Re: Fwd: [Cryptography] "Flip Feng Shui: Hammering a Needle in the Software Stack"

[Georgi Guninski]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:21:18PM -0700, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> Georgi Guninski  wrote:
> > Does Rowhammer work in clouds? According to the popular story it
> > affected only laptops.
> 
> The answer is "it depends."
>
Thanks. Just browsed through the paper, it mentions m$ azure.

Is/has been some large cloud affected? Usually academics are afraid to name big
vendors AFAICT.

This is duplicate, but don't remember the answer:
Can you induce RAM errors with some device if you are near the box?

say directed magnetic field, human made cosmic rays substitute (don't
know if this make sense). 

Re: [WAR] If Hillary Becomes USA President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?

[Zenaan Harkness]

Even more:

** Leaked Clinton Emails Show Plans to Destroy Russia
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=50515b276c&e=5110f4b440)

by Eric Zuesse on Thu, Sep 1, 2016
Leaked emails are filling in the picture of a Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton
plan to destroy Russia – a plan which had originated with US President
George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, and which has been followed through
both by his son George W Bush, and by both of the Clintons, but which
has only recently started to become documented by leaked publications of
personal communications amongst the key operatives who were the insiders
running this operation behind the scenes, and who include Bill Clinton,
Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Feltman, Saudi
Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman
al-Saud, and the Emir of Qatar.
Read more »
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=41a0aff055&e=5110f4b440)



** Syrian WMD Fiasco - When Putin Bailed Out Obama
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=8019123456&e=5110f4b440)

by Ray McGovern on Thu, Sep 1, 2016
Three years ago, when a reluctant President Barack Obama was about to
launch an attack on Syria, supposedly in retaliation for President
Bashar al-Assad crossing a “red line” against using chemical weapons,
Obama smelled a rat – or rather he sensed a mousetrap.Advised by some of
his intelligence advisers that the evidence blaming the Syrian
government for the lethal sarin attack was weak, Obama disappointed many
of Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks, including those in his
own administration, by deferring action. He tossed the issue to
Congress, thus guaranteeing a delay.
Read more »
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=423443e101&e=5110f4b440)




The "real" game:

** Russia's Sberbank Will Start Issuing Bonds in Yuan in 2017
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=0ebcc50f4f&e=5110f4b440)

by Edesknews on Thu, Sep 1, 2016
Sberbank expects in 2017 to place bonds in yuan, said the Vice-President
of Bank Igor Bulantsev. About the plans to issue bonds in the Chinese
currency, the Bank said in may this yearSberbank of Russia intends to
place bonds in yuan in 2017, and at the moment a credit institution is
in talks with several interested companies. This was stated to
journalists by the senior Vice – President of the savings Bank Igor
Bulantsev, reports TASS.“I think this fall will not. But next year will
probably be [the placement of bonds in RMB]. We on the one hand we see
the increasing interest in the financing in RMB, on the other hand is a
complex tool. All the time,” said Bulantsev, answering a corresponding
question of journalists.
Read more »
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=6ef6c95f17&e=5110f4b440)



Hey hey, a reminder of recent conversations:
** Turkey's Shift Towards Russia & the Grand Chessboard
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=bb3fa38ee9&e=5110f4b440)

by Jay Dyer on Thu, Sep 1, 2016
As with so many CIA-backed leaders, tyrants and despots, once your
usefulness to Washington and Langley expires or your policies go off
script, a coup or regime change magically emerges. With Turkey's
Erdogan, we have seen these familiar patterns as NATO and its globalist
backers are more and more revealed to be aggressors against Eurasian
interests.  Indeed, it was Brzezinski himself who wrote in his Grand
Chessboard that control of Eurasia is key to control of the globe:
Read more »
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=e53ccaaa0b&e=5110f4b440)




American propaganda?
** Moscow Says ISIS Mastermind Killed by Russian Airstrikes, Not
American
(http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=85b93293e5&e=5110f4b440)

by Lidia Kelly on Thu, Sep 1, 2016
Russia's Defense Ministry said on Wednesday that Russian airstrikes in
Syria had killed one of ISIS' most prominent leaders, Abu Muhammad
al-Adnani, on Tuesday. The ministry said that Adnani was one of up to 40
rebels killed by the airstrikes in Syria's region of Maaratat-Umm
Khaush, in the Aleppo province. On Tuesday, a U.S. defense official told
Reuters the United States targeted Adnani in a strike on a vehicle
travelling in the Syrian town of al-Bab. Adnani had been one of the last
living senior members, along with self-appointed caliph Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, that founded the group and 

Re: Fwd: [Cryptography] "Flip Feng Shui: Hammering a Needle in the Software Stack"

[Mirimir]

On 09/02/2016 12:21 AM, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> Georgi Guninski  wrote:
>> Does Rowhammer work in clouds? According to the popular story it
>> affected only laptops.
> 
> The answer is "it depends."
> 
> Machines with ECC RAM make successful rowhammer attacks considerably
> harder, and meanwhile most cloud providers use ECC (e.g., Amazon uses
> ECC on all machines according to their FAQ). In fact, the Flip Feng
> Shui paper obliquely acknowledges that ECC helps to prevent the attack,
> but doesn't quantify beyond "we have observed that Rowhammer can
> occasionally induce multiple flips in a single 64-bit word" (\S 6.1.1).
> 
> For a better idea of how much harder it makes things, let's have a
> look at another paper from USENIX Security this year,
> 
> https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/xiao
> 
> There's a bit of decoding to do here: all of the evaluation in
> this paper uses machines that *don't* have ECC. Fortunately, we can
> extrapolate from figure 13(c). Remember that with ECC, one needs to
> flip 3 bits in a word to undetectably change the state of RAM: ECC
> will silently fix 1-bit errors and produce a machine check exception
> on a 2-bit error. How much harder is it to flip 1 bit than to flip
> 3? According to Fig. 13(c), it's ~30x harder to flip 2 bits than 1,
> and another ~30x harder to flip 3 bits than 2.
> 
> As an aside: note that the attack the Xiao paper describes only works
> against Xen guests that *don't* use hardware-assisted page tables
> (EPT for Intel, NPT for AMD). If you're using hardware-assisted
> virtualization (e.g., most Amazon "HVM" instances), this particular
> attack won't work; others might, of course.

It also won't work if VMs don't share RAM, right?

> So if you're paranoid about rowhammer in a cloud setting, one strategy
> is to monitor the MCE log and shut down any instance that's getting
> a lot of uncorrectable ECC errors, as this may indicate an active
> rowhammer attack. But my guess is that if someone is trying to pwn
> you with a cross-VM attack, they're going to use something like
> cache timing: it's harder to detect and probably easier to pull off,
> assuming your cloud box has ECC RAM.
> 
> But as always, new discoveries might change the whole game.
> 
> -=rsw
> 

Re: Fwd: [Cryptography] "Flip Feng Shui: Hammering a Needle in the Software Stack"

[Riad S. Wahby]

Georgi Guninski  wrote:
> Does Rowhammer work in clouds? According to the popular story it
> affected only laptops.

The answer is "it depends."

Machines with ECC RAM make successful rowhammer attacks considerably
harder, and meanwhile most cloud providers use ECC (e.g., Amazon uses
ECC on all machines according to their FAQ). In fact, the Flip Feng
Shui paper obliquely acknowledges that ECC helps to prevent the attack,
but doesn't quantify beyond "we have observed that Rowhammer can
occasionally induce multiple flips in a single 64-bit word" (\S 6.1.1).

For a better idea of how much harder it makes things, let's have a
look at another paper from USENIX Security this year,

https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/xiao

There's a bit of decoding to do here: all of the evaluation in
this paper uses machines that *don't* have ECC. Fortunately, we can
extrapolate from figure 13(c). Remember that with ECC, one needs to
flip 3 bits in a word to undetectably change the state of RAM: ECC
will silently fix 1-bit errors and produce a machine check exception
on a 2-bit error. How much harder is it to flip 1 bit than to flip
3? According to Fig. 13(c), it's ~30x harder to flip 2 bits than 1,
and another ~30x harder to flip 3 bits than 2.

As an aside: note that the attack the Xiao paper describes only works
against Xen guests that *don't* use hardware-assisted page tables
(EPT for Intel, NPT for AMD). If you're using hardware-assisted
virtualization (e.g., most Amazon "HVM" instances), this particular
attack won't work; others might, of course.

So if you're paranoid about rowhammer in a cloud setting, one strategy
is to monitor the MCE log and shut down any instance that's getting
a lot of uncorrectable ECC errors, as this may indicate an active
rowhammer attack. But my guess is that if someone is trying to pwn
you with a cross-VM attack, they're going to use something like
cache timing: it's harder to detect and probably easier to pull off,
assuming your cloud box has ECC RAM.

But as always, new discoveries might change the whole game.

-=rsw

Fwd: [Cryptography] "Flip Feng Shui: Hammering a Needle in the Software Stack"

[Georgi Guninski]

- Forwarded message from Jerry Leichter  -

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:33:16 -0400
From: Jerry Leichter 
To: Cryptography List 
Subject: [Cryptography] "Flip Feng Shui: Hammering a Needle in the Software 
Stack"
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)

"We introduce Flip Feng Shui (FFS), a new exploitation vector which allows an 
attacker to induce bit flips over arbitrary physical memory in a fully 
controlled way. FFS relies on hardware bugs to induce bit flips over memory and 
on the ability to surgically control the physical memory layout to corrupt 
attacker-targeted data anywhere in the software stack Memory deduplication 
allows an attacker to reverse-map any physical page into a virtual page she 
owns as long as the page’s contents are known. Rowhammer, in turn, allows an 
attacker to flip bits in controlled (initially unknown) locations in the target 
page.

We show FFS is extremely powerful: a malicious VM in a practical cloud setting 
can gain unauthorized access to a co-hosted victim VM running OpenSSH. Using 
FFS, we exemplify end-to-end attacks breaking OpenSSH public-key 
authentication, and forging GPG signatures from trusted keys, thereby 
compromising the Ubuntu/Debian update mechanism."

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_razavi.pdf

-- Jerry

___
The cryptography mailing list
cryptogra...@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

- End forwarded message -

Does Rowhammer work in clouds? According to the popular story it
affected only laptops.

Re: [ultra ULTRA private] [for your eyes only] capitalism, socialism, anarchism, self-regulation

[Mirimir]

On 09/01/2016 08:34 PM, Razer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/01/2016 07:27 PM, juan wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:52:55 -0700
>> Razer  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/01/2016 06:24 PM, juan wanted me to do something for him:
>>>
> *find out how many US government agents like me know that spanish
> word rayzer. 
>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Defense Language Institute
>>
>>  First time I see that name. You are more familiar with it
>>  apparently. Perhaps family or friends work there? 
>>
>>
>>> teaches feds like you how to cuss like
>>> a Mexican... 
>>
>>  ? 
>>  Mexican? Oh wait, you are the kind of american right winger who
>>  think that the whole of central america and south america is
>>  mexico? And mexico's capital is rio de janeiro? 
>>
>>  OK - So your few neurons have the "spanish - mexican"
>>  connection well established. 
>>
>>  Let me clue you in. "Psicobolche" belongs to one particular
>>  variety of spanish not spoken in mexico...
>>
>>
>>
>>> At other facilities they have whole mock-up villages
>>> where you learn to live like one too! (But they don't teach you how
>>> to sleep in the berry fields.)
>>>
>>> Rr
>>>
>>>
> 
> Honestly Juan. like whatshisname who fed-fucked the anonymous kidz. A
> Puerto Rican who'd never been out of New York, you're all 'merican. The
> spew dude the spew... fed-fucker...

He does claim to be from Argentina, as I recall. And it seems that
psicobolche is Argentinian Spanish:
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spanish/psicobolche

But "leftist psychoanalyst"? WTF?

> Rr
> 

Dark Patterns

[grarpamp]

http://darkpatterns.org/

A Dark Pattern is a user interface that has been carefully crafted to
trick users into doing things, such as buying insurance with their
purchase or signing up for recurring bills.
Normally when you think of “bad design”, you think of the creator as
being sloppy or lazy but with no ill intent. This type of bad design
is known as a “UI anti-pattern”.
Dark Patterns are different – they are not mistakes, they are
carefully crafted with a solid understanding of human psychology, and
they do not have the user’s interests in mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VER5_j9VHI
http://www.fleen.org/
http://pmwdzvbyvnmwobk5.onion/project/brain_hacking

The answers are out there... seek, and ye shall find...

Re: [WAR] If Hillary Becomes USA President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?

[Zenaan Harkness]

And more:


** Julian Assange tells New York Times they are “erecting” a Hillary
Clinton “demon”
(http://theduran.com/julian-assange-tells-new-york-times-creating-hillary-clintondemon/)

julian assange

Julian Assange says America’s mainstream media is “erecting a demon” by
favoring Hillary Clinton, which he accuses of “whipping up
neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia.”

The post Julian Assange tells New York Times they are “erecting” a
Hillary Clinton “demon”
(http://theduran.com/julian-assange-tells-new-york-times-creating-hillary-clintondemon/)
appeared first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) .




** France’s Marine Le Pen tells CNN, “Hillary Clinton means war”
(http://theduran.com/frances-marine-le-pen-tells-cnn-i-think-hillary-clinton-means-war/)

marine-le-pen

National Front leader Marine Le Pen: "For France, anything is better
than Hillary Clinton"

The post France’s Marine Le Pen tells CNN, “Hillary Clinton means war”
(http://theduran.com/frances-marine-le-pen-tells-cnn-i-think-hillary-clinton-means-war/)
appeared first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) .




** Bienvenidos Señor Trump. The Don lands in Mexico
(http://theduran.com/bienvenidos-senor-trump-don-lands-mexico/)

trump_mexico

Mexico is waiting for Mr. Trump as if he were the US President.

The post Bienvenidos Señor Trump. The Don lands in Mexico
(http://theduran.com/bienvenidos-senor-trump-don-lands-mexico/) appeared
first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) .

Re: [WAR] If Hillary Becomes USA President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?

[Zenaan Harkness]

** Watch CNN, Marine Le Pen interview: ‘Hillary Clinton is war,
devastation, instability, world conflict’
(http://theduran.com/watch-cnn-marine-le-penn-interview-hillary-clinton-is-war-devastation-instability-world-conflict/)

marine le pen cnn

France's Marine Le Pen makes it very clear to CNN that she is not with
Hillary

The post Watch CNN, Marine Le Pen interview: ‘Hillary Clinton is war,
devastation, instability, world conflict’
(http://theduran.com/watch-cnn-marine-le-penn-interview-hillary-clinton-is-war-devastation-instability-world-conflict/)
appeared first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) .

Re: [ultra ULTRA private] [for your eyes only] capitalism, socialism, anarchism, self-regulation

[grarpamp]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:27 PM, juan  wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:52:55 -0700
> Razer  wrote:
>> The Defense Language Institute
>
> First time I see that name. You are more familiar with it
> apparently. Perhaps family or friends work there?


Or maybe just half the internet already knows
and studied it, whether onsite or at home...

https://thepiratebay.org/search/defense%20language/0/99/0
https://thepiratebay.org/search/dli/0/99/0

Re: [ultra ULTRA private] [for your eyes only] capitalism, socialism, anarchism, self-regulation

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 07:27 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:52:55 -0700
> Razer  wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 09/01/2016 06:24 PM, juan wanted me to do something for him:
>>
 *find out how many US government agents like me know that spanish
 word rayzer. 

>>
>>
>> The Defense Language Institute
> 
>   First time I see that name. You are more familiar with it
>   apparently. Perhaps family or friends work there? 
> 
> 
>> teaches feds like you how to cuss like
>> a Mexican... 
> 
>   ? 
>   Mexican? Oh wait, you are the kind of american right winger who
>   think that the whole of central america and south america is
>   mexico? And mexico's capital is rio de janeiro? 
> 
>   OK - So your few neurons have the "spanish - mexican"
>   connection well established. 
> 
>   Let me clue you in. "Psicobolche" belongs to one particular
>   variety of spanish not spoken in mexico...
> 
> 
> 
>> At other facilities they have whole mock-up villages
>> where you learn to live like one too! (But they don't teach you how
>> to sleep in the berry fields.)
>>
>> Rr
>>
>>

Honestly Juan. like whatshisname who fed-fucked the anonymous kidz. A
Puerto Rican who'd never been out of New York, you're all 'merican. The
spew dude the spew... fed-fucker...

