On 10/15/20, Karl wrote:

a _ton_ of people have social network censorship. please share if cases like these are ever resolved in favor of the complaint, so that others can use the precedent.

Another database project was analysis of all darknet court cases, interview defendants etc, to find, publish, and end parallel construction, free innocents / on technicalities. Nobody ever did that one either. And a bunch of tor / overlays node analysis... And... And many others from others...

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 01:27:02 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

But now, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube have clearly and unambiguously declared war on at least half of humanity. 

huh? What the hell are you talking about? "half of humanity" - what?? You wouldn't be referring to trumpofascists...? Anyway, twatter, facebook, jew-tube and all the rest are the NSA, so they've 'declared' war on ALL of humanity a long time ago. And the 'president' of the US whoever he is, is their #1 accomplice. So what do we have here? More...shilling! Who would have thought it.

jim bell wrote:

Ha ha!  Are you implying that you think half the people populating the Earth...3.5 billion people...support Trump?  Well, I didn't really intend to "getcha!" but it looks like I "Gotcha!".

Yes, my bad. I then realized you must have meant the overall number of users of the 'private' facades for the NSA like twitter etc. Then again, I don't think that number is 1/2 of worlds population but more like two thirds.

The reality (remember REALITY?!?) is that Facebook and Twitter are declaring war not merely on Trump supporters ("Trumpofascists" as you call them) but virtually half of the population of the world or more.   

yes, but my point stands : they declared war on their 1000s of millions of users a long time ago. They have been censoring, manipulating and spying from day 0 and all fake libertarians supported them because "hey it's their 'servers'".

The reality, for better or worse is that the identity of the person who is U.S. President from 2021 through 2025 is (though it SHOULDN'T be!  That's a different problem!) vitally important to the entire world.  

no it isn't. The US oligarchy has a one party system and the president is just a figurehead. The US (and so most of the world) is run by the US MIC. So the 'elections' are just for show.

I think that very large numbers of people want to learn if Joe Biden is the crook he resembles. 

he's obviously a crook, like any other politician. The higher the rank, the more more crooked. So anyway, your position seems to be that YOU declared war on google-NSA just yesterday because of some petty partisan issue. Not impressive. And actually if joogle-jewbook-twatter-etc-NSA are censoring some piece of actual news, that would hurt them more than help them so one has to wonder why they would do such a thing. My guess is that the powers that be are going to add a new chapter to the farce in which the 'good government' is going to further 'regulate' google-NSA. Do some 'anti monopoly' stuff that will change nothing in practice.

So, I argue, they cannot now use as an excuse for not indicting Biden, the fact that it is "too close" to the upcoming election.

you still don't seem to get the fact that the US 'justice' system and govt do whatever they want.

And, if it hadn't been leaked, the election would have proceeded as if nothing was wrong. I call that "manipulation of the election"!   Actually, it's the same way they manipulated the election 2016.   Comey on July 5, 2016, knew that the only way Hitlery Clinton MIGHT have won is if she WASN'T indicted, so by choosing to NOT indict her he was choosing the only path to get her there.   And there was excellent reason to indict her.  By CHOOSING NOT to indict her, the Justice Department put its thumb on the scales of the election. Same thing this year, too.  The only way Biden could win is if he ISN'T indicted...or if the indictment is delayed so long that it's 'too late'.   We are now learning that there were excellent reasons to indict Biden.   By choosing to not indict him, the Justice Department is putting its thumb (probably ALL of them!) on the scales of the election. What combination of shenanigans would be seen as justifying a delay of the election...if Joe Biden gets indicted?   If this is, literally, the "October Surprise", it's a big one!  But the fault that it is the OCTOBER surprise is solidly in the camp of the FBI and the Justice Department.  Somebody tried to make it the "January 2020 Surprise", but corrupt FBI employees forestalled that.   I believe that both Bidens should be instantly indicted.                    Jim Bell

   

