Wikileaks is the Endgame

[Mirimir]

On 07/01/2016 09:21 PM, juan wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:07:22 -0600
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> As I said, your reading comprehension sucks. 
> 
> 	No it doesn't. I explained that given the 'context' my
> 	reading is quite valid. Looks like your writing sucks.

De gustibus non disputandem ;)

>> Or you're just twisting
>> shit to pretend that you're right.
> 
> 	I am right. And you admited that anonimity systems don't work.

I did no such thing.

>>> 	So you say that 'anonimity systems' *may eventually* reduce
>>> 	state power, from which it follows that RIGHT NOW, THEY
>>> 	DON'T. And you further acknowledge that such reduction seems
>>> 	like a dream. 
>>> 	
>>> 	So you basically conceded my point. I simply reading your
>>> 	allegedly 'general' comment in a way that underscores the
>>> fact that tor doesn't work.

You're forgetting the "substantially" bit. Tor does reduce state power,
now, for many people. Maybe not overall, on a net basis, given how state
fascists use it. By "substantially", I mean that anonymity systems might
eventually destroy states by undermining taxation. As in Stephenson's
_Snow Crash_ or MacArdry's _Last Trumpet Project_.

>> It works for many people.
> 
> 	What a fucktard you are. It's clear again that your writing
> 	skills suck.
> 	
> 	"I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power
> 	substantially. " 
> 
> 	So they don't work

They don't yet work substantially, fucktard ;)

> 	"It works for many people." 
> 
> 	So you contadicted yourself. But don' worry. You got it right
> 	the first time. Anonimity systems don't work. 
>  
> 
>>
>>> 	Would *working* anonimity systems reduce state power? Likely
>>> 	yes. Do the current anonimity systems reduce state power?
>>> No. Especially tor, a creation of the state.
>>
>> So you keep saying.
> 
> 	Because it is correct. 
> 
> 
>>
>>>> It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're
>>>> apparently saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you?
>>>
>>> 	Anonimity systems in general include tor in particular.
>>
>> Yes, but statements about anonymity systems generally aren't limited
>> to Tor.
> 
> 
> 	But tor is 'the best'. So if even 'the best' is a failure, then 
> 	the rest of systems are going to be even more of a failure.
> 	That's like the A of the ABC of basic logic.

The best _right now_ does not mean the best ever. WTF.

>>>> But right now, Tor is the best we have. 
>>>
>>> 	Yeah. You said so a couple of times...
>>>
>>>
>>>> So we use it, with suitable
>>>> precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest?
>>>>
>>> 	
>>> 	I suggest you stop using the pronoun 'we'. *You* find the
>>> 'free' tax-funded pentagon's 'anonimity' network useful and
>>> apparently don't care much about the real price of the system. 
>>
>> No, I don't care about the "real price of the system". Why should I?
> 
> 
> 	Right. You are a 'nihilist' eh? As long as you can buy dmt it's
> 	OK for the pentagon to fuck as many people as they can.

It's not "OK". It's what's so. The Pentagon will use any anonymity
system to fuck people.

>> And, as I said before, people that you hate would be using any
>> effective anonymity system. So you might as well get over it.
> 
> 	grarpamp replied to that particular piece of bullshit.

He's not so rabid about not using Tor, I think.

>>> 	I further suggest that anybody interested in freedom stay
>>> away from the pentagon. Doubly so if they are cypherpunk
>>> 	'anarchists' or sympathetic to the cause.
>>
>> The Pentagon is everywhere, dude ;)
> 
> 
> 	So?

It's in your mind ;)