Re: Literature

[jim bell]

 From: Claudia Steimann <claudia.steim...@me.com>
   
I am just reading that book 
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23809961-psychopathic-cultures-and-toxic-empiresPsychopathic
 cultures and toxic empires By Will Blackand it describes really good what 
turns states like Turkey or US into something evil - also describes the same 
effects within companies.
Does anybody here got other must reads on society or politics? 
I always liked Orwell's 1984 and "Animal Farm."   And Atlas Shrugged.
              Jim Bell



   

Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day

[jim bell]

No, you made comments on my posting, but you ignored certain parts, including 
my question about how you distinguish between "fascists" and "conservatives".   
Says a lot.  You are aware that you still haven't explained how you distinguish 
that.
                Jim Bell

  From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
 To: "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> 
 Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:26 AM
 Subject: Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day
   
 I answered the question, and won't reiterate. 
  
 On 02/02/2017 11:37 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
 

 
From: James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
   
 On 2/3/2017 2:14 AM, Razer wrote: 
 >> Right. Nazis have no right to be espousing the extermination of people
 >> because of ethnic or other fate-of-birth traits alone. 
 
 >But none of the people you are calling nazis and beating up have 
 espoused the extermination of ethnic groups.
 
 >Rather you equate disagreeing with the left on any of enormous number of 
 points with nazism.  There is hardly anyone on the Republican side of 
 politics, and not many on the Democrat side, that are progressive enough 
 to be not be nazis.  
  
  Excellent point:   On 2/01/2017, at 11:20, I asked, and then answered my own 
question, since Razer didn't provide any answer: I asked:  

 >>So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere  "conservative" from 
a "fascist"? 
  [no response by Razer, so I said,] 
  I wish you'd have been able to answer this question. [end] 
  

  
 To Razer and his ilk, a  "Nazi", or "fascist",  is simply a person 
more-rightward than [fill  in the blank], where that "fill in the blank" is 
probably a leftist. 
             Jim Bell 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

   

Re: Hackers Disable Door Locks at Four-Star Hotel, Demand/Get Bitcoin Ransom

[jim bell]

 From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>

>Politicians using crypto (messaging) to fuck people.
>People using crypto (coins) to fuck politicians.
>Crypto in the news every day.
>For good, bad, and all in between.
I would snarkily (is that a word?) say, "Good!", but I think that's obvious.    
    Jim Bell



   

Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

[jim bell]

I will add:    http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993 
May schools limit the time, place, and manner of student expression?Yes, as 
long as the time, place, and manner regulations are reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory.The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "laws regulating the 
time, place or manner of speech stand on a different footing than laws 
prohibiting speech altogether."1First Amendment jurisprudence provides that 
time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutional if (1) they 
are content neutral (i.e., they do not treat speech differently based on 
content); (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve a governmental interest; and 
(3) they leave open ample alternative means of expression.Courts will generally 
grant even more deference to time, place, and manner restrictions in public 
schools because students do not possess the same level of rights as adults in a 
public forum. However, the time, place, and manner regulations must still be 
reasonable. This means that school officials could limit student distribution 
of material to certain locations and at certain times, but those regulations 
would need to be both reasonable and nondiscriminatory.Notes1 Linmark 
Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977).




      From: jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com>
 To: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>; "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" 
<cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 4:03 PM
 Subject: Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant
   
If you are claiming that it is okay for an agent of the State of California 
(University of California at Berkeley is such an agent) to discriminatorally 
deny a person the right to use a venue which is regularly offered to others, 
discrimination which is on the basis of the content of that speech,  then I 
feel free to cite the U.S. Constitution to challenge that assertion.  The State 
employees are legally required to adhere to their own rules, and that includes 
letting Milo Y. have access to the location which was already commonly offered 
to many others for public assembly and speeches.
          Jim Bell

  From: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>

  
Jim- come on It's only confusing or vague if you're pretending to be in a 
court. I know you did your time in the system, as did I, but out here you don't 
have to defend your opinion from statute. -Joshua

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:47 PM, juan <juan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:47:49 -0800
> Razer <g...@riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Free speech means you have legal right to expression; not entitlement
>> to huge public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being
>> punched."
> 
> 
>    LMAO at the sick piece of shit being quoted and the sick piece
>    of shit who quotes him..Notice also 'anarcho' turd rayzer
>    invoking yet again US government doctrine. 
> 
>    Here's the deal though : rayzer IS a fully fledged national
>    socialist or national communist or fascist, who promotes the
>    existence of concentration camps like cuba. He's an apologist
>    of slavey and the murdering of dissenters.
> 
>    Following his own lunatic (fascist) views regarding free speech,
>    he should be shot on sight. If rayzer wants to enslave millions
>    of people in commie concentration camps he should be treated
>    like a wild dangerous animal.
> 

   

   

Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

[jim bell]

 From: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>

Paper Chase - Leave thinking like a lawyer

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Paper Chase - Leave thinking like a lawyer
 In Paper Chase, Kingsfield tells his students, "You come into here with a 
skull full off mush and leave thi...  |   |

  |

  |

 ×   

>Moreover this is what I just said, and you took issue with - when this person 
>says it it's getting something right? Maybe you're just being a dick because 
>you like the attention. 

>A prog-Lib, Murtaza Hussain from The Intercept, FINALLY gets something right
 
>"Free speech means you have legal right to expression; not entitlement to huge 
>public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being punched." 
>https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827266793039278080
VERY poor reasoning.  It is not mere "free speech" which gives a person 
"entitlement to huge public platform".  Instead, "free speech" guarantees the 
public right to speak, in private and in public locations.  But it is the 
regular offering by officialdom to all comers to a given ("huge public 
platform") venue, that gives yet another a would-be speaker the right to also 
seek, and use, that venue to speak, without discrimination based on the content 
of their proposed speech.  
The people who advocate shutting down Milo Y's speech are not merely advocating 
violating his First Amendment right to speak, but also are advocating the 
government violating his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws:  
They want other people to continue be allowed to speak at the UC Berkeley 
campus, but not Milo Y.


 "ICYMI this guy was going to Berkeley to target undocumented students, not 
engage in some kind of Socratic dialogue (link to sheitbart article)" 
https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827260921915461633
 
"Undocumented" makes it sound like these people just left their driver's 
licenses back in Mexico.
             Jim Bell
 
 
 
  


   

Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

[jim bell]

Since the rules (the laws) cover the usage by people of what you call 
"communistically shared space", then it appears that Milo Y (and the people who 
want to listen to what he has to say) have a right to the benefit of such laws, 
too.  Property and a location which is offered to one person, has to be offered 
to all, at least not discriminating on the basis on the content of that speech. 
   See "time, place, and manner".
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993   
To deny Milo Y that same space, simply on the basis of the content of that 
speech, violates the Constitution.
×   

              Jim Bell

  From: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>
 To: jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: "cypherpu...@cpunks.org" <cypherpu...@cpunks.org>
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:26 PM
 Subject: Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant
   
Have to know I'm doing the proper kind of thinking if libertarian and antifa 
people are taking exception with my thoughts. Razor finds me idiotic because I 
think violence as a matter policy is the same as the crap he wants to fight, 
but what good is a rayz3r that does no cutting? Jim thinks I'm taking away 
Milo's liberty unfairly because I think it reasonable to deny him use of the 
communistically shared space he finds so precious. 
On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:14 PM, jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:




 From: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>

More to the point he was seeking right to assembly, it wasn't his speech that 
was suppressed. His views are well know, his sentiment registers broadly. He 
was denied assembly. Seems reasonable. 


Your comment is confusing and vague.  I assume you were talking about Milo 
Yiannopolis (sp?).  University of California (including the Berkeley site) is 
presumably public property.  The 1st Amendment likely applies, at least as 
strongly there as elsewhere.  If you are saying it "seems reasonable" for him 
being "denied assembly", is there any other public property where you WOULDN'T 
agree that it would be "reasonable" for him being "denied assembly"?  I think 
it's long-established that government officials generally cannot deny people 
the right to speak on public property (at a time and in a manner that anyone 
else would be allowed to speak).  
Somebody will probably argue that "public officials", per se, didn't attempt to 
obstruct Milo Y's right to be there, and speak.  Well, no, the rioters did 
that.  But I think that for the government to allow rioters to do things that 
would be illegal for government people to do, in itself would be a 
Constitutional problem.  After all, the 14th Amendment guarantees "equal 
protection of the laws", and some of those laws deal with the right to 
"assemble" on "public property".  Failure to use government police for to  
enforce Milo Y's right to assemble and speak would amount to a violation of his 
14th Amendment rights.
            Jim Bell
   


   

Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

[jim bell]

If you are claiming that it is okay for an agent of the State of California 
(University of California at Berkeley is such an agent) to discriminatorally 
deny a person the right to use a venue which is regularly offered to others, 
discrimination which is on the basis of the content of that speech,  then I 
feel free to cite the U.S. Constitution to challenge that assertion.  The State 
employees are legally required to adhere to their own rules, and that includes 
letting Milo Y. have access to the location which was already commonly offered 
to many others for public assembly and speeches.
          Jim Bell

  From: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>

   
Jim- come on It's only confusing or vague if you're pretending to be in a 
court. I know you did your time in the system, as did I, but out here you don't 
have to defend your opinion from statute. -Joshua

