this has already been discussed dozens of times (on the thread about "offtopic" posts) -> Zen is NOT talking to himself. There are thousands of people here on the list. Only~15 of them participate most of the discussions. The rest - read and/or answer privately. By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always filter these/all of Zen's letters. 2016-09-01 5:48 GMT+03:00 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net>:

Zenaan, Don't you ever get tired of talking to yourself?

On 08/31/2016 11:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote:

...

this has already been discussed dozens of times (on the thread about "offtopic" posts) -> Zen is NOT talking to himself. There are thousands of people here on the list. Only~15 of them participate most of the discussions. The rest - read and/or answer privately.

...

By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always filter these/all of Zen's letters.

Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of intelligence in the driver's seat would automatically create optimum solutions to all those problems.

Well, I do assert that stupidity is the key problem. But in my humble opinion, the only viable solution is absolute individual autonomy.

Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given relevant and accurate data to work from: Context is everything, and in a world dominated by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more subversive than the facts.

It's all bullshit.

The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay:

Fuck them all.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignm ent/

=or=

https://tinyurl.com/zbig180

Wherein Brzezinski says:

"While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail. Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.

"Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.

... and that's a paradigm shift, coming as it does from the man who created Al Qaida and laid the foundation for today's business as usual methods for regime change a.k.a. NeoColonial conquest.

We now return to our regularly scheduled Cypherpunks, a world of pure imagination where smart people like us would rise to the top of the social hierarchy on merit alone and fix the world, if only those damned [scapegoat name here] would get the hell out of our way.

:o)

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:01:41AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:

On 08/31/2016 11:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote:

Mirimir, fantastic post. And a choice quote to succinctly summarise from the Brzezinski essay a possibly fundamental paradigm shift about to take hold of the USA - we can only hope.

...

...

By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always filter these/all of Zen's letters.

Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of intelligence in the driver's seat would automatically create optimum solutions to all those problems.

Yep :)

Well, I do assert that stupidity is the key problem.

Our "modern" schooling and brainwashing system has been carefully designed, well funded, state troopers in the USA have brought the home schooling rebels to heel, and the programming continues. Yes, stupidity prevails. And yes, this is intended.

But in my humble opinion, the only viable solution is absolute individual autonomy.

Absolutely with you on this one! Very, very sadly, we have a world of nations and oligarchs which are almost entirely antithetical to true individual autonomy and sovereignty.

...

Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given relevant and accurate data to work from: Context is everything, and in a world dominated by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more subversive than the facts.

It's all bullshit.

BEEP BEEP BEEP does BEEP not compu73#@$#@!! BEEP BEEP Actions please. Short of action, constructive suggestions. Short of constructive suggestions, research/ highlight a problem for collective consideration.

...

The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay:

Fuck them all.

Much evil is in the world. Our efforts are needed now more than ever.

We do make sport of improvement plans for the global situation. I feel we do pretty well, probably on account of tossing history and a lot of feeling out of the window. More importantly, we ignore the difficulty of reaching the envisioned state. It is interesting, and could well improve our ideas of how things should be. Reg. US/EU vs CN/RU, CN will overtake economic and thus military capacities well within 20 years. From that moment onward we are subject to Chinese politics. My guess is they will start with harassment of neighbouring countries, and just move on from there. Likely eventually forcing/negotiating a surrender, rather than WW3, on account of our pacifist intents. ATM we would win. Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to provoke war on our terms. A war we would win - with large casualties. A war we should fight if we like democracy and individualistic financial economy, and that form of "do whatever you want" that we have. That is, if you believe China would actually end up fighting, rather than becoming as pacifist as the west. If you have ever spoken to Chinese, you will know the latter to be less likely than the former. Of course, the world is banking on peace - given we are allowing China to advance. I do hope that China intentionally turns itself pacifist. It would save a lot of lives, money and time. It's borders are large enough, most would say. I cannot pretend to know "what China wants", so I cannot really say how it will behave. My talks with Chinese have shown a pride in their ignorance of politics. And a government in exclusively self-checked control. As a side note: I would propose we split the world into countries of equal population, introducing a GDP based tax to (softly) ease imbalance between these new nations. It only requires a bye-bye to nationalism. The size of each nation should be chosen based on evidence of that size being effective - which sizes of government perform better. The internal structure of a nation is quite moot. Whatever works. War would be illegal. Natural resources and permissible pollution should be auctioned on a global market. We can have a shared (UN?) court for determining things like permissible pollution and settling lawsuits that are carried all the way up. For settling disputes between nations, and their adherence to global law. I'd like to see "timeliness of justice" to exist. I'd like to see the US' pieces remove it's landmines, and stop it's hollow points etc, and stop killing it's citizens without due process, and for Israel not to drop white phosphorous into civil areas, and for Russia not to annex nations, and for China to stop polluting the planet to beyond critical, for European nations to make good on their human rights promises regarding immigrants, for someone, anyone really, to stop ISIS' obvious human rights offenses, etc, etc, etc. It should be politics like we're used to. Only we've levelled the players' fields to make the game better. And stand a chance at forcing good behaviour. So, can we achieve this system? Of course not. But would it work? Well, not trivially, but yes, it would be better than the Pax Americana. Or, I guess, the peace of those that actually "run" the US. (probably some association(s?) of people with outrageous capital looking to expand their circle of capitalism/power to the rest of the world?) Reg. brainwashing and individual power, I know you want brainwashing to be responsible, but most likely the brainwashing is generally improving the situation. People are the problem, not all, but many, and the brainwashing, through religion, television, smart filtering, is primarily making them behave in a way that is generally civilised and cooperative. I don't know what else it does, of course, but without the brainwash people are probably less nice, not more nice, and individual control is just awful. If only because less disparity means less friction means less trouble. If you want to see what anarchy does, basically Detroit. As soon as things start looking better, it starts looking more like government. /rant

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 03:46:58 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

On 09/01/2016 03:17 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

... If you want to see what anarchy does, basically Detroit. As soon as things start looking better, it starts looking more like government.

You're probably right, given people as they are now :(

So two of the leading retards on this list, I mean, greatest political philosophers, have defined 'anarchy'.

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:27:30PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Yes some are paying America's usual price - Brazil, South America and s/America/Africa/

Nice Zenaan, good responses to much of what you were responding to. (Which must have been a troll, no sane, educated, adult thinks those ways in the US.) You sometimes have knee-jerk comebacks to any statement from any American, trying hard to interpret everything in the worst possible way. But here, although you are sort of doing just that, your positions now agree with what I see as a reasonable view of world dynamics. My only high-level response to the nonsense is: There is a big, and growing difference between what the US could do and what it would ever want to do. Any large scale attack or invasion, by anyone anywhere really but especially from America, would be an American failure of epic proportions, regardless of whether it could succeed in any sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise, beyond silly thought experiments, is ignorant. I imagine value equations for all decisions and measurements. There is path involving such world war-ish actions that could possibly produce a better result than other paths. Even if you could gin up a reason, which seems very difficult, it would never pay off. Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over. Crazy is the only way to make those kinds of decisions. That and MAD: crazy would need a crazy answer to prevent future crazy. See: Japan, although that decision will never be made again. sdw On 9/1/16 5:27 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:17:12PM +0900, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

We do make sport of improvement plans for the global situation. I feel we do pretty well, probably on account of tossing history and a lot of feeling out of the window. More importantly, we ignore the difficulty of reaching the envisioned state. It is interesting, and could well improve our ideas of how things should be.

Reg. US/EU vs CN/RU, CN will overtake economic and thus military capacities well within 20 years. From that moment onward we are subject to Chinese politics. Dichomatic position / dichotomy thinking / black white "options":

- now we are not subject to "Chinese politics"

- shortly we shall be "subject to" Chinese politics (and have no real say in the relationship)

Relationships are built. Over time.

Control (such as from WWII victor money printing) can be lost overnight.

The world can change.

The world has changed.

...

My guess is they will start with harassment of neighbouring countries, and just move on from there. "and just move on from there ... harassing more and more countries"

"That's the only possible outcome, since that's all we can think of, since we are the USA/ NATO/ CIA, and that's what we do to everyone else, therefore that's what China will do, black / white, it must be so."

I don't know that you're not right. But I hold that more nuanced conversations are much more useful, and more importantly I hold that dichotomies are very useful for:

- propaganda

- steering converations in "desired" directions

- distracting the targetted minds from deeper thought

- justifying the tyranny "of our side" (since "their side is so bad, we must start war first, since now we can win, we must win, they will destroy us otherwise!!!!")

...

Likely eventually forcing/negotiating a surrender, rather than WW3, on account of our pacifist intents. More dichotomies. I have seen no one here promoting pacifism as the be all and end all only solution to all problems.

Sounds like .. you guessed it .. more dichotomies! Yay! We are -on- to it!

"If we don't strike now with a containable war, we shall be forced to negotiate, to surrender, on terms which would be less favourable than if we struck now."

Dunno about others, but I am hearing premises, assumptions and foundations which are fundamentally mental! As in offensive. As in, worthy of being shot down in flames.

...

ATM we would win. "We" being "the almighty north atlantic USA hegemonic exceptionalistan".

We got it, U !! S !! A !!

We would win !! We would win !!

Western hegemonic brothers fighting the good opportunistic fuck over the asians, fuck over the russkies and cypriots, fuck over any who are possibly weak enough to SURRENDER on ... that's it .. OUR TERMS!

YEAH, 'cause WE ARE THE WINNERS, and you know what? Yeah, WE OWN THE FINISH LINE (for anyone who missed the recent posted links, that's a quote from the DNC party head honcho recent speech - "we OWN the finish line!").

I do not consent to "the West" acting as bullies all around the world.

Read my words again:

I do not consent to being bullies.

Is common human decency so unacceptable these days?

...

Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to provoke war on our terms. Indeed. Of this I have no doubt.

...

A war we would win - with large casualties. A war we should fight if we like democracy and individualistic financial economy, and that form of "do whatever you want" that we have. Thank you for speaking so clearly. This honesty is genuinely needed at this point in time, so that we might move forward in the conversation.

To respond to you: Keh?!!!

Right now, at least for the next few short years until the USA runs out of the credit from its inflation racket it has been exporting to the rest of the world since WWII and Bretton Woods, the USA could fund a war against "lesser, inferior nations" - let's not beat around the bush, the two candidates are Russia and China, or quite probably both allied together.

But how can you call the potential nuclear war which would almost certainly break out, a "win"?

It would not be a win for nature. No win for the oceans or livable land areas all over the West, China, Russia.

Even if the USA continues to use (with Israel) their tactical "neutron" nukes, to minimize environmental damage and radioactive half life decay to "reasonable" (you fuckers, the conversation has got to this point - but this is who you are!!) evironmental consequence levels, I guarantee you this:

Russia, and China, and possibly India if they were drawn in, will NOT limit their counter punches to your fancy choice of weapons!

Russia first and foremost WILL punish the North Americans with the most widespread and massive "traditional radioactive" atomic fallout that they are capable of, should Exceptionalistan (the USA) move from this line of thinking, into action.

Check out recent Russia-Insider.com for an article on Russia's amazing "way underground" dead-hand bunker - funded after the collapse of the USSR courtesy the Clinton Foundation! The reality is absolutely fucking hilarious!! (And it's a damn good thing, if not for North America!)

So, dear USA, you might wipe out a billion humans - Chinese, Russians and god knows who else, cause millenia of radio active environmental mess in the USA due to the backlash, and somehow at the end of it all, you say you had a "win" ??

??

??

?

? ? ? ?

Well, I've seen plenty of really messed up thinking, very recently on this list, but this takes the cake.

...

That is, if you believe China would actually end up fighting, rather than becoming as pacifist as the west. "Ooh! Up and coming China gonna be big and bad, surely we gotta fuck them over now, whilst we can still "win" - surely?"

(Again, thanks for your honesty in your thinking - we cannot move forward without that.)

To answer simply and without facetiousness, so there is no misunderstanding:

No! That is not what 'we' should do.

Dignity and all human decency demands that we find, as hard you might find it and as challenging as that might be to your pay masters, a "better" way.

I am confident that when you look deeply within, discuss sincerely with others, perhaps consider productive and partnership relationships at national levels with the likes of Russia and China and India, that solutions shall arise, and that you shall also find that bloodbaths are not the only way to solve international matters.

For those so inclined, I suggest a trip to your local place of worship and gratitude for your life - perhaps that is a place in your heart, perhaps it's a gathering place with friends of like spirit.

...

If you have ever spoken to Chinese, you will know the latter to be less likely than the former. More "boogey man" fear promulgation. Whatever the truth, let us begin to handle our international affairs with dignity and righteousness.

