Re: [RUS] A spy goes to Lubyanka - Putin the comedian

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 03:27:36PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> http://in.rbth.com/arts/people/2016/10/07/the-lighter-side-of-putin-the-spy-who-couldnt-surrender_636647

I just loved that dirty scowl from Merkel when Putin tells her on international
TV "well, like first wedding night, -someones- going to get !@#!@#ed".


Now here someone points out the obvious - Western media is creating
Putin the Superhero:

"
Only a superhero can bomb terrorists, drive up oil prices, hack
Democratic Party servers in the US, influence American elections, and
drag Ukraine away from the European path and more all at the same time.

In fact, I am 100% sure that the blame for the next wave of the global
economic crisis will be at least partially put on Putin. It turns out
that Western politicians have created the Putin superhero image and are
now wondering: “But what audience likes this?”
"

The "Putin Phenomenon" and Western Media: An Autopsy
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/the-putin-phenomenon-and-western-media.html

Re: Scientific Progress

[juan]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:58:24 +0200
Tom  wrote:

> But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists
> and so on are fascists, parasites,

It's obvious that all 'scieniists' working for the state are
parasites working for fascist states. Perhaps you need to
research the nature of the political system you live in a bit
more?



> or idiots, who are the sane people
> left?
> 
> Only you, the russians and the Juan's out there? 
> 
> C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist
> is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language
> conspiracy!


I thought it was clear that any dissenter gets silenced or
ignored. So you could have saved yourself the misrepresentatin.
It's not 'every' one, just the majority.


On the other hand, I'm familiar with 'libertarian'
anti-conspiracy bullshit, so you could save it too for...other
audiences.

> 
> What next? Reptiles governing us? Earth is flat?  Bielefeld doesn't
> exist?
> 
> Fuckers. Indeed.

Re: Scientific Progress

[Tom]

But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and
so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left?

Only you, the russians and the Juan's out there? 

C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is
part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language
conspiracy!

What next? Reptiles governing us? Earth is flat? Bielefeld doesn't
exist?

Fuckers. Indeed.

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[juan]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:30:36 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

> I'm not going to be drawn into Juan's nonsense.         Jim Bell


Translation : you can't counter a single thing I said =)

So again, anybody who believes in the 'authority' of the state
is NOT a libertarian. Full stop.





> 
>   From: juan 
>  To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
>  Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:58 AM
>  Subject: Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their
> own oppression 
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:48:57 + (UTC)
> jim bell  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Razer 
> > The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is
> > this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's
> > infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be
> > Anarchist ... because they believe in government. Small, but they
> > BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest
> > of the people, or it can be made so.
> > 
> > Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist
> > libertarians".  
> 
> 
>     No. So called 'minarchist' 'libertarians' are just statists,
>     not libertarians. They believe in murdering anyone who doesn't
>     obey the Holy State.
> 
> 
> >I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I
> > discovered/invented my AP system.  
> 
> 
>     So you were a plain old statist who didn't study libertarian
>     philosophy well enough. 
> 
> 
> > Afterwards, I realized not only
> > that having no government was possible, it was essentially
> > inevitable. 
> 
>     That is not true. Your AP system isn't going to magically get
>     rid of government. There's absolutely no reason why it must
>     'inevitable' lead to anarchy. 
> 
> 
>     To sum up : actual and consistent libertarians existed way
>     before 'assasination politics'. Consistent libertarianism has
>     nothing to do with utilitarian and or 'practical'
>     considerations. 
> 
> 
> > Note:  It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say:
> >  "Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...because they believe in
> > government."Libertarians believe in a certain set of limits to
> > people's relationships and interactions with other people.  A
> > Libertarian may believe that a small government is tolerable, and
> > maybe still necessary; other libertarians may believe that a stable
> > anarchy is possible.  (As I now do.) Jim Bell  
> 
> 
>

Scientific Progress

[coresamples]

> Juan:
> Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites,
> pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists.

The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the
spiritually dyslexic, and the philosophically depraved.

To put it into other terms:

If you want happiness in this crazy world, you do not talk sex to eunuchs.

These "scientists" are emotional, spiritual, and philisophical eunuchs.

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[jim bell]

I'm not going to be drawn into Juan's nonsense.         Jim Bell

  From: juan 
 To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
 Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:58 AM
 Subject: Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own 
oppression
   
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:48:57 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

> 
> 
>  From: Razer 
> The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is
> this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's
> infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be
> Anarchist ... because they believe in government. Small, but they
> BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest
> of the people, or it can be made so.
> 
> Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist
> libertarians".  