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:47 PM, juan <juan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:47:49 -0800
> Razer <g...@riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Free speech means you have legal right to expression; not entitlement
>> to huge public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being
>> punched."
> 
> 
>    LMAO at the sick piece of shit being quoted and the sick piece
>    of shit who quotes him..Notice also 'anarcho' turd rayzer
>    invoking yet again US government doctrine. 
> 
>    Here's the deal though : rayzer IS a fully fledged national
>    socialist or national communist or fascist, who promotes the
>    existence of concentration camps like cuba. He's an apologist
>    of slavey and the murdering of dissenters.
> 
>    Following his own lunatic (fascist) views regarding free speech,
>    he should be shot on sight. If rayzer wants to enslave millions
>    of people in commie concentration camps he should be treated
>    like a wild dangerous animal.
> 

   

Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

[jim bell]

How about quote the specific language which you claim "was intended to incite 
violence".  Or, at least, cite it with sufficient specificity so that we know 
what you are talking about.  So far, we don't.  Cite the website, show the text.
Also, you said, " Hate Speech isn't protected by any constitutional provision 
or amendment and it's a federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence."
I'm glad to see you so brazenly invent foolish legal claims.  I am unaware that 
the term "hate speech" has ANY consistent definition, let alone a legal 
definition sufficiently specific to be able to conclude that it "isn't 
protected by any constitutional provision or amendment".  
Actually, whatever you think "hate speech" is, it's almost certainly protected 
by the 1st Amendment.  See the Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio   
"Per curiam opinion[edit]The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio 
Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[3] and 
articulated a new test – the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what 
was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:
…Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. 
United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have 
fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and 
free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of 
force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or 
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such 
action."


×  If you genuinely believe " it's a federal crime to cross state lines to 
incite violence.", you need to cite specific precedent which applies your 
choice of terms, "incite violence" to a 1st-Amendment guaranteed speech.   As 
per Brandenburg v. Ohio, you are on very thin rhetorical ice.
             Jim Bell



 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>

   
  His planned talk was intended to incite violence against so-called 
"undocumented" students, as stated on his own website. Hate Speech isn't 
protected by any constitutional provision or amendment and it's a federal crime 
to cross state lines to incite violence. Go fish for some other bullshit 
rationale "Libertarian".
  Rr
  On 02/02/2017 03:14 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
  
 
  From: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>
 
  More to the point he was seeking right to assembly, it wasn't his speech that 
was suppressed. His views are well know, his sentiment registers broadly. He 
was denied assembly. Seems reasonable. 
 
  
  Your comment is confusing and vague.  I assume you were talking about Milo 
Yiannopolis (sp?).   University of California (including the Berkeley site) is 
presumably public property.  The 1st Amendment likely applies, at least as 
strongly there as elsewhere.  If you are saying it "seems reasonable" for him 
being "denied assembly", is there any other public property where you WOULDN'T 
agree that it would be "reasonable" for him being "denied assembly"?  I think 
it's long-established that government officials generally cannot deny people 
the right to speak on public property (at a time and in a manner that anyone 
else would be allowed to speak).   
  Somebody will probably argue that "public officials", per se, didn't attempt 
to obstruct Milo Y's right to be there, and speak.  Well, no, the rioters did 
that.  But I think that for the government to allow rioters to do things that 
would be illegal for government people to do, in itself would be a 
Constitutional problem.  After all, the 14th Amendment guarantees "equal 
protection of the laws", and some of those laws deal with the right to 
"assemble" on "public property".  Failure to use government police for to  
enforce Milo Y's right to assemble and speak would amount to a violation of his 
14th Amendment rights. 
              Jim Bell 
  
 
 

   

Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day

[jim bell]

 
tantamount to government control, too.  And Communism might simply be labelled 
a form of extreme Socialism.  So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being 
another form of "Socialism"?
I am well aware of the "Nolan Chart",  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart       and the World's Smallest 
Political Quiz.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz       
Together, they illustrate that 'dictators of the right' and 'dictators of the 
left' tend to approach a Nolan score of (0/0): Both don't believe in economic 
freedom, nor do they believe in social freedom.  That would certainly explain 
why conditions in dictatorships of the left look remarkably similar to 
dictatorships of the right.
Stop thinking that you can justify physically attacking people just because 
they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you don't like.  Lest they decide 
that it's okay to do the same thing to you.  "Golden Rule".
            Jim Bell


 
×   
   

Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
 On 02/01/2017 08:34 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
  From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
  James A. Donald asked a stupid question:

>>You're right. I listened to my German Jewish elders who survived I believe a 
>>proactive response is not only appropriate it's necessary.


  >>Does it occur to you that if, as you claim, it's okay for a person to 
attack another simply because of what they THINK, or merely say, that 
>>somebody reading what YOU say here might very well come to the same 
conclusion:  That it's okay to attack (kill?) you simply because >>you say it's 
okay to attack people solely because of what they thought or said. 
 
 >You can THINK whatever you like. But promulgating it is not the same as 
 >thinking it.
Okay, but TALKING about something is a kind of "promulgating" it, too.


 >>You are hypothesizing a series of continued attacks, without specific 
 >>examples.  How often do such attacks actually occur?  And when >>they do 
 >>occur, are they actually the fault of "a nazi" or "a fascist"?   Or, did 
 >>they occur because somebody who didn't like nazis or fascists >>decided to 
 >>attack the people they labelled as that? 
 
 
>The 'attack' is existential... Eternal, as Umberto Eco suggested.
You speak in a kind of jargon that I think most people (including myself) don't 
understand.
 
>You keep going back to people's so-called 'labeling'. If the label fits the 
>definition...
In your mind, it might.  Problem is, it's only your own mind.


 >>I also see a problem with the labels nazi and fascist.  I strongly suspect 
 >>that people who heavily use those labels use them merely to refer >>to 
 >>others who are: >>1.  Conservative or very conservative.     AND 
 
 >Conservatives aren't Fascists or Nazis, nor, according to traditional 
 >definition of political conservative, can they be. Fascism is extremism
 
 Sorry you missed the point.  Problem is, you are being too literal.  
Functionally, a Communist bullet will kill a person just as dead as a Fascist 
bullet will.  Don't get too caught up in these labels, particularly thinking 
that they have precise definitions.  To YOU, they might, but I think most 
people see totalitarian regimes as similarly dangerous.
 
 >>2.   People they desire to attack.    (It's much easier to attack people 
if you can lump them with other people whose guilt or undesirability is already 
establlished.) 
  >>So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a 
"fascist"?

I wish you'd have been able to answer this question.
 
  >>I looked up the (Google?) definition of "fascist", and it stated:   
https://www.google.com/search?q=fascism+definition=fascism+definition=chrome..69i57j0l5.4048j0j7=chrome=UTF-8
    
     fas·cism     ˈfaSHˌizəm/     noun      an authoritarian and nationalistic 
right-wing system of government and social organization.  
   -  
  | synonyms:| authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, 
despotism, autocracy; More |

  
  -(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian,  or intolerant 
views or practice.   

 
  
   × >>But that seems to be a circular definition:  It refers to 
"right-wing", but doesn't explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is 
thought to be "right wing".   
  >>I was under the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved government 
control (but not ownership) of the means of production.  But >>Socialism, I 
thought, amounted to heavy taxation of the means of production, which is 
tantamount to government control, too.  And >>Communism might simply be 
labelled a form of extreme Socialism.  So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as 
being another form of "Socialism"? 
 
>Refer to Umberto Eco. Fascism is an ideology, a reactionary ideology without 
>politics. It 'shape-shifts'.
 
 >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Yes, but does it 'shape-shifts' into Socialism and Communism, as well?  I think 
so:  Functionally, I think of extreme regimes of 'the left' and of 'the right' 
as functionally identical.   Don't talk as if "the right wing" is somehow 
especially dangerous, compared to "the left wing".

 
 
  >>Stop thinking that you can justify physically attacking people just because 
they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you don't like.  Lest >>they decide 
that it's okay to do the same thing to you.  "Golden Rule" 
 
 
>My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their very existence, have made the 
>decision "that it's okay to do the same thing to you"... Even if >you've never 
>had one bad thing to 

Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day

[jim bell]

 From: James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
   
On 2/3/2017 2:14 AM, Razer wrote:
>> Right. Nazis have no right to be espousing the extermination of people
>> because of ethnic or other fate-of-birth traits alone.

>But none of the people you are calling nazis and beating up have 
espoused the extermination of ethnic groups.

>Rather you equate disagreeing with the left on any of enormous number of 
points with nazism.  There is hardly anyone on the Republican side of 
politics, and not many on the Democrat side, that are progressive enough 
to be not be nazis.

Excellent point:  On 2/01/2017, at 11:20, I asked, and then answered my own 
question, since Razer didn't provide any answer:I asked:

>>So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a 
>>"fascist"?
[no response by Razer, so I said,]
I wish you'd have been able to answer this question.[end]



To Razer and his ilk, a  "Nazi", or "fascist",  is simply a person 
more-rightward than [fill in the blank], where that "fill in the blank" is 
probably a leftist.
           Jim Bell




   

Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!

[jim bell]

 From: juan <juan@gmail.com>

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:45:21 + (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> From: juan <juan@gmail.com>
>  To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
>  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:41 PM
>  Subject: Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!
>    
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100
> Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:

> >> - the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no
> >> government.
 
> >    well at least you got that one right.