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:27:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

https://attackthesystem.com/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-declare-war-with-cen... https://youtu.be/fdCLjW-_uwg          Saager Enjeti and Krystal Ball                 

Jim Bell's response: It sounds like there are MANY stories here, but at least one of them is that the FBI has apparently been ‘sitting on’ this information since December 2019. To help Biden win, we can conclude. “The Deep State” strikes again. But this story should have been released months ago. 25 years ago, I invented the Assassination Politics idea, which became the AP essay.   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Since then, I have virtually NEVER named specific people, or small groups of people who should be targets of AP.   For reasons that I have considered obvious,

I would have thought "preservation of self's liberty" would have struck you clearly by now :/

I have long believed that people are usually able to decide for themselves who the real enemies are, and when the time comes, they will do so.  But there is now an emergency.   At that time, 1995, if you had asked me, I would have predicted that all of the first 1000 targets of AP would be government employees, mostly higher-ups.   But now, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube have clearly and unambiguously declared war on at least half of humanity.  And the other half are too stupid to realize why they shouldn't be celebrating.  By doing this, they have irrevocably crossed a critical and seemingly uncrossable line, which as Saager says, cannot now be uncrossed.

In the sense that now they have actually done the censorship they've done, and that's a historical fact, yes they cannot uncross that line, but to many on this list, their crossing of that line was obvious years ago... On the other hand, an alternative, this time P2P, social media non-platform, may well solve this problem.

Ask me today who could the targets be, and I would ask: “How many people are in the top 3-4 layers of administration of the companies Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and quite possibly Google as well.   Since they are openly declaring war on us in an ideological war, I believe we should accept THEIR decision and be forced to be openly at war with them.   Yes, it’s THAT serious!  At this time, THEY are the most serious threat to our society.  

I agree the situation regarding freedom of speech in the public town hall, and its attack by the Valley's behemoths, is serious. I would have thought you'd learnt your own lesson on naming things in the way you name them, but what would I know... On the specific topic of AP, there is an old biblical adage that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. It's a mataphor, example, allegory, principle (some might call it karma). Perhaps living by AP is not quite the wisest move. Don't mind me, I's just a bumblin hippie wanna be...

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 08:05:42AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:

...

there is an old biblical adage that those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you're working to defeat tyranny, to bring freedom, through coding for users, speaking with others or in public, writing books, campaigning, running cryptocurrency nodes, however the ways... you're already living by the sword, and risking death by doing so. People only have so many years, and at the end of the day, AP is just another sword roaming around, humanity will survive at some level either way. Who could argue that it's not already among the set of potential futures.

Yes of course. But which future time tracks would you prefer to surf? I'm not yet ready to surf that track. It may be inevitable, though I hope and pray it's not, as it appears quite possibly a very dark track. I hold intentions for futures of peace, not anxiety, joy and not ubiquitous fear of the mob.

Or that there's not already a lot of dying going on.

Of course. Existent reality is not in dispute. The adage suggests a correspondence. Living "by AP" in this instance, to "dying by AP". And in the meta you're asking "what's the diff?" And truth be told, there might not be much. Per se. As the next few years disclose themselves to us, it may turn out that we owe it to ourselves to return to the various considerations, pro and con, which have at least begun to be laid out. That's not a $NOW thing for this ole Soul..

Or that one could really retain control, or control anyone's use, of any particular sword. People, Govts, and Corps already hire mercenaries and hitmen in the real world.

As the CIA, and more abundantly, Mossad, have abundantly demonstrated for decades, centuries even...

Seems that by natural progression eventually someone somewhere will make the decision to up the game.