Rr

Re: Thisssss Means... [WAR!] ...

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 07:19 PM, juan wrote:

>> as long as it moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left.
> 
>   Ah you mean obama.
> 


You really need to get your meds adjusted if you read that and it made
sense to you... Fed. I hear they give you guise the gd ones.


Rr

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:47:39 -0700
> Razer  wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> Remind me why you exist Juan?
> 
>   What, you already feel like calling heimland security? 
>   
>   Asking a shibag marxist like you why he trolls this list is a
>   more legitimate question...
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> ...and your attempts to pigeonhole me politically are pretty fucking
>> futile. 
> 
>   as far as I'm concerned you are a marxist. An *american*
>   marxist, to be more precise. World champion of posers.
> 
> 
>> I'm kind of tactic and strategy tolerant and have a number of
>> overlapping non-conflicting sociopolitical influences, as long as it
>> moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left.
> 
>   Ah you mean obama.
> 
>> Not the Republican
>> Libertarianism you refer to as "Anarchy".
> 
>   Sorry, I can't parse that deranged comment. Ignored. 
> 
> 
>> Left. I named some of my
>> influencers the other day at your request..
> 
>   Oh yes. I commented on your daddy narcusse.
> 
>  
>> I mean you DO remember the other day don't you? 
> 
>   Oh yes. I commented on your daddy narcusse.
> 
>   Perhaps you don't know how to get all your mails? 
> 
>> I hear some
>> medications wipe short/mid-term memory,
>>
>> I consider you no better than any other raving poser right winger
>> disruptor. 
> 
> 
>   Disruptor of what? Of your marxist garbage and your tor (a
>   pentagon's project) propaganda? 
> 
>   Do you believe the cypherpunk 'movement' is a marxist
>   movement? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The SPEW gives you away. The SHOUTING DOWN... etc. Fascist.
>   
>   Like your alleged family? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Rr
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And why didn't you join their army yet? Are you living too
>>> comfortable in the US, posting your mental vomits in
>>> shitter, eating 12 hamburguers per day while pretending to be a
>>> 'starving' 'worker'? And all that prolly paid by your loyal
>>> services to the left wing of the pentagon...
>>>
>>>

 "everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves"
>>>

 Discuss...
>>>
>>> "Para todos todo, para nosotros nada" 
>>>
>>> sounds like the kind of meaningless nonsense commies who
>>> took too much coke would say. 
>>>
>>>  
>>>

 Rr
>>>
> 

Re: [ultra ULTRA private] [for your eyes only] capitalism, socialism, anarchism, self-regulation

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:52:55 -0700
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 09/01/2016 06:24 PM, juan wanted me to do something for him:
> 
> >> *find out how many US government agents like me know that spanish
> >> word rayzer. 
> >> 
> 
> 
> The Defense Language Institute

First time I see that name. You are more familiar with it
apparently. Perhaps family or friends work there? 


> teaches feds like you how to cuss like
> a Mexican... 

? 
Mexican? Oh wait, you are the kind of american right winger who
think that the whole of central america and south america is
mexico? And mexico's capital is rio de janeiro? 

OK - So your few neurons have the "spanish - mexican"
connection well established. 

Let me clue you in. "Psicobolche" belongs to one particular
variety of spanish not spoken in mexico...



> At other facilities they have whole mock-up villages
> where you learn to live like one too! (But they don't teach you how
> to sleep in the berry fields.)
> 
> Rr
> 
> 

Re: Thisssss Means... [WAR!] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:47:39 -0700
Razer  wrote:


> 
> 
> Remind me why you exist Juan?

What, you already feel like calling heimland security? 

Asking a shibag marxist like you why he trolls this list is a
more legitimate question...



> 
> ...and your attempts to pigeonhole me politically are pretty fucking
> futile. 

as far as I'm concerned you are a marxist. An *american*
marxist, to be more precise. World champion of posers.


> I'm kind of tactic and strategy tolerant and have a number of
> overlapping non-conflicting sociopolitical influences, as long as it
> moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left.

Ah you mean obama.

> Not the Republican
> Libertarianism you refer to as "Anarchy".

Sorry, I can't parse that deranged comment. Ignored. 


> Left. I named some of my
> influencers the other day at your request..

Oh yes. I commented on your daddy narcusse.

 
> I mean you DO remember the other day don't you? 

Oh yes. I commented on your daddy narcusse.

Perhaps you don't know how to get all your mails? 

> I hear some
> medications wipe short/mid-term memory,
> 
> I consider you no better than any other raving poser right winger
> disruptor. 


Disruptor of what? Of your marxist garbage and your tor (a
pentagon's project) propaganda? 

Do you believe the cypherpunk 'movement' is a marxist
movement? 




> The SPEW gives you away. The SHOUTING DOWN... etc. Fascist.

Like your alleged family? 





> 
> Rr
> 
> 
> > 
> > And why didn't you join their army yet? Are you living too
> > comfortable in the US, posting your mental vomits in
> > shitter, eating 12 hamburguers per day while pretending to be a
> > 'starving' 'worker'? And all that prolly paid by your loyal
> > services to the left wing of the pentagon...
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> "everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves"
> > 
> >>
> >> Discuss...
> > 
> > "Para todos todo, para nosotros nada" 
> > 
> > sounds like the kind of meaningless nonsense commies who
> > took too much coke would say. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >>
> >> Rr
> > 

Re: IndependentOnion / RotorBrowser / Rotor - Interview

[Razer]

Is this typical? It doesn't SEEM 'transparent'

"This organization has no public members. You must be a member to see
who’s a part of this organization."

https://github.com/IndependentOnion

Reminds me of hate groups that infest Facebook's 'closed groups'.

Rr



On 09/01/2016 06:40 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> # IndependentOnion / RotorBrowser / Rotor - Interview
> # intro 00:06:29-00:07:51
> # exclusive jmprcx from 00:12:37-00:31:27, 00:37:02-00:51:30
> # ppi commentary from 00:51:30-01:02:01
> https://www.spreaker.com/user/anonukire/t0pg3arliv3-rotor-torfork-new-tor-broswe
> https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9283555/t0pg3arliv3_rotor_torfork_new_tor_broswer_project.mp3
> # unrelated segments 01:06:01-01:31:20, 01:34:18-01:57:00
> 
> https://rotorbrowser.com/
> https://github.com/IndependentOnion
> https://lists.rotorbrowser.com/pipermail/rotor-general/
> https://twitter.com/Jmprcx
> 
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/rotor
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/rotorbrowser
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/independentonion
> 
> https://ghostbin.com/paste/4am8w
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/torfork
> 

Re: [ultra ULTRA private] [for your eyes only] capitalism, socialism, anarchism, self-regulation

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 06:24 PM, juan wanted me to do something for him:

>> *find out how many US government agents like me know that spanish word 
>> rayzer. 
>> 


The Defense Language Institute teaches feds like you how to cuss like a
Mexican... At other facilities they have whole mock-up villages where
you learn to live like one too! (But they don't teach you how to sleep
in the berry fields.)

Rr


> 
> Razer  vomited :
> 
> 
>> marcusse 
> 
>   So for completness sake, here's rayzer spiritual mentor 
> 
>   
> https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1969/essay-liberation.pdf
> 
>   Well, I learnt something today! That deranged scumbag narcusse
>   was a psicobolche*  =) =) =)
> 
> 
>   "The Expression of Genre: Capitalist neopatriarchial theory and
>   the dialectic paradigm of narrative" 
> 
>   "Subcapitalist textual theory and expressionism"
> 
>   "Dialectic cultural theory, capitalism and social realism"
>   
>   "Posttextual Appropriations: Subdialectic discourse and the
>   modernist paradigm of expression"
> 
>   et cetera
> 
>   http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
> 
> 
> *find out how many US government agents like me know that spanish word
> rayzer. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 

Re: Thisssss Means... [WAR!] ...

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 06:34 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:07:59 -0700
> Razer  wrote:
> 
>> basic precepts of Anarchist society. most
>> recently expressed by the EZLN (aka Zapatista Army of National
>> Liberation) as:
> 
> 
>   NATIONAL marxist 'anarchism'. Ah rayzer...Nothing says freedom
>   like The Nation. 
> 
>   And remind me again, what are you doing in this list?


Remind me why you exist Juan?

...and your attempts to pigeonhole me politically are pretty fucking
futile. I'm kind of tactic and strategy tolerant and have a number of
overlapping non-conflicting sociopolitical influences, as long as it
moves to the anti-imperialist ANTIWAR left. Not the Republican
Libertarianism you refer to as "Anarchy". Left. I named some of my
influencers the other day at your request..

I mean you DO remember the other day don't you? I hear some medications
wipe short/mid-term memory,

I consider you no better than any other raving poser right winger
disruptor. The SPEW gives you away. The SHOUTING DOWN... etc. Fascist.

Rr


> 
>   And why didn't you join their army yet? Are you living too
>   comfortable in the US, posting your mental vomits in shitter,
>   eating 12 hamburguers per day while pretending to be a
>   'starving' 'worker'? And all that prolly paid by your loyal
>   services to the left wing of the pentagon...
> 
> 
>>
>> "everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves"
> 
>>
>> Discuss...
> 
>   "Para todos todo, para nosotros nada" 
> 
>   sounds like the kind of meaningless nonsense commies who took
>   too much coke would say. 
> 
>
> 
>>
>> Rr
> 

IndependentOnion / RotorBrowser / Rotor - Interview

[grarpamp]

# IndependentOnion / RotorBrowser / Rotor - Interview
# intro 00:06:29-00:07:51
# exclusive jmprcx from 00:12:37-00:31:27, 00:37:02-00:51:30
# ppi commentary from 00:51:30-01:02:01
https://www.spreaker.com/user/anonukire/t0pg3arliv3-rotor-torfork-new-tor-broswe
https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/9283555/t0pg3arliv3_rotor_torfork_new_tor_broswer_project.mp3
# unrelated segments 01:06:01-01:31:20, 01:34:18-01:57:00

https://rotorbrowser.com/
https://github.com/IndependentOnion
https://lists.rotorbrowser.com/pipermail/rotor-general/
https://twitter.com/Jmprcx

https://twitter.com/hashtag/rotor
https://twitter.com/hashtag/rotorbrowser
https://twitter.com/hashtag/independentonion

https://ghostbin.com/paste/4am8w
https://twitter.com/hashtag/torfork

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:07:59 -0700
Razer  wrote:

> basic precepts of Anarchist society. most
> recently expressed by the EZLN (aka Zapatista Army of National
> Liberation) as:


NATIONAL marxist 'anarchism'. Ah rayzer...Nothing says freedom
like The Nation. 

And remind me again, what are you doing in this list?

And why didn't you join their army yet? Are you living too
comfortable in the US, posting your mental vomits in shitter,
eating 12 hamburguers per day while pretending to be a
'starving' 'worker'? And all that prolly paid by your loyal
services to the left wing of the pentagon...


> 
> "everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves"

> 
> Discuss...

"Para todos todo, para nosotros nada" 

sounds like the kind of meaningless nonsense commies who took
too much coke would say. 

 

> 
> Rr

Re: [ultra ULTRA private] [for your eyes only] capitalism, socialism, anarchism, self-regulation

[juan]

Razer  vomited :


> marcusse 

So for completness sake, here's rayzer spiritual mentor 


https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/1969/essay-liberation.pdf

Well, I learnt something today! That deranged scumbag narcusse
was a psicobolche*  =) =) =)


"The Expression of Genre: Capitalist neopatriarchial theory and
the dialectic paradigm of narrative" 

"Subcapitalist textual theory and expressionism"

"Dialectic cultural theory, capitalism and social realism"

"Posttextual Appropriations: Subdialectic discourse and the
modernist paradigm of expression"

et cetera

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/


*find out how many US government agents like me know that spanish word
rayzer. 

Re: [WAR] ...

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 05:03 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote (I believe without
smirking or other facial tics):

> Juan is one of the few staunch anarchists (aka direct democracy) on this list!


ROTF! You... are... SUCH a kidder!

AFAICT there's no such thing as a "Libertarian Anarchist" as J claims
along with so many others on the list... because Libertarianism, at
least as mere humans practice it, is a "Me First" sort of Ideology
And an anathema to the basic precepts of Anarchist society. most
recently expressed by the EZLN (aka Zapatista Army of National
Liberation) as:

"everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves"

Discuss...

Rr

Re: [WAR] ...

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 04:04 PM, juan wrote:



> No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to collapse. That's 
> why we are fucked.


Doom and gloom... You're the narc Juan. You're the one ALWAYS saying
don't bother trying your efforts at (X) are wasted (unless ofc we take
your pov as ours). Disruption agent. Fed. Have you ever managed,
operated, or been involved in a MKUltra CULT Juan?

Rr



> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> 
> 

 Prove that isn't true.
> 
>>> You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However
>>> since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you
>>> can't do it. 
>>
>> I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence.  By induction,
>> proof.
> 
> 
>   What you call 'history' is just official propaganda / group
>   dellusions.
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of
>>> stuff that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can
>>> write. 
>>>
>>> And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton
>>> supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing
>>> list. The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of
>>> touch with reality (i.e. crazy)
>>
>> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms?  Do you
>> understand it?
> 
> 
>   May's manifesto is more like a bunch of wrong predictions. But
>   anyway one of the ideas is to prevent the state from collecting
>   taxes and regulating markets. An obviously 'anarchist' goal.
>   Other things like a market for hitmen goes even beyond what's
>   usually understood by anarchy, but it's not a government
>   friendly idea either. 
> 
>   Et cetera.
> 
>   What is your point? Are you going to argue that crypto anarchy
>   is not anarchy? 
> 
> 
>>
>> What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply? 
> 
>   Crypto-anarchy, as its name suggests, implies anarchy. I could
>   leave it at that, but I'll kindly add that 'anarchy' in turn 
>   implies voluntary social organization. Among other things.
> 
> 
>> Are
>> you sure that everyone else agrees? The people who think that
>> "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really thinking too
>> hard.
> 
>   That would be your case precisely? Crypto-anarchy doesn't mean
>   crypto-anything, it means crypto...ANARCHY.
> 
>   That's why your laudatory comments about the *fascist* United
>   **States** are so unrelated to crypto-ANARCHY.
> 
> 
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
>> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
>>
>> Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?  
> 
>   Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.
> 
>> Did
>> you understand it? 
> 
>   Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to
>   believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in. 
> 
> 
>> What about the point I just made about adapting
>> and adopting solutions to emerging changes?
> 
>   ...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian
>   governments can also adapt to change.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the
>> implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them.  Even in May's
>> quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a
>> system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility.  I think the
>> attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other
>> security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free
>> speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so
>> be it. 
> 
>   Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.
> 
> 
>> All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think
>> that makes the US any close to collapse?
> 
> 
>   No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to
>   collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include
>   you)
> 
> 
>>
>> Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems
>> should adapt and flourish.  Do you disagree with that?
> 
> 
>   I agree that morally good stuff is good...
> 
>   
> 
>>
 Especially prove that it isn't true for
 Americans.  The US government kept functioning normally even
 through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all
 kinds of corruption, etc.  Here, I'm not talking about
 exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it
 into power, they are limited and don't last.  Point out a better
 system.  (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our
 political system as of Brexit. ;-) )

 I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the
 exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is
 overblown in some key ways.  We have evidence that certain things
 work and certain things don't.  There is a big interpl

Re: New list confirmation (Re: cpunks list relocation imminent (was: Re: moving on))

[grarpamp]

> will work to sync up the archives so that the split brain we've been

Don't taint the provenance... just as your archive contains only yours,
this file should only contain messages from newby's server:
https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks.mbox/cypherpunks.mbox.gz

You can host your own archives wherever, and people will pick them up
and re-host them wherever.

You can blend the html index if you want, because it's just a human
interface, not a critical source archive.

People...
Don't use procmail, it sucks. Maildrop is better.
Don't use mbox, it sucks. Maildir is better.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:52:17PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply?