> I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

  >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
  >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders. 
Well, maybe you're playing word-games.  I used the term "borders" to refer, 
generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over land.  borders = 
boundaries.    Topological separations.  


>> Private property still
>> rules.  And anything which is currently "government property" should
>> become quasi-private 

>    False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind
>    of 'property'.
There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned, jointly, by 
many people.  (Corporations own property, today.)  Even, potentially, millions 
of people.  Currently, things called "government" claims to "own" what is 
referred to as "public property".  Get rid of the governments, and what 
happens?  Does that land simply evaporate?  No, it does not.
  Okay, then, who owns or controls it?  That land contains roads, which people 
who own 'private property' often use to move around.  In order to avoid too 
much disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this 
previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many people.  
Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group ownership of that land 
makes sense.  (What is the alternative?)
So no, I didn't really make up a new kind of property.  I just expanded a 
previous form of property ownership by a group of people.
        Jim Bell


   

Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

[jim bell]

No, they can't.  And don't call me Shirley!!!  
              Jim Bell

  From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
 To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 4:44 PM
 Subject: Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant
   
 
  That's right. Schools have BROAD authority, and hate speech... ESPECIALLY the 
sort that might lead to BULLYING, surely can be limited.
  
 On 02/02/2017 04:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
  I will add:    
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993  
  May schools limit the time, place, and manner of student expression? Yes, as 
long as the time, place, and manner regulations are reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "laws regulating the 
time, place or manner of speech stand on a different footing than laws 
prohibiting speech altogether."1First Amendment jurisprudence provides that 
time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutional if (1) they 
are content neutral (i.e., they do not treat speech differently based on 
content); (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve a governmental interest; and 
(3) they leave open ample alternative means of expression. Courts will 
generally grant even more deference to time, place, and manner restrictions in 
public schools because students do not possess the same level of rights as 
adults in a public forum. However, the time, place, and manner regulations must 
still be reasonable. This means that school officials could limit student 
distribution of material to certain locations and at certain times, but those 
regulations would need to be both reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Notes 1 
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977). 
  
  
  
 
 

   

Re: change.org "declare antifa illegal/terrorist" petition

[jim bell]

 From: Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net>
>For those so inclined, to sign or to discuss.

>Anyone, from any "country" can "sign" this.

>https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-declare-antifa-a-terrorist-organization
A few days ago, wanting to understand what people REALLY mean when they say, 
"anti-fascist", I read a few articles on Wikipedia.  Apparently, "anti-fascist" 
has become a term-of-art that isn't quite the same meaning as "opposing 
fascism".   For instance, on the article  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-fascism   ×   

"I disagree. There is no such thing as "liberal anti-fascism", the term 
anti-fascism has its roots in the communist movement and only communists can be 
described as anti-fascists. The "fascist" part doesn't really mean fascism in 
the sense understood by westerners, the "anti-fascists" used it to refer to all 
non-communists, for instance the official name of the Berlin Wall was the 
"Anti-Fascist Protection Wall". Also see below for a link to the most recent 
Verfassungsschutzbericht on "anti-fascism". TYRXrus (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 
(UTC)"

It's hard to grasp what the "anti-fascists" are actually opposed to.  I think 
they are doing what the quote above suggests, giving "fascism" an extremely 
broad and unrealistic usage:  Anybody they don't like at the moment becomes a 
"fascist".One major motivation in this process is to be able to lump ordinary 
people (primarily conservatives) with various bad examples of "fascists" from 
the past.  In the same way, "Socialists" probably don't want to get lumped in 
with "Communists", but at least they have a different word for their ideas.  

I think Razer, who was completely unwilling to define the difference between a 
mere conservative, and a "fascist", is displaying the same kind of obscure 
inconsistency in meaning.  
             Jim Bell




   

Re: change.org "declare antifa illegal/terrorist" petition

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>

 On 02/05/2017 12:07 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
  
 I think Razer, who was completely unwilling to define the difference 
between a mere conservative, and a "fascist", is displaying the same kind of 
obscure inconsistency in meaning.   
               Jim Bell 

>Whatever jackass. While the left or so-called left debates the ethics of Nazi 
>punching the Right is cheering the potential legalization of killing 
>protesters who block roads. GO FUCK YOURSELF. You're just more proof to the 
>world Libertarians are fascists.
 
 >I'll write this down ONE MORE TIME DUPLICATING THE RECORD because you're too 
 >fucking STUPID to look it up;
 
>Fascism cannot be conservative, using "American Tradition" as a benchmark,  
>because conservatives understand that some things, such as the internet, did 
>not exist at the time the US founders wrote the constitution and they MAKE 
>ALLOWANCE FOR MODERNIZATION in the documents and laws regarding it.
First, I did a search of my mailbox for "Fascism cannot be conservative", which 
presumably would find any prior CP comments that you made containing this.  I 
found nothing.  I then did a search for "Fascism cannot", and I still found 
nothing.  You claim you are "duplicating the record".  I don't see that.
 
"Fascism and it's idea of TRADITIONALISM would eliminate the internet because 
it 'interferes' with those documents.

Sorry, but this sounds like a wacky assertion.  A broad cross-section of the 
public in virtually every country supports the use of computer and networking 
technology, even extremists in all areas of political thought.  Indeed, a few 
years ago I read an article which explained that religions and churches were 
early adopters of the Internet, a fact which would not automatically be 
expected.
So, I think you are misusing and misrepresenting the idea of "traditionalism" 
and how it would apply to the use of technology.
Further, historically the application of the US Constitution to the First 
Amendment  (which literally only referred to  "speech" and "the [printing]  
press", the only forms of communication that existed in 1789)  has been 
smoothly been expanded to include the telegraph, the telephone, radio, 
television, fax, the Internet and email, texting.  I am not aware of any 
substantial minority of people who:
1.   Believe that the First Amendment doesn't cover those newer methods.        
 Or even more extremely,2.   Believe that such newer methods of communication 
should be shut down.
If your working definition (or, at least example) of a "fascist" is a person 
who wants to completely shut down the Internet, I doubt whether this collection 
of people exceeds more than 1% of America's population.  And I suspect that 
such a tiny minority would contain people from all parts of a political 
spectrum, not merely people you would refer to as "fascists".
Try again.

                    Jim Bell   

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>

>Antifa hit the big-time in 2017 when an as-yet-unidentified inauguration 
>protester punched 38-year-old professional fascist cheerleader Richard Spencer 
>in the face on camera. The clip went viral, and the Internet memed it to 
>death—now you can even punch Spencer in a mobile game! 

Interestingly, there used to be an online game called "Slap Hillary",  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npN-sYKTWE  
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-hillary-clinton-super-pac-re-launches-slap-hillary-online-game/
  
Naturally, the Democrats and leftists considered that abusive, and decried it 
immensely. 
https://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/hillarygame/? 
Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, Razer talks up 'punching Spencer', as 
if that's somehow a new and innovative concept.  Is Razer merely pretending to 
not know about "Slap Hillary", or is he just displaying his immense ignorance?
>"As the video spread, interest in anti-fascism spiked,"
I could also say, "As Germany invaded Poland and France, interest in Naziism 
spiked".   Hint:  "Interest" is not necessarily a positive point of view.  But 
you knew that, right?  You weren't trying to mislead anybody, right?
>and I can say, based on personal experience, that the attitude at 
>demonstrations has changed."

Yes, we now see them as "rioters", and not mere "protestors".
>" Where masked and black-clad antifa used to get wary glares, now it’s 
>thumbs-up and “right on!” from kid-toting parents."
In the area of sales, this kind of statement is called "puffery".  If there 
were even only two "kid-toting parents" somewhere in the country that 
"thumbs-up'd" and "right on!"d such riots, technically you could say your 
statement is correct.  But it would still be extremely misleading...as you no 
doubt intended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery
×   
> Former congressman and Michigan institution John Dingell tweeted “When I was 
> a pup, punching Nazis was encouraged. Hell, some of my Army buddies won 
> medals for it.”

  
>https://psmag.com/antifascists-have-become-the-most-reasonable-people-in-america-92525aceabd5
 
Except that the definition of "Nazis" that Dingell used when he was young had 
virtually nothing to do with the sloppy and overbroad brush that you, Razer, 
paint with.   Dingell's "Nazis" actually CLAIMED to be Nazis, were proud of 
that characterization, they invaded countries, gassed people, etc, and were not 
merely people who wanted the country to break with its 8-year path of Obama's 
policies, and another 8 of Clinton's.  (Not to mention 8 years of Bush 43's 
invasion of Iraq; Don't forget him!)
                  Jim Bell
Full disclosure:  Since my discovery of the idea I labelled, "Assassination 
Politics", I have been an anarchist Libertarian.  Thus, I have no particular 
objection to GENUINE anarchists protesting Trump's policies, or Milo 
Yiannopoulis' speeches, etc, __IF__ they are consistently objecting to ALL 
government, at least in proportion to its size and level of intrusiveness.   
Did they protest, and riot, against  Obama's administration?  To Hillary 
Clinton's proposals?  Bernie Sander's ideas?  Bill Clinton's administration?  
Or even George Bush 43?
Do a Google Trends search of "anarchism" over the last 12 months:  The results 
hit a local peak during the week of Jan 22-28, just after the inauguration.   
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m=anarchism    (set 
time to last 12 months)  Not surprising, I suppose.
The problem is, I suspect that the large majoriity of "anarchists" we are 
recently (weeks, months) hearing about are actually not objecting to government 
in general:  They are just complaining that the existing government is changing 
in control to people who they don't like.  Some (most?) of them may actually 
like, or even love, government, but only if the kind of people and philosophies 
they like are controlling it.  But it's much more convenient for them to drop 
any overt association with government, because if they didn't they'd actually 
have to defend that position, and not merely object to the policies of the new 
Administration.   