I hope you and your team are capable of that much. Perhaps read a few of Putin's public speeches to get a flavour of "what is" a dignified public mask. America has plenty of examples but your cultural 'exceptionalism' both blinds you and has caused much destruction of that which is good and wholesome within your own people, so it's harder to spot these days - even historical examples - as your consciousness is dominated with things that to some outside observers, is literally embarrassing to watch.

...

Of course, the world is banking on peace - given we are allowing China to advance. "we are allowing"

More exceptionalistan leaking out. Again, the honesty is good, please don't take my highlighting as any disincentive to being so open and honest - the world needs this conversation really really badly right now.

...

I do hope that China intentionally turns itself pacifist. I hope that China and the Chinese find dignity, peace and prosperity, as well as good relationships with their neighbours and everyone else around this beautiful blue planet.

I have serious concerns when I see things like their cowardly non-support for Russia in Syria (despite the back room diplomatic attempts to make that happen from both sides), and yet their recent attempt to muscle in to "train Syrian soldiers" and cash in on the Syrian recovery effort, with ZERO prior communication with Russia, demonstrates that China is still insecure, lacking the strength and dignity to demonstrate respect with those who would truly be partners with her (Russia in this case) - see here for details:

"Is Russia Actually Upset China Is Preparing to Train Syria's Military?" http://russia-insider.com/en/russia-actually-upset/ri16163

What China has not understood is that Russia, when treated with respect and dignity, will demonstrate loyalty and dignity 100 times over in return.

China however, is still insecure, feeling that she has to demonstrate "indepence" and "strength" and wants to "make amends to ourselves for the century of humiliation and all that".

We need a MUCH BETTER, and MUCH MORE DIGNIFIED conversation between nations!!!

FFS diplomats - get to it! This world is crying out! - Understand the cultural historical memories/ problems of especially the large nations that are not your own! - America: demonstrate respect, understanding and a willingness to engage your "competitors" in ways which demonstrate that understanding and respect! - STOP insulting your neighbours/ peers/ competitors. - STOP using bloodbaths as the first solution to every problem.

And especially: - America, STOP considering that reduction of your power is a problem!

Find all this hard? May be talk to the Dalai Lama :)

...

It would save a lot of lives, money and time. It's borders are large enough, most would say. I cannot pretend to know "what China wants", so I cannot really say how it will behave. The Chinese are imbued with insecurity. They have suffered what they cling to as "a century of humiliation".

Is bullying the Chinese around --- in their own historical back yard --- (i.e. the South China Sea) going to build a warmer, more understanding relationship?

Is your official policy of "containment, financial, diplomatic and militarily", something that creates a sense of dignity and mutual respect?

Seriously, why is it so hard for exceptionalistan to stop acting like absolute arseholes, all around the world, and killing people in every continent on earth?

How is it that you can believe that doing as America does, creates in the long term a safer world for Americans and her 'allies'?

Do you not have this self awareness?

...

My talks with Chinese have shown a pride in their ignorance of politics. And a government in exclusively self-checked control. OK.

...

As a side note: I would propose we split the world into countries of equal population, introducing a GDP based tax Well there's your anarchist cred...

...

to (softly) ease imbalance between these new nations. Ah, a new "one world order" supporter eh?

Still Exceptionalistan to rule the world forever more hey?

That is no longer possible. Putin put paid to that when he gave balls to the global south to unite in BRICS.

Yes some are paying America's usual price - Brazil, South America and others, but this snow ball cannot be stopped. Even Australia joined the BRICS bank - gotta pay to play as they say ...

(Yes Saddam and Qaddhafi had balls, but not the required partnerships and therefore military support, which they evidently failed to grok, to their respective demise, sadly.)

...

It only requires a bye-bye to nationalism. Not going to happen.

Don't you see it? - from Marine le Pen to Nigel Farage to The Don / Donald Trump, nationalism is making a come back like the world rarely sees - and here's a funky new term, "post-imperialism": http://theduran.com/nigel-farage-donald-trump-heralds-dignified-decline/

...

The size of each nation should be chosen based on evidence of that size being effective - which sizes of government perform better. The You're making suggestions which in this forum are never going to fly - we get that you're appealing to technocratic hubris and superiority complexes, but fundamentally we're aiming for something different - individual sovereignty.

And on the way there, a One World Government and a one world tax, that the IMF can levy and the NWO can administer, is NOT even close to OUR best option.

Nationalism may not be a tough place for us indidivual sovereigntists to start from, but it's a damn sight better than your one world government.

<insert here, various flowery and colorful terms in response to your suggestion>

...

internal structure of a nation is quite moot. Quite moot for a one world government. That's why here in Australia, TPTB have (unfortunately) successfully amalgamated nearly all of our local councils across all states of Australia into "super councils" - much easier to control the bastards when their "representatives" are far away, and "ruling" over very large and disparate groups and areas.

And now they talk about getting rid of our states altogether - just national / federal, and local; unspoken is that so this makes the third tier of the one world government, easier to justify, and all tiers easier to control.

Did I mention that's not going to happen now?

...

Whatever works. War would be illegal. Natural resources and permissible pollution should be auctioned on a global market. You don't hold back in your positions, that's for sure. Nothing bad about not being backwards about being forwards, I always say!

Your honesty is genuinely appreciated by us. It's our only hope for a sane conversation; can't make progress on innuendo...

As Putin said about Snowden, "well he's nothing if not consistent" :)

...

We can have a shared (UN?) court Because fewer (but corruptible) institutions is better, right?

...

for determining things like permissible pollution and settling lawsuits that are carried all the way up. For settling disputes between nations, and their adherence to global law. Sorry, all your one world / new world order shit can go to hell.

Not going to happen. Not going to fly here. Not going to be consented to by China nor Russia nor Australia.

Simply, there's no point arguing for it any more since at the very least BRICS has stamped an unstoppable foot on the world stage - we are all going to get a multi-polar world, whether you Americans like it or not.

I might be powerful, but even -my- words cannot stop BRICS now.

...

I'd like to see "timeliness of justice" to exist. Yeah, well, institute that in America, then get back to us with your magnificent demonstration of "how it's -really- done" :)

Don't worry, we're waiting...

...

I'd like to see the US' pieces remove it's landmines, and stop it's hollow points etc, and stop killing it's citizens without due process, How about the USA stop killing citizens in OTHER countries to start with?

If the American Military Industrial Spying Banking Overthrowing Complex can be brought to heel, do you think that might be a good start to "more stability" in the world?

...

and for Israel not to drop white phosphorous into civil areas, and And the CIA to stop using chemical weapons deliveries to foreign nations such as Syria as an attempt to overthrow those soverein foreign nations?

Would that reduce the instability in those foreign nations?

...

for Russia not to annex nations, So a one world court and one world government will cause the rest of the world to heel to America's wishes?

Like not running referenda of the people for the people, and respecting the outcome of those referenda?

Because, you know, democracy is what we want for a one world order, in particular nothing resembling democracy of the people?

Please, do elaborate on your position. This one might even be fruitful.

...

and for China to stop polluting the planet to beyond critical, May be those economic policies instituted by America which institionalized the economic motivation for American companies to outsource the bulk of their manufacturing and pollution creation to China has something to do with this?

Please, this is likely another fruitful conversation.

...

for European nations to make good on their human rights promises regarding immigrants, So holding "the people" of a nation, to be bound to the statutes made by non-democratic processes, regardless of the will of the people of those nations?

Because, as we saw some weeks back, nearly every referendum in the EU so far, which has gone against the wishes of Brussels, has been either watered down, re-run until the "correct" vote was achieved, or simply ignored - THAT sort of "binding" of the people be suitable for America's (Rothschilds', Rockerfella's, etc's) New World Order?

I mean seriously, don't you EVER consider "the people"? Or did you create a corporation listed on the NYSE called The People to absolve you from your own conscience?

Or do you have no conscience?

Seriously, I don't want to know "what's in it for us" when it comes to your proposed new world order.

STEP 1, is, you need to start thinking, and speaking, about us, not us as corporations to be auctioned off as national debt via birth certificates and corporations, not us as tax file numbers, not "the people" as some sort of amorphous compliant "fodder for the oligarchy" concept, but WE, as INDIVIDUALS.

Juan for instance, from some South American nation - what's in all this for him?

Rayzer for instance, from the grande olde US of A - what's in it for him?

Александр for example, from an entirely different continent, what's in it for him?

You guys are missing the bloody point - you are SO self obsession, SO "U S A is exceptional" obsessed, you are completely missing how WE, as INDIVIDUALS, observe and HEAR the things you say!

And it's a good thing, again, that you speak so honestly. It's really important in fact. How can Mirimir have any faith in you if you don't speak honestly?

...

for someone, anyone really, to stop ISIS' obvious human rights offenses, Have you read ANY of the links posted on this list, in the last 2 years, demonstrating and giving numerous examples, of how the USA, the CIA, the American military, all work with, fund, train and otherwise are the godfathers of, ISIS?

Even in the mainstream media?

Are you serisouly expecting "a little honesty" on your part to cause anyone on this list to blindly ignore the elephant STAMPEDE in our collective living room?

It is almost unbelievable that you cannot see how we see you. But, exceptional superiors and all that.

You need to know, when one of us says something like "the exceptional nation" or "exceptional superiors" - we are expressing a deep and abiding cynicism, disgust and general abhorrent shock, deep shock in fact, at how seriously messed up you guys (and gals) are.

You really, really, really really really, need to take this on board.

It's a very simple concept.

You are not exceptional.

You currently wield exceptional monetary and military power.

The monetary power you currently wield, is about to collapse, in the next few short years.

Your military power is going to be surpassed by the global south in the next 20 years max, but in fact most probably will collapse within about 6 months (max) of the collapse of the US dollar.

Seriously, for the benefit of your oligarchical selves, for the benefit of the world, and for the benefit of the citizens of the USA and its allies, you need to start seriously: - engaging individuals in respect and dignity - considering individuals, their needs and wants for themselves and their grandchildren - engaging nations and considering their needs, desires and potential future problems - but WITHOUT using bloodbaths as the every solution

Please.

...

It should be politics like we're used to. Once again, thank you for your true colours. I hope you reply with more of this genuine discussion - the world so desperately needs it.

On this point, I repeat - no, it will not be politics as usual. The new world order has happened, and it's called the global south and BRICS.

There are ways to mold this, but I will not speak to that. You must come a very long way 1) in your dialogue

2) in your respect for individual humans

3) in your expressions of self awareness - bring a good helping of humility, dignity and respect for others

as without these and various other fundamentals, most normal folks will keep ignoring you, swearing at you and giving up altogether. And apathetic humans who feel powerless, is no longer useful to you.

You oligarchs have left your run in Iraq too late. You continue to "milk" your wars for the financial benefit of the MIC / oligarchs, and you have already caused a great cost to become shortly paid by most Americans.

This is very sad, but sadly needed. We cannot even stop it if we wanted.

...

Only we've levelled the players' fields to make the game better. And stand a chance at forcing good behaviour. Your dialogue is self defeating. Your chess pieces in the game are checkmated but you do not see it yet. It comes.

You have done much that you ought not have done, but you did anyway.

And you thought no consequence would be brought by history?

"We" are no longer at the end of WWII, victors dictating terms to the rest of the world, to all other nations.

There is no point fomenting WW3, because that will be utterly self defeating and make this planet a bad place to be, rather than a lovely place.

And besides, you will lose WW3 if you begin it anyway, you just don't see it.

You see, everyone is intertwined today. In WW2, the media was delayed, and 100% controllable.

Today, neither of these are still the case - information transfer is instantaneous, and you cannot control anything like all the information channels.

And so, you can no longer control the discourse.

And so we will not accept the lies your MSM put to us. And the interlinking is deep and a snowball of reaction will arise.

Nostradamus saw but one possible future of intentions.

Let's create better futures, with better, healthier intentions.

...

So, can we achieve this system? Of course not. But would it work? Yes in principle anything "could be made to work", but you have left your run way too late, the horse has left the barn. The other players will no longer stand for such a world order.

...

Well, not trivially, but yes, it would be better than the Pax Americana. Your opinion is not shared by many these days. America rubbed Russia's face in America's USSR excrement. It was absolutely disgraceful.

Russia, and Russians, may forgive, but she will never forget.

You have left your run far too late. So late that any serious push will descend into WW3 and disaster for nature on this planet. That is insanity, and would demonstrate nothing but abject rage, anger and despotic spite for all humanity.

That would be irrational.

...

Or, I guess, the peace of those that actually "run" the US. (probably some association(s?) of people with outrageous capital looking to expand their circle of capitalism/power to the rest of the world?) Yep. But it's too late - you left your run far too late.

We humans know something better, and it's called rebelling against oligarchs :)

...