The "seems like" is possible, yes, but it's a time track. We - you, me, other individuals - we each have some level of individual agency (which may not be as great as we generally presume, but is hard to dispute that it exists to some degree at least), and how we collectively, and sometimes more importantly -individually- exercise our agency, has significant bearing on these futures we speak about. Not everything must be spoken (/typed). In 1918 the Spanish Flu was far more deadly (notwithstanding le Wakky's wakkiness) than 2019's Wuhan Flu, and one "end times" which appear to fit to some degree into the Revelations template, may not necessarily fit that template as harshly as another time track, or another "end times" in history. (Just think, the wars in the 20th Century were major, and relentless, and in this 2016/2020 crux it appears we may have avoided the fate of white USA in a major war against white Russia, and the almost certain global nuclear war which would have followed - Hitlery "Queen of War" Clinton has not had her preferred time track...) To the extent we may choose (or contribute to the choice of) one or another time track, let's choose those with greater possibility for joy, for freedom of expression, for greater individuality i.e. potential for dissidence "from the mainstream dogma".

Those who aren't in the game, not high profile making waves, just living their workaday life, won't have anything to worry about, certainly not more than the odds of dying from any other cause.

Until that day the final straw is placed on their shoulders, that final indignity, injustice or other matter of principle which causes him to become a dissident "with a cause", at which point FaceTwattGoogleAI might identify his "emergent dissidence" with 74% certainty. That almost-dissident's life does not continue for very long as his Tesla "strangely" rips through a barrier at the top of a 40meter high bridge and dies, publicized as a "tragic loss", his dissidence never known to the world for the laughter, joy, and liberating power he intended to bring forth. You and I are high profile, well known to Mossad and the CIA (and therefore the SValley AI behemoths), as are others on this list.

Nor will anyone be foolish enough to press their luck that far.

Me thinketh you doth project too much. Once it is evident that The Fine, Fine Powers That Be have gamed the AP markets to within a picometer of their very existence, at least those with sufficient IQ will know not to push the envelope of their dissidence "luck" that far - we've all seen it, the "pre-crime" computers are being deployed - and most will simply not risk their lives to take control of those computers in an AP-ubiquitous world.

These types of things are always rogue, and outside our control once the ideas become known. So why bother worrying? Just live.

Caution your rapid typing ability my friend: "These.. things are always rogue, and outside our control.." are (perhaps unrealised in your moment of typing) powerful words - they project certainty of one or another path (time track). You may be totally correct, or (as well) alternative words may speak to other time tracks of possibility which may draw the attention, and intention, of those who might otherwise be swayed by your powerful words. We -do- have influence upon one another, upon all, even by our very existence (let alone of course our words). Let us not let the evil of others be any justification for our own [ apathy, negligence, resignation, antagonism, evil, etc ]. Every phrase, every word, every sentence, every nuance of intention (!), which we speak and or project, has an effect in this world. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we are surfing time tracks or entrenching an existing time track. Wisdom behooves us to choose our words, phrases, sentences, and especially to choose our very nuances of intention and the subsequent blunt thoughts, wisely! Nothing is inevitable except we accept it as such. Consciously, or tacitly, we are each agents of intention in this world. Let's be conscious agents, and wish ourselves good luck and wisdom as we co-create our shared future.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:30:05AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2020, 01:55:45 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:27:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

...

https://attackthesystem.com/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-declare-war-with-cen... https://youtu.be/fdCLjW-_uwg          Saager Enjeti and Krystal Ball                 

Jim Bell's response: It sounds like there are MANY stories here, but at least one of them is that the FBI has apparently been ‘sitting on’ this information since December 2019. To help Biden win, we can conclude. “The Deep State” strikes again. But this story should have been released months ago. 25 years ago, I invented the Assassination Politics idea, which became the AP essay.   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Since then, I have virtually NEVER named specific people, or small groups of people who should be targets of AP.   For reasons that I have considered obvious,

...

I would have thought "preservation of self's liberty" would have struck you clearly by now :/ Ha ha ?    I am assuming you intended that somewhat humorously...    That could be a factor, but too many people these days (in common political discourse) denounce each other, to make what I say all that out of the ordinary.  I've long pointed out that I won't be the one implementing AP, for example.   