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[jim bell]

 From: bbrewer <bbre...@littledystopia.net>

>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Razer <g...@riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Anarchist Libertarian" has to be the BIGGEST FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT ever put 
>> in two words.


>Thank you. This hit my brain hard as well. 
Maybe because it wasn't working?  Or maybe you don't have much of an 
imagination?
>I’m not sure how someone can think that the term ‘anarchist’ can align with 
>the slightest measurement of approval of governing forces.
>It’s instantly outwardly apparent that, well, said claimant is not there yet; 
>May get there, isn’t there yet.
Anarchist:  Non-believer in government, at least government as we currently 
understand it.Libertarian:  Believer in the Non-Aggression Principle.  (NAP;   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle 
Your statement implies that "Libertarian" NECESSARILY amounts to the 'approval 
of governing forces.'
Even that has a problem:  What is your definition of "governing forces"?  
I'll say this:  A "Libertarian" has no problem with "government", at least a 
government of a type which does not employ violations of the Non-Aggression 
principle.  Now, I understand that this may seem to be a non-sequitur, since 
essentially every existing government we know of does, indeed, violate the NAP. 
 
What I am saying, instead, is that it is not entirely inconceivable that a new 
form of government could begin to exist which did not violate the NAP.  One, 
for example, that is based upon voluntary agreements, rather that 
collectively-defined dictates.  (AKA "laws").     
We can ask ourselves a question:  Does a person who, today, calls himself an 
'anarchist' NECESSARILY opposes a 'government' that is implemented not by 
violations of the NAP, but instead is implemented by voluntary agreements?   
Simplistically, he might say, 'If something is called a 'government', then I 
must automatically oppose it!'.  But if we asked him if he was unalterably 
against voluntary agreements by two or more people, he might think a little 
longer and decide, 'That would be okay...'  
Three statements I will make:1.   An 'anarchist' is not NECESSARILY a 
Libertarian.  (example:  A person who is opposed to the existence of 
government, but who feels free to initiate force against others.)2.   A 
'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.  (example:  A person who is 
opposed to violations of the NAP, but who has no problem with a 'government' 
which doesn't employ violations of NAP.3.   But, a person could, conceivably, 
be BOTH a Libertarian and an anarchist.
Above, when you used the term, 'governing forces', you probably assumed forces 
which employed violations of NAP.  But if you expanded your definition of 
'governing forces' to include NOT violating NAP, perhaps you can see a common 
ground where both "libertarians" and "anarchists" can be satisfied.
              Jim Bell



×   
   

Re: Jewish fear

[jim bell]

 From: Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tan...@gmail.com>

>I did NOT write this message.  
>Jim isn't "dear" for me, only for garbage fire like Zzz.  He gave support to 
>Zzz racist messages before and now.
I'm not sure who you are referring to, with "Jim".  There at least two "Jim"s 
recently.
Further, I don't recall having 'given support to Zzz racist messages", either.  
And, what's your definition of "support"?  You mean, if I don't concoct some 
illogical argument against something you dislike, that omission amounts to 
"supporting" it?  There's a lot of nonsense on CP recently that I don't respond 
to; I was not aware that I am being graded.
            Jim Bell   

Re: Standup Comedy it was! Audio of 9th Circuit oral arguments in re Donald Trump's attempt to revive #MuslimBan

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>

 "You aren't telling me anything I didn't know."
The problem is not what you know.  The problem is what you "know" that ain't 
so.   Mark Twain.  
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain109624.html   ×   

>Thanks for the elaboration and the speculation on where the lower court went 
>'wrong' but the DOJ is going to lose their appeal for an emergency stay.
 
That's an interesting prediction.
 >"U.S. 9th Circuit judges appear to agree that states have standing to 
 >challenge travel ban"  > A panel of U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges 
 >pushed back on the notion that the state of Washington should not be allowed 
 >to sue on behalf of its resident immigrants to block President Trump's travel 
 >ban.>They noted that the Supreme Court recently recognized that a wife could 
 >sue on behalf of her husband, an Afghan who was denied a visa to join her in 
 >the United States.>"His wife was allowed to sue,” said Judge William Canby, 
 >referring to the case Kerry vs. Din.>The exchange strongly suggests the 
 >judges believe the legal claim filed by Washington state lawyers will not be 
 >thrown out on standing.
The person who wrote that (Maura Dolan) demonstrated her cluelessness about 
law.  She is apparently not a lawyer, nor has had legal training. 
http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-maura-dolan-staff.html  
  "Third-party standing" does indeed exist, under some circumstances.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_standing     But that fact does not 
mean that every conceivable third-party (for existence, everyone on Earth) can 
sue, for any reason at all.  The above text merely indicates a case where one 
party (the wife) who has that third-party standing, in a different case.  It 
does not say that any other person has third-party standing.  To believe that 
this exchange "strongly suggests the judges believe the legal claim filed by 
Washington state lawyers will not be thrown out on standing grounds" shows 
Dolan's foolish misunderstanding of the relevance of that discussion.  


Try again.             Jim Bell   



 
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-hold-government-urges-judges-to-at-1486505986-htmlstory.html
 
 Rr
 
 
 On 02/07/2017 06:12 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
  
 
  From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEK8FCBMkMQ 
 >Samples:
  >Judge Clifton asks how many federal offenses committed by people from these 
countries, answers own question: "None." DOJ lawyer mentions >Somali 
al-shabaab, that's never committed any attack on US soil anywhere. >"Are you 
really arguing we can't even ask if you have evidence?" DOJ lawyer cites 9/11 
attacks. Judge Clifton... "That's pretty abstract!" 
  Chances are, you (and most other non-lawyers) haven't a clue about what 
lawyers call "procedural issues". The hearing with the 9th Circuit should have 
had NOTHING to do with the merits of the complainants' case. (Or, at least, it 
shouldn't  have.)   That's simple procedure. The issue they were considering 
was:  Should the lower court have granted the injunction against enforcement of 
the government's order, and should it be overturned?   
  The error the lower court (Federal District Court) judge made was this:  It 
granted the injunction (a prohibition on the government's Order, temporarily) 
based (presumably) on the conclusion that the plaintiffs (the states) were 
likely to win the case, and so were entitled to that injunction.  The problem 
with that conclusion is: 
  1.  The plaintiffs (the State of Washington) had no "legal standing" to bring 
the suit, at all, because it was not an "injured  party".  There may have been 
injured parties, but they did not bring this case.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)  × 
  2.  The government order was not, per se, violating statutory law nor the 
U.S. Constitution.  In fact, the relevant law specifically allowed the 
President to bring and enforce such orders.   
  
  If the district court had done the right thing, it would never have issued 
the injunction.  If the appeals panel does the right thing, it will overturn 
the lower-court injunction, possibly allowing the government to continue to 
enforce the government order at least until the merits themselves are decided 
at the lower-court level.  However, the appeals court panel should probably 
declare that the plaintiffs don't have standing, and thus order the lower court 
to throw out the case, at least until plaintiffs with standing appear.          
   Jim Bell 
  From the Wikipedia article I cited above: 
  "In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a 
suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can 
demonstrate that he/she/i

Re: Standup Comedy it was! Audio of 9th Circuit oral arguments in re Donald Trump's attempt to revive #MuslimBan

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEK8FCBMkMQ 
>Samples:
  >Judge Clifton asks how many federal offenses committed by people from these 
countries, answers own question: "None." DOJ lawyer mentions >Somali 
al-shabaab, that's never committed any attack on US soil anywhere. >"Are you 
really arguing we can't even ask if you have evidence?" DOJ lawyer cites 9/11 
attacks. Judge Clifton... "That's pretty abstract!"
Chances are, you (and most other non-lawyers) haven't a clue about what lawyers 
call "procedural issues".The hearing with the 9th Circuit should have had 
NOTHING to do with the merits of the complainants' case. (Or, at least, it 
shouldn't have.)   That's simple procedure.The issue they were considering was: 
 Should the lower court have granted the injunction against enforcement of the 
government's order, and should it be overturned?  
The error the lower court (Federal District Court) judge made was this:  It 
granted the injunction (a prohibition on the government's Order, temporarily) 
based (presumably) on the conclusion that the plaintiffs (the states) were 
likely to win the case, and so were entitled to that injunction.  The problem 
with that conclusion is:
1.  The plaintiffs (the State of Washington) had no "legal standing" to bring 
the suit, at all, because it was not an "injured party".  There may have been 
injured parties, but they did not bring this case.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)  ×   
2.  The government order was not, per se, violating statutory law nor the U.S. 
Constitution.  In fact, the relevant law specifically allowed the President to 
bring and enforce such orders.  