Reg. brainwashing and individual power, I know you want brainwashing to be responsible, That would be a start, but what we want is something other than "brainwashing" altogether. Individually many of us may not "deserve" a great education, but collectively, and for our children and grandchildren, we deserve to make it happen for as many as possible, to at least try to create some sort of foundation for a more enlightened future.

Is it for us to cower in fear of future generations and keep dumming them down?

Why live a little faith in future generations?

...

but most likely the brainwashing is generally improving the situation. No. That's your false exceptionalism again. We are not exceptional - we are only as "exceptional" as our actions in this world, and dumming down entire populations is not an exceptional thing to do.

We suffer the non-exceptionalistic results of our non-exceptional actions. By "we" I mean our grandchildren.

...

People are the problem, People are the reality.

...

not all, but many, and the brainwashing, people suffer the brainwashing, and we suffer the result; it's really messed up

...

through religion, television, smart filtering, is primarily making them behave in a way that is generally civilised and cooperative. You are misguided. Look at the 'enlightenment' periods in history - including non-western periods (the European "dark ages" and the Persian empire).

Fertile soil begets wonders perhaps unimaginable, humans we can be proud of, inspiring events we may fear, yet ought embrace - how can we consider we are "living" life if we fail to demonstrate a little faith in our "fellow humans"?

...

I don't know what else it does, Of course you do!

Brainwashing fucks us up - how difficult is it for us to break our brainwash molds?

We have the collective right to individual enlightenment! Who are we to deny that to the "lowest"?

...

of course, but without the brainwash people are probably less nice, not more nice, and individual control is just awful. Bad things happen in life, bad events that is - where a bad person comes along and fucks you up at a bar or something. But dumming folks down does not solve that.

In fact, education (not schooling) begets the possibility of genuine dignity, self respect, and acknowledgement of limitations.

Listen, you are speaking from a position of fear. Fear begets fear. As the old saying goes "nothing to fear but fear itself".

Please read up on that historical episode in America - please jump in folks, I need help on this one - where someone wrote something like "we should never try to invade North America - they all carry guns, and they read their bibles cover to cover and at least a verse every night, and never did I stay a guest in someone's house and they hadn't a bible on the mantle" (or words to that effect).

An educated nation is a nation and a people with possibilities, alive and kicking, healthy of mind and spirit, and hear this: it is a nation engaged with the world in amazing ways - witness the growth of America and her relationships in 300 years!

The example of your own country counters your position!

...

If only because less disparity means less friction means less trouble. Your fear, as well as your (natural human) desire for control and some conception of "order", is what is speaking.

Please try to understand why, and from what place inside yourself, you are speaking from - this is absolutely essential.

Perhaps you would attend a Vipassana or other meditation course? Or take a retreat from other humans and live in mild austerity for a few weeks, with serious contemplation to this type of conversation.

The whole world, but especially the American people, need you (and as many as have any influence at all) to do this, on behalf of them - they are so badly dummed down that they are now very largely dependent on you and those you work with and for. You and your sort have created this - it's a bloody mess and you need to find something inside yourself to try to improve their lot in the next few years, because it will be hell on earth for many; this you oligarchs have collectively created (the mess, -and- the dumming down), and are therefore responsible for!

Please stop being so negligent! There is more to life than power and control!

...

If you want to see what anarchy does, basically Detroit. As soon as things start looking better, it starts looking more like government. Absolute rubbish. Don't go there, since you don't know (evidently at this point in time) what you're talking about.

...

/rant Again, thank you for your honesty.

It is actually very useful when we speak openly and honestly - we can begin to get to the heart of our own thinking, our own belief systems, and yes we also expose ourselves to be challenged by others in the conversation (!! OMG !!).

How else can we have any opportunity to see the hat we wear, from a different perspective, and ask ourselves if we want to change our current hat, take a new perspective?

Let's not be blind to any evil intentions from China or anyone or any group collectively or individually (I encourage vigilance on this).

But note carefully, I care not if you are Chinese, Russian, North American or some Amazonian tribe yet to interact with anyone outside your jungle home:

an evil intention is an evil intention, and must be recognized, then named and discussed publicly, and finally, if that evil intention is manifested as an evil action, THAT is what must be handled.

We handle words, actions, we do NOT pre-empt a potential future "aggressive nation" with a bloodbath "before any action or words".

We temper our handling (response to evil actions/ words) with appropriate use of force, appropriate words, appropriate actions.

We must handle the --specific-- evil deed, not the unspoken intention - prepare and be ready, yes, but don't bring the bloodbath without absolute and just cause!

When we be so exceptional, so truly superior that we assume the right to pre-emptively kill others, in foreign lands and those who have completely different cultural and social ways, beliefs and conversations, then WE have become the evil ones!

I know who you are. We humans deserve a better future. Please support that.

sdw

On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over. The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the % of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the corporate mafia is even higher.

Says one of the craziest people most of us know. You have a loose definition of crazy. Or a crazy definition of crazy. But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence? sdw

On 9/1/16 1:35 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over. The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the % of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the corporate mafia is even higher.

Says one of the craziest people most of us know.

You have a loose definition of crazy. Or a crazy definition of crazy.

But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?

Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have problem grasping.

My reality is more real, and therefore more correct, than your reality. Prove me wrong. So, let's go back to my statement: "Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over." Prove that isn't true. Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans. The US government kept functioning normally even through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, etc. Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are limited and don't last. Point out a better system. (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of Brexit. ;-) ) I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some key ways. We have evidence that certain things work and certain things don't. There is a big interplay with culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open debate to try to fix that. We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable. It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'. It is more like "we have this cool open source government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you better than that old governmentware you're running". We are tired of being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on running VMS and Windows. Or your cousin's obsolete system because you can't support them well. Or whatever. If you can make it work, then do it. Otherwise, upgrade. sdw

...

sdw

On 9/1/16 2:28 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:59:16 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

On 9/1/16 1:35 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over. The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the % of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the corporate mafia is even higher.

Says one of the craziest people most of us know.

You have a loose definition of crazy. Or a crazy definition of crazy.

But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence? Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have problem grasping. My reality is more real, and therefore more correct, than your reality. Prove me wrong.

So, let's go back to my statement: "Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over."

Prove that isn't true. You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you can't do it.

I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence. By induction, proof.

And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of stuff that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can write.

And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing list. The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of touch with reality (i.e. crazy)

Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms? Do you understand it? What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply? Are you sure that everyone else agrees? The people who think that "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really thinking too hard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago? Did you understand it? What about the point I just made about adapting and adopting solutions to emerging changes? Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them. Even in May's quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility. I think the attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be it. All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think that makes the US any close to collapse? Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems should adapt and flourish. Do you disagree with that?

...

Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans. The US government kept functioning normally even through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, etc. Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are limited and don't last. Point out a better system. (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of Brexit. ;-) )

I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some key ways. We have evidence that certain things work and certain things don't. There is a big interplay with culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open debate to try to fix that. We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable. It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'. It is more like "we have this cool open source government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you better than that old governmentware you're running". We are tired of being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on running VMS and Windows. Or your cousin's obsolete system because you can't support them well. Or whatever. If you can make it work, then do it. Otherwise, upgrade.

sdw

...

...

sdw

sdw

On 09/01/2016 04:04 PM, juan wrote:

No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to collapse. That's why we are fucked.

Doom and gloom... You're the narc Juan. You're the one ALWAYS saying don't bother trying your efforts at (X) are wasted (unless ofc we take your pov as ours). Disruption agent. Fed. Have you ever managed, operated, or been involved in a MKUltra CULT Juan? Rr

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

...

...

Prove that isn't true.

...

...

You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you can't do it.

I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence. By induction, proof.

What you call 'history' is just official propaganda / group dellusions.

...

...

And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of stuff that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can write.

And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing list. The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of touch with reality (i.e. crazy)

Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms? Do you understand it?

May's manifesto is more like a bunch of wrong predictions. But anyway one of the ideas is to prevent the state from collecting taxes and regulating markets. An obviously 'anarchist' goal. Other things like a market for hitmen goes even beyond what's usually understood by anarchy, but it's not a government friendly idea either.

Et cetera.

What is your point? Are you going to argue that crypto anarchy is not anarchy?

...

What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply?

Crypto-anarchy, as its name suggests, implies anarchy. I could leave it at that, but I'll kindly add that 'anarchy' in turn implies voluntary social organization. Among other things.

...

Are you sure that everyone else agrees? The people who think that "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really thinking too hard.

That would be your case precisely? Crypto-anarchy doesn't mean crypto-anything, it means crypto...ANARCHY.

That's why your laudatory comments about the *fascist* United **States** are so unrelated to crypto-ANARCHY.

...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?

Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.

...

Did you understand it?

Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in.

...

What about the point I just made about adapting and adopting solutions to emerging changes?

...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian governments can also adapt to change.

...

Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them. Even in May's quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility. I think the attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be it.

Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.

...

All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think that makes the US any close to collapse?

No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include you)

...

Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems should adapt and flourish. Do you disagree with that?

I agree that morally good stuff is good...

...

...

...

Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans. The US government kept functioning normally even through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, etc. Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are limited and don't last. Point out a better system. (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of Brexit. ;-) )

I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some key ways. We have evidence that certain things work and certain things don't. There is a big interplay with culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open debate to try to fix that. We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable. It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'. It is more like "we have this cool open source government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you better than that old governmentware you're running". We are tired of being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on running VMS and Windows. Or your cousin's obsolete system because you can't support them well. Or whatever. If you can make it work, then do it. Otherwise, upgrade.

sdw

...

...

sdw

sdw

On 9/1/16 4:43 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms? Do you understand it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html And here's [3] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

"We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence"

"We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. "

Again, a typical anarchist position. Governments and businesses don't provide service X (they actually destroy X) so we need to provide X ourselves.

And a typical American position on every right we've ever won or defended.

...

Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago? Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.

I don't know what that is. I'm sure there are plenty who are uncomfortable with encryption etc. who think it is nonsense too, but I think I have a point.

...

Did you understand it? Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in.

Ex-colony, ex-slave, ex-colonial, etc. It's not all pretty, but it is experience.

...

What about the point I just made about adapting and adopting solutions to emerging changes? ...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian governments can also adapt to change.

Not as fast or as well. Which totalitarian regimes are comfortable with the Internet, Facebook, startups, Bitcoin, etc.?

...

Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them. Even in May's quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility. I think the attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be it. Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.

...

All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think that makes the US any close to collapse?

No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include you)

Totalitarian? What's your model of a liberal state? Since it seems you desire anarchy so much, I'm curious whether you have you read Lord of the Flies?

...

Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems should adapt and flourish. Do you disagree with that?

I agree that morally good stuff is good...

Based on your writing, that's a surprise.

...

...

...

Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans. The US government kept functioning normally even through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, etc. Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are limited and don't last. Point out a better system. (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of Brexit. ;-) )

I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some key ways. We have evidence that certain things work and certain things don't. There is a big interplay with culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open debate to try to fix that. We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable. It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'. It is more like "we have this cool open source government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you better than that old governmentware you're running". We are tired of being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on running VMS and Windows. Or your cousin's obsolete system because you can't support them well. Or whatever. If you can make it work, then do it. Otherwise, upgrade.

sdw

...

...

sdw

sdw

sdw

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:59:16PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:

On 9/1/16 1:35 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:

...

Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over. The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the % of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the corporate mafia is even higher.

Says one of the craziest people most of us know.

You have a loose definition of crazy. Or a crazy definition of crazy.

But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?

Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have problem grasping.

My reality is more real, and therefore more correct, than your reality.

All you're saying is that you guys, aka those wielding power in the CIA and the USA govt, wield power and can make these power maximisation decisions irregardless of what some "regular" folks might want, or expect. And that's true - what you imply is absolutely true, so on this count,

Prove me wrong. is not going to happen. Of course.

So, let's go back to my statement: "Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking over."

Prove that isn't true.

To we common folk heathen plebes, the USA government, and in particular you CIA guys, have lost the plot, and continue to act and justify and discuss and qualify, many and varied forms of crazy.

Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans.

Perhaps you are conflating "crazy" with "those who are not supportive of the establishment". Because if your point is just "we have some historical stability in the USA", that is indisputable. But I know the grand game - and those who truly pull the strings are wont to play it hard, they place all chips on the table. Sometimes that gamble "pays off" (for some crazy definition of pays off), and sometimes history shows us a grand correction. Your pay masters have overplayed their hand this time.

The US government kept functioning normally even through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, etc. Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are limited and don't last. Point out a better system. (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of Brexit. ;-) )

There are so many areas for improvement, it is not funny that you ask this question. What you, your team mates and your pay masters really ought to start doing is assessing your internal fear programs, your attachment to power and control, and figure out how to demonstrate a little more faith in other humans and some trust in life generally.