A mailing list with some cool ideas which possibly:
- need to be pre-empted to protect the establishment
- can be used by the establishment to reinforce the establishment
- can be monetized by the establishment to enrich the estblishment
- a pool of technocratic minds to milk for feedback on random topics



Oh, this is not your list. Any attempt to imply that our conversation
is limited to some specific conversation or subset or other limit you
choose, will, I'm just guessing here, be rejected by us.


But hey, it's fun shooting you down - so keep it coming :)



> Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems should
> adapt and flourish.  Do you disagree with that?

Bad/ unethical/ evil actions should be stopped.

Good/ ethical actions and good/ ethical systems should be supported.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:59:16PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> On 9/1/16 1:35 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700
> > "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
> >>> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> >>>
>  Our
>  political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
>  taking over.  
> >>>   The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the %
> >>> of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
> >>>   corporate mafia is even higher. 
> >>>
> >> Says one of the craziest people most of us know.
> >>
> >> You have a loose definition of crazy.  Or a crazy definition of crazy.
> >>
> >> But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?
> >
> > Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have problem
> > grasping. 
> 
> My reality is more real, and therefore more correct, than your reality.

All you're saying is that you guys, aka those wielding power in the CIA
and the USA govt, wield power and can make these power maximisation
decisions irregardless of what some "regular" folks might want, or
expect.

And that's true - what you imply is absolutely true, so on this count,
> Prove me wrong.
is not going to happen. Of course.


> So, let's go back to my statement:
> "Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
> taking over."
> 
> Prove that isn't true.

To we common folk heathen plebes, the USA government, and in particular
you CIA guys, have lost the plot, and continue to act and justify and
discuss and qualify, many and varied forms of crazy.


> Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans.

Perhaps you are conflating "crazy" with "those who are not supportive of
the establishment".

Because if your point is just "we have some historical stability in the
USA", that is indisputable.


But I know the grand game - and those who truly pull the strings are
wont to play it hard, they place all chips on the table.

Sometimes that gamble "pays off" (for some crazy definition of pays
off), and sometimes history shows us a grand correction.


Your pay masters have overplayed their hand this time.



> The US government kept functioning normally even through a civil war,
> world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, etc.
> Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in general, just the point
> that if crazies make it into power, they are limited and don't last.
> Point out a better system.  (The British are said to no longer be
> making fun of our political system as of Brexit. ;-) )

There are so many areas for improvement, it is not funny that you ask
this question.

What you, your team mates and your pay masters really ought to start
doing is assessing your internal fear programs, your attachment to power
and control, and figure out how to demonstrate a little more faith in
other humans and some trust in life generally.

>From an internal space of calm and understanding, decisions and public
conversations which are not seen by 'us plebes' as crazy, may be able
to be had.


> I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism
> perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some
> key ways.  We have evidence that certain things work and certain
> things don't.  There is a big interplay with culture and back stories
> that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere.

It is alluring to buy in to the "superiority" dialogue.

And statistics can prove anything. "The mind is the great trickster" and
all that...

But regardless of any particular data points "proving" "superiority",
what are we without empathy?

What are we when all we have is callous conversations which disregard
the humanity of unique individuals - including those brown folks with
their children, brides to be, fathers and cousins, which y'all droning
to death every day?


> Maybe we're confused sometimes,

You are confused why? Because you persist in psycopathic conversations -
i.e. in justifying power maximisation, apologising for abject abuses,
watering down reality of your wars with "just some war-like actions,
nothing to see here folks, move along".


Of -course- you are confused - you have no ethical foundation which is
visible.


> but we have open debate to try to fix
> that.

Fail to fix your lack of a visible ethical foundation, and you will
absolutely fail to fix anything (from we pleebles perspective).



> We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things
> like rights as being inviolable.  It isn't 'we are Americans and
> therefore you suck'.  It is more like "we have this cool open source
> government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you better
> than that old governmentware you're running".

Unfortunately it never has actually been like that - it all cases since
WW2 it has been "we are America, our 'democracy' is superior, and you
gonna take it deep down the throat, refuse?

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[Sean Lynch]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 3:26 PM, juan  wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:28:38 -0700
> Sean Lynch  wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > 'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are
> > > using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the
> > > 'ordered' fascism we live in?
> > >
> >
> > The question is always "support" relative to what?
>
> Relative to non-support? =)
>

Well, I meant that I do not support the status quo in the sense of helping
resist any change regardless of the direction. I would only resist change
toward something I felt was worse. And try to help bring about change
toward something I think would be better.


> > I would have to be
> > convinced that any shift I was to help bring about would be likely to
> > eventually lead to something better, preferably within our lifetimes.
> > Making things worse is easy. Making them worse in such a way that they
> > eventually get better is harder.
>
> Well, if we want to achieve a particular result and we do
> something that ends up causing a change in a direction we don't
> want, then on purely utilitarian terms, we failed. But that can
> only be known with hindsight.
>
> And utilitarianism is pretty much a bankrupt theory anyway as
> far as I'm concerned.
>

I agree with that. I've been intentionally vague about what "worse" or
"better" means, because frankly I don't really know.


> > > Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who
> > > > benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people
> > > > happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure
> > > > such people don't have enough power and influence to bring the
> > > > system crashing down.
> > >
> > > The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse
> > > your sentence...
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it
> > > accomplishes.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry. That's what happens when I try to write out a complicated
> > thought without going back and reediting multiple times. What I mean
> > is that having enough people eventually decide that "anything is
> > better than this" serves as a useful check on those in power.
>
> Ahh - thanks for the clarification.
>
> > Can't
> > make things too bad or people band together to bring it down without
> > regard to what follows. No different from an election where a bunch
> > of people vote for "the other guy" even though the other guy is
> > totally unqualified, just because they're so dissatisfied with you,
> > and your own supporters stay home.
>
> Hm, I don't think the analogy is that good. The other guy is no
> different than this guy. And if anything, in a 'democracy' the
> winner is always the slighty worse of the options.
>

I only meant in the sense that the incumbent usually sees it as a bad thing
when they are thrown out. And it applies to everything, not just democracy.
Even in an absolute dictatorship, it's generally cheaper to control a
population that's reasonably happy than one that's angry.


> > > > Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF
> > > > crashing down without needing much if any help.
> > >
> > > Why? Didn't you read 1984?
> > >
> >
> > Yes. And Brave New World. We're basically in the world depicted by
> > Huxley already.
>
> Yep. And Huxley's book is the most modern of the two, although
> it was written almost 20 years before 1984 was. But Orwell
> got the surveillance part right... =/
>

I think Huxley showed pretty effectively that surveillance is unnecessary
for creating a totalitarian society. In fact, too much of it can rob the
government of the appearance of legitimacy. "Why do you need to spy on your
own citizens?" The US mainly gets away with it in the name of terrorism and
the drug war, and that only goes so far. People will not support
surveillance to enforce laws they don't agree with. Instead, we get
propaganda, bread, and circuses courtesy of capitalism or mercantilism or
whatever you want to call it. The "independent" media still want to get
called on in white house press conferences and invited to embed journalists
with military units. The film industry gets heavy subsidies from various
governments in order to film there, so naturally they're not going to
release anything that embarrasses the government. Just watch the end
credits of a movie sometime and notice how many government entities they
thank.

I suspect the surveillance is really about maintaining sufficient fear
among would-be whistleblowers so they don't do things that result in
inconvenient rearrangements of the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's also
about money and keeping the law enforcement/prison industrial complex
well-fed. But I don't think it's about trying to maintain total control as
depicted in 1984. Even without it the system would be doing just fine.
Heck, it *was* doing just fine before mas

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:21:19PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
> > "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> >
> >> Our
> >> political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
> >> taking over.  
> > The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the % of
> > crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
> > corporate mafia is even higher. 
> 
> Says one of the craziest people most of us know.

Juan is one of the few staunch anarchists (aka direct democracy) on this
list!

You are one of "the man".


SAYing otherwise, don't change either of these facts.


> You have a loose definition of crazy.  Or a crazy definition of crazy.

Nope.


> But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?
> sdw

Persistent conversations attempting to justify crazy.

Crazy as in " if we fuck over China first, we can "win" " kind of crazy.

Crazy as in " oh it's just some war-like actions not real war " kind of
crazy.

Crazy as in "Juan's swears a bit, so he's crazy and we're all sane" kind
of crazy.

Crazy as in publicly peitioning the white house for WW3 - THAT kind of
crazy!

Crazy as in making your public implication that Juan is crazy cause he
uses a little colorful language, and presuming that's just gonna "slip
under the radar" with a bunch of anarchist tech heads - THAT kind of
crazy.



Sadly, there's an endless supply of examples of such crazy.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:34:53PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Nice Zenaan, good responses to much of what you were responding to.
> (Which must have been a troll, no sane, educated, adult thinks those
> ways in the US.)

50 CIA agents publicly signing a petition to the president of the USA
asking him to say "fuck it, we're going all out against Assad in Syria,
and taking on the Russians"?

50!

As in FIFTY CIA agents!!!

Directly petition the president of the USA, to effectively start WW3



The crazies are no longer in the basement.
I suggest opening your eyes to reality.



> My only high-level response to the nonsense is:

I wish it were nonsense. When we witness the crazies saying and doing
what they do, in the seats and institutions of power of the USA, we must
not put head in sand hole like an Ostrich, we must not brush of the
reality with "the nonsense".

It is our current shared common delusion, aka reality, that these
crazies ARE wielding enormous power.


> There is a big, and
> growing difference between what the US could do and what it would ever
> want to do.  Any large scale attack or invasion, by anyone anywhere
> really but especially from America, would be an American failure of
> epic proportions, regardless of whether it could succeed in any sense.
> Anyone who thinks otherwise, beyond silly thought experiments, is
> ignorant.

Ack.


> I imagine value equations for all decisions and measurements.  There
> is path involving such world war-ish actions that could possibly
> produce a better result than other paths.

The crazies are crazies because they hypothesize as realistic and
reasonable, pathways of "world war-ish actions".

"We" will never agree that your default position of blood baths is sane.

Thus, you who take such positions are crazies.

What we want to see is a new dialogue, one which considers us as
individuals, one which materially demonstrates actual empathy for human
(and all) life, rather than mere cost-equations to maximise power and
control over lives, nations, resources - and it's this "power
maximisation" thinking which brings on so many blood baths, so many NOT
theoretical "war-ish" actions!

Almost all such actions in the last century and ongoing, are unethical.


You must start being, acting, speaking, ethically. By not doing so, you
have sacrificed America's every dignity, gambled her wealth near to the
point of absolute destruction (which her people shall pay a high price
for sadly) and created endless turmoil and death, rivers of blood, in
this world.


I call all this evil. Evil actions. By the hand of men - individuals
like you and I, who cling to our old conversations, our past glories.



> Even if you could gin up a
> reason, which seems very difficult, it would never pay off.  Our
> political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking
> over.

That is once again just fear talking - fear of our fellow humans. You
assume that because "our son of a bitch" is the one petitioning the USA
president for war, that it's all ok. You fail to see that the
conversation you live, IS "the crazy"!


We (the rest of the world) need you guys to have a new conversation,
one premised not on maximising power and justifying blood baths, but
on mutual respect and dignity for other peoples and nations.


Please take this concept on board.


> Crazy is the only way to make those kinds of decisions.

'We' need you guys to stop making this type of justification.


> That and MAD: crazy would need a crazy answer to prevent future crazy.
> See: Japan, although that decision will never be made again.

>From what I'm seeing, at this point in time I have absolutely no faith
in -that- baseless assertion - quite the opposite - endless conversation
about how to justify WW3!

As Juan said, fuck it, I think I'll go find a rock to hide under.



> sdw
> 
> On 9/1/16 5:27 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:17:12PM +0900, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
> >> We do make sport of improvement plans for the global situation. I feel we
> >> do pretty well, probably on account of tossing history and a lot of feeling
> >> out of the window. More importantly, we ignore the difficulty of reaching
> >> the envisioned state. It is interesting, and could well improve our ideas
> >> of how things should be.
> >>
> >> Reg. US/EU vs CN/RU, CN will overtake economic and thus military capacities
> >> well within 20 years. From that moment onward we are subject to Chinese
> >> politics.
> > Dichomatic position / dichotomy thinking / black white "options":
> >
> >  - now we are not subject to "Chinese politics"
> >
> >  - shortly we shall be "subject to" Chinese politics
> >(and have no real say in the relationship)
> >
> > Relationships are built. Over time.
> >
> > Control (such as from WWII victor money printing) can be lost
> > overnight.
> >
> > The world can change.
> >
> > The world has changed.
...

Re: [WAR] ...

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/1/16 4:43 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
>
>
>> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms?  Do you
>> understand it?
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
>> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
>   And here's [3]
>   http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
>
>   "We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large,
>   faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their
>   beneficence"
>
>   "We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. " 
>
>   Again, a typical anarchist position. Governments and businesses
>   don't provide service X (they actually destroy X) so we need to
>   provide X ourselves. 

And a typical American position on every right we've ever won or defended.

>
>> Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?  
>   Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.

I don't know what that is.  I'm sure there are plenty who are uncomfortable 
with encryption etc. who think it is nonsense too, but I
think I have a point.

>
>> Did
>> you understand it? 
>   Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to
>   believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in. 

Ex-colony, ex-slave, ex-colonial, etc.  It's not all pretty, but it is 
experience.

>
>
>> What about the point I just made about adapting
>> and adopting solutions to emerging changes?
>   ...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian
>   governments can also adapt to change.

Not as fast or as well.  Which totalitarian regimes are comfortable with the 
Internet, Facebook, startups, Bitcoin, etc.?

>
>
>
>> Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the
>> implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them.  Even in May's
>> quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a
>> system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility.  I think the
>> attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other
>> security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free
>> speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so
>> be it. 
>   Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.
>
>
>> All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think
>> that makes the US any close to collapse?
>
>   No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to
>   collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include
>   you)

Totalitarian?  What's your model of a liberal state?

Since it seems you desire anarchy so much, I'm curious whether you have you 
read Lord of the Flies?

>
>
>> Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems
>> should adapt and flourish.  Do you disagree with that?
>
>   I agree that morally good stuff is good...

Based on your writing, that's a surprise.

>   
>
 Especially prove that it isn't true for
 Americans.  The US government kept functioning normally even
 through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all
 kinds of corruption, etc.  Here, I'm not talking about
 exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it
 into power, they are limited and don't last.  Point out a better
 system.  (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our
 political system as of Brexit. ;-) )

 I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the
 exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is
 overblown in some key ways.  We have evidence that certain things
 work and certain things don't.  There is a big interplay with
 culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it
 could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we
 have open debate to try to fix that.  We regularly fix things that
 aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable.
 It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'.  It is more
 like "we have this cool open source government project, why not
 fork it and see if it works for you better than that old
 governmentware you're running".  We are tired of being asked to
 fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on
 running VMS and Windows.  Or your cousin's obsolete system because
 you can't support them well.  Or whatever.  If you can make it
 work, then do it.  Otherwise, upgrade.

 sdw

>> sdw
>>
>> sdw
>>

sdw

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:


> 
> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms?  Do you
> understand it?

> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

And here's [3]
http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

"We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large,
faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their
beneficence"

"We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. " 

Again, a typical anarchist position. Governments and businesses
don't provide service X (they actually destroy X) so we need to
provide X ourselves. 











> 
> Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?  

Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.

> Did
> you understand it? 

Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to
believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in. 


> What about the point I just made about adapting
> and adopting solutions to emerging changes?

...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian
governments can also adapt to change.



> 
> Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the
> implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them.  Even in May's
> quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a
> system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility.  I think the
> attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other
> security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free
> speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so
> be it. 

Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.


> All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think
> that makes the US any close to collapse?


No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to
collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include
you)


> 
> Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems
> should adapt and flourish.  Do you disagree with that?


I agree that morally good stuff is good...