Sorry I was unclear - was not denouncing you (no intention to at least), but cautioning you. You did a butt load of years in jail already, and it just seems to me that you have not quite understood the lesson. In case you still don't get it, let me say it this way: perhaps naming any individual, or group of individuals, as [ appropriate | worthy | reasonable ] targets of assassination, is not the wisest thing to do publicly? I dunno, may be I'm just bone headedly missing something, but it seemed like you don't see this apparently simple point ?

If we compare the political environment of 1995 and 2020, the 'Overton window'   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window  of AP could have been seen as "unthinkable" in 1995, but in today's wacky reality, it could easily be seen as "acceptable" or even "sensible".  

Possibly. That's a good way to put it at least...

Rather early (1995-1997, 2000), and occasionally, a few people would declare my AP essay 'right-wing'.  Initially I thought that opinion to be very odd, especially because at that time, my impression was that few 'right-wingers' called for the complete elimination (and not merely "overthrow", implying that government was supposed to be replaced with something else, that something else which was fated to be about as oppressive) of every government on the face of the Earth. 

Indeed, still to this day. And even more clearly in today's North America, it is plain to see that The Left appears willing, ready and wanting such a direction, "we need guillotines in the streets" level of wanting.

Eventually, I figured it out:  I have read very little political writing in my life, and of that, the large majority is libertarian literature.  So, when I write, I think I don't unintentionally copy the patterns used by others.   I concluded that the people doing that labelling (calling it "right-wing !") simply read my AP essay and noticed that it simply didn't LOOK (use verbiage typical of) common left-wing screeds.  Since the people that were doing that labelling didn't see any signs that I was writing in the usual, left-wing tradition, and due to their political cluelessness in general, they figured I MUST BE "right-wing".   'What other alternative is there?!?', they might delusionally say.  

Your assessment appears entirely reasonable :)

...

...

I have long believed that people are usually able to decide for themselves who the real enemies are, and when the time comes, they will do so.  But there is now an emergency.   At that time, 1995, if you had asked me, I would have predicted that all of the first 1000 targets of AP would be government employees, mostly higher-ups.   But now, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube have clearly and unambiguously declared war on at least half of humanity.  And the other half are too stupid to realize why they shouldn't be celebrating.  By doing this, they have irrevocably crossed a critical and seemingly uncrossable line, which as Saager says, cannot now be uncrossed.

...

In the sense that now they have actually done the censorship they've done, and that's a historical fact, yes they cannot uncross that line, but to many on this list, their crossing of that line was obvious years ago...

That's absolutely correct.  I didn't mean to suggest that this is new!  Far from it!   While I have had a Facebook account for years, I almost never use it, so I don't experience any of the censorship.  But I know people who DO heavily use Facebook for political discussions, and they have been relating increasingly-outrageous examples of anti-conservative (and anti-libertarian) censorship over the last few years.  

But I think Facebook's and Twitter's treatment of this new story about Joe and Hunter Biden did not merely 'cross the line', really it 'pole-vaulted' (or even 'jet-packed' !) far over it!  Actually trying to SUPPRESS this story?   What do they think they will actually accomplish, here?   Have they ever heard of the 'Streisand Effect' ?

:D They appear to be what Lady McLuscious might call "visual learners" :D

Is it really so implausible that Joe Biden would engage in corruption in 2015?   Even as early as 2009, he 'knew' that he would not be the tapped for the Presidential candidacy in 2016, since it was "Hillary's turn!" !  The death of his other son, Beau, was simply used as an excuse for why he wouldn't run.  He fully expected to be permanently retired in 2017.  So, using his son Hunter as the bag-man for that $3 million payoff was perfectly logical, in a weird sort of way.  

Not even wierd, simply standard (illegal) corrupt nepotism, on the taxpayer's dime. Note Trump, the only US president to have his net worth go backwards whilst in office..

...

On the other hand, an alternative, this time P2P, social media non-platform, may well solve this problem.