    No. So called 'minarchist' 'libertarians' are just statists,
    not libertarians. They believe in murdering anyone who doesn't
    obey the Holy State.


>I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I
> discovered/invented my AP system.  


    So you were a plain old statist who didn't study libertarian
    philosophy well enough. 


> Afterwards, I realized not only
> that having no government was possible, it was essentially
> inevitable. 

    That is not true. Your AP system isn't going to magically get
    rid of government. There's absolutely no reason why it must
    'inevitable' lead to anarchy. 


    To sum up : actual and consistent libertarians existed way
    before 'assasination politics'. Consistent libertarianism has
    nothing to do with utilitarian and or 'practical'
    considerations. 


> Note:  It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say:
>  "Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...because they believe in
> government."Libertarians believe in a certain set of limits to
> people's relationships and interactions with other people.  A
> Libertarian may believe that a small government is tolerable, and
> maybe still necessary; other libertarians may believe that a stable
> anarchy is possible.  (As I now do.) Jim Bell  


   

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[Cari Machet]

Switzerland has a degree of direct democracy ... they vote on the budget

No state system could satisfy anything i desire for too many reasons but i
just want others to understand there is a long standing > 1700's > system
that develops forms of direct democracy

Not all anarchists think dd is anarchy but that just means they dont
understand its conceptual history

Maybe they dont understand anarchy at all really

Assange has said he is a libertarian wonder if he still after all these
embassy prison years thinks its viable esp now with no intertubes in prison

On Oct 24, 2016 8:51 PM, "jim bell"  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Razer 
> The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is this
> list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's infested
> almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...
> because they believe in government. Small, but they BELIEVE that the US
> political system actually works in the interest of the people, or it can
> be made so.
>
> Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist
> libertarians".  I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I
> discovered/invented my AP system.   Afterwards, I realized not only that
> having no government was possible, it was essentially inevitable.
>
> Note:  It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say:  "Libertarians CANNOT
> be Anarchist ...because they believe in government."
> Libertarians believe in a certain set of limits to people's relationships
> and interactions with other people.  A Libertarian may believe that a small
> government is tolerable, and maybe still necessary; other libertarians may
> believe that a stable anarchy is possible.  (As I now do.)
>
>Jim Bell
>

Global warming/climate change

[coresamples]

Of course the global climate is changing!

> Tom:
> Lern something useful instead of wasting other peoples time

>From your statements I would assume that you believe you have a degree of
climate science education. So tell me, when has the global climate not
been changing? What actual empirical evidence, independent of adjusted
computer models, is there that most of the warming of the last century is
due to human activities when the global climate actually began warming at
the end of the little Ice Age in the mid-19th century, nearly a century
before significant introduction of fossil fuel derived CO2 to the
atmosphere?

Need answers, look to your science god and ask about the core samples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_sample

Fuckers.

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[juan]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:48:57 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

> 
> 
>  From: Razer 
> The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is
> this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's
> infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be
> Anarchist ... because they believe in government. Small, but they
> BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest
> of the people, or it can be made so.
> 
> Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist
> libertarians".  


No. So called 'minarchist' 'libertarians' are just statists,
not libertarians. They believe in murdering anyone who doesn't
obey the Holy State.


>I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I
> discovered/invented my AP system.  


So you were a plain old statist who didn't study libertarian
philosophy well enough. 


> Afterwards, I realized not only
> that having no government was possible, it was essentially
> inevitable. 

That is not true. Your AP system isn't going to magically get
rid of government. There's absolutely no reason why it must
'inevitable' lead to anarchy. 


To sum up : actual and consistent libertarians existed way
before 'assasination politics'. Consistent libertarianism has
nothing to do with utilitarian and or 'practical'
considerations. 


> Note:  It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say:
>  "Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...because they believe in
> government."Libertarians believe in a certain set of limits to
> people's relationships and interactions with other people.  A
> Libertarian may believe that a small government is tolerable, and
> maybe still necessary; other libertarians may believe that a stable
> anarchy is possible.  (As I now do.) Jim Bell   

Re: Waffling On Full Disclosure: Lawrence Lessig, Steven Levy

[jim bell]

 From: grarpamp 

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/22/0417250/should-journalists-ignore-some-leaked-emails
http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and
https://backchannel.com/when-is-it-ok-to-mine-hacked-emails-1f2081122915

>Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which
>showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer:
>"I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't
>for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." 

Proving that Lessig is dumber, and even more solidly entrenched in THE 
ESTABLISHMENT, than we previously believed.  These people are crazy and biased. 
             Jim Bell   

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[jim bell]

 From: Razer 
The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is this
list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's infested
almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...
because they believe in government. Small, but they BELIEVE that the US
political system actually works in the interest of the people, or it can
be made so.

Not exactly, There are "anarchist libertarians" and "minarchist libertarians".  
I was one of the latter, before 1995 when I discovered/invented my AP system.   
Afterwards, I realized not only that having no government was possible, it was 
essentially inevitable.
Note:  It is, strictly speaking, incorrect to say:  "Libertarians CANNOT be 
Anarchist ...because they believe in government."Libertarians believe in a 
certain set of limits to people's relationships and interactions with other 
people.  A Libertarian may believe that a small government is tolerable, and 
maybe still necessary; other libertarians may believe that a stable anarchy is 
possible.  (As I now do.)
           Jim Bell   

Re: Global warming/climate change

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 10/24/2016 12:54 PM, jim bell wrote:

> I am aware that climate models run on very powerful computers,
> using extremely sophisticated mathematical models that are being
> continually improved.

Glittering Generalities much lately?

> I am open to the possibility that there may one day be an apparent
> problem, qualitatively.  But science doesn't know, quantitatively,
> what the size of the problem is.

So calculation of CO2 discharges based on fuel consumption statistics,
which correlate with contemporary and historical atmospheric CO2
measurements, which correlate with historical and contemporary
measurements of ocean surface pH, which correlate with measurements of
atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, etc. are not quantitative?  One
might try to dispute the causal links between some of these observed
phenomena, but that would be an uphill battle against a /massive/
consensus of professionals in the relevant fields.

So far, those with the most to gain or lose financially - our
petrochemicails industries - have had to resort to classic propaganda
techniques to dispute the current consensus model in geophysics.

> This solution will, however, piss off the AGW (anthropogenic Global
> Warming) fanatics, if for no other reason that it will seem to them
> to be too easy.

Name Calling much lately?

;o)





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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYDkdUAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqFUIIAI9C/rOMd7n/0LwoRwooC466
CoSTEyIytrn3H3ospQoK4Sd1lG1PQ9YNMowRp0o73+VeABAdhOeRd/ofP0SOT9Jp
2Gtkig342+mfEC/GHl5bu9fCH3RMIOe+enI3tYOvEX7MjAqkqk+9QuCRTwMab+yt
zmdLJF+yKTMTlDaOqKQqgffKLisAtyOb4alBNgxfZTC00qDwapRD0Xm5tIDf6PLS
PbyUzXdoH1dIgDxL3FwyF5G3a/EYrsww2Wdy9Y3C9/53cSjEkC8AjAh3f5Fbb62/
4kCDtzUh7A8B2B9oyFqknCv4+IF1Lcdu1rDq+wmecA4uRxlyd1wSAy6L0bHfoIA=
=UAIt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Anarchitecture

[Plan View]

Where will we find complete, formal documentation on architectural drawing
specifications and guidelines for the Uê?

Re: Global warming/climate change

[juan]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:41:55 -0400
Steve Kinney  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/24/2016 10:03 AM, John Newman wrote:
> > 
> >> On Oct 24, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Zenaan Harkness 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Another to add to the viewing list:
> >> 
> >> Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half
> >> an hr on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing
> >> controversy,
> > 
> > What controversy?  A few badly confused outliers is not a
> > controversy.
> 
> Attributing the widely promoted views of these individuals to
> confusion is a very charitable assessment.  Anyone with a Ph.D. in any
> of the sciences who speaks against the overwhelming consensus model


As if truth was a matter of mob agreement. 


> in
> climatology and misrepresents the data supporting it obtains patronage
> from two of the most powerful industries in the world:  Petrochemicals
> and Public Relations.

Go ahead, ignore the fact that your consensus of academic
parasites is exactly that. Your climate 'scientists' are highly
paid university parasites, pandering to 'progressive' eco
fascists. 

If you are going to look at incentives do it in a
consistent manner. 

And let me see. Is ther e 'progressive' 'eco friendly'
highly subsidized 'industry' out there? Why, yes, there
is. 

Maybe the 'green' industries' have some sort of
incentives for spewing 'global-warming-climate-change'
propaganda? 



> Patronage is also available to anyone who is
> paid to stand in front of a blue screen and talk about the weather:  A
> strong consensus among meteorologists (and other entertainers)
> supports Barnum's Law, which states "There is no such thing as bad
> publicity."
> 
> The same propaganda techniques used in the long war against medical
> science conducted by tobacco companies 



Actually, weren't your beloved 'medical' 'scientists' in bed
with the tobacco companies? 


Et cetera. 






> have been recycled by today's
> campaigns against climatology, because they work.  Opposing physical
> reality by lying about it may appear to be a losing battle but look
> again:  A delaying action that only costs a few million dollars, while
> enabling its sponsoring industries to harvest tens of billions of
> dollars while a fabricated "debate" drags on, is a net winning
> strategy.
> 
> >> along with his unique viewpoints: 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
> 
> "Unique viewpoints" in the physical sciences /rarely/ turn out to be
> useful.  When they are not products of simple error or crackpot
> beliefs, "unique viewpoints" don't stay unique for more than a few
> months and get incorporated into consensus models within a few years.
> 
> So many videos, so little time.  Promoters of the "chemtrails"
> delusion also publish lots of videos on YouTube:  First, because their
> target demographic will not read anything longer than a typical
> Facebook post; second, because A/V presentations are inherently more
> persuasive than print; third, because dissecting bullshit and lies
> presented in video format requires one to first type a transcript of
> that bullshit in order to quote and comment on it.  And why bother?
> True Believers are emotionally invested in "being right" and mere
> facts will not persuade them, especially when they are presented with
> a continuing stream of professionally crafted rationalizations
> supporting their belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYDjnTAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqTJgH/04Jw1RQjTx9KpSmxHvMoQ0M
> jkBXssGVm4OWMqwKlYLDaEr2xTig6yZQybcRUHHTxWyH975+omNoFj2CIczy5iVX
> rCAdqLCf2qB+1Oc58c3FN2dkJTF7JwGVwlUw1KbdKZhO5IfrrpNqf6zcpFaJHtfm
> RG91Q89HjUPS8MF2kJc2jyXaNDaE7FrIFVb0RSNBgzqx6Qv3MM+7Cc2m0+RrECwD
> 95AhKrBglbsIie7D2Apra5PFWE/Ube+aCps/prBJofb/7y6B2xF285xRZf3MOltO
> CC0pt3avCCTgJcgp7u2UbLmbDKyh/BKIvIVY7e4vjzFqV5L3sX9eJPvANfMRACQ=
> =NLTL
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[juan]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:13:39 -0700
Razer  wrote:

> The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is
> this list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's
> infested almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be
> Anarchist ...

Actually, advocates of so called 'limited' or 'minimal'
government cannot be libertarians. The foundation of
libertarian phylosophy is personal rights (life, liberty,
property). Any government, by definition, must violate those
rights to some 'limited' degree, so a 'libertarian' government
is self-refuting. It cannot exist.


On the other hand I do agree that any sort of support for the
'democratic' system is sheer nonsense from the point of view of
people interested in any sort of radical change. 


> because they believe in government. Small, but they
> BELIEVE that the US political system actually works in the interest
> of the people, or it can be made so.

To state the obvious : no statist political system works in the
interest of the subjects...

> 
> Rr
> 
> 
> On 10/24/2016 04:48 AM, Cari Machet wrote:
> > Finding it hard in my soul that i once again agree with razer but
> > then again i always say "mass murderers are sometimes nice to
> > others" so no one is completely dark
> > 
> > On Oct 24, 2016 5:12 AM, "Razer"  wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/23/2016 06:28 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >>
> >>> Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not
> >>> the answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the
> >>> above, "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.
> >>
> >>
> >> You think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what
> >> vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the
> >> above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere.
> >>
> >> It's the only logical choice when all you're being offered is
> >> Fascists to vote for and you have a bunch of lame schmucks who
> >> think voting for a third party is either a wasted vote or
> >> assisting one of the candidates.
> >>
> >> That IS the level of COWARDICE seen in America today (Shawn
> >> Quinn), and that cowardice HAS created the mess we're in because
> >> sheeple willingly go to their slaughter.
> >>
> >> Btw, Bernie Sanders is a National Socialist. Jill Stein invited
> >> him to join her, NOT to coopt what passes for real socialism and
> >> destroy the US Green Party due to attrition of the base, who only
> >> vote for internationalist socialists. He won't. Most likely what
> >> would happen is the Greens would be overwhelmed by
> >> progressive-liberals and the party destroyed, so it all just as
> >> well that he sits in one of his three VERY EXPENSIVE Lake
> >> Champlain homes and dies a slow miserable death out of the
> >> national spotlight. No one I know will miss him.
> >>
> >> Rr
> >>
> >> "Dare to struggle baby... or stfu and sit in the corner out of the
> >> fucking way" ~Me
> >>
> >> A rapper covers the De-Baits.
> >>
> >> Trap News: The Farce Awakens
> >>
> >> "History has shown us that voting on elections accomplishes next to
> >> nothing, and that real lasting revolutionary change is won through
> >> hard work, by real people self organizing, and not by elected
> >> politicians. Yet every four years, the spectacle of the Democrats
> >> VS Republicans entices millions and makes them forget these proven
> >> facts. Trap News is our friendly (and funny, we hope) reminder of
> >> this."
> >>
> >> https://vimeo.com/186021038
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:59:25PM -0700, Razer wrote:
>  Feb 10, 2016
> 
>  As the media-fueled spectacle of election season heats up in the
>  United Snakes, many anarchist and anti-authoritarian comrades
>  are experiencing a serious case of deja fucking vu. Once again,
>  we find ourselves engaging in the same stupid fucking debates
>  with liberals, so-called “progressives” and other fair-weather
>  radicals, about the pitfalls of electoral politics, all while
>  being talked down to, as though we're just naive, contrarian
>  ideologues, who don't know what we're fucking talking about."
> 
>  A 5 minute exposition in layman's terms about why you're simply
>  fucking stupid if you vote, slave:
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTdAe6Vo2E
> >>>
> >>> Things need to change.
> >>>
> >>> Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not
> >>> the answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the
> >>> above, "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.
> >>
> >>
> >> You don't think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what
> >> vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the
> >> above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This election cycle is too late for a truly grass roots
> >>> endeavour, so 

Re: Waffling On Full Disclosure: Lawrence Lessig, Steven Levy

[Steven Schear]

Welcome to Brinn's open society, bitches.

Warrant Canary creator

On Oct 24, 2016 9:53 AM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 10/24/2016 12:12 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> > https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/22/0417250/should-journalists-ign
> ore-some-leaked-emails
> >
> >
> http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-bet
> ween-tanden-and
> > https://backchannel.com/when-is-it-ok-to-mine-hacked-emails-1f20811229
> 15
> >
> >  Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email
> > which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign
> > staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest...
> > But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like
> > this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist
> > Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty
> > work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts." This
> > is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing
> > themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves
> > expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available
> > to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a
> > moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly
> > or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly,
> > participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our
> > election...
> >
> > As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the
> > availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that
> > these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of
> > public good... He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from
> > campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as
> > usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled
> > colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters,
> > rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our
> > democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything
> > that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are
> > lawbreakers with an agenda?"
>
> 1)  Shoot the messenger.
>
> 2)  Question the motives of the reporter.
>
> 3)  Misrepresent and mock the reports.
>
> Do we need a whole 'nother list for media criticism a.k.a. propaganda
> studies?
>
> :o/
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYDjxsAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqNPcH/jIsq7c2twk9kefPnxiGNToN
> dAcaevbSzGZrt7V++1qP4HyD4Pey+K+r69N8uoetb9jL4YHV1p5tpEZI1DwOLwQt
> oHbvui0cfKxOH6pD578LXUpoBGaFEYvbakHFkVT8ZzGCbnHB6CuyN2//ef7hrbgz
> lyYIL+MfILaTPLgPhsSGUbpkTApYv6c7gFKY3CQ3EBNw0d4EZ1T7Gt9uvIYY9vN+
> UznY5QrBC1vDFNB2J3/SQPcQlCkIXE51A28S2BRhxDYFmtSjq2uSCThCuHjCVxaH
> SHeMO2AkUYRMZuH5znhYynw1FZATJxVmesjrYaMP4zhD/tXNK2aAZi3ARQ1kXPE=
> =oR9y
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: Global warming/climate change

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 10/24/2016 10:03 AM, John Newman wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Zenaan Harkness 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Another to add to the viewing list:
>> 
>> Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half
>> an hr on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing
>> controversy,
> 
> What controversy?  A few badly confused outliers is not a
> controversy.

Attributing the widely promoted views of these individuals to
confusion is a very charitable assessment.  Anyone with a Ph.D. in any
of the sciences who speaks against the overwhelming consensus model in
climatology and misrepresents the data supporting it obtains patronage
from two of the most powerful industries in the world:  Petrochemicals
and Public Relations.  Patronage is also available to anyone who is
paid to stand in front of a blue screen and talk about the weather:  A
strong consensus among meteorologists (and other entertainers)
supports Barnum's Law, which states "There is no such thing as bad
publicity."

The same propaganda techniques used in the long war against medical
science conducted by tobacco companies have been recycled by today's
campaigns against climatology, because they work.  Opposing physical
reality by lying about it may appear to be a losing battle but look
again:  A delaying action that only costs a few million dollars, while
enabling its sponsoring industries to harvest tens of billions of
dollars while a fabricated "debate" drags on, is a net winning strategy.

>> along with his unique viewpoints: 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

"Unique viewpoints" in the physical sciences /rarely/ turn out to be
useful.  When they are not products of simple error or crackpot
beliefs, "unique viewpoints" don't stay unique for more than a few
months and get incorporated into consensus models within a few years.

So many videos, so little time.  Promoters of the "chemtrails"
delusion also publish lots of videos on YouTube:  First, because their
target demographic will not read anything longer than a typical
Facebook post; second, because A/V presentations are inherently more
persuasive than print; third, because dissecting bullshit and lies
presented in video format requires one to first type a transcript of
that bullshit in order to quote and comment on it.  And why bother?
True Believers are emotionally invested in "being right" and mere
facts will not persuade them, especially when they are presented with
a continuing stream of professionally crafted rationalizations
supporting their belief.







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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYDjnTAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqTJgH/04Jw1RQjTx9KpSmxHvMoQ0M
jkBXssGVm4OWMqwKlYLDaEr2xTig6yZQybcRUHHTxWyH975+omNoFj2CIczy5iVX
rCAdqLCf2qB+1Oc58c3FN2dkJTF7JwGVwlUw1KbdKZhO5IfrrpNqf6zcpFaJHtfm
RG91Q89HjUPS8MF2kJc2jyXaNDaE7FrIFVb0RSNBgzqx6Qv3MM+7Cc2m0+RrECwD
95AhKrBglbsIie7D2Apra5PFWE/Ube+aCps/prBJofb/7y6B2xF285xRZf3MOltO
CC0pt3avCCTgJcgp7u2UbLmbDKyh/BKIvIVY7e4vjzFqV5L3sX9eJPvANfMRACQ=
=NLTL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Waffling On Full Disclosure: Lawrence Lessig, Steven Levy

[grarpamp]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/22/0417250/should-journalists-ignore-some-leaked-emails
http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and
https://backchannel.com/when-is-it-ok-to-mine-hacked-emails-1f2081122915

Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which
showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer:
"I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't
for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now
mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing
that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers
for gossipy inside-beltway accounts." This is perfectly legal. As long
as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly
allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this
case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation
of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to
expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however
unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with
our election...

As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the
availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these
discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets
journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it
would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was
providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using
them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is
it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet,
even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"

Re: "You have to legalize drugs to win that war [on drugs]." - Trump

[Razer]

On 10/23/2016 08:39 PM, John Newman wrote:

> So true. 
> 
> All the really nice aspects of Stalinism have just really been down played by 
> western propaganda.


Hillary Clinton is a Stalinist and they're playing it down...

So true. (Snigger)

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[Razer]

The issue I'm having reading this thread about the US Erections is this
list is ostensibly Anarchist and I don't understand why it's infested
almost exclusively by Libertarians. Libertarians CANNOT be Anarchist ...
because they believe in government. Small, but they BELIEVE that the US
political system actually works in the interest of the people, or it can
be made so.

Rr


On 10/24/2016 04:48 AM, Cari Machet wrote:
> Finding it hard in my soul that i once again agree with razer but then
> again i always say "mass murderers are sometimes nice to others" so no one
> is completely dark
> 
> On Oct 24, 2016 5:12 AM, "Razer"  wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/2016 06:28 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>
>>> Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the
>>> answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above,
>>> "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.
>>
>>
>> You think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what vocally
>> refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the above. A
>> selection not featured on any ballot anywhere.
>>
>> It's the only logical choice when all you're being offered is Fascists
>> to vote for and you have a bunch of lame schmucks who think voting for a
>> third party is either a wasted vote or assisting one of the candidates.
>>
>> That IS the level of COWARDICE seen in America today (Shawn Quinn), and
>> that cowardice HAS created the mess we're in because sheeple willingly
>> go to their slaughter.
>>
>> Btw, Bernie Sanders is a National Socialist. Jill Stein invited him to
>> join her, NOT to coopt what passes for real socialism and destroy the US
>> Green Party due to attrition of the base, who only vote for
>> internationalist socialists. He won't. Most likely what would happen is
>> the Greens would be overwhelmed by progressive-liberals and the party
>> destroyed, so it all just as well that he sits in one of his three VERY
>> EXPENSIVE Lake Champlain homes and dies a slow miserable death out of
>> the national spotlight. No one I know will miss him.
>>
>> Rr
>>
>> "Dare to struggle baby... or stfu and sit in the corner out of the
>> fucking way" ~Me
>>
>> A rapper covers the De-Baits.
>>
>> Trap News: The Farce Awakens
>>
>> "History has shown us that voting on elections accomplishes next to
>> nothing, and that real lasting revolutionary change is won through hard
>> work, by real people self organizing, and not by elected politicians.
>> Yet every four years, the spectacle of the Democrats VS Republicans
>> entices millions and makes them forget these proven facts. Trap News is
>> our friendly (and funny, we hope) reminder of this."
>>
>> https://vimeo.com/186021038
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:59:25PM -0700, Razer wrote:
 Feb 10, 2016

 As the media-fueled spectacle of election season heats up in the United
 Snakes, many anarchist and anti-authoritarian comrades are experiencing
 a serious case of deja fucking vu. Once again, we find ourselves
 engaging in the same stupid fucking debates with liberals, so-called
 “progressives” and other fair-weather radicals, about the pitfalls of
 electoral politics, all while being talked down to, as though we're just
 naive, contrarian ideologues, who don't know what we're fucking talking
 about."

 A 5 minute exposition in layman's terms about why you're simply fucking
 stupid if you vote, slave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTdAe6Vo2E
>>>
>>> Things need to change.
>>>
>>> Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the
>>> answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above,
>>> "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.
>>
>>
>> You don't think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what
>> vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the
>> above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere,
>>>
>>>
>>> This election cycle is too late for a truly grass roots endeavour, so
>>> only contact with the current runners is likely to yield any impact -
>>> perhaps Trump can be caused to get back to his "end the war on drugs, it
>>> is the ONLY way" statement from a decade ago - he evidently had heard
>>> from someone or read something, compelling to him, at that time.
>>>
>>> Or some middle finger party dumping by Bernie.
>>>
>>> Or some "agile politics" process with a few of the second tier runners.
>>>
>>> If you have any contacts, this is your last week and a half to try.
>>>
>>> If you fail to try with what you have, don't blame anyone else for any
>>> "failure" you perceive in the upcoming elections...
>>>
>>> (Speaking enerically here of course, not to you specifically Razer)
>>>
>>
> 

Re: Global warming/climate change

[Tom]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:34:58PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half an hr
> on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing controversy,
> along with his unique viewpoints:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

Of course an 88 years old physicist specialised in electricity is *the*
authority when it comes to climate science. Now all other 97% of climate
scientists have to abandon everything they know about the issue.

Related (since off topic as well): Lern something useful instead of
wasting other peoples time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjSp5_YiF0. 
And in this case the host is someone with proven competence in the
field :)



good luck,
Tom

Re: Global warming/climate change

[Zenaan Harkness]

Another to add to the viewing list:

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate Physics 1973, speaks for about half an hr
on "global warming" and various aspects of the ongoing controversy,
along with his unique viewpoints:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

~130MiB

Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own oppression

[Cari Machet]

Finding it hard in my soul that i once again agree with razer but then
again i always say "mass murderers are sometimes nice to others" so no one
is completely dark

On Oct 24, 2016 5:12 AM, "Razer"  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/23/2016 06:28 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
> > Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the
> > answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above,
> > "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.
>
>
> You think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what vocally
> refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the above. A
> selection not featured on any ballot anywhere.
>
> It's the only logical choice when all you're being offered is Fascists
> to vote for and you have a bunch of lame schmucks who think voting for a
> third party is either a wasted vote or assisting one of the candidates.
>
> That IS the level of COWARDICE seen in America today (Shawn Quinn), and
> that cowardice HAS created the mess we're in because sheeple willingly
> go to their slaughter.
>
> Btw, Bernie Sanders is a National Socialist. Jill Stein invited him to
> join her, NOT to coopt what passes for real socialism and destroy the US
> Green Party due to attrition of the base, who only vote for
> internationalist socialists. He won't. Most likely what would happen is
> the Greens would be overwhelmed by progressive-liberals and the party
> destroyed, so it all just as well that he sits in one of his three VERY
> EXPENSIVE Lake Champlain homes and dies a slow miserable death out of
> the national spotlight. No one I know will miss him.
>
> Rr
>
> "Dare to struggle baby... or stfu and sit in the corner out of the
> fucking way" ~Me
>
> A rapper covers the De-Baits.
>
> Trap News: The Farce Awakens
>
> "History has shown us that voting on elections accomplishes next to
> nothing, and that real lasting revolutionary change is won through hard
> work, by real people self organizing, and not by elected politicians.
> Yet every four years, the spectacle of the Democrats VS Republicans
> entices millions and makes them forget these proven facts. Trap News is
> our friendly (and funny, we hope) reminder of this."
>
> https://vimeo.com/186021038
>
>
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:59:25PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> >> Feb 10, 2016
> >>
> >> As the media-fueled spectacle of election season heats up in the United
> >> Snakes, many anarchist and anti-authoritarian comrades are experiencing
> >> a serious case of deja fucking vu. Once again, we find ourselves
> >> engaging in the same stupid fucking debates with liberals, so-called
> >> “progressives” and other fair-weather radicals, about the pitfalls of
> >> electoral politics, all while being talked down to, as though we're just
> >> naive, contrarian ideologues, who don't know what we're fucking talking
> >> about."
> >>
> >> A 5 minute exposition in layman's terms about why you're simply fucking
> >> stupid if you vote, slave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTdAe6Vo2E
> >
> > Things need to change.
> >
> > Although voting is likely not the answer, not voting is also not the
> > answer - as much as I agree with the sentiment and enjoy the above,
> > "voting vs not voting" is a false dichotomy.
>
>
> You don't think boycotts are ineffective then? Because that's what
> vocally refusing to vote is. A non-vote IS a vote. for none of the
> above. A selection not featured on any ballot anywhere,
> >
> >
> > This election cycle is too late for a truly grass roots endeavour, so
> > only contact with the current runners is likely to yield any impact -
> > perhaps Trump can be caused to get back to his "end the war on drugs, it
> > is the ONLY way" statement from a decade ago - he evidently had heard
> > from someone or read something, compelling to him, at that time.
> >
> > Or some middle finger party dumping by Bernie.
> >
> > Or some "agile politics" process with a few of the second tier runners.
> >
> > If you have any contacts, this is your last week and a half to try.
> >
> > If you fail to try with what you have, don't blame anyone else for any
> > "failure" you perceive in the upcoming elections...
> >
> > (Speaking enerically here of course, not to you specifically Razer)
> >
>

Re: "You have to legalize drugs to win that war [on drugs]." - Trump

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 06:42:21PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/23/2016 06:22 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 07:37:33PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 10:15 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >>> A little search for e.g. "Trump marijuana" turns up some interesting
> >>> articles and quotes. Left for the curious...
> >>
> >> Regardless of his position on drug prohibition, Rump is a terrible
> >> choice to lead this country. I wish Bernie was on the November ballot.
> >> Failing that, I wish Jill Stein had a realistic chance of winning the
> >> election; I really would prefer her over Hillary. The two-party system
> >> is broken. I don't really want Hillary, but I really, really, really
> >> don't want Rump, and a vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or for that
> >> matter, a vote for Charlie Brown or Santa Claus) could potentially help
> >> Rump win.
> > 
> > How about "Agile Politics"? Imagine Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, and
> > Jill Stein creating a lithe "policy ticket" - where they each agree one
> > each policy, and to support each others' respective policy.
> > 
> > That would be a 3 policy ticket, and they might also promise to call
> > another election once those three policies are through, or checkmated.
> > 
> > E.g: Bernie's "end the war on drugs" could be one policy.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, the current system is broken. Who has an ear with one of these
> > three candidates? It's actually not too late - Bernie dumping the DNC
> > would certainly create headlines, and perhaps go some way to reclaim his
> > balls/ dignity/ sanity...
> > 
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders want to propose a "War Tax" om the rich to 'make them pay
> their share of the cost of war"
> 
> I'll bet you think that's an antiwar position don't you?
> 
> The Pentagon should be having BAKE SALES to run their NASTY WARS, not
> assistance from the rich, who will GLADLY pay. Because Every single
> economic elite profits from war. EVERY ONE, not JUST the military
> industrial complex, any YOU KNOW that war tax bill will be written in
> such a way the fine print pays them back every penny they pay in that
> so-called tax, from the treasury.
> 
> Because the rich ALWAYS get richer, the poor poorer, and the bombs NEVER
> STOP falling.
> 
> Agile Politics. What BULLSHIT! Politicians ARE by their very job,
> 'shape-shifters"! Zen BUTT THE FUCK OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS because you
> simply aren't in a position, or it seems, truly interested, in paying
> attention to the what these people are actually about and you're
> parroting MSM Bullshit.
> 
> Rr

Good luck, fellow human.