From an internal space of calm and understanding, decisions and public conversations which are not seen by 'us plebes' as crazy, may be able to be had.

I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some key ways. We have evidence that certain things work and certain things don't. There is a big interplay with culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere.

It is alluring to buy in to the "superiority" dialogue. And statistics can prove anything. "The mind is the great trickster" and all that... But regardless of any particular data points "proving" "superiority", what are we without empathy? What are we when all we have is callous conversations which disregard the humanity of unique individuals - including those brown folks with their children, brides to be, fathers and cousins, which y'all droning to death every day?

Maybe we're confused sometimes,

You are confused why? Because you persist in psycopathic conversations - i.e. in justifying power maximisation, apologising for abject abuses, watering down reality of your wars with "just some war-like actions, nothing to see here folks, move along". Of -course- you are confused - you have no ethical foundation which is visible.

but we have open debate to try to fix that.

Fail to fix your lack of a visible ethical foundation, and you will absolutely fail to fix anything (from we pleebles perspective).

We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable. It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'. It is more like "we have this cool open source government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you better than that old governmentware you're running".

Unfortunately it never has actually been like that - it all cases since WW2 it has been "we are America, our 'democracy' is superior, and you gonna take it deep down the throat, refuse? OK, we fuck you up, seriously". THAT is a far cry from "see if it works for you"! This is another of those little things you guys really ought to change - use language which matches reality. Otherwise we keep seeing y'all as absolutely fucken crazy!

We are tired of being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on running VMS and Windows.

Hey, we designed Linux and you're insisting on proprietary installs all over the place - ramming it down everyone's throats. That aint what we want, nor what we designed!

Or your cousin's obsolete system because you can't support them well.

That's where we really should say "here's a system, here's our recommendations, if you formally publicly ask for help in a way compatible with your people, we shall help". Sadly, that's not what you folks been doin.

Or whatever. If you can make it work, then do it. Otherwise, upgrade.

We see no upgrade in your offerings. We have upgrades, they're libre, they're straightforward, but we cannot even begin the conversation because you persist with damaging psychopathic conversations which destroy our trust in you and demonstrate (in our minds at least) that you do not care for us. Any of us. I'm not even American and I feel that. And the American people - they're YOUR people, your distant relatives! And you treat them so badly, dum them down so persistently, feed them crap (information), and then go and accuse them of failing to make it work? Where is the chance of that? You've created one hell of a mess, effectively completely done over, abused and isolated your own people. For those with a good heart, you have one hell of a big healing and fixing job coming up. May be start planning...

On 09/01/2016 05:03 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote (I believe without smirking or other facial tics):

Juan is one of the few staunch anarchists (aka direct democracy) on this list!

ROTF! You... are... SUCH a kidder! AFAICT there's no such thing as a "Libertarian Anarchist" as J claims along with so many others on the list... because Libertarianism, at least as mere humans practice it, is a "Me First" sort of Ideology.... And an anathema to the basic precepts of Anarchist society. most recently expressed by the EZLN (aka Zapatista Army of National Liberation) as: "everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves" Discuss... Rr

On 09/01/2016 06:34 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:07:59 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

...

basic precepts of Anarchist society. most recently expressed by the EZLN (aka Zapatista Army of National Liberation) as:

NATIONAL marxist 'anarchism'. Ah rayzer...Nothing says freedom like The Nation.

And remind me again, what are you doing in this list?

Remind me why you exist Juan? ...and your attempts to pigeonhole me politically are pretty fucking futile. I'm kind of tactic and strategy tolerant and have a number of overlapping non-conflicting sociopolitical influences, as long as it moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left. Not the Republican Libertarianism you refer to as "Anarchy". Left. I named some of my influencers the other day at your request.. I mean you DO remember the other day don't you? I hear some medications wipe short/mid-term memory, I consider you no better than any other raving poser right winger disruptor. The SPEW gives you away. The SHOUTING DOWN... etc. Fascist. Rr

And why didn't you join their army yet? Are you living too comfortable in the US, posting your mental vomits in shitter, eating 12 hamburguers per day while pretending to be a 'starving' 'worker'? And all that prolly paid by your loyal services to the left wing of the pentagon...

...

"everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves"

...

Discuss...

"Para todos todo, para nosotros nada"

sounds like the kind of meaningless nonsense commies who took too much coke would say.

...

Rr

On 09/01/2016 07:19 PM, juan wrote:

...

as long as it moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left.

Ah you mean obama.

You really need to get your meds adjusted if you read that and it made sense to you... Fed. I hear they give you guise the gooood ones. Rr

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:47:39 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

...

Remind me why you exist Juan?

What, you already feel like calling heimland security?

Asking a shibag marxist like you why he trolls this list is a more legitimate question...

...

...and your attempts to pigeonhole me politically are pretty fucking futile.

as far as I'm concerned you are a marxist. An *american* marxist, to be more precise. World champion of posers.

...

I'm kind of tactic and strategy tolerant and have a number of overlapping non-conflicting sociopolitical influences, as long as it moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left.

Ah you mean obama.

...

Not the Republican Libertarianism you refer to as "Anarchy".

Sorry, I can't parse that deranged comment. Ignored.

...

Left. I named some of my influencers the other day at your request..

Oh yes. I commented on your daddy narcusse.

...

I mean you DO remember the other day don't you?

Oh yes. I commented on your daddy narcusse.

Perhaps you don't know how to get all your mails?

...

I hear some medications wipe short/mid-term memory,

I consider you no better than any other raving poser right winger disruptor.

Disruptor of what? Of your marxist garbage and your tor (a pentagon's project) propaganda?

Do you believe the cypherpunk 'movement' is a marxist movement?

...

The SPEW gives you away. The SHOUTING DOWN... etc. Fascist.

Like your alleged family?

...

Rr

...

And why didn't you join their army yet? Are you living too comfortable in the US, posting your mental vomits in shitter, eating 12 hamburguers per day while pretending to be a 'starving' 'worker'? And all that prolly paid by your loyal services to the left wing of the pentagon...

...

"everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves"

...

Discuss...

"Para todos todo, para nosotros nada"

sounds like the kind of meaningless nonsense commies who took too much coke would say.

...

Rr

On 09/01/2016 07:31 PM, juan wrote:

Wasn't the americunt 'anti war' left sucking obama's cock before he was elected?

No. Not really. Prog-Libs still Luvs them an 0re0 though. As I said you need to get your meds adjusted. Rr

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 19:22:47 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

...

On 09/01/2016 07:19 PM, juan wrote:

...

...

as long as it moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left.

Ah you mean obama.

Wasn't the americunt 'anti war' left sucking obama's cock before he was elected? Didn'y you 'anti war' marxists had a hand in that?

...

You really need to get your meds adjusted if you read that and it made sense to you... Fed. I hear they give you guise the gooood ones.

Rr

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:27:30PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:17:12PM +0900, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

We can have a shared (UN?) court

Because fewer (but corruptible) institutions is better, right?

...

for determining things like permissible pollution and settling lawsuits that are carried all the way up. For settling disputes between nations, and their adherence to global law.

Sorry, all your one world / new world order shit can go to hell.

Not going to happen. Not going to fly here. Not going to be consented to by China nor Russia nor Australia.

Simply, there's no point arguing for it any more since at the very least BRICS has stamped an unstoppable foot on the world stage - we are all going to get a multi-polar world, whether you Americans like it or not.

I might be powerful, but even -my- words cannot stop BRICS now.

Russian victory lap for the multi polar world: A Brave, New Multipolar World: Lavrov Declares End of US Regime Change Dominoes http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/brave-new-multipolar-world-lavrov-decl... No significant insight yet from Zbig except "America should partner with China" which certainly seems rather 'yesterday' - perhaps the globalluminoligarchy has moved a bunch of their assets to the PROC?

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:17:12 +0900 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:

ATM we would win. Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to provoke war on our terms. A war we would win - with large casualties. A war we should fight if we like democracy and individualistic financial economy,

wow - another piece of fascist shit came back from the dead.

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:

How about we implement a working AP system?

As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term. Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse. "When all you have is a hammer ..." In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society. I support anarchism, not chaos.

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:

...

How about we implement a working AP system?

As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.

The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers, politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.

The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good implementation.

Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for turning money into death without knowing where the money came from. Rich people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed anonymously. Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of wealth equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.

...

Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.

"When all you have is a hammer ..."

In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.

Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is just business as usual.

...

I support anarchism, not chaos

And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos, as long as it's not the status quo. Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't have enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down. Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without needing much if any help.

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:57:49 -0700 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:

...

How about we implement a working AP system?

As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.

The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers, politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.

The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good implementation.

Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for turning money into death without knowing where the money came from. Rich people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed anonymously.

That's what first comes to mind. However I then realized (and I profusely apology if the point was already made by Jim Bell or others) AP could be used to finish off cops. Getting rid of an ordinary cop should be a lot cheaper than getting rid of bill gates or your bosses at google. AND, if cops start to die like they deserve, it would be interesting to see what happens to the rest of the system which obviously relies on 'enforcement' by...cops.

Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of wealth equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.

...

...

Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.

"When all you have is a hammer ..."

In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.

Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is just business as usual.

...

I support anarchism, not chaos

And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos, as long as it's not the status quo.

'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the 'ordered' fascism we live in?

Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't have enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down.

The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse your sentence... I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it accomplishes.

Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without needing much if any help.

Why? Didn't you read 1984?

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:28:38 -0700 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:

...

'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the 'ordered' fascism we live in?

The question is always "support" relative to what?

Relative to non-support? =)

I would have to be convinced that any shift I was to help bring about would be likely to eventually lead to something better, preferably within our lifetimes. Making things worse is easy. Making them worse in such a way that they eventually get better is harder.

Well, if we want to achieve a particular result and we do something that ends up causing a change in a direction we don't want, then on purely utilitarian terms, we failed. But that can only be known with hindsight. And utilitarianism is pretty much a bankrupt theory anyway as far as I'm concerned.

...

...

Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't have enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down.

The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse your sentence...

I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it accomplishes.

Sorry. That's what happens when I try to write out a complicated thought without going back and reediting multiple times. What I mean is that having enough people eventually decide that "anything is better than this" serves as a useful check on those in power.

Ahh - thanks for the clarification.

Can't make things too bad or people band together to bring it down without regard to what follows. No different from an election where a bunch of people vote for "the other guy" even though the other guy is totally unqualified, just because they're so dissatisfied with you, and your own supporters stay home.

Hm, I don't think the analogy is that good. The other guy is no different than this guy. And if anything, in a 'democracy' the winner is always the slighty worse of the options.

...

...

Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without needing much if any help.

Why? Didn't you read 1984?

Yes. And Brave New World. We're basically in the world depicted by Huxley already.

Yep. And Huxley's book is the most modern of the two, although it was written almost 20 years before 1984 was. But Orwell got the surveillance part right... =/

The thing that struck me most about Brave New World is that none of the Powers That Be worried about bringing an outsider into the world -- because it was stable! People for the most part liked things the way they were. That scares me a hell of a lot more than 1984.

Well, yes, but apart from the totalitarian indoctrination/education many people were born already mentally maimed thanks to genetic engineering. There wasn't much 'informed consent' involved. On the other hand, people who disobeyed the cops mostly got 'free drugs' whereas people who disobey the cops today get summarily executed, especially in Stephen's Paradise, aka the US. But anyway, totalitarian political systems can be stable both in fiction and in reality, sadly for us.

I believe the system will bring itself down because the financial system of the "developed world" is a house of cards.

Ah yes, the current financial system is a house of cards and can come crashing at any moment, but a reset of the financial system doesn't necessarily mean the political establishment will lose power, again, sadly for us.

There are hungrier nations that are far less vulnerable to the "seizing up" the system will experience when people stop trusting the prices in the market. In order for people to transact in the marketplace, they have to trust that the prices in the marketplace are at least somewhat reflective of value. This is why you saw banks sitting on repossessed houses or holding off on foreclosing on non-performing mortgages; they believed the government would intervene to raise prices, so they were waiting for a better deal. But things have only gotten worse since 2008, and every subsequent intervention will only become more costly and create ever more perverse incentives.

I haven't been paying attention to the post 2008 housing market in the US and finance in general, but what I can see without doing too much homework is that the dow jones has increased almost 3 times since the crisis. Which no doubt some people would say is 'proof' of the amazingness of US free market capitalism and the amazingness of the free planers at the National-Goldman-Sachs-Central-Bank. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be any chaos in the system yet...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:57:49AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:

...

How about we implement a working AP system?

As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.

The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers, politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.

The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good implementation.

Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for turning money into death without knowing where the money came from. Rich people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed anonymously.

Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of wealth equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.

