international relations, which are built on the balance between cooperation and competition. True, when this balance is upset, when the observance and even existence of universal rules of conduct is questioned, when interests are pushed through at any cost, then disputes become unpredictable and dangerous and lead to violent conflicts. Not a single real international problem can be resolved in such circumstances and such a framing of the issues, and so relations between countries simply degrade. The world becomes less secure. Instead of progress and democracy, free rein is given to radical elements and extremist groups that reject civilization itself and seek to plunge it into the ancient past, into chaos and barbarism. The history of the past few years graphically illustrates all of this. It is enough to see what has happened in the Middle East, which some players have tried to reshape and reformat to their liking and to impose on it a foreign development model through externally orchestrated coups or simply by force of arms. Instead of working together to redress the situation and deal a real blow to terrorism rather than simulating a struggle against it, some of our colleagues are doing everything they can to make the chaos in this region permanent. Some still think that it is possible to manage this chaos. Meanwhile, there are some positive examples in recent experience. As you have probably guessed, I am referring to the experience of Syria. It shows that there is an alternative to this kind of arrogant and destructive policy. Russia is opposing terrorists together with the legitimate Syrian Government and other states of the region, and is acting on the basis of international law. I must say that these actions and this forward progress has not come easy. There is a great deal of dissension in the region. But we have fortified ourselves with patience and, weighing our every move and word, we are working with all the participants of this process with due respect for their interests. Our efforts, the results of which were questioned by our colleagues only recently, are now – let me put it carefully – instilling us with hope. They have proved to be very important, correct, professional and timely. Or, take another example – the clinch around the Korean Peninsula. I am sure you covered this issue extensively today as well. Yes, we unequivocally condemn the nuclear tests conducted by the DPRK and fully comply with the UN Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. Colleagues, I want to emphasise this so that there is no discretionary interpretation. We comply with all UN Security Council resolutions. However, this problem can, of course, only be resolved through dialogue. We should not drive North Korea into a corner, threaten force, stoop to unabashed rudeness or invective. Whether someone likes or dislikes the North Korean regime, we must not forget that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a sovereign state. All disputes must be resolved in a civilised manner. Russia has always favoured such an approach. We are firmly convinced that even the most complex knots – be it the crisis in Syria or Libya, the Korean Peninsula or, say, Ukraine – must be disentangled rather than cut. The situation in Spain clearly shows how fragile stability can be even in a prosperous and established state. Who could have expected, even just recently, that the discussion of the status of Catalonia, which has a long history, would result in an acute political crisis? Russia's position here is known. Everything that is happening is an internal matter for Spain and must be settled based on Spanish law in accordance with democratic traditions. We are aware that the country’s leadership is taking steps towards this end. In the case of Catalonia, we saw the European Union and a number of other states unanimously condemn the supporters of independence. You know, in this regard, I cannot help but note that more thought should have gone into this earlier. What, no one was aware of these centuries-old disagreements in Europe? They were, were they not? Of course, they were. However, at one point they actually welcomed the disintegration of a number of states in Europe without hiding their joy. Why were they so unthinking, driven by fleeting political considerations and their desire to please – I will put it bluntly – their big brother in Washington, in providing their unconditional support to the secession of Kosovo, thus provoking similar processes in other regions of Europe and the world? You may remember that when Crimea also declared its independence, and then – following the referendum – its decision to become part of Russia, this was not welcomed for some reason. Now we have Catalonia. There is a similar issue in another region, Kurdistan. Perhaps this list is far from exhaustive. But we have to ask ourselves, what are we going to do? What should we think about it? It turns out that some of our colleagues think there are “good” fighters for independence and freedom and there are “separatists” who are not entitled to defend their rights, even with the use of democratic mechanisms. As we always say in similar cases, such double standards – and this is a vivid example of double standards – pose serious danger to the stable development of Europe and other continents, and to the advancement of integration processes across the world. At one time the apologists for globalisation were trying to convince us that universal economic interdependence was a guarantee against conflicts and geopolitical rivalry. Alas, this did not happen. Moreover, the nature of the contradictions grew more complicated, becoming multilayer and nonlinear. Indeed, while interconnectedness is a restraining and stabilising factor, we are also witnessing an increasing number of examples of politics crudely interfering with economic, market relations. Quite recently there were warnings that this was unacceptable, counterproductive and must be prevented. Now those who made such warnings are doing all this themselves. Some do not even conceal that they are using political pretexts to promote their strictly commercial interests. For instance, the recent package of sanctions adopted by the US Congress is openly aimed at ousting Russia from European energy markets and compelling Europe to buy more expensive US-produced LNG although