We can hope!  Especially given the "Overton Window" change, and today's amazing environment!  Even 10 years ago, it would have been hard to anticipate the kind of frenzied blinding hostility being displayed, daily.  SOME people might have argued about AP, in 1995 (disingenuously even then, I believe), that "Who hates other people so much as to donate money to see them killed!".   Well, in 2020, just about everything has changed.  

Indeed, and this is a classic example of the type of world I want to NOT live in, where the loonatic lefty mob is literally empowered (in 2020, by Democrat city mayors all over the USA) to commit horrific and broad scale crimes of arson, theft and murder - just imagine AP having been thrown into this mix?

It COULD have been almost purely a good thing when the "town-square" discussions of the 1790-to-mid-1900's period got migrated to the Internet, mostly beginning 1995.  (I'm not intending to forget platforms like Compuserve and BBS's, of course.)   People with obscure hobbies that no-one within a mile of their own home practices, now can compare notes around the world.   But I think that has been ruined in the last few years, at least for political-type discussions.  

It's the centralisation, of power, of control over speech, that is the problem. We must maintain, over the long term, the intention to decentralise everything - networks, storage, comms, defence distributed, holding of foundational principles (knowledge, education, morals, rights). If one "leader" falls in one locality, there must be 10 to immediately replace him, each holding a similar set of principles, a similar vigilant demand for "distributed open everything". Those who -will- not stand do not deserve freedom.

YouTube's banning of QANON discussions is a further example of PC idiocy, and

And Streissand..

even pointlessness. While I've paid essentially no attention to any QANON content (merely reading the frequent references to them in news), I see nothing at all to justify obstructing people from exchanging what others see as implausible opinions.   Does any major platform ban discussion of UFO's?  Alien abductions?  "Flat Earth"?  Ghosts?  Astrology?  Crop circles?   Why would they?

Yes, and as a consequence, the QAnon "conspiracy" becomes every more plausible since it appears "the hat fits" and those in power and shirting themselves... whereas UFO discussions of course would not bother them personally. Gotta admit, they seem rather dim witted (low IQ individuals).

For that matter, if they are taking the position that ideas THEY DON'T AGREE WITH should be obstructed and banned, why doesn't somebody issue a blanket-ban on religious subjects?  Or just individual bans on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism,  Sunni or Shiite, etc?  Or bans on dissent against those religions, or sects, etc? 

Exactly.

...

...

Ask me today who could the targets be, and I would ask: “How many people are in the top 3-4 layers of administration of the companies Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and quite possibly Google as well.   Since they are openly declaring war on us in an ideological war, I believe we should accept THEIR decision and be forced to be openly at war with them.   Yes, it’s THAT serious!  At this time, THEY are the most serious threat to our society.  

...

I agree the situation regarding freedom of speech in the public town hall, and its attack by the Valley's behemoths, is serious.

...

I would have thought you'd learnt your own lesson on naming things in the way you name them, but what would I know...

I think one difference is, now, the current "political" (ideological) environment.  I don't think, TODAY, that I am advocating anything that many other people haven't been thinking about, for years.  

You don't seem to understand my basic point about advocating (by way of your "naming of) the "political" assassination of specific individuals or groups. Living by the sword still I see... Myself, I prefer dialog, and love ..

...

On the specific topic of AP, there is an old biblical adage that those who live by the sword, die by the sword.  It's a mataphor, example, allegory, principle (some might call it karma). Perhaps living by AP is not quite the wisest move.  Don't mind me, I's just a bumblin hippie wanna be...

Well, I had already concluded in early 1995, well before I wrote Part 1 of AP, that despite its premise, there wouldn't be all that many killings under AP.  The credible existence of that system would itself deter people offending others.   

Except that may be true, but there may be other factors which tip the balance speficially against dissidents - that is people like you, me, and others on the list in case you missed the memo. Looks like a paper is needed: The Marginal Dissident, by John Anon. I heard he attended a 12 step program last year, might be worth a review...

