From: Shawn K. Quinn On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 10:15 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

A little search for e.g. "Trump marijuana" turns up some interesting articles and quotes. Left for the curious... Regardless of his position on drug prohibition, Rump is a terrible choice to lead this country. I wish Bernie was on the November ballot. Failing that, I wish Jill Stein had a realistic chance of winning the election; I really would prefer her over Hillary. The two-party system is broken. I don't really want Hillary, but I really, really, really don't want Rump, and a vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or for that matter, a vote for Charlie Brown or Santa Claus) could potentially help Rump win. Shawn K. Quinn

Some of the first Green Parties were found in the 1970's, when Communism was dying and a bunch of European nuts were embarrassed about being seen as Communists.  So, they figured they would form a crypto-Communist/Socialist party, pretend it focussed primarily on environmental issues. The "Green Party" has been jokingly referred to as the "Watermelon Party":   "Green on the outside, and Red on the inside".    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/05/green-party-conference-nata...         Jim Bell

On Oct 23, 2016, at 9:33 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 01:00:16AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

From: Shawn K. Quinn

...

On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 10:15 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

A little search for e.g. "Trump marijuana" turns up some interesting articles and quotes. Left for the curious... Regardless of his position on drug prohibition, Rump is a terrible choice to lead this country. I wish Bernie was on the November ballot. Failing that, I wish Jill Stein had a realistic chance of winning the election; I really would prefer her over Hillary. The two-party system is broken. I don't really want Hillary, but I really, really, really don't want Rump, and a vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or for that matter, a vote for Charlie Brown or Santa Claus) could potentially help Rump win. Shawn K. Quinn

Some of the first Green Parties were found in the 1970's, when Communism was dying and a bunch of European nuts were embarrassed about being seen as Communists. So, they figured they would form a crypto-Communist/Socialist party, pretend it focussed primarily on environmental issues.

...

The "Green Party" has been jokingly referred to as the "Watermelon Party": "Green on the outside, and Red on the inside". https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/05/green-party-conference-nata...

Funny, but sad in that it simply perpetuates the "communism is the great stupidity / evil / anti abundance" philosophy - and just as with democracy, we've rarely seen true communism (excepting perhaps the pre-Jesus Essenes).

We need to bust the stereotypes and stigmas against personal political thought. We need to be proud to be whatever we see as uplifting and sane, be it aspects of "communism" or any particular political theory "wholus bolus"!

When anyone saying something positive about some aspect of Communism, Stalinism, Anarchism, etc, gets shot down

So true. All the really nice aspects of Stalinism have just really been down played by western propaganda.

in subtle flames unchallenged, sure our conversation, and our world, is just that little bit more dead.

Celebrate the positive, embrace one another's attempts to extract what might be of interest or utility or honour in not any conversation, but in every conversation.

How else can we start? How else can we collectively improve/ grow?

On 10/23/2016 08:39 PM, John Newman wrote:

So true.

All the really nice aspects of Stalinism have just really been down played by western propaganda.

Hillary Clinton is a Stalinist and they're playing it down... So true. (Snigger)

On 10/23/2016 06:22 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 07:37:33PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

...

On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 10:15 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

A little search for e.g. "Trump marijuana" turns up some interesting articles and quotes. Left for the curious...

Regardless of his position on drug prohibition, Rump is a terrible choice to lead this country. I wish Bernie was on the November ballot. Failing that, I wish Jill Stein had a realistic chance of winning the election; I really would prefer her over Hillary. The two-party system is broken. I don't really want Hillary, but I really, really, really don't want Rump, and a vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or for that matter, a vote for Charlie Brown or Santa Claus) could potentially help Rump win.

How about "Agile Politics"? Imagine Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein creating a lithe "policy ticket" - where they each agree one each policy, and to support each others' respective policy.

That would be a 3 policy ticket, and they might also promise to call another election once those three policies are through, or checkmated.

E.g: Bernie's "end the war on drugs" could be one policy.