If the district court had done the right thing, it would never have issued the 
injunction.  If the appeals panel does the right thing, it will overturn the 
lower-court injunction, possibly allowing the government to continue to enforce 
the government order at least until the merits themselves are decided at the 
lower-court level.  However, the appeals court panel should probably declare 
that the plaintiffs don't have standing, and thus order the lower court to 
throw out the case, at least until plaintiffs with standing appear.            
Jim Bell
>From the Wikipedia article I cited above:
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a 
suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can 
demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. 
Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the 
suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of 
unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must 
be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose 
in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."




 
 Shadowproof's analysis: Justice Department Attorney Blunders Through Appeals 
Court Hearing On Muslim 
Banhttps://shadowproof.com/2017/02/07/justice-department-attorney-blunders-appeals-court-hearing-muslim-ban/
 
 Ps. There WAS a "Bowling Green Massacre"! White settlers slaughtered 110 
indigenous people there in 1643. 
  
https://mic.com/articles/167786/the-bowling-green-massacre-did-happen-in-1643-white-settlers-slaughtered-110-natives
 
  

   

Re: [WAR] Fukushima conspiracy theories and facts

[jim bell]

 From: Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net>
   
>Whodunnit?


[quote]
The Argument that Fukushima Was Sabotaged
January 27, 2012
https://www.henrymakow.com/theargumentfukushimasabotage.html
(Jeff Rense refused to link to this article. He thinks it is a psy-op to
absolve the nuclear industry of blame for Fukushima. Fine. But when I
posted it anyway so people could decide for themselves, he announced he
would no longer link to my site. You will no longer find my work on
Rense's site. Sad that a 10 year relationship should end in this
fashion. See, "The Hidden Jeff Rense." and "Jeff Rense Steps in It."
https://www.henrymakow.com/thehiddenjeff_rense.html
https://www.henrymakow.com/jeff_rense_steps_in_it.html
)

[some stuff deleted]
>A 9.0-magnitude earthquake is more than 100 times stronger than a 6.8. A
9.0 should have devastated everything within a 1,000-km radius. There
  should have been widespread urban carnage, even worse than what Kobe
suffered.

The definition of a Magnitude 0 earthquake is one that causes a ground motion 
of 1 micron (1E(-6) meters) at a horizontal distance of 100 kilometers. (don't 
recall if this is peak-to-peak or RMS (root-mean-square).)
Each increase of one unit of magnitude amounts to an increase by a factor of 10 
of ground motion amplitude.Each increase of one unit of magnitude amounts to an 
increase in energy released by a factor of about 31.
So, a magnitude 9.0 should have 10**2.2, or 158x,  the ground motion of a 
magnitude 6.8 earthquake.A magnitude 9.0 earthquake should have 31**2.2, or 
1910, the energy released compared to a magnitude 6.8 earthquake.
         Jim Bell

   

Re: change.org "declare antifa illegal/terrorist" petition

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
 On 02/05/2017 01:21 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
>>If your working definition (or, at least example) of a "fascist" is a person 
>>who wants to completely shut down the Internet, I doubt whether >>this 
>>collection of people exceeds more than 1% of America's population. 
 >What your failing to acknowledge. Intentionally AFAICT because you're an 
 >alt-right Nazi at heart playing "Libertarian, is they want to shut it down 
 >for anyone BUT that one percent.
I am not especially concerned with what people "want"...if they do nothing 
wrong to achieve their wants.  
 
>You want to be part of that one percent... don't you ?
1.  I'd like to be very rich.2.  If I get to be very rich, I would presumably 
be "in that one percent".3.  The entire application of the "1%" meme was phony 
from the beginning.  Generally, in any distribution, there is always a "1%".  
And membership in that group varies from one year to another.
 
>I say we should bid you up on the AP market. Would be fitting if your own 
>nasty bitcoin gambling freaks took you out.
I can think of worse fates.
 
 
>Oh, and about the Right wanting to slaughter protesters while the protesters 
>debate whether punching Nazis is 'ethical' or 'advantageous'
Except that in the 1970 Kent State incident, as I recall there was no criminal 
activity by those protestors.  UC Berkeley, not so little.
 
 
>DETROIT — A county Republican leader in Michigan is under fire for seeming to 
>suggest in his social media posts there should be a Kent State type of 
>crackdown on violent protests like the one that erupted at a university in 
>California last week.

Again, the Kent State incident WASN'T a "crackdown on violent protests".  Note 
that the comment above WASN'T a quote by that "county Republican leader":  It 
was structured as a comment by the writer of that article.  He faked it, 
basically.


 
>But in an interview Sunday with the Detroit Free Press, Dan Adamini, the 
>secretary of the Marquette County Republican Party, said he apologizes, 
>supports peace and was merely trying to prevent further violence and hatred.




Again, no actual quotation by him, just a (mis?)-characterization of what he 
said.


 
>The Marquette resident said that he has received death threats and been 
>harassed by people outraged over his remarks that refer to the 1970 shooting 
>deaths of four students at Kent State University in Ohio by the Ohio National 
>Guard. Nine other students were wounded in what many consider a turning point 
>in public opinion about the Vietnam War.




Still isn't quoting what the "county Republican leader" ACTUALLY said.


 
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/05/gop-leader-apologizes-kent-state/97533372/
 
>Death threats are too good for this motherfucker.
 
>Another Nazi, John McCain, had something truly stoopid to say about Kent State 
>a number of years ago too.
 
 
 
 
 
 

   

Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!

[jim bell]

 From: juan <juan@gmail.com>
   
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:07 + (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> > I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> > GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  
> 
>   >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
>   >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.
 
>> Well, maybe you're playing word-games.
>> I used the term "borders" to
>> refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over
>> land.  borders = boundaries.    Topological separations.  


>    I didn't mean to play word games. 

 >   http://www.dictionary.com/browse/border?s=t

>    2. "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc.,
    from another; frontier line:" 
Yes, that's one valid example.  I intended that, but also the one below.

  >  or 

 >   1. "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer
    boundary. " 
That too.  


  >  I assumed we were using  definition number 2, the political
 >   one. So my claim that (political) borders are a creation of the
>    state pretty much stands. 

>   But, on second thoughts, I can agree with your quote below, for
>    argument's sake : 

>>    "the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." 

Since the presumption is that we will be getting rid of governments, things 
will have to change.  How they change, we will have to propose, debate, and 
ultimately decide.  

>    So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on
>    travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of
>    support for government restrictions on travel across government
>    borders is not libertarian. 
I say there won't BE ANY "government borders".  But there will be property 
lines, a form of border or boundary.  And property which is currently thought 
to be owned or at least controlled by "government" has to be considered.


>> There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned,
>> jointly, by many people.

>    Actually, there is a general reason. And the more people, the
>    bigger the reason. And the obvious reason is that controlling
>    property in a jointly manner is a mess and a source of discord.
Living on a 2-dimensional (mostly) surface, plus the requirement that people 
have to move around requires that the ability to do that exists.  (exceptions 
are airplanes and helicopters, road overpasses, tunnels, buried pipelines, etc. 
 I don't see any need, or desire, to massively change how people go about their 
daily businesses after elimination (or minimization) of governments.


>    On the other hand, let's say roads become 'quasi property'.
 >   Now, roads exist for people to travel. And there's no
>    libertarian argument  against people travelling. 
But the property previously referred to as "government property" (good example: 
 roads) isn't necessarily assumed to be owned by ALL world people.  

>    There are also other practical 'refutations' to the idea of
>    recreating nation-state borders using 'private' property.

>    1) absent the state land allegedly owned by the state would
>    revert to its original, unowned state, not to 'quasi-property'.
I think more analysis is necessary than simply this.  That land would cease to 
be "government property", but it would still have to be maintained as method of 
movement for most people, at least those which were previously called 
"citizens".  People who, arguably, had a partial ownership and use right to 
that land.    Not just everyone in the world, equally.  Also, "roads" would 
have to be maintained, presumably by some sort of contract.  (This is typically 
the way things are already done:  "Government" doesn't necessarily do the 
actual work; it may contract with private entities to maintain the road 
surfaces.)

>    2) even the land that is  legitimately owned can  be used by
>    people to enter the hypothetical 'country', if a handful of land
>    owners allow it. Or even ONE land owner.
Presumably, "people" as a group will have to decide what agreement to come to.  
That's why debate on the issue will be important.  Today, people don't know 
that such a decision will eventually need to be made.

    3) there are also big *free* seas and lots of coasts. And boats.
In other words, people will be able to get into certain areas.  Whether they 
can travel will depend on the agreement reached by those deemed to have been 
part of the contract covering the roads.

  >  4) and finally there's air space and planes 
Yes, that will be open.

    
>>  (Corporations own property, today.) 

 >   So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state
  >  creates more than a few legal dev

Re: WTC [WAS] Do you have predictions about 2017?

[jim bell]

 From: juan <juan@gmail.com>
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>
 
> >Rather amazed AP hasn't yet risen (publicly) to affect things.

>> No disagreement from me on that!  When I proposed AP almost 22 years
>> ago, https://cryptome.org/ap.htm, I believed that the possibilities
>> and advantages of the system would be immediately debated and decided
>> upon.  A lot of debate did indeed occur, but even today the average
>> person remains unaware that there is a solution to militaries and
>> war, to government and tyranny.  How long until freedom breaks out
>> and lives? Most of the initial objection to AP was either dishonest
>> or uninformed.  Perhaps many people could not imagine that a complex
>> system of software could exist that would maintain anonymity, but two
>> decades of software development (TOR, Bitcoin,


>   tor and bitcoin are obviously not the proper tools to use
>    against the state. Especially tor, the pentagon's cyberweapon.
I read, months ago, that one of the military's uses for TOR is to control 
aerial drones from around the world.  Presumably, the reason for using TOR is 
to prevent systems in the link from identifying the traffic as "controlling an 
aerial drone" and cutting it off.