the scale of its production is still too small. Attempts are being made to create obstacles in the way of our efforts to forge new energy routes – South Stream and Nord Stream – even though diversifying logistics is economically efficient, beneficial for Europe and promotes its security. Let me repeat: it is only natural that each state has its own political, economic and other interests. The question is the means by which they are protected and promoted. In the modern world, it is impossible to make a strategic gain at the expense of others. Such a policy based on self-assurance, egotism and claims to exceptionalism will not bring any respect or true greatness. It will evoke natural and justified rejection and resistance. As a result, we will see the continued growth of tensions and discord instead of trying to establish together a steady and stable international order and address the technological, environmental, climate and humanitarian challenges confronting the entire human race today. Colleagues, Scientific and technological progress, robotic automation and digitalisation are already leading to profound economic, social, cultural changes, and changes in values as well. We are now presented with previously inconceivable prospects and opportunities. But at the same time we will have to find answers to plenty of questions as well. What place will people occupy in the “humans–machines–nature” triangle? What actions will be taken by states that fail to provide conditions for normal life due to changes in climate and environment? How will employment be maintained in the era of automation? How will the Hippocratic oath be interpreted once doctors possess capabilities akin to all-powerful wizards? And will human intelligence finally lose the ability to control artificial intelligence? Will artificial intelligence become a separate entity, independent from us? Previously, when assessing the role and influence of countries, we spoke about the importance of the geopolitical factor, the size of a country’s territory, its military power and natural resources. Of course, these factors still are of major importance today. But now there is also another factor – the scientific and technological factor, which, without a doubt, is of great importance as well, and its importance will only increase over time. In fact, this factor has always been important, but now it will have game-changing potential, and very soon it will have a major impact in the areas of politics and security. Thus, the scientific and technological factor will become a factor of universal and political importance. It is also obvious that even the very latest technology will not be able to ensure sustainable development on its own. A harmonious future is impossible without social responsibility, without freedom and justice, without respect for traditional ethical values and human dignity. Otherwise, instead of becoming a world of prosperity and new opportunities, this “brave new world” will turn into a world of totalitarianism, castes, conflicts and greater divisions. Today growing inequality is already building up into feelings of injustice and deprivation in millions of people and whole nations. And the result is radicalisation, a desire to change things in any way possible, up to and including violence. By the way, this has already happened in many countries, and in Russia, our country, as well. Successful technological, industrial breakthroughs were followed by dramatic upheavals and revolutionary disruptions. It all happened because the country failed to address social discord and overcome the clear anachronisms in society in time. Revolution is always the result of an accountability deficit in both those who would like to conserve, to freeze in place the outdated order of things that clearly needs to be changed, and those who aspire to speed the changes up, resorting to civil conflict and destructive resistance. Today, as we turn to the lessons of a century ago, namely, the Russian Revolution of 1917, we see how ambiguous its results were, how closely the negative and, we must acknowledge, the positive consequences of those events are intertwined. Let us ask ourselves: was it not possible to follow an evolutionary path rather than go through a revolution? Could we not have evolved by way of gradual and consistent forward movement rather than at a cost of destroying our statehood and the ruthless fracturing of millions of human lives. However, the largely utopian social model and ideology, which the newly formed state tried to implement initially following the 1917 revolution, was a powerful driver of transformations across the globe (this is quite clear and must also be acknowledged), caused a major revaluation of development models, and gave rise to rivalry and competition, the benefits of which, I would say, were mostly reaped by the West. I am referring not only to the geopolitical victories following the Cold War. Many Western achievements of the 20th century were in answer to the challenge posed by the Soviet Union. I am talking about raising living standards, forming a strong middle class, reforming the labour market and the social sphere, promoting education, guaranteeing human rights, including the rights of minorities and women, overcoming racial segregation, which, as you may recall, was a shameful practice in many countries, including the United States, a few short decades ago. Following the radical changes that took place in our country and globally at the turn of the 1990s, a really unique chance arose to open a truly new chapter in history. I mean the period after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Unfortunately, after dividing up the geopolitical heritage of the Soviet Union, our Western partners became convinced of the justness of their cause and declared themselves the victors of the Cold War, as I just mentioned, and started openly interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, and exporting democracy just like the Soviet leadership had tried to export the socialist revolution to the rest of the world in its time. We were confronted with the redistribution of spheres of influence and NATO expansion. Overconfidence invariably leads to mistakes. The outcome was unfortunate. Two and a half decades gone to waste, a lot of missed opportunities, and a heavy burden of mutual distrust. The