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:53:13AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2020, 08:11:32 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote: 

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:30:05AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

  On Friday, October 16, 2020, 01:55:45 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:      On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:27:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

...

https://attackthesystem.com/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-declare-war-with-cen... https://youtu.be/fdCLjW-_uwg          Saager Enjeti and Krystal Ball                 

[snip]

...

...

I would have thought "preservation of self's liberty" would have struck you clearly by now :/ Ha ha ?    I am assuming you intended that somewhat humorously...    That could be a factor, but too many people these days (in common political discourse) denounce each other, to make what I say all that out of the ordinary.  I've long pointed out that I won't be the one implementing AP, for example.   

...

Sorry I was unclear - was not denouncing you (no intention to at least), but cautioning you.

...

You did a butt load of years in jail already, and it just seems to me that you have not quite understood the lesson.

One lesson I learned was a Supreme Court case named Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

...

From that decision:

 "Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who 'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform'; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who 'justify' the commission of violent acts 'with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism'; or who 'voluntarily assemble' with a group formed 'to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.' Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.3 "     [end of quote]

Did I:        'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform';   ?

By my reading, you are skirting the line. Since you ain't ownin it clearly, let me quote you: Ask me today who could the targets be, and I would ask: "How many people are in the top 3-4 layers of administration of the companies Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and quite possibly Google as well..." And since we seem to be going around this in circles, I have to ask you the question: can you see how that quote of yours just above, is tantamount to you "skirting the line" of "naming individuals or groups" as "worthy targets of assassination"?

...

...

Is it really so implausible that Joe Biden would engage in corruption in 2015?   Even as early as 2009, he 'knew' that he would not be the tapped for the Presidential candidacy in 2016, since it was "Hillary's turn!" !  The death of his other son, Beau, was simply used as an excuse for why he wouldn't run.  He fully expected to be permanently retired in 2017.  So, using his son Hunter as the bag-man for that $3 million payoff was perfectly logical, in a weird sort of way.  

...

Not even wierd, simply standard (illegal) corrupt nepotism, on the taxpayer's dime.  Note Trump, the only US president to have his net worth go backwards whilst in office..

I wonder about that Durham!   Does he think his "job" is to DELAY prosecutions until AFTER the upcoming election?  

It is easy to imagine that The Clinton Machine, and those before it (The Bush Family) etc, have racked up 10s of 1000s of pages of evidence of crimes, and imagine the connections between various people involved - almost a combinatorial thing, so we're talking thousands upon thousands of possible connections between people etc. If US Attorney John "Look IN, to muh EYES, n.gger!" Durham is truly on this case of 'draining the swamp', it has to be the biggest criminal case since Al Capone, and yet bigger still. I remain hopeful, and pray. Time will tell.

...

...

...

On the other hand, an alternative, this time P2P, social media non-platform, may well solve this problem.

...

We can hope!  Especially given the "Overton Window" change, and today's amazing environment!  Even 10 years ago, it would have been hard to anticipate the kind of frenzied blinding hostility being displayed, daily.  SOME people might have argued about AP, in 1995 (disingenuously even then, I believe), that "Who hates other people so much as to donate money to see them killed!".   Well, in 2020, just about everything has changed.  

...

Indeed, and this is a classic example of the type of world I want to NOT live in, where the loonatic lefty mob is literally empowered (in 2020, by Democrat city mayors all over the USA) to commit horrific and broad scale crimes of arson, theft and murder - just imagine AP having been thrown into this mix?

But like I said, above, AP is "biased against" governmental systems.  "Lefty mobs" won't work well unless they have powerful lefty governments to back them up.  

I do know that is your understanding and your proposition to us. I do not agree; in particular, many of the fundamental issues of such AP system have neither been unpacked nor apparently thought about/ analysed, at all! (Which leaves my concern on the far right of the axis of concern, right around "through the roof".) $TODAY, the "lefty mobs" have Soros sugar daddy and Democrat city mayors funding, advocating and empowering them. ISTM you significantly, and consistently, underestimate all of that.