...

...

Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher level of education and discourse.

"When all you have is a hammer ..."

In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.

Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is just business as usual.

...

I support anarchism, not chaos

And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos, as long as it's not the status quo.

I read his point as "the status quo is chaos, so AP may not be much worse, if at all". Whether his opinion of AP would accord with that future reality is another matter. The USA presently makes chaos in foreign lands, just to take mostly financial, but also some 'control', advantage of that. This is highly unethical, abhorrent, disastrous for millions of people and many other things. So from that perspective AP being "chaos as usual, but probably bringing a bit more of it to "comfortable folks at home" may be seen by some as a possible advantage. I'm confident that those with the monopolistic power to print (and therefore devalue) paper money, would outgame 'we plebes' in an AP world, in the short and medium term, and do everything they can to create systems of control of that system for the long term - which will ultimately bring a system of significantly greater tyranny than we see now. The star chamber, but with added anonymous assassination by the moneyed "elite". The reality of greater uncertainty for the elite, that they might be popped at any time, could be an improvement, but fundamentally, turbo charging an assassination market is not something that I feel, nor believe, to be in 'our' collective nor individual interests. This is not something I shall be flipping a coin on.

Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't have enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down. Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without needing much if any help.

Much shall happen in the next few years.

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 07:16:19AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for turning money into death without knowing where the money came from.

...

Rich people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed

...

anonymously.

I think your error is that you are mixing pre-AP reality with post-AP reality.  In today's world (pre-AP) in order to make a societal change, ordinary people generallyhave to speak up, to yell, to protest, and (sometimes) to vote.  And usually the former  hasn't been easily done anonymously, so arguably the big, powerful people learn who thesetrouble-making little folk are.  In principle, this would allow the important people tokill the ordinaries:  Except that it is generally expensive and risky for such a thing to occur, and the protestors usually greatly outnumber the rich ones,  so the typical protestor is relatively safe from harm, today.

In an AP-functioning world, it would seem that the important, rich people would beable to kill off the complainers.  But remember, in an AP world it would no longerbe necessary for little ones to loudly complain:  A donation by AP (and those of thousands of other 'poor' people?) would provide the 'convincing' necessary, and do soanonymously.  Further, modern technology will allow, relatively easily, anonymouscomplaining, so people will be able to rouse others and solicit assistance with littlerisk of identification.  The Cypherpunks list is a fair example of that, despite the fact thatsome of us choose to post under our own, true names.

And as was also pointed out, the ability to anonymously complain about someone, provides for the easy and anonymous incitement of a lynching campaign against an individual who may not have done anything wrong (or at least, not have done that which s/he is anonymously accused of). As others have said, we're pretty damned given the current state of consciousness of the average human, and perhaps this need for "education" is the more fundamental problem (as opposed to simply a power imbalance between the monied and the rest of us)? My personal summary: I want to see conversations on how to empower or "turbocharge" things other than death and killing and murder. I would like to consider how we can catalyze inspiration for life, inspire desire amongst humans to interact with one another and grok the power of spontaneous gatherings and the value of clear communication. I would like a world where our primary focii are towards contemplating the mysteries of this phenomal universe we inhabit - the cosmos as well as our bodies. And I would like to see discussion on mechanisms we might use to handle the lynch mobbing sanctioned by Shari Steele, Roger Dingledine and the other cowards and lynch mobbers at Tor Inc, methods that don't include anonymous murder of the individuals involved. Don't we owe it to ourselves to try for a higher social dialogue? Try to discover if there is a practical approach to social accountability in our modern "communities"?

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:05:38 -0700 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:

I think patents may have made more sense when it was much harder for individuals and small groups to get funding to develop an idea, and the only people with the resources to develop them were the guilds and state-sponsored corporations like the East India Company.

I think you need to re-think that. The guilds and especialy the east india company are poster chilren for mercantilism, the very system that libertarians wanted to abolish. The east india company was the same kind of entity that military contractors 'rebuilding' countries destroyed by the anglo-americans are. And it was even worse than a purely 'commercial' gang that monopolized trade - the east india company was nothing but the imperial british army invading india and other countries of asia.

Patents were a way to protect the "little guy."

I don't think so.

Now it's much easier to get your hands on funding than it was then, whether it's a small business loan, SBIR, venture or angel capital, or crowdfunding.

And that's probably not true either. Well obviously the telecom side of things is better today than it was in 1700, but the finance side of thing not necessarily so.

It makes the "first mover advantage" much more significant when you can move as fast or even faster than a large company that has the same idea, and those larger organizations tend to be risk-averse anyway.

It's quite possible I'm biased from working in Silicon Valley, where most patents get applied for not for protection from having your idea "stolen," but for protection from other patentholders. Or because they're seen as valuable by potential investors/buyers, but that mostly matters before you have a customer base and infrastructure.

speaking of state-chartered business here's an interesting one... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Gobain "French multinational corporation, founded in 1665" - alive and kicking...

...

...

Now it's much easier to get your hands on funding than it was then, whether it's a small business loan, SBIR, venture or angel capital, or crowdfunding.

And that's probably not true either. Well obviously the telecom side of things is better today than it was in 1700, but the finance side of thing not necessarily so.

I think I'd need to read examples of small businesses getting financed in 1700.

Well, I don't have any concrete examples at hand. Who knows what kind of records have survived about small businesses in the 1700, let alone details about their financing. My guess is based on a few facts anyway : 1700 was more or less the peak of the so called enlightenment in europe. There was a more or less functioning gold standard. Taxes were probably lower than they are today. There was banking, although I don't know if it was accesible to small investors and borrowers, etc. At any rate, I don't think the patent system of that time necessarily fixed the problem of relative lack of capital. But yes, you are probably right that getting funded is easier today than it used to be.

Knowing a number of people who have started small businesses now, it seems obvious to me that the situation for financing is better now than it was then. Which is not to say it doesn't still need a lot of improvement before it's "good" in any absolute sense.

On 09/02/2016 01:03 PM, juan wrote:

Why should rand get to write novels using ideas she stole from other pople?

Because she was a LIBERTARIAN. That means your ethics STOP if they interfere with taking what you want. Feudalism with a less-frowned upon name to fool the rubes. Rr

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 07:16:19 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

This doesn't mean that I object to the current patent system.

For the record, the current patent system has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy. The patent system is a system of state-granted privileges that are not compatible with private property rights. And it comes from the middle ages and the monarchies of that time.

Not surprisingly it was adopted by the american slave state that was 'founded' in 1776 or thereabouts...

...

In her book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand came out on the side of private intellectual property,

It's funny that all 'her' ideas about political philosophy were 'stolen' from libertarians. Why should rand get to write novels using ideas she stole from other pople? Did she pay royalties to the libertarian thinkers she plagiarized?

(as a side note : not only she stole 'her' political ideas from libertarians - she never really understood libertarianism...)

She also stole all the rest of 'her' ideas from rationalists, individualists, atheists, and the like.

...

objecting to the theft by government of metal-maker Henry Reardon's special metal alloy, "Reardon metal", by means of blackmail. Of course, I understand that by citing Ayn Rand's reasoning (and I am by no meansa Randian, having learned I was a libertarian years before knowing about Ayn Randand her books) it may seem I am committing the rhetorical sin of 'appealing toauthority'.

It's OK to appeal to technical authority. Doesn't mean the particular appeals are valid though =P

And in the case of rand she was pretty mediocre from a technical point of view anyway.

...

And, I realize that there is something of a conundrum about advocating a 'free market' and yet implicitly supporting the one remaining control, that ofa patent system somewhat akin to what the world uses today.

Yes. The patent system is an anti-competitive contraption that goes against the competitive nature of the free market.

...

(Who enforces sucha patent system, except a government?) Let me propose an outline of a solution which could square the circle: At some early point, say age 18, each person would be asked whether he wishes to livehis life WITH Intellectual Property rules, or not.

There are so many...statist...assumptions and implications in that. So, no, that is not workable in a libertarian framework.

...

He can choose either way, butif he refuses, manufacturers can band together to agree to sell only to people who agree to those rules. Correspondingly, those who sign the pro-IntellectualProperty agreement agree thereby to bar themselves from buying products fromnon-intellectual-property agree-er manufacturers. Violations could be policed byan AP-type system.

You mean murdering people who copy 'patented' ideas - ideas the patent holders most likely stole from other people anyway?

...

This wouldn't have to be a permanent decision, for any person.

That's OK, because the kind of 'contract' needed to get the system you want to work is not a valid contract. So in practice it is not 'enforceable'

...

Other manufacturers may make products that are made for sale to non-Intellectual Property agree-ers, but they will be shut out from dealing with what I expect will be the majority, let's call them "Pro-Intellectual Property"people and manufacturers.

Let's call them anti-competitive corporatists.

...

I am fairly confident that the advantages of dealing withwhat I believe will be the majority, those that comply with Intellectual Property rules,will be sufficient to keep all but a small minority of the public willing to livevoluntarily with such rules. Put simply, I suggest that there are some rather powerfuladvantages to having a system which rewards inventors.

Inventors do get the rewards they deserve when there's no patent system. Of course the rewards they deserve are a lot smaller than the 'rewards' they can get from monopolistic, state-granted privileges.

Jim Bell

...

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:15:47 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

On 09/02/2016 01:03 PM, juan wrote:

...

Why should rand get to write novels using ideas she stole from other pople?

Because she was a LIBERTARIAN.

Why do you troll this mailing list rayzer? =) I mean, if you said up front that you are a marxist piece of shit who is only trolling and prolly working for his government, fine. But you are here under false pretences, right? That means your ethics STOP if they

interfere with taking what you want. Feudalism with a less-frowned upon name to fool the rubes.

Rr

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:42:26 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

On 09/02/2016 05:34 PM, juan spewed:

...

Why do you troll this mailing list rayzer? =)

I'm not trolling. You asked a question. You got my answer.

Don't feel like answering why you troll this list? That's beacuse you are not only a troll, you are a coward as well.

Rr

Further Spew redacted

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:11:32 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

On 09/02/2016 06:06 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:42:26 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

...

On 09/02/2016 05:34 PM, juan spewed:

...

Why do you troll this mailing list rayzer? =)

I'm not trolling. You asked a question. You got my answer.

Don't feel like answering why you troll this list? That's beacuse you are not only a troll, you are a coward as well.

Not agreeing with you is 'trolling' according to you Juan.

It's quite obvious that you are a troll rayzer. You are subscribed to a mailing list devoted to principles you hate. (and you hate those principles because you are a piece of commie shit)

That's why you're a fascist. You're entitled to disagree with my sociopolitical philosophy and I don't refer to that as trolling.

But it is trolling. If I were to join your private club FASCIST-MARXISTS-DOT-COM and complained about if being choke full of marxist like you, I would be trolling. That is what you do here.

Fascist. But whn you refer to my direct answer to your direct question as trolling, guess what? You're the troll ... Fascist.

...fascist is what you, like a good american, are. A left wing fascist to be more precise.

Rr

...

...

Rr

Further Spew redacted

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:40:49 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

...

It's quite obvious that you are a troll rayzer. You are subscribed to a mailing list devoted to principles you hate.

Really? I don't think I've given you enough data to make that call,

Come on rayzer, stop pretending to be that stupid. All the data I have about you is the nonsense you post in this list. You are the only one here whining about feudal libertarians. And interestingly enough, you never bother with guys like say Stephen who certainly would fit your feudal (i.e. fake) libertarian type.

but I hear your friends at the FBI haz pretty good social-characteristic algorithms

sure - keep trolling

...

(and you hate those principles because you are a piece of commie shit)

I am not, nor have I ever been, "A Communist"

Which flag do I burn to prove that?

OK - so you are not a commie and you didn't mention the arch-commie marcusse when I asked about sources for...whatever nonsense you were saying at that time. Fine. Not a commie. And you are not a libertarian, correct? You actually detest libertarians. So what are you? What's the political philosophy that is left when you reject the pure and noble science of communism and libertarian feudalism? I'm hoping you are not so stupid as to miss the point that anything between radical communism and radical libertarianism is even more retarded than radical communism...

...

...

That's why you're a fascist. You're entitled to disagree with my sociopolitical philosophy and I don't refer to that as trolling.

But it is trolling. If I were to join your private club FASCIST-MARXISTS-DOT-COM and complained about if being choke full of marxist like you, I would be trolling.

That is what you do here.

It seem like I spend an inordinate amount of time responding to your trolling, if you want to call that trolling. But in reality I'm just hoping my responses make you ... SPECIFICALLY YOU (cop) ... wolf down an extra shot, take an extra mood med, od, and the world WILL Be a better sun-shiney place.

That's trolling. You made me do it.

It's no different from the rest of your posts.

