Just a note here to acknowledge that I am _very_ _very_ confused. I think we're trying to build communication on the blockchain by disrupting the list, not sure.
I think below I must have been responding to 'demonrats': my father was very democratic, and we currently have republican power. I try to be extreme-left and to express dislike of democrats, myself. On 8/4/20, Karl <[email protected]> wrote: > Zenaan leaked a mafia secret here. It's evidence by how he has moved some > of the ongoing references we've been exchanging. > > Community disruption and political fragmentation: you are not welcome here. > > K > > - > > There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing > group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that > responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what > people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en > masse, for profit. > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 4:30 PM Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is a good thing (good for peace) that the Fed is realising that its >> subjects have a fundamental right to participate in the Fed's financial >> system. >> >> Besides their idiotic "wanna be" mentality of chasing "app" windmills and >> wanting to "blockchain up" which will slow them down more than any >> Demonrat >> politician ever could. >> >> To state the obvious, the Fed is essentially all existing brick and >> mortar, actual physical banks, and almost everyone on this planet has a >> bank account and there's no ridiculously power consuming and hopelessly >> inefficient blockchain in the way. >> >> You know that's a "funny" thing about MOTUs - they have essentially the >> whole world at their command (literally just an executive order away), >> and >> they don't properly realise it, they think there is some greener pasture, >> when they already IN the greenest pasture! Owning the whole damn pasture, >> but nope "there must be greener pasture". >> >> Idiots. >> >> We saw the same stupidity dynamic in action with their focus on the >> hidden >> (underground) satanic underbelly of China, when all along "they" (i.e. >> the >> Western empire) had full possession and enjoyment of Australia, the >> actual >> greatest and wealthiest country in the world, and due to that >> firetrucking >> myopia, they allowed over 30% of our farmland to be sold down the drain >> to >> China (whilst we cannot buy a single matchbox of Chinese land!) - and the >> % >> has surely only gone up since a few years back, too! >> >> If we had the death penalty here in Aus, Victoria's premier Daniel >> Andrews >> would be up for literal treason, and the people would bay for his blood. >> >> Putin was flabberghasted and rightly admonished "our Western" stupidity >> in >> its endless self destructive forms when he asked "Do you realise what you >> have done now?" and said later the West have "made a monumental mistake" >> (with respect to deploying the currency sanction, not merely the threat). >> >> Oligarchs hey .. some of them are certainly little more than glorified >> Frank Spencers from "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em". >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:49:41AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >> > It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / >> instituted upon us. >> > >> > We have the right to financial agency. >> > >> > Participation in our community requires that we have the right to >> participate in the financial system of the day. >> > >> > Privacy is another fundamental human right. >> > >> > Folks need to live their human rights. >> > >> > Use it or lose it. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote: >> > > Good stuff. Thanks. >> > > >> > > Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging >> crypto >> > > users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, >> the >> > > Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, >> Telegram, burst >> > > transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec >> wizards, the >> > > array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on >> by lists >> > > like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak >> sites, >> > > turncoats needing pensions. >> > > >> > > To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as >> paper >> > > money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional >> > > spoors, >> > > aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to >> finger >> > > malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, >> dear Mary >> > > tell what you know. >> > > >> > > At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20version.pdf >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > The Threat of Privacy >> > > > By Charles M. Kahn1 >> > > > >> > > > Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works >> > > > doesn’t get enough attention it’s because we’re ahead of our time. >> > > > I’d like to pretend that everything I’ve written is pathbreaking, >> > > > and >> > > > will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have >> > > > to >> admit >> > > > that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with >> > > > hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time. >> > > > >> > > > One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will >> Roberds, >> > > > published in 2005, and titled “Money is Privacy.” We wrote it >> > > > partly >> > > > as a response to Narayana Kocherlakota’s famous paper “Money is >> > > > Memory,” which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a >> > > > record‐keeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a >> > > > net >> > > > debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. >> > > > The >> > > > implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records >> directly, >> > > > cash could wither away. >> > > > In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its >> ability to >> > > > protect the purchaser’s identity. So we predicted that, even while >> the >> > > > reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of >> data >> > > > transmission were expanding the usage of credit‐ and >> > > > deposit‐account‐ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. >> > > > Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for >> cash, it >> > > > would be a mistake—and ultimately futile—to attempt to abolish it. >> At the >> > > > te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, >> > > > but >> there >> > > > had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of >> privacy and >> > > > the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released >> > > > in >> > > > 2009). >> > > > >> > > > [...] >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 1 Keynote address at “Financial Market Infrastructure Conference >> > > > II: >> New >> > > > Thinking in a New Era” at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7‐8 >> > > > June >> > > > 2017. >> > > > 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity >> and the >> > > > pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was >> > > > an >> > > > important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; >> > > > everybody >> > > > “knew” that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well. >> > > >> > > >> >