> 
> >> Especially prove that it isn't true for
> >> Americans.  The US government kept functioning normally even
> >> through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all
> >> kinds of corruption, etc.  Here, I'm not talking about
> >> exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it
> >> into power, they are limited and don't last.  Point out a better
> >> system.  (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our
> >> political system as of Brexit. ;-) )
> >>
> >> I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the
> >> exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is
> >> overblown in some key ways.  We have evidence that certain things
> >> work and certain things don't.  There is a big interplay with
> >> culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it
> >> could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we
> >> have open debate to try to fix that.  We regularly fix things that
> >> aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable.
> >> It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'.  It is more
> >> like "we have this cool open source government project, why not
> >> fork it and see if it works for you better than that old
> >> governmentware you're running".  We are tired of being asked to
> >> fix your old broken down governmentputer because you insist on
> >> running VMS and Windows.  Or your cousin's obsolete system because
> >> you can't support them well.  Or whatever.  If you can make it
> >> work, then do it.  Otherwise, upgrade.
> >>
> >> sdw
> >>
>  sdw
> 
> >>
> sdw
> 

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:57:49AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> > Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > > > How about we implement a working AP system?
> > >
> > > As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
> > > flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
> > > the long term.
> >
> > The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
> > politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.
> >
> > The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
> > turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
> > implementation.
> >
> 
> Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for
> turning money into death without knowing where the money came from. Rich
> people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire
> bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed anonymously.
> 
> Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of wealth
> equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.
> 
> 
> > > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher
> > > level of education and discourse.
> > >
> > > "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> > >
> > > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> > > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of
> > > power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent
> > > "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and
> > > certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best
> > > a hammer to completely destroy society.
> >
> > Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
> > change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
> > richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
> > just business as usual.
> >
> > > I support anarchism, not chaos
> 
> 
> And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos, as long as it's not the
> status quo.

I read his point as "the status quo is chaos, so AP may not be much
worse, if at all". Whether his opinion of AP would accord with that
future reality is another matter.

The USA presently makes chaos in foreign lands, just to take mostly
financial, but also some 'control', advantage of that. This is highly
unethical, abhorrent, disastrous for millions of people and many other
things. So from that perspective AP being "chaos as usual, but probably
bringing a bit more of it to "comfortable folks at home" may be seen by
some as a possible advantage.

I'm confident that those with the monopolistic power to print (and
therefore devalue) paper money, would outgame 'we plebes' in an AP
world, in the short and medium term, and do everything they can to
create systems of control of that system for the long term - which will
ultimately bring a system of significantly greater tyranny than we see
now. The star chamber, but with added anonymous assassination by the
moneyed "elite". The reality of greater uncertainty for the elite, that
they might be popped at any time, could be an improvement, but
fundamentally, turbo charging an assassination market is not something
that I feel, nor believe, to be in 'our' collective nor individual
interests.

This is not something I shall be flipping a coin on.


> Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit from the
> status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough that
> they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't have
> enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down. Of
> course, this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without
> needing much if any help.

Much shall happen in the next few years.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Mirimir]

On 09/01/2016 09:25 AM, Razer wrote:



> Something Paul Goodman, founder of Gestalt Therapy and Anarchist said to
> some technologists in 1967 comes to mind
> 
> "...speaking by invitation to the National Security Industrial
> Association —a consortium of arms manufacturers at the October 1967
> “Research and Development in the 1970s.” symposium, Washington DC:
> 
> “You are the military industrial [complex] of the United States, the
> most dangerous body of men at present in the world, for you not only
> implement our disastrous policies but are an overwhelming lobby for
> them, and you expand and rigidify the wrong use of brains, resources,
> and labor so that change becomes difficult.”

Truth.

> (He continued as the audience sat in stunned silence.)
> 
> “The best service you people could perform is rather rapidly to
> phase yourselves out, passing on your relevant knowledge to people
> better qualified, or reorganizing yourselves with entirely different
> sponsors and commitments, so that you learn to think and feel in a
> different way.
> 
> Since you are most of the R&D [research and development] that there
> is, we cannot do without you as people, but we cannot do with you as you
> are.”
> 
> (laughter and booing along with scattered applause)
> 
> “but we believe, however, that that way of life is unnecessary,
> ugly, and un-American.”
> 
> (Shouts from the audience: “Who are ‘we’?”)
> 
> “We are I and those people outside —we cannot condone your present
> operations; they should be wiped off the slate.”

Fucking hippies ;)

> All the R&D and so-called intelligence applied to software and computer
> development is USELESS to anyone but the 'war machine' if it's all about
> ME, and not "those people outside".

Didn't turn out well :(

> http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/92438085944
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay:
>>
>> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignm
>> ent/
>>
>> =or=
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/zbig180
>>
>> Wherein Brzezinski says:
>>
>> "While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s
>> economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly
>> endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint
>> tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail.
>> Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some
>> state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would
>> spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably
>> be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to
>> fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially
>> threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and
>> then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least
>> predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach.
>> Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer
>> run it could be China.
>>
>> "Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more
>> traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown
>> comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of
>> this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied
>> with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental
>> challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and
>> effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And
>> that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that
>> recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.
>>
>> ... and that's a paradigm shift, coming as it does from the man who
>> created Al Qaida and laid the foundation for today's business as usual
>> methods for regime change a.k.a. NeoColonial conquest.
>>
>> We now return to our regularly scheduled Cypherpunks, a world of pure
>> imagination where smart people like us would rise to the top of the
>> social hierarchy on merit alone and fix the world, if only those
>> damned [scapegoat name here] would get the hell out of our way.
>>
>> :o)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:52:17 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:


> >>
> >> Prove that isn't true.

> > You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However
> > since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you
> > can't do it. 
> 
> I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence.  By induction,
> proof.


What you call 'history' is just official propaganda / group
dellusions.


> 
> >
> > And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of
> > stuff that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can
> > write. 
> >
> > And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton
> > supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing
> > list. The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of
> > touch with reality (i.e. crazy)
> 
> Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms?  Do you
> understand it?


May's manifesto is more like a bunch of wrong predictions. But
anyway one of the ideas is to prevent the state from collecting
taxes and regulating markets. An obviously 'anarchist' goal.
Other things like a market for hitmen goes even beyond what's
usually understood by anarchy, but it's not a government
friendly idea either. 

Et cetera.

What is your point? Are you going to argue that crypto anarchy
is not anarchy? 


> 
> What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply? 

Crypto-anarchy, as its name suggests, implies anarchy. I could
leave it at that, but I'll kindly add that 'anarchy' in turn 
implies voluntary social organization. Among other things.


> Are
> you sure that everyone else agrees? The people who think that
> "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really thinking too
> hard.

That would be your case precisely? Crypto-anarchy doesn't mean
crypto-anything, it means crypto...ANARCHY.

That's why your laudatory comments about the *fascist* United
**States** are so unrelated to crypto-ANARCHY.


> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
> [2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
> 
> Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?  

Yes. I might even haver replied to it. It's nonsese.

> Did
> you understand it? 

Yes. It's the kind of nonsense that american jingos like to
believe about the 'ex' SLAVE society they live in. 


> What about the point I just made about adapting
> and adopting solutions to emerging changes?

...has nothing to do with anarchy per se. Totalitarian
governments can also adapt to change.



> 
> Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the
> implications of crypto-anarchism is one of them.  Even in May's
> quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a
> system as a goal, but to examine it as a possibility.  I think the
> attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other
> security measures must be available, perhaps as an extension of free
> speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so
> be it. 

Maybe that's your attitude. It doesn't have to be mine.


> All kinds of things have been exposed recently. Do you think
> that makes the US any close to collapse?


No. The totalitarian state you love so much isn't close to
collapse. That's why we are fucked. ('we' here doesn't include
you)


> 
> Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems
> should adapt and flourish.  Do you disagree with that?


I agree that morally good stuff is good...



> 
> >> Especially prove that it isn't true for
> >> Americans.  The US government kept functioning normally even
> >> through a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all
> >> kinds of corruption, etc.  Here, I'm not talking about
> >> exceptionalism in general, just the point that if crazies make it
> >> into power, they are limited and don't last.  Point out a better
> >> system.  (The British are said to no longer be making fun of our
> >> political system as of Brexit. ;-) )
> >>
> >> I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the
> >> exceptionalism perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is
> >> overblown in some key ways.  We have evidence that certain things
> >> work and certain things don't.  There is a big interplay with
> >> culture and back stories that affect some of that, but most of it
> >> could transfer anywhere. Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we
> >> have open debate to try to fix that.  We regularly fix things that
> >> aren't working with only things like rights as being inviolable.
> >> It isn't 'we are Americans and therefore you suck'.  It is more
> >> like "we have this cool open source government project, why not
> >> fork it and see if it works for you better than that old
> >> governmentware you're r

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:28:38 -0700
Sean Lynch  wrote:


> >
> >
> > 'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are
> > using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the
> > 'ordered' fascism we live in?
> >
> 
> The question is always "support" relative to what? 

Relative to non-support? =) 

> I would have to be
> convinced that any shift I was to help bring about would be likely to
> eventually lead to something better, preferably within our lifetimes.
> Making things worse is easy. Making them worse in such a way that they
> eventually get better is harder.


Well, if we want to achieve a particular result and we do
something that ends up causing a change in a direction we don't
want, then on purely utilitarian terms, we failed. But that can
only be known with hindsight.

And utilitarianism is pretty much a bankrupt theory anyway as
far as I'm concerned.


> 
> 
> > > Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who
> > > benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people
> > > happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure
> > > such people don't have enough power and influence to bring the
> > > system crashing down.
> >
> > The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse
> > your sentence...
> >
> > I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it
> > accomplishes.
> >
> 
> Sorry. That's what happens when I try to write out a complicated
> thought without going back and reediting multiple times. What I mean
> is that having enough people eventually decide that "anything is
> better than this" serves as a useful check on those in power. 

Ahh - thanks for the clarification. 

> Can't
> make things too bad or people band together to bring it down without
> regard to what follows. No different from an election where a bunch
> of people vote for "the other guy" even though the other guy is
> totally unqualified, just because they're so dissatisfied with you,
> and your own supporters stay home.


Hm, I don't think the analogy is that good. The other guy is no
different than this guy. And if anything, in a 'democracy' the
winner is always the slighty worse of the options. 


> 
> 
> > > Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF
> > > crashing down without needing much if any help.
> >
> > Why? Didn't you read 1984?
> >
> 
> Yes. And Brave New World. We're basically in the world depicted by
> Huxley already.

Yep. And Huxley's book is the most modern of the two, although
it was written almost 20 years before 1984 was. But Orwell
got the surveillance part right... =/



> The thing that struck me most about Brave New World
> is that none of the Powers That Be worried about bringing an outsider
> into the world -- because it was stable! People for the most part
> liked things the way they were. That scares me a hell of a lot more
> than 1984.

Well, yes, but apart from the totalitarian
indoctrination/education  many people were born already
mentally maimed thanks to genetic engineering. There wasn't much
'informed consent' involved. On the other hand, people who
disobeyed the cops mostly got 'free drugs' whereas people who
disobey the cops today get summarily executed, especially in
Stephen's Paradise, aka the US.

But anyway, totalitarian political systems can be stable both
in fiction and in reality, sadly for us.



> 
> I believe the system will bring itself down because the financial
> system of the "developed world" is a house of cards. 


Ah yes, the current financial system is a house of cards and
can come crashing at any moment, but a reset of the financial
system doesn't necessarily mean the political establishment will
lose power, again, sadly for us.


> There are
> hungrier nations that are far less vulnerable to the "seizing up" the
> system will experience when people stop trusting the prices in the
> market. In order for people to transact in the marketplace, they have
> to trust that the prices in the marketplace are at least somewhat
> reflective of value. This is why you saw banks sitting on repossessed
> houses or holding off on foreclosing on non-performing mortgages;
> they believed the government would intervene to raise prices, so they
> were waiting for a better deal. But things have only gotten worse
> since 2008, and every subsequent intervention will only become more
> costly and create ever more perverse incentives.

I haven't been paying attention to the post 2008 housing market
in the US and finance in general, but what I can see without
doing too much homework is that the dow jones has increased
almost 3 times since the crisis. Which no doubt some people
would say is 'proof' of the amazingn

Fwd: Feminist Principles of the Internet

[HateSpeech]

> Cecilia Tanaka:
> www.feministinternet.net

Fuck your feminist (otherist) principals.

Google App Store Takedown Process

[Wilfred L. Guerin]

Google App Store Takedown Process?

First, does anyone have an example of App store export restriction takedown
process, especially for including encryption libraries?

Second, where are any lists of all encryption and encoding functions,
especially all the various NIST and russian submissions and older
(1950s-1980s) techniques?

Typical thread on cpunks (Was: Wodka xor Viskii)

[ListBaby]

> Georgi Guninski:
> Typical thread on cpunks
> .us
>> cunt
> .ru
>> scumbag
> end of convo
>> double end convo^2
>>> love, love, love & kisses. 8 <-  o|o
> marxist
>> cunt^2
> scumbag^3
>>> love & orgasms
>> capitalist swine
> shit
>> shit^2
> end of convo^3
>> the convo ended
> shit
>> cunt^5
> quadratic cunt
>> ellipsoid cunt
> wodka!!
>> viskii!!

You forgot fucker, fucker.

Fwd: Feminist Principles of the Internet

[HateSpeech]

> Cecilia Tanaka:
> www.feministinternet.net

Fuck your feminist (otherist) principals.

Typical thread on cpunks (Was: Wodka xor Viskii)

[ListBaby]

> Georgi Guninski:
> Typical thread on cpunks
> .us
>> cunt
> .ru
>> scumbag
> end of convo
>> double end convo^2
>>> love, love, love & kisses. 8 <-  o|o
> marxist
>> cunt^2
> scumbag^3
>>> love & orgasms
>> capitalist swine
> shit
>> shit^2
> end of convo^3
>> the convo ended
> shit
>> cunt^5
> quadratic cunt
>> ellipsoid cunt
> wodka!!
>> viskii!!

You forgot fucker, fucker.

Re: New list confirmation (Re: cpunks list relocation imminent (was: Re: moving on))

[Riad S. Wahby]

"Riad S. Wahby"  wrote:
> Also, as I promised grarpamp, I will soon publish and sign a copy
> of my local cypherpunks mbox going back to mid-2013. The previous
> archive, which contains every message to cypherpunks I've received
> since sometime in 1999, is now available from:
> https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/cypherpunks.tar.bz2
> https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/cypherpunks.tar.bz2.asc
> You can find the corresponding PGP key at https://keybase.io/kwantam
> (or on most public keyservers).

You can find the final archive of all messages since the changeover
to mailman in mid-2013 at:
https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/cypherpunks_mailman.mbox.gz
https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/cypherpunks_mailman.mbox.gz.asc
Signed with the same key as above.

-=rsw

Google App Store Takedown Process

[Wilfred L. Guerin]

Google App Store Takedown Process?

First, does anyone have an example of App store export restriction takedown
process, especially for including encryption libraries?

Second, where are any lists of all encryption and encoding functions,
especially all the various NIST and russian submissions and older
(1950s-1980s) techniques?

Re: moving on (multiple future forks)

[Riad S. Wahby]

"Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> Cool.  On the previous question of replicated email and mailman
> servers, I was recently looking into ways to do that.  Since all
> email messages have unique IDs already, it isn't difficult to
> replicate messages at any point while avoiding duplicates and loops.

Yes. Really, procmail is all you need. If the local node is
mynodename.com, then make the posting address (cypherpunks@) go to
the procmailrc below and an internal address (_cypherpunks@) go to
the local mailman instance. So your /etc/aliases might have lines like:

cypherpunks: |procmail -m /etc/procmailrcs/procmailrc_cpunks
_cypherpunks: |mailman post cypherpunks

Note that you will have to tell mailman to accept messages addressed
to cypherpu...@somenode.com and cypherpu...@othernode.com in addition
to cypherpu...@mynodename.com.

As I said in my previous message, the harder part is sender whitelisting.
More on that below.

One more note: the scripts I used during the CDR days are available from
https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/cpunks-src.tgz
See also
https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/howto.html

#begin /etc/procmailrcs/procmailrc_cpunks
# This script is very similar to how the "backbone" operated in the
# original CDR, updated with the assumption that the nodes run mailman.
# NOTE that I have not tested this!!! :)

# nuke messages from MAILER-DAEMON or the local list instance
:0
* (^From:.*MAILER-DAEMON@|^list-id.*cypherpunks.mynodename.com)
/dev/null

# keep a cache of message-IDs so that each message is only processed once
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 128 msgid.cache

# maybe add a rule here to delete administrivia

# check whether this message is "backbone" traffic that we've already seen
:0c
* !^X-Loop:.*mynodename.com
! _cypherpunks@localhost

# now add an X-Loop header
:0f
| formail -A "X-Loop: mynodename.com"

# now bounce to other nodes

:0c
* !^X-Loop:.*somenode.com
! cypherpu...@somenode.com

:0c
* !^X-Loop:.*othernode.com
! cypherpu...@othernode.com
#end /etc/procmailrcs/procmailrc_cpunks

> If people posted to the server that they are subscribed to and if
> servers accept email from subscribers including fully authenticated
> other mailman servers, that would seem to work.