On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:47:24 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:30PM -0300, Juan wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: How about we implement a working AP system?   As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.

...

    The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,     politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.

     The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be      turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good      implementation.

And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people".

Naturally, I feel I must respond to this, as well.  At one point, very long ago (1990's) I believe I made the following point, probably on the CP list.  The current legal (then and now) environment, at least in America, is that the vast majority of adults can walk into a gun-store, and legally buy a gun and ammunition.  Then, they can walk out, possibly after a few-day 'waiting period' (which didn't exist in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, which I take as violating the principles of the Supreme Court decision Heller v. McDonald 2008).   Hypothetically, these people could then load their newly-purchased guns, walk up to some random person, and shoot them dead.     Hypothetically.   In other words, there is no law-of-nature which prevents this kind of thing from happening.   So, my question is:  Does this hypothetical possibility somehow prove that America's legal environment towards ownership of guns is somehow "wrong"?   That merely because there is no law-of-nature that would prevent that wrong deed, people should not be allowed to own guns, even those who had never, and would never, misuse them?     Above, you said:           ">And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned  against honest people"." So, I could respond:  "And I can conceive of no firearms system which cannot be turned against honest people". Okay, that statement that I just made is arguably true.  Let's agree that you cannot build a gun that cannot, somehow, be misused in some way.  Even if it can only be used as a bludgeon, and hit somebody over the head with a few-pounds of steel.  Nevertheless, nothing can absolutely prevent such use.   Some, certainly some of those who live and grew up outside America and its environment of gun laws, would take the hypothetical possibility that somebody could do this as being a "defect" in the system, thus justifying saying the laws were wrong, and further justify taking them away.   Americans, however, at least those who believe in the Second Amendment, think differently:   I argue that they think something like, "Even though it is possible that some people will misuse guns, that does not justify taking them away from the general public".    I am among those people who believe that.   And lest some people are inclined to argue, I will point out that tire-irons, hammers, baseball-bats, heavy logs, iron pipes, and many other objects are similarly subject to the 'defect' of being possibly used for improper purposes.   As well as knives, axes, spears, and other devices can be similarly misused.  Rakes, trowels, shovels, etc.   Does anybody out there "get" this concept?  It certainly seems very basic to me.   So, I then ask:  Does the POSSIBILITY that the AP system could be misused justify somehow banning it?   Or even denouncing it? My comment from the last posting follows: Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS."

The reason is money.

Those who can print money at their whim, can game any and every assassination market, to have all the anarchists shot or otherwise assassinated.

Any person who has enough money to buy a steel hammer can subsequently use it to murder somebody else.   Do we ban hammers?  Kitchen knives? Do we ban MONEY, itself, currency and cash, simply because it can be used to buy an object which can be misused?   How about automobiles, which society has learned over the last few years can work as a weapon?   How about banning gasoline, which certainly could be used to commit arson? I think I've made my point.  From my standpoint, an American who actually believes in the Second Amendment, I view the possible abuse of a gun as fundamentally identical to abuse of hammers, baseball bats, axes, and kitchen knives:   There is simply no logical reason to ban ONE of this kind of object, as if it was somehow logically 'different' or 'special' from a standpoint of 'objects which can be used as weapons'.  Arguably, a gun can be described as a 'more-efficient' weapon, but America's Second-Amendment rights were not limited to 'inefficient' arms.   In 1791, the America's Founding Fathers decided to take one option off the table:  In proposing and later ratifying the Second Amendment, they decided that Americans should never have to grovel or beg for their right to own tools of their own self-defense.  They knew that weapons could be misused.  Nevertheless, they made their decision.   They wanted to guarantee the continuation of the kind of gun-rights that existed in America in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, regardless.   They did not describe it in detail, because they didn't think they needed to:   They KNEW what "the laws" allowed, and guaranteed.  They knew that those laws were written down, and those laws would not simply evaporate.   They wanted that system to continue, so they wrote the Second Amendment.  The Second American DID NOT GRANT, but in fact GUARANTEED the "right to keep and bear arms".   And AP is potentially just as much an "arm" as is guns, baseball bats, or knives.  And I would argue that AP is LESS abusable than common cutting and bludgeoning weapons.  Killing somebody  with a hammer does not require anybody else's assistance, let alone their "approval".   Or even knowledge  So anybody who thinks AP shouldn't be "allowed" should have to explain why such common weapons should be allowed, and yet not AP.   They will simply have no credible answer, at all.               Jim Bell

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:07:13 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:38AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:47:24 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:30PM -0300, Juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: How about we implement a working AP system?   As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.

...

    The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,     politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.

     The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be      turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good      implementation.

...

And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people".

OK. I take back what I said. If AP can be used against honest people, so what. I mean, if it allows us to kill soldiers, cops, wall street bankers and similar animals, then it is a good system. ps: oh yes, 'chaos' is (way) better than the current dictatorship. Not to mention, the current system, if not stopped, is going to get a lot worse. So yeah, we need chaos ASAP.

On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 08:05:55 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:57:35PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:07:13 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:38AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

  On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:47:24 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:       On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:30PM -0300, Juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: How about we implement a working AP system?   As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.

...

    The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,     politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.

     The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be      turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good      implementation.

...

And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people".

...

     OK. I take back what I said. If AP can be used against honest     people, so what. I mean, if it allows us to kill soldiers, cops,     wall street bankers and similar animals, then it is a good     system.

The balance is of course whom (which class of users) gets to "use it more" against the other class(es).

"AP is presupposed on an anonymous money betting ring - i.e. on money, which is collected by people who climb the hiearchy of the day,

Not necessarily.  A "billionaire" is not likely to be 1000 times more likely to use an AP-type system to attack his 'enemies'.  One major reason is that targeting people requires, first, that you can identify them.   How does anybody know who their 'enemies' are?  In a pre-AP world, many of their 'enemies' stand up and say that "billionaires" should be taxed at a 97% rate.   How many people would dare, in a POST-AP world, stand up and argue that "billionaires" should be robbed of 97% of their income?!? therefore they have more of it. Many orders of magnitude more of it." But merely having more money, at least initially, does not translate into being able to USE that money to target his enemies.  And people who are CURRENTLY "billionaires" got that way using a NON-AP system.  Can you describe how anyone can become, or stay, a "billionaire" in a post-AP world?  Why should you think that would not change?

In facto, the Fed seized the power to print money at its sole discretion, and does so to this day with QE-1, QE-2, QE-3 and now QE-notQE. Hundreds of trillions of fiats, Trillians per year now being "printed" in digital debt increment accounts on Federal reserve computers.

How many of these Government employees would survive in a post-AP world?  What happens to the printing press if the operators are all dead?  Or, at least, unpaid?   Or running in fear?

What's a few extra billions in the mix?

Explain how that would happen post-AP?

Absolutely a drop in the ocean, to tptb!

And, any functional AP market will mean multiple competing markets, multiple competing assassins, and therefore the lowest conceivable prices for the assassinations, therefore chump change for the powers that be.

How do those "powers that be" exercise their power if to do so identifies them?  In a post-AP world, USING that power is about the most suicidal thing they could possibly do.   Do you really not understand this?

What I don't understand,

OBVIOUSLY you don't understand this,. You make that clear with virtually every sentence you write.    >is why this fundamental fiat dynamic, so utterly stacked against us (and upon which (at least today) any functioning AP must be built) is not utterly and irredeemably stacked against us dissidents? Because YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND!   "Us dissidents" aren't identified by what you call TPTB,  THEY, TPTB, however, are rather well-known.   It is THEY who will be running, in terror, if they have done anything to piss off the millions of "dissidents".  You haven't a clue about the power structure post-AP.  

Remember the marginal dissident. Even today, without AP, there are woefully few of us. You might be willing to be a dissident in an AP world ... many would not even try.

Remember that DISSIDENTS are not NECESSARY post-AP.    They can achieve what they want using AP, and without identifying themselves.  Your thinking is stuck in pre-AP mode.  

ps: oh yes, 'chaos' is (way) better than the current dictatorship. Not to mention, the current system, if not stopped, is going to get a lot worse. So yeah, we need chaos ASAP.

What we need is folks in numbers speaking truth.

Statute law is used to make much normal human behaviour illegal and

Why do they have to "speak"?  TODAY'S system requires that "folks in numbers speak[] truth".   In a post-AP world, that "truth" can be "spoken" silently, and denominated in some form of digital cash.  And the people who will REALLY be scared are the ones everybody is aware illegitimately exercising power.   thereby makes criminals of most humans, and exposes those who would otherwise walk with good intention up the hierarchy, to blackmail. And 'law' cannot effectively exist unless there is a mechanism to enforce it.  And that mechanism will, for the foreseeable future, involve flesh-and-blood humans, who can be targeted.  Who would dare offend against the masses in a post-AP world?                Jim Bell

...

...

"AP is presupposed on an anonymous money betting ring - i.e. on money, which is collected by people who climb the hiearchy of the day, therefore they have more of it. Many orders of magnitude more of it."

But merely having more money, at least initially, does not translate into being able to USE that money to target his enemies. And people who are CURRENTLY "billionaires" got that way using a NON-AP system. Can you describe how anyone can become, or stay, a "billionaire" in a post-AP world? Why should you think that would not change?

Game theory.

Sociopaths game the system, no matter what that system is.

All you guys are arguing about, is that BAD people will abuse GOOD things, but here's a tool which will up the ante or the bet. There are several problems with the inherent premises in this formulation of, let us call, the "bad guy problem". (First premise to question: Are there bad guys?) But before we get into that old problem, let's address the issue at point. I can't be sure I'm not confused, but if I've grokked the debate, Jim's tool has advantage of ignorance. The tech Jim's releasing gives advantage to the COMMUNITY he releases it in, presumably chosen by the creator of the tech. In the "arms race" of tools to defeat your enemies, first to battlefield gives an immediate victory. Perhaps you get preferred access to the media for being an informant and your reputation goes up. Yes, eventually, the enemy integrates these techniques, but you've already gotten a victory. The enemy cares about their reputation and eventually if your life depends on your reputation, you too can be victim of your own system. But this is just the same old battle -- that doesn't reduce the value of the tools made in such warfare, but to truly win the war, you have to do one thing: Realize there is no one BUT yourself. The Cold War showed that a victory for America would be a defeat for America. At some point, THERE IS NO ENEMY. Why? Because you have a common ancestor, for example (don't we all? (according to science)). Because you each want kids to be happy. Because you both like spending time in the countryside. So, the "bad guy problem" is premised that there are BAD people. But each of those people were children once who didn't care about your household estate, your equine performance, or your wife's/husbands tits/cock. So, is the whole formulation of punk/activism wrong? NO. Because, while there are no inherently bad people (cf. Jesus), there are simply people who have not benefitted the SAME WAY and EXTENT of the current incumbents of power and property. As someone in poverty, I know how this feels. Everyday I am a victim of the current incumbents. Can I get elected and change it? I don't know anymore. That was the design of the US government. My strategy was, instead, to get arrested, and convince the Court that power has become too misused at the "End of the West", my term for the era, arrived at in the last century, where property and the ability to LIVE without reporting to anyone are no longer operational. This little fact makes living EXTREMELY difficult unless you have property or working at a job. Now, last time I knew, it is not REQUIRED by law to have a job, so this little issue of property has to be solved by the incumbents or result in activism by the propertyless, because neither seemed to see it coming. And power requires responsibility, so.... The argument returns to JUSTICE for all: is it necessary, how to do it, why should I do it when I don't want to, what will/can they do if I don't, were the Founders and GOD right the whole time (which both, notedly, were concerned about the question)? For this, I await your reply, Marcos Earth

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:46:12PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

So, the "bad guy problem" is premised that there are BAD people. But each of those people were children once who didn't care about your household estate, your equine performance, or your wife's/husbands tits/cock.

So, is the whole formulation of punk/activism wrong? NO. Because, while there are no inherently bad people (cf. Jesus), there are simply people who have not benefitted the SAME WAY and EXTENT of the current incumbents of power and property.

The one who is driven, by debt, greed, or blackmail, to commit atrocities, is very reasonably argued to be "a bad guy" yes. And yes, in the grandest of all inter generational views on human existence, we can look to this "bad" guys causes, what horrors he or she faced as a child, what their parents faced, and theirs ad infinitum and blame it all on Eve. Or Adam. Or that grandest of unfathomables "Our Creator". In the mico, the moment, the event, there are evil, and unforgivable, deeds. There are also deeds and events which institute long lasting systems of leeching upon the majority of a magnitude which is truly impressive to behold (remember the Fed!). In the grandest of grand schemes we can postulate, hold and or believe that all is as it is meant to be, that everything works out karmicly, if not before my eyes now, eventually over time. But for the human who lives his or her life, I owe it to myself to act in pursuance of that which I know to be right, just, and true. To do otherwise is to perpetuate or in the very least, acquiesce to evil, which serves to further "negative" experiences. I have a conscience, which is with me, it is a part of my day to day awareness and experience as a human being. By my conscience, I know good from evil. I am with a will, and, at least within the boundaries of my capacity/ ability, I am able to make choices, to choose one action over another, to speak one sentence rather than another. I choose to do good, not evil. And I stand, where I am able, in support of others who do good things in this world, and not evil things. Together we create our world,

On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 10:51:49 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:

And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people".