global imbalance has only intensified as a result. We do hear declarations about being committed to resolving global issues, but, in fact, what we see is more and more examples of selfishness. All the international institutions designed to harmonise interests and formulate a joint agenda are being eroded, and basic multilateral international treaties and critically important bilateral agreements are being devalued. I was told, just a few hours ago, that the US President said something on social media about Russia-US cooperation in the important area of nuclear cooperation. True, this is the most important sphere of interaction between Russia and the United States, bearing in mind that Russia and the United States bear a special responsibility to the world as the two largest nuclear powers. However, I would like to use this opportunity to speak in more detail about what happened in recent decades in this crucial area, to provide a more complete picture. It will take two minutes at most. Several landmark bilateral agreements were signed in the 1990s. The first one, the Nunn-Lugar programme, was signed on June 17, 1992. The second one, the HEU-LEU programme, was signed on February 18, 1993. Highly enriched uranium was converted into low-enriched uranium, hence HEU-LEU. The projects under the first agreement focused on upgrading control systems, accounting and physical protection of nuclear materials, dismantling and scrapping submarines and radioisotope thermoelectric generators. The Americans have made – and please pay attention here, this is not secret information, simply few are aware of it – 620 verification visits to Russia to check our compliance with the agreements. They visited the holiest of holies of the Russian nuclear weapons complex, namely, the enterprises engaged in developing nuclear warheads and ammunition, and weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. The United States gained access to all top-secret facilities in Russia. Also, the agreement was almost unilateral in nature. Under the second agreement, the Americans made 170 more visits to our enrichment plants, touring their most restricted areas, such as mixing units and storage facilities. The world’s most powerful nuclear enrichment plant – the Urals Electrochemical Combine – even had a permanent American observation post. Permanent jobs were created directly at the workshops of this combine where the American specialists went to work every day. The rooms they were sitting in at these top-secret Russian facilities had American flags, as is always the case. In addition, a list was drawn up of 100 American specialists from 10 different US organisations who were entitled to conduct additional inspections at any time and without any warning. All this lasted for 10 years. Under this agreement, 500 tonnes of weapons-grade uranium were removed from military circulation in Russia, which is equivalent to about 20,000 nuclear warheads. The HEU-LEU programme has become one of the most effective measures of true disarmament in the history of humankind – I say this with full confidence. Each step on the Russian side was closely monitored by American specialists, at a time when the United States limited itself to much more modest reductions of its nuclear arsenal, and did so on a purely goodwill basis. Our specialists also visited enterprises of the US nuclear arms complex but only at their invitation and under conditions set by the US side. As you see, the Russian side demonstrated absolutely unprecedented openness and trust. Incidentally – and we will probably talk about this later – it is also common knowledge what we received from this: total neglect of our national interests, support for separatism in the Caucasus, military action that circumvented the UN Security Council, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia and Belgrade, the introduction of troops into Iraq and so on. Well, this is easy to understand: once the condition of the nuclear complex, the armed forces and the economy had been seen, international law appeared to be unnecessary. In the 2000s our cooperation with the United States entered a new stage of truly equitable partnership. It was marked by the singing of a number of strategic treaties and agreements on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which is known in the US as the 123 Agreement. But to all intents and purposes, the US side unilaterally halted work within its framework in 2014. The situation around the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) of August 20 (signed in Moscow) and September 1 (in Washington) is perplexing and alarming. In accordance with the protocol to this agreement, the sides were supposed to take reciprocal steps to irreversibly convert weapons-grade plutonium into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel and burn it in nuclear plants, so that it could not be used for military purposes. Any changes in this method were only allowed by consent of the sides. This is written in the agreement and protocols to it. What did Russia do? We developed this fuel, built a plant for mass production and, as we pledged in the agreement, built a BN-800 plant that allowed us to safely burn this fuel. I would like to emphasise that Russia fulfilled all of its commitments. What did our American partners do? They started building a plant on the Savannah River Site. Its initial price tag was $4.86 billon but they spent almost $8 billion, brought construction to 70 percent and then froze the project. But, to our knowledge, the budget request for 2018 includes $270 million for the closure and mothballing of this facility. As usual, a question arises: where is the money? Probably stolen. Or they miscalculated something when planning its construction. Such things happen. They happen here all too often. But we are not interested in this, this is not our business. We are interested in what happens with uranium and plutonium. What about the disposal of plutonium? Dilution and geological storage of the plutonium is suggested. But this completely contradicts the spirit and letter of the agreement, and, most important, does not guarantee that the dilution is not reconverted into weapons-grade plutonium. All this is very unfortunate and bewildering. Next. Russia ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty more than 17 years ago. The USA