Re: Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure
Yes well naomi is an elite so elite's concern themselves with so called "protections" Hierarchy is in all human shit Activists that are elite pose a huge threat to us all tremendously more than any leak ever could On Oct 20, 2016 8:47 PM, "Razer" <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote: On 10/20/2016 10:26 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
Thanks for the reply! I will consider these things.
The only thing that worries me is the proposal that we use the same criteria as the people we are claiming to be criminals. Implicate the whole family for the sins of one... It just don't seem like an improvement to me.
It isn't. But it's a starting point to hold the people who accumulate power for self-advantage (ie psychopaths) accountable for their power by not allowing them a right to wield that power without panopticon-like observation. It implies that people who are born to privilege are
incapable of seeing the problems with the system and escaping it.
Some people 'escape'. It's usually glaring obvious who those people are, and there aren't many. Even fewer manage to avoid falling back into that comfortable 'nest' of affluence. I'm
not sure that's the best way, but at the moment I don't yet have an alternative, so I will just think about it for a while.
We need to start somewhere. Start with the people who have the power and have the ability to violate OUR privacy at their government-legitimized whim. Let's get some equality between the gander and the goose so to speak, or OUR gooses get cooked. Recently there's been a reporting, by the Intercept and ACLU notably, about the violation of NODAPL's privacy and safety by COINTELPRO-like ops and data gathering on activists by, ahem, Cloudflare, and others. Leonard Peltier, in his letter of support for the Sacred Stone encampment made a POINT of warning everyone that the end result of that sort of domestic spying may create more "Leonard Peltiers". The same is very true for the BlackLivesMatter folks. They COULD very much end um the next gen of "Geronimo Pratts" and other Black Panthers. Imprisoned for decades for crimes they had no part in because the government was able to fabricate 'circumstances'. I suspect the Useful Idiot organization New Black Panthers are tasked with that endeavor whether they understand it or not. Rr
Thanks,
Kevin
On 10/20/2016 01:16 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 09:50 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
Hello Razer,
I actually don't disagree with you at all. I agree with the "transparency for the powerful, privacy for the weak" mindset that is so ingrained in cypherpunk culture. I was just wondering where we draw the line between the powerful and the weak.
For me that line needs to be drawn where the power over one's personal rights is delegated to a government.
There is no doubt in my mind that the criminals currently running for government positions in the U.S. are powerful, and therefore need transparency, but this brings about a few questions in my mind. Is one powerful because they are related to someone who is powerful?
Could be. Neil Bush's bank in South America has quite the chokehold on certain parts of the South American economy.
If so, at
what point does the relation become "too distant" for someone to be considered powerful?
What say we use the government's standard for Drone Wars. They kill whole family and tribal blood lines... or try to.
Charlie Wilson's Haquannis... al-Awalakis, other members of the bin-Laden family have been killed though I'm not sure of their direct relationship to terrorism.
Is there something other than money or political
power that can be considered a source of power? These are just considerations I want to think through, and I was wondering what your take on it was. Sigh... Theo Roszak proposed that money and power are really just substitutes for, or ways of obtaining, life extension. But that doesn't mean age is considered wealth and power in Capitalist societies (though it sure does in the few undamaged tribal societies left)
I ascribe to the idea that accumulation of wealth and political power (which is for the most part the equivalent of social power over society and it's individuals) for the sake of those items dynamic in controlling the continuation of wealth and power (hence social control) in the hands of oneself and one's friends is a pretty good place to begin, anyway.
That implies for a start, that the wealth and power aren't shared voluntarily by that group and they conspire to keep it that way (in private). Monarchies and dictatorships are examples. The US is essentially a two faction soft dictatorship. 'Soft' in the sense that the dictators, neuropsychologically preened for media 'candidates' Americans get to select from, have the manufactured consent of of the masses that they have the right to rule.
My question was honestly not meant as a critique of your viewpoint, just a clarification so I can think these ideas through. I'm sorry if it offended you.
No offense... I'm just a little testy about the upcoming two-faction of a one-party state erections, and everyone who actually thinks it matters in any real sense of the word. It's made me a bit defensive.
To answer your question directly: No, that's not unreasonable. I agree with you on it entirely. I just want to consider the implications of things such as family relationships, and where the lines are drawn.
Thanks,
Kevin
On 10/20/2016 12:41 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private
or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who just happened to pick up the WRONG person)
Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy?
Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives.
So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you.
Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives?
RR
On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote: > https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-
lives podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/
> youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_ glennnaomi_v1 > > Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted > substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the > archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was > published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive > have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously > secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate > herself. While the significance of particular stories has been > debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a > valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great > political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be > among the most powerful officials on the planet. > > Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist > Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and > other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, > particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of > someone’s personal emails. > That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:59:55PM +0300, Cari Machet wrote:
Yes well naomi is an elite so elite's concern themselves with so called "protections"
Hierarchy is in all human shit
Activists that are elite pose a huge threat to us all tremendously more than any leak ever could
Yes! Human nature is to instantly (almost) and almost silently hand over power, even so called "activists" - it's really really depressing. Walk in to an early days group, speak a bit of "power talk", charismatically swish your metaphorical arse around, and most folk ooh and aah and fall to the FOG / false oppositional group (or individual) - every time there's a big corporate move, e.g. to rip up a beautiful shoreline and build skyscrapers, malls etc and destroy the views from the houses around, not one but a whole committee of "rescuers" will come in, and 500 or 2000 people will be so grateful that a few who know what to do will run their little committee meetings and report back on which next step is going to be done, must be done, to "save" the people - and 3 years later, the 5 folk still remaining on the treadmill being spun by the 5 "rescuers" on the committee, STILL don't realise they've been completely done over (until you point it out to them). Humans, in general, are completely, utterly, firetrucked! They are unable to think, unable to properly witness people - who are liers, who are just power hungry pratts, who are genuine team players and who just want their ego stroked.
participants (2)
-
Cari Machet -
Zenaan Harkness