That use explains why they want the ability to have a low-latency link.  What 
it DOESN'T explain is why that low-latency link isn't merely one way to use the 
system:  Why can't the packets themselves decide how they are to be routed?  
Why can't they have an arbitrarily-large number of hops, of course at the 
expense of higher latency.  
Why can't hops fork?  Why isn't dummy traffic inserted?  All explained by the 
military's need to make TOR good, but not TOO GOOD!

    
 >   You might have more luck with some sort of 'hight latency'
  >  mixing network and a crpytocurrency with built in
  >  'anonimity' (that is NOT bitcoin)

Zerocoin...    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin  
>> Silk Road 

>    silk road clearly illustrates the shortcomings of using garbage
 >   like tor. Jusk ask Ulbricht.

Quite true.  Nevertheless, SR did have the salutory effect of showing how such 
a secret system could operate, for months and even years, despite flawed tools. 
 It was a data-point.  People will continue to construct and operate SR-2's, 
SR-3's, etc, hopefully with increasing levels of success.  They will learn.  

> and its
> successors, Ethereum, and Augur) should prove to everyone that we are
> up to the task.  I claimed that AP would eliminate both war an
> militaries.  People have claimed they want to end both for centuries.
>  Well, finally they actually get the promise of such an outcome, and
> a plausible mechanism to do so, and they fail or refuse to address
> the issue.  Maybe they don't really want peace:  They merely want the
> continuation of the status quo.  


>    Or perhaps your analysis is simplistic AP advertising, not
>   a serious look into the nature of state rule.
Should I have to be doing all the work, here?  I would argue that if a person 
proposes a plausible idea to eliminate war and militaries (what everyone has 
always said would be an excellent idea) it thereby becomes a obligation of the 
(interested) public to either credit or discredit it.  

>    AP may be a means for a libertarian defense system, but AP by
>    itself isn't necesarily libertarian
A gun isn't necessarily libertarian, either:  It can be used to shoot 
attacking, guilty people, or shoot innocent people.  That's not an argument to 
make ownership of guns impossible.

           Jim Bell   

Re: WTC [WAS] Do you have predictions about 2017?

[jim bell]

 From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>

>Rather amazed AP hasn't yet risen (publicly) to affect things.
No disagreement from me on that!  When I proposed AP almost 22 years ago, 
https://cryptome.org/ap.htm, I believed that the possibilities and advantages 
of the system would be immediately debated and decided upon.  A lot of debate 
did indeed occur, but even today the average person remains unaware that there 
is a solution to militaries and war, to government and tyranny.  How long until 
freedom breaks out and lives?
Most of the initial objection to AP was either dishonest or uninformed.  
Perhaps many people could not imagine that a complex system of software could 
exist that would maintain anonymity, but two decades of software development 
(TOR, Bitcoin, Silk Road and its successors, Ethereum, and Augur) should prove 
to everyone that we are up to the task.  I claimed that AP would eliminate both 
war an militaries.  People have claimed they want to end both for centuries.  
Well, finally they actually get the promise of such an outcome, and a plausible 
mechanism to do so, and they fail or refuse to address the issue.  Maybe they 
don't really want peace:  They merely want the continuation of the status quo.  
They want their kind of people in control.  And when they get upset, it is only 
because they are losing control.
        Jim Bell








   

Re: Indiana bill would allow police to shut down protests 'by any means necessary'

[jim bell]

From: James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
   
On 1/21/2017 11:17 PM, Pinoaffe wrote:
>> "Indiana bill would allow police to shut down protests 'by any means
> necessary'"

>Fake News.
>> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/indiana-protest-bill-police-power

>Does not shut down protests, it says police cannot help protesters block 
>traffic.

>What I would like is a bill that says that when protesters block 
>traffic, police should vanish from sight and let drivers drive over the 
>bastards.
Ha ha!
There was an interesting incident that occurred in Portland Oregon 18 months 
ago. 
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/07/greenpeace_protest_icebreaker.html
   
Close to a dozen protestors hung from a tall Portland bridge (St John's Bridge) 
in a fairly successful attempt to block the passage of an oil-company ship that 
was headed to the Arctic for oil exploration. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Eq-e6L4ywA×   

 Being a very liberal/progressive city, naturally the cops didn't do much to 
dissuade the protestors from continuing their protests.  (one enthusiastic 
person with a scoped .22 caliber rifle could have done far more to discourage 
the event than the police did.)
By the time I paid attention to it, on television, I noticed that a Portland 
Fire truck (?) was being used to block the passage of all four lanes of traffic 
across the bridge, despite the fact that the protestors themselves were not 
even arguably blocking that traffic.   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWZwgsbGewE     From 4:27 through 4:33.×   

It suddenly occurred to me that far from being opposed to the protestors, the 
cops were actually ASSISTING the protestors:  The cops were doing that 
(blocking the traffic) which would have been illegal for the protestors 
themselves to do; effectively, the protestors were acting as a justification 
and impetus for the police to further obstruct and inconvenience the public.  
I am not suggesting that the average, rank-and-file cop would have recognized 
what was really going on, unless it was pointed out.  A word from a high 
official, say the mayor, to the Chief of Police, "Looks like an unsafe 
situation!  You'd better block of traffic over the bridge with a fire-truck!", 
might at least arguably have looked like a plausible tactic.  But it still 
could have been a coordinated (informally) arrangement.  With plausible 
deniability, of course!  
          Jim Bell
×   







   

Re: Global warming/climate change

[jim bell]

 From: Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net>

>Global warming continues apace:
> 
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2017/jan/23/snow-sahara-desert-in-pictures

>Impressive stuff.
Ah, yes!   But that snow was colder yesterday than it is today.  Thus, further 
evidence of "global warming".          Jim Bell   

peaceful sweden

[jim bell]

Riot breaks out in Stockholm suburb Trump referred to in speech 
http://dailym.ai/2kHpXaZ via http://dailym.ai/android
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

[jim bell]

 From: Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tan...@gmail.com>

>Jim, I respect you, but I don't agree with 80% of your opinions, sorry.  Maybe 
>Sweden government, the whole 'Internets', all the media and I have 
>misunderstood your >President, but I sincerely believe he should study more 
>and watch less TV.  It would be much better for him and the rest of the world. 
> 
I hope you are using that "your President" term in the most generic sense, as 
in 'Jim Bell is American, so Trump is his president".   I voted for Gary 
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.  So arguably, he is just as much "not my 
President" as the various people (Obviously, supporters of Hillary Clinton) 
who, even yesterday, were LOUDLY protesting that Trump is "not my President!!!".
In the large majority of cases, when there is a controversy based on what Trump 
is supposed to have said or did, and I trace it down by Google searches, I find 
that the MSM is misrepresenting what he said or did.  Or, they are otherwise 
engaging in dishonesty.
Two examples:  Recall in about July 2016, Trump and Hillary were invited by the 
Mexican president to Mexico; only Trump went, for reasons which were never made 
clear.  Initially, the media speculated on whether Trump attempted to negotiate 
payment for the construction of the wall; Trump denied it.  At THAT point, the 
MSM 'piled on' Trump, saying, more or less, 'He failed to negotiate the cost of 
the wall!!!  How awful!!!'.
Problem was, the Logan Act arguably prohibited a private citizen engaging in 
diplomacy with a foreign government.  So, again arguably, if Trump had indeed 
attempted to negotiate that payment, he would have been declared A CRIMINAL 
(!!!), for doing exactly that.  But since Trump didn't, the MSM went to 'Plan 
B', They accused him of FAILING to do those negotiations, the ones that would 
have arguably made him a criminal.   "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".
I raised this issue many months ago, on CP.  I have no doubt at all that this 
didn't just happen by accident; it was clearly a trap intended by the news 
media, and probably Hillary Clinton's campaign as well.  
Example 2:    Within less than the last week, I saw an anchor of one of the 
three major evening news programs (CBS, NBC, ABC) actually repeat the 
longstanding LIE that Trump had called for the Russians to 'hack' Hillary's 
email server for those missing (deleted on Hillary's own orders, BTW) emails.   
Problems:  Trump actually had said, calling on Russia in what I saw was a 
humorous statement, to try to FIND those emails, NOT hack them.  Another 
problem:  Hillary's server, on which those emails once existed, had probably 
been shut down a year earlier, so their is no possible way (other than 
time-travel) for anybody to have actually acted on Trump's request.  But, at 
the time, it was a very common theme by the (lying) MSM that Trump had somehow 
called on Russia to 'hack' SOMETHING.  It was never made clear by the MSM what 
Trump was asking Russia to 'hack'.  
As an example of this continued lying, I present this article:   
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/12/donald-trumps-russia-hacking-denials-ignore-that-he-asked-russia-to-hack-hillary-clinton/
  That article claimed:
"In July when news of the hacking first broke, Trump openly encouraged Russia 
to continue spying on his opponent.“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re 
listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” 
Trump said at a news conference then. “I think you will probably be rewarded 
mightily by our press.”"[end of very revealing quote from the article, itself 
seeming to quote what Trump said]
How Salon gets from that statement, presumably an exact quote by Trump, to 
saying "Trump openly encouraged Russia to continue spying on his opponent", it 
is very hard to see.  I wouldn't have been surprised if one over-enthusiastic 
lying MSM person had made that claim, ONCE, but the push-back on that must have 
been fierce.  Obviously, and precisely as Trump stated, he wanted Russia (or 
anyone else, presumably) to FIND FIND FIND those missing emails.  That request, 
if it had a hope of being successful, presumes that prior to Hillary's ordered 
deletion of those emails, SOMEBODY obtained them, perhaps an outside person, or 
possibly an inside person. 
(For the life of me, I can't figure out what kind of specific arrangement they 
must have had with Platte River Systems, the ISP that handled that system.  The 
highest priority to such an organization, I imagine for ANY customer, would 
have been to ensure that the database of emails NOT be lost, either due to 
hardware failure, or other problems.  I'd be very surprised to hear that they 
didn't have some sort of automatic, daily backup policy, to guarantee that in 
no circumstance, more than one day of emails might be lost due to such an 
eventuality. These were only emails, probab

Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

[jim bell]

 From: James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>

James A. Donald wrote:
>> I have not checked every dispute, or even many disputes, but those where
>> I knew the facts, Trump told the truth, and the press lied.

