[WAR] ...

Mirimir mirimir at riseup.net
Wed Aug 31 23:01:41 PDT 2016


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)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list