This is a nice thought, but it has two pretty major issues.

First, one of the reasons to have many nodes is so that nodes can apply
their own filtering policies to the traffic. But naively operating
the setup you describe would apply that filtering policy to mail
going from that node to other nodes, which is bad---the "backbone"
traffic should be unfiltered. It's possible to get around this issue,
but (e.g.) vanilla mailman can't do it.

Second, in the setup you describe, posting to the list instantly
reveals to everyone which node you're subscribed to, which is
information I was trying to keep hidden in the design I proposed.

If it's OK to reveal to other node operators which list a poster is
subscribed to, a simple solution is having the nodes share blinded
(e.g., hashed and salted) subscriber lists with one another (note
that this hides subscription information from everyone other than
node operators).

> We ought to create a Docker or similar recipe for setting up a new
> node with a single step.

In my estimation, this is not a good idea. The reason is that adding
nodes to the network takes work from existing node owners. If the
incentive structure is such that it's almost no work to set up a new
node, then people will be incentivized to start nodes ("hey, that
sounds fun"), but not to keep them running ("ugh, too much work").
This will result in a bunch of node churn, which is bad.

Plus, what sane person would run a Docker image put together by a
bunch of strangers from Cypherpunks?

Finally, lowering the bar for people to run nodes sounds like a good
idea until you're subscribed to a node whose operator is ignorant or
malicious. Node operators are in a semi-trusted position. Having a
barrier to entry is probably a good thing.

-=rsw

Re: New list confirmation (Re: cpunks list relocation imminent (was: Re: moving on))

[Riad S. Wahby]

Greg Newby  wrote:
> As I just wrote, this message should be going out via the
> *new* server and settings.  It's addressed to cypherpunks at
> lists.cpunks.org, as opposed to the regular address, cypherpunks
> at cpunks.org

Folks,

If all has gone well, this message will reach you via the new list,
which Greg is now hosting. Thanks for stepping up, Greg.

Specifically: all mail to @cpunks.org or @lists.cpunks.org should
now go to Greg's list instance. In the next few days, Greg and I
will work to sync up the archives so that the split brain we've been
running for the last few days is retroactively repaired.

Also, as I promised grarpamp, I will soon publish and sign a copy
of my local cypherpunks mbox going back to mid-2013. The previous
archive, which contains every message to cypherpunks I've received
since sometime in 1999, is now available from:
https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/cypherpunks.tar.bz2
https://web.jfet.org/cpunk/cypherpunks.tar.bz2.asc
You can find the corresponding PGP key at https://keybase.io/kwantam
(or on most public keyservers).

-=rsw

Re: [WAR] ...

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/1/16 2:28 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:59:16 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/16 1:35 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700
>>> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
>>>
 On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
>
>> Our
>> political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
>> taking over.  
>   The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the
> % of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
>   corporate mafia is even higher. 
>
 Says one of the craziest people most of us know.

 You have a loose definition of crazy.  Or a crazy definition of
 crazy.

 But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?
>>> Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have
>>> problem grasping. 
>> My reality is more real, and therefore more correct, than your
>> reality.  Prove me wrong.
>>
>> So, let's go back to my statement:
>> "Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
>> taking over."
>>
>> Prove that isn't true.
>   You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However
>   since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you can't do
>   it. 

I did prove it: History is packed full of evidence.  By induction, proof.

>
>   And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of stuff
>   that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can write. 
>
>   And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton
>   supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing list.
>   The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of
>   touch with reality (i.e. crazy)

Have you actually read the Manifesto in its several forms?  Do you understand 
it?

What do you think that crypto-anarchy does and does not imply?  Are you sure 
that everyone else agrees?
The people who think that "anarchy" in "crypto-anarchy" means "*" aren't really 
thinking too hard.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
[2] http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

Did you read my point about free-speech-anarchy a few weeks ago?  Did you 
understand it?
What about the point I just made about adapting and adopting solutions to 
emerging changes?

Cypherpunks has always straddled a number of areas; exploring the implications 
of crypto-anarchism is one of them.  Even in May's
quotes in [1], it isn't necessarily the point to have a collapse of a system as 
a goal, but to examine it as a possibility.  I think
the attitude is that if you come to believe that encryption and other security 
measures must be available, perhaps as an extension
of free speech, and those cause weak or broken systems to collapse, then so be 
it.  All kinds of things have been exposed recently. 
Do you think that makes the US any close to collapse?

Bad systems should change drastically or collapse, good systems should adapt 
and flourish.  Do you disagree with that?

>> Especially prove that it isn't true for
>> Americans.  The US government kept functioning normally even through
>> a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of
>> corruption, etc.  Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in
>> general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are
>> limited and don't last.  Point out a better system.  (The British are
>> said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of
>> Brexit. ;-) )
>>
>> I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism
>> perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some
>> key ways.  We have evidence that certain things work and certain
>> things don't.  There is a big interplay with culture and back stories
>> that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere.
>> Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open debate to try to fix
>> that.  We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things
>> like rights as being inviolable.  It isn't 'we are Americans and
>> therefore you suck'.  It is more like "we have this cool open source
>> government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you
>> better than that old governmentware you're running".  We are tired of
>> being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you
>> insist on running VMS and Windows.  Or your cousin's obsolete system
>> because you can't support them well.  Or whatever.  If you can make
>> it work, then do it.  Otherwise, upgrade.
>>
>> sdw
>>
 sdw

>>
sdw

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:59:16 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:

> On 9/1/16 1:35 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700
> > "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
> >>> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> >>>
>  Our
>  political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
>  taking over.  
> >>>   The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the
> >>> % of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
> >>>   corporate mafia is even higher. 
> >>>
> >> Says one of the craziest people most of us know.
> >>
> >> You have a loose definition of crazy.  Or a crazy definition of
> >> crazy.
> >>
> >> But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?
> >
> > Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have
> > problem grasping. 
> 
> My reality is more real, and therefore more correct, than your
> reality.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> So, let's go back to my statement:
> "Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
> taking over."
> 
> Prove that isn't true.

You made the crazy claim, you should prove it. However
since you are one of those crazies you talk about, you can't do
it. 

And I actually have zero interest in reading the kind of stuff
that a hitlery clinton supporter (you in this case) can write. 

And to make things even crazier, you are a hitlery clinton
supporter posting in an allegedly crypto-anarchist mailing list.
The ANARCHIST bit should clue you in...if you were not out of
touch with reality (i.e. crazy)





> Especially prove that it isn't true for
> Americans.  The US government kept functioning normally even through
> a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of
> corruption, etc.  Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in
> general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are
> limited and don't last.  Point out a better system.  (The British are
> said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of
> Brexit. ;-) )
> 
> I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism
> perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown in some
> key ways.  We have evidence that certain things work and certain
> things don't.  There is a big interplay with culture and back stories
> that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere.
> Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open debate to try to fix
> that.  We regularly fix things that aren't working with only things
> like rights as being inviolable.  It isn't 'we are Americans and
> therefore you suck'.  It is more like "we have this cool open source
> government project, why not fork it and see if it works for you
> better than that old governmentware you're running".  We are tired of
> being asked to fix your old broken down governmentputer because you
> insist on running VMS and Windows.  Or your cousin's obsolete system
> because you can't support them well.  Or whatever.  If you can make
> it work, then do it.  Otherwise, upgrade.
> 
> sdw
> 
> >> sdw
> >>
> 
> 

Re: [WAR] ...

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/1/16 1:35 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
>>> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
>>>
 Our
 political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
 taking over.  
>>> The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the %
>>> of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
>>> corporate mafia is even higher. 
>>>
>> Says one of the craziest people most of us know.
>>
>> You have a loose definition of crazy.  Or a crazy definition of crazy.
>>
>> But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?
>
>   Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have problem
>   grasping. 

My reality is more real, and therefore more correct, than your reality.  Prove 
me wrong.

So, let's go back to my statement:
"Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from taking 
over."

Prove that isn't true.  Especially prove that it isn't true for Americans.  The 
US government kept functioning normally even through
a civil war, world wars, 3 industrial revolutions, all kinds of corruption, 
etc.  Here, I'm not talking about exceptionalism in
general, just the point that if crazies make it into power, they are limited 
and don't last.  Point out a better system.  (The
British are said to no longer be making fun of our political system as of 
Brexit. ;-) )

I don't have time to get into it, but I think that the exceptionalism 
perception, the quality of it, meaning, and use, is overblown
in some key ways.  We have evidence that certain things work and certain things 
don't.  There is a big interplay with culture and
back stories that affect some of that, but most of it could transfer anywhere.  
Maybe we're confused sometimes, but we have open
debate to try to fix that.  We regularly fix things that aren't working with 
only things like rights as being inviolable.  It isn't
'we are Americans and therefore you suck'.  It is more like "we have this cool 
open source government project, why not fork it and
see if it works for you better than that old governmentware you're running".  
We are tired of being asked to fix your old broken
down governmentputer because you insist on running VMS and Windows.  Or your 
cousin's obsolete system because you can't support them
well.  Or whatever.  If you can make it work, then do it.  Otherwise, upgrade.

sdw

>> sdw
>>

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:21:19 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:

> On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
> > "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
> >
> >> Our
> >> political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
> >> taking over.  
> > The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the %
> > of crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
> > corporate mafia is even higher. 
> >
> 
> Says one of the craziest people most of us know.
> 
> You have a loose definition of crazy.  Or a crazy definition of crazy.
> 
> But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?


Reality. And reality is exactly what crazy people have problem
grasping. 



> 
> sdw
> 

Re: [WAR] ...

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 9/1/16 1:16 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:
>
>> Our
>> political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
>> taking over.  
>   The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the % of
>   crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
>   corporate mafia is even higher. 
>

Says one of the craziest people most of us know.

You have a loose definition of crazy.  Or a crazy definition of crazy.

But I'll ask anyway: What's your evidence?

sdw

Re: distractions

[John Newman]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:50PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 09:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > Whilst those with any passion for actual political anarchy (aka direct
> > democracy) are drowned out with rather pathetic psyop attempts at
> > steering the conversation,
> > 
> > the space to inspire newcomers is white noise.
> > 
> > 
> > "Oh My God! How could the CIA say such stoopid things?!"
> > 
> > 
> > But folks need their emotional entertainment.
> 
> Dude, you mainly post boringly blatant propaganda. It's embarrassing.

The Zen-Alex-FSB circle-jerk continues on and on :P


John

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:34:53 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams"  wrote:

> Our
> political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from
> taking over.  

The US is full of crazy fucks like you, and of course the % of
crazy fucks among politicians, military murderers and the
corporate mafia is even higher. 

Re: [WAR] ...

[Stephen D. Williams]

Nice Zenaan, good responses to much of what you were responding to.  (Which 
must have been a troll, no sane, educated, adult thinks
those ways in the US.)  You sometimes have knee-jerk comebacks to any statement 
from any American, trying hard to interpret
everything in the worst possible way.  But here, although you are sort of doing 
just that, your positions now agree with what I see
as a reasonable view of world dynamics.

My only high-level response to the nonsense is: There is a big, and growing 
difference between what the US could do and what it
would ever want to do.  Any large scale attack or invasion, by anyone anywhere 
really but especially from America, would be an
American failure of epic proportions, regardless of whether it could succeed in 
any sense.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, beyond
silly thought experiments, is ignorant.

I imagine value equations for all decisions and measurements.  There is path 
involving such world war-ish actions that could
possibly produce a better result than other paths.  Even if you could gin up a 
reason, which seems very difficult, it would never
pay off.  Our political system limits and weeds out crazy, preventing it from 
taking over.  Crazy is the only way to make those
kinds of decisions.  That and MAD: crazy would need a crazy answer to prevent 
future crazy.  See: Japan, although that decision will
never be made again.

sdw

On 9/1/16 5:27 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:17:12PM +0900, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
>> We do make sport of improvement plans for the global situation. I feel we
>> do pretty well, probably on account of tossing history and a lot of feeling
>> out of the window. More importantly, we ignore the difficulty of reaching
>> the envisioned state. It is interesting, and could well improve our ideas
>> of how things should be.
>>
>> Reg. US/EU vs CN/RU, CN will overtake economic and thus military capacities
>> well within 20 years. From that moment onward we are subject to Chinese
>> politics.
> Dichomatic position / dichotomy thinking / black white "options":
>
>  - now we are not subject to "Chinese politics"
>
>  - shortly we shall be "subject to" Chinese politics
>(and have no real say in the relationship)
>
> Relationships are built. Over time.
>
> Control (such as from WWII victor money printing) can be lost
> overnight.
>
> The world can change.
>
> The world has changed.
>
>
>> My guess is they will start with harassment of neighbouring
>> countries, and just move on from there.
> "and just move on from there ... harassing more and more countries"
>
> "That's the only possible outcome, since that's all we can think of,
> since we are the USA/ NATO/ CIA, and that's what we do to everyone else,
> therefore that's what China will do, black / white, it must be so."
>
>
> I don't know that you're not right. But I hold that more nuanced
> conversations are much more useful, and more importantly I hold that
> dichotomies are very useful for:
>
> - propaganda
>
> - steering converations in "desired" directions
>
> - distracting the targetted minds from deeper thought
>
> - justifying the tyranny "of our side" (since "their side is so bad, we
>   must start war first, since now we can win, we must win, they will
>   destroy us otherwise")
>
>
>
>> Likely eventually
>> forcing/negotiating a surrender, rather than WW3, on account of
>> our pacifist intents.
> More dichotomies. I have seen no one here promoting pacifism as the be
> all and end all only solution to all problems.
>
> Sounds like .. you guessed it .. more dichotomies!
> Yay! We are -on- to it!
>
> "If we don't strike now with a containable war, we shall be forced
> to negotiate, to surrender, on terms which would be less favourable
> than if we struck now."
>
>
> Dunno about others, but I am hearing premises, assumptions and
> foundations which are fundamentally mental! As in offensive. As in,
> worthy of being shot down in flames.
>
>
>> ATM we would win.
> "We" being "the almighty north atlantic USA hegemonic exceptionalistan".
>
> We got it, U !!  S !!  A !!
>
> We would win !! We would win !!
>
> Western hegemonic brothers fighting the good opportunistic fuck over the
> asians, fuck over the russkies and cypriots, fuck over any who are
> possibly weak enough to SURRENDER on ... that's it .. OUR TERMS!
>
> YEAH, 'cause WE ARE THE WINNERS, and you know what? Yeah, WE OWN THE
> FINISH LINE (for anyone who missed the recent posted links, that's
> a quote from the DNC party head honcho recent speech - "we OWN the
> finish line!").
>
>
> I do not consent to "the West" acting as bullies all around the world.
>
>
> Read my words again:
>
>
>I  do  not  consent  to  being  bullies.
>
>
> Is common human decency so unacceptable these days?
>
>
>
>> Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to
>> provoke war on our terms.
> Indeed. Of this I have no doubt.
>
>
>> A war we would win - with large casualties. A war we should fight if

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[Sean Lynch]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, juan  wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:57:49 -0700
> Sean Lynch  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan  wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> > > Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > > > > How about we implement a working AP system?
> > > >
> > > > As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be
> > > > fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything
> > > > resembling justice, even in the long term.
> > >
> > > The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
> > > politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty
> > > sound.
> > >
> > > The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
> > > turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
> > > implementation.
> > >
> >
> > Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for
> > turning money into death without knowing where the money came from.
> > Rich people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can
> > hire bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed
> > anonymously.
>
>
> That's what first comes to mind. However I then realized (and I
> profusely apology if the point was already made by Jim Bell or
> others) AP could be used to finish off cops. Getting rid of an
> ordinary cop should be a lot cheaper than getting rid of bill
> gates or your bosses at google.
>
> AND, if cops start to die like they deserve, it would be
> interesting to see what happens to the rest of the system which
> obviously relies on 'enforcement' by...cops.
>
>
> >
> > Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of
> > wealth equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.
> >
> >
> > > > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much
> > > > higher level of education and discourse.
> > > >
> > > > "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> > > >
> > > > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> > > > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota
> > > > of power that presents such as any public lynching, where
> > > > intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never
> > > > exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP
> > > > would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
> > >
> > > Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
> > > change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
> > > richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
> > > just business as usual.
> > >
> > > > I support anarchism, not chaos
> >
> >
> > And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos,
> > as long as it's not
> > the status quo.
>
>
> 'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are
> using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the 'ordered'
> fascism we live in?
>

The question is always "support" relative to what? I would have to be
convinced that any shift I was to help bring about would be likely to
eventually lead to something better, preferably within our lifetimes.
Making things worse is easy. Making them worse in such a way that they
eventually get better is harder.


> > Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who
> > benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people
> > happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such
> > people don't have enough power and influence to bring the system
> > crashing down.
>
> The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse your
> sentence...
>
> I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it
> accomplishes.
>

Sorry. That's what happens when I try to write out a complicated thought
without going back and reediting multiple times. What I mean is that having
enough people eventually decide that "anything is better than this" serves
as a useful check on those in power. Can't make things too bad or people
band together to bring it down without regard to what follows. No different
from an election where a bunch of people vote for "the other guy" even
though the other guy is totally unqualified, just because they're so
dissatisfied with you, and your own supporters stay home.


> > Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF
> > crashing down without needing much if any help.
>
> Why? Didn't you read 1984?
>

Yes. And Brave New World. We're basically in the world depicted by Huxley
already. The thing that struck me most about Brave New World is that none
of the Powers That Be worried about bringing an outsider into the world --
because it was stable! People for the most part liked things the way they
were. That scares me a hell of a lot more than 1984.

I believe the system will bring 

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:57:49 -0700
Sean Lynch  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> > Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > > > How about we implement a working AP system?
> > >
> > > As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be
> > > fundamentally flawed - that it will not achieve anything
> > > resembling justice, even in the long term.
> >
> > The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
> > politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty
> > sound.
> >
> > The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
> > turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
> > implementation.
> >
> 
> Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for
> turning money into death without knowing where the money came from.
> Rich people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can
> hire bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed
> anonymously.


That's what first comes to mind. However I then realized (and I
profusely apology if the point was already made by Jim Bell or
others) AP could be used to finish off cops. Getting rid of an
ordinary cop should be a lot cheaper than getting rid of bill
gates or your bosses at google. 

AND, if cops start to die like they deserve, it would be
interesting to see what happens to the rest of the system which
obviously relies on 'enforcement' by...cops.


> 
> Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of
> wealth equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.
> 
> 
> > > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much
> > > higher level of education and discourse.
> > >
> > > "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> > >
> > > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> > > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota
> > > of power that presents such as any public lynching, where
> > > intelligent "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never
> > > exercised and certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP
> > > would be at best a hammer to completely destroy society.
> >
> > Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
> > change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
> > richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
> > just business as usual.
> >
> > > I support anarchism, not chaos
> 
> 
> And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos,
> as long as it's not
> the status quo. 


'chaos' is just a propaganda term, at least the way you are
using it. If I support 'chaos' then you support the 'ordered'
fascism we live in? 


> Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who
> benefit from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people
> happy enough that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such
> people don't have enough power and influence to bring the system
> crashing down. 

The double negative makes it kinda harder for me to parse your
sentence...

I'm not sure what incentive you are referring to and what it
accomplishes. 


> Of course, this system will probably bring ITSELF
> crashing down without needing much if any help.


Why? Didn't you read 1984?

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[Razer]

On 09/01/2016 10:57 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan  > wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness mailto:z...@freedbms.net>> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > > How about we implement a working AP system?
> >
> > As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
> > flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
> > the long term.
> 
> The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
> politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.
> 
> The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
> turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
> implementation.
> 
> 
> Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for
> turning money into death without knowing where the money came from. Rich
> people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire
> bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed anonymously.
> 
> Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of wealth
> equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.


Stop Stop! You're making too much sense!

(Cue Juan's scatological scatting)

Rr

Ps. I say Juan can lead the charge. The only thing honky libertards are
good for is to jack up for lunch money (you have to jack them ...
They're not exactly 'givers') or toss between me and the cops.


>  
> 
> > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher
> > level of education and discourse.
> >
> > "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> >
> > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of
> > power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent
> > "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and
> > certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best
> > a hammer to completely destroy society.
> 
> Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
> change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
> richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
> just business as usual.
> 
> > I support anarchism, not chaos
> 
> 
> And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos, as long as it's not the
> status quo. Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit
> from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough
> that they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't
> have enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down. Of
> course, this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without
> needing much if any help.
> 

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[Sean Lynch]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 10:47 AM, juan  wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > > How about we implement a working AP system?
> >
> > As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
> > flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
> > the long term.
>
> The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
> politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound.
>
> The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
> turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
> implementation.
>

Of course AP can be turned against "honest people." It's a system for
turning money into death without knowing where the money came from. Rich
people make out like bandits in such a system, because they can hire
bodyguards non-anonymously and pay to have their enemies killed anonymously.

Ironically, AP would work best in a society with a high level of wealth
equality. If there's high inequality, it just makes that worse.


> > Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher
> > level of education and discourse.
> >
> > "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> >
> > In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> > "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of
> > power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent
> > "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and
> > certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best
> > a hammer to completely destroy society.
>
> Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
> change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
> richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
> just business as usual.
>
> > I support anarchism, not chaos


And clearly from juan's reply he supports chaos, as long as it's not the
status quo. Not that this isn't a useful incentive for those who benefit
from the status quo to ensure that it keeps enough people happy enough that
they don't turn into juans, or at least ensure such people don't have
enough power and influence to bring the system crashing down. Of course,
this system will probably bring ITSELF crashing down without needing much
if any help.

Re: Scatological distractions [Was: distractions]

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:48:10 -0700
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 08/31/2016 09:40 PM, juan wrote (in more ways than simply
> typographically):
> 
> 
> > wow - another piece of fascist shit came back from the dead. 
> 
> 
> Look up the definition of "scatological" Juan... 


As I mentioned in my previous message I already know you are a
piece of shit rayzer. 




I know you can do
> it...
> 
> Rr
> 
> 
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:29:28 +1000
> > Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:50PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > 
> >> And Juan's scatological blather.
> > 
> > 
> > note to self - add piece-of-shit mirimir to the black list 
> > 

Re: Scatological distractions [Was: distractions]

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:29:15 -0700
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 08/31/2016 09:40 PM, juan wrote (in more ways than simply
> typographically):
> 
> 
> > piece-of-shit
> > 
> Look up the definition of "scatological" Juan... I know you can do


I know you are stupid piece-pf-shit rayzer - you don't need to
drive the point home every day =)

I suggest you look up the word "recursive sarcasm" in your
dictionary. 'Course, you won't find  it and you wouldn't be able
to understand the definition if found it, anyway. 






> it...
> 
> Rr
> 
> 
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:29:28 +1000
> > Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:50PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > 
> >> And Juan's scatological blather.
> > 
> > 
> > note to self - add piece-of-shit mirimir to the black list 
> > 

Re: Scatological distractions [Was: distractions]

[Razer]

On 08/31/2016 09:40 PM, juan wrote (in more ways than simply
typographically):


> wow - another piece of fascist shit came back from the dead. 


Look up the definition of "scatological" Juan... I know you can do it...

Rr


> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:29:28 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:50PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> 
>> And Juan's scatological blather.
> 
> 
>   note to self - add piece-of-shit mirimir to the black list 
> 

Re: Typical thread on cpunks (Was: Wodka xor Viskii)

[juan]

Georgi Guninski  wrote:
> Typical thread on cpunks



The problem is your email client Georgi. And I mean email
client in a metaphorical way.

If you want completely stupid and useless discussions about
'technology' and 'encryption' you can always join the fully
censored cesspool known as the "cryptography mailing list" 

Here's the link, just in case that, despite your
encryption knowledge, you were having trouble with the interwebs

http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography




> 
> Subject: Wodka xor Viskii?
> 
> ( ">"s truncated)
> 
> > .us
> >> cunt
> > .ru
> >> scumbag
> > end of convo
> >> double end convo^2
> >>> love, love, love & kisses. 8 <-  o|o
> > marxist
> >> cunt^2
> > scumbag^3
> >>> love & orgasms
> >> capitalist swine
> > shit
> >> shit^2
> > end of convo^3
> >> the convo ended
> > shit
> >> cunt^5
> > quadratic cunt
> >> ellipsoid cunt
> > wodka!!
> >> viskii!!

Re: [WAR] Yugoslavia - Wrongly Accused: The Absolution of Slobodan Milošević (by the ICT)

[Xer0Dynamite]

It's not the USA -- it's every adult who let people with no voice be
ignored so that their party could continue indefinitely.

There is a lot wrong with science these days and Judgement Day seems
to happening. The media can't be trusted, but perhaps you're a bot and
that's all you have, eh?

\0x

On 8/31/16, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> USA destruction of countries - in recent times in our consciousness and
> the public discourse are the following:
> - Iraq'a WMDs (non existent)
> - Libya's "liberation" from its civil war
> - Syria's chemical weapons (supplied by the CIA it turns out)
>
> But the war to destroy Yugoslavia has only just ended with the
> International Criminal Tribunal's case against Slobodan Milošević
> finally ending.
>
> USA, you have an extremely large debt to the world.
>
>
>
> ** Wrongly Accused: The Absolution of Slobodan Milošević
> (http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=b95ea945c9&e=5110f4b440)
> 
> by Quintus Curtius on Wed, Aug 31, 2016
> Those of us who had some involvement in Bosnian peacekeeping efforts
> many years ago might be astonished to learn that, after all the
> propaganda, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
> Yugoslavia (ICTY) finally exonerated Slobodan Milošević of wrongdoing in
> the Bosnian War of the early 1990s.  This result is nothing less than
> shocking.  The full text of the judgment can be found here.
> Read more »
> (http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f&id=1a78de3ae3&e=5110f4b440)
>

Re: [WAR] ... and AP

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:35:47 +1000
Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > How about we implement a working AP system?
> 
> As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
> flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
> the long term.

The idea of finishing off criminals like cops, soldiers,
politicians, corporatist 'business' men, etc is pretty sound. 

The problem is of course how to implement it. If AP can be
turned against honest people then it's obviously not a good
implementation. 



> 
> Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher
> level of education and discourse.
> 
> "When all you have is a hammer ..."
> 
> 
> In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
> "citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of
> power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent
> "discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and
> certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best
> a hammer to completely destroy society.


Well, actually, given the status quo, it might be a nice
change anyway. It would either succeed in killing people who
richly deserve to die, or it would kill innocents, which is
just business as usual.





> 
> 
> I support anarchism, not chaos.

Re: Scatological distractions [Was: distractions]

[Razer]

On 08/31/2016 09:40 PM, juan wrote (in more ways than simply
typographically):


> piece-of-shit


Look up the definition of "scatological" Juan... I know you can do it...

Rr


> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:29:28 +1000
> Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:50PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> 
>> And Juan's scatological blather.
> 
> 
>   note to self - add piece-of-shit mirimir to the black list 
> 

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 03:46:58 -0600
Mirimir  wrote:

> On 09/01/2016 03:17 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
> > ... If you want to see what anarchy does, basically Detroit. As soon
> > as things start looking better, it starts looking more like
> > government.
> 
> You're probably right, given people as they are now :(


So two of the leading retards on this list, I mean, greatest
political philosophers, have defined 'anarchy'. 

Re: [WAR] ...

[juan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:17:12 +0900
Lodewijk andré de la porte  wrote:

 
> ATM we would win. Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to
> provoke war on our terms. A war we would win - with large casualties.
> A war we should fight if we like democracy and individualistic
> financial economy,

wow - another piece of fascist shit came back from the dead. 

Re: [WAR] ...

[Razer]

On 08/31/2016 10:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote:
>> this has already been discussed dozens of times (on the thread
>> about "offtopic" posts) -> Zen is NOT talking to himself. There are
>> thousands of people here on the list. Only~15 of them participate
>> most of the discussions. The rest - read and/or answer privately.
> 
>> By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always
>> filter these/all of Zen's letters.
> 


> Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are
> products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of intelligence
> in the driver's seat would automatically create optimum solutions to
> all those problems.  Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given
> relevant and accurate data to work from:  Context is everything, and
> in a world dominated by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more
> subversive than the facts.


Something Paul Goodman, founder of Gestalt Therapy and Anarchist said to
some technologists in 1967 comes to mind

"...speaking by invitation to the National Security Industrial
Association —a consortium of arms manufacturers at the October 1967
“Research and Development in the 1970s.” symposium, Washington DC:

“You are the military industrial [complex] of the United States, the
most dangerous body of men at present in the world, for you not only
implement our disastrous policies but are an overwhelming lobby for
them, and you expand and rigidify the wrong use of brains, resources,
and labor so that change becomes difficult.”

(He continued as the audience sat in stunned silence.)

“The best service you people could perform is rather rapidly to
phase yourselves out, passing on your relevant knowledge to people
better qualified, or reorganizing yourselves with entirely different
sponsors and commitments, so that you learn to think and feel in a
different way.

Since you are most of the R&D [research and development] that there
is, we cannot do without you as people, but we cannot do with you as you
are.”

(laughter and booing along with scattered applause)

“but we believe, however, that that way of life is unnecessary,
ugly, and un-American.”

(Shouts from the audience: “Who are ‘we’?”)

“We are I and those people outside —we cannot condone your present
operations; they should be wiped off the slate.”



All the R&D and so-called intelligence applied to software and computer
development is USELESS to anyone but the 'war machine' if it's all about
ME, and not "those people outside".


http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/92438085944







> 
> The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay:
> 
> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignm
> ent/
> 
> =or=
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/zbig180
> 
> Wherein Brzezinski says:
> 
> "While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s
> economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly
> endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint
> tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail.
> Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some
> state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would
> spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably
> be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to
> fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially
> threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and
> then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least
> predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach.
> Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer
> run it could be China.
> 
> "Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more
> traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown
> comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of
> this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied
> with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental
> challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and
> effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And
> that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that
> recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.
> 
> ... and that's a paradigm shift, coming as it does from the man who
> created Al Qaida and laid the foundation for today's business as usual
> methods for regime change a.k.a. NeoColonial conquest.
> 
> We now return to our regularly scheduled Cypherpunks, a world of pure
> imagination where smart people like us would rise to the top of the
> social hierarchy on merit alone and fix the world, if only those
> damned [scapegoat name here] would get the hell out of our way.
> 
> :o)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [WAR] If Hillary Becomes USA President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?

[Cecilia Tanaka]

Guys, Hillary is crazy, but Trump is a complete psychopath, able of
alliances with other psychos, like Putin.

He will use the red button and "booom"...  Bye, bye world!  Not only my
grandparents' land this time.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it."
On Sep 1, 2016 11:29 AM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

> > Who is most likely to start WW3? Trump is an unknown to some degree.
> > Hillary is a certainty - her record is an absolute indictment.
>
> Trump is a business guy, and most biz he knows is real estate.
> Conventional war is big biz, but fucks other traditional biz like RE, and
> nuke war is simply death and irradiation. Trump won't turn the key, if for
> no other reason than his real estate buddies will kill kim, probably with
> their shovels while digging around in their rubble piles for casino tokens.
> Hillary's psychotic, turning the key would make her fucking day,
> probably in an 'oooh look at the pretty colors' lsd trip sorta way.
> Libs might ask WOPR about it, and Greens will stage a sit in.
> Can we get back to cpunk now. Or at least talk about PAL or
> some related crypto shit.
>

Re: [WAR] If Hillary Becomes USA President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?

[grarpamp]

> Who is most likely to start WW3? Trump is an unknown to some degree.
> Hillary is a certainty - her record is an absolute indictment.

Trump is a business guy, and most biz he knows is real estate.
Conventional war is big biz, but fucks other traditional biz like RE, and
nuke war is simply death and irradiation. Trump won't turn the key, if for
no other reason than his real estate buddies will kill kim, probably with
their shovels while digging around in their rubble piles for casino tokens.
Hillary's psychotic, turning the key would make her fucking day,
probably in an 'oooh look at the pretty colors' lsd trip sorta way.
Libs might ask WOPR about it, and Greens will stage a sit in.
Can we get back to cpunk now. Or at least talk about PAL or
some related crypto shit.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:27:30PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Yes some are paying America's usual price - Brazil, South America and
s/America/Africa/

Re: moving on (multiple future forks)

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 8/23/16 10:10 AM, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> Georgi Guninski  wrote:
>> IMHO two or more future lists won't hurt. Everyone can set a
>> cypherpunks list (but won't get the past reputation of this one, if any).
> This is how cpunks was run from 1997 until mid-2005, when this
> became the only node. It was called the CDR (Cypherpunks Distributed
> Remailer).

Cool.  On the previous question of replicated email and mailman servers, I was 
recently looking into ways to do that.  Since all
email messages have unique IDs already, it isn't difficult to replicate 
messages at any point while avoiding duplicates and loops. 
I was concerned with Postfix, Dovecot (in mbox mode), and Mailman.  This is a 
link dump on that subject.  More stars mean more
promising / less obsolete:
http://wiki.dovecot.org/Replication
* http://blog.dovecot.org/2012/02/dovecot-clustering-with-dsync-based.html
* https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/50955/postfix-dovecot-distributed-setup
** http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Tools/Doveadm/Sync
* http://www.linuxmail.info/postfix-backup-mx/
http://serverfault.com/questions/303554/how-to-build-a-high-availability-postfix-system

>
> It's a nice idea in theory, but (with all respect) the original
> implementation was far from pretty; kudos to Jim Choate and Igor
> Chudov for making it work at all :)
>
> In principle it should be pretty straightforward to make a "distributed
> mailman" setup work.  The high-level idea is that all the servers
> accept messages, and all messages get forwarded to all servers. Then
> each server decides based on local policy which messages get delivered
> to users. For example, someone might decide they want to run a cpunks
> node that's moderated, and the important thing is that only their
> subscribers would see the moderated version of the list---subscribers
> to another node could get the full feed.
>
> The server-server forwarding stuff is like 10 lines of procmail, and
> requires no changes to mailman. The part that gets slightly hairy is
> implementing subscriber-only filtering [1]. In a naive setup, every
> node needs to know every other node's subscriber list. In addition
> to the (completely surmountable but sometimes annoying) issues with
> distributed synchronization, this is potentially a privacy concern
> for list subscribers.
>
> One step toward fixing this would be for lists to blind their
> whitelists. For example, a list could publish a set of SHA256 hashes
> of suscriber addresses, or maybe even something more clever, e.g.,
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.8356
> But this still isn't perfect. For example, when a subscriber sends an
> email, each server gets to see which whitelist the subscriber matched
> against, which means that servers can keep track over time and build
> up a mapping from active posters to home nodes. This might not be
> a problem, but it's worth considering whether there's some approach
> that would fix this without too much computational overhead.

If people posted to the server that they are subscribed to and if servers 
accept email from subscribers including fully
authenticated other mailman servers, that would seem to work.  By not sending 
copies of posted messages back to the sender, the
originating mailman wouldn't get a second copy.  If the From was preserved in 
messages rather than a sister-mailman-ID, mailman
could still be made to be sure that it came from a trusted server.  A slight 
tweak to Mailman (or a procmail recipe) could support
signing the message or similar to indicate that it had been blessed on the 
sister system.  Or a sister-mailman ID could be used for
cross-mailman forwarding, with the original email ID in headers, possibly 
restored by a posting step.

I'd be fine running another node whenever someone wants to mess with it.  We 
should set up a test list to hack on it for a while. 
We ought to create a Docker or similar recipe for setting up a new node with a 
single step.

>
> [1] I understand that there are reasons to have a fully unregulated
> list, but in my view subscriber-only filtering plus whitelisting
> known remailers gives a good balance between ease of posting
> and good SNR. If I recall correctly, the LNE.com CDR node was
> the first to implement this policy, and I followed Eric's lead
> because it was far and away better than what came before it.
>
> -=rsw

sdw

Re: Fwd: Feminist Principles of the Internet

[Sangy]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:46:41AM -0300, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> Juan, my love, dear 'mal cogido' of my life,
> 
> Did I mention today how much I adore you?  *-*
> 
> With all my love and tenderness, ow!  <3
> 
> Ceci

You may find this[1]  interesting.

-S

[1] http://arrow.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AFC22.1-2016.pdf

Re: Fwd: Feminist Principles of the Internet

[Cecilia Tanaka]

On Sep 1, 2016 10:50 AM, "Sangy"  wrote
>
> You may find this[1]  interesting.
>
> -S
>
> [1] http://arrow.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AFC22.1-2016.pdf

Cool, Sangy!  Interesting material!  Thank you!  :D
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it."

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:27:30PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> We have the collective right to individual enlightenment! Who are we
> to deny that to the "lowest"?

Sorry, that should be as follows:
We have the collective right to a societal foundation supporting the
possibility of individual enlightenment

Re: Typical thread on cpunks (Was: Wodka xor Viskii)

[Cecilia Tanaka]

I choose swines too.  Oink oink, with pearls!  :D

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it."
On Sep 1, 2016 10:29 AM, "Cecilia Tanaka"  wrote:

> I choose
>
> love, love, love & kisses!!!  <3  <3  <3
>
> When Jake had choosen "love & orgasms", they made a lot of fake
> allegations against him and he lost his work at Tor Project.  :P
>
> --
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it."
> On Sep 1, 2016 10:22 AM, "Georgi Guninski"  wrote:
>
>> Typical thread on cpunks
>>
>> Subject: Wodka xor Viskii?
>>
>> ( ">"s truncated)
>>
>> > .us
>> >> cunt
>> > .ru
>> >> scumbag
>> > end of convo
>> >> double end convo^2
>> >>> love, love, love & kisses. 8 <-  o|o
>> > marxist
>> >> cunt^2
>> > scumbag^3
>> >>> love & orgasms
>> >> capitalist swine
>> > shit
>> >> shit^2
>> > end of convo^3
>> >> the convo ended
>> > shit
>> >> cunt^5
>> > quadratic cunt
>> >> ellipsoid cunt
>> > wodka!!
>> >> viskii!!
>>
>

Typical thread on cpunks (Was: Wodka xor Viskii)

[Georgi Guninski]

Typical thread on cpunks

Subject: Wodka xor Viskii?

( ">"s truncated)

> .us
>> cunt
> .ru
>> scumbag
> end of convo
>> double end convo^2
>>> love, love, love & kisses. 8 <-  o|o
> marxist
>> cunt^2
> scumbag^3
>>> love & orgasms
>> capitalist swine
> shit
>> shit^2
> end of convo^3
>> the convo ended
> shit
>> cunt^5
> quadratic cunt
>> ellipsoid cunt
> wodka!!
>> viskii!!

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:47:08AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> How about we implement a working AP system?

As I said in a previous thread, I now believe that to be fundamentally
flawed - that it will not achieve anything resembling justice, even in
the long term.

Fundamentally, the oligarchs and humans generally need a much higher
level of education and discourse.

"When all you have is a hammer ..."


In the current climate of a majority of extremely dummed down
"citizens", who are and feel disempowered, who cling to any iota of
power that presents such as any public lynching, where intelligent
"discourse" is simply not possible, restraint never exercised and
certainly not possible to exercise collectively, AP would be at best
a hammer to completely destroy society.


I support anarchism, not chaos.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:17:12PM +0900, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
> We do make sport of improvement plans for the global situation. I feel we
> do pretty well, probably on account of tossing history and a lot of feeling
> out of the window. More importantly, we ignore the difficulty of reaching
> the envisioned state. It is interesting, and could well improve our ideas
> of how things should be.
> 
> Reg. US/EU vs CN/RU, CN will overtake economic and thus military capacities
> well within 20 years. From that moment onward we are subject to Chinese
> politics.

Dichomatic position / dichotomy thinking / black white "options":

 - now we are not subject to "Chinese politics"

 - shortly we shall be "subject to" Chinese politics
   (and have no real say in the relationship)

Relationships are built. Over time.

Control (such as from WWII victor money printing) can be lost
overnight.

The world can change.

The world has changed.


> My guess is they will start with harassment of neighbouring
> countries, and just move on from there.

"and just move on from there ... harassing more and more countries"

"That's the only possible outcome, since that's all we can think of,
since we are the USA/ NATO/ CIA, and that's what we do to everyone else,
therefore that's what China will do, black / white, it must be so."


I don't know that you're not right. But I hold that more nuanced
conversations are much more useful, and more importantly I hold that
dichotomies are very useful for:

- propaganda

- steering converations in "desired" directions

- distracting the targetted minds from deeper thought

- justifying the tyranny "of our side" (since "their side is so bad, we
  must start war first, since now we can win, we must win, they will
  destroy us otherwise")



> Likely eventually
> forcing/negotiating a surrender, rather than WW3, on account of
> our pacifist intents.

More dichotomies. I have seen no one here promoting pacifism as the be
all and end all only solution to all problems.

Sounds like .. you guessed it .. more dichotomies!
Yay! We are -on- to it!

"If we don't strike now with a containable war, we shall be forced
to negotiate, to surrender, on terms which would be less favourable
than if we struck now."


Dunno about others, but I am hearing premises, assumptions and
foundations which are fundamentally mental! As in offensive. As in,
worthy of being shot down in flames.


> ATM we would win.

"We" being "the almighty north atlantic USA hegemonic exceptionalistan".

We got it, U !!  S !!  A !!

We would win !! We would win !!

Western hegemonic brothers fighting the good opportunistic fuck over the
asians, fuck over the russkies and cypriots, fuck over any who are
possibly weak enough to SURRENDER on ... that's it .. OUR TERMS!

YEAH, 'cause WE ARE THE WINNERS, and you know what? Yeah, WE OWN THE
FINISH LINE (for anyone who missed the recent posted links, that's
a quote from the DNC party head honcho recent speech - "we OWN the
finish line!").


I do not consent to "the West" acting as bullies all around the world.


Read my words again:


   I  do  not  consent  to  being  bullies.


Is common human decency so unacceptable these days?



> Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to
> provoke war on our terms.

Indeed. Of this I have no doubt.


> A war we would win - with large casualties. A war we should fight if
> we like democracy and individualistic financial economy, and that
> form of "do whatever you want" that we have.

Thank you for speaking so clearly. This honesty is genuinely needed at
this point in time, so that we might move forward in the conversation.

To respond to you:  Keh?!!!

Right now, at least for the next few short years until the USA
runs out of the credit from its inflation racket it has been exporting
to the rest of the world since WWII and Bretton Woods, the USA could
fund a war against "lesser, inferior nations" - let's not beat around
the bush, the two candidates are Russia and China, or quite probably
both allied together.

But how can you call the potential nuclear war which would almost
certainly break out, a "win"?

It would not be a win for nature. No win for the oceans or livable
land areas all over the West, China, Russia.

Even if the USA continues to use (with Israel) their tactical
"neutron" nukes, to minimize environmental damage and radioactive half
life decay to "reasonable" (you fuckers, the conversation has got to
this point - but this is who you are!!) evironmental consequence
levels, I guarantee you this:

Russia, and China, and possibly India if they were drawn in, will NOT
limit their counter punches to your fancy choice of weapons!

Russia first and foremost WILL punish the North Americans with the
most widespread and massive "traditional radioactive" atomic fallout
that they are capable of, should Exceptionalistan (the USA) move from
this line of thinking, into action.

Check out recent Russia-Insider.com for an article on Russia

Re: [WAR] ...

[Mirimir]

On 09/01/2016 03:17 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
> ... If you want to see what anarchy does, basically Detroit. As soon
> as things start looking better, it starts looking more like government.

You're probably right, given people as they are now :(

Old Bill Burroughs made the modest proposal of just killing the ~10% of
people who cause most of the trouble. The Shit Slaughter Squad, aka SSS
;) Clones across time of Kim Carsons, his killer escape child. And the
rest of the Johnson Family.

Me, I'd settle for bobblers and nukes :)

Re: [WAR] If Hillary Becomes USA President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?

[Lodewijk andré de la porte]

The way Hillary handled the North/South Korea issues during her term as Sec
of State was simply horrid, leading to the greatest tension in a very very
long time. Basically, showing the US' teeth to a cat in a corner. Just to
see if it really won't back down. It was a moronic policy, and could well
have led to casualties. If she wins and attempts to cause stuff like that
she just might succeed.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Lodewijk andré de la porte]

We do make sport of improvement plans for the global situation. I feel we
do pretty well, probably on account of tossing history and a lot of feeling
out of the window. More importantly, we ignore the difficulty of reaching
the envisioned state. It is interesting, and could well improve our ideas
of how things should be.

Reg. US/EU vs CN/RU, CN will overtake economic and thus military capacities
well within 20 years. From that moment onward we are subject to Chinese
politics. My guess is they will start with harassment of neighbouring
countries, and just move on from there. Likely eventually
forcing/negotiating a surrender, rather than WW3, on account of our
pacifist intents.

ATM we would win. Perhaps the idiotic US candidates are put forth to
provoke war on our terms. A war we would win - with large casualties. A war
we should fight if we like democracy and individualistic financial economy,
and that form of "do whatever you want" that we have. That is, if you
believe China would actually end up fighting, rather than becoming as
pacifist as the west. If you have ever spoken to Chinese, you will know the
latter to be less likely than the former. Of course, the world is banking
on peace - given we are allowing China to advance.

I do hope that China intentionally turns itself pacifist. It would save a
lot of lives, money and time. It's borders are large enough, most would
say. I cannot pretend to know "what China wants", so I cannot really say
how it will behave. My talks with Chinese have shown a pride in their
ignorance of politics. And a government in exclusively self-checked control.

As a side note: I would propose we split the world into countries of equal
population, introducing a GDP based tax to (softly) ease imbalance between
these new nations. It only requires a bye-bye to nationalism. The size of
each nation should be chosen based on evidence of that size being effective
- which sizes of government perform better. The internal structure of a
nation is quite moot. Whatever works. War would be illegal. Natural
resources and permissible pollution should be auctioned on a global market.
We can have a shared (UN?) court for determining things like permissible
pollution and settling lawsuits that are carried all the way up. For
settling disputes between nations, and their adherence to global law.

I'd like to see "timeliness of justice" to exist. I'd like to see the US'
pieces remove it's landmines, and stop it's hollow points etc, and stop
killing it's citizens without due process, and for Israel not to drop white
phosphorous into civil areas, and for Russia not to annex nations, and for
China to stop polluting the planet to beyond critical, for European nations
to make good on their human rights promises regarding immigrants, for
someone, anyone really, to stop ISIS' obvious human rights offenses, etc,
etc, etc.

It should be politics like we're used to. Only we've levelled the players'
fields to make the game better. And stand a chance at forcing good
behaviour.

So, can we achieve this system? Of course not. But would it work? Well, not
trivially, but yes, it would be better than the Pax Americana. Or, I guess,
the peace of those that actually "run" the US. (probably some
association(s?) of people with outrageous capital looking to expand their
circle of capitalism/power to the rest of the world?)

Reg. brainwashing and individual power, I know you want brainwashing to be
responsible, but most likely the brainwashing is generally improving the
situation. People are the problem, not all, but many, and the brainwashing,
through religion, television, smart filtering, is primarily making them
behave in a way that is generally civilised and cooperative. I don't know
what else it does, of course, but without the brainwash people are probably
less nice, not more nice, and individual control is just awful. If only
because less disparity means less friction means less trouble. If you want
to see what anarchy does, basically Detroit. As soon as things start
looking better, it starts looking more like government.

/rant

Re: [WAR] ...

[Mirimir]

On 09/01/2016 02:17 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:01:41AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
>> On 08/31/2016 11:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
>>> On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote:
> 
> Mirimir, fantastic post. And a choice quote to succinctly summarise from
> the Brzezinski essay a possibly fundamental paradigm shift about to take
> hold of the USA - we can only hope.

All states are criminal organizations. They all lie. Best to ignore it.