Yes, the current system is broken. Who has an ear with one of these three candidates? It's actually not too late - Bernie dumping the DNC would certainly create headlines, and perhaps go some way to reclaim his balls/ dignity/ sanity...

Bernie Sanders want to propose a "War Tax" om the rich to 'make them pay their share of the cost of war" I'll bet you think that's an antiwar position don't you? The Pentagon should be having BAKE SALES to run their NASTY WARS, not assistance from the rich, who will GLADLY pay. Because Every single economic elite profits from war. EVERY ONE, not JUST the military industrial complex, any YOU KNOW that war tax bill will be written in such a way the fine print pays them back every penny they pay in that so-called tax, from the treasury. Because the rich ALWAYS get richer, the poor poorer, and the bombs NEVER STOP falling. Agile Politics. What BULLSHIT! Politicians ARE by their very job, 'shape-shifters"! Zen BUTT THE FUCK OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS because you simply aren't in a position, or it seems, truly interested, in paying attention to the what these people are actually about and you're parroting MSM Bullshit. Rr

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:59:25PM -0700, Razer wrote:

Feb 10, 2016

As the media-fueled spectacle of election season heats up in the United Snakes, many anarchist and anti-authoritarian comrades are experiencing a serious case of deja fucking vu. Once again, we find ourselves engaging in the same stupid fucking debates with liberals, so-called “progressives” and other fair-weather radicals, about the pitfalls of electoral politics, all while being talked down to, as though we're just naive, contrarian ideologues, who don't know what we're fucking talking about."

A 5 minute exposition in layman's terms about why you're simply fucking stupid if you vote, slave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTdAe6Vo2E

Things need to change. Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above, "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy. This election cycle is too late for a truly grass roots endeavour, so only contact with the current runners is likely to yield any impact - perhaps Trump can be caused to get back to his "end the war on drugs, it is the ONLY way" statement from a decade ago - he evidently had heard from someone or read something, compelling to him, at that time. Or some middle finger party dumping by Bernie. Or some "agile politics" process with a few of the second tier runners. If you have any contacts, this is your last week and a half to try. If you fail to try with what you have, don't blame anyone else for any "failure" you perceive in the upcoming elections... (Speaking enerically here of course, not to you specifically Razer)

Finding it hard in my soul that i once again agree with razer but then again i always say "mass murderers are sometimes nice to others" so no one is completely dark On Oct 24, 2016 5:12 AM, "Razer" wrote:

On 10/23/2016 06:28 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above, "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.

You think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere.

It's the only logical choice when all you're being offered is Fascists to vote for and you have a bunch of lame schmucks who think voting for a third party is either a wasted vote or assisting one of the candidates.

That IS the level of COWARDICE seen in America today (Shawn Quinn), and that cowardice HAS created the mess we're in because sheeple willingly go to their slaughter.

Btw, Bernie Sanders is a National Socialist. Jill Stein invited him to join her, NOT to coopt what passes for real socialism and destroy the US Green Party due to attrition of the base, who only vote for internationalist socialists. He won't. Most likely what would happen is the Greens would be overwhelmed by progressive-liberals and the party destroyed, so it all just as well that he sits in one of his three VERY EXPENSIVE Lake Champlain homes and dies a slow miserable death out of the national spotlight. No one I know will miss him.

Rr

"Dare to struggle baby... or stfu and sit in the corner out of the fucking way" ~Me

A rapper covers the De-Baits.

Trap News: The Farce Awakens

"History has shown us that voting on elections accomplishes next to nothing, and that real lasting revolutionary change is won through hard work, by real people self organizing, and not by elected politicians. Yet every four years, the spectacle of the Democrats VS Republicans entices millions and makes them forget these proven facts. Trap News is our friendly (and funny, we hope) reminder of this."

https://vimeo.com/186021038

...

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:59:25PM -0700, Razer wrote:

...