has not done so yet. A critical mass of problems is building up in global security. As is known, in 2002 the United States pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And despite being initiators of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and international security, they initiated that agreement themselves, they are failing to meet their commitments. They remain as of today the only and largest holder of this form of weapon of mass destruction. Moreover, the USA has pushed back the deadline for eliminating their chemical weapons from 2007 to as far as 2023. It does not look proper for a nation that claims to be a champion of non-proliferation and control. In Russia, on the contrary, the process was completed on September 27 of this year. By doing so our country has made a significant contribution to enhancing international security. By the way, the western media preferred to keep quiet, not to notice it, though there was one fleeting mention somewhere in Canada, but that was it, then silence. Meanwhile, the chemical weapons arsenal stockpiled by the Soviet Union is enough to destroy life on the planet multiple times over. I believe that it is time to abandon an obsolete agenda. I am referring to what was. Without a doubt, we should be looking forward, we have to stop looking back. I am talking about this so as to understand the origins of the current situation that is taking shape. It is high time for a frank discussion among the global community rather than just a group of the chosen, allegedly the most worthy and advanced. Representatives of different continents, cultural and historical traditions, political and economic systems. In a changing world, we cannot afford to be inflexible, closed off, or unable to respond clearly and quickly. Responsibility for the future – this is what should unite us, especially in times like the current ones when everything is changing rapidly. Never before has humankind possessed such power as it does now. The power over nature, space, communications, and its own existence. However, this power is diffuse: its elements are in the hands of states, corporations, public and religious associations, and even individual citizens. Clearly, harnessing all these elements in a single, effective and manageable architecture is not an easy task. It will take hard, painstaking work to achieve this. And Russia, I will note, is willing to take part in it together with any partners who are interested. Colleagues, how do we see the future of the international order and the global governance system? For example, in 2045, when the UN will mark its centennial anniversary? Its creation has become a symbol of the fact that humanity, in spite of everything, is capable of developing common rules of conduct and following them. Whenever these rules were not followed, it inevitably resulted in crises and other negative consequences. However, in recent decades, there have been several attempts to belittle the role of this organisation, to discredit it, or simply to assume control over it. All these attempts predictably failed, or reached a dead end. In our opinion, the UN, with its universal legitimacy, must remain the centre of the international system. Our common goal is to raise its authority and effectiveness. There is no alternative to the UN today. With regard to the right of veto in the Security Council, which is also sometimes challenged, you may recall that this mechanism was designed and created in order to avoid direct confrontation of the most powerful states, as a guarantee against arbitrariness and recklessness, so that no single country, even the most influential country, could give the appearance of legitimacy to its aggressive actions. Of course, let us face it, the experts are here, and they know that the UN has legitimised the actions of individual participants in international affairs after the fact. Well, at least that is something, but it will not lead to any good, either. Reforms are needed, the UN system needs improvement, but reforms can only be gradual, evolutionary and, of course, they must be supported by the overwhelming majority of the participants in the international process within the organisation itself, by broad consensus. The guarantee of the UN effectiveness lies in its representative nature. The absolute majority of the world’s sovereign states are represented in it. The fundamental principles of the UN should be preserved for years and decades to come, since there is no other entity that is capable of reflecting the entire gamut of international politics. Today, new centres of influence and growth models are emerging, civilisational alliances, and political and economic associations are taking shape. This diversity does not lend itself to unification. So, we must strive to harmonise cooperation. Regional organisations in Eurasia, America, Africa, the Asia-Pacific region should act under the auspices of the United Nations and coordinate their work. However, each association has the right to function according to its own ideas and principles that correspond to its cultural, historical and geographical specifics. It is important to combine global interdependence and openness with preserving the unique identity of each nation and each region. We must respect sovereignty as the basis underlying the entire system of international relations. Colleagues, no matter what amazing heights technology can reach, history is, of course, made by humans. History is made by people, with all their strengths and weaknesses, great achievements and mistakes. We can have only a shared future. There can be no separate futures for us, at least, not in the modern world. So, the responsibility for ensuring that this world is conflict-free and prosperous lies with the entire international community. As you may be aware, the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students is taking place in Sochi. Young people from dozens of countries are interacting with their peers and discussing matters that concern them. They are not hampered by cultural, national or political differences, and they are all dreaming about the future. T hey believe that their lives, the lives of younger generations will be better, fairer and safer. Our responsibility today is to do our best to make sure that these hopes come true. Thank you very much for your attention.

1 0

jimbellproject.org is looking for volunteers
by Chad 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

> Marina Brown catskillmarina at gmail.com > Tue Oct 24 07:56:38 PDT 2017 > > Myanmar > "muh gė́nocide and ethnį̇́c ć̣leansing" > Wow a (((cohencidence))) that you throw in the Buddhists, and that you name them first. Your "religion" has to be pretty fucked up for Buddhist children to take up arms and start killing you in the streets. You are openly defending the argument "She asked for it.", btw. Rape Culture, antifaanon.

3 3

Nuclear Weapons...
by juan 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

...are what every non 'western' country on earth should be getting and they should be pointing them at the fucking western nazis, who are of course 'led' by the americunts. The alleged fact that North Korea has nukes and is developing ICBMs is GOOD given the current political trends.

3 2

Nobody Understands Cryptocurrency, And That's Ok
by grarpamp 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

https://www.coindesk.com/nobody-understands-bitcoin-thats-ok/

5 18

jimbellproject.org is looking for volunteers
by Chad 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

> jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com > Tue Oct 24 10:22:39 PDT 2017 > > I'd like to understand the dispute. > Then you must look who is sending the "refugė́ė́s and why? I am sure you are familiar with what is happening in your country. You must defend your women and children, apanon.

1 0

[MINISTRY] Uni Illinois Professor Rochelle Gutierrez: algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege because …
by Zenaan Harkness 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

So we're reaching “Peak Liberal Lefty Loonies” it seems - now math “promotes White privilege” because Pythagoras was White. No "or something" on this one - and this from a University “Professor” (scare quotes intended). When the dust from the collapse of the USA empire finally settles, there will be rich mining opportunities for comedians chasing these seams of something slightly less than sanity. And get this - this "math is so huwaite" "problem" is actually argued in a recently published book. Yes, "education and intellect is dangerous" - you heard it on cypherpunks first. Everyone is -equal- dammit, and any dissent MUST be quashed (and such words are soon to be removed from the American language since they're a bit too big for many folks, and the average capacity shall be legislated - thus reducing the average by an average of 50%, which shall precipitate a further round of "privilege for the underprivileged" - Idiocrisy in real live action‼) ** Looney college professor says algebra and geometry promote white privilege. http://redpilltimes.com/professor-says-algebra-and-geometry-perpetuate-whit… Rochelle Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Illinois, made the claim in a new anthology for math teachers, arguing that teachers must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.

