jimbellproject.org is looking for volunteers

[juan]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:31:21 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> >    LMAO!!! You keep parroting US military propaganda? 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  You mistake correlation for causation.  There is
> another strong association between the nations of North Korea,
> Venezuela, Syria, and Zimbabwe:  they are all quite prominent in the
> news, which is primarily a product of the MSM (news media).


	Right. And do I need to explain to you why that is the case? I
	hope you realize you've completed my argument for me? 

	Those 4 nations are quite prominent *in the news^ because the
	"news" is military propaganda directed at americans and their
	western 'allies'. So currently americans  are being brainwashed
	about the infinite evil of "www xxx yyy zzz" so that the US
	military get support to raze "www xxx yyy zzz"  to the ground. 

	And you seem to be playing their game for marketing purposes. 


> There
> are, of course, many problems with many nations around the world,
> see   https://freedomhouse.org/   , but the large majority of them
> aren't very well publicized by the MSM, especially that of America.

> There might be a weak association between the most prominent of these
> freedom-challenged nation, and what you call "US military
> propaganda", 


	Weak association? Come on.


> but they are the same thing.   I have a good reason to
> mention nations that Western audiences would recognize and
> understand.  


	As i hinted above I see what your game is. You are using
	military propangada to try to 'market' your system. 
	

> 
> Good reasons to mention these nations:1.  North Korea, has the
> hydrogen bomb, is developing ICBMS.
	
	Fucking US nazis have thousands of nukes, thousands of ICBMs,
	biggest military on the plantet and hundreds of years of
	reputation and history showing that mass murder is their
	favorite passtime. 

	And american nazis have of course used nuclear weapons against
	civilians. 

	The rest of your comments on the other 3 countries is as
	misguided as your comment about NK.


>  No logical reason not to mention
> them.2.  Venezuela:  Currently they are starving their population,
> despite sitting atop a lake of oil.  

> 3.  Syria:  Poisoning their
> population with chemical warfare agents, a very prominent war, ISIS
> terrorists, Russian involvement.4.  Zimbabwe:  Failed state, starving
> population.
> 
> I'd say the burden is on you to show why it would be somehow improper
> for me to list those nations.   You are free to add more.


	I already mentioned a country that is a way bigger threat to
	world peace than ANY of the ones you mentioned, by orders of
	magnitude.
	

	
> My goal was an is to convince the public that there is very good
> reason to consider overthrowing numerous nations' governments.
> Merely adding to the list doesn't disprove my point.  If anything, it
> proves it.  

> 
> 
> >>    “The examples of nations such as North Korea, Venezuela, Syria,
>     and Zimbabwe prove that some nations of are simply rogue" 
> 
> 
> >    So which nations are NOT 'rogue' Jim?
> 
> 
> That's hard to say.  As an anarchist I am not 'friends' with any
> nation's government.


	So.....you either list the 190 nations on the planet or
	whatever the number is, or you list none. 

	OR, if you are going to list SOME, then list the most
	important ones, NOT THE 4 ONES ON THE PENTAGON'S KILL LIST.



> 
> 
> > And why mention Zimbabwe
> >    and the USA? 
> 
> I mention Zimbabwe because it is obviously a failed state.


	Failed state? I guess you are not aware that the term is basic
	neocon newspeak? 

	ANd why would an anarchist be concerned with failed
	states anyway? If a state fails we should throw a party...



> Hyperinflation, for example, and a government which tolerates theft
> of property from members of the public, as well as murder.


	I'm glad that the fucking jews at wall street never inflated
	the dollar.


> 
> Why mention the USA?  My problems with the government of the US are
> well known, especially here.  


	Yes, and that makes your position even weaker. The governments
	of North Korea or Venezuela never laid a finger on you. The
	ameican gov't on the other hand....

	

 
> 
> >    Where's the evidence that the 4 countries, taken from the
>     current list of the 'enemies' of the US nazis, are the 'worst
>     nations'?
> 
> 
> Did I claim they are 'worst nations'?   I don't recall that. 

	Well, you might want to re-read what you wrote a few hours ago 

	"It is interesting that Juan was sufficiently dishonest that he
	would selectively quote my citation of four of the WORST 
	nations,..."

	https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-October/039861.html


> They
> are, instead, very prominent and well-publicized examples of nations
> whose governments need to be  rapidly removed.    