Feb 10, 2016

As the media-fueled spectacle of election season heats up in the United Snakes, many anarchist and anti-authoritarian comrades are experiencing a serious case of deja fucking vu. Once again, we find ourselves engaging in the same stupid fucking debates with liberals, so-called “progressives” and other fair-weather radicals, about the pitfalls of electoral politics, all while being talked down to, as though we're just naive, contrarian ideologues, who don't know what we're fucking talking about."

A 5 minute exposition in layman's terms about why you're simply fucking stupid if you vote, slave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTdAe6Vo2E

Things need to change.

Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above, "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.

You don't think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere,

...

This election cycle is too late for a truly grass roots endeavour, so only contact with the current runners is likely to yield any impact - perhaps Trump can be caused to get back to his "end the war on drugs, it is the ONLY way" statement from a decade ago - he evidently had heard from someone or read something, compelling to him, at that time.

Or some middle finger party dumping by Bernie.

Or some "agile politics" process with a few of the second tier runners.

If you have any contacts, this is your last week and a half to try.

If you fail to try with what you have, don't blame anyone else for any "failure" you perceive in the upcoming elections...

(Speaking enerically here of course, not to you specifically Razer)

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:13:39 -0700 Razer wrote:

The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...

Actually, advocates of so called 'limited' or 'minimal' government cannot be libertarians. The foundation of libertarian phylosophy is personal rights (life, liberty, property). Any government, by definition, must violate those rights to some 'limited' degree, so a 'libertarian' government is self-refuting. It cannot exist. On the other hand I do agree that any sort of support for the 'democratic' system is sheer nonsense from the point of view of people interested in any sort of radical change.

because they believe in government. Small, but they BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest of the people, or it can be made so.

To state the obvious : no statist political system works in the interest of the subjects...

Rr

On 10/24/2016 04:48 AM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

Finding it hard in my soul that i once again agree with razer but then again i always say "mass murderers are sometimes nice to others" so no one is completely dark

On Oct 24, 2016 5:12 AM, "Razer" wrote:

...

On 10/23/2016 06:28 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above, "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.

You think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere.

It's the only logical choice when all you're being offered is Fascists to vote for and you have a bunch of lame schmucks who think voting for a third party is either a wasted vote or assisting one of the candidates.

That IS the level of COWARDICE seen in America today (Shawn Quinn), and that cowardice HAS created the mess we're in because sheeple willingly go to their slaughter.

Btw, Bernie Sanders is a National Socialist. Jill Stein invited him to join her, NOT to coopt what passes for real socialism and destroy the US Green Party due to attrition of the base, who only vote for internationalist socialists. He won't. Most likely what would happen is the Greens would be overwhelmed by progressive-liberals and the party destroyed, so it all just as well that he sits in one of his three VERY EXPENSIVE Lake Champlain homes and dies a slow miserable death out of the national spotlight. No one I know will miss him.

Rr

"Dare to struggle baby... or stfu and sit in the corner out of the fucking way" ~Me

A rapper covers the De-Baits.

Trap News: The Farce Awakens

"History has shown us that voting on elections accomplishes next to nothing, and that real lasting revolutionary change is won through hard work, by real people self organizing, and not by elected politicians. Yet every four years, the spectacle of the Democrats VS Republicans entices millions and makes them forget these proven facts. Trap News is our friendly (and funny, we hope) reminder of this."

https://vimeo.com/186021038

...

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:59:25PM -0700, Razer wrote:

...

Feb 10, 2016

As the media-fueled spectacle of election season heats up in the United Snakes, many anarchist and anti-authoritarian comrades are experiencing a serious case of deja fucking vu. Once again, we find ourselves engaging in the same stupid fucking debates with liberals, so-called “progressives” and other fair-weather radicals, about the pitfalls of electoral politics, all while being talked down to, as though we're just naive, contrarian ideologues, who don't know what we're fucking talking about."

A 5 minute exposition in layman's terms about why you're simply fucking stupid if you vote, slave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTdAe6Vo2E

Things need to change.

Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above, "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.

You don't think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere,

...

This election cycle is too late for a truly grass roots endeavour, so only contact with the current runners is likely to yield any impact - perhaps Trump can be caused to get back to his "end the war on drugs, it is the ONLY way" statement from a decade ago - he evidently had heard from someone or read something, compelling to him, at that time.

