On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:53:13AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> On Friday, October 16, 2020, 08:11:32 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:30:05AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> > On Friday, October 16, 2020, 01:55:45 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:27:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> > >> https://attackthesystem.com/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-declare-war-with-censorship-of-hunter-biden-story/#comment-330341
> > >> https://youtu.be/fdCLjW-_uwg Saager Enjeti and Krystal Ball
> > >>
>
> [snip]
>
> > >I would have thought "preservation of self's liberty" would have struck
> > >you clearly by now :/
> >> Ha ha ? I am assuming you intended that somewhat humorously... That
> >> could be a factor, but too many people these days (in common political
> >> discourse) denounce each other, to make what I say all that out of the
> >> ordinary. I've long pointed out that I won't be the one implementing AP,
> >> for
> >>example.
>
> >Sorry I was unclear - was not denouncing you (no intention to at least), but
> >cautioning you.
>
> >You did a butt load of years in jail already, and it just seems to me that
> >you have not quite understood the lesson.
>
> One lesson I learned was a Supreme Court case named Brandenburg v. Ohio
> (1969). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
>
> >From that decision:
>
> "Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained.
> The Act punishes persons who 'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or
> propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political
> reform'; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing
> such advocacy; or who 'justify' the commission of violent acts 'with intent
> to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal
> syndicalism'; or who 'voluntarily assemble' with a group formed 'to teach or
> advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.' Neither the indictment nor
> the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's
> bald definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from
> incitement to imminent lawless action.3 " [end of quote]
>
>
> Did I: 'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of
> violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform'; ?
By my reading, you are skirting the line.
Since you ain't ownin it clearly, let me quote you:
Ask me today who could the targets be, and I would ask: "How many people are
in the top 3-4 layers of administration of the companies Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, and quite possibly Google as well..."
And since we seem to be going around this in circles, I have to ask you the
question: can you see how that quote of yours just above, is tantamount to you
"skirting the line" of "naming individuals or groups" as "worthy targets of
assassination"?
> >> Is it really so implausible that Joe Biden would engage in corruption in
> >> 2015? Even as early as 2009, he 'knew' that he would not be the tapped
> >> for
> >> the Presidential candidacy in 2016, since it was "Hillary's turn!" ! The
> >> death of his other son, Beau, was simply used as an excuse for why he
> >> wouldn't run. He fully expected to be permanently retired in 2017. So,
> >> using his son Hunter as the bag-man for that $3 million payoff was
> >> perfectly
> >> logical, in a weird sort of way.
>
> >Not even wierd, simply standard (illegal) corrupt nepotism, on the
> >taxpayer's dime. Note Trump, the only US president to have his net worth go
> >backwards whilst in office..
>
> I wonder about that Durham! Does he think his "job" is to DELAY
> prosecutions until AFTER the upcoming election?
It is easy to imagine that The Clinton Machine, and those before it (The Bush
Family) etc, have racked up 10s of 1000s of pages of evidence of crimes, and
imagine the connections between various people involved - almost a
combinatorial thing, so we're talking thousands upon thousands of possible
connections between people etc.
If US Attorney John "Look IN, to muh EYES, n.gger!" Durham is truly on this
case of 'draining the swamp', it has to be the biggest criminal case since Al
Capone, and yet bigger still.
I remain hopeful, and pray. Time will tell.
> >> >On the other hand, an alternative, this time P2P, social media
> >> >non-platform, may well solve this problem.
> >
> >> We can hope! Especially given the "Overton Window" change, and today's
> >> amazing environment! Even 10 years ago, it would have been hard to
> >> anticipate the kind of frenzied blinding hostility being displayed, daily.
> >> SOME people might have argued about AP, in 1995 (disingenuously even then,
> >> I
> >> believe), that "Who hates other people so much as to donate money to see
> >> them
> >> killed!". Well, in 2020, just about everything has changed.