...

...

It COULD have been almost purely a good thing when the "town-square" discussions of the 1790-to-mid-1900's period got migrated to the Internet, mostly beginning 1995.  (I'm not intending to forget platforms like Compuserve and BBS's, of course.)   People with obscure hobbies that no-one within a mile of their own home practices, now can compare notes around the world.   But I think that has been ruined in the last few years, at least for political-type discussions.  

...

It's the centralisation, of power, of control over speech, that is the problem.  We must maintain, over the long term, the intention to decentralise everything - networks, storage, comms, defence distributed, holding of foundational principles (knowledge, education, morals, rights).

To the extent that's possible.  One of the big reasons I view the Starlink system as POTENTIALLY a major step forward  (without, currently, a guarantee...) is that not only does it give "everybody" one more source of Internet,  but it provides the prospect of de-linking any government control over a country's ISPs.  Provide Internet to India in a way that the government can't obstruct?  Quite possibly.  Wireline (or fiber) Internet can be seized by government at a moment's notice.  They MUST comply.  

Here's a good example of your narrow sightedness (intellectually speaking): you use the term "government", and evidently refer in your example to "the Indian gov", yet you ignore "US government control over Starlink and thereby of very little 'routing around problems' benefit to the Indian gov, since it's no better than the trans-continental fibre links we have today". That might be obvious, but by you failing to state that obvious counterpoint to your own proposition, you come across as blinkered. That said, I hold that Starlink may be useful as geographic "backhaul" type of hop for some future overlay that at least solves a couple of Tor's fundamental problems (central dir auths, no chaff fill, etc).

...

If one "leader" falls in one locality, there must be 10 to immediately replace him, each holding a similar set of principles, a similar vigilant demand for "distributed open everything".

...

Those who -will- not stand do not deserve freedom.

...

...

I think one difference is, now, the current "political" (ideological) environment.  I don't think, TODAY, that I am advocating anything that many other people haven't been thinking about, for years.  

...

You don't seem to understand my basic point about advocating (by way of your "naming of) the "political" assassination of specific individuals or groups.

Once you've read the Brandenburg v. Ohio SC decision, it becomes rather clear.    I don't intend to advocate anything untoward...in riot-type situations.  

"riot type situation" As long as you're confident defending your own statements, in the face of a grand jury, well, good luck to ya. (I still think you're dangerously skirting the edge of what could get you in trouble ... again.)

BUT...I DO intend to remind people, who ignored or rejected my AP idea in the late 1990's, that NOW they want to "kill the bastard". [whoever that bastard that might be!]   Is there any logical reason anymore to NOT want to employ an AP-type system to destroy all governments?

See above, and see thread last year, and recent discussion with grarpamp. I.e. many, many reasons. Not least of which, your conclusion ("my AP type system is a system which shall destroy all governments") is IMEHO, unfounded.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 07:34:03AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2020, 02:38:15 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote: 

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:53:13AM +0000, jim bell wrote: [snip]

...

...

One lesson I learned was a Supreme Court case named Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio>

...

From that decision:> "Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who 'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform'; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who 'justify' the commission of violent acts 'with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism'; or who 'voluntarily assemble' with a group formed 'to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.' Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.3 "     [end of quote]>> >> Did I:        'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform';   ?

...

By my reading, you are skirting the line. No, the line isn't 'skirted'.   Okay, I will try to explain it more clearly.   To a first approximation, the principle of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) is that the US Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment (free speech) protects advocacy of 'crime' and 'violence' EXCEPT in what I call a 'riot-type' situations.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444       and      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio  

Ah yes, now I can see I got it back to front, and therefore incorrectly. Thank you for clarifying my error.

It should go without saying that I intend to avoid all "riot-type" situations, and if caught in one, I certainly won't be doing advocacy!  

<wry> :)