Or some middle finger party dumping by Bernie.

Or some "agile politics" process with a few of the second tier runners.

If you have any contacts, this is your last week and a half to try.

If you fail to try with what you have, don't blame anyone else for any "failure" you perceive in the upcoming elections...

(Speaking enerically here of course, not to you specifically Razer)

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:48:57 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

From: Razer The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ... because they believe in government. Small, but they BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest of the people, or it can be made so.

Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist libertarians".  

No. So called 'minarchist' 'libertarians' are just statists, not libertarians. They believe in murdering anyone who doesn't obey the Holy State.

I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I discovered/invented my AP system.  

So you were a plain old statist who didn't study libertarian philosophy well enough.

Afterwards, I realized not only that having no government was possible, it was essentially inevitable.

That is not true. Your AP system isn't going to magically get rid of government. There's absolutely no reason why it must 'inevitable' lead to anarchy. To sum up : actual and consistent libertarians existed way before 'assasination politics'. Consistent libertarianism has nothing to do with utilitarian and or 'practical' considerations.

Note:  It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say:  "Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...because they believe in government."Libertarians believe in a certain set of limits to people's relationships and interactions with other people.  A Libertarian may believe that a small government is tolerable, and maybe still necessary; other libertarians may believe that a stable anarchy is possible.  (As I now do.) Jim Bell

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:30:36 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

I'm not going to be drawn into Juan's nonsense.         Jim Bell

Translation : you can't counter a single thing I said =) So again, anybody who believes in the 'authority' of the state is NOT a libertarian. Full stop.

From: juan To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:48:57 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

  From: Razer The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ... because they believe in government. Small, but they BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest of the people, or it can be made so.

Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist libertarians".  

    No. So called 'minarchist' 'libertarians' are just statists,     not libertarians. They believe in murdering anyone who doesn't     obey the Holy State.

...

I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I discovered/invented my AP system.  

    So you were a plain old statist who didn't study libertarian     philosophy well enough.

...

Afterwards, I realized not only that having no government was possible, it was essentially inevitable.

    That is not true. Your AP system isn't going to magically get     rid of government. There's absolutely no reason why it must     'inevitable' lead to anarchy.

    To sum up : actual and consistent libertarians existed way     before 'assasination politics'. Consistent libertarianism has     nothing to do with utilitarian and or 'practical'     considerations.

...

Note:  It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say:  "Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...because they believe in government."Libertarians believe in a certain set of limits to people's relationships and interactions with other people.  A Libertarian may believe that a small government is tolerable, and maybe still necessary; other libertarians may believe that a stable anarchy is possible.  (As I now do.) Jim Bell 

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:08:09 +0300 Cari Machet wrote:

Switzerland has a degree of direct democracy ... they vote on the budget

No state system could satisfy anything i desire for too many reasons but i just want others to understand there is a long standing > 1700's > system that develops forms of direct democracy

Not all anarchists think dd is anarchy but that just means they dont understand its conceptual history

Maybe they dont understand anarchy at all really

It should be noted that not only switzerland is a nation state(...), it's the poster child for western corporatism. switzerland GDP per capita is us$ 80k, that is the second highest in the world, after luxembourg (which is nothing but the capital of the world banking mafia)

Assange has said he is a libertarian wonder if he still after all these embassy prison years thinks its viable esp now with no intertubes in prison

On Oct 24, 2016 8:51 PM, "jim bell" wrote:

...

*From:* Razer The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ... because they believe in government. Small, but they BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest of the people, or it can be made so.

Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist libertarians". I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I discovered/invented my AP system. Afterwards, I realized not only that having no government was possible, it was essentially inevitable.

Note: It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say: "Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...because they believe in government." Libertarians believe in a certain set of limits to people's relationships and interactions with other people. A Libertarian may believe that a small government is tolerable, and maybe still necessary; other libertarians may believe that a stable anarchy is possible. (As I now do.)

Jim Bell