On 2/20/2017 6:06 PM, Marina Brown wrote:
>> Yeah - like terrorist incidents that never happened.
>Trump did not say that there was a terrorist incident in Sweden.  The 
press made that up.
Yes, you are absolutely correct about this.  In many cases, people who comment 
about this negatively simply inserted the "terrorism" subject into it.   See 
this article for many examples:  
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/19/516097504/trump-says-look-whats-happening-in-sweden-sweden-asks-wait-what
     It's what I previously mentioned:  A 'strawman':  Simply invent something 
that your rhetorical opponent DIDN'T say, and 'disprove' it, to great applause 
by the clueless masses.

>Fake News.  CNN is the Counterfeit News Network.

>I watched his rally, and when he mentioned Sweden I knew what incidents 
he was referring to.
So did I, at least I remembered enough incidents about rape by Muslim 
immigrants in Sweden.  If Trump had wanted to mean "terrorism", he is smart 
enough to have used the term.  He didn't.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2709224/two-afghan-migrants-revealed-as-those-arrested-over-horrific-three-hour-rape-streamed-on-facebook-live-in-sweden/

×   

       Jim Bell





   

Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
 
 On 02/20/2017 12:45 PM, [somebody] wrote:
  
  
>Trump did not say that there was a terrorist incident in Sweden.  The 
 press made that up.  
 
>No they didn't. They reported he implied... Bloggers claimed he was discussing 
>a terorist incident:
That's misleading.  Trump referred to SOMETHING.  The biased lying MSM chose a 
specific classification, "terrorism", as if Trump had specifically said 
it.Trump was speaking extemporaneously, which of course he has a lot of 
experience doing.  But nevertheless, he was vague about what had happened.  But 
the MSM decided to focus on the "terrorism" angle, precisely because they knew 
it was false:  They knew there had been no obvious 'terrorism' incident, which 
made it useful to misrepresent Trump's intent.  
 
>The Guardian for example: "Donald Trump appears to invent..."
Blaming how the media gets it wrong won't help you, Razer.  
 
>The New York Times: " President Trump escalated his attack on Sweden's 
>migration policies on Monday, doubling down on his suggestion — based on a Fox 
>News report — that refugees in the Scandinavian country were behind a surge in 
>crime and terrorism."
At least that references sounds relatively accurate:  There IS a "surge in 
crime" for which Muslim immigrants are obviously responsible.
 
 Which WAS the subject he was discussing when he brought up that (also 
non-existent) "Crime Wave" by immigrants to Sweden
Definitely not "non-existent".    
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2709224/two-afghan-migrants-revealed-as-those-arrested-over-horrific-three-hour-rape-streamed-on-facebook-live-in-sweden/
   ×   
This cite is, of course, merely a single incident.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4243442/Sweden-suffering-migrant-crime-wave-says-cop.html

×   

  But you need to define what YOU refer to when you mean "crime wave".          
 Jim Bell   

Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

[jim bell]

 From: juan 
 To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
 Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 8:30 PM
 Subject: Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 
'Wait, What?'
   
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:08:26 +1000
"James A. Donald"  wrote:

> Reality that Trump tells us, and that Fake News networks will not
> tell us, is that Muslim immigration has made Sweden the rape capital
> of the west.  Just check Sweden's own rape statistics, which have
> gone through the roof.


    Where are the links to back your claims? 
This is a source, but it's from the notoriously hard-right Mother Jones 
magazine.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/we-should-practice-truth-statistics-even-when-it-hurts

×   

   

Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net

On 02/20/2017 07:57 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
>
>> The story in question, being confirmed from many, many sources, being 
>> that Sweden now has extraordinarily high levels of rape.

>Orlando, where trump said that stupid thing, had more rapes last year 
(7,537) than all of Sweden (5,920)

>Sources here: https://twitter.com/AuntieImperial/status/833885835242016772
I wonder what that tells us about the demographics of Orlando vs. Sweden?  (I'd 
say more, but it wouldn't be Politically Correct.)
             Jim Bell





   

I'm in Acapulco Mexico.

[jim bell]

I will be speaking Monday morning at Anarchapulco convention.

I'm in acapulco, will speak at Anarcapulo convention

[jim bell]

Will speak Monday morning.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Kim case:. Not vx only.

[jim bell]

I don't think the assassins used only VX in the Kim case.  VX is not fast 
enough, alone, to explain events as the were reported.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: I'm in acapulco, will speak at Anarcapulo convention

[jim bell]

Correction:. I speak on stage B, Tuesday, 11:30-12:10.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:49, jim bell<jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:   
Will speak Monday morning.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  

10 judges are nuts.

[jim bell]

Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution 
http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

[jim bell]

 From: Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tan...@gmail.com>

>Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

>http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/19/516097504/trump-says-look-whats-happening-in-sweden-sweden-asks-wait-what

>From the article 
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/19/umm-what-supposed-terror-attack-baffles-swedes/98129506/
>            ×   
"On Saturday in Melbourne, Fla., Trump's comments at a campaign-style rally 
seemed to indicate that something terrible had taken place the night before in 
Sweden. "You look at what's happening in Germany. You look at what's happening 
last night in Sweden ... Sweden ... who would believe this? Sweden, they took 
in large numbers, they are having problems like they never thought possible. 
You look at what's happening Brussels, you look at what's happening all over 
the world.""

Notice the comment above:  "seemed to indicate that something terrible had 
taken place the night before in Sweden.  So, Trump is being lambasted for what 
NPR said Trump "seemed to indicate", not what Trump actually said and meant.
Actual rape case by Afghans in Sweden:   
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2709224/two-afghan-migrants-revealed-as-those-arrested-over-horrific-three-hour-rape-streamed-on-facebook-live-in-sweden/
    
I don't see any indication from what Trump ACTUALLY said that he was referring 
to a 'terrorism incident'.  
It is this kind of wacky misinterpretation  by the lamestream media which is 
further destroying their credibility.

          Jim Bell
×   



   

Re: Trump Says, 'Look What's Happening In Sweden.' Sweden Asks, 'Wait, What?'

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
On 02/20/2017 03:04 PM, jim bell wrote:
> The biased lying MSM chose a specific classification, "terrorism", as 
> if Trump had specifically said it.

>Show me an MSM headline, with link to the article, or any copy from an 
MSM article and link, that claims Trump was specifically referring to 
terrorism. They knew very well he was discussing a non-existent crime 
wave and EVERYONE is still wondering what incident recently 'in Sweden' 
he was referring to, as is the Swedish government.


Here's an excellent one, assuming you agree that Mashable.com is MSM
http://mashable.com/2017/02/19/donald-trump-sweden-jk-rowling/

[quote begins]J.K. Rowling has the best response to Trump's non-existent Sweden 
attack.

The internet can't get enough of President Donald Trump's "last night in 
Sweden" remarks, including, of course, J.K. Rowling.

Never one to shy from a little fun at the expense of the U.S. president, the 
author joined in on Twitter's response to Trump's confusing reference to a 
terrorist attack that didn't actually happen.

SEE ALSO: Internet turns to @Sweden after Trump appears to invent terror attack

[end of quote]×   
Clearly, the MSM is repeatedly inventing the assertion that Trump was referring 
to "terrorism".
           Jim Bell



>Maybe it's this one: Attack in Sweden by neo-Nazis on a refugee centre

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-terror-attack-claim-sweden-neo-nazis-refugee-centre-florida-rally-a7588516.html

>The use of vague speech (allowing for plausible deniability) as a 
propaganda tool is well known and all the bs bloggers created with the 
'terrorism' claim THEY created is diverting attention away from the fact 
that Trump was really making up a 'Swedish Refugee Crime Wave' claim 
that's just as much bullshit, and allows creeps like you to point away 
from the LIE he told, and idiots, alot like you, believe it.,.

The propaganda tool used here, Diversion.

Rr


   

Re: Twitter working on identifying permanently suspended users...

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net> 
 On 02/12/2017 11:45 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
  But I'm still waiting for a  definition of "harassment".  Do you have your 
own?
 