	Here we go again....


> Their names and
> offenses are well known by the public.

 
> 
> >> while
> >> omitting the material you pointed out, and yet criticizing me as
> >> if I> had not mentioned it.  In any case, Juan's criticism is
> >> foolish:
> > From the very beginning (1995) I repeatedly pointed out that one of
> > the big advantages of AP is that it won't have some sort of
> > centralized agenda: 
> 
> 
> >    So why did you list as 'rogue' nations the countries that the
> >    american nazis want to invade and destroy?  Does your knowledge
> >    of politics come from fauxnews and the washington post? 

> Are you implying that "the american nazis ONLY want to "invade and
> destroy" those specific four countries?!?  THAT would really be an
> amazing coincidence.   Ha ha! You set your own trap!! 


	Not at all. The complete list of targets is longer, but RIGHT
	NOW those 4 countries are at the top of the pentagon's kill
	list. 


> Rather, I
> named failed nations that are causing trouble, either for others or
> for their own people, or both.   That they are also not popular with,
> say, the American government isn't necessarily a matter of causation,
> rather it is a matter of correlation. 


	Those 4 'failed states' are not causing any sort of special
	problem TO ANYONE except the US MILITARY.



> No doubt if there were 2 or
> 3 other highly prominent nations with internal or external problems,
> you'd claim that "the american nazis  want to invade and destroy"
> them, too.    


	Except there's nothing special about the 4 nations you
	mentioned. Unless you are admiting that you do believe in and
	parrot US military propaganda. 

	You know which one is the biggest failed state that causes
	external problems for all the  world ? It is the failed
	united states of maerica. But of course the US state is not
	failed at all. It is the most efficient and dangerous state on
	the planet. Thanks to close cooperation with american big
	business.


> 
> >> Neither _I_ (nor anyone else) won't be the one
> >> to control it.  HE may think that the main target should be "X",
> >> while I think the main target should be "Y", etc.
> 
> 
> >    Yes but the point at hand is the targets YOU mentioned. 
> 
> 
> And I mentioned that there are many other problem nations.  I don't
> think you are successfully faulting me for naming four quite-valid
> targets; YOU are the one who started by misrepresenting what I said,


	I started this by pointing out that your choice of countries
	was a bad idea. You didn't take the hint and instead dug
	yourself deeper...




> falsely suggesting that I was only referring to four specific
> nations.  That's very dishonest argumentation.  


	I am totally and clearly stating that the 4 countries you chose
	are the 4 countries at the top of the pentagon's kill list and
	that you are ignoring the biggest threat to freedom on the
	planet, the US government and its western lapdogs.



> I could easily have
> listed a dozen more, but NOT mentioning those dozen more isn't a
> fatal flaw to my argument.  

	see above.

 
> 
> >> Neither needs to
> >> be "right", neither needs to be "wrong".    Both targets get taken
> >> out if they are considered worthy by the public.  (If people
> >> donate, a target will ultimately go.)I didn't mention over 7
> >> billion people. Of what significance is that?  Juan is obviously
> >> very self-centered.  
> 
> 
> >    How am I self-centered when I am asking YOU about YOUR pick
> >of     targets? 
> 
> 
> Because you are deliberately misrepresenting my characterization of
> those targets.  Suggesting that I was indicating that they were
> exclusive, rather than inclusive of many others.   (Had I listed
> every nation that I thought was actually a problem, I would have been
> listing over 190 nations.  


	Right as discussed above. But you didn't list them all. You
	didn't list the most important threats *either*.

	You listed 4 countries that are considered a threat only by the
	US nazi government. 

	What's the problem with NK getting nukes? Why, that would
	weaken the power of the FUCKING AMERICAN NAZIS.


> You cannot fault me for listing a few
> prominent ones, 

	
	THEY ARE  NOT PROMINENT by objective standards. They are
	prominent only if you assume that US military propaganda is
	fact. 



> unless I stated or implied they were the only
> problems.  Not only did I not do that, I specifically mentioned
> otherwise.  )
> 
>                       Jim Bell
> 
>