Is it forgotten that...

- No one but a troll, random or intentional, will list innocent people. - No assassin, but pure psycho or profiteer, will murder innocent people.

That leading AP implementations are likely to have message boards, research wikis, etc that will decry as no-go's any honest people listed. That there is no point to such listings.

And that in any society, whether today without AP, or tomorrow with AP, both of those cases are so rare as to be background noise. Just as "News at 11: A Gun Murder" is but noise compared to most accidental and preventable deaths. (Stop watching the news, it is

Whereas doing the math on the trivial amount of funds a few million donors across the internet would have to contribute to an AP function to spread a little convincing love towards the top and littorals of governments...

I think I have said, many times, that if HYPOTHETICALLY, I ran an AP-organization, I would (during a transition period when the government is being broken down) only accept donations against people who I, personally, was convinced had violated the Non-Initiation-of-Force-Principle.  (Otherwise known as NAP, non-agression principle.) However, I ALSO state that there is no way I could prevent a DIFFERENT person from running a DIFFERENT organization with DIFFERENT policies,  I believe that an organization with "looser" standards (less safeguards) would cost more to use, and would be charged more by potential assassins. And I also have pointed out that I consider working for government to be an automatic violation of the NIOFP principle,  This means that no trials will be necessary, or likely possible, during the transition period.   That's not to say that all 'government employees' are equally culpable, of course.  Eventually, perhaps after a couple of years, once the governments are broken down and their participants are punished, I believe that most AP-organizations will form what might be called "private courts" to ensure that juries make the decisions as to guilt and innocence, and punishment.  An accused violator might, and I argue, would WANT to be tried by such a court, because the alternative is the implementation of the AP-system essentially automatically.   programming your brain to believe, and do, fake shit.) I have long thought that's quite true.   If 'you' donate to the life of a dishonest, criminal, or evil person, your donation will be combined with hundreds or thousands (or even millions) of other donors, and I believe the potential assassins will work cheaper, probably much cheaper.   (Consider:  If you were such an assassin, wouldn't you prefer to kill a guilty person, rather than an innocent person?  You'd probably work cheaper, right?) OTOH, if you donate to take the life of a good, innocent person, very few other donors will add to your donations, and potential assassins will demand more money to 'do the job'.  (In part, because they can, since they will have less competition.)   I feel few such innocent targets will likely be killed, even when there were no "AP-courts" functioning.  that such listings are full of point. That's the case.   Such people will have to virtually automatically resign, in order to survive.   Some donors might want to condition their donations to spare people who quit their job, others might not.  

Jim Bell's  comments inline: On Friday, November 1, 2019, 01:31:39 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:50:31AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:

...

...

And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people".

...

Is it forgotten that...

...

- No one but a troll, random or intentional, will list innocent people.

Some trolls stole the power to print unlimited fiats. Not merely "trolls", but a collection of trolls called "government".

In the theoretical AP system:

 > - The listing is anonymous.  > - The funding is anonymous.   >- The assassin/ collector of the funds is anonymous. So what is your point?

How could a sociopathic "unlimited fiats printer" troll, not love and adore such a system?

I think you are implicitly assuming this "troll" somehow CONTROLS that system,  But you didn't explain how,  Or how he would stay in such a position of control,. I notice that virtually EVERYTHING you say about AP is stilted, distorted, and ultimately unsupported and wrong,  I point that out, and yet you don't defend your claims, you merely make more of them.

...

- No assassin, but pure psycho or profiteer, will murder innocent people.

Some mercs are pure profiteers, without consideration for the lives they take. In today's (non-AP) world, that's presumably correct, 

The most successful assassins are like this.

The most successful assassins, shall therefore be the most successful at seizing the profits from AP.

"seizing the profits from AP"?   First, who said anything about "profits"?  Abd to the extent that these "successful assassins" do the work that the AP system has determined that the donors want to see done, what's wrong with that? I could write a parody paragraph, saying that the corner grocery store "seizes all the profits" from people doing shopping for groceries,. You didn't bother to explain why what you were describing was bad,

...

That leading AP implementations are likely to have message boards, research wikis, etc that will decry as no-go's any honest people listed. That there is no point to such listings.

The most successful assassins are not empathic rainbow embracing flower girls, they are cold blooded, emotionless killers who get the job done for the listed price, and stay anonymous.

The most successful hierarchy climbers sieze control of the fiat

...

at any arbitrary sociopathic cost, and therefore need bythe only "funder/ gambler" (anonymous) for the sole listing they list

The most-successful grocers are emotionless grocery-sellers who get the job done for the listed price, and stay unknown to most shoppers. printing, Well, CURRENTLY let's say that's the way things are,  In the current, NON-AP world.   But yet again, you don't bother to explain why you think that kind of situation would continue in the AP-active world.   See, you have a pattern:   In an apparent mis-guided attempt to criticize AP, you keep citing examples from the pre-AP world, a "list of horribles", and somehow think that reciting them will rub off on the AP idea.    I can easily see through that, and I think other people can, too,   themselves (also anonymously).

Again, for a fiat printing troll, what's not to love?

And again, you postulate this hypothetical 'troll', and somehow you automatically place him in a position of control over that system.  You don't explain why he would get there, when the AP system (inherently not requiring the existence of a monopoly) would be virtually impossible to monopolize and control.   You don't explain why he would stay there, either. Effectively, it sounds like you believe you can simply concoct a scenario, filled by fictional people, in fictional positions, doing fictional things,  declare them 'bad', and use that to assert somehow that 'AP is bad'.    How so?

...

And that in any society, whether today without AP, or tomorrow with AP, both of those cases are so rare as to be background noise.

Assumption. alse assumption. Sociopaths are sociopathic for a reason (they're sociopathic, and in this nature stop at nothing to achieve their power and fiat printing).

What's your point?  Who, exactly, will be able to accomplish those FICTIONAL acts you are asserting?  

Just as "News at 11: A Gun Murder" is but noise compared to most accidental and preventable deaths. (Stop watching the news, it is programming your brain to believe, and do, fake shit.)

[rest of his nonsense deleted]

Is it forgotten that...

- No one but a troll, random or intentional, will list innocent people. - No assassin, but pure psycho or profiteer, will murder innocent people.

Is it forgotten so quickly that "the public lynch mob of normally good people" did in Richard Stallman, Jacob Applebaum and many others? Is it forgotten that the "normally good humans" can overnight get out their pitch forks and torches, and pitch in that $5 to have "the evil pedophile Richard Stallman or was that Jacob Applebaum the rapist" murdered for the misdeeds? When such a system is unleashed, and the "apparent" crime so motivates the crowd to become the mob, there is no court that the mob will ever defer to - the mob will simply ensure, post haste, that justice is first and foremost delivered! "We fail too often to properly consider human nature in aggregate."

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 06:52:24PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019, 01:36:15 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

...

Is it forgotten that...

- No one but a troll, random or intentional, will list innocent people. - No assassin, but pure psycho or profiteer, will murder innocent people.

...

Is it forgotten so quickly that "the public lynch mob of normally good people" did in Richard Stallman, Jacob Applebaum and many others?

What is your point?   What was done to THEM, and ME, was done in a NON-AP world!   By GOVERNMENT people, mostly, or people doing the government's bidding,

And you are able to identify the exact CIA spooks who paid off and turbocharged the -many- folks who spearheaded the lynch mob and put their collective feet on the accelerator - 100s of people ? And you can, with clarity and certainty, be sure you have not misidentified out of those 100s of lynch mobbers, the dozens, if not also hundreds, who were simply ignorant millenial morons getting caught up in a lynch mobm unthinking ? Or are you so angry that, as with Juan, you would have the dozens or hundreds of innocent ignorants in that lynch mob, be targets and have their lives popped off because they're so damned ignorant - survival of the fittest eh ? And so in your post AP world, there will never power and wealth hierarchies, there will never be factional (tribal like) wars where many innocents get caught up in the gun slaying ? Your post AP world solves not only hierarchies, but therefore all fundamental human group problems ? "Hubris", Jim ! (Look it up if you are not sufficiently familiar with that term - I have fallen too many times to hubris, my brown paper bag supply ran out, so get yer own.)

 Those facts establish the NEED for AP, not an argument against it!!   It's truly amazing you act like you don't see this,  

...

Is it forgotten that the "normally good humans" can overnight get out their pitch forks and torches, and pitch in that $5 to have "the evil pedophile Richard Stallman or was that Jacob Applebaum the rapist" murdered for the misdeeds?

While there remains a huge power-structure called "the government" in existence, employing many millions of people, and taxing tens or even hundreds of millions of people, who is surprised that a relatively small number of them can get victimized, mostly because of the motivations of that government? So I ask again:  "What is your point"?   Are you implying that a well-functioning AP-type system will, NECESSARILY, work in a defective way similar to today's governments?   How could it?   Defend your claims! 

...

When such a system is unleashed, and the "apparent" crime so motivates the crowd to become the mob, there is no court that the mob will ever defer to - the mob will simply ensure, post haste, that justice is first and foremost delivered!

THAT sounds like a great description, of a great idea.  Just not the idea you were thinking of.

...

"We fail too often to properly consider human nature in aggregate."

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:01:46PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:35:50 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

...

Is it forgotten that...

- No one but a troll, random or intentional, will list innocent people. - No assassin, but pure psycho or profiteer, will murder innocent people.

Is it forgotten so quickly that "the public lynch mob of normally good people" did in Richard Stallman, Jacob Applebaum and many others?

well that's the US military feminazi cunts*. What the public did is keep quiet and not rock the boat.

SOME in the public joined the lynch mob. It is, AFAIUI, that the majority of folks in a mob (though they be stirred up by agitprop) are "average disgruntled humans". In a post AP world, the mob is allegedly the group with most power.

*US military feminazi cunts, you know, like paul syverson and accomlices.

...

Is it forgotten that the "normally good humans" can overnight get out their pitch forks and torches, and pitch in that $5 to have "the evil pedophile Richard Stallman or was that Jacob Applebaum the rapist" murdered for the misdeeds?

the argument is that AP would also allow us to kill trump, kill the jews at facebook, the jews at google, the jews at goldman sachs, the rothschilds, all the rest of 'white' jew-kristians at the MIC, et cetera.

...

When such a system is unleashed, and the "apparent" crime so motivates the crowd to become the mob, there is no court that the mob will ever defer to - the mob will simply ensure, post haste, that justice is first and foremost delivered!

"We fail too often to properly consider human nature in aggregate."

On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 07:07:21 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:38AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

  On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 03:47:24 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:       On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:30PM -0300, Juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

...

...

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: How about we implement a working AP system?   As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in the long term.

...

    The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,     politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.

     The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be      turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good      implementation.

...

And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned against honest people".

Naturally, I feel I must respond to this, as well.  At one point, very long ago (1990's) I believe I made the following point, probably on the CP list.  The current legal (then and now) environment, at least in America, is that the vast majority of adults can walk into a gun-store, and legally buy a gun and ammunition.  Then, they can walk out, possibly after a few-day 'waiting period' (which didn't exist in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, which I take as violating the principles of the Supreme Court decision Heller v. McDonald 2008).   Hypothetically, these people could then load their newly-purchased guns, walk up to some random person, and shoot them dead.     Hypothetically.   In other words, there is no law-of-nature which prevents this kind of thing from happening.   So, my question is:  Does this hypothetical possibility somehow prove that America's legal environment towards ownership of guns is somehow "wrong"?   That merely because there is no law-of-nature that would prevent that wrong deed, people should not be allowed to own guns, even those who had never, and would never, misuse them?     Above, you said:           ">And I can conceive of no possible AP system "which cannot be turned  against honest people"." So, I could respond:  "And I can conceive of no firearms system which cannot be turned against honest people". Okay, that statement that I just made is arguably true.  Let's agree that you cannot build a gun that cannot, somehow, be misused in some way.  Even if it can only be used as a bludgeon, and hit somebody over the head with a few-pounds of steel.  Nevertheless, nothing can absolutely prevent such use.   Some, certainly some of those who live and grew up outside America and its environment of gun laws, would take the hypothetical possibility that somebody could do this as being a "defect" in the system, thus justifying saying the laws were wrong, and further justify taking them away.   Americans, however, at least those who believe in the Second Amendment, think differently:   I argue that they think something like, "Even though it is possible that some people will misuse guns, that does not justify taking them away from the general public".    I am among those people who believe that.   And lest some people are inclined to argue, I will point out that tire-irons, hammers, baseball-bats, heavy logs, iron pipes, and many other objects are similarly subject to the 'defect' of being possibly used for improper purposes.   As well as knives, axes, spears, and other devices can be similarly misused.  Rakes, trowels, shovels, etc.  