                 Jim Bell 
  

>What Juan and Zen do is a kind of a 'harassment' according to most 
>moderators.. Adding unwanted, often entirely off-topic, inflammatory, ad >hom 
>garbage to threads to attempt dissuading people from reading threads they want 
>to suppress and targeting certain individuals with garbage >posts so when they 
>post, the Harasser hopes everyone on the list *groans* because they know 
>garbage will follow and wish the poster targeted >goes away...  Sort of like 
>what you're doing here Jim. Querying me about it. Making it personal. Hoping a 
>flame war results. 

I'll confess that I would find it hard to define "harassment", too.  The 
problem is that people use the word to justify knocking people off of public 
communication systems (Twitter), as if the definition of "harassment" is clear. 
 I don't see it.
             Jim Bell

   

Do as I say, not as I do...

[jim bell]

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/

Re: Happy Black History Month! Missouri KKK leader Dead, Jim...

[jim bell]

 From: John Newman <j...@synfin.org>

On Feb 12, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Razer <g...@riseup.net> wrote:
John Brown's Ghost on Twitter:
>So they just fished KKK Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona's bloated corpse out of a 
>Missouri river. Happy Black History Month, everyone! 
>https://twitter.com/jbrownsghost/status/830672802902601729

 
>Looks like he was killed doing Methamphetamine biz, but I'm speculating on the 
>known fact White supremacists are only rivaled in their marketing of poison 
>for income by the Hells Angels.

Sorta-humorous Kansas City connection:
Until graduating MIT in 1980, I lived in a suburb of Kansas City, Kansas.  When 
I heard the name "Frank Ancona" in the last few days, I recalled that there was 
some kind of TV commercial in the mid-1970s which signed off with the saying, 
"Be kind to Frank Ancona".  Google-searched it, and was reminded that a 
DIFFERENT "Frank Ancona" ran, and runs, a Honda dealership in Olathe Kansas, a 
suburb of Kansas City.  Not the same guy.
http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2014/04/be-kind-to-kansas-city-car-dealer-frank.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2014/04/24/olathe-honda-owner-gets-confused-with-kkk-leader.html


          Jim Bell
 

   

Re: Net Result of Snowden

[jim bell]

 From: Ryan Carboni <rya...@gmail.com>

   >I have written down so notes on the movie. Also, my cell phone works fine 
in the microwave.
You might be very near a cell-phone tower.
Try putting a large plastic or glass container of water in the microwave, with 
the cell phone.  (say, 1/2 gallon of water.)A microwave cavity, alone, is 
fairly well-shielded.   But it is also very low-loss without a "load", an 
object within it that will absorb the 2.45 GHz microwave energy.  Usually food, 
of course.
One thing that would be useful is an app which showed the received signal 
strength for that cell phone, to a resolution much better than the usual 5-bar 
display.  
         Jim Bell, N7IJS  ("World's Last Tech-Plus Ham")


   

"Left Attacks ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech"

[jim bell]

http://observer.com/2017/02/aclu-defends-breitbart-milo-yiannopoulos-free-speech/

[partial quote follows]
"On February 1, Breitbart technology editor and right-wing provocateur Milo 
Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the University of California-Berkeley. 
Students at the university protested his speech, and radicals—many of whom may 
not have been students—turned violent."Yiannopoulos’ speech was canceled for 
safety concerns, as demonstrators threw rocks and fireworks at the building 
where the speech was set to take place. What began as a speech to 500 students 
expanded to thousands as the media (including this writer) wrote countless 
articles about the riots and Yiannopoulos."If the Left wanted to shut 
Yiannopoulos down, they failed by behaving in such a manner that raised his 
profile. Who knows how many people wondered who this person was who caused such 
a backlash, and how many of those people then found at least some of what 
Yiannopoulos says to be acceptable?"In a follow-up article on the riots, 
Washington Post columnist Steven Petrow spoke to a lawyer for the American 
Civil Liberties Union, Lee Rowland. Rowland told Petrow that she finds much of 
Yiannopoulos’ speech to be “absolutely hateful an despicable—but those 
adjectives don’t remove his speech from the Constitution’s protection.”[end of 
partial quote]Jim Bell's comments follow:The ACLU is being correct, at least 
here.  They were also attacked in the late 1970's, for standing up for the 
right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois.  That march (which never actually 
happened) was humorously portrayed in John  Belushi's movie, "Blues Brothers". 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTT1qUswYL0
(Head Nazi is played by actor Henry Gibson, perhaps most famous for the TV 
show, "Laugh-In".  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k61ZJpMDBzU
      Jim bellT

Man jailed for refusing to reveal passwords.

[jim bell]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-man-jailed-16-months-for-refusing-to-reveal-passwords/


Francis Rawls, a former Philadelphia police sergeant, has been in the 
Philadelphia Federal Detention Center for more than 16 months. His crime: the 
fired police officer has been found in contempt of court for refusing a judge's 
order to unlock two hard drives the authorities believe contain child 
pornography. Theoretically, Rawls can remain jailed indefinitely until he 
complies.Francis Rawls
The federal court system appears to be in no hurry to resolve an unresolved 
legal issue: does the Fifth Amendment protect the public from being forced to 
decrypt their digital belongings? Until this is answered, Rawls is likely to 
continue to languish behind bars. A federal appeals court heard oral arguments 
about Rawls' plight last September. So far, there's been no response from the 
US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia.
Rawls was thrown in the slammer on September 30, 2015 "until such time that he 
fully complies" (PDF) with a court order to unlock his hard drives. A 
child-porn investigation focused on Rawls when prosecutors were monitoring the 
online network, Freenet. They executed a search warrant in 2015 at Rawls' home. 
The authorities say it's a "foregone conclusion" that illicit porn is on those 
drives. But they cannot know for sure unless Rawls hands them the alleged 
evidence that is encrypted with Apple's standard FileVault software.
His plight is not garnering public sympathy. Men suspected of possessing child 
pornography never do. But his case highlights a vexing legal vacuum in this 
digital era, when encryption is becoming part of the national discussion. For 
years, both Apple and Microsoft have offered desktop users the ability to turn 
on full disk encryption. And data on Android and Apple mobile phones can easily 
be encrypted.
Rawls' attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, declined comment for 
this story. But he has argued in court that his client is being "held without 
charges" (PDF) and that he should be released immediately.FURTHER 
READINGIndefinite prison for suspect who won’t decrypt hard drives, feds say
In winning the contempt-of-court order, the authorities cited a 1789 law known 
as the All Writs Act to compel (PDF) Rawls to decrypt—and he refused. The All 
Writs Act was the same law the Justice Department asserted in its legal battle 
with Apple, in which a magistrate judge ordered Apple to produce code to enable 
the FBI to decrypt the iPhone used by one of two shooters who killed 14 people 
at a San Bernardino County government building. The government dropped the case 
when the authorities paid a reported $1 million for a hack.
The reason why Rawls is idling behind bars without charges is twofold: first, 
the nation's appellate courts have no deadlines on when they must issue an 
opinion. And second, the Supreme Court has never addressed the compelled 
decryption issue.
The Supreme Court in 2000, however, ruled that demanding too much assistance 
from a suspect is unconstitutional because it would be akin to "telling an 
inquisitor the combination of a wall safe." However, the closest federal 
appellate case on point was decided by the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 
2012. That court, based in Denver, said a bank-fraud defendant must decrypt her 
laptop. But that ruling wasn't enforced because prosecutors obtained the 
password elsewhere.
At issue in the decryption battle is the Fifth Amendment. At its core, it says 
people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. But that is the 
real-world view. When it comes to the virtual world, things change—at least 
insofar as the government is concerned. The government claims that Rawls isn't 
being ordered to testify against himself and that he isn't even being ordered 
to produce his passwords.FURTHER READINGChild porn suspect jailed indefinitely 
for refusing to decrypt hard drives
Rawls, the government argues, (PDF) "repeatedly asserts that the All Writs Act 
order requires him to divulge his passcodes, but he is incorrect: the order 
requires no testimony from [Rawls], and he may keep his passcodes to himself. 
Instead, the order requires only that [Rawls] produce his computer and hard 
drives in an unencrypted state."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation told the court in a friend-of-the-court 
brief (PDF) that "compelled decryption is inherently testimonial because it 
compels a suspect to use the contents of their mind to translate unintelligible 
evidence into a form that can be used against them. The Fifth Amendment 
provides an absolute privilege against such self-incriminating compelled 
decryption."
When the appeals court finally rules on Rawls' plight, it won't be the final 
word on the topic. That's because the nation's circuit courts of appeal are not 
obligated to follow the decisions of their sister circuits. This means 
uncertainty over this issue could 

Re: Twitter working on identifying permanently suspended users, preventing them from creating new accts

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
   
  >Accounts created specifically to harass. But they aren't saying how: 
  > https://blog.twitter.com/2017/an-update-on-safety 
  > ...and no one writing it up seems to know either
 
What I want to know, is:  What is their definition of the word, 
"harass"?Contradict?  Disprove?  Argue against?  Make unhappy?  
Is Twitter going to adopt a consistent policy that political statements aren't 
allowed?  
        Jim Bell
 

   

Re: Twitter working on identifying permanently suspended users...

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
 On 02/12/2017 05:16 PM, jim bell wrote:
   
  From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
   
   >>>Accounts created specifically to harass. But they aren't saying how: 