1 0

Voting machines: How hackers are rocking the vote
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Hi, lovely people! Sending this post for curiosity. You can hate the post, but you can't deny it's a very interesting subject! :D --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Voting machines: How hackers are rocking the vote" # https://qz.com/email/quartz-obsession/1108035/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kisses and Hugs! Take care, dear all. :* <3 Ceci ------- "Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or your curiosity. It's your place in the world; it's your life. Go on and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live." - Mae Jemison

1 0

Re: How to shut down the US Federal criminal "Justice" System, for $10-15 million per year.
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

On Oct 24, 2017 08:08, "jim bell" <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: It's just a fictional placeholder for the future named site. Sorry, Jim. I was exhausted and sleepy when I received your post because it was 04:00, a.m. (DST since the weekend, ugh!) here. I need to re-read it with more attention. Thank you! :D

1 0

Re: How to shut down the US Federal criminal "Justice" System, for $10-15 million per year.
by jim bell 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

[an email sent elsewhere] How to accomplish the below project: INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENT: There is an online system called "PACER.GOV", which provides information on Federal Court records, both civil and criminal. This system can be searched to identify new Federal Criminal defendants, and likely their current addresses. (in jail, perhaps?) These records show full names, possibly addresses (home) as well, and the specific court in which the defendant was indicted. While I don't yet know this information, a given defendant for a given court is probably: 1. In unusual cases, is "bailed out", and allowed to live at home. His prior address will probably be valid.2. In the usual cases, he is arrested, and held in some sort of jail.2a. This might be some sort of Federal criminal jail, such as Seatac FDC in Seatac, Washington state. 2b. Or, it might be in some sort of county or city jail. What is needed is to identify his full name and current physical address, and possibly the name and address of his attorney. In 2016, there were about 77,000 new defendants, which amounts to 210 new defendants per calendar day. That attorney MIGHT be cooperative, and forward a letter to his client. At that point, all such newly-identified Federal criminal defendants should be mailed a letter, making the following offer: (announcement?) Dear Sir: Our records indicate that you are a newly-charged Federal Criminal defendant. We have what we hope will be some good news, a change from the bad news you have gotten. We have a project ongoing to encourage the use of the Jury Trial system in the Federal Criminal Court system. In 2016, of about 77,000 new defendants, 97.3% of those pleaded guilty. We think that's wrong. The large majority of those people were effectively extorted to plead guilty by threat of an increased sentence. We believe that the only people the Federal Criminal system should be able to convict and sentence are those who went through a jury trial. If that were to happen, the total number of people sentenced might drop by a factor of 20x. Most people in your position would have to be released without further charge. Therefore, we are telling you, and every other Federal Criminal defendant that we can find, that IF you plead not-guilty, and IF you demand a jury trial, and IF you receive that jury trial, we will be paying you $3,000 (three thousand dollars). This happens, regardless of whether you are found guilty or not-guilty. We encourage you to spread this message to any other Federal criminal defendant you may happen to meet. We have included extra copies of this letter for you to give to them. Further, please have your friends and family check out our website at: www.//liber....project.org. We believe that the Federal Court system can probably only put on 3,000 criminal trials per year. If "everyone" who is charged pleads not-guilty, and then insists on a jury trial, then the vast majority of those defendants will have to have their charges dropped. That's our intention. If you plead not guilty and insist on a jury trial, and receive it, you will get the $3,000. Our intention is that the vast majority of defendants will have their charges dropped and they will have to be released. If your charges are dropped, or reduced below the point that you can demand a jury trial, or you plead guilty, then you will not receive any money from us. But, hopefully you will get released, which is the goal. You do not need to do anything to "accept" this arrangement, But, we encourage you to respond to us by filling out the form, included, and returning it to us. It will speed the process. Sincerely,--------------------- Of course, there are 'mailing list' companies that make it a business to collect information and sell it. But this is a very odd and selective list. It is not "commercial": Ordinarily, it may not be possible to make money on such a list. Nevertheless, it may be possible to obtain this information (names and addresses of new Federal criminal defendants) via some existing source. FUNDING: The amount of money required for this project is: 1. Administration. Perhaps 10 people full time, paid with expenses perhaps $100,000 each. Or, perhaps $1 million per year. Each person can work from home. No central office should be needed. Mailing might be done automatically, using some automated commercial service, or perhaps manually. 2. Actual reward money: This will be limited by the product of the number of Federal Criminal trials that the Feds can put on yearly. Maybe that is 3,000, but shouldn't be much more. Multiplied by the amount of money that would be necessary to offer to each defendant, to get a large fraction of the Federal Criminal Defendants to plead not-guilty, and demand a jury trial. Currently I estimate that to be $3,000. It might be lower or higher, of course. While certainly there are defendants for whom a reward of $3,000 won't be significant or relevant, I believe that the large majority of them will be swayed by such an offer. And it is important that these people learn and know that EVERY new Federal Criminal defendant is being given the same offer. This will encourage them to act, as if they are in a group, and all will demand jury trials. Of course, it is my intention to virtually shut down the Federal Criminal "Justice" system, or at least drop its capacity for convicting people by a factor of about 20x. Who should be willing to give? It is not my intention that the burden of this project should be shouldered on libertarians, alone. Fortunately, I think there are many potential sources of funding, each with their own peculiar motivation: A: "Liberals", and especially "Hollywood Liberals". Newly rather beaten up by the Harvey Weinstein fiasco, liberals are famously in favor of illegal aliens (err...undocumented immigrants). While there are other ways to simply eject such people, one way requires a criminal trial: "Illegal re-entry", which is a felony, and conviction of that offense requires a trial, and they could insist on a jury trial. Liberals also should generally be against laws against currently-illegal drugs. B: "Conservatives", including "Libertarians", may actually believe in the 2nd Amendment, and believe that there should not be "gun offenses" except for people who actively employ a gun in the commission of a crime. ("Felons" were not prohibited from owning guns until the early 1930's, and even then the prohibition was against "violent felons". It was not until 1968 that "felons", in general, were prohibited from owning guns.) C: "Libertarians" will be against laws prohibiting victimless crimes, such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. The figure of $10 million per year can either be seen as "very large", or "very small", depending on how you look at it. As I explain below, this will save the Federal government perhaps $6.8 billion per year in prison costs. And, this should produce an ENORMOUS amount of publicity for libertarians. It will "force the issue" for freedom, in a way that is not normally considered possible. And, of course, this system could be expanded to cover the state criminal systems also: Together, they are about 10x times larger than the Federal system. Naturally, the cost will be higher, but if it is worth it for the Feds, it would be worth it for the State systems. Jim Bell, [something I wrote about a week ago] A few years back, probably 2011 (while I was still in prison) I thought of a marvelous way to virtually destroy the Federal criminal "justice" system. At least, the people who make up that system will certainly think it is being destroyed. I mentioned it a few years ago. It might cost little more than $10 million per year. There are many high-profile cases which would militate in favor of initiating such a system. One, Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life terms for, ostensibly, running the Silk Road website. Another Kim Dotcom, who is threatened with extradition in New Zealand. Julian Assange, whose story is too well known here to need to describe it. Edward Snowden, who is presumably still in Moscow for leaking a huge quantity of NSA information. There are also major drug cases, such as El Chapo, Joaquin Guzman. In some of these cases, the defendant should have had a lot of money, such as Ulbricht, although it was lost to the Feds. Kim Dotcom may still be rich. Julian Assange could probably raise a lot of money, Snowden might do so as well. Guzman, and probably many other Mexican drug cartels, could easily raise millions per year, if they actually wanted to do this. Maybe even Martha Stewart would hold some residual grudges. Anyone who thinks he is at risk of Federal criminal prosecution would want to see the system essentially shut down. How? Well, let's go to the statistics. Last year, there were 77,152 new criminal defendants in the Federal criminal system, see http://www.pewresearch.org/fa ct-tank/2017/03/28/federal-cri minal-prosecutions-fall-to-low est-level-in-nearly-two-decade s/ . According to https://www.ussc.gov/sites/d efault/files/pdf/research-and- publications/research-publicat ions/2017/FY16_Overview_ Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf , "In fiscal year 2016 the vast majority of offenders (97.3%) pleaded guilty." If that figure can be believed, then there were presumably no more than 2.8% x 77,152 criminal trials, or only 2160 trials. Perhaps this statistic would surprise most people. I think the average sentence is about 3 years. The ability of the Federal criminal system to actually put on criminal trials is very limited. There are only a limited number of courts, and judges, and prosecutors, and this system must share space and time with civil trials. It is quite possible that it would be very difficult to put on much more than those 2160 trials. That court space has to be shared with civil cases, as well. All, or at least most of those people had a right to a jury trial. If all, or most of those defendants were somehow motivated to demand such a trial, rather than plead guilty, havoc would ensue. Even if the number of trials could increase, say to about 3000, then the remainder, 77,152-3000, or 74,152, would have to walk free, because the system could not possibly try them all. The limitation is not merely court space: Trials are "expensive" in preparation, research, and evidence. And that led me to yet another "awfully wonderful, wonderfully awful" idea, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch. What would motivate all of these people to demand a jury trial? Well, currently they are threatened with much more punishment if they plead not guilty and demand a trial, and lose. Like a variant on the "Prisoner's dilemma", each one is forced to conclude that it is better to 'take the deal' rather than resist, and demand a trial. What would change this system around? Well, the lot of a prisoner in Federal prison is poor, if he has no money. No money, no commissary. No drinks, cookies, crackers, soups, candies, etc. I know: I spent 13 years in prison, time I shouldn't have spent. Many enter prison broke. What if they were offered, say, $3000 if they agreed to demand a jury trial, and thus forced the government to actually put them on trial, form a jury, and put on a trial. If the government dropped the case, or reduced the charges to something that didn't require a trial, the defendant would get nothing. If we assume that the Federal court system could put on 3,000 trials, one defendant per trial typically, the cost for such a project would be 3,000 x $3,000, or 9 million dollars. It would be limited by the number of actual trials the Feds could put on each year, multiplied by the dollar amount that would have to be paid to motivate a defendant to demand a trial. Tell each new Federal defendant that if he pleads not guilty, and insists on a jury trial, and if he actually gets that trial, he will be paid the $3,000. Guilty or not guilty, it won't matter. Have a trial, get the money, simple as that. I am merely guessing what the 'proper' figure would be, in order to motivate such people adequately. But if most people were already demanding a jury trial, and tens of thousands of fellow defendants were being freed due to lack of ability to give them trials, it shouldn't take a lot of money to induce these people to 'stand in line', and demand a trial. After all, they would know that if they didn't get the money, that would mean that they would have been freed. And that's the goal, isn't it? At least for the defendant, that is. You can imagine what would happen. The Feds would have to ration trials. Only the most "worthy" defendants would get prosecuted. And yes, there are definitely some worthy defendants. I met a few!! But the total number of people who could enter the Federal prison system per year would drop from perhaps 75,000 per year to 3,000 per year. This year, there are about 185,300 Federal prisoners. Drop the input to 3,000 per year, and the total population could easily drop to 20,000, and perhaps to as low as 10,000, after a few years. Dozens of prisons across the nation would have to close, maybe well over 100. It costs approximately $40,000 to feed and house a Federal prisoner. Most of that money probably goes to prison staff salaries and supplies, and most of the rest goes to prison construction. Drop the total Federal prison population from 185,000 to 15,000, and they will save about 170,000 multiplied by $40,000, or about $6.8 billion dollars per year. Doesn't this sound like a worthy goal? We may speculate about who would be motivated to fund such a project. Give them the ability to donate anonymously, and they might act. There might arguably be 200,000 people per year who fear some sort of Federal prosecution. A donation of $50 per year, average, would raise $10 million. It would not take many tax evaders, resistors, or avoiders to foot the bill. People who resented a prior prosecution would add up, as well. Why not? Jim Bell

2 2