>
> >Indeed, and this is a classic example of the type of world I want to NOT
> >live in, where the loonatic lefty mob is literally empowered (in 2020, by
> >Democrat city mayors all over the USA) to commit horrific and broad scale
> >crimes of arson, theft and murder - just imagine AP having been thrown into
> >this mix?
>
> But like I said, above, AP is "biased against" governmental systems. "Lefty
> mobs" won't work well unless they have powerful lefty governments to back
> them up.
I do know that is your understanding and your proposition to us. I do not
agree; in particular, many of the fundamental issues of such AP system have
neither been unpacked nor apparently thought about/ analysed, at all! (Which
leaves my concern on the far right of the axis of concern, right around
"through the roof".)
$TODAY, the "lefty mobs" have Soros sugar daddy and Democrat city mayors
funding, advocating and empowering them.
ISTM you significantly, and consistently, underestimate all of that.
> >> It COULD have been almost purely a good thing when the "town-square"
> >>discussions of the 1790-to-mid-1900's period got migrated to the Internet,
> >> mostly beginning 1995. (I'm not intending to forget platforms like
> >> Compuserve and BBS's, of course.) People with obscure hobbies that no-one
> >> within a mile of their own home practices, now can compare notes around the
> >> world. But I think that has been ruined in the last few years, at least
> >> for
> >> political-type discussions.
>
> >It's the centralisation, of power, of control over speech, that is the
> >problem. We must maintain, over the long term, the intention to
> >decentralise everything - networks, storage, comms, defence distributed,
> >holding of foundational principles (knowledge, education, morals, rights).
>
> To the extent that's possible. One of the big reasons I view the Starlink
> system as POTENTIALLY a major step forward (without, currently, a
> guarantee...) is that not only does it give "everybody" one more source of
> Internet, but it provides the prospect of de-linking any government control
> over a country's ISPs. Provide Internet to India in a way that the
> government can't obstruct? Quite possibly. Wireline (or fiber) Internet can
> be seized by government at a moment's notice. They MUST comply.
Here's a good example of your narrow sightedness (intellectually speaking): you
use the term "government", and evidently refer in your example to "the Indian
gov", yet you ignore "US government control over Starlink and thereby of very
little 'routing around problems' benefit to the Indian gov, since it's no
better than the trans-continental fibre links we have today". That might be
obvious, but by you failing to state that obvious counterpoint to your own
proposition, you come across as blinkered.
That said, I hold that Starlink may be useful as geographic "backhaul" type of
hop for some future overlay that at least solves a couple of Tor's fundamental
problems (central dir auths, no chaff fill, etc).
> >If one "leader" falls in one locality, there must be 10 to immediately
> >replace him, each holding a similar set of principles, a similar vigilant
> >demand for "distributed open everything".
>
> >Those who -will- not stand do not deserve freedom.
> >> I think one difference is, now, the current "political" (ideological)
> >> environment. I don't think, TODAY, that I am advocating anything that
> >> many other people haven't been thinking about, for years.
>
> >You don't seem to understand my basic point about advocating (by way of your
> >"naming of) the "political" assassination of specific individuals or groups.
>
> Once you've read the Brandenburg v. Ohio SC decision, it becomes rather
> clear. I don't intend to advocate anything untoward...in riot-type
> situations.
"riot type situation"
As long as you're confident defending your own statements, in the face of a
grand jury, well, good luck to ya.
(I still think you're dangerously skirting the edge of what could get you in
trouble ... again.)
> BUT...I DO intend to remind people, who ignored or rejected my AP idea in the
> late 1990's, that NOW they want to "kill the bastard". [whoever that bastard
> that might be!] Is there any logical reason anymore to NOT want to employ
> an AP-type system to destroy all governments?
See above, and see thread last year, and recent discussion with grarpamp. I.e.
many, many reasons. Not least of which, your conclusion ("my AP type system is
a system which shall destroy all governments") is IMEHO, unfounded.
