On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:03:50 +0000 coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 16, 2019 5:45 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
... well, tyrannicide is a moral obligation. And the right to defend oneself from govcorp is the obvious extention of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. And so, killing govcorp agents (unless let's say, they surrender) is legitimate.
to murder is to forfeit the moral argument. in terms of cognitive bias alone, better to err towards never killing - i could cite ethical reasons as well, but they are well worn. (we condemn state orchestrated murder, AP is just a decentralized tyrant doing same)
you might argue that killing people in self-defense should be done only as last resort and I would generally agree, but govcorp criminals are in their own very special category. As you know, if you chose to consistently oppose any of the state's dictates, you will be murdered, and pretty quickly depending on circumstances. I'd also suggest that the only 'argument' that govcorp understands is violence.
Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them.
"the street finds its own uses for things"
the beauty of mass resistance is that the tools are already prevalent.
And if there was mass resistance we wouldn't be talking about AP...
we have a beautiful reference case unfolding before us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactics_and_methods_surrounding_the_2019_Hong_...
I think we can assume that a good deal of those events are organized by the CIA, GCHC, the pentagon, the jews at wall street, google, facebook, and etc.
choose no murder choose mass resistance
best regards,