Does anybody out there "get" this concept?  It certainly seems very basic to me.   So, I then ask:  Does the POSSIBILITY that the AP system could be misused justify somehow banning it?   Or even denouncing it?

Your exposition is of course not the full comparison, so let's unpack that a little.

The one who shoots someone publicly, has at least the following checks and balances:

  1. that the deed is done "publicly"

I disagree.  While many murders are indeed done while witnessed by others, others are not.  > 2. and done by his own hand That's not much of a limitation.  

  3. the time factor - preparation, planning, arranging funds,     planning the deed, doing the deed Who says it's "planned"?    In other words, there are presumably many cases where, if you stop the perp five minutes before the deed, there may be no indication or evidence of what he intends to do,.   Even he might not know.  

Your AP market removes both of these checks and balances, 

You don't seem to acknowledge the checks and balances an AP market could add.  Mostly because you've proven time and again that you simply don't understand AP.

and by doing so, by any of billions of people being able to "pitch in a few fiats" for a murder, 

Give me a specific example of a person who "billions of people" will donate to see him dead?  If, truly, "billions of people" want to see him dead, maybe that's a good idea?   Therefore, try to explain who would attract such attention who SHOULDN'T be killed.

and to do so anonymously, such that someone else can conduct the murder and anonymously pick up the proceeds, AP thereby liberates the following dynamics: You don't quantify anything.  

  1. AP liberates the callous, angry and other such natures of humans. Well, it also requires them to pay good money.  What would motivate them to kill one person, that would also not motivate them to want to kill thousands of others.   Their money is limited.     >   - amongst billions, there are millions of such persons They will, therefore, have limited funds.  > 2. AP liberates the emotive, compulsive mob, to act in unison in     the heat of the moment. WHICH "moment"?  I ask again:  Be specific about who will be targeted, who you think SHOULDN'T be targeted.   You have no excuse to not be specific:   There are millions of people to choose from.   >  - again, amongst billions of people, millions have experience       traumatic childhood experiences which are unresolved, and so       in the heat of the moment, they act impulsively They could do that anyway.  AP would slow them down a bit.   >3. AP liberates the mob. You are assuming that "the mob" knows what it wants to do.  You are simply speculating,.    > - it is not one, but 1 in a 1000, out of 100s of millions of       humans, who will devour the murder of the day, whilst the       remaining 99.9% of humans decry "the mob mentality, what a       fucked up world we have, f___ you Jim Bell" Doesn't it occur to you that once implemented (and NOT by your own nightmare scenarios) the public will ultimately consider AP to be a great improvement on the status quo?   How do you know they wouldn't?  Be specific.  

And the power of such a beast unleashed, may be extraordinarily difficult to ever unwind, after its manifestation.

I am NOT impressed by your argumentation,.  

My comment from the last posting follows: Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember:

"Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS."

...

The reason is money.

...

Those who can print money at their whim, can game any and every assassination market, to have all the anarchists shot or otherwise assassinated.

Any person who has enough money to buy a steel hammer can subsequently use it to murder somebody else.   Do we ban hammers?  Kitchen knives? Do we ban MONEY, itself, currency and cash, simply because it can be used to buy an object which can be misused?   How about automobiles, which society has learned over the last few years can work as a weapon?   How about banning gasoline, which certainly could be used to commit arson?

I think I've made my point.  From my standpoint, an American who actually believes in the Second Amendment, I view the possible abuse of a gun as fundamentally identical to abuse of hammers, baseball bats, axes, and kitchen knives:   There is simply no logical reason to ban ONE of this kind of object, as if it was somehow logically 'different' or 'special' from a standpoint of 'objects which can be used as weapons'.  Arguably, a gun can be described as a 'more-efficient' weapon, but America's Second-Amendment rights were not limited to 'inefficient' arms.  

In 1791, the America's Founding Fathers decided to take one option off the table:  In proposing and later ratifying the Second Amendment, they decided that Americans should never have to grovel or beg for their right to own tools of their own self-defense.  They knew that weapons could be misused.  Nevertheless, they made their decision.   They wanted to guarantee the continuation of the kind of gun-rights that existed in America in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, regardless.   They did not describe it in detail, because they didn't think they needed to:   They KNEW what "the laws" allowed, and guaranteed.  They knew that those laws were written down, and those laws would not simply evaporate.   They wanted that system to continue, so they wrote the Second Amendment.  The Second American DID NOT GRANT, but in fact GUARANTEED the "right to keep and bear arms".   And AP is potentially just as much an "arm" as is guns, baseball bats, or knives.  And I would argue that AP is LESS abusable than common cutting and bludgeoning weapons.  Killing somebody  with a hammer does not require anybody else's assistance, let alone their "approval".   Or even knowledge  So anybody who thinks AP shouldn't be "allowed" should have to explain why such common weapons should be allowed, and yet not AP.   They will simply have no credible answer, at all.               Jim Bell

See above. It's an entirely different dynamic, thus a completely unfair comparison (albeit it is a comparison one ought make for the purposes of discussion, we may do ourselves a great disservice by not considering the larger picture of a fundamentally new dynamic).

and now imagine that we say exactly the same comparison applies "well, since you support the right of every Amercian to walk into a gun store a buy a gun and shoot someone if they so choose, in broad daylight, how can you possibly deny the right of folks to share the

That sounds like gobbledygook.  Sorry, but it does.  Does anybody agree with this?   Does it even mean something credible? For a similar and hypothetical "false comparison", remember the (only half) tongue in cheek "recreational nukes" meme:   - imagine we could present the plans to build actual back yard 100     megatonne nukes, in say only two A4 pages of text and a couple     diagrams plans to building 100 megatonne nuclear bombs in a weekend and $1,600 in parts from the hardware store?" AP will prevent nukes from being kept, anywhere.  Are you not aware of my argument?  Anyone who dares own a nuke will become, automatically, a finite threat to anyone who lives in little more than a large town,.   Such people will donate money to force the nuke-owner to cause the nuke be dismantled, publicly.  If he doesn't, he will be "donated to death".  Quickly.  Whereever he may happen to be.  

Those who hear such a hypothetical

  "Recreational Nukes for all, yay!   It's no different to the right of every American to buy a gun!" The issue isn't "rights".  A real, or potential, nuke-owner will simply not be allowed to own one,

would presumably do a double take and consider "well, may be that's neither a good idea, nor a fair comparison".

Since you clearly don't understand AP, none of your assertions can be trusted,  

On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 10:32:44 PM PDT, Punk - Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 04:53:14 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: zen >>   "Recreational Nukes for all, yay! - It's no different to the right of every American to buy a gun!"

...

The issue isn't "rights".  A real, or potential, nuke-owner will simply not be allowed to own one,

 >   well, except, libertarianism/anarchy is PURELY a matter of rights. (side note : everybody is a 'potential' nuke owner?) Well, a "government" is an organization that ostensibly works based on the authority of "the public".  The US Constitution, for example, is a document which states what authority "The US Federal Government" has.  That Constitution does not, nor should it, be interpreted so as to bind or limit the actions of non-government employees.   The Second Amendment, I believe, amounts to a rule which prohibits ALL governments (including State Governments, where said states ratified the Bill of Rights, or 3/4s of other states did so too) from prohibiting ownership of "arms".  But that doesn't mean that individual citizens, acting as individual citizens, will be prohibited from acting to prohibit ANYONE (even "governments") from possessing nuclear weapons.   If, say, a private person anywhere on earth owned a nuke, I am very confident that there would be plenty of donations to force him to dismantle said nuke, and if he refuses, he will be dead very soon.  >   anyway, what I think is not completely clear is who would be targeted in an AP system.  Join the club!   From the moment I disclosed my AP idea, I expected and hoped for an extensive and serious discussion and debate as to the merits of AP.  Let me emphasize:   That "discussion and debate" HAS NEVER HAPPENED, at least to what I consider my standards are.  AP should have been debated by anyone who calls himself a "philosopher", a "sociologist", and just about anyone else who takes thought seriously.  Even people who claim they don't "like" AP (and really, especially those!) should want it to be picked apart by logical thought, and perhaps testing.   That has NEVER happened.  Not even close.  I give the world an "F-minus" grade on this one.  

And that's because it would depend on who the users of the AP system are. So you can describe how the protocol would work at some technical level, but you can't fully predict how people would use it. It may be clear how libertarians would use it. but what about other people? 

In a 'micro' sense, that is correct.  But in a 'macro' sense, AP would be inherently biased against all centralized heirarchies of power, such as what we now call "governments".   In the end, there might remain some sort of "night watchman" organization, perhaps let by bid, to maintain the infrastructure, at least infrastructure that could not be privately owned.    >then again, the general argument for anarchy is that people are mostly good, so no government is needed. And if people are not good, then government only makes things worse. The same premise, people being mostly good, could be invoked here to defend AP. I agree that 'most people' are probably 'good'.  But some are occasionally not, so something akin to today's "law enforcement" would likely be necessary.  The details of something like this should probably have been heavily debated on the Cypherpunks list in 1995.  But it wasn't.                     Jim Bell

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:20:57 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

It's never the "mostly good" ones we have to worry about.

It's that small percentage of sociopathic hierarchy climbers who game every system in sight regardless of consequences as long it lines their own pockets with moar.

well that's the people that need killing. And AP might work as a tool to kill them.

In the aggregate, that small % of humans, is a depressingly large number.

And you are absolutely right, and it's a fundamental issue - all users of any system in issue, not just "thoughtful anarchists", must be considered.

On 08/31/2016 10:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote:

...

this has already been discussed dozens of times (on the thread about "offtopic" posts) -> Zen is NOT talking to himself. There are thousands of people here on the list. Only~15 of them participate most of the discussions. The rest - read and/or answer privately.

...

By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always filter these/all of Zen's letters.

Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of intelligence in the driver's seat would automatically create optimum solutions to all those problems. Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given relevant and accurate data to work from: Context is everything, and in a world dominated by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more subversive than the facts.

Something Paul Goodman, founder of Gestalt Therapy and Anarchist said to some technologists in 1967 comes to mind "...speaking by invitation to the National Security Industrial Association —a consortium of arms manufacturers at the October 1967 “Research and Development in the 1970s.” symposium, Washington DC: “You are the military industrial [complex] of the United States, the most dangerous body of men at present in the world, for you not only implement our disastrous policies but are an overwhelming lobby for them, and you expand and rigidify the wrong use of brains, resources, and labor so that change becomes difficult.” (He continued as the audience sat in stunned silence.) “The best service you people could perform is rather rapidly to phase yourselves out, passing on your relevant knowledge to people better qualified, or reorganizing yourselves with entirely different sponsors and commitments, so that you learn to think and feel in a different way. Since you are most of the R&D [research and development] that there is, we cannot do without you as people, but we cannot do with you as you are.” (laughter and booing along with scattered applause) “but we believe, however, that that way of life is unnecessary, ugly, and un-American.” (Shouts from the audience: “Who are ‘we’?”) “We are I and those people outside —we cannot condone your present operations; they should be wiped off the slate.” All the R&D and so-called intelligence applied to software and computer development is USELESS to anyone but the 'war machine' if it's all about ME, and not "those people outside". http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/92438085944

The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignm ent/

=or=

https://tinyurl.com/zbig180

Wherein Brzezinski says:

"While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail. Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.

"Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.

... and that's a paradigm shift, coming as it does from the man who created Al Qaida and laid the foundation for today's business as usual methods for regime change a.k.a. NeoColonial conquest.

We now return to our regularly scheduled Cypherpunks, a world of pure imagination where smart people like us would rise to the top of the social hierarchy on merit alone and fix the world, if only those damned [scapegoat name here] would get the hell out of our way.

:o)

Tail end of the modern terrorist saga - Dmitry Orlov is truly dry, so not recommended for those who prefer their commentary "MSM de la blandé". Really, it's unscientific y'all, just don't read it. I Hope Hell Has Cable TV So That Brzezinski Can Watch the US Empire Implode http://russia-insider.com/en/military/i-hope-hell-has-cable-tv-so-brzezinski... How one Russia-hating Polish psychopath created Hell on Earth, gifting us modern terrorism On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:40:59PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

s/Brzezinsky/Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski/