Rising carbon dioxide is greening the Earth - but it's not all good news

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> John Newman:
> read the links you sent?

They ar as Zordon suggested

"Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East
Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year,
while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the
Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year"

"They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of
years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East
Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time"

> full of shit

Like when say oposight of what is said, lol

CNN - asking the right questions

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> Steve Kinney:
> Hitler; Trump

WTF

Hitler; the loser calling for a redo, fam

Guezz you support the rekount

Nobody still wins, lol

.

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> John Newman:
> Most pot heads I know

Instead of thinking for yourself, you subscribe to a predetermined pattern
of behavior, citing "what pothead's think" as a foundation for your truth

Eat it

In a sensory deprevation tank

> it's like me telling you "drink 2l of vodka"

It is not, why keep trying to conflate the effects of canabiz and alkahil

Afff...

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> John Newman:
> Alcohol is a drug

Chemically, yes but not legally or socially, or you'd be in jail and out
of a job, fam

> you snipped out bullshit about "eat a half gram and find out"

Cuz you didnut try it, or address it

.5g flower is 100mg THC

I said 500mg THC

Eat it

> freak out like a little girl

Hate women, do ya =D

> No one gives a fuck how you drink, pal =)

You did, or ya wudent have been fishing for tips

BSides, alcohol becomes sugar and you get diabeetees

> marijuana

Propoganda, much

> legalization is sweeping the country

I not live in yer country, fam



.

"Feel free to diminish as much as you like" - "You’re doing it to yourself"

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> Tom:
> (lies, propaganda, idiocy)

Must hav all the dataz

> nobody cares

Nobody does care, keep posting Zzz

But do condense them a twinkle more; fukin 10 posts in a row, al linx;
FUCK!

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> Razer:
> There IS a lethal dose however for hash and other extracts

Wrong! (I'm on my Donald Trump shit [1])

> people produce for profit using all sorts of good shit like butane and
ether.

And CO2, which you breath in all day

Ever use soap?

Grab some dry ice and stop being such a grinch

> die.

You listen to way too much Necro

> No one will miss you hipster, poser.
> You would have killed yourself some other stupid way anyway.

Proly making soap

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSV2oBUOWgo

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> Shawn K. Quinn:
> Honestly, if you're going to vote exclusively for candidates with no
> realistic chance of being elected... you may as well just not vote.

But your stupid argument says these two options have the same effect =D

> In Texas, if you voted for Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Mickey
> Mouse... you effectively voted for Trump and made it that much more
> difficult to turn Texas blue.

The outcome can be twisted that way, sure, but then it defends the idea
that if the majority of a state votes for a candidate the entire state
voted for that candidate, which is dishonest

You are being dishonest here, 'memba?

Yeah, I 'memba!

You proly believe that satuated fat and cholesterol are bad for you, too

And that "organic" food is more expensive

And that it is healthier, because "organic pesticides"

Re: [WAR] [HISTORY] Afganistan, Russia, USSR, Lybia, WW2, pre-WW2 - "Why do they hate us so?"

[xorcist]

> It is funny, in a sad way, to see a nominally "anarchist oriented"
> forum dominated by people bickering over the relative virtues of their
> preferred nationalist heroes, a.k.a. mass murderers and their excuses
> for same.  Funny, but inevitable.

Yup. A large percentage of people fall for some type of
cult-of-personality. And those movements or ideologies that don't start
with explicit leaders, end up electing certain figures by consensus
opinion, and then quoting them as authorities, and using their words to
justify one's own opinions or beliefs. The amount of 'atheists' that
piously quote Dawkins, for instance, is always amusing to me.

>
> The problem of controlled mass delusion has been recognized as a
> problem for at least a couple of thousand years - see the early
> Gnostic literature, modern Sufi praxis, and everything in between.

Excellent point. At bottom, truly anti-Orthodox opinions in general stay
strictly the domain of a small percent of truly free thinkers.

> There has been no significant progress beyond that already
> accomplished in ancient times.

Mm. Talk less. Meditate more.

> Factual information and practical
> object lessons have no impact, unless the percipient already has a
> strong predisposition for self observation and meta-thinking, which
> apparently requires some unusual combination of genetics and early
> environmental drivers.

What we need then is a conspiracy of well-placed scientists and doctors to
isolate those genetic markers, keep the work secret, and to create a
retrovirus that can unleashed to cause the required DNA rewrite. That
technology could be close, as well.

>
> "Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the
> pig." - W.C. Fields

Genetically cross the pig and a songbird.

Re: Inspirational - Senator Culleton's Passionate Maiden Senate Speech gets Standing Ovation - YouTube

[xorcist]

>   I don't think I ever said that or agreed to it. I'm not
>   interested in *irrelevant* technical discussions. But,
>   for instance, I've discussed a few times why a cyberweaponlike
>   tor (widely supported in fake, american, privacy circles ) is
>   TECHNICALLY flawed - at least if we were to believe the lies
>   about its intended purpose. It's not flawed from the point of
>   view of its creators.


There are certainly known attacks on the Tor model, and I understand its
technical failures in this regard. Conspiracy theories (with no disdain
there -- one should question the veracity of government funded projects)
about its intended purposes aside, unless a better model can be put
forward that provides Tor's features, while decreasing risk, I just don't
see how such criticisms are relevant on technical grounds.

You liken it to a weapon, and fair enough. In the 1700's muskets were
state of the art. Criticisms of their technical failures with regard to
poor accuracy, slow time to reload, difficulties in wet conditions, and so
on have no real merit unless/until an alternative design is presented
which solves it.

For me, Tor's main utility isn't in the way of anonymity so much as a
robust way to reach out past firewalls, and to obviate the need for any
dynamic DNS considerations, and so forth. On each network that I have to
deal with, I keep one box/VM running SSH as a tor hidden service. If I, or
someone else, fucks up a firewall configuration, we have a chance to use
the Tor entry point to jump in and fix. We could use a VPN server for
this, with an associated single-point of failure, and cost. With Tor, we
get redundancy and no cost. But anonymity isn't even a stated need with
this use-case.

That said, you're right: Tor is very suspect in terms of providing true
anonymity and protection from government surveillance. But if that is who
you're worried about, there is never, and really can never, be a wholly
technical/cryptographic solution to that problem. Even if you have
technology that the government can't spy on, they are bound to get extra
interested in you BECAUSE they can't spy on you.

The solution to that problem starts, "at home", as they say. Opsec from
the start. One keeps a bootable USB drive hidden in a bus-station locker
or some such. When anonymous comms are desired, you leave your cell phone
at home, retrieve the disk, boot up at a random public wifi spot, do what
you need to do, and drop the disk back off. Avoid patterns in public hot
spots that you use, and so on. Keep a strictly red/black design where no
information leakage between "you" and your "alter-ego" ever cross up.
Probably you'd even want to wear a disguise of some sort when doing work
as your alter-ego. Separation of "privilege" all the way down.

Any purely technical scheme seems doomed to failure in some way or another.

Re: Fwd: [unwanted offlist mail] Re: It's for YOU! Fwd: Re: Jake and Tor article

[xorcist]

> It's a waste of time and bandwidth responding to ...

Lulz

> Or the psychological stalking by

Translation: When you call him on lies and bullshit, it's 'psychological
stalking'

..thats so full of win, I'm going to start using that. Outright lie, and
when called on it 'Hey, don't psychologically stalk me, that's rude.'

Fuck me the world is doomed.

Re: Fw: 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes.

[xorcist]

> In a game there are agreed rules, and participation is voluntary.

Warfare meets this criteria, no? There are rules of war, like the Geneva
convention. Participation is largely voluntary, and even with nations that
have forced conscript armies, one can argue that - for example with
Israel, or Sweden, the citizenry has structured their society so that
everyone must play and its "voluntary" in that way.

If you take the "participation is voluntary" bit absolutely, then no child
is playing a game in gym class, for instance.

I think I understand what you're getting at, and there is something to it,
but I don't think this formulation gets quite at the core of it.


>  In
> an assault, there will be one or more assailants, and one or more
> intended victims who did not agree to participate.  In a game, the
> object is to win.  In a fight, the object is to stop the assault.

Stop the assault = stop the game? Most games end when someone wins.

>
> I prefer terms like "systems dynamics" rather than "games" in this
> context, because the word "games" has way too many loaded connotations.

Yes, I agree that "game" has some unwanted connotations. I am not using
the term to imply a lack of seriousness, or to indicate triviality. Even
with actual games of sport, one may take them quite seriously. Football
hooligans are perhaps the most insane example of this. Some games of sport
involve death, like hunting.

>
>> And in any event, with an attitude like that I certainly wouldn't
>> want to join an 'organization' that you're at the helm of.
>
> In the political organizations I participate in, decisions are made by
> consensus and specific tasks necessary to carry out those decisions
> are delegated to volunteers.  A trusted facilitator has some influence
> but no real power.

That's fine and well. I'm not even commenting here on how decisions are
made, as such, but on the outlook towards competitive "systems dynamics"
wrt "winning" as you stated before. I'd not want to be involved in an
organization that has that view of competitive behavior.

Clearly, coldly, there is something to it. It's obviously a rampant view,
and quite successful. I'd rather fail.

>> How you 'win' is as important as 'what' you win. This is not some
>> namby-pamby point of moralism on my part. It is a matter of
>> strategy for attaining the goal. Because an organization of people
>> that worked, and operated, according to the principles of "winning"
>> that you're espousing -- if successful, would simply become the new
>> gang in town themselves.
>
> If the neighborhood committee should happen to turn predatory, oh
> well, at least the other locals will have a fresh historical example
> of how to deal with the problem.

Yeah. I'm not interested in perpetuating the cycle of abusive history
known as "revolution." I don't care one iota if its "my team" or "their
team" that has power, because I firmly believe that within a few moments,
"my team" will start looking a lot like "their team." Animal Farm, and
all.

That said, I am involved with entirely voluntary groups myself. Your 10/90
rule seems about right.

But nonetheless, I am skeptical of such organizations in principle, if not
in practice at a small scale. At some point, as they grow, voluntary
organizations will get big enough to pay people. That's when shit will
fall apart.

> I can't remember an example of a flash mob that accomplished a
> political political objective.

Depends on what you consider "political" I suppose, but I understand your
point. But that isn't really what I'm getting at. My point was more that
spontaneous organization is possible. How it is leveraged (whether for
art, fun, or something else) is largely not my point.

Most large protests have some form of art / music component. There is an
effort on the part of organizers to make them fun. In the end, that is
what is necessary to actually get people involved.

> An organization is an instance of "organic" cooperation toward shared
> goals, with coordinated division of functions among the participants.
>  The definition as a system where dictates flow from leaders to
> subordinates seems pathological to me.  Homey don't play that.

You must admit that hierarchical organization is the most common
formation, and if I were to put the names of random "organizations" in a
hat and let you pick one out, chances are going to be quite good that it
is run along hierarchical lines.

I don't see it as "pathological" to accept the fact that "firm",
"company", "corporation", "institution" are all synonyms for
"organization" and that one is rather hard pressed to find examples of any
scale that are not hierarchical.

> When an organization's power is established and maintained by mutual
> aid in unified resistance to violence, that organization will be
> inherently resistant to corruption, more so if it proves itself
> competent by acquiring real power by using nonviolent force successfully

I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me 

Re: Fw: 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes.

[xorcist]

> In a real fight the only rule is to end it by the fastest, safest
> means available.

Safest for whom? I assume that, finding yourself in a fight, and knocked
about the jaw a few times, that you'd choose not to simply grab your
adversary by the head and crack his skull onto a fence pole or something
to immediately kill him?

Fast, and surely safer for you than messing about. But then we have..

>  Winners create and
> exploit every possible advantage:  They lie, cheat, take every
> advantage and the fewest risks possible while giving their adversaries
> no chance at all.

So you would just crack the dude's head on the fence pole then? That's
what "winners" do?

I suppose it depends on what you're trying to win. This certainly the way
the players look at thingson a battlefield, and in finance. It probably,
even, scales down to the board game Monopoly.

But there are other games. And your contention about it NOT being a game,
just shows you're not acquainted with games. Doesn't mean people aren't
playing for keeps. It might be a zero-sum game.

Still just a game. And there are still better ones.

And in any event, with an attitude like that I certainly wouldn't want to
join an 'organization' that you're at the helm of.

How you 'win' is as important as 'what' you win. This is not some
namby-pamby point of moralism on my part. It is a matter of strategy for
attaining the goal. Because an organization of people that worked, and
operated, according to the principles of "winning" that you're espousing
-- if successful, would simply become the new gang in town themselves.

>
> Individual, uncoordinated acts of sabotage and non-cooperation can not
> defeat a criminal gang that owns and controls a neighborhood.

Coordination is one thing. There is no 'organization' needed to coordinate
a flash mob. Send out the email or txt message alerts. People show up, or
don't.

Creating organizations, as implied in the quote in your pic, is something
altogether different. _An_ organization, to me, implies not just some
coordination / communication amongst freely associating individuals, but a
system of control, which dictates from leaders to subordinates. Little
fish do things they don't want to do in order to climb the ladder and get
to boss around little fish. There is a flow of information, and orders,
from top to bottom. *THIS* is _an_ organization.

There is no way to go rid of "criminal gangs" by creating more criminal
gangs. Which, is all such organizations can, or will become. All
organizations, companies, governments and so on, once they get large
enough, become effectively organized crime.

Power corrupts. Create powerful organizations? You're just creating
effective mechanisms for corruption.

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

> Read the previous post. You don't 'own' anything. You correct factual
> mistakes but you have no 'side' in the discussion.

You're right. I don't take "sides" for the sake of taking sides. I try to
see the value of as many perspectives as possible, and to understand and
be able to reason from them.

I said, from the outset, that I'm not ideological in that way. Ideology is
rather like mental training wheels. There comes a time when you don't need
it.

>Corrections just mean
> you need to go look it up and fix it. Not change your mind.

I'm not sure what this even means. If I make a factual mistake, and look
it up and see that I was wrong, I then change my mind regarding that fact.
It may, or may not, change my interpretation of related facts, but I do
change my mind. I presume any sane person thinks this way?

>
> How much does Langley pay you by the word to do that?

We don't get paid by the word. If we did, I'd have already retired. And I
don't work for Langley. Brussels.

Re: Fw: 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes.

[xorcist]

>>> 1. The Conspiracy
>
> Explained in full:
>
> http://pilobilus.net/CGBSpender3.jpg

Such can only be the case if you're looking to play 'their' game. The very
creation of such 'organizations' is what leads to the associated chaos in
the first place. Rather, I favor a free association of individuals - with
no organization, just people working towards individual goals; each taking
a small chip out of the establishment. Consume it like a disease. Like
piranha. Not by doing eyeball-to-eyeball combat on equal terms.

Re: Fw: 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes.

[xorcist]

> 1. The Conspiracy to Make You Love the State Indoctrination into the
>nurturing womb of the state is essential for our society to function
>as it does.
> 2. The Conspiracy to Conceal the True Powers in the World There is an
>invisible unelected power which controls government and industry
>around the world,
> 3. The Conspiracy to Cover Up the Corporate Rape of the Planet The rape
>of the planet physically, economically and spiritually by corporate
>power and greed is escalating on a global scale,
> 4. The Conspiracy to Encourage Self-Destruction In order to create and
>maintain the culture of top-down rule, it is mandatory that the
>populace suffers interminable disunity, widespread apathy, infighting
>and senseless division.
> 5. The Conspiracy to Arrest Consciousness The war on consciousness is
>real. It is a concerted effort to prevent the individual from
>understanding the true nature of the self,
> 6. The Conspiracy to Prevent Revolution We are quickly entering a time
>when the only way for the elite to prevent revolution is to enact the
>strict social controls only possible in a world war type scenario,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

>>  Focusing on discrimination in russia right now is WAR
>>  PROPAGANDA.
>>
>
>
> THAT'S the argument I've been making.

Ok. I get where you're coming from, and this is an important point of
INFORMATION WARFARE / PROPAGANDA.

In this aspect, I'll agree with you guys and admit that as distasteful to
me as sexual/gender discrimination is, I will admit that that it is MUCH
less important than the ramifications of war.

But, ignoring or whitewashing the REAL discrimination that going on is, in
my view, not the answer here. I would advocate calling out Russian
discrimination towards homosexuals, AND calling out American aggression
towards .. well.. the whole fucking world but Russia in particular right
now. Especially Russia, even, because it is insanely egregious.

Look, guys. It's obvious by now that we all have very different
perspectives... Juan is coming from a libertarian view, Razer from more of
a socialist / Communist view .. and I from a wild-eyed, messy hair /
skid-marks in my shorts anarchist framework but in terms of trying to hold
governments accountable, it seems like that may be the point of common
ground we share.

IW strategy is important, but the BEST IW strategy is FACTS.

If we can be FACTUAL about American, Russian, Belizian, and other
government misdeeds, and failures -- that is the ONLY way we're going to
be able to generate the momentum to challenge them.

After the governments crumble, and the dust settles, then we can hang out,
have a few beers, and philosophize about libertarianism vs. socialism vs
syndicalism vs martianism vs whatever.

But even all that is nonsense. I, for one, will call out factual
inaccuracies when I see them. I hope others do that for me.

Our interpretation of the facts my vary, but we should be able to
acknowledge the FACTS.

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

>
>
> On 10/09/2016 11:04 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>> anyone that disagrees with you at all, must be an agent of the state.
>
>
> No... You're mistaking me for Juan.
>
> Your reams of vacillating bullshit to garner reactions as the convo goes
> this way and that way and sideways is typical of social engineering
> operators
>

Whatever. Try owning your mis-statements, and dealing in facts. You'll
find I reciprocate.

Deal in bullshit ideology and willfully being blind to Russian (American,
or other) misdeeds? And I'll call you out. Start slinging bullshit, and I
have no qualms getting down to the farm as well.

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

>
>> Why not just address the point about Stalin, and forced work camps for
>> homosexuals, starting in 1933?
>
>
> Honestly? Because I'm not interested. You DID correct my blanket
> statement about "since 1917" but the rest of your spew bores the living
> fuck out of me.

Thank you for retracting an inaccuracy.

It leaves me to wonder, however, why you would choose to respond to the
otherwise 'boring' points, rather than own the inaccuracy upfront to begin
with and just move on.

>
> Also note Stalin's pronouncements regarding gays and others was just as
> much a social aberration in Russia as the WWII internment of Japanese
> Americans was in the US.

This is an excellent, and fair point! I have no illusions about U.S.
mis-deeds. I am not anti-Russian, nor some type of neo-McCarthyist. Quite
the contrary. The current situation being what it is, I give the moral
high-ground to Russia.

Nevertheless whitewashing Russian (or American/British) history IS a
misdeed. All governments fail in this way, and it is precisely the reason
to distrust ALL government.

> I'm concerned with my OWN country's REACTIONARY freaks.

Fine. But again, please don't whitewash Russian history. That was my only
objection - your statement gave a rosy view of Russian history which is
not real. I understand that not ALL of Russian history was so -- monstrous
-- as under Stalin. I also understand that American history is equally, if
not more-so, stained -- but that was not the issue at hand.

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

> Your lack of specificity as a way to keep trolling the convo has been
> noted over and over and over again by Juan.

Right. Because calling you out with a specific year which negates your
statement is a lack of specificity.

Why not just address the point about Stalin, and forced work camps for
homosexuals, starting in 1933?

>
> Are you too stupid to notice you've been (snigger) outed?

Are you too stupid to realize that you're wrong? Or too much of a
socialist ideologue to prevent anything as optional as facts to sway your
view?

>
> AFAICT you're just collecting info to profile people for the Feds'
> social engineering ops.

Right. Because people with minds as powerful and acute as yours, which
fail to even be able to address points of fact, are such a threat to the
world order. And more generally, anyone that disagrees with you at all,
must be an agent of the state.

You might like to read up on self-supporting, delusory belief systems and
brain-washing. Witnessing the general ineffectiveness of government-run
programs generally, it is doubtful whether a State-run COINTELPRO-type op
could be as effective as your own self-induced state of hypnosis.

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

>
>
> On 10/09/2016 09:52 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>>
>> Your assertion about Russian in 1917 was false. Period.
>
>
> No it wasn't. By your own statement

You said "AND my POINT is THERE ARE NO DISCRIMINATORY LEGAL POLICIES and
haven't been since 1917."

That is patently false. What I agreed to in the portion you quote is that
Lenin, in 1917 instituted fair practices. You are right about that.
However your statement is WRONG in regards to the "haven't been SINCE
1917."

In 1933, Stalin made homosexuality a crime.

Period. You're wrong. And it is obvious to anyone with basic reading
comprehension, which you clearly lack.

>
>> The Russian Revolution in 1917 did bring about real change in
>> that way. Under Lenin, homosexuals were allowed to serve in government
>> positions, for example. HOWEVER.
>>
>> In 1933
>
>
> Troll, begone.

Fascist, Stalin-loving troglodyte - begone.

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

> Better start looking through Russian laws about 'sexual-oriented
> propaganda'. Because, just off the top of my head, for a start, material
> suggesting young people visit prostitutes of the opposite gender is
> illegal.

Fine. But prostitution is illegal. That has nothing to do with outlawing
propaganda aimed at providing information about an theoretically "legal"
lifestyle like homosexuality. Is propaganda suggesting they get married to
the opposite sex, and have a pair of kids illegal? Is propaganda
suggesting that homosexuality is a choice, and that they can choose a
"normal" life illegal? If not, the law as written is discriminatory.

I'm quite willing to concede that there may be details that make this law
non-discriminatory. From what I know, this isn't the case. But I'm willing
to learn about other Russian laws that may come to bear on this.

But again. That isn't even my point, per se. Because I'm quite willing to
concede that life for homosexuals is better in Russia now, than in 1933
under Stalin.

>
> But I KNOW you're evading my point because that's what you do. That's
> ALL you do.

No. You're evading the point about Stalin, and aren't even capable of
simply offering a retraction saying "Ok, I didn't know about Stalin's
actions post-1917. Stalin was shithead, and I was wrong."

>
> Rr
>
>
>>
>> But the law is written, and intended, so that heterosexual propaganda
>> can
>> be distributed to homosexual kids.
>>
>> It's discrimination.
>>
>>> Thanks for making my point X.
>>
>> Actually, my point was that you were wrong in your assertion that things
>> were A-OK for homosexuals in Russia since 1917. That is what you
>> claimed.
>>
>> You completely ignored my point about Stalin in '33.
>>
>> So, no I didn't make your point at all.
>>
>

Re: [WAR] George Soros calls on world to unite against Vladimir Putin

[xorcist]

>
> What X mentioned: "law banning distribution of "propaganda
> of non-traditional sexual relationships" to minors." isn't.

Oh? Care to explain or should we just take your word for it? Because it
seems to me that a law that makes a DISCRIMINATION between one type of
material and another is, obviously, discriminatory. If it outlaws
distributing ANY type of sexual-oriented propaganda to minors, I would
agree with you.

But the law is written, and intended, so that heterosexual propaganda can
be distributed to homosexual kids.

It's discrimination.

> Thanks for making my point X.

Actually, my point was that you were wrong in your assertion that things
were A-OK for homosexuals in Russia since 1917. That is what you claimed.

You completely ignored my point about Stalin in '33.

So, no I didn't make your point at all.

Re: Sim Theory

[xorcist]

>
> I figure it's best to ignore the implications of the simulation
> hypothesis. There's nothing to be done about it.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I find I quite agree, but for perhaps
different reasons, because I don't find the implications to be all that
difficult.

Whether reality is material and we're threatened by cosmic rays, meteors,
or the vagaries of war-mongering, hairless apes with nukes, or whether
reality is immaterial, and we're at the mercy of a simulation, or some
unknowable God, the result is fundamentally the same when you follow it
out: There is no safe place in the universe. There is nothing to grab hold
of. The more we look for safety, the more danger we will find. The more we
try to grab hold of things, the more they will slip away. Death will
overtake every living thing, eventually.

And so, from this, it doesn't matter the slightest to me if reality is a
simulation, or not. For that matter, it doesn't matter in the slightest if
a meteor hits. Or if humanity blows itself up with nukes. I'd prefer my
other humans decided to play better games than Monopoly, Scrabble, or
Chess,
but it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

We're HERE. NOW - attending a party with some 7 billion or so other
people. So, party, and try to make it a FUN party.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>
>   So "being attacked by the US nazis is an axiom" - But it's not
>   provable nor disprobable. So how do they know it will happen?

They don't KNOW. They suspect. Like you suspect the law of
non-contradiction is absolutely, always, in all cases, true.

They can't prove it, or disprove it. They REGARD IT as true. The way you
regard the law of non-contradiction as true.

>   Actually what I posted is not exactly a taylor series. In the
>   code a stands for acceleration, v for velocity and p por
>   position. Since you are such a genius you could have figured
>   that out, but somehow you didn't...?

As formed, no it isn't a Taylor series, exactly. But this particular
system of recurrence relations has all the essential properties, which is
precisely why it forms the basic result. The result of the relations forms
a polynomial by the process of additions and multiplications, essentially,
and if you scaled it appropriately to actually be cos(x) it would be the
Taylor polynomial for cos(x).

>> All quite good - but none of this represents emergent behavior,
>> feedback,
>
>
>   Actually my example does illustrate feedback. Since you
>   mentioned a fed-back amplifier, I posted a mathematical
>   representation of a similar system. But hey you are
>   the Great Master of Mathematics, aren't you.

Mmm, ok I see what you're getting at. Yes I suppose we can consider
recurrence as feedback. I should have been more specific: uncontrolled
feedback. Precise control of feedback can produce oscillation like this,
but what I was trying get at was the results of unbounded positive
feedback.

>   No sonny, my example is perfect. It goes from a linear system
>   to a more complex, 'curved' result. It is good enough to
>   illustrate my point.

Curves like this are not more "complex" than lines. A line is a polynomial.
Curves like this are just longer polynomials. Lines are differential
everywhere. This curve is differential everywhere.

They are more complex only in the sense that they are longer, and take
more time to compute. But if you can compute a polynomial, you can compute
a line. If you can compute a polynomial, you can compute a curve.

>> It is for this reason that they
>> are able to PROVIDE that property of truth/falsity to other claims,
>
>   Ah that really makes sense! They can provide something they
>   don't have.

Why shouldn't it? Even looking at your example, your curve provides
periodic behavior that addition and multiplication and line segments don't
have.

>> >   So truth is a matter of choice? And Party 'Agreement' of
>> > course!
>>
>> Yes, but no. Perhaps.
>
>   Right. Infinite, involuntary, self-parody. Absolute.

These emails are getting long enough as is, I don't feel the need to
respond to every single point, especially when you to make not-so-veiled,
insulting insinuations.
>> Prove some, then. Prove either the law of the excluded middle, or the
>> law of non-contradiction. Your choice.
>
>
>   Igonre it, like you actually do all the time, and all you get
>   is nonsense, like the nonsense you post all the time.

That is no proof. What you call nonsense may just be counter-intuitive, or
unexpected results. Lots of physicists in the early 1900s thought quantum
mechanics couldn't be true, because they dismissed it on its face because
it seemed like nonsense.

There is no particular reason to believe that the universe will adhere to
principles the human mind cooks up.

So, try again. Prove it.

>
>   But again, let's say the 'law of non contradiction' can't be
>   proven. So? It stops being self-evidently true? =)

It was never self-evidently true. And again, axioms are REGARDED AS
self-evidently true. A red-green color blind person looks at reddish
leaves in the autumn and green grass and says IT IS SELF-EVIDENT they are
the same color. And they are, according to the apprehension of color blind
people. They are not the same to those that see differently.

Seeming to be, on the surface, according to human senses or the human mind
doesn't mean IS. The fact that something is obvious and self-evident to
YOU, or even the MAJORITY of people, doesn't make it TRUE.

>   The fact that ignoring it leads to nonsense is good enough
>   proof. But if you don't like that proof, so-fucking-what. The
>   'law' remains valid.

Only according to your opinion, and the opinion of the majority.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> On Oct 5, 2016 9:16 PM, "Razer"  wrote:

> Razer is correct.  Unicorns do exist.  Now Juan probably will say that
> Nyan Cats don't exist, hunfs!  ;P

I unicorn is just a horny horse, and a pegasus is just a horse high on dope.

Rather elementary.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>> But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd
>> also like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.
>
>
>   As used as a colloquial (and snobbish) synonym for insult? It's
>   not the same thing as the 'informal fallacy' you know...

I just meant that you might like to add it to your repertoire.


>   That is NOT an axiom. But hey, keep redefining words,
>   equivocating and the like.

You really don't seem to get it. Essentially ANYTHING that is unprovable
(therefore not disprovable) can be postulated as an axiom.

>> And it is TRUE that they reject the classical
>> principle of non-contradiction; at least within certain bounds.
>
>
>   Pussies. They don't even have the balls to completely reject
>   it?

LOL. That's actually quite funny. I may have to adopt that.

They reject it, in this sense: If the law of non-contradiction is stated
as "No contradictions are true."

They reject - or negate that, so:

"Some contradictions are true." It therefore follows, that "Some
contradictions are false."

Paraconsistent logics are about discriminating true contradictions, from
false ones.

> So, combine (sum up or 'integrate') a bunch
> of linear operations and you get a curve. Recursive corner cutting is
> also a nice example of this. And what of it? The curve is STILL ruled
> by the 'linear' 'logic' used to create it.

This is your example of linearizing complexity? You consider piece-wise
curve construction and integration complex? My lord, we have work to do.

Sure - simple curves are differentiable, and expressed by approximations -
and if taken to infinitely many terms, there is identity. So, fine - we
have a Taylor series. Quite good. A Taylor series cannot be used to
express a non-differentiable function, however.

For that, we have to level up. Taylor series gives us sine/cosine, and we
must create series of sine/cosine terms in Fourier series to approximate
periodic, non-differentiable functions. And again, with infinitely many
such terms, we get identity.

All quite good - but none of this represents emergent behavior, feedback,
or any type of complexity. It's trivial to find functions or data sets,
that cannot be expressed by Taylor, or Fourier, approximation.

A better example for you would have been one of Wolfram's cellular
automata rules. This would illustrate some real unexpected behavior from
simple rules and conditions. But that would also help prove my point: the
methods and analysis and reasoning that one would
use for simple automata systems -- mere logic -- are not useful to
characterize the overall behavior. For that, the best we can do currently,
is to describe them statistically.

It's not a matter of constructing FORWARD. Yes, one can take simple things
- functions, automata, or whatever .. and scale UP to create complexity.
The point we began at was to DECOMPOSE the complex to the simple. To find
the simple causes for the larger social/governmental/etc interactions.

>> Not subject to proof, as you claimed. Let's just be clear about that.
>> You claimed that axioms can be proven. They cannot.
>
>
>   OK, let play your game. THey can't be proven. Are they still
>   true?  How THE FUCK do you know they are true?

Well, that is a deep philosophical question, in fact. There are different
answers to it in different philosophical schools and ideas about
epistemology.

MY answer is: Axioms are not true, and are not false. The property of true
and false doesn't apply to them. It is for this reason that they are able
to PROVIDE that property of truth/falsity to other claims, when those
claims are made in reference to a set of axioms.

But because true/false doesn't apply does NOT mean they are arbitrary.

>> There ARE different systems of logic, with different axioms. The
>> axioms cannot be PROVEN, and therefore it is a matter of CHOICE which
>> system you're using. That choice may be for any reason,
>
>   So truth is a matter of choice? And Party 'Agreement' of course!

Yes, but no. Perhaps.

But you know what, I'm not going to worry about the fact that you
repeatedly made incorrect statements about axioms before, because you do
it for me again:

>   Yes, I STATED that AXIOMS CNA BE PROVEN. So far so good?

No, because they can't. And since you won't accept reference citations of
this, and since you're thick and obviously not listening to me. I'll
listen to YOU. Completely open mind. No agenda.

Prove some, then. Prove either the law of the excluded middle, or the law
of non-contradiction. Your choice.

Prove both? I'll shut up, leave the list, whatever you like, diety.

It can't be done. You're a fool for thinking it can. IF it could be, the
derived axiom would be eliminated from the set of axioms, and called a
theorem. The axioms are the simplest set of unprovable propositions needed
to prove other things. That's the way logic works.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:04:32 -

>> No, one simply denies them. But, even if one HAD to USE them, that
>> would not prove them. I might use several axioms to derive a
>> contradiction.
>
>   So one or more of your 'axioms' are not true and not really
>   axioms. The method is called reductio ad absurdum.

No, it just means the axioms are incompatible.

And, reductio ad absurdum is quite a  bit more general  than proof by
contradiction, but I won't quibble.

>> But this all began not with a disagreement over the law of identity,
>> but over the law of non-contradiction.
>
>
>   Which are closely related. And no, this all began with you
>   being a cheap charlantan who can't write a semi consistent rant.
>   Since your  rants are laughably inconsistent you embarked
>   in even more stupid rants trying to 'prove'...who knows what
>   about the 'logical' status of contradictory nonsense.

But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd also
like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.

Are they related? Yes, they are among the three classical laws of logic.
That is their relation. Other than that, they do not depend on each other
whatsoever.

Holding to them as in some way objective is a matter of tradition,
convenience, and little more than that.

>
>   I am well aware that you ignored my reply to your nonsensical
>   example with iran and nukes for instance, So fuck off.

I did ignore it. Because replying was futile with someone who doesn't even
have a grasp of axioms, and proof. But, if you insist:

>From the USA/Iran's individual points of view, it is logical and rational
to pursue the stated goals. It is rational for USA to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuke.

It is rational from Iran's POV to try to acquire one. Having nukes forces
other countries to the negotiating table rather than invasion. Sure, as
you point out, it might speed up invasion -- in to Tehran before they get
a nuke. But if an axiom that Iran is operating by is that sooner or later,
given USA's historical performance in the region, they WILL get invaded
regardless, it is quite rational to try to obtain a nuke to prevent that.

Individually, from different perspectives, and different goals it is
possible to reason to quite different conclusions.

You seem to be taking the position that there is Rational/Logical (note
caps) that somehow transcends these individual frameworks. I don't see it,
and if you really had a clear idea of it on any sort of firm basis, you
ought to write a book -- because no one else has such an idea either.

>> The principle of
>> non-contradiction IS denied, by example, in the philosophical school
>> of dialetheism.
>
>   Nonsense.

What is nonsense? The philosophical school of dialetheism? Fine, that is
your opinion. I'll wager you couldn't argue against any of it,
successfully though. But in any case, it is TRUE that this school of
thought exists. And it is TRUE that they reject the classical principle of
non-contradiction; at least within certain bounds.

>> These, and other multi-value logics, generally, are useful in a wide
>> area of mathematics, physics, electronics and so on.
>
>   I already dealt with the fact that 'complex' systems are made up
>   of simpler 'linear' bits. You seem to have ignored it. I don't
>   need to add anything.

I didn't ignore it, I was waiting to get some more ground-work covered.
You're right. Some complex systems can be simplified, and linearized and
dealt with that way. But not all can: hence the reason multi-value logics
exist in the first place.

But, more generally, in complex systems there is emergent behavior. One
might state the notion with the old phrase "the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts." The whole can develop properties that none of its parts
have. Moreover this can happen spontaneously, or at least accidentally
apart from the human design. So, the type of thinking or analysis that is
sufficient for a smaller part will not be sufficient for the whole.

You can use quite simple mathematics -- nothing more than algebra, to
characterize an audio amplifier, and an audio microphone. Under the right
conditions, those components will generate feedback -- and at that point,
algebra is entirely insufficient to characterize the system's performance.

In the same way, with governments, social systems, and so on where
emergent behavior and feedback are at play, one needs a wider view than
merely the algebraic philosophical notions that gave rise to a government,
or simple economic modeling only according to one view, and so on.

>>
>> I don't either. I've explained several times that axioms are
>> assumptions,
>
>   There you go again...Axioms are NOT suppositions.

Wait for it...

>> r if you prefer, propositions, and are not subjected to
>> PROOF. You disagreed, so I quoted sources.

There we go.. right. So PROPOSITIONS, then. Statements that ARE REGARDED
(but not necessarily) 

Re: ATM fees averaging over $4.50

[xorcist]

> http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/04/pf/atm-record-fees/
>
> Bitcoin fees currently ranging $0.02 ~ $0.11 ...
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Fee_Plotting_Sites
>

Yeah, it sucks. Some cities I visit don't have local branches for my bank,
so in those cases, I take to making my max withdrawal of cash generally
once per month. If I don't spend it all, good .. I have some around the
following month. Beats racking the ATM charges.

Bitcoin is great, and all -- but I'm sure if it ever becomes ubiquitous
and NEEDED in every day life, those charges are going to skyrocket, as
well.

misogyny

[xorcist]

I'd like to publicly apologize.

It has been brought to my attention that certain comments I've made were
potentially hurtful towards women. To any that I've offended, I apologize.

I'll refrain from such excesses, even if they were meant only to pantomime
the liberal use of "whore, bitch, cunt" and so on by others.

While I'm a big believer in fighting fire with fire, as it were, there is
also wisdom in not adding fuel to the fire.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> On 10/05/2016 06:37 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
> "'conjecture' or 'hypothesis', both of which connote apparently true but
> not self-evident statements."
>
> That's what you get for using dictionaries.
>
> English language dictionaries also conflate "Want" with "Need".
>
> Apparently that 'disease... that dumbing down of the English language,
> has spread to technical dictionaries as well. No wonder modern
> industrial output is half-baked shiny-and-soon-to-the-trashheap junk.
>
> Conjecture or Hypothesis ALWAY MEANT the person making the statement
> believes it so. "Conjecture" is quaintly referred to on the intertubz as
> "IMHO". Hypothesis would have SOME facts to back it... Usually
> single-sided to suit the hypothesizer] awaiting it's 'graduation' to
> 'theory, where it's tested against other facts.
>

Please re-read the definitions.

Yes, the person making the statement believes it to be true (i.e.
apparently true, but not self-evident).

One makes a hypothesis, and then tests it by experiment in order to
establish it - but it is not self-evident.

And note that the word 'connote' is in there, as well.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>   Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not
>   to be 'agreed' upon. Also, axioms can be proven. If axioms
>   couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would
>   be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.

>From the CRC Encyclopedia of Mathematics:

"AXIOM: A proposition regarded as self-evidently true, without proof. The
word "axiom" is a slightly archaic synonym for 'postulate'. Compare
'conjecture' or 'hypothesis', both of which connote apparently true but
not self-evident statements."

>From the Wiki:
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as
a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
...
Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived
by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical
proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else
from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as
theorems.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>   You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much
>   to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the
>   party.

I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires fundamental
assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed upon?

And using figurative language isn't misrepresentation of your position.
You have dismissed as stupid/retarded/nonsense my opinions because they
were not consistent. This is little different than a religious person
dismissing my opinions because they are "sacrilege." They are incompatible
with your system of thought. So, in this way, you quite do put logic on a
pedestal.

If it isn't logical (or holy) it is wrong. That is an accurate summation
of your position, and it is clear that the figurative speech of "putting
logic on a pedestal" .. in fact applies, pointedly.

>   Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited with
>   discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not
>   actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the
>   legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who
>   'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit legend.

I didn't hear the legend that way. As I recall it being told, they killed
the guy who discovered it. I'm not sure either version is true, and if I
had to bet, would wager that both are simply fiction.

>   Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an
>   arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is
>   'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It isn't.

You accept what, exactly?

I've never claimed that inconsistent statements are superior to consistent
statements, as such. What I claim in that regard is that there are certain
truths that can only be indicated by inconsistent pairs of statements. And
yes, within the context of our discussion, I have favored inconsistency as
a balance to your focus on minutia, mere points of debate, and reliance on
ideological principles which I obviously do not hold, and which therefore
have nothing to do with the actual ideas that you started asking me
questions about.

The reality of logical inconsistency is trivially observable even in
simple situations: It is logical for the USA to try to prevent nuclear
proliferation. It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke.

Therefore, what is LOGICAL tells us NOTHING about the actual situation.
What ACTUALLY informs us about the situation is the inconsistency.

It's also observable in more complex situations:  A person may
simultaneously "love" and "hate" another.

The apparent inconsistency points to, and indicates, the underlying
tensions of the situation as it really exists. In this way, there are REAL
contradictions. But lets get down right to physical reality with it, too:

A computer system with two sensors of arbitrarily high resolution and
accuracy, measuring the temperature of tank of water will, nevertheless
see inconsistent data from the two sensors. Measurement is an inherently
subjective activity.

Inconsistency and uncertainty is a fact of life, right down the the barest
components of physical reality.

The ability to deal with inconsistency without dismissal is, to me, vital
for 'valid proper thought' which is the goal of 'logic' as a discipline,
in my understanding.

>
>   So keep up with the parables, the false analogies (now from
>   maths) and the preaching. The more you preach...I hope you can
>   figure the rest =)

Not preaching. I have no reason to believe that you'll get yourself into
any type of trouble, or doom for only thinking one way. I'm not trying to
save you from the evils of classical thought, nor classical liberalism.
I'm not interested in converting you, partly because I'm not interested in
converting anyone. Mostly, in your case, because I'm sure I wouldn't want
you in my circles. I'm just giving my perspective, and explaining what you
continually misrepresent and attack.

And I will point out that saying that I gave "false analogies" doesn't
make it so. I gave NO analogies in the bit about logic, and maths. An
analogy is to draw simile between two things. I didn't do that. I made
direct statements of fact. There are different branches of logic, as I've
described. There are different branches of geometry, as I described. There
are theorems which prove facts about the limits of logic, which while
stated informally, are in fact true.

If you're out of your depth, that's quite alright. You said before you're
not much for maths, so I didn't get into it, and instead tried to show
some of those limits playfully instead. But you're not the playful sort
either. So, I'll admit, I'm rather at a loss for how to convey these ideas
to you, except to say -- rather than merely "accepting" logic, perhaps you
really ought to consider studying it.

Re: "Tor is dead technology"

[xorcist]

> As X said, it DOES sort of tip the opponent off that you have something
> to hide, but whether they can identify 'you'... especially using
> something like Tails that spoofs your mac address and leaves no trace
> that you've ever done anything more than power up at a given time.
>
> So if you're in some internet cafe in Singapore with a hundred other
> people walking in and out using the connection, the IP of entrance to
> the tor network just doesn't do a lot to identify you unless perhaps
> you're already being surveilled.
>
> Over time, if under surveillance the opponent could find a correlation
> between your presence and tor's use. Again, that why I've said 'the more
> users the better'. If everyone in that Singapore cafe was using it. the
> opponent would still be drawing a blank about your identity.

Yeah, in this respect the difficulties of Tor are much like the
difficulties of deniable encryption. Using it at all is in a certain way
incriminating. Its one of the main reasons why I try to explore novel,
legitimate uses of Tor, quite apart from anonymity. It's ability to reach
beyond firewalls for hosting is quite novel; unfortunately there isn't
much legitimate purpose for this. Personally I don't have a problem with
exfiltrating/liberating data from corporate coffers, but it is generally
frowned upon more widely.

But I wonder if there is a market for such an Internet cafe. An internet
cafe that provides wifi for your device, and a few on-premises computers,
and tunnels all connections through Tor as a matter of policy. I'd
certainly hang out there, just as a matter of geek-chic if nothing else.
Could also serve as a kind of base-of-operations for wider public
education about cryptography, privacy, security, and so on.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> It's worse than that :( In that I agree with much of what he says. Or at
> least, I get his perspective, as part of a working understanding. But
> he's clearly not interested in that :( So it goes.

Yeah. It's like I told a friend of mine once during a discussion.

"That is a lucid, cogent, well thought-out opinion." 
"But I disagree."

I have a working theory related to Christianity in this regard. I find
that in cultures not rooted in Christianity, people seem to be more
accepting of disagreements, and understand that disagreements are quite
natural and are to be respectfully explored, but that this should
represent no difficulty towards understanding.

Whereas, those from Christian cultures used to all the preaching and such
tend to develop the idea that there is only one way to think, and if you
think differently then, well YOU MUST BE CONVERTED!

This seems to break down somewhat, however, in regards to Russians; whom
while Orthodoxy is a deep cultural influence, also have very nuanced
linguistic forms like 'Da nyet' (yes no). It's use to express a somewhat
undecided negative answer in some contexts, or to contradict someone. Or
'da nyet navernoe' (yes no maybe) to express a negative answer, but which
is decidedly undecided. But the important point is the 'da nyet', while
usable to contradict someone, has no personal pronouns involved.

So, while in English one must say 'You are wrong.' or 'I disagree' .. in
Russian, and other languages too, the subtext becomes more "There is
disagreement" with the personal side taken out.

I suspect this is why, in English speaking countries, talking politics or
religion carries a certain social taboo in many situations, while in
Russia there seems to be a much greater expectation to talk about such
things with new people, in order to get to know them.

Just a little applied Chomskyism today, I suppose.

>
>> Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as
>> well;
>> I suppose that's 'on me' as they say.
>
> I'm rooting for a big crunch :)
>

Me too! I'm too big of a fan of symmetry to think otherwise.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>
> Ignoring what he writes, and declining to address whatever I notice,
> works pretty well :)
>

Truth. I should learn to look at chatter like juan's as something akin to
entropy.

Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as well;
I suppose that's 'on me' as they say.

Re: "Tor is dead technology"

[xorcist]

> The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher',  also said:
> "the government doesn’t use Tor."
>
> https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568
>
> Comments?
>

I wouldn't expect them to use Tor. If you're a field agent that may be
under surveillance, connecting to something like Tor fucks you. Or at
least, I would think it does.

Better off with a shell, or front-company, that provides a plausible story
of employment or some time of affiliation, and shuttle data to that.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>> remember that even part-time workers in the first world
>> making $25k-30k USD are globally in the 1% or so.
>
> There use to be an informational leaflet going around called "If the
> world was 10 people". In that scenario, Americans have ALL the stuff.

Yeah, I've seen break-downs like that. It's truly depressing, especially
when you abstract it out and realize how many millions of people need to
be convinced to help change things.

It's daunting, really.

I'm often reminded of a story of Buddha's enlightenment. In his final
struggle with Mara, she showed him all the people that would live. All the
countless generations of humans, all the individuals that would suffer,
and he could see with full awareness how very few would attain nirvana and
how few would hear his words. It was staggeringly crushing to realize how
little impact he would have on the world. It almost broke him.

But his response was simple; with his beatific smile he responded "But a
few will hear."

Or, Gandhi's advice that "Anything you do will be insignificant, but it is
vitally important that you do it."

I try to feel that, when I'm feeling frustrated. It helps me, at least.

>
> I did my carbon footprint on some website once about 10 years ago. It's
> impossible to keep it as low as anyone in the third world. Even
> subtracting the 3 or 4 airline flights within the US I've taken in my
> lifetime I still blew.

Truly. My travel is such that my footprint is about average for a first
worlder, mitigated by the fact that I've never owned a car and tend to
walk, bike, or take public transportation. But yes, it virtually
impossible to live in the first world and have a carbon footprint like a
third worlder. The possible exception might be people who live in rural
areas, in completely off-the-grid type situations where they supply their
necessities themselves (like third worlders).

But still, to live like that will tend to require living in some other way
first to acquire the wealth to do so.. so, in the end, its still going to
be far larger. Communal living can help amortize that.

But then factor in children? And boom. Forget about it. It's nuts.

> I'm the one who continually reminds people I know who think they have it
> rough that they COULD be living in a country that 'needs to be bombed in
> the national interest'. But I'm a hard-case renegade redneck 'hippie'
> with a bd atititude and a history dating back to living on lower
> east side rooftops running with yippies and motherfuckers, and used to
> simple living. Times have changed. Most of the street people today NEVER
> expected to be in that situation. They're highly dependent-codependent
> don't share well, and in general mirror the affluent middle class
> lifestyle lost to them. I spent a lot of my time doing, umn,
> 'psychotherapy', with desperate people who have more hope than the
> potential for achieving what they hope for.

Wow. Well stated. Yeah, I imagine the trailing edge of the economic
meltdown is starting to catch up. The whole beatnick thing is gone. Now
the dropouts were more forced out than willingly bailed. That's gotta make
for a few fucked up scene.

My experience is kind of opposite, in a way. I grew up in a shit hole
rural town, but got lucky. My father and his brothers had done time, were
into a lot of heavy shit, but my dad always made sure I kept my act
together. Came down hard on me for the slightest bit of trouble. Told me
growing up.. when you're 18, I'm kicking you the fuck out. "My job is to
make sure you get out of here and do something with your life, what you do
with it will be up to you," sort of thing. That's about the only thing he
ever told me I listened to.

Fortunately, I managed to get handy at fixing up electronics stuff --
mostly because nothing we had ever worked right when we got it
second-hand. 18 came, moved in with my girl, scraped by for a few years
and had the good luck to have her get accepted to an art school (amazing
with acrylics) leaving me with fuck-all but a shitty job, a broken heart,
and in the right place at the right time to take the right bit of advice
and go take a volunteer position abroad. And since then, life's just been
a matter of floating down a river. Mostly easy, as long as you can dodge
the logs and rocks and shit.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>   Here's some advanced calculus for you :  World population ~
>   7400 millions. What's the 1% of 7400? Why, it's 74 millions.
>
>   Now find out who those 74 million people are. Then try the 10%
>   group. That one should include most of the US and europe...et
>   cetera.

I skipped over this the first time, because you're mostly a bore. But I
should respond to this for, well, accuracy.

When speaking of the disparity of wealth in global income earnings it is
not a matter of 1% of the population who have the most income. Well, that
is one way of analyzing the situation. Often one compares the richest 1%
of people and compares their wealth against the median 50%. That is one
way. Another way is to look at the percentage of people who have incomes
at the top 1% of the scale for all salaries paid to people.

32000 USD/yr represents the entry point for the top 1% of salaries paid to
people the world over. 99% of people make less than that, per year.

This graphic illustrates the situation well. The poorer countries have
much larger populations, but their salaries are much smaller.

http://www.equityforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Global-Inequality-report_1.jpg

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>   Let me SPELL IT OUT for you, RETARD. I didn't deny I was typing
>   on a computer (as a matter of fact, I use a desktop computer).
>   I denied being in the "1%". GET IT now?

Wait, I lost track. Are we talking about wealth, or intelligence?

Because I agree that neither of us are in the 1% of the most intelligent.
That much is obvious.

As for wealth, you're saying you make less than $32000 / USD a year?

And you bought a desktop computer, AND a phone? And you pay for all the
bandwidth for your 'musings' here ??

How fucking stupid. You're never going to get ahead that way.

Ok. I believe you. You're not in the 1% of either intelligence, or wealth.

I stand corrected.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> Juan is extremely onry

That is a polite way of putting it. Are you suggesting I try being overly
polite?

Well, OK.

Juan, dear sir, I wouldn't be happy to find your thumbs cramping up typing
on a phone. Fear not, I shant be ill to find that you not bother
responding to my twaddle and would be endeared to find that you would just
shut the fuck up.

We'll see.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>
> Sadly, the mental rigour required for precise communication and clear
> thinking is not for many.

I'm fine with mental rigor, except when its used to box in ideas, and try
to control people.

Which is, ALWAYS, how ideologues use it.

So, in those circumstances, I eschew it. Because I don't let people put
rules on me. If I adopt rules, and choose to obey them, it is because I
decide they have authority. Not others.

> Fortunately, throwing in gutter phrases which the average schooled
> Westernite predictably reacts to (like "shit-for-brains"), is one way to
> weed out, relatively quickly, those who care more for entertainment than
> substance.

Oh, I don't care about insults. And the only reason he's been getting
snippy with me is because I won't stop flirting with him.

But I refuse to adopt ridiculous opinions and engage in lazy thinking
which lay all the problems of the world on a convenient, scape-goat enemy.

The Nazi's used the Jews. Others like to point at the Americans, or the
Brits or whatever.

It's all bullshit. The problems of the world have always BEEN the problems
of the world. As they say, "history repeats itself" .. the same modalities
come up, time and again, with agrarian societies, with industrial
societies, with capitalism, with communism.

So what's the common denominator? People. People are the problem. That
means YOU. That means ME.

So change.

I, in point of fact, used to think very much like Juan. Then I started
doing some thinking on my own.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>> Hey fuck head, any electronic device that can post stuff on the net
>> is a computer.
>
>   How many 1000s of millions of people have phones that can 'post
>   stuff on the net' are there? Oh I guess something like one third
>   of the world belongs to the "1%" then?

And those phones are computers, fuck face.

>
>   Does it hurt to be as stupid and corrupt as you are 'xorcist'?

No, not at all. Because I'm smart enough to know that a programmable
device that has a CPU in it is a computer. Even if, derp.. it can make a
phone call.

Hell, for that matter, there are analog devices with no CPUs that are
computers. Fuck, while I'm on the topic, the ABACUS is a fucking computer.

Because, news flash.. a COMPUTER is a DEVICE that COMPUTES.. that is does
ARITHMETIC.

>
>   On the ohter hand, how many people get 25K/year in a part time
>   job? Well certainly not me...
>

With your stunning lack of understanding of the even the basics of the
devices you use every day, its no wonder.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>
>   ignorant establishment bot is also an expert in chinese
>   history! amazing.

Expert? No. But you don't need to be an expert to know a few things.

Like you. I see you occasionally use verbs and nouns properly.

>> Look at the Middle East: For all intents and purposes they are in the
>> midst of their Dark Ages.
>
>   establishment bots parrots anti-arab party propaganda

LOL. If you knew shit about history, you'd know this isn't anti-Arab at
all.  What is usually termed a "dark age" period is the period following
the collapse of an empire. Empires tend to expand, and suck in resources
from surrounding areas - giving the citizens/subjects of the empire a
ever-increasing source of goods, ideas, trade, and so on. When it
collapses, the culture goes into shock, and becomes very insular. The
Christian dark ages occurred after the fall of Rome, and lasted nearly
1000 years, and they only really got shook out of it when it came in
contact with the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire would hit a period of severe stagnation in 1700's,
right around the time that Newton was getting set to slingshot Europe into
Industrialism. It would exist really only in name for some time, with
large patches of its former lands having become independent. This led to a
contraction of Muslim expansion, and a very much cut them off from the
rest of the world.

Until recently. When industrialism came knocking for its life blood: oil.
Much like what happened in Europe in the 14th century when the Ottoman
Empire came knocking at the doors of Vienna.

I'm not anti-Arab at all. I often inform clueless rubes like yourself that
it was the Ottoman Empire that had the world's first "hate crime" laws
specifically protecting Jews and Christians from getting singled out in
Ottoman-controlled lands.

>> Africa: Yeah, Africa is totally fucked. But not if the Chinese have
>> their way. China
>
>   chinese colonaialism good, according to piece-of-shit british
>   colonaliast.

The Chinese aren't engaging in colonialism. They are footing the bill, and
giving resources to Africa, not pulling resources out.

>> Yeah, but I never said that. If I had it my way, we'd transfer all
>> technological and industrial production to one city
>
>   WOW! The piece-of-shit is even more of a joke that I
>   imagined...Now indulging in deranged social engineering
>   fantasies.

Like I said, and you conveniently cut out and ignore like you always do: I
realize I'd never get agreement, and it therefore wouldn't work and that
I'll never get my way. It's no fantasy. It's an idea of how to balance and
contain industrialism.


>> Come now. Very few people SUPPORT the rape and murder of whole cities.
>> First of all, rape in Western militaries is lower than any time in
>> history. It's actually a crime,
>
>   LMAO!!!

Sure, laugh. I expect a sociopathic troll to laugh at rape.

But the fact is, that in previous times, a conquering army would fuck the
defeated population to a different shade of skin color. Mass rape, as in
nearly every woman was raped, or killed if she was too old or ugly to
bother fucking. Rape was used TACTICALLY. It was ORDERED.

That, in fact, doesn't happen anymore. At least not with armies in the
West. If you can provide a citation to the contrary, I'd be interested in
hearing it. My understanding is that the Russians used rape as a tactic in
Afghanistan, though.

In any event, in the Iraq war, the number of rapes by soldiers in the
Western forces numbered in the hundreds.

And each one of those soldiers deserves, in my opinion, to be put to death
for it.

But it is NOTHING like the scale, of say, Attila the Hun, or Genghis Khan.
It is NOTHING like the scale of the American or Spanish forces against the
Natives.

>> I'm not in denial
>> about that. The question is, what do we do about it?
>
>   You? Take off your mask and get lost.

Take it off for me, honey. I won't bite.

>> And even if we
>> could get a society to unilaterally try, they would simply become
>> prey to their enemies who have maintained industrial weaponry.
>
>   LMAO Not even the neocunts are as neoconnish as you are.


Why? Because I have a clue about reality and the likely response of
competing nations?

I'd love it if the world was all sunshine and rainbows, darling.. but it
isn't. Most people, are useless, negative shit-bags not unlike yourself
who will take any opportunity at all to get a leg up on someone else, just
for the enjoyment.

I don't like it. But I cope with it, and I develop my opinions accordingly.

Like my glorified ape opinion. You're proof of the theory, if there ever
was one.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>>
>> Hey fuck head, you're typing on a computer. That makes you one of the
>> global 1% too.
>
>
>   False. Like everything you said, stupid piece-of-shit.

Hey fuck head, any electronic device that can post stuff on the net is a
computer.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>   That's the kind of privileges you get by raping the whole world
>   for centuries, including spanish empire, dutch empire, british
>   empire(yours) and now british-amerikunt empire (yours). No
>   wonder you are a loyal subject ahd defender of the status quo.
>   Oh yes, if there's a 'societal collapse' then your comfortable
>   position as 'first-world' skumbag will be affected, which si
>   something a 'lefty' 'progressive' like you would never
>   tolerate.


Hey fuck head, you're typing on a computer. That makes you one of the
global 1% too.

So if you really feel so much solidarity with the oppressed of the world,
give up the laptop, and go shovel shit out of a latrine in the third world
somewhere if it makes you feel better.

But it won't do you, them, or anyone else any fucking good. Neither will
pissing and moaning about shit that happened hundreds of years ago.

You want to make the world better? Come up with ONE idea that could be an
ACTUAL solution.

Can't do that? Pick ONE PERSON, and make their life better.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> Ain't no "if" about that collapse; "when" would be more accurate.

Agreed.

> And the wonderful achievements of Progressive Liberalism only cost us:

Agreed.

> But our "homeless people" can have a shiny toy to compensate them for
> their lack of basic security and so-called necessities.  Yes, they are
> marginally better off than (for instance) the residents of cities
> bombed out by U.S. proxy forces to protect and serve the U.S. National
> Interest.  So that makes it all OK.

Whoa now. Never said it made anything OK. But from the POV of the
peasants, human history is largely about getting the means to migrate from
one place where life is really screwed up, to a place where it is less
screwed up.

At present, the West is less screwed up: which is why those refugees you
mentioned are walking north, and German's aren't walking south.


> Slowly healing?  But not fast enough?  I wish I had the kind of income
> and assets that make it possible to submerge oneself in that
> delusional fantasy world.

Has nothing to do with my income, not that I'm rich at all. But I've held
that view even when I was dirt broke. Given the choice between pessimism
and optimism, I always choose optimism.

But, in terms of humanity growing, or healing? I don't think its a
fantasy. Look at Western history: Open, official monarchs have been
dethroned, we now only deal with largely covert oligarchs. God is dead,
and we only deal with a vocal minority and unraveling the cultural norms
informed by the myth. Personal racism is on the decline, and systemic
racism is once again the topic of the day where different races, and age
groups, come out to speak out against it.

Look at Asian history: China is finally coming out of its slumber and will
provide a much needed counter-balance to Western dominance. Already there
are forces at work at reforming the Chinese economy and society, and they
haven't even really gotten off the ground yet.

Look at the Middle East: For all intents and purposes they are in the
midst of their Dark Ages. In the 1950s in Saudi Arabia, wealth was defined
as the number of camels one had. Today, education is highly valued and
prized. The current tensions are largely due to the earth-shaking effects
of modern life on a culture that is largely still in the 16th century.
That is rapidly changing, and already there are several key partners in
the region that, at least for now, are committed to helping advance the
Arab world and bring it to the table, so to speak.

Africa: Yeah, Africa is totally fucked. But not if the Chinese have their
way. China (and thank goodness for that long-term Confucian thinking) has
already began to build important relationships there that are free of the
old European colonial tensions. China is bankrolling the creation of the
African Union headquarters, and has invested heavily in getting
infrastructure and communications networks going.


>  Our Middle and Ruing classes voluntarily
> participate in rationalizations

So? When was that ever not the case in human history? Every society has
engaged in some type of cultural mythology that plainly disagrees with the
facts. This is nothing new, and certainly nothing worse, than in other
times in history.


> Blame the victims, and anyone who disagrees with you about how fucking
> wonderful Industrial Age civilization is. That's the Party line.

Yeah, but I never said that. If I had it my way, we'd transfer all
technological and industrial production to one city, maybe two cities per
continent. Those would be the centers of production and learning.

A handful of modern cities could produce all the goods, medicine, and so
on needed if most people CHOSE to live simply as in circa 1800. Maybe with
a modern convenience or two in the way of communications/education. And
even that is mostly just a bone tossed to those that simply MUST HAVE
technology.

But I'll never get my way. Because people don't want that, and it isn't
some propaganda job that makes them not want that.

They don't want it because the death rate is higher. They don't want it
because the infant mortality rate is higher. They don't want it because
the common work they will have to do will mean busting their ass in a
field actually GATHERING food, rather than walking around an
air-conditioned store.

Why would they? You can't seriously expect people to individually work
against their self-interest. Well, I mean, I guess you can.. but you're
going to be disappointed. This goes to my naturalistic thesis. You
wouldn't expect a lion not to eat your pet dog, so why the do you expect a
glorified ape to NOT act like a glorified ape?

> Meanwhile, the "mature, responsible citizens" who parrot that
> propaganda line do not WISH for their relatives to be raped and
> killed:  They support the rape and murder of whole cities, which pays
> for their comfortable, upwardly mobile lifestyle.

Come now. Very few people SUPPORT the rape and murder of whole cities.
First of all, rape in Western 

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>
>   Yes, piece-of-shit - That's clearly what you said, and like the
>   'good '(pretty mediocre)  scam artist you are, you prefaced it
>   with "I agree with you, but...".

Oh Juanita, sing that sweet sweet song of love to me once again! Of all
the trolls under heaven, there is none as fair as thee.

Thine voice is mightier than all the goblins, and thine breast as comely
as a common rogue.

Speak again, fine vagabond, and slather us with your wiles.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>   Not 'we'. I'm commenting on the estalishment progaganda you
>   post.

Yah.

>
>   What? You can't come up with any decent answer, piece-of-shit
>   psychobabble scam artist?

Actually, I found that answer quite entertaining. And seeing that our
previous interaction has proven to me that you will persist in
intentionally misrepresenting anything I write, and ignoring those parts
which you can't misrepresent, I have already decided that my future
interactions with you will be for entertainment purposes only.

So how about that margarita there, Juanita?

>
>   xorcist's bottom line : society is great after all and don't
>   rock the boat or the terrists will get you!


Yup. That is clearly what I said. And any other the people on this list
who shares your reading difficulties will obviously also get that out of
it, so there is no point in me repeating a correction that will be
willfully misinterpreted by a two-bit shit-for-brains troll like yourself.

But I'll be glad to flirt any time, tiger.

>
>   So, from what manual does that come from?

Like I told ya. A dingy hotel bar napkin. I'd scan it and prove it to ya,
since I know you like evidence and logic, but unfortunately I used it for
cleanup and tossed it with the condom wrapper, and your mom's phone number
already. True story.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>
>   Actually, people who support to varying degrees things like tor
>   (a pentagon's cyberweapon), google, clinton and even the US
>   military (not as bad as russia's) are not unthinking. They
>   understand perfectly well what they are doing.
>

Says a pinhead using Gmail.

'tard.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:47:08 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>
>> As sick as this society is (and I do agree on that), bloodshed is
>> relatively at a minimum, and resources are plentiful.
>
>   What kind of moral agent, sorry, robot, would say that kind of
>   thing?
>

 Sorry, we you talking?

>> But try to keep in mind, when you yearn for its collapse, you might
>> well be wishing for your sister, mother, or other innocents to be
>> raped,
>
>   What manual did you get that bit from?

Actually, I found it scribbled on a cheap hotel bar napkin, crammed
between the pages of 'Dick Niglet and the Shit Wizards of Asscabin' ..
curiously your mom really cums ridiculously hard when you read her
passages from it. But whatever, I dig that dirty shit.

I mistakenly read the bit off the napkin, and she assured me you'd get a
kick out of it. I guess she was right.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>> Hell, even the
>> homeless can be overweight and have ipods and shit.
>
> They can have iPods but no shelter. How does this sound for you?
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/17/the-stuff-we-really-need-is-getting-more-expensive-other-stuff-is-getting-cheaper/
>

Oh, hey I get all that.

But the point is that a goodly number of people the world over would find
being homeless in a first world country the proverbial "good life."

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> It's a counterpoint to all the technocratic libertarian bullshit that
> appears here. as if that republican crap somehow 'punk'.
>
> This society is sick and perverse and needs to be put out of it's misery
> like a rat dog that just bit some gentrified whore's kid.

While I do understand the frustration and anger to our current society and
situation, I would encourage you to think a bit about what society would
actually turn into upon its collapse. Invariably that comes at huge price,
generally involving bloodshed, and resource shortages, and when things get
really fucked, regional warlords, rape, pillaging, etc. Societal collapse
is never a good thing for the people that have live through it. The USSR
handled the transition about as well as can be expected, and organized
crime took over a great part of their national wealth nearly overnight.

As sick as this society is (and I do agree on that), bloodshed is
relatively at a minimum, and resources are plentiful. Hell, even the
homeless can be overweight and have ipods and shit. There are egregious
acts of systemic violence, naturally - and I won't condone a single
example of it - but I will note that oppression of blacks by police is
certainly less today than it was in the 60s. And everyone is better off
than we would have been under nearly any monarch that ever lived.

My point, in as much as I have one, is that on the whole -- while human
societies are deeply ill, with a long enough view of history it seems as
if we are ever so slowly healing. I do understand that this isn't fast
enough for you. I do understand that you deeply yearn for a just society.
But there just isn't anything that can be done to heal instantly. It's not
the way healing .. growth .. works at any scale.

But try to keep in mind, when you yearn for its collapse, you might well
be wishing for your sister, mother, or other innocents to be raped, or
killed. You might well be wishing for a situation where kids need to whore
themselves to help scrape up some food for their families. And YES that
happens now. But we need not wish more of it on ourselves.

Just a thought. And honestly, some days I think "fuck it all" too so, I
get it, I really do. But I try to keep the other stuff in mind too. YMMV.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

>
> It doesn't make any sense. He either wants the job or he doesn't. If he
> does, he needs to figure out--FAST--that running the United States of
> America is not a reality TV show!! If he doesn't, he could have declined
> the GOP nomination and let... just about anyone else in the running
> (besides maybe Ted Snooz) have it.

Oh? That seems like a false dichotomy, to me. I've fucked around with jobs
before, and taken interviews for jobs I knew ahead of time I'd turn down.
And I'm certainly no billionaire with tons of other options.

And _why_ does a billionaire, with a private jet NEED to do this? Why
can't he just fuck around, and if the shit hits the fan, cash out and take
his wealth elsewhere? Tahiti is quite nice.

Then there is the other point of view: maybe he doesn't give a shit how
good of a job he actually does, even if he gets it. Lets face it, most
politicians have been colossal fuck ups. But still, they get reverence and
respect from the masses. Their opinions are taken seriously, and all of
that.

You seem to be working from the point of view that the government is
somehow quite important. Well, fine, granted that to regular folks the
government does seem quite important. But to billionaires, who regularly
buy political favor, who know - first hand - that the government is merely
the marketing and PR firm for the wealthy at best, or a inconvenience they
have to work around at worst, I would imagine that there is a
substantially different view.

If you think on it, I believe you'll find that what YOU NEED him (or
another other presidential candidate) to do, and what THEY NEED to do,
have very little in common.

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist]

> http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/02/wednesday-hillary-clinton-done-
> You know what... up until now I have supported what Julian and Wikileaks
> have done. If he costs Hillary the election, though, that could very
> well change in a hurry.

Makes no difference either way. Hillary is as corrupt as they come, that's
just a fact. Trump may be a meglomaniac, but I don't see him as
substantially different than Hillary.

Hell, as I understand it, Trump donated shit tons to the Clinton
Foundation as late as recently as 2008.

I'm not sure I am ready to go down this rabbit hole, but a friend is
fairly convinced that Trump is shilling for Hillary. I gotta say, he
called the debate performance before Trump even clinched the GOP nod. He
said if he gets the nod, he'll blow the debate with Hillary.

The argument goes like this: he enters the GOP race, and gets all the
candidates talking about him, rather than Hill. Running interference for
her. If you look at the time line, whenever the media began running back
to her emails, Trump would do his most outlandish shit and distract the
attention back to him.

I don't buy it, myself, but it is interesting to consider. I think Trump
is in it just for his ego. Obama embarrassed him, and now he wants to
stick it to the political elite, beat them at their own game, and get the
respect that all Presidents get.

But I don't buy half the nonsense he says, anyhow. He's just playing this
whole thing like a reality TV show to get the votes.

I don't think Trump is the maniac he is playing himself up to be. But he
knows that if he crafts that image, he'll get a bunch of maniacs that
never ordinarily vote, to come out and vote for him. It's a smart move.

Re: You could (will be) replaced by a robot coder

[xorcist]

>
> My opinion of people like Musk and the rest of the technocrats is they
> ARE Darwin's finest example ... of "Marauders and Pillagers".
>
> Any service to society is coincidental and unintentional and solely
> related to 'wealth accumulation'. Philanthropics too... It's for the
> writedown. Not because they really care.
>
> Rr

I certainly won't argue with that. I would point out, however, that these
sorts of ulterior motives are essentially always present in any group
purportedly trying to "help humanity." Your observations about mega-rich
philanthropists is well-noted.

But for example, among the religious there are those that say "our way is
the only real truth."  These groups then go on to try to convert others,
ostensibly for their own good, but really because "winning souls" becomes
a competitive game. Then you have the religious that say "Oh, we believe
there are many paths to God" .. they are playing a game too, this game
simply being "I'm more tolerant than you are" and this allows them to
believe that they are more loving than their intolerant opposites.

Likewise, amongst the political activist community, one sees the same
holier-than-thou mentality. So-and-so is *REALLY* committed, because they
will live in a squat, or will intentionally get arrested, or whatever.

All of this is an expression of the effects of simple human ego.
Certainly, we can agree that some of these are less problematic than
others, but I think that they all share the same difficulty at scale, and
so we see all types of oppression by oligarchs, theocrats, and political
purges whenever one of these groups gets any real control, or power.

I would say that any system or ideology which contains some type of metric
for measuring one person better than another will always suffer from these
types of problems in some way or another. Which is a very thorny problem,
it seems, because it is very natural to look at a rapist and say "Yes,
well OBVIOUSLY, I - who would never rape - am BETTER than this bastard."

My personal solution, which I will admit I often fail at, is to try to see
such people not as lessers that I am superior too, but rather as sick
people whom I am healthier than. This helps in the way of compassion, but
may not - in the end, really even solve the problem. As one can see the
egoist perspective at work in the "healthy living" fad popular these days
already.

Re: You could (will be) replaced by a robot coder

[xorcist]

> Don't forget to hate on automation engineers as the unemployment rate
> reaches 45% and the gubmint still hasn't figured out what to do with all
> those idled people.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
>
> Source:
> http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/09/30/tales-from-the-american-dmz-its-almost-all-economics/
>

Ipsoft.com

They have an incidence response system that is essentially point and
shoot.. draw the code with diagrams and a library of 45000 modules. The
"AI" platform is quite impressive as well. By far no mere chat bot.. and
they are working on integrating the two systems.

Within 10 years they will be able to automate nearly any business or
computer ops workflow.

Re: Memory Hole

[xorcist]

>
>
> On 09/29/2016 04:05 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>> Well, considering that he was taking it hard,
>
> How do you know?

When I first heard he died, I read a few articles that were kicking around
about it, and his family and friends had mentioned it, along with his
financial troubles. Or, at least I seem to remember it that way, at any
rate.

>
> Some of his escapades are the stuff lost weekends gone lost years are
> made of.
>
> Have you ever heard of a psychological Fugue?

Yeah, it could be.. but it doesn't take something as extreme, or rare, as
a disassociative state to explain this, I don't think.

Hard drinking and clinical depression alone is really enough, by itself.
If you're trying to numb depression over losing a loved one while having
your finances get all fucked is enough to drive a lot people over the edge
in one way or another, especially if you're the type of person that bases
their self-worth on such things. Which, in our society, unfortunately, is
most people.

The again, a sudden shattering of self-worth can be the type of thing to
cause a disassociative state, so .. who knows.

Re: Memory Hole

[xorcist]

>
> So what happened to Ian Murdock?
>

Just checked the wiki. It's a bit limited. Prior to his suicide, he split
up with his long-time partner Debra (Debian was named as a combination of
their names), had taken it hard as most long-term mid-life breakups tend
to do, and was apparently soon to be evicted from his mansion, and had
taken to the bottle.

I'm not aware of any projects that he was currently involved with that
would have led to any interest in him by.. state actors.

As far as I can tell, its just the sad case of a man who suffered the
greatest pain one can. To lose no longer be able to afford the pricetag of
what one has, and to lose what is priceless.

Re: DDoS Of Things -

[xorcist]

>
> You can do IT work for anbody… you don’t have to code/sysadmin/whatever
> strictly for a company in the computer industry.  This has been my shift
> in the past few years.

+1

Buddy of moved into a sweet gig. After years of 'serious' admin work, he
was burnt out, and took a gig at a local hospital.

6 months later, the director of IT for that hospital up and quit. Or up
and died. No one really knows. Went on vacation, and no one has heard from
him since.

Anyhow, he got moved right in as director.

Most people that are really good with computers go after the IT industry
work. If you're good, you'll find you're likely the best if you're working
for hospitals, real estate firms, law offices, that sort of thing.

Re: Yahoo is sued for gross negligence over huge hacking

[xorcist]

>
> Consider taking part in this. Paying for using windoze coming soon,
> I heard.
>

Meh. Nowhere near lucrative enough. I can beat that 'handily' with regular
sperm donations.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -

>   mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your
>   striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)

I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in
common, at least thus far.

As far as 'intellectual honesty' goes, well isn't that rich. A large part
of intellectual honesty is not allowing one's personal beliefs to get in
the way, and to remain unbiased.

It's obvious that you do not do this. You have a belief in rationality,
especially the idea that rationality forms some type of foundational core
of the humans, and that has gotten in the way of our discussion.

If you were really intellectually honest, you'd leave your rationality at
the door.

>   mate, as far as I'm concerned, you are just a cheap liar,
>   exactly like your idol derren brown. So I take whatever you
>   post as mild entertainment...once in a while.

You know, its amusing to me how much you belabor Brown, it really is..
because he is no idol of mine. I'm loathe to give away the game here, but
in fact, I hadn't been thinking about his work at all, until I went on
Youtube to try to find an entirely different video of a mugging I had
seen, and found his wallet video. So I posted it.

But its good you find entertainment. I'm glad. That is the first positive
thing you've managed to muster. So, I'm happy to have helped you.

>   What is that you know I don't believe?

I know you don't believe that 7+10=5.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

>   I don't know what you're talking about. Then again, neither do
>   you.

What can I say, you get me so flustered, its tough to think with you
around, hot pants.

>   What was your last display of buddhist stupidity? Ah yes,
>   "bluecore". Oh, and you wouldn't work for BAE...except when
>   they fight 'opressive governments' perhaps...




Linear thinkers are so predictable. You really should spend some time on
7+10=5. It would pay off more.

And BAE doesn't fight anyone. They simply supply to those who do. And I
don't work with, or get involved with militaries, their suppliers, or
their flunkies.

I do, however, contract with a variety of firms, from time to time.
Sometimes in less than prestigious industries, like marketing. Sometimes,
far more interesting areas.

You can hold that against me, if you choose, but I'd expect something
different from a good Adam Smith libertarian. Then again, we both know you
don't believe that.

You're too wet pants scared to believe in anything. That's OK honey, I'll
rock you to sleep and sing you a lullaby.

toodles.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:31:34 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>>
>> >Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine
>> >example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist'
>> >'philosohical' 'thought'
>> >
>> >You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece
>> > of shit IOW =)
>>
>> Does this mean we're breaking up again?
>
>
>   "När inte de levande kunna hjälpa oss, måste vi hjälpa oss
>   själva"
>

Well, OK, I'll do bare back.. but I want proof you test clean first.

Re: DDoS Of Things -

[xorcist]

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:23 PM,   wrote:
> I'd bet a lot of readers here would have major ethical issues with
> what they do... collect and mine info so they can cold call, spam,
> promote, engineer, and market people brands and junk they don't
> need... and wouldn't be into working in that line of business.

  Just pointing out that not all places are super-competitive.

>
> Of course some the other stuff they have / do under the
> hood is surely cool, from a model, tech, data perspective.

Yup. The hows/whats/whys of the data they collect is interesting.

>
>> I won't give the others because, I still have relationships
>> with them. But Bluecore is awesome
>
> Parsing... and presumably formerly with bluecore.

I contracted with them for a period. Last time I knew, their security
wasn't so hot, in case anyone is bored.

> Go find me rockets, networks, and cool physical stuff to build...
> something / data useful to society / humanity / future / action...
> not pimping pointless Hilfiger jackets and Puravida bracelets.

BAE needs Linux guys if you can pass the security clearance. There are two
projects that I know are current: creating a nuclear sub training
simulator, and embedded programming to create a new electronic lock.

I'm not a real fan of the marketing industry myself, but I have far fewer
qualms with that than working for a weapons manufacturer.

Re: DDoS Of Things -

[xorcist]

> What I stated a while back about my reasons for never getting involved
> in the computer industry as a way to earn my bucks... I don't get along
> with fewdal punkz and hypercompetitive-hyperagressives reel well. So
> what did they do? They FUCKED the whole 'Fucking thing'.

In my experience that is an accurate description of probably 90% of the
industry to some degree or another. That seems to be changing, rapidly,
however.

There are a few New York based startups I'm familiar with that have a VERY
strict "leave your ego at the door" type policy. If they get the slightest
hint of competitiveness in the interview process, you're done.. no matter
how good your chops are.

Very cool people. Very chill environment.

Bluecore is one of them. They're hiring. I won't give the others because,
I still have relationships with them. But Bluecore is awesome, and it
isn't hard to find the others if you Google around.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

>   Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine
>   example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist'
>   'philosohical' 'thought'
>
>   You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of
>   shit IOW =)

Does this mean we're breaking up again?

Never claimed I was enlightened, big boy. Most of it, I only get on an
intellectual level. A little of it, after a great amount of work, I
understand intuitively. It's a process.

Never claimed I was Buddhist. I've studied Buddhism, as I have psychology,
and mathematics. I'm not a psychologist, nor mathematician, either. For
that matter, I've gotten laid, but I'm not a porn star.. but hey, we can
work on that, right sweetie?

But none of this really matters, honey. I've already come to understand
that you're deathly afraid of sharing any real opinions, much less
experiences that you might base them on. One day you'll grow up to be a
big boy, and then we can have some real fun, once you're not jail bait.

toodooloo, sweetums.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

>
> Oh, poor little broken heart...  
> http://youtu.be/JIrm0dHbCDU
>


How wonderfully apropos! First time I went to a strip club as a kid, I
remember one of the dancers doing a routine to this song.

ha! no accounting for coincidence, I guess.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

> On Sep 28, 2016 5:54 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> And I love a man that can whisper sweetly in Spanish to me. I'll have a
> margarita with you any day, sugar tits.
>
> Err...  Sorry for disappointing you, darling.  Our sweet Juan wasn't being
> romantic and inviting you to drink margaritas with him...  :-/

Oh, I know. I was following his lead in being willfully obtuse and missing
the point on purpose. I figured he'd appreciate it. Maybe should have gone
with my first instinct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbad22CKlB4

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:54:02 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>
>
>> >"margaritas ante porcos".
>>
>>
>> Spanish
>
>   quoted for self-parody value.
>
>

So, uh.. what about that drink baby?

And afterwards, I promise to be gentle.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:40:30 -
> xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>
>
>> I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away from the sweet, sweet lovin'
>> very long Juan. Some loves are meant to last.
>
>
>   I just routinely counter the garbage that people like you
>   routinely vomit. Don't think your are special. Having pointed
>   all the mistakes in your mental vomit, I'm back to the no
>   "margaritas ante porcos" policy.


That's OK. I don't mind if you sleep around, sweetheart.

And I love a man that can whisper sweetly in Spanish to me. I'll have a
margarita with you any day, sugar tits.

Re: DDoS Of Things -

[xorcist]

> What bothers me is not this particular instance, but the proof of
> concept it represents, in a world where everything from refrigerators to
> night lights phones home.  Things present a very diffuse and low-reward
> attack surface individually, but as reflectors they provide a potential
> solar-furnace-like effect in the hands of a sophisticated attacker.
>
> "Physical access is game over" so it may turn out that whoever owns the
> most Things wins after all.

Interesting points.

I would take a small amount of exception to the idea that such Things are
low-reward though. I mean, I guess it really depends on what you're
looking for.

0wning a fat database server or web head farm is great, except its real
public. People are going to be getting in there, doing upgrades, analyzing
performance, and so on. There is always the outstanding chance that you'll
get expunged, either because you get found, or because they upgrade
hardware and/or software, and redeploy their work. Either way, its just a
matter of time before you lose access.

On the other hand, getting a set-top box, or some other embedded platform
is a different story. No one is looking at those things. They are
more-or-less completely off the radar. Root one, and you have it until the
device goes offline. Set it up to listen on a Tor hidden service on
startup, and you'll probably have access even if it hits the used market
and switches physical owners.

That may change some as IoT gets more attention, but for the near-to-mid
future, this problem is only going to get worse.

True Story, allegorically told

[xorcist]

A serious young man found the conflicts of the mid 20th Century confusing.
He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself the
discords that troubled him, but he remained troubled.

One night in a coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master said to him, "go
to the dilapidated mansion you will find at this address which I have
written down for you. Do not speak to those who live there; you must
remain silent until the moon rises tomorrow night. Go to the large room on
the right of the main hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the
rubble in the northeast corner, face the corner, and meditate."

He did just as the Zen Master instructed. His meditation was frequently
interrupted by worries. He worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing
fixtures would fall from the second floor bathroom to join the pipes and
other trash he was sitting on. He worried how would he know when the moon
rose on the next night. He worried about what the people who walked
through the room said about him.

His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his
faith, ordure fell from the second floor onto him. At that time two people
walked into the room. The first asked the second who the man was sitting
there was. The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is
a shithead."

Hearing this, the man was enlightened.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

>
> Maybe fix your mail client to attribute quotes?

Alas, the webmail client here doesn't seem to be that flexible.

>
> Well, we all have shit like that going on, albeit far more subtle ;)
>
> In _Foundations of Psychohistory_, Lloyd Demause discusses the evolution
> of child-rearing methods in recent centuries, and explores implications
> for economics, politics, etc. Behavior of societies collectively
> reflects their members' childhoods.

I haven't read that. Seems like it would be interesting, however. I stayed
on a commune, some years back. I met a young woman, who was 19 when she
moved to the commune, with her (at the time) new born son. She was 27, and
finishing up a masters in biotech. She had decided that an unplanned
pregnancy wasn't going to make her give up her dreams, and found a way to
make it all work by having the commune help provide the day-care while she
was at school, and helping to provide labor to the commune in the
evenings.

The boy was amazing. I often watched him, fascinated, at how he seemed
perfectly nimble. He could play with children, be silly, and altogether a
normal kid -- and take a break from running around to come talk to the
adults and engage in quite sophisticated conversation for his age.

I often think of them when people bring up such notions, that how people
are raised at a micro-level will have macro-level effects. I tend to
agree, but haven't seen a systematic treatment of the subject. I'll try to
find that book. It would be interesting.

I would add that 'educational' institutions play a large role, as well..
but in modern society, they are equally a part of the child-rearing. Some
might say more so than parents.

> We're all broken, in one way or another.

Well yes, and some to a 'greater' or 'lesser' degree.

> Sometimes, when I'm finding myself disagreeing with others, I get that
> we're just using different language, or different frameworks, to say the
> same thing. Or maybe it's just that we don't have a clue, really ;)

I tend to take the later perspective. I find most human endeavor to be
marked by the folly of believing it to be something other than human
endeavor. So, the religious will claim its the truth of the spiritual
world. So the mathematicians have some odd neo-Platonic view that they are
"discovering" new things, rather than merely playing abstract word games
to describe patterns. The pattern doesn't exist, things that (seem) to fit
the pattern do.

>
>> To me, its rather like being the type of asshole that needs to get into
>> bar fights and all that nonsense. Just a deeply frustrated person
>> looking
>> to prove themselves.
>
> Some claim that it's all just good fun ;)

Yes, the assholes looking to prove themselves. I've never been sympathetic
to that point of view, so much.

> Right, and they don't harp on the damned goin' to Hell thing ;)

I can even deal with that, so long as they can deal with me joshing about
rather spending time with strippers and rockstars in the basement than the
boring pious doing bible study upstairs.

>
>> Hell, I like to THINK that I'd be OK with working with a Nazi who wanted
>> to do something positive too.
>
> Nazis are not uncommon in privacy/anonymity circles. Just sayin'.

Well, I wasn't even thinking just those circles. It's conceivable a Nazi
might want to, say, I don't know.. honestly I've having trouble coming up
with a realistic example because of the whole Nazi thing. But, I like to
think I could set aside my distaste for that ideology and look at what the
person does, practically, more so than what nonsense they "believe."

Because, in my view, all belief is nonsense. Including the belief that
belief is nonsense. I'm sure there are beliefs worthwhile, I'm just not
convinced humans have a way to know for sure what they are. It's all just
people talking out of their asses.

I tend to look at, well on the average what does belief X encourage its
adherents to DO. Nazism gets a low grade by that standard. But a Nazi who
DOESN'T DO things I find egregious? I like to think I can not be
prejudiced against nonsense at that point.

>
> Well, Kissinger likes him ;)
>

Now that you mention it, that may be another useful metric for giving
someone/something a low grade.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

I'll leave out your contortions of things I've said, willful ignorance of
what I meant, and your attacks. They aren't worth the time. There were,
however, two useful morsels in amongst the mess, otherwise:

> Are you trying to say the slave owners of the American South did not
> actually benefit from their slave possessions?

Big picture: the harm they did led to a civil war which enabled their
federal government in a power grab.

Small scale perspective? Yeah, they benefited. Larger scale? No, they lost
a great deal, and the American south went from being wealthy to being
poor.

Thanks for the wonderful example, in fact.


> Anyway, I take it you believe Putin is a calculating sociopath. Glad to
> hear your enlightened objective, not-coloured-by-moral-relitvism
> "opinion".

Another perfect example of you putting words in my mouth, and then running
with it "as my enlightened opinion" ..

I don't think Putin is a sociopath. I don't think Hillary is a sociopath.
I have no way to judge since I've never met either of them. I only have
media  which propagandizing ideologues have spun  one way or the other to
try to make me think one thing or the other. Knowing that, I know that I
know nothing of the truth of the matter. Nor do you. But your ideology
makes you think you do.

But, even if Putin is truly, a kind, caring man.. what does that have to
do with not being an ideologue, worrying about the "evil of the West", or
being able to sit down, and play a position on the chess board?

Nothing, of course. Nothing at all. He can do those things, and not be a
sociopath. He can work in his country's best interests - i.e. do his job,
without getting distracted by that.

You can't stay on topic, on thread you started (if I'm not mistaken),
without going into notions of moral relativity and philosophy and good vs.
evil and all sorts of irrelevant shit.

Because you're an ideologue. Putin, is not.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

> Right, to understand people, you need to see things as they might.

Of course!

>
> But that doesn't mean that you agree with what they say and do.

Of course not! :) .. the way far-out example I usually give to this is
someone like a serial killer. If they were sexually, physically, and
mentally abused by their mother for years, and then she dies before he's
had a chance to confront her in any way, it is easy to see how someone
might feel a deep hatred and intense, driving compulsion -- an incredible
hunger -- that can only be sated by killing prostitutes that happen to
look vaguely like his mother did.

I can understand compulsions. Hungers.  I can understand that, left to his
own devices, it is impossible for him to resist that urge for long.

None of that understanding means that I think they shouldn't be locked up,
of course.

But neither am I so swift at judging him in the emotional way that people
do, calling him a monster. He's not a monster. He's a human being. One
that was broken before he knew how to talk, probably.

Not that I'm above finding people monstrous.

>
> And it doesn't even mean that you are willing to take a position about
> them. Sometimes, there's just no point, because there's nothing useful
> about it. You just do what you're committed to, based on your own
> principles and values.

Indeed. I tend to look at things in terms of, what can we work together
on, rather than what can we fight/argue about. I'm not interested, at all,
in "converting" a die-hard National party type to my way of thinking. Nor
am I interested in destroying someone's religious faith. They are entitled
to their beliefs. I don't need them to agree with me to validate my own.
To me, its rather like being the type of asshole that needs to get into
bar fights and all that nonsense. Just a deeply frustrated person looking
to prove themselves.

To the extent that a good, Church-going Christian and I can work together
to DO something we both want to do, I'm happy. I'll even make small
changes to my behavior to accommodate their sensibilities, if needed. I'd
certainly have no issue with not swearing, for example. Other things I
wouldn't change..for example there are some people.. women, and homosexual
men.. that I give hugs to when I greet them.

Hell, I like to THINK that I'd be OK with working with a Nazi who wanted
to do something positive too.

> I have no clue about that. He might just have good advisors. Or maybe he
> and US leaders all work for the same people, and are just playing their
> assigned roles. It's really very hard for outsiders to know.
>

That is an excellent point. In his defense, I'd just say that from what
I've seen of him, in unscripted exchanges, he seems far more erudite, and
together than any Western politician I'm familiar with. Not that I'm a
student of such things, so I could certainly be out of my depth on that.

Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist]

+1.

Can I +2 if I develop multi-personality syndrome?

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 09/23/2016 08:04 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
>> So the US government appears set on complete destruction of
>> Ukraine. Doesn't even make strategic sense at this point. I guess
>> unless you're an essentially evil Western oligarch who wants to
>> carve it up for purchase on the cheap, the people, the Russians,
>> and the world be damned.
>
> In the context of the Cold War, now arriving at the boiling point due
> to the Bush/Obama Administration's belligerent posture toward Russia,
> the U.S. annexation of Ukraine via a (literally) Nazi proxy force
> makes strategic sense:  It was a destabilizing military and economic
> provocation against the Russian Federation, and has been followed by a
> massive conventional force buildup on Europe's eastern borders, adding
> pressure to the weight of U.S. controlled strategic nuclear assets
> that were /already/ present on that border.  These deployments must be
> countered, which ties up Russian military assets and reduces that
> country's force projection capabilities in North Africa and the Middle
> East.
>
> Russia's continuing support of the ethnic Russian enclave on Ukraine's
> eastern border also makes strategic sense:  It prevents full
> consolidation of power by the U.S. installed government, prevents
> routine deployment of East-facing U.S. controlled forces on the
> Ukraine/Russian border, and provides a potential haven for Ukrainian
> insurgents working against the government in Kiev.
>
> Crimea's value to Russia is self explanatory, and I do not recall
> hearing anything about the populace turning out to protest the orderly
> handover of power to Russia in preference to a U.S. sponsored gang of
> (literal) Nazis.  Rather the opposite, and I saw no evidence that the
> U.S. even /tried/ to retain Crimea.
>
> The "USA Number One!" mentality of comfortable Middle Class Amerikans
> makes sense of a kind: Their continued material prosperity relative to
> the former Working Class /does/ depend on global terrorism, enforced
> poverty, mass murder, cities reduced to rubble and refugee columns,
> etc. as the U.S. war of global economic conquest continues.  They
> deserve to see the same things happen to their own children and
> families, and if they continue to get their own way they WILL see that
> - - unless they happen to be closer to ground zero "on the day."
> Unfortunately, this cheerful little scenario involves dragging those
> /not/ responsible for all that human misery and heaped, dead burnt
> bodies down into the same hell.
>
> The real conflict here is not West vs. East or even USA vs. The Rest
> Of The World.  It is the human race, vs. its own parasitic ruling
> class and their faithful servants.  The parasites have already lost;
> if they do not surrender their power voluntarily (impossible),
> environmental limits enforced by the laws of physics will destroy that
> power (inevitable).  Now the only game in town is about reducing the
> final body count, which no rational scenario places at less than a
> couple of billion, and preserving essential long term survival
> resources for the survivors.  And that's where radical populist
> politics enters the scene.  Communication is vitally important in
> political warfare, and providing the best possible tools to Our Side
> is the mission that makes "cypherpunk" bullshit worth doing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX6Y1PAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqARcH/A8/jd4M+piYCDFrI4ngM+e7
> Xy7Dy2lMdPe+7YSWsQyko1yW6+91B2Vcy3MFlbCONaAE4/Di9Fnsl2nOZmtdNoOk
> +0i2JnAojCJPN9CZaqNr44qLXPDZT4RYioaxiUT0SLEaXCnKNyQf61GpqzC1TPF2
> SPtYLUJ5FWGhno1HTN5dOAzlEcmeOptUDzBhS1TQQgJ6iTZa5kqv4k3Rwzv/+0zP
> KEEHcqY6N1hFRU6G4Pt6k0GY481TRxMCwbJfdSlPhvQAk+bK3U1tT0oZx9CpxoRj
> N7uITjbEszNY2fnYRkxVu9dFSsRUxihMhmn/tjCZZCHSqoeUiRblaX9ll2xEk/M=
> =Yfej
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 10:32:22 -
>>
>> Does this mean we're breaking up?
>
>   Life is terribly tragic sometimes.

No, not a tragedy, just life. I find the best way to deal with a painful
breakup is to remember that if not for the lows, the highs would not be as
sweet; and that, with the right type of eyes, one can fall madly in love
for span of hours, and then move along, alone again. How long one is in
love for is not important, what is important is to experience it.

>   Yes massa O'Brien @ xorcist @ sigaint - I bow to your alpha
>   intellect.

There you go with that bowing again. Have you tried a chiropractor?

For me, I would say its obvious that I have no superior intellect. While I
do endeavor to hold complementary ideas in mind, I often find it
difficult. Just when I think I have it, I'm prone to hives.

Not to mention, here I am, trying to understand the ways people think in a
variety of ways and perspectives, ranging from the coldly rational, to the
exotically playful, and yet I find myself time and again, in all manner of
confusion when seeing peoples responses to the simplest of things.

I never attacked your views. I never offered the slightest argument
against classical libertarianism, nor even objectivism. Other than
clarifying your stance, I did not address them at all, that I can recall.
My main focus was to simply state some ideas that I have, and why they
lead me to conclude that anarchism is a worthwhile endeavor.

But because I would not bow to you, nor your objections, this causes you,
to bow to me?

The world truly is ripe with irrationality.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 03:24:06 -
>   I'm really fed up with you now =)

Does this mean we're breaking up?

>> Oh, I disagree. You're at a computer, so you're sitting. And you most
>> certainly are a baby.
>
>   Ha ha ha. So funny.

I thought so too. I notice that you clipped the part about 7+10=5.

There might be hope for you after all, assuming you understood it.

>> I doubt that.
>
>   Wait and see.

So we are breaking up?!


>
>   And you are the kind of retard who reply to 'nothing' =)

Of course! It's a high point of meditative experience, in fact, to focus
on nothingness for extended periods of time.

Rumor has it only the deeply enlightened can manage it.

>   Right. You are pretty much an inconsistent retard. So why would
>   your actions be consistent.

Why thank you, but this is too much praise. I do try, however. At any
rate, thank you. I'm certain a little hobgoblin like you has never read
'Self-Reliance' by Emerson, so you won't understand why its a compliment.
But that is ok. That makes it genuine, and so is even better.

But Emerson was by no means alone.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

>   So this is it xorcist.

Stop, you're going to make me blush.

This is a bunch of stuff that happened as I tapped on weird little chiclet
keys. Then, by some process of transmorgrification, an electric heart beat
pounded out into the airwaves, and was sucked into a byzantine complex of
copper conduit. It was compressed, quickened, and reflected off this
surface and that, getting lassoed by loops of magnetic hystersis on
whirling platters and setting off sparks in glowing crystals. Whereupon it
set off a chain reaction; spilling rays of light on the eye of another,
wandering through a labyrinth of nerves and neurons, colliding with
concepts and finally as it came to rest, adding just the right amount of
energy inside the brain of an oddly shaped, glorified chimpanzee, to cause
similarly shaped chiclet keys to be tapped in response.

While I have been told I'm magical, I'm no where near as magical as all that.

But again, thanks for the praise.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:01:39 -
>   Well, I don't. And what hat are you wearing now? The
>   manipulative emotionalist, or the cold 'scientific' thinker?

I don't really care if you do, or don't. I have no vested interest in
changing your mind. I'm simply stating my views, and responding to your
questions, and assertions, about them.

I don't wear hats.

>   OK. You want to believe that your niece has 'autism'. I think
>   she should be left the fuck alone. Notice also how a couple of
>   days ago you apparently thought that conformity to 'social
>   norms' was a problem, but you've been taking the exact opposite
>   side here. You made excuses for the psychiatric mafia, and
>   ultimately you just believe in their nonsense.

I don't give a shit if she wears shoes or not, or wants to bolt when the
lawnmower comes around. I don't care if she throws 'tantrums' or gets
loud, or whatever. I took her to a museum once, and on the train ride home
she was talking a bit loud (normal for her). It wasn't particularly that
late at night, around maybe 8pm, on an otherwise noisy, rumbling train --
so speaking a bit loud was to be expected of anyone, anyhow. Some cunt
tried to "shush" her while she was talking. She got embarrassed, and
immediately started talking in a lower tone. My response was to motion to
her to hold on, and then loudly said "We're on a rumbling loud train,
lady, and the quiet car is two up. If you interrupt again, you'll have me
in your face."

I'm not taking any "exact opposite side" .. you seem to really be unable
to separate, as I'm mentioned before, idealistic principles from pragmatic
practice.

IDEALLY, I would like it if people treated her differently. I would like
very much if her parents and others saw her the way I do. An individual,
with tastes, needs, and challenges that are unique to her. Like everyone.

But that isn't REALITY. It doesn't fucking matter what people in the IDEAL
world would do, we don't live there.

So, PRAGMATICALLY speaking, I offer her advice on how to cope with, deal
with, and adapt to society around her, always emphasizing that to do so
should always be in her best interests, for things she wants or feels is
important, and not because of the expectations or desires of others.

Ideally, you don't want to pay taxes, but you do. It's no different.
You'll give me some line of bullshit about coercion, but in point of fact
you COULD simply steal goods, and not pay sales tax, and not pay other
taxes. You don't want the ramifications. So you deal, and cope.

No different.

>> I wouldn't consider it a problem.. and my understanding is that
>> because its biologically based,
>
>   I'm done with (your) pseudo science, sorry.

Go look it up, dude.


>> >In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of
>> >model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny
>> >states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from
>> >pater)...that kind of thing...
>>
>> Ok, so we're talking models of the state, and not THE totalitarian
>> state.
>
>   Huh? All states are totalitarian, by definition.

Read. "IN THIS CASE ITS THE FAMILY WHICH IS ___SOME_SORT_OF_MODEL__ .."

You started out by saying that kids are forced into comformity by THE
TOTALITARIAN STATE. I said no, kids are forced into conformity by peer
pressure from other kids. To which you are said that ok, its the parents
that fail to suppress peer pressure and bullying, and that is somehow a
model for the state.

I'm not gonna bother with it.. because the point is simply, first.. you're
back-peddling here, and that's fine. And second, my point has been
affirmed.

The STATE. The functioning body of government does not, through law and
state officials, have much to do with the behavior patterns encouraged
upon children. As you said, that is ultimately the family, who fail to
raise proper kids, and those kids might be bullies or engage in peer
pressure.

Fine, good.


>> Greedy state-outlawed drug dealers, working as salesmen for out-lawed
>> cartels, selling outlawed, unpatentable freely reproduced and copied
>> products and other shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are
>> just looking for an escape from the 'normal' savagery.
>
>   What point are you trying to make?

Nope. The point was that using your reasoning you can apply it to things
that government has no direct bearing on. That regardless of whether or
not it is legalized, and state-regulated, or unregulated and black market,
in either case -- greed comes to bear.

The state doesn't make people greedy. Greedy people don't necessarily,
even, make up the state.

The state IS. Greed IS. There is overlap.

Hey, state officials breathe too, I hear.

>   Unpatentable yes, freely reproduced, obviously not at all. The
>   products still need to be manufactured in a highly regulated
>   enviroment. That's why there's a black market...

Freely reproducible in the sense that customers 

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:50:00 -
>   Psychiatry is radically different. Being 'mentally healthy'
>   simply means being 'well adapted' to a society of crazies.

I get where you are coming from. I've often said, "Being well-adapted to a
sick culture is no sign of health."

>   The fact that psychiatrists and the like may sometimes say some
>   sensible things doesn't counter this other fact : they also
>   say very crazy things. And do very criminal things.

Agreed.

I see. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me more like your main
criticism is of the establishment of psychiatry, and not so much with the
study of the mind, personality, and so on as such?

I can agree with this. I think a great deal of psychiatry, as a discipline,
is half-assed, and generally speaking am critical of institutions generally.

But in terms of explaining common aspects of human behavior, I find
psychological models fairly accurate.

>   Maybe she doesn't like gym class. And maybe the tantrums are
>   caused by some other reason.

No, she won't wear shoes if she can help it. "Pathologically" prefers bare
feet, or socks.. and can accept sandals. She really does get a
panic-attack type response to it.

Some autism is characterized by tactile response things like that. She
used to flinch at touch very easily too. As in, she could be sitting on
the couch, ask you to come over, see you coming over and you could gesture
out your hands to indicate touch.. but she would still jump a little if
you touched her shoulder or whatever. She's basically over that, now
though.

That example is like a weird "two-fer" .. Aspies (affectionate name for
those with Asperger's) tend to not understand body language well, so the
gesture of oncoming touch wouldn't necessarily be interpreted correctly.

>   So, the issue is not any mental problem on her part, but
>   having to deal with less than fully civilized people...

I wouldn't consider it a problem.. and my understanding is that because
its biologically based, its not considered mental illness, or a disease of
the mind. It's a condition. Like being quite short.. a "little person"
it's no disease, it's just them. CAN that condition be a problem to deal
with? Of course.

She has real issues coping with things that 'normal' people tend to have
zero issue with. She's different.. very much like being quite short, and
having issues coping in the world with average sized people.

How "normal" people treat her causes far more problems than her condition
causes her on its own, by far. I imagine that is true for little people as
well.

>   In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of
>   model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny
>   states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from
>   pater)...that kind of thing...

Ok, so we're talking models of the state, and not THE totalitarian state.
Yeah, authoritarianism has bad effects, for sure.

>
>   Exactly. Greedy STATE LICENSED doctors working as salesmen for
>   the greedy pharmaceutical mafia that exists only thanks to
>   STATE GRANTED patents and other IP shit. Furthermore, they drug
>   up children who are not 'normal', i.e. they are actually
>   healthy children who don't get along with 'normal' savagery.
>
>   So the state seems to play some sort of role in all that...

Greedy state-outlawed drug dealers, working as salesmen for out-lawed
cartels, selling outlawed, unpatentable freely reproduced and copied
products and other shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are just
looking for an escape from the 'normal' savagery.

So the state seems to have little role, in all of that...

Greed will always be around, man. Greed will infect any system you have,
or don't have. Greed infected monarchies, modern nation-states, churches,
personal relationships.. I mean.. name it, and if it involves humans,
greed has been a problem for it somehow, somewhere I'd wager.

>> If people were so fundamentally, at their core, rational -- why does
>> this irrational thing exist?
>
>
>   Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able to
>   impose their views on the rest.

But it isn't rational to allow a minority to impress its will on the
majority.

So we're back to square one.


>   Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow
>   we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people controlled
>   by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a recipe for
>   tyranny and disaster.

Why not? If rational is the metric for good, then the most rational people
can do the most good. They'll seek to do the most good.

It may still be a recipe for disaster, but it would seem to be a smaller
disaster, or take a longer time, or SOMETHING positive compared to those
that can't reason to the same level of complexity.

Society is complex. There are a lot of moving parts. Irrational people
running the show 

Re: [RUS] Putin - the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the Russian public

[xorcist]

> First you raised a straw man "Putin good man/ bad man", then you raise a
> dichotomy "the wrong question vs the right question".

Straw man implies I'm arguing with you, or trying to refute your opinion.
I'm just having a discussion, and the "Putin good man / bad man" thing was
mostly to clarify my own position, as I had just stated my opinion of some
of his positive qualities.

> There are actions in the world.

Truly.

> Some exhibit what I name as evil intentions.
> Others actions exhibit good intentions.

Right. You name them. It's your opinion. I may even agree with that
opinion. But I am operating from the standpoint where I understand that
others have different opinions, and may name things in exactly the reverse
order.

That's why I meant by there are no good guys and bad guys in geopolitics.

American's are going to (on the whole) support America. Russians are, on
the whole, going to support Russia.

As I understand it, people tend to support their local sports teams too.

> Soros' emails show he wanted to break up Russia (not just the USSR) to
> ultimately create a one world hegemon.

Surely. My point was more in regards to the "since perestroika" part.
Mainly that, since those times, Russian/American opinions of each have
been up, and been down; whereas it sounded like you are presenting the
idea that Russian's opinion of America has steadily declined.

>From my understanding, that is not the case.

> Putin decided Russia was a nation of 170 million people who deserve
> better than Soros "break up Russia" intention, and set about doing many
> good actions in support of that nationalistic position.

Agreed. He is playing for his team.

I'm sure someone like Kissinger would argue Soros is playing for the other
team.

> "The West" has time and again demonstrated utter contempt for anything
> actually worth regarding.

I tend to agree. We have similar definitions of worth.

>
> Russians have seen this, and of course the Russian media does its level
> best to draw this out, and boost their ratings from such madness as is
> so regularly displayed in the West and by Westerners, and as a result of
> seeing this, Russians now have a, rather low, regard for "the West".

Depends on who you talk to. Russians in the West certainly don't, that
I've talked to.

> This is a healthy development :)

It's a development.

Some years ago, I was living in New York City. I sat in a bar once,
talking the piss with a couple of guys that were older than I. One, a
former U.S. marine. The other, a former Russian soldier. We sat around,
getting a bit tossed, telling jokes and having a good time.

The conversation turned to their pasts, when the subject of their military
backgrounds came up, and it turned out that they had both served in their
respective forces at the same time. I shut the fuck up, first, not having
any inclinations to military type loyalties, and because I was curious how
this whole thing was going to go down now that we'd both had a good number
of drinks.

The American observed that, he was glad the world turned out the way it
did and that we were all having a good laugh, and that a "bunch of rat
bastard politicians" didn't make him have to kill the Russian guy. The
Russian poked back in good nature, saying he was glad that he didn't have
to try, because the American would surely have lost, sort of thing. Just a
bit of guy bravado and joshing around.

Just as they started to move the conversation away from all that .. I
piped back up and offered:

Yeah, but think back to your time in the service. Think back to when you
were in it. Back then, you would have never believed you'd be sitting here
having a drink together, laughing. Back then, they had you hating each
other before you even met.

They got quiet. Somber. I let them stew for a bit, and then ordered
another round and offered a toast 'So here's to the rat bastards who are
smart enough to trick us all, but not smart enough to run the world like a
proper clock.. at least the cunts haven't fucked up the booze yet!'

Which brought back around the revelry.

THAT was a positive development.

Re: [RUS] Putin - the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the Russian public

[xorcist]

>
> GOOD and bad, RIGHT and wrong - are THE ONLY VARIABLES in this equation.

 I disagree.

On a personal level, right and wrong certainly exist. I believe this is
the only plane where morality has any real meaning.

On a geopolitical level, good and evil are meaningless, UNLESS you make
the simple statement that ALL states are evil. That I can agree with. Like
street gangs, for instance.

But once you're IN that game, there is no more good and evil. There is our
gang, and their gang. We compete, and that's the game.

Like chess.

I was never much a fan of chess. Simulated war game silliness. Nor sports
like football where you're running back and forth towards opposing goals,
and playing at invading territory.

Cricket and baseball are more my speed. You share the field, and take
turns being on the top of the mound, and getting shit thrown at you. It
has an element of team play, and an element of one-on-one competition
while the team stands around.

Re: JY vs Sea Sea vs Actual Discussion

[xorcist]

> That is /very/ clever indeed.

Why thank you.

> Or just make them believe you gave up something "personally
> embarrassing" but not actionable under duress.  Got to give them a win
> to report.
>
> :o)

Yeah, I was always partial to having something personally embarrassing as
a first level involving weird porn, and then a richly eloquent "fuck you"
letter to whoever is reading it chastising, basically saying "if you made
it this far, you must be a sick pervert looking for more porn", as a
second level.

That might be fun for certain circumstances.

But for covert agents, criminals, terrorists, shit like that.. if you're
being interrogated, they probably have good evidence to hold you beyond
wanting to look at your plaintext. That's the case where one needs the
strategy angle.

Not that I personally need to concern myself with such things.. but I find
mathematics and game theory fascinating, so.. it passes the time and keeps
me from drinking or watching TV. That's a plus.

Re: JY vs Sea Sea vs Actual Discussion

[xorcist]

I've been toying with libgcrypt, lately. Mostly to refresh my 'C' after a
long, long love affair, turned dirty mouth-spitting fuck-fest with python.
It's been a long time since I had to do so much fucking book keeping. I
remember why I left C behind.

I'm turning over some ideas for a FUSE-based encrypted filesystem.

To start, I'm building an unencrypted system (so I can hex the block file
and make sure shit is getting stored correctly). The passphrase gets
hashed such that it is used to specify the location in the file for the
root dir entry. Different passwords get you pointed to different roots.
Files are essentially linked lists, pointing to the next block. Allocation
will be intentionally fragmented/random. Once the allocation and
filesystem primitives are debugged, and painted with robust error
checking, it will be trivial to add AES. Chaf data can be added by making
a dir/files with a random password, containing random data. Or hell, keep
the password, and
be able to delete the chaf if you needed to free up space.

I'm toying with how I might use Shamir's secret sharing scheme as well.
You'd need N-of-M images (all mountable separately and usable) but when
brought together, allow you to decrypt a root dir that you wouldn't be
able to decrypt separately.

So, from a deniability standpoint, you can choose to claim you have no
"random" chaff meant to thwart cryptanalysis. You have your encrypted dir
(which you were forth-coming with), and the other data requires a
different file, which you don't have.

Provides for some more nuanced game theory at the interrogation phase when
being coerced into giving up keys.

And usable secret sharing at an FS level is cool by itself.

As of now the plan is to have a plaintext descriptive header, and
allocation table. I can't think of any ways that an allocation table would
be useful for cryptanalysis. In the end, all it really does is let you
ignore the blocks containing 000's (wiping/secure deletion by default)..
and you'd be ignoring them anyhow..

> I've been reading the list for a few weeks and, I have to say, I am very
> disappointed. Cypherpunks used to be a group of individuals who solved
> problems, discussed solutions, and tackled the hard problems that faced
> the Internet community. There were flame wars, but they got resolved and
> the list got in with its business.
>
> This current shit surrounding cypher piggie is ridiculous. Who the fuck
> cares about how rude juan is or if Sea Sea or JY are the same people? It's
> stupid shit that's distracting the list from real issues that it could be
> tackling instead of spending endless time arguing with and over an obvious
> troll.
>
> Or maybe that's the whole point. Distraction from real work, real code,
> real idea discussion. Maybe that's the why.
>
> I know it won't do any good, but I appeal to the members of this list who
> are engaging in these stupid discussions to fucking stop it! Focus on what
> needs to be done, focus on ideas, focus on getting code written.
>
> At last, let me say I'm not jumping into the argument here at all. I'm
> sure this email will be challenged or someone will say something stupid in
> response. I won't bother responding to those. But I will engage in serious
> discussion with anyone who wishes to do so. I don't care about sea sea or
> juan or John Young or who they 'really' are. I'm here to connect with
> other REAL cypherpunks who want to get shit done. Not little boy and girl
> posers who like the idea of tangentially associating themselves with a
> movement that changed the world. 
>
> My public key is below should anyone wish to use it to communicate.
>
> D
>
> -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
>
> mQINBFfkVNcBEADFfeLnvegKe/FoKTGT/o5tBfqI0chjoKMEqdrZnqf3SSzteLDy
> ZbDJ7T9IMJzqF9T+K+KMUswiBqstZ0lxDK1138jWq3QXDXwlAfKtiHG7cTZLEgtf
> zj0v09gNoLWhsSp0wnTjgV4kdLHAdb5cCLiG+XXhhWmfU+zWfzXZJz5+isLfCQGu
> H7bPo6embdHFKsfjCGW/07911WM5VpZzrJhJ8pAyxK4nCKOVcKu5fjmOtPu2ZHXQ
> LDEWzVi+MIJpF9wa6GEcNZTF1qrKuHrlmeIemB0uMgPkf8CdLpXBDLss2WRkXKZc
> 4lsJ4yssbv5XnStmPxTeKCqLOWo5Gi6bGrqxIeCwL9zkJUwnIEgT/jirbjTLKXKl
> rjvS61xCdIVj8LDYjcLsbnq7rZKQdiypJ/R6Pb0P18bAhtYCHpUZ/RXVtZ5vmVVD
> qSFm8c1gb4nRHjrUb+GdWruWrG+onRT8PEnZncsUJdNhGT8IIOwVIfwBsoNwqEG+
> jYsm+GDIYX6Bhfmr644PVrbwkWtcxu7BduH2hVqhtjmY3UDwulgJfoPHJvQdbwT1
> 4y6ZDsrG5jE0jmt/7Na/n3QyqF3L9ifapyVXBaON6UylcqQkOC0djuGDfuRMSljr
> zQQKvtQ4Yw4G0LkufwQqgukANbjrvIChP+gmbYATiz1MpDm6mbzK6At94QARAQAB
> tCJEYXZpZCBTbWl0aCA8YW5vbjc0MjdAdHV0YW5vdGEuZGU+iQI/BBMBAgApBQJX
> 5FTXAhsDBQkB4TOABwsJCAcDAgEGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQwpB/ATwg
> nVhg7hAAjvHLo7i3PBmHjvuk53NFt2shDVbN5PPao/wPYWILcO5TjdC0VtaCZFiQ
> ee0aMSnCjzuEM5vQpeUjPCkjRLJ3cCmk9xrh+y6OoEQTjohNSMpJhafSp+2+IzAG
> KTfRCfAOzs7tzlHDdx9XUMMjJF3nNAaDFySG8KCDdoOnhStMW3+wUfCeJLaIr71V
> 3zA7vJ3to1uyc4gX9Ev5bfWetB+OP/eX9jgv9fDCqAkayAjsXwmMD1CtGxklGFiv
> RGblz6kZO3TKrK+FjKodTp7OlbuwIffH79B4qH2t2n91w1mccePP8ywngJ97X/Gz
> +3bU/JAfQyLxV12FNbGs9+R5rjZg2hxYIBRFNa5mHBUDwtzRHY5xRV6r4xHlprIE
> 

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:06:17PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> Greed is a fundamental problem of Capitalism. It is also a fundamental
>> problem of Socialism. The Soviet chiefs in the Politburo weren't
>> standing
>> in the bread lines with everyone else.
>
> On the other hand, greed is the primary driver which led us humans where
> we are today. Without it, we'd surely still be hunter-gatherer's living
> every day on the edge of extinction.
>
> So, fighting greed might not work.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but even if you could convince
me, it's also then brought us full-circle: nukes. So we haven't really
gained much, by that measure.

And yet, you're also talking to a guy that enjoys jumping out of
airplanes, and I can tell you that the edge of extinction is a rather
lovely 45 seconds.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

>
> Right. US military have trained heavily for this scenario, however.

So? That can actually play to your advantage. With heavy training, comes
assumptions of what to expect, and an ingrained game-plan. If you know
what they expect, you simply do something else, and cause confusion.

>
> Well, too weak or not, far too few of them want freedom badly enough.

Yeah, the conditions for real insurrection are rare, and tends to involve
a great deal of suffering. As a tyrannt, if you can keep the population
fat, and entertained, you'll be alright.

>
> That does seem to be a favorite tactic. But even if you take down the
> national government, it's police forces and National Guard units that
> would become feudal overlords. So armed insurrection seems pointless.

Nah, you're looking at it in a vacuum. If the conditions are right to get
a large enough force together to do something like that, there is enough
social support to get a majority on board.

Read, or review, Che Guevara's work "Guerrilla Warfare" .. he makes a
pretty compelling case for the types of conditions that need to be met in
order to have an effective insurrection.

>> If this is true, its a serious indication that the United States
>> government is greatly weakening. Considering its importance to the west,
>> generally, its good news all around.
>
> Wishful thinking.

OK, so you made me go digging this up.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/dhs-report-latest-warn-fallout-bundy-ranch-standoff

Federal agents has firearms pointed at them, and stood down. DHS
subsequently predicted a rise in anti-government and anti-police activity
as a result. They were right about that, it would seem.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:12:11AM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> They were bloody well fed anti tank and anti aircraft rpgs and the like
> by the USA - that's how they took down the USSR occupation.
>
>
>> Then took their AK47's and repelled NATO.
>
> Your simplification may be useful to inspire, but more research by the
> wanna be AK47 wielder is most definitely required!

You really might want to look into this yourself.

Western military analysts tend to see the introduction of the Stinger
missles as the "turning point" in the war.

Russian analysts see the decision much differently. Gorbachev had ordered
the scale-down, and withdrawal a full year before the Afghans fired their
first Stinger.

And of course, no one was feeding them artillery during the invasion by NATO.

But, in a way, you're right. It wasn't REALLY the rifle's that let them
win. It was the mountains.

Nevertheless, given the proper conditions and terrain it is not difficult
to mitigate tanks and aircraft. It is not difficult to arrange a situation
where an army needs to walk in, on foot.

And once you get them to that point, it's all about the rifles.

I don't know exactly what the terrain is like in some of the U.S. mountain
areas, but I'm sure there are suitable areas. But it doesn't even matter.

If you have the bodies? Grab rifles, walk into New York and D.C., and
squat them. Tanks and aircraft are useless. They aren't going to use
artillery on Manhattan or D.C. Three thousand or so "tourists" show up
over the course of 6-8 months in each city. There are abandoned subway
tunnels in NY might get overlooked. You'd need access to some hardware to
break in, but if you can manage something like this, that is trivial.
There may be something similar in DC.

The problem isn't that artillery and aircraft are too difficult to avoid,
and mitigate. Its that the people are too weak. Big difference.

And in any civil war scenario, its quite likely you'll gain anti-aircraft
missles, artillery, etc, very early. It is always likely that you'll
inspire at least a partial military coup.

> And TAKE NOTICE all WANNA BE INSURRECTIONISTS - our TLA 'friends' will
> always try to infiltrate, demonstrate and thereafter express authority,
> and finally cause your insurrection to launch waay too early, well
> before you have any chance of succeeding.

I don't know the whole story, but I read awhile back about some situation
or another in the States where militias had a stand off with the Federal
government, and the government stood down?

If this is true, its a serious indication that the United States
government is greatly weakening. Considering its importance to the west,
generally, its good news all around.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:30:55PM -0700, Razer wrote:
>
> You cannot eliminate human nature.
>
> Greed and lust for power are tendencies of human nature.
>
> But perhaps it is possible to commoditize politics, rather than have
> politics be a tool for the wealthy and powerful?
>
> (How? Good question - time to hack concepts.)
>

I agree completely, Zen.

Greed is a fundamental problem of Capitalism. It is also a fundamental
problem of Socialism. The Soviet chiefs in the Politburo weren't standing
in the bread lines with everyone else.

Any reasonable political theory must account for this, and provide some
strategy to mitigate it.

How, of course, is the question. I suspect Syndicalism would work, and if
combined with a new theory of value might work quite well. Bootstrapping
it is the problem.

Power, is a whole other animal. I'm not sure anyone has really figured
that one out.

If the society has "money" .. and if "money" is, in some sense, a
mechanism for motivating and organizing labor, then quite literally, the
wealthy have more power, right down to the sense that the term is used in
physics, that of the rate of doing work.

I suspect that there is no way to create a truly egalitarian society in
the presence of money. Those that have it, will have an advantage in
negotiating with those that don't. You've created a power dynamic as soon
as you print the stuff.

Now, on the other hand, if basic goods and services were free, if you were
assured a basic standard of living, and food to eat, perhaps in a communal
house or public studio apartments, so that one did not HAVE to work for
money, but would only want to work in order to get access to better goods,
services, bigger apartment, etc, that might be enough to take the edge of
the implied power dynamics.

But it still doesn't stop the fact that a wealthy person can afford to pay
bunches of people to help get him political power, and that political
power allows him to become wealthier; and then the deafening feedback
begins.

The solution is to create a structure that doesn't utilize money, at least
not in the way we know the concept.

[Fwd: Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF]

[xorcist]

Ooops.

Sent this to Juan offlist, but meant to copy the list on it too.

>   However the idea that a professional seller of jewelry is going
>   to make a big sale like that, without even COUNTING the bills
>   because he had been chatted up with some nonsense about the
>   subway system is...not plausible.

It's all about misdirection, and subtle cues. I haven't seen Derren's
explanation of this particular example, but from what I know of the
subject, here is my take:

The chat about the subway is misdirection. He makes it a point to start
moving his hands, point this way and that about "directions" .. that gets
the cashier looking away from what they're doing and subtly distracted,
looking at him, and away from what they are supposed to be doing.

Then he mentions being uneasy about the subway. This is an important part.
Because it will tend to make the listener remember a time they were uneasy
or had a bad experience on the subway. This memory, and any associated
emotional impact, puts them entirely "within their head" for just a
moment.

Then comes pay off. "Go ahead, just take it. It's fine." while handing him
the paper.. overtly referring to his friend, telling him to take the
subway, but covertly a command to accept the "money."

The jewelry store guy DID realize it, shortly after, as well as did the
guys with the wallets. That is to be expected. The suggestible state
doesn't last indefinitely.

If you look into his work, he has admitted that he has more failures than
successes depending on the complexity of the trick, and that his show is
about entertainment, primarily, and so only the successes are shown.

It's conceivable he stages some things, too. Like any magician.

>   I do think that Darren is socially engineering people. The
>   people who watch their videos, IF they think are real...

But if you believe a talented magician never manages to fool people
successfully, you're naive. Yes, they'll stage stuff too, but that is
hardly the point.

The skills of illusion, and "mentalism" are quite real.. and if you watch
more of his stuff, especially the longer videos or full episodes where he
breaks down the hows and whys of it working, perhaps you'll be less likely
to say its fake. It's easy to dismiss a magic trick as "camera edits" when
you just have a 3 minute video. It's a bit harder when the magician
explains the whole thing to you.

In the videos I linked to, he uses a lot of body language mirroring.
Whatever movements the subject makes, he mirrors with his own body
language. Then, when he feels like he has the person, he'll move away as a
test and do other movements to see if they have begun mirroring him, in
return.

Then he handed them the water bottle, while asking for something in
return. They continue to mirror, they have received, so they'll give. This
is doubly effective, since there is a subconscious desire for reciprocity.

And then yes, they realize it. Their rational mind kicks back in, and
they'll realize it. But the fact that the rational mind can be so easily
subverted, should give one pause.

He uses a lot of techniques, but "neuro-linguistic programming" (NLP) is
the bread-and-butter.

I have some familiarity with the techniques.. book learning, basically.
I've never employed them, at least not consciously, but I can say that I
see a lot of this stuff in advertisements and politicians speeches.

Seems to me there is something to it, whether Derren is 100% above board,
or not.

Re: Switching gears

[xorcist]

> I disagree.

> Therefore, the one and only effective way to get back freedom is to
> shutdown the tyranny. Maybe weapons are required, like in the US
> independence war, maybe a massive amount of people is required, like we
> east germans did in 1989.
>
> Anything else are illusions.

Valid points.

I don't pin much hope on violence, though. Violent revolution has never
produced any type of long-lasting freedom. At best, a short respite from
tyranny.. like lancing an infection to let out just enough pus to relieve
the pain, but no antibiotics for a cure.

US independence is a great example. Their declaration of independence
lists charges against the King of England. Today, it strongly parallels
the US government's lesser infractions.

All violence does is to transfer power to a new group, and perhaps
consolidate it further. It does nothing to dissipate it.

Mass scale strikes or protests might have a better chance. At least that
sets a foundation not predicated on violence, and therefore coercion,
which is the premise of all government and all tyrannies.

I don't see insurrection as a real way forward, just an outlet for
inevitable frustration before we start the cycle over again. Maybe that is
inevitable, but I don't like to believe that.

Re: Little Brother, Re: Switching gears

[xorcist]

> That's called "Little Brother"; we (for various forms of "we") have talked
> about it a lot.

Heh. Kinda funny. I called it "Little Sister" when I mentioned it to my
buddy.

Yeah, those are good points you make. A voting system that could
downvote/purge irrelevant/private clips would be good. It should be motion
captured, to preserve storage/bandwidth.

Of course you're right that there are implications for misuse. I'm not
sure thats a deal-breaker for me, exactly, criminal types will use their
own tech to case a joint anyhow. Sure, maybe it lowers the bar, but there
seem to be adequate payoffs.

My main concern is the privacy implications, and the social implications,
of people who get accustomed to always being on cam. I see it evolving to
a type of super-amped up example of the Japanese concepts of honne (true
sound)/ tatemae (facade). Honne being "how one truly is" and tatemae "how
one presents themself in society." All cultures have such concepts, but
for the Japanese, they were, and are, very deeply ingrained and felt,
including nuance for different levels, and things one never says even to
their closest associates.

I don't know that those are trades I'm willing to make.

The black bloc tactic of smashing cameras isn't bad, except like most of
their tactics, it just won't scale. It's great for young adults with
plenty of piss and vinegar in their veins, but its not going to attract
the masses. I'm not worried about attracting the anarchist kids willing to
get facial ink to make sure they can't get a proper job and "sell out" or
willing to do a stint in the clink. They're going to be alright.

I'm more concerned with getting to the critical mass of mainstream folks.
Your points about providing a free type of security monitoring solution
for their homes might help attract them, with the side-benefits being that
it can undermine a state monopoly on surveillance.

Still.. the social costs scare me. But those costs may very well get paid
whether an open system exists, or not.

Switching gears

[xorcist]

I'd like to bounce an idea around. At the outset, I'm going to say that I
don't really like the idea. Like getting a root canal, I'd rather not have
a some guy drilling around in my jaw, but what can you do?

Some years back, maybe 8 years ago now, prior to the Snowden revelations,
a Kiwi buddy and I were discussing the arising surveillance state.

I ventured the idea that the only way to combat it, is for citizens to put
web cams in their windows, in their cars, have body cams.. whatever.. and
have a distributed system where we can live stream that stuff up. Open
source surveillance, if you will.

The idea scared the hell out of him, and rightly so. My take on
surveillance tech is that it is like nukes. The only viable strategy is
deterrence. The genie is out of the bottle, the tech isn't going anywhere,
and so if we're going to preserve freedom, the technology needs to be
under our control.

Open source surveillance is a monster, but its a monster that would bite
police and agents of the state as easily as us. Rather than the
government/media being able to selectively pick-and-choose which camera
angles, and which clips to release, we'd have to ability to check, and
disprove.

I don't like what it means, in terms of enabling stalkers, but perhaps
that is mitigated by the ability to catch those fucks on camera?

I'd love to hear reactions and thoughts on this. It's not something you're
going to catch me truly arguing for, its really more of a devil's advocate
type thing.. like I say, I just see it mostly as a fucked strategy for
dealing with a fucked situation.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>
> oh oh oh... so much private information and WHAT an information we
> should start LAving you, xorcist. Just lAving you!!! What a holy man we
> got

Private? Fuck you're paranoid.

I don't consider what I do for a living, or otherwise, private. My name,
location, who I date.. those things are private.

I didn't offer the info. In fact, I tried to ignore the question. But I
was asked. So I answered.

Within reason I'm an open book. I'm no holy man, either.

I'm neither am I a petulant child.

> Yeah, xorcist! Yeah! That's why you are on this list - hitting the
> "nerves" and trying to brainwash people.

Yup, that's what I'm doing. Trying to brainwash people.

Let me tell you something. If I were trying to brainwash people, I
wouldn't be fucking around on an internet list. I'd probably try starting
some type of religious cult. But it would have to face to face.. person to
person.. brainwashing is fundamentally about person-to-person interaction,
cult of personality type shit.

Text communication, but its nature, isn't really susceptible to that.

> So you are not gonna succeed. There are Invincible GUARDS here on the list
> for suckers like you. Zenaan and Juan are their names.

This is quite interesting to me. So, if I disagree with the Invincible
Guard Juan on some things, then I'm a CIA enemy.

That sounds quite like some of the most unbelievable brainwashing I've
ever heard. I mean, it fits the bill.

Disagree with the all-powerful, invincible leader, and you're the enemy. A
shadowy enemy, who can't be trusted at all. Satan's henchman, and such.

Fuck maybe I'm wrong about the brainwashing with text. Juan, I know you're
good at dissecting text, but I didn't realize you were THAT good.

Kudos. Keep these nutters on list and distracted with cross-posted news
sources. Better than letting them roam the streets.

Razer, Juan.. I sincerely apologize. I thought you guys were just posting
bullshit. I had no idea you were performing a public service.

My bad, dudes.

> However, i know that you won't (in the near future), 'cause your masters
> won't let you. So, we will enjoy a few more knockouts for you.

Riight. More self-supporting paranoia. Here's the beauty of your delusion:

If I chose to leave the list, then I'd have done so because I got found
out as CIA.

If I don't choose to leave, then its because my CIA masters won't let me.

lol.

You know, there is a principle of logic -- one that Juan would probably be
able to tell you about, if you care to listen -- that a position that has
no criteria which COULD refute it, is necessarily illogical.

Meh.. whatever.. you're out of the depth, guy.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>
> Now, here's your fallacy.

And, let me also say.. your description of the human thought process is
all wrong. :)

Consider it this way. When someone walks up to you, and sticks out their
hand to shake hands.. you respond by reaching out and shaking hands.

You're not processing it all the way you described. You don't think "Oh,
this person wants to greet me, I should respond accordingly."

That doesn't happen. At all.

What actually happens is, their body language communicates to you that
they want to shake hands, and the learned response kicks in..
automatically.. and you reach out your hand, before you've thought much of
anything.

That is why Derren's "interrupt" mechanism works. You watch for a person
on the street who is in deep thought, probably remembering something ..
memory is an activity that engages the subconscious. Then you interrupt
them, and get them to shake hands.. they'll respond, also subconsciously..
and then instead of going with the normal routine of letting go of the
hand and letting them run their "normal hand shake routine" you do
something different, and you quite literally inject a new thought into
their minds.

The programming techniques Derren demonstrates, and explains are used
widely in sales, in public speaking, and so on. Not everyone is
susceptible to them. But many are.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> 2016-09-21 3:33 GMT+03:00 juan <juan@gmail.com>:
>
> Oh... what a deadly punch/es, Juan! (one of)
> The poor new CIA troll xorcist (substituting the SDW guy) starts to
> understand why his fellow man (SDW) failed on the list with his cheap
> US/antihuman pseudophilosophical propaganda.
> :P
>
> Lets see whom they will send next.
>

I absolutely love it when you nutters call me CIA or some shit. Fucking
hilarious.

See, now THIS is what I mean when I said I'm here for the lulz..

Let me guess, whenever you see a black van on the highway you think 'they'
are following you, right?

Wait wait.. no, no.. they only use black vans in the movies, right? In
real life they use WHITE vans. Yeah, thats the ticket.

Right.

fucken hell..

Dude, if I was CIA, I'm sure I'd have a lot better things to do than argue
with you fucking assholes. And if they dont, then that sure as hell
explains the recent god damn bombings and shit for the last few decades,
don't it?

In fact, I'm not EVEN CIA, and I have a lot better things to do. I'm burnt
out lately, so I've been slacking.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:40:09PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> Now, here's your fallacy. Because we humans are of course acting
> rationally under pressure. Take Juan's give-me-your-money example: in
> order to actually hand out your money you need to understand my
> intentions, you need to know that I know what you might know etc, and
> then act accordingly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdYgEDSm7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2KGGMc1EM

Don't be so sure.

>
> This is rationality at work.

> THAT is free will.

Poke around on Youtube and watch a bunch of Derren's stuff. Watch how he
MAKES people make choices that, to them, feel entirely free.

Listen to him, as he teaches you how it works, WHY it works, and get an
understanding of the limits of rational, conscious free will.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>> You're like autistic or something.
>
>
>   Sure. And being gay is a disease that is cured with
>   electroshocks and lobotomies.


Hit a nerve, did I? Sorry. No judgments. If its correct, it just means you
just think differently. It's not even a big deal. For the purposes here,
it just means you'll tend to take discussions in a more literal way.

>   "Autistic" - you just keep polishing your pseudo scientific
>   garbage eh. Now you are firmly in the grounds of fascist
>   'psychiatric' 'science'.

lol. Dude, my niece has Asperger's. She's brilliant, talented, and I love
her - and there is no 'fascist psychiatry' involved. Her life, and her
relationships with her parents and others all benefited when the diagnosis
was realized, and appropriate communications techniques used.

>> You focus on the words, but seem to
>> have difficulty actually relating to the underlying scenarios or
>> seeing the dynamics of human relationships within those scenarios.
>> It's all this bullshit about "the logic" of morality. Bugger off with
>> that nonsense.
>
>   Sure. If such an alpha master of intelectual thought like you
>   says so, I will obey.

Oh come now. Now you're just being butt-hurt. You've called what I've
written bullshit numerous times and I didn't get all shitty about it.

And I don't "alpha" towards anyone. If I did, I wouldn't be so quick to
insult myself, say you have the bigger dick, and so on.

I don't play those games. I just recognize them.

But, when I disagree, I say so. And I defend my position and state things
how I see it. You are, of course, free to disagree and that's fine.

Like I said, I don't have enemies.

>> But they are still a representation social in-group/out-group dynamics
>
>   I bow to your superior wisdom, massa

Well stand the fuck up then.

>
>   Sure. Violence is wrong according to pacifists, but allowing
>   people to be killed, including oneself, is 'right' - I laugh my
>   ass off at the STUPIDITY of it.
>
>   Feel free to lecture me again with that kind of stupidity as if
>   it wasn't sheer stupidity...

Don't misrepresent me. I never said I thought it was right. I never said I
was a pacifist to that level.

We're talking about morality, and the ways it gets interpreted.
Specifically, how morality can be objective, or at least not relative --
and yet still get interpreted differently by different cultures and
people.

There are pacifists which interpret it that way however, and I'm just
acknowledging an interpretation that is different my own, without
denigrating it. Something you seem unwilling to do.

>   So, first you bring up a topic. Then you accuse ME of bringing
>   up the topic...YOU brought up. And now the problem is that I
>   'zeroed in' on it.
>
>   Oh, and if I mention that YOU brought the topic up, since, you
>   know, you accused me of doing it, then "This is all about some
>   mental dick-measuring contest"

No. The mental dick measuring comment was because you specifically made a
comment about "quitting while I'm ahead" which would be fine as an idiom,
except you also made it a point to parenthesize (but I never was) ..
indicating you see this as a contest.

I also already addressed the other point, trying to indicate how I meant
my comment, but I'll do so more clearly.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I PHRASED THAT PISS-POORLY AND WAS MISTAKEN.


>
>   Why would I bother 'thinking' about it when such a great
>   philosopher like you has it all figured out and is teaching us
>   poor betas?

Poor betas? I never referred to you like that. I don't claim to have all
the answers, either. I'm just giving my opinion on stuff, and the way I
see things.

You could have engaged me with "Well, that's interesting. I never thought
it of that way. I think this way, for these reasons."

Instead, you've advanced no real ideas of your own, and only proceeded in
attacking mine. It's a good tactic for a debate on your part, and I'll
engage. This sort of thing is helpful to me, because it gives me an
opportunity to focus on minutia and clarify.


>> That's why indentured servants rebelled. They had HOPE,
>
>
>   I'm glad they voted for obama!

Heh. That's actually kind of funny. They probably would have.

>>
>> A true slave, born into it? There is no hope. No one ever gets free.
>> It isn't even a concept to freely think about.
>
>
>   Nope it isn't. Now I get it. Thank you massa!
>
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States
>
>   In xorcist's Real Reality there are no fugitive slaves.

Of course there were fugitive slaves.

I already said in another message that there were a few strong-minded
types that could resist the fear, think freely, and so on.

Again just because something is possible for the FEW doesn't mean its
possible for EVERYONE.

I'm not interested, particularly, in tailoring a political theory to what
favors the intellectual, physical, or other 

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>   I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you
>   'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a
>   matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of
>   'interpretation'?

Look, I'm not arguing for moral relativity, which is basically what you're
asking.

But I am trying to indicate that morality - even if it is soundly
objective - is nevertheless interpreted differently, by different cultures
and different people. When you think on it, morality, fundamentally, has
as much to do with "right" and "wrong" as it does with "in group" and "out
group." In many ways, the concepts are inseparable.

Murder (killing a member of the in-group) is always wrong. What changes is
who the "in group" is, and who the "out group" is. And likewise for
slavery. Nowadays, progressive types make "in group" all of humanity,
mostly.. but we reserve the right to kill members of the out-group, with
that out-group being defined as those that attack us first. Killing in
self-defense is OK, because we're killing a member of the out group: i.e.
those that resort to violence first.

A deeply pacifistic person might disagree, and not fight back even in
self-defense on moral grounds. Their in-group is even larger than yours.

>> Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the
>> slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would
>> be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is
>> your free will?
>
>
>   So you don't know what free will means, and you are
>   confusing free will with political freedom.

Nonsense.

You are the one that brought up slavery, and asked me if I thought the
slaves WANTED to be slaves. Of course not. But, now we have you saying
this:

>
>   Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey.
>   What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM.

So let me ask you. IF slaves could choose to disobey, why didn't they
rebel? Why wasn't there widespread slave rebellion? And if this really was
a choice, then they CHOSE not to rebel, and one might argue that they
wanted to be slaves. Indeed, even after they were FREED, many slaves
stayed with their former masters, and worked as paid laborers. That's a
fact. So they certainly wanted to be there, probably even AS SLAVES.

Why was it the Abolishionist movement among whites that got the ball
rolling on getting rid of slavery?

What is your take on that?

My take is that the slaves didn't fucking KNOW any other life. Slavery is
all they knew. Period. It's not that they WANTED to be slaves. Most
couldn't fucking THINK about rebelling, or disobeying, because there was
NEVER an example in their lives of anyone really doing so. Even as freed
men, they stayed on the same plantation .. for the same reason that many
free people today never leave their small little home towns: FEAR. It
CONTROLS the mind and the thoughts.

A few very strong minded souls could do so, of course, and had the heart
to take the beatings as a badge of honor, of sorts. A very few, were free
from fear.

But to their fellow slave onlookers? They would appear insane.

I hate to break it to you, friend. But you don't have free will. Not quite
like you want, at any rate. You're free, yes. But you're constrained.
Controlled. By what you know, and what you fear. The more you know, and
the less you fear, the freer you can think. But for the uneducated masses,
and the slaves of the world.. things aren't exactly as simple as you'd
like them to be.

>
>   If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, you
>   are free to decide for yourself what you want.

LOL. Oh my, what an armchair warrior. I'd love to get you around a few of
the folks I know. They'd be able to prove to you that in those moments,
you're not thinking or deciding SHIT except, at best, how to keep your
bladder in check. You'll be handing over your wallet before you even fully
understand whats going on.


>> Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an
>> inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.
>
>   You mean, from a correct usage of the terminolgy and sticking
>   to logical thinking.

Frankly, from that last comment of yours. It seems to me more that your
"logical thinking" is really code for "woefully sheltered." You talk about
what, or how you'll think and decide if you look down the barrel of gun?
Give me a break. Brother, I'll bet you've never been in a REAL fight, let
alone one that had it escalated to weapons.

The simplifying assumptions your "logic" requires go out the fucking
window when 9 little millimeters appear about 3 meters wide.

>   You can compare us humans to our primate relatives or to our
>   dogs and cats relatives or any other relatives. Ultimately the
>   whole animal kingdom is related. Or, you can go even farther to
>   plants. And? You can find similarities and differences. But you
>   can't make a political philosophy 

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:11:43PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> We should probably imagine 10 year time frame, not 6 weeks :)

I think more on the scale of 100 years, but yeah. 10 would be wonderful.

> But even though it's difficult, without a core of belligerently
> principled and strongly persistent fellow souls, you'll be a one man
> band, and that's no fun :/

Well, I dunno. I play a little guitar. I think it'd be a blast to be able
able to rattle off some harmonica, and thump a pair of kick drums
simultaneously.

But I get your point.

> An interim step could perhaps be "direct democracy" - some variant on
> Swiss style democracy.

Indeed. I don't often use the word "anarchist" in most discussions with
people, unless the forum is such that I have good reason to believe
they'll understand the real meaning of it.

"Direct democracy" is an OK term. Most will appreciate it. Personally, I
dislike it, because I am not that much of a fan of democracy the way most
people think of it. i.e. Everyone is entitled to vote. I don't agree.

One needs a license to drive a car. One needs a license to own a firearm.
Rightly so. Exercising those rights can have real consequences for the
public, and it seems prudent to make sure people have the information they
need to be responsible.

If voting TRULY mattered, if it was POWERFUL, you'd NEED a license for it.
I feel this is a nuance most fail to grasp.

"Anti-authoritarianism" is another OK term. Except I don't like labeling
things "anti" .. you set up defining what you're AGAINST, rather than what
you're FOR. Sets the wrong tone, in my estimation.

It is, to me, very telling that we don't even have really appropriate
terminology.. that is how deeply ingrained the authoritarian alpha/beta
thing goes. And, as Chomsky would point out, if one lacks the language for
something, it becomes very difficult to think properly about it.

An old flame of mine likes to just drop the "anarcho" and call herself a
Syndicalist. When people ask, she describes the free association of people
into syndicates. She was fond of pointing out that it sounds bad-ass to
people to "join a syndicate" .. calling up "romantic images" of joining
outlaw crime syndicates, or such.

I'm rather sure that wouldn't scale the way we want either.

In certain contexts, all of these terms can be useful and effective.. but
the lack of a single banner or anthem that most of the "fringe" can unite
under is a real problem. And it isn't JUST a matter of terminology.

The scattered, fragmented voice of the Occupy movement speaks to that
problem.

So many people know .. no.. more importantly FEEL.. deeply, truly feel
that there is something wrong with our society. They can taste the
plastic.
The problem is, none of us can really KNOW what we want in its place,
because we've never tasted anything else, except maybe in fantasy, or
dreams.. perhaps a few fleeting few moments where one manages to escape
the world, just for a moment, and catches the scent. One woman dreams of
steak.. some older gent a bit of ice cream. The young kid wants a pizza.
And we quibble over which one we should have.. and in the meantime, we're
forced to subsist on the cafeteria slop.

Its baffling to me now, but I remember being an ideologue. But for the
life of me I can't remember what the fuck I was thinking.

Re: SHA-3 and GOST-R/Stribok

[xorcist]

>
> By the way, it should be called "Streebog"", "Stribog".

Thank you for the correction. Reckon thats going to make searching for
info a might easier.

For some reason I have it with a 'k' in my notes.

Anyhow, thats again.