 By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always
 filter these/all of Zen's letters.
>>>
>>> Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are
>>> products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of intelligence
>>> in the driver's seat would automatically create optimum solutions to
>>> all those problems.
> 
> Yep :)
> 
> 
>> Well, I do assert that stupidity is the key problem.
> 
> Our "modern" schooling and brainwashing system has been carefully
> designed, well funded, state troopers in the USA have brought the home
> schooling rebels to heel, and the programming continues.
> 
> Yes, stupidity prevails.
> 
> And yes, this is intended.
> 
> 
>> But in my humble
>> opinion, the only viable solution is absolute individual autonomy.
> 
> Absolutely with you on this one!
> 
> Very, very sadly, we have a world of nations and oligarchs which are
> almost entirely antithetical to true individual autonomy and
> sovereignty.

No shit! So we need to be sneaky, hidden, subversive, playful, ...

>>> Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given relevant and accurate
>>> data to work from:  Context is everything, and in a world dominated
>>> by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more subversive than the facts.
>>
>> It's all bullshit.
> 
> BEEP BEEP BEEP does BEEP not compu73#@$#@!! BEEP BEEP
> 
> Actions please.
> 
> Short of action, constructive suggestions.
> 
> Short of constructive suggestions, research/ highlight a problem for
> collective consideration.

How about we implement a working AP system?

>>> The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay:
>>
>> Fuck them all.
> 
> Much evil is in the world.
> 
> Our efforts are needed now more than ever.

Most such efforts are a waste of time. Trying to fix or change shit just
makes it stronger. You need to turn away, and create your own future.
Maybe break some stuff, just for kicks ;)

Fwd: Feminist Principles of the Internet

[Cecilia Tanaka]

Juan, my love, dear 'mal cogido' of my life,

Did I mention today how much I adore you?  *-*

With all my love and tenderness, ow!  <3

Ceci

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it."
-- Forwarded message --
From: "nettime's token feminist" 
Date: Aug 31, 2016 10:44 AM
Subject:  Feminist Principles of the Internet
To: 

August 26, 2016

www.feministinternet.net


Preamble

A feminist internet works towards empowering more women and queer
persons – in all our diversities – to fully enjoy our rights, engage in
pleasure and play, and dismantle patriarchy. This integrates our
different realities, contexts and specificities – including age,
disabilities, sexualities, gender identities and expressions,
socioeconomic locations, political and religious beliefs, ethnic
origins, and racial markers. The following key principles are critical
towards realising a feminist internet.

__Access

1 Access to the internet

A feminist internet starts with enabling more women and queer persons to
enjoy universal, acceptable, affordable, unconditional, open, meaningful
and equal access to the internet.

2 Access to information

We support and protect unrestricted access to information relevant to
women and queer persons, particularly information on sexual and
reproductive health and rights, pleasure, safe abortion, access to
justice, and LGBTIQ issues. This includes diversity in languages,
abilities, interests and contexts.

3 Usage of technology

Women and queer persons have the right to code, design, adapt and
critically and sustainably use ICTs and reclaim technology as a platform
for creativity and expression, as well aschallenge the cultures of
sexism and discrimination in all spaces.

__Movements & public participation

4 Resistance

The internet is a space where social norms are negotiated, performed and
imposed, often in an extension of other spaces shaped by patriarchy and
heteronormativity. Our struggle for a feminist internet is one that
forms part of a continuum of our resistance in other spaces, public,
private and in-between.

5 Movement building

The internet is a transformative political space. It facilitates new
forms of citizenship that enable individuals to claim, construct and
express selves, genders and sexualities. This includes connecting across
territories, demanding accountability and transparency, and creating
opportunities for sustained feminist movement building.

6 Internet governance

We believe in challenging the patriarchal spaces and processes that
control internet governance, as well as putting more feminists and
queers at the decision-making tables. We want to democratise policy
making affecting the internet as well as diffuse ownership of and power
in global and local networks.

__Economy

7. Alternative economies

We are committed to interrogating the capitalist logic that drives
technology towards further privatisation, profit and corporate control.
We work to create alternative forms of economic power that are grounded
in principles of cooperation, solidarity, commons, environmental
sustainability, and openness.

8. Free and open source

We are committed to creating and experimenting with technology,
including digital safety and security, and using free/libre and open
source software (FLOSS), tools, and platforms. Promoting, disseminating,
and sharing knowledge about the use of FLOSS is central to our praxis.

__Expression

9 Amplifying feminist discourse

We claim the power of the internet to amplify women’s narratives and
lived realities. There is a need to resist the state, the religious
right and other extremist forces who monopolise discourses of morality,
while silencing feminist voices and persecuting women’s human rights
defenders.

10 Freedom of expression

We defend the right to sexual expression as a freedom of expression
issue of no less importance than political or religious expression. We
strongly object to the efforts of state and non-state actors to control,
surveil, regulate and restrict feminist and queer expression on the
Internet through technology, legislation or violence. We recognise this
as part of the larger political project of moral policing, censorship,
and hierarchisation of citizenship and rights.

11 Pornography and “harmful content”

We recognise that the issue of pornography online has to do with agency,
consent, power and labour. We reject simple causal linkages made between
consumption of pornographic content and violence against women. We also
reject the use of the umbrella term “harmful content”label expression on
female and transgender sexuality. We support reclaiming and creating
alternative erotic content that resists the mainstream patriarchal gaze
and locates women and queer persons’ desires at the centre.

__Agency

12 Consent

We call on the need to build an ethics and politics of consent into the
culture, design, policies and terms of service of internet platforms.
Women’s agency lies

Re: [tor-talk] http://jacobappelbaum.net/

[Cecilia Tanaka]

Why does someone watch p0rn before sleeping, when can watch Putin videos?
Oooh, orgasms...  *-*

http://youtu.be/wHfy2P9vd0c


Wet dreams, Mirimir, love of my life!  <3

Received the "Cecilian Seal of Approval", yummy!  Nom nom nom!  <3

http://look-cuter.myshopify.com/products/seal-of-approval?variant=3088483457

Re: [WAR] If Hillary Becomes USA President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?

[jim bell]

In 1964, the Democrats ran a famous commercial, a little girl counting flower 
petals, turning into an image of the explosion of an atomic 
bomb.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

Trying to suggest that Barry Goldwater would get us into war.
I think that a major element of the hypocrisy was that in 1964, Lyndon Johnson 
was busy getting usinto the Vietnam war, in which about 55,000 American 
soldiers died, and who knows howmany Vietnamese.                Jim Bell



  From: Zenaan Harkness 

Who is most likely to start WW3? Trump is an unknown to some degree.
Hillary is a certainty - her record is an absolute indictment.

Feel free to flip a coin though..


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:44:39PM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> dude, you anti-mericun troll, no?
> 
> not reading you much, but how comes you troll "HILLARY WAR!!!" and don't
> appear to troll the greedy crazy clown?
> 
> are anti-bitch prices higher and you must chose only one?
> 
> (expect trolling from Александр).
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 08:54:48PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > Somewhat hyperbolic, so, is the message valid?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If Hillary Becomes President, Will We Have a Nuclear War?
> > http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-vs-hillary-if-hillary-gets-into-the-oval-office-i-predict-nuclear-war-before-her-first-term-is-over/5542397
> > (Alt:
> > http://russia-insider.com/en/if-hillary-gets-oval-office-will-we-have-nuclear-war/ri16123
> > )


   

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:17:57PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:01:41AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> > On 08/31/2016 11:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> > > On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote:
> 
> Mirimir, fantastic post. And a choice quote to succinctly summarise from

Sorry, mixed them up - I meant Steve Kinney - fantastic post thanks!

Re: [WAR] ...

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:01:41AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 11:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> > On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote:

Mirimir, fantastic post. And a choice quote to succinctly summarise from
the Brzezinski essay a possibly fundamental paradigm shift about to take
hold of the USA - we can only hope.


> >> By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always
> >> filter these/all of Zen's letters.
> > 
> > Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are
> > products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of intelligence
> > in the driver's seat would automatically create optimum solutions to
> > all those problems.

Yep :)


> Well, I do assert that stupidity is the key problem.

Our "modern" schooling and brainwashing system has been carefully
designed, well funded, state troopers in the USA have brought the home
schooling rebels to heel, and the programming continues.

Yes, stupidity prevails.

And yes, this is intended.


> But in my humble
> opinion, the only viable solution is absolute individual autonomy.

Absolutely with you on this one!

Very, very sadly, we have a world of nations and oligarchs which are
almost entirely antithetical to true individual autonomy and
sovereignty.


> > Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given relevant and accurate
> > data to work from:  Context is everything, and in a world dominated
> > by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more subversive than the facts.
> 
> It's all bullshit.

BEEP BEEP BEEP does BEEP not compu73#@$#@!! BEEP BEEP

Actions please.

Short of action, constructive suggestions.

Short of constructive suggestions, research/ highlight a problem for
collective consideration.


> > The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay:
> 
> Fuck them all.

Much evil is in the world.

Our efforts are needed now more than ever.

Re: [tor-talk] http://jacobappelbaum.net/

[Cecilia Tanaka]

On Sep 1, 2016 5:08 AM, "Cecilia Tanaka"  wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2016 2:53 PM, "Juan"  wrote:
>
> >>  Original Message 
> >> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] http://jacobappelbaum.net/
> >> Local Time: August 30, 2016 7:26 AM
> >> UTC Time: August 30, 2016 2:26 PM
> >> From: cecilia.tan...@gmail.com
> >> To: cypherpu...@cpunks.org
> >>
> >>  >
> >
> > LMFAO -
>
> It has the Cecilian Seal of Approval!  Pretty cute, nom nom nom!  <3
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/gemmacorrell/8499889901

It's better, nom nom nom!!!  <3  <3  <3

http://look-cuter.myshopify.com/products/seal-of-approval?variant=3088483457

Re: [tor-talk] http://jacobappelbaum.net/

[Cecilia Tanaka]

On Aug 31, 2016 2:53 PM, "Juan"  wrote:

>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] http://jacobappelbaum.net/
>> Local Time: August 30, 2016 7:26 AM
>> UTC Time: August 30, 2016 2:26 PM
>> From: cecilia.tan...@gmail.com
>> To: cypherpu...@cpunks.org
>>
>> 
>
> LMFAO -

It has the Cecilian Seal of Approval!  Pretty cute, nom nom nom!  <3

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gemmacorrell/8499889901

Re: distractions

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:07:59PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 10:29 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:50PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> >> On 08/31/2016 09:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >>> Whilst those with any passion for actual political anarchy (aka direct
> >>> democracy) are drowned out with rather pathetic psyop attempts at
> >>> steering the conversation,
> >>>
> >>> the space to inspire newcomers is white noise.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Oh My God! How could the CIA say such stoopid things?!"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But folks need their emotional entertainment.
> >>
> >> Dude, you mainly post boringly blatant propaganda. It's embarrassing.
> > 
> > I'll accept some responsibility for that.
> > 
> > My intention is always to raise "the public discourse", although my
> > ability and methods fall well short, sadly.
> 
> Hey Zenaan, I apologize. I am pointedly apolitical,

No probs. re "being apolitical", I hate politics. We are unfortunately
stuck with the world as it currently is, so any attempt to improve
things starts from -now- (and not from some other place we would prefer
things to be).


> in the sense that
> it's a waste of time.

Well this I disagree with (you might have guessed :)

Promoting anarchism (if you can, even in a small way) is a political
action.


> I don't have much patience for debating anarchy. I
> just do whatever pleases me :)

Sure. If you don't want to debate anarchy that's fine, but perhaps,
to the extent possible, identify those who are hard core anarchists,
and perhaps try to at least avoid being oppositional to them (unless
they actually let a non-anarchistic position slip in of course) - you
see, "getting pissed off because the conversation got a bit flamey
for personal liking, and expressing that" might be considered by some
to be getting in the way :/

As said many times (and not only by me), I am quite guilty of letting my
emotions overtake my conversations.

Another thing to watch out for (perhaps, "do what you want", etc), is
getting vehement about truly, and bloody obviously so, statist positions
("cars suck rocks! DMV rules!" comes to mind for no particular reason).


> >>> The real questions and discussions we ought be having here -
> >>> coordinating inspired groups, facilitating clarity on the fundamentals
> >>> of political anarchism, these largely don't exist or are drowned out.
> 
> I'd like to see some substantive discussion of alternate anonymity
> systems. Maybe pointers to what's actually being implemented.

Well between grarpamp, the Johns, Juan and a bunch others, the
-existing- systems have been pretty well hashed out on this very list,
in the last 18 months.

Diversity is good. Pick a useful place to start, and get involved -
if you're not a programmer, perhaps start testing and reviewing in
various ways the ROTOR ALL CAPS GROUP releases, or I'm sure I2P will be
greatful for some love.


Seriously, there is NO shortage of possible -actions- which can move
privacy technologies in useful directions.


A personal favourite: meet in your area with "community wireless",
municipal wireless, and Neighbour to Neighbour wired, groups, and fuel
the debate.

And, more importantly, roll out your own ethernet network between you
and your immediate neighbours.

Perhaps learn how to set up one of the libre-software running routers in
a "mesh network" topology.


We, as a group, HAVE to do better.


There is ALWAYS room for inspiration, action, and new ideas.

   "
   If you don't own it, you don't control it.
   If you don't control it, it shall be used against you.
   "
   Anon.


So, get the fuck cracking already :)

The world of non technically literate humans, and the world of "privacy
technologies", desperately needs -you-.

As in you, Mirimir, personally :)


> >> Right, mostly by your bullshit. And Juan's scatological blather.
> >>
> >> Maybe someone ought to resurrect fcpunks ;)
> >>
> >> 
> > 
> > Rather than blandly slathering my words in the email you replied to with
> > your "crap" opinion, why not try to raise the discourse to your
> > standard?
> > 
> > You know, statements such as "that's blatantly not true" or "I disagree
> > with that, and say a) ... b) ... etc"
> > ?
> 
> I don't have time for parsing one set of bullshit against another. It's
> all propaganda, from one player or another, and best ignored.

Yes, you're gettin the program :D

Everything --is-- propaganda, and another way to say it is:

   Everything, but everything, is political.

With you bro!

Man the fuck up, get past your inner turmoil and emotions around "he
said the naughty word to me, waah" and get cracking! The world,
seriously, needs you!


> > PLEASE, bring a "great" conversation! In my experience, that's one of
> > the most challenging undertakings as a human, and my personal difficulty
> > in achieving "useful/ relevant/ great..." conversations brings me to
> > tears. But I don't have time for emotional bullshit, so I can do is keep
> > trying t

Re: distractions

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:11:50PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
> Right, mostly by your bullshit. And Juan's scatological blather.

So flowery words are the part you find relevant.

Got it.

Re: [WAR] ...

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 09/01/2016 02:01 AM, Mirimir wrote:

>> Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are 
>> products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of
>> intelligence in the driver's seat would automatically create
>> optimum solutions to all those problems.
> 
> Well, I do assert that stupidity is the key problem. But in my
> humble opinion, the only viable solution is absolute individual
> autonomy.
> 
>> Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given relevant and
>> accurate data to work from:  Context is everything, and in a
>> world dominated by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more
>> subversive than the facts.
> 
> It's all bullshit.
> 
>> The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this
>> essay:
> 
> Fuck them all.

Hum.  A single, simple abstraction (point to an autonomy, what does it
weigh?), supported by content free two value non-reasoning (name
calling, battle cry).

Sounds a lot like a satire of religious fundamentalism.

:o)


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXx9neAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqZVgH/3pymyhRJ+Njkm99MkFzifQ5
ZE2EGMjHVK5fCGmqehHJ67OTq5m5mfgV2ZeEHJz9sLMRzKY+95dAmcZkPzrOy/eY
vZ3TJcWVjr8UwnZ763rnggw8TCXZZvs38BEp5IONlHAuAqMNlDUUkMFa1aqFWt41
JcL8g289gHBzdkwEgK2FSByAE92h9dgWspOHkJ3F7qjO0LfM8786oRaE+RVm2odk
0cxiPd/9iAviL0KNZ9PG5aUAYeuJGUODIxVhiYc+JPckfQLMWvkqwKOO97lLxhay
86ipzq/wHjXS5mGLxcUWPGNIVeu3l+w4qIpS3qHUu4z3gwFLqBgo0FkRklke08w=
=zrVL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-