Re: The threat of privacy
On 08/03/2020 09:01 AM, John Young wrote: > Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging > crypto users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too > cryptocurrency, the Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure > drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, > pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one > by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social > media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing > pensions. True. But then, it's crucial to hide the fact that you're hiding. That's hard, I admit. Using public WiFi hotspots at distance with high-gain antennas arguably provides the most privacy. But there aren't that many open APs left. And high-gain antennas are nontrivial to hide. I use nested VPN chains. So my ISP just sees that I'm using a VPN. Everything else is buried deeper, using other VPNs and Tor. > To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as > paper money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional > spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract > to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked > them, dear Mary tell what you know. There are ways to clean paper money of DNA, RNA and proteins. Using enzymes, and mildly acidic and alkaline liquids. Gold coins are also good, because you can clean them aggressively with no fear of damage. Unless you use aqua regia, anyway.
Trump has the right to debate Biden - or a proxy for Biden - [PEACE]
Since the Demonrats are wanting to not put their cognitive disaster up on stage to debate Trump, this opens the door to Trump's right to debate a proxy for Biden, an actor who is at least a passing image of Biden. This is going to be, from a comedic perspective, absolutely EPIC :D And that is no matter whether the gauntlet of a Biden proxy for Trump to debate is enough to get the Dems to put actual Biden on the stage, or not. Just can't, just can't .. just can't get e-nou-ough ... life imitating comedy, and doing a better job . Here's the Dems admitting that they want to keep Biden away from Trump (may be to avoid any chance of Biden mistaking Trump's wavy golden Toupée): Former Clinton Press Secretary Urges Biden "Whatever You Do, Don't Debate Trump" https://www.zerohedge.com/political/former-clinton-press-secretary-urges-biden-whatever-you-do-dont-debate-trump https://summit.news/2020/08/03/former-clinton-press-secretary-urges-biden-whatever-you-do-dont-debate-trump/ Bill Clinton’s former press secretary has urged Joe Biden not to debate President Trump, claiming that “it’s a fool’s errand” because Trump will not ‘follow the rules’. And these are BabylonBee.com SATYRE pieces: https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-propose-new-debate-format-where-biden-is-tied-up-backstage https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-excited-to-find-out-who-he-picked-for-vp
Ars Technica: SpaceX now plans for 5 million Starlink customers in US, up from 1 million
Ars Technica: SpaceX now plans for 5 million Starlink customers in US, up from 1 million. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/spacex-now-plans-for-5-million-starlink-customers-in-us-up-from-1-million/
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM
On 2020-08-04 06:53, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > Thing is, my message makes sense only if you know who James is. Take > into account for instance James' message from last week or so about the > arch-criminal elon musk. You can get some more info about James' political > views here : > > https://jim.com/blog > > "Child protective services abducting children from Christian families > and selling them to gays" > > > "The silicon valley meritocracy exemption has collapsed, and now > silicon valley is collapsing because of affirmative action" > > "The pope worshiping naked pagan idols." > > et cetera... Wrong link. The link you quoted was https://blog.jim.com/politics/state-of-the-left-singularity/
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM _finally_ lifting their image, much to Soros' relief -- Re: surprisingly, Soros now pins US color revolution on Trump
On 2020-08-03 21:37, Karl wrote: > James it sounds like we've been exposed to significantly different media, > giving us different beliefs. Just search uncensored social media. You will find huge numbers of videos of black gangs attacking whites. Search the official organs of the state, such as the New York Times or CNN. What do you find? What do you find on the official organs of our officially unofficial state religion? You find a black "jogger" who was accosted by three white men after committing a minor burglary, and grabbed the gun of one them by the wrong end. > My knowledge of killing of blacks comes partly from hearing from individual > people exposed to it. They are lying to you because it makes them holy. It is like Christians claiming to have witnessed miracles. If any of miracles that they had witnessed actually happened, they would be in the front page of the New York Times every day for the next twenty years. Everyone remembers Emmett Till, who was not in fact lynched, but murdered, like no end of men of all races who made a pass at someone else's wife. The problem was not that she was white and he was black, but that she had a jealous husband. If in the entire history of the all of the United States, one black had been lynched who was not plausibly accused of some serious crime, that black man would be the poster boy for lynchings, not Emmett Till. If these things are happening, how come we cannot walk down the street without being reminded of it by big character posters every ten feet? > My closest friend's black roommate had to leave due to harassment from > whites expressing dislike of blacks who actually broke her door down to get > to her. Remember Jussie Smollet. If she was telling you the truth, why is every single such story that media hears turn out to be a lie? Remember the Covington Boys. The media are so hungry for such incidents, that they invent them. They search high and low for such incidents, and have not found one such incident in the past several decades. Remember all the drama about a garage door opener that someone thought looked vaguely like a noose. Are you sure they did not express dislike of her because of theft and assault? Are you sure she did not just stop turning up to college because she got bored, and told a better sounding story? If white people actually broke down the door of a black college student while expressing dislike of blacks, you would not be hearing it from her and I not be hearing it from you. I would be hearing it on television for days or weeks or months. There has not been one arbitrary lynching for frivolous cause anywhere in the United States ever, nor one such incident as you describe anywhere in the United States in the past few decades. The media has shouted no end of such stories from the rooftops, and not one single one has ever held up.
Re: The threat of privacy
It is a good thing (good for peace) that the Fed is realising that its subjects have a fundamental right to participate in the Fed's financial system. Besides their idiotic "wanna be" mentality of chasing "app" windmills and wanting to "blockchain up" which will slow them down more than any Demonrat politician ever could. To state the obvious, the Fed is essentially all existing brick and mortar, actual physical banks, and almost everyone on this planet has a bank account and there's no ridiculously power consuming and hopelessly inefficient blockchain in the way. You know that's a "funny" thing about MOTUs - they have essentially the whole world at their command (literally just an executive order away), and they don't properly realise it, they think there is some greener pasture, when they already IN the greenest pasture! Owning the whole damn pasture, but nope "there must be greener pasture". Idiots. We saw the same stupidity dynamic in action with their focus on the hidden (underground) satanic underbelly of China, when all along "they" (i.e. the Western empire) had full possession and enjoyment of Australia, the actual greatest and wealthiest country in the world, and due to that firetrucking myopia, they allowed over 30% of our farmland to be sold down the drain to China (whilst we cannot buy a single matchbox of Chinese land!) - and the % has surely only gone up since a few years back, too! If we had the death penalty here in Aus, Victoria's premier Daniel Andrews would be up for literal treason, and the people would bay for his blood. Putin was flabberghasted and rightly admonished "our Western" stupidity in its endless self destructive forms when he asked "Do you realise what you have done now?" and said later the West have "made a monumental mistake" (with respect to deploying the currency sanction, not merely the threat). Oligarchs hey .. some of them are certainly little more than glorified Frank Spencers from "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em". On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:49:41AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / > instituted upon us. > > We have the right to financial agency. > > Participation in our community requires that we have the right to participate > in the financial system of the day. > > Privacy is another fundamental human right. > > Folks need to live their human rights. > > Use it or lose it. > > > > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > Good stuff. Thanks. > > > > Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto > > users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the > > Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, > > burst > > transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, > > the > > array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by > > lists > > like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, > > turncoats needing pensions. > > > > To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper > > money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, > > aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger > > malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear > > Mary > > tell what you know. > > > > At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote: > > > > > http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20version.pdf > > > > > > > > > The Threat of Privacy > > > By Charles M. Kahn1 > > > > > > Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works > > > doesnât get enough attention itâs because weâre ahead of our time. > > > Iâd like to pretend that everything Iâve written is pathbreaking, and > > > will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit > > > that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with > > > hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time. > > > > > > One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, > > > published in 2005, and titled âMoney is Privacy.â We wrote it partly > > > as a response to Narayana Kocherlakotaâs famous paper âMoney is > > > Memory,â which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a > > > recordâkeeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net > > > debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The > > > implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, > > > cash could wither away. > > > In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to > > > protect the purchaserâs identity. So we predicted that, even while the > > > reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data > > > transmission were expanding the usage of creditâ and > > >
Re: The threat of privacy
It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / instituted upon us. We have the right to financial agency. Participation in our community requires that we have the right to participate in the financial system of the day. Privacy is another fundamental human right. Folks need to live their human rights. Use it or lose it. On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote: > Good stuff. Thanks. > > Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto > users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the > Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst > transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the > array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists > like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, > turncoats needing pensions. > > To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper > money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, > aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger > malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary > tell what you know. > > At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote: > > > http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20version.pdf > > > > > > The Threat of Privacy > > By Charles M. Kahn1 > > > > Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works > > doesnât get enough attention itâs because weâre ahead of our time. > > Iâd like to pretend that everything Iâve written is pathbreaking, and > > will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit > > that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with > > hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time. > > > > One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, > > published in 2005, and titled âMoney is Privacy.â We wrote it partly > > as a response to Narayana Kocherlakotaâs famous paper âMoney is > > Memory,â which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a > > recordâkeeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net > > debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The > > implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, > > cash could wither away. > > In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to > > protect the purchaserâs identity. So we predicted that, even while the > > reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data > > transmission were expanding the usage of creditâ and > > depositâaccountâ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. > > Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it > > would be a mistakeand ultimately futileto attempt to abolish it. At the > > te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there > > had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and > > the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in > > 2009). > > > > [...] > > > > > > 1 Keynote address at âFinancial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New > > Thinking in a New Eraâ at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7â8 June > > 2017. > > 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the > > pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an > > important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody > > âknewâ that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well. > >
Tracks: Surfer - Another Cypherpunks Oddysey Begins
Tracks: Surfer, The Catalyst
2020 FC
_Another Cypherpunks Oddysey_
[Scene 1]
The dream haunted him. It did every night, chased him usually within one
lonely and vicious time track.
Lately he'd been noticing little things - he still died every night, but the
fear was reducing, and the nightmares more often metaphors for reality.
Wearily rubbing his eyes again, he noticed the sweat transferred to his
fingers. "Again!" he mumbled to his elf, to nobody and to everybody, wondering
how many thoughts he had to not finish the formation of, how many he could
speak before the watchers would reset the night, as they so often did. That
"childhood fancy" as had so often been dismissed had stood him well - that
healthy, if excessive paranoia kept his mind alert, eyes open and "Life,
secured!" as the weary joke ran.
"Such a weak and emotional child" - the distant memory rang out to no one,
from everyone, ancient black and white lorenzian swirls danced with the
haunting sound track of Ye Olde Dr Who.
Swinging his legs off the bed, The Catalyst wiped his damp hands on his dry
nightshirt, picked up the pen and notepad, began to write the memories:
A rotten hand reaches over the precipice. I knew when it touched my arm,
that time track would be forever stuck.
Damn, it got me again!
("Such a bloody trope!" he thought to himself, "powerful little fuckers".
Yet those after effects - that knot in his stomach.)
The next frame returned: he could see his idiotic brother, always bored
as a young teenager and looking for mischief, grinning stupidly, but a bit
evilly at him; "was that from life, or another time track" he wondered, unsure.
Through the brush, had to get somewhere, out of here, time was running
out, fear catching up, walking a track ("oh wow, that was a track" ... the
writing had again caused his subconscious to give up an insight), following
somone, he knew he should walk alone, or rather have the strength to walk alone
instead of plainly, unthinkingly follow. ("I'm working on that" he realised.)
Next, standing on a bridge, a solid cement and stone bridge, the old
Knight's Pass, just one of hundreds of course.
Ghouls looking particularly humanoid and bland, but sufficiently gray as
to be "certainly" ghouls, slowly lifted their NPC arms, taking slow step
towards me.
("So tropish man, this is getting ridiculous!" but it had already
happened, his duty to write continued.)
A great friend was next to him, the voice of friendship, handing him the
usual silver rovolver with silver bullets ("YES! The tropes!" :D).
He knew he could fire the gun, but that premonition extended to the
slowness of the bullets (shut UP already) - he shot off one, two, three silver
bullets and not only were they slow, they curved! Cheeky bullets!
(Ahh, "faith", a long way to go young wanna be knight in training!)
The closest ghoul was at least a big step closer, and barely a large step
away. He took a step back.
His "brother in spirit" stayed at his side.
Bullets were returning now. Yes, cause and consequence - no matter the
tool, action and reaction, thus the need to always surf.
These did not curve, had a slight yellow tinge, but were only slightly
quicker than slow, and oddly seemed to stop right in front of him.
He double checked the time track;
Yes, they stopped. And was just about to assert a complete faith failure
for the night. "Well that's at least mildly edifying" he mumbled in his
thoughts.
Why did it stop? His hand had risen, a tiny shield, but a shield it was
- ahh yes, a shield of faith.
Hmm, a little disconcerting, more fear.
Must need more faith (ya think?! "Yes boss!")
Then there were two, three bullets in return, but they quickly stacked up
in one spot, squashing each previous bullet in mid air. That was handy, the
shield was useful.
Fear finally crept over him and he woke.
Lorenzian butterfly wings haunted him. He was compelled, "just wired this
way" he thought to himself with a wry grin...
Just as he began to pray for forgiveness and redemption again, to protect
the DUMB warriors liberating the thousands of children, an instruction, a
conjunction of real life snippets from the last two weeks, became evident or
"presented itself" to his ever umble mind:
"write"
"it seems I share these dreams with you for a reason"
"in faith"
"it's for a reason"
"sharing"
"time track surfing"
He yawned, donned some warmer layers and shuffled over to the keyboard from
the Glory Realms.
"Better get some work done" he muttered, confirming the ungodly hour of the
morning as the screen came to life.
Time Surfers, eh? Are we really surfing time tracks?
"Yes"
It wasn't even a whisper. Not even, barely a thought. A memory, forged on
that bridge and from the voice
MIT Technology Review: The quest for quantum-proof encryption just made a leap forward
MIT Technology Review: The quest for quantum-proof encryption just made a leap forward. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/03/1005891/search-for-quantum-proof-encryption-computing-nist/
Re: The threat of privacy
Good stuff. Thanks. Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites, turncoats needing pensions. To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors, aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary tell what you know. At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote: http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20version.pdf The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1 Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesnât get enough attention itâs because weâre ahead of our time. Iâd like to pretend that everything Iâve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time. One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled âMoney is Privacy.â We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakotaâs famous paper âMoney is Memory,â which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a recordâkeeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaserâs identity. So we predicted that, even while the reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of creditâ and depositâaccountâ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistakeand ultimately futileto attempt to abolish it. At the te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009). [...] 1 Keynote address at âFinancial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Eraâ at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7â8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody âknewâ that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
The threat of privacy
http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20version.pdf The Threat of Privacy By Charles M. Kahn1 Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works doesn’t get enough attention it’s because we’re ahead of our time. I’d like to pretend that everything I’ve written is pathbreaking, and will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time. One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds, published in 2005, and titled “Money is Privacy.” We wrote it partly as a response to Narayana Kocherlakota’s famous paper “Money is Memory,” which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a record‐keeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly, cash could wither away. In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to protect the purchaser’s identity. So we predicted that, even while the reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data transmission were expanding the usage of credit‐ and deposit‐account‐ based payments arrangements, cash would survive. Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it would be a mistake—and ultimately futile—to attempt to abolish it. At the time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in 2009). [...] 1 Keynote address at “Financial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New Thinking in a New Era” at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7‐8 June 2017. 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody “knew” that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM _finally_ lifting their image, much to Soros' relief -- Re: surprisingly, Soros now pins US color revolution on Trump
I'd rather talk about evil though. What do you do when people are led to believe that good people are evil, and engage in great harm upon them to try to make the world right, and are then labeled as evil themselves because of this harm? Personally I believe that all evil is such situations. Every single fucking person has a deeply caring heart if you sit down and listen to them. _Every_single_person_. K - There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en masse, for profit. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 9:28 AM Karl wrote: > Hey Zenaan. > > You have written too many strange interpretations of my words here for me > to comprehend them. It sounds like you are implying I misspoke? > > I VALUE THE PRESERVATION OF _ALL_ SOULS, AND SO DO YOU. > > K > > - > > There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing > group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that > responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what > people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en > masse, for profit. > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 9:07 AM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:26:11AM -0400, Karl wrote: >> > I'll respond to each thing you said with fewer words than you used, for >> > clarity. >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 12:09 AM Zenaan Harkness wrote: >> > >> > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:13:37PM -0400, Karl wrote: >> > > > You didn't respond to my one question to understand you other than >> > > "no"! =( >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020, 10:32 PM Zenaan Harkness >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > I'm aware of whites killing blacks for sport, in the present >> day. I >> > > > > don't >> > > > > > have exposure to blacks killing whites, and honestly there are >> so >> > > many of >> > > > > > us and our way of life seems so harmful to me, it seems the >> lesser >> > > issue >> > > > > to >> > > > > > me. >> > > >> > > >> > > Karl, you said: "whites [are] killing blacks for sport" >> > > >> > > You then said: "[regarding] blacks killing whites ... there are so >> many of >> > > us and our way of life seems so harmful ..., it seems the lesser >> issue to >> > > me" >> > > >> > > >> > > Karl, do you wish to rephrase these words you used? >> > > >> > > At the moment, I am hearing you sanctioning the killing of Whites, by >> > > Blacks, because "there are so many of us" and also because, you say, >> "our >> > > way of life seems so harmful". >> > > >> > >> > I do not sanction any kind of killing. I prioritize whose life to save. >> >> >> Karl, you say, and I'll quote only one last time: "blacks killing whites >> ... seems the lesser issue to me", and you say this immediately after >> alleging "whites killing blacks for sport", and so with these words, and >> with this juxtaposition that you put to us, you dismiss the killing of >> whites, by blacks, as "the lesser issue to [you]". >> >> You then give two justifications for the killing of whites by blacks (in >> comparison to the purported by you, killing of blacks by whites) when you >> say both a) "honestly there are so many of us" and b) "our way of life >> seems so harmful to me". >> >> From these words there is no statement from you that you wish to preserve >> the lives of whites, only to blame them for "killing blacks for sport" >> which you allege to be true in "recent times", and in fact, you dismiss (in >> these words you use) the preservation of the lives of whites, repeatedly, >> with your stated justifications and with your statement further below that >> "Death happens: the question is whether we hold it as a goal". >> >> So according to you Karl, when it comes to whites killing blacks it >> happens as you allege "for sport" and you seem to imply that we must stop >> this "to preserve blacks" and according to you we must "fight to preserve >> .. their [blacks] numbers", but when it comes to blacks killing whites, you >> justify your failure to defend the right of whites to live (to "preserve >> their numbers") because you say "honestly there are so many of us" and >> further you add that 'our way of life is "so harmful"', and you say these >> things without any suggestion that the numbers ought be irrelevant (in fact >> you raised the very issue that the numbers of "white lives" is in fact a >> ground on which you dismiss the preservation of white lives). >> >> Karl, based on this exchange so far, you are using words, and defending >> positions which you are putting to us, which are abhorrent to any Soul who >> values all others, all lives irrespective of skin color, and these >> positions when held sufficiently, lead directly to great despotism upon >> people. >> >> Further, you appear either intentionally or unintentionally oblivious
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM _finally_ lifting their image, much to Soros' relief -- Re: surprisingly, Soros now pins US color revolution on Trump
Hey Zenaan. You have written too many strange interpretations of my words here for me to comprehend them. It sounds like you are implying I misspoke? I VALUE THE PRESERVATION OF _ALL_ SOULS, AND SO DO YOU. K - There is proof inside many peoples' electronics. Proof that a marketing group would contract development of a frightening virus. A virus that responds to peoples' keystrokes and browsing habits, and changes what people see on their devices. A virus that alters political behavior en masse, for profit. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 9:07 AM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:26:11AM -0400, Karl wrote: > > I'll respond to each thing you said with fewer words than you used, for > > clarity. > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 12:09 AM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:13:37PM -0400, Karl wrote: > > > > You didn't respond to my one question to understand you other than > > > "no"! =( > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020, 10:32 PM Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm aware of whites killing blacks for sport, in the present > day. I > > > > > don't > > > > > > have exposure to blacks killing whites, and honestly there are so > > > many of > > > > > > us and our way of life seems so harmful to me, it seems the > lesser > > > issue > > > > > to > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > Karl, you said: "whites [are] killing blacks for sport" > > > > > > You then said: "[regarding] blacks killing whites ... there are so > many of > > > us and our way of life seems so harmful ..., it seems the lesser issue > to > > > me" > > > > > > > > > Karl, do you wish to rephrase these words you used? > > > > > > At the moment, I am hearing you sanctioning the killing of Whites, by > > > Blacks, because "there are so many of us" and also because, you say, > "our > > > way of life seems so harmful". > > > > > > > I do not sanction any kind of killing. I prioritize whose life to save. > > > Karl, you say, and I'll quote only one last time: "blacks killing whites > ... seems the lesser issue to me", and you say this immediately after > alleging "whites killing blacks for sport", and so with these words, and > with this juxtaposition that you put to us, you dismiss the killing of > whites, by blacks, as "the lesser issue to [you]". > > You then give two justifications for the killing of whites by blacks (in > comparison to the purported by you, killing of blacks by whites) when you > say both a) "honestly there are so many of us" and b) "our way of life > seems so harmful to me". > > From these words there is no statement from you that you wish to preserve > the lives of whites, only to blame them for "killing blacks for sport" > which you allege to be true in "recent times", and in fact, you dismiss (in > these words you use) the preservation of the lives of whites, repeatedly, > with your stated justifications and with your statement further below that > "Death happens: the question is whether we hold it as a goal". > > So according to you Karl, when it comes to whites killing blacks it > happens as you allege "for sport" and you seem to imply that we must stop > this "to preserve blacks" and according to you we must "fight to preserve > .. their [blacks] numbers", but when it comes to blacks killing whites, you > justify your failure to defend the right of whites to live (to "preserve > their numbers") because you say "honestly there are so many of us" and > further you add that 'our way of life is "so harmful"', and you say these > things without any suggestion that the numbers ought be irrelevant (in fact > you raised the very issue that the numbers of "white lives" is in fact a > ground on which you dismiss the preservation of white lives). > > Karl, based on this exchange so far, you are using words, and defending > positions which you are putting to us, which are abhorrent to any Soul who > values all others, all lives irrespective of skin color, and these > positions when held sufficiently, lead directly to great despotism upon > people. > > Further, you appear either intentionally or unintentionally oblivious to > the plain implications which normal people infer and take from your > apparently quite carefully chosen words (and if you did not personally > choose your words, but merely parrot what others have said to you, then you > are not a thinking person of these words, and in that case you are speaking > carelessly, but still very dangerously). > > Further, you repeatedly deny the existence of evil, and below say that you > "do not believe in evil", and that you "do not believe anything opposes the > life of another" (again, these are your exact words) and you say further > that bullets used to murder another are not an example of evil, but instead > show us only that bullets and murderers are according to you "[only] > isolated parts of the system that relate to producing the death, coming out > in placing human blame on a metal bullet without context" - and you say >
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM _finally_ lifting their image, much to Soros' relief -- Re: surprisingly, Soros now pins US color revolution on Trump
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:26:11AM -0400, Karl wrote: > I'll respond to each thing you said with fewer words than you used, for > clarity. > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 12:09 AM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:13:37PM -0400, Karl wrote: > > > You didn't respond to my one question to understand you other than > > "no"! =( > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020, 10:32 PM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm aware of whites killing blacks for sport, in the present day. I > > > > don't > > > > > have exposure to blacks killing whites, and honestly there are so > > many of > > > > > us and our way of life seems so harmful to me, it seems the lesser > > issue > > > > to > > > > > me. > > > > > > Karl, you said: "whites [are] killing blacks for sport" > > > > You then said: "[regarding] blacks killing whites ... there are so many of > > us and our way of life seems so harmful ..., it seems the lesser issue to > > me" > > > > > > Karl, do you wish to rephrase these words you used? > > > > At the moment, I am hearing you sanctioning the killing of Whites, by > > Blacks, because "there are so many of us" and also because, you say, "our > > way of life seems so harmful". > > > > I do not sanction any kind of killing. I prioritize whose life to save. Karl, you say, and I'll quote only one last time: "blacks killing whites ... seems the lesser issue to me", and you say this immediately after alleging "whites killing blacks for sport", and so with these words, and with this juxtaposition that you put to us, you dismiss the killing of whites, by blacks, as "the lesser issue to [you]". You then give two justifications for the killing of whites by blacks (in comparison to the purported by you, killing of blacks by whites) when you say both a) "honestly there are so many of us" and b) "our way of life seems so harmful to me". From these words there is no statement from you that you wish to preserve the lives of whites, only to blame them for "killing blacks for sport" which you allege to be true in "recent times", and in fact, you dismiss (in these words you use) the preservation of the lives of whites, repeatedly, with your stated justifications and with your statement further below that "Death happens: the question is whether we hold it as a goal". So according to you Karl, when it comes to whites killing blacks it happens as you allege "for sport" and you seem to imply that we must stop this "to preserve blacks" and according to you we must "fight to preserve .. their [blacks] numbers", but when it comes to blacks killing whites, you justify your failure to defend the right of whites to live (to "preserve their numbers") because you say "honestly there are so many of us" and further you add that 'our way of life is "so harmful"', and you say these things without any suggestion that the numbers ought be irrelevant (in fact you raised the very issue that the numbers of "white lives" is in fact a ground on which you dismiss the preservation of white lives). Karl, based on this exchange so far, you are using words, and defending positions which you are putting to us, which are abhorrent to any Soul who values all others, all lives irrespective of skin color, and these positions when held sufficiently, lead directly to great despotism upon people. Further, you appear either intentionally or unintentionally oblivious to the plain implications which normal people infer and take from your apparently quite carefully chosen words (and if you did not personally choose your words, but merely parrot what others have said to you, then you are not a thinking person of these words, and in that case you are speaking carelessly, but still very dangerously). Further, you repeatedly deny the existence of evil, and below say that you "do not believe in evil", and that you "do not believe anything opposes the life of another" (again, these are your exact words) and you say further that bullets used to murder another are not an example of evil, but instead show us only that bullets and murderers are according to you "[only] isolated parts of the system that relate to producing the death, coming out in placing human blame on a metal bullet without context" - and you say this is without context, even though the context was named (murder) and even though in fact it was you who raised this very context (the purported killing of blacks for "sport") and you conclude all this by saying that "behaviour we hate can exist in systems we love" (as though those words explain your position and as though "hate" has nothing to do with evil, since evil according to you does not exist, and whites who you purport 'murder blacks for sport' are not evil but are merely people who according to you "just believe different things are good than we do"). Karl I take an opposite position on evil to you, I stand for righteousness, and I stand against evil, I choose to stand in the face of
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM _finally_ lifting their image, much to Soros' relief -- Re: surprisingly, Soros now pins US color revolution on Trump
James it sounds like we've been exposed to significantly different media, giving us different beliefs. I have also experienced the oppression you describe, but for talking about the opposite things. Is this something you can hear? I have also never seen such a video: where did you see them? My knowledge of killing of blacks comes partly from hearing from individual people exposed to it. My closest friend's black roommate had to leave due to harassment from whites expressing dislike of blacks who actually broke her door down to get to her. Another left their college because they couldn't handle being around so many people who "shot niggers" over the weekend for fun and discussed this publically at the college. And as I've stated before on this list one of my friends was mediating a community of black people outside america when a ceo opened fire on them from a helicopter. This same friend was defending a community in arizona where people with black skin were dying. This got _no_ media attention at all. Black Mesa: the people are being driven extinct in silence. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 7:18 AM wrote: > On 2020-08-03 11:15, Karl wrote: > > Thanks friend. What I have to say next doesn't really matter compared to > > not having to fight. > > > > I'm aware of whites killing blacks for sport, in the present day. > > > Liar. > > I see plenty of videos of blacks attacking whites for fun. > > If it had ever happened to one black in all of America, you would have a > better poster boy than the "jogger" who was accosted by three armed > white people while jogging away from a burglary, and grabbed the gun of > one of them by the wrong end. > > If there is any "systemic racism" against a group of people, it's > against white people. > -Affirmative action for college acceptance > -Mandatory diversity training at work > -Diversity quota hires > -Forced diversity in entertainment: music, movies, TV shows > -Forced diversity in advertising > -BLM support from EVERY MAJOR CORPORATION ON THE PLANET > -Fired from your job for talking about any of this > -Censored off the internet for talking about any of this >
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM _finally_ lifting their image, much to Soros' relief -- Re: surprisingly, Soros now pins US color revolution on Trump
I'll respond to each thing you said with fewer words than you used, for clarity. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 12:09 AM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:13:37PM -0400, Karl wrote: > > You didn't respond to my one question to understand you other than > "no"! =( > > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020, 10:32 PM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > > > > I'm aware of whites killing blacks for sport, in the present day. I > > > don't > > > > have exposure to blacks killing whites, and honestly there are so > many of > > > > us and our way of life seems so harmful to me, it seems the lesser > issue > > > to > > > > me. > > > Karl, you said: "whites [are] killing blacks for sport" > > You then said: "[regarding] blacks killing whites ... there are so many of > us and our way of life seems so harmful ..., it seems the lesser issue to > me" > > > Karl, do you wish to rephrase these words you used? > > At the moment, I am hearing you sanctioning the killing of Whites, by > Blacks, because "there are so many of us" and also because, you say, "our > way of life seems so harmful". > I do not sanction any kind of killing. I prioritize whose life to save. Death happens: the question is whether we hold it as a goal. It was clear in what I said that I was not sanctioning killing. It sounds like you are shocked or angered hearing my views of whites as having a harmful way of life, and being less important to fight to preserve due to their numbers? Please answer this question, I am still a beginner in learning to hear and understand others and need some guidance I understand. And again Karl, when I read these words you used, I hear you sanctioning, > that is justifying and almost explicitly supporting "blacks killing whites" > for those two reasons that you cited. > > Again I ask you Karl, do you wish to retract what you appear to be saying? > Your words, not mine. I murder children already myself, learning to stop with this kind BLM movement as inspiration. Saw a lot of black people die. Or, do you wish to re-word what you are saying so that it is clearer, > reflecting more accurately in some way, what you're (trying to) say? > > The rest of the conversation below, whether you meant it to or not, flows > from this beginning of this conversation, and so until we get clarity and > reach an accord or understanding of one another here at the beginning, then > the rest will likely be, at best, talking at "crossed purposes to one > another" as they say... > This is because we have emotions, I suppose. > > (PS, you complain at the top there, of me providing "insufficient" answer > to one of your many unclear sentences which was at the very bottom of your > email, yet we appear stuck at the beginning, where you have either > overlooked, or perhaps not understood what I was asking you in some detail > and clarity (see immediately below)...) > You imply blame on me for you sticking at the beginning here. Maybe you picked up my frustration at responding to so many following things that charge the emotions from a place I don't understand. What's relevent is that asking the question comes before stating differences. Reduces disconnection. > > Your almost explicit sanctioning (in the words you chose to use) of the > > > "culling of one subgroup of our community" is abhorrent, no matter the > skin > > > colour of the sub group you target in this way. > > > > > > And your stated excuse that "our way of life seems harmful to me" can > > > never ever be a sufficient excuse for the culling of ANY sub group of > ANY > > > colour. > > > > > > Sanction the culling of one sub group (as these words just did) and you > > > sanction the culling of any and every sub group, i.e. everybody, which > is > > > despotism, and makes you look like a despot when you say such things. > > > > > You are saying that all groups (all people) are precious, right? I agree > > with this strongly. And what do you think of long term trends of change? > To reiterate, I believe all groups (all people) are precious, quoted above. This clarifies my starting statement. > > > This is one of the problems in the "Black" Lives Matter movement - people > > > get lulled into literal extermination agendas, thinking they are > signalling > > > great virtue by doing so. > > > > > > > This makes no sense to me. > > I have asked you again - see above. > We don't want to exterminate people. <== Please reread my sentence and understand it. "We" here refers to you, and me. This is a connecting point between us and opens an avenue to discuss how to work together. > When we sanction the murder of a sub group, we sanction the destruction of > > > the lives of our fellow Souls, and this is a despotic position, an evil > > > position that you appear to take (evil is that which opposes my life, > for > > > any individual value of "my"). > > > > > > > By finding a shared concept between us, you are mediating. > > > > I do not believe in evil. I do not believe
Re: Whites going ape for Blacks in America -- Re: Soros' BLM _finally_ lifting their image, much to Soros' relief -- Re: surprisingly, Soros now pins US color revolution on Trump
On 2020-08-03 11:15, Karl wrote: > Thanks friend. What I have to say next doesn't really matter compared to > not having to fight. > > I'm aware of whites killing blacks for sport, in the present day. Liar. I see plenty of videos of blacks attacking whites for fun. If it had ever happened to one black in all of America, you would have a better poster boy than the "jogger" who was accosted by three armed white people while jogging away from a burglary, and grabbed the gun of one of them by the wrong end. If there is any "systemic racism" against a group of people, it's against white people. -Affirmative action for college acceptance -Mandatory diversity training at work -Diversity quota hires -Forced diversity in entertainment: music, movies, TV shows -Forced diversity in advertising -BLM support from EVERY MAJOR CORPORATION ON THE PLANET -Fired from your job for talking about any of this -Censored off the internet for talking about any of this
Skripals, Austrians, hoaxes and redemptions -- Re: It's an Ill Wind
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 10:54:59AM +1100, Zig the N.g wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 05:28:46PM -0600, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > > > > > 2- It's an Ill Wind > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8 > > > > > > So now we know: first, that the UK government is actually deliberately > > > trying to infect over 40 million UK citizens, and in doing so expecting, > > > on their figures, 400,000 deaths. > > > > Uh, no, they're only not quarantining or taking other measures. That > > is not the same as "trying to infect" > > > > Some of your analysis is OK, but this statement is false. I don't hear > > of government agents with spray bottles of viral concoctins chasing > > down their subjects on the streets, or invading their homes, in order > > to infect them. > > > > Kurt > > Skripal hoax > > Did I mention "ahem"? If not, let me be unmistakably clear: "AHEM!", as in > "A!" followed by "HEM!" > > FTFY Ahh, the wicked web weavers, wantonly weaving wicked Web Weaver Webs of w.ggardly wicked webs o' bull sheeit! Seems some the brown stuff is finally getting exposed: Austria Confirms OPCW Report On Skripal-Faking By The British, Exposes FT Lies & Cover-Up John Helmer via Dances With Bears blog, http://johnhelmer.net/austria-confirms-opcw-report-on-skripal-faking-by-the-british-vienna-exposes-financial-times-lies-and-cover-up/ https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/austria-confirms-opcw-report-skripal-faking-british-exposes-ft-lies-cover … The London newspaper appears to have cropped the published picture so as to hide the barcode. That concealment — proof of the Austrian source – allowed the newspaper reporters to claim the source of the document was unknown, probably Russian, as the headline implied: “Wirecard executive Jan Marsalek touted Russian nerve gas documents.” A British military source was reported as claiming “the documents were ‘unlikely’ to have come from OPCW member states in western Europe or the US.” ... So, to our "friendly" MI5 doofuses: Was whatever the hell it was you were trying to achieve with this ridiculous allegation of "RUSSIAN" spys running around London with nerve poison bottles, really worth it? Was it worth the obvious embarrassment that you must have had no doubt would be exposed (as it is now, see just above) sooner or later? And to really slam home British Western dignity, now we have Andrew running around in a bald faced and similarly sad attempt to try sounding like a commoner. Seriously moronic! Now yes, family ralations, stiff upper lip and all, doing what you can for your burdened cousin, brother or whatever - yeah we get it, and yes there is some real dignity in that, but sheesh, could you pull this off any worse? So what's the tab these days on a flood of Westerner's starting to emmigrate to Russia out of sheer embarrassment? If the UK parliament wants to reclaim some real dignity ---in the eyes of the people---, and whilst they're at it give a genuine lift to their own spiritual standing, AND raise the public profile (and similarly, moral standing) of the British Royals whilst they're at it, the simplest and most obvious "low hanging fruit" is to pass the power of pardon clearly and firmly to the Crown in its own right, at least in the case of international matters, so that said crown may dutifully deliberate on this issues at hand and consider the genuine public interest in relation to the matter of the incarceration of Assange and whether this public interest (and the interest of the press, and free speech etc), outweighs any outstanding political interest in keeping Assange incarcerated. And the parliament can be seen to uphold actual and genuine democratic values of a balance of powers, honouring the rightful place of duty which the Crown ought carry in ralation to such complex matters as the Assange case, the public's need to see an ethical/moral reality to their parliament and their royals, dignity in international relations, and no doubt other bits of legal goodness your wigs would come up with. -That's- the kind of win win which could create a strengthening of substance and a lasting relevance to the public's relationship between the various authorities of the Crown, the houses of parliaments, Lords Temporal, and Lords Spiritual etc. If it ain't real, it ain't real. Fundamentally if you want substance behind "looking good", there must actually be some actual substance behind that attempt to raise standing - the public might be less than highly edumacated at times, but they tend to smell bullshit a mile away... ... you know, just in case you failed to notice that part... Remember folks, everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity - some might remember this old saying by some archaic rebel, "do unto others that which you would have them do unto you". It is particularly
