Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)

[baudmax23 at earthlink.net]

[snide preposterous presumptions deleted to save space]

In response to "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>:

I did not in any way or form, either explicitly much less implicitly, make 
any claim for the expropriation of money from wealthy persons in any form, 
much less by the state.  Much as you'd like to presume that I am just some 
"socialist" and rant on from there; Whatever you feel you must do to avoid 
the point.

The point was that there are a thousand other injustices, such as civil 
asset forfeiture, which effect and have been effecting people of all 
economic strata for over a decade now (and a lot of other governmental 
connivances, such as RICO anti-racketeering, and drug prohibition, from 
which it was spawned).  Things that routinely effect not just the Martha 
Stewarts, or the so-called investor class. Things from which spring forth 
the presumptive powers which now also threaten the investor class, who had 
not resisted earlier and deeper erosions of their civil liberties.  Things 
about which the wealthy (and politicians) don't give a rats ass about, 
because they are a privileged class, by and large, and the laws generally 
are not applied equally to them as to others.  So why should they 
care?  Until one of them has to take a fairly minor fall, and then it's 
crocodile tears, and poor Martha!  Oh the injustice of it all!  Screaming 
meamies, that oh God, how dare they apply the same laws against the wealthy 
they have been abusing the peasants and workers with all these years?!  The 
travesty of it!  You see, people like you only have a problem when you 
can't "buy your way out of trouble".  I mean, The Just-Us system's "only be 
for us peasants, right, massah?".

Martha is just a token sacrifice for appearances sake, to appease the 
masses and protect the status quo from any serious reform.  So Martha goes 
to Club Fed for a short stint, and business basically goes on as usual.  Is 
it Justice?  Nah, Just-Us.. maybe, especially if it maintains the privilege 
system intact and beyond serious scrutiny or reform.

It is rather telling that you have completely sidestepped anything I 
mentioned (aside from making false assumptions).

At 05:49 PM 3/24/2004, , "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com> wrote:

>So, Max, as a socialist, an unwitting user of such lies as
>"movement", or "(un)just state", as someone who believes that the
>*earned* property of "the rich" should be confiscated, or that

There we go with nonsensical presumptions and stereotyping again.  I could 
pull out my own label for you my friend, but that would be really 
pointless.  I believe that earned property of ANY strata of society should 
be safe from arbitrary seizure or confiscation.  It is rather amusing how 
you have put words in my mouth which are not there, and then spend all your 
time kicking down your own non-existant straw man.

You want to mock "justness" of the laws of the State...? Well then, what is 
your beef about Martha then?  If the state is inherently a manifestation of 
unjust cronyism (as you seem to claim), does that become an argument that 
somehow we should NOT strive to make the system MORE uniformly just and 
therefore abuse of power less common and arbitrary?  I mean, that's just 
the way it is... but then, you shouldn't be whining about poor 
Martha.  That's just the way States are, you know.  But I guess we come 
back to the double standard, and as long as the "wealth exemption" comes 
into play, then you really don't concern yourself with such an "inherently 
socialist" (as you might say) concept as JUSTICE?


>"marketing" should be controlled by force, welcome to the other side
>of the looking glass. The *real* side of the looking glass, I might
>add, where the "justice" of the state is simply another not-so-polite
>fiction to keep power.

Alas, you were so quick to falsely label me a socialist, that you did not 
read what I wrote.  Needless to say, I in no way called for any such 
"forceful" control of "marketing" as you inventively and deceptively 
implied.  Not to worry, I try to buy as little meaningless shit as possible 
from this disposable vacuous society.  But at the same time, I encourage 
people to see the emptiness for what it is.  The things you own end up 
owning you, and it can all blow away in a storm faster than you realize 
(therefore, governments and insurance).  Bread and circuses is a sure 
signpost on the way down, we've seen it before.  Avoid facing reality long 
enough, and the head kick of reality will be that much more forceful when 
it finally comes.  Like chickens coming home to roost.. kind of like what 
we are currently experiencing... but I digress...

>Hanging out on this list is a sure cure for such mental delusions. It
>worked for me, anyway. :-).

Worry not, that I have no delusions that this "System" in any way 
represents me, much less has the slightest concerns about civil liberties 
or any of the foundational concepts upon which this country was 
philosophically based, much less the most basic sense of honesty or simple 
humanitarianism.  And by humanitarianism, you don't have to feed, clothe, 
etc everybody at "taxpayer expense", however, a good start would be a much 
better discretion about how our nation haphazardly flings around bombs and 
destabilizes large swaths of the globe.  Our congress, etc are bought and 
paid for, and both (dictated-media-viable) sides at that.  Corporate Clown 
A (Bush) or Corporate Clown B (Kerry).  Corporations that, by their 
"perpetual" nature and concentrated wealth, have subverted our system by an 
inappropriate and unjustified percentage of "representation", that violates 
the conecpt of one man one vote, and perverts and distorts our government 
into sheerly absurd tyranny.

See, for all the hee-hawing of the investor thief classes about 
presumptions of "worth" and "value" which is oftentimes claimed as earned, 
but quite often is fraudulently swindled from the hard work of others, and 
the bland assurances that "this is all good for us", yet our senses tell us 
that things are in decline.  We as a nation are less stable, less secure, 
and most people are working much harder, for much less; courtesy 
WorldCom/Enron/Tyco/Parmalat thievery.  Outsourcing is an excellent example 
of just such a swindle -- a devaluation of labor for short-term profits, 
which will only lead to massive wage erosion, decline of the standard of 
living in the west, and a subsequent economic decline as working people can 
no longer afford housing and basic necessities.  All and well and fine that 
the corporates do not see the storm rising, from their outsourcing, and how 
it will cost them very dearly in the coming future.  The so-called "war on 
terror", beyond being a perpetual war-profiteers wet dream, is the 
smokescreen being used to raise up a militarist police state to suppress 
the coming domestic instability which will inevitably arise from a massive 
decline in the American standard of living.

>You might, in the meantime, try Googling "crypto-anarchy" or
>"anarcho-capitalism" and/or "cypherpunks", or "Tim May" and
>"cryptonomicon" (no not *that* cryptonomicon, the *original* one...),
>which will probably, in the process, find you a currently working
>version of several archives of this list that have arisen over the
>last decade. I'd start at the beginning, around September 1992.

Kind of busy reading more practical material, such as the intricacies of 
smashing stacks and bypassing filters, or timely and relevant, such as "The 
Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson.

>It's not that hard. You only need to read the first two months of the
>archives before things start to repeat themselves. ;-).

If I want repetition, I can just watch CNN (or buy a parrot), thank you 
very much!



>Cheers,
>RAH


Max