1984: Starlink First Partner: Local Cops and State Military

Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 punks at tfwno.gf
Thu Oct 1 12:59:17 PDT 2020

On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 03:54:26 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 11:48:44 AM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
>     There's little to no connection between "libertarian causes" and "internet access".
> Then you have a poor imagination.  

	My imagination is fine, thank you. Now just re-read what you wrote. You just candidly admited that what you're talking about is not real. It's just your imagination.

>Access to the Internet _IS_ a "libertarian cause".   

	No it isn't. The arpanet is a spying tool that serves the interests of US fascists. Which is the obvious reason why access by US fascists to the national networks of china, iran, north korea and the like is blocked. 

>The fact that nations such as India are selectiely  obstructing its people's access to the Internet should anger you immensely. 

	No, what angers me immensenly is what pieces of US shit have been doing since 1776. And before. Doesn't it anger you? Do you know nothing about US history and US present? 

> Authoritarian (and certainly totalitarian!) nations are merely the epitome of such 

	Number one totalitarian nation is the fascist cesspool where you live Jim. Same 'nation' that has military bases all over the world. Same 'nation' that murders people by remote control as if the world was a videogame. Same nation that persecutes assange, its own agent snowden and anybody who isn't an outright fascist. YOU are the #1 enemy of freedom, Jim.

	This discussion is pointless if you are detached from reality Jim. And you surely sound detached from reality. 

>any people might not think mere "India" as being unfree, but nevertheless it's a problem.

	Less of a problem than you. I now kinda wonder if you're somewhat retarded or what. You are a  US military propagandist who is accusing other countries of being the bad guys?

	Are you for real? 

>  >   Government 'censoring' the arpanet in iran is not a libertarian cause at all. It is a US military fascist cause. Which you keep advocating. Now go ahead and try to acuse me of 'strawmanning' you. 

> Okay, maybe it's BOTH "a libertarian cause" AND "US military fascist cause".   

	Thanks for showing that you've reached the level of sheer absurdity. Yes Jim. War is Peace. In your mind something can be both a libertarian cause and a criminal operation of the US empire. Again, this discussion is pointless because you are detached from reality and state the most hilarious contradictions as 'fact'. 

>A stopped clock is right twice a day.   The fact that you can assert some "US military fascist" issue doesn't negate other possible interests that you don't happen to want to talk about.  

	What do you think are these interests I don't want to talk about? I'm precisely talking about them. Your interest in accessing the national networks of the 'enemies' of your fascist government. 

> >    On the other hand, censorship and surveilance on the arpanet are problems caused by the US government and its 'private' facades like google, facebook, amazon and the like. Those companies have to be destroyed, and destroying them IS a libertarian cause.

> In other words, you're waving a shiny object, to divert attention to other issues that Cypherpunks ought to be interested in.  

	What the HELL are you talking about. I'm stating the fact that your arpanet is owned by 3 mafiosos, and that they control the communications of 3/4 of the world.

	If you don't understand what sort of threat google-facebook-amazon-NSA are to anybody with half a passing interest in 'cypherpunk' issues maybe it's time for you to retire. 

> >> Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes
>     >That's a ridiculous, unfounded assertion. Actually musk is a high ranking enemy of freedom like any other high ranking US corporatist.

> Musk is making the technology which could make itt POSSIBLE for a huge number of people in countries around the world to have continuous, uncensored access to the Internet. 

	That's a stupid lie. The interent is heavily censored and controlled by western fascists. Musk and you want to further extend that sort of control. You-are-an-agent-of-the-US-military-Jim-Bell.

	Also musk isn't making anything. He's a 'web designer' morphed into corporate scammer. 

> Which is what I was referring to.   Will Musk actually accomplish what I'd like to see him accomplish?   He could either deliberately choose it, or deliberately refuse to choose it.  Your pessimism is highly uninteresting to me.  My goal is ensuring that Musk has little choice but  to assist freedom, rather than refuse to assist freedom.  

	you are making...no sense...at all. Musk is an enemy of freedom. His choice is to be an enemy of freedom. And you seem to believe you have power over the likes of musk? Oh wait, that's because you're detached from reality. 


> What _IS_ interesting is if Musk could be pursuaded to go through with it:  
The way I see it, there is potentially an enormous difference between Starlink "working hard to prevent the 'guerilla' use of Starlink" and the opposite:  "working hard to ASSIST the 'guerilla' use of Starlink.

	there's no 'guerilla' use of starlink(the US arpanet). The 'guerilla' use of starlink exists only in your IMAGINATION. It has no basis in reality. Unless of course by 'guerilla' you mean use it to further advance US domination. Which is what you want, I assume.

>  >   What you're saying is that the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy can "do a great deal of good for libertarian causes", which makes as much sense as saying that eating cyanide is great for your health.

> I don't know that Musk is CURRENTLY  one of "the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy".  But I don't believe in giving up before finding out the truth.  

	Oh, you are such a master of 'libertarianism' and yet you know nothing about US corporatism, the US being the fascist cesspool where you live. Let me help you with some arpanet links then.




	Of course this is not the first time I link that stuff and is not the first that I point out that musk is so fucking corrupt that even US FAKE LIBERTARIANS don't bother defending him. 

	So, now go read adam smith, learn the ABC of mercantilism, then learn what 'crony capitalist' means, and then read these, again.


> >If he chooses to do so.  And I think, therefore, it is important that "we" (Cypherpunks and pro-freedom people) make sure he is aware that we know what he will be able to do, and what we think he SHOULD do.
>   >>  Explain why you think a highly corrupt criminal whose only purpose in life is to advance US fascism is going to do the exact opposite of what he does? Your claim is pretty EXTRAORDINARY, so you have to provide a pretty EXTRAORDINARY explanation as well. I'm all ears. 

> How about actually documenting and proving your claims?

	How about YOU prove YOUR CLAIMS instead of retorting with a question? Ok, ok, I know your claims exist only in your imagination, which is why you can't 'prove' them.

	But I can of course 'document' my claims. Here's some 'documents' for you




>  >   Of course, like anybody else musko SHOULDN'T be a criminal, but that observation applies to any moral agent, so it's irrelevant/useless.
> You are rather useless.  

	LMAO! I'm certainly useless to the likes of you. 

>  >   You think musko isn't aware of the meaning of his own actions and that you're going to teach him 'libertarianism'? (especially you, who have been constantly parroting US military propaganda). Please.

> That's NOT what I said.  Use whatever brains you ever had.  To me, the issue isn't whether Musk has had enough time to think through these issues.  To me, the INTERESTING issue is getting the public to consider the implications of Starlink as a way to break through government censorship.  

	What are you talkign about, sonny. Government censorship? You mean facebook, google, crapple, microsoft, and all the rest of US monopolies? 

	Why don't you get the 'public' to beat jeff bezos to death, like deserves? 

>And to make them aware that Musk will have the ability to control whether Starlink helps, rather than stops, 'guerilla' use.  

	there is no such use. 

> If enough people make this an issue, MAYBE Musk will feel he must act on the side of communication and freedom.   Your foolish pessimism does not help anything.  

	You're pretty 'optimistic' about the further growth of the US cancer eh.

	Yeah, science will explain everything, technology will make people free, and we must worry about the poor people of iran not being able to access facebook-nsa.

	OK, I expect your next reply to either 1)not be posted at all or 2)completely ignore all that I said and just keep parroting US military talking points about 'oppresive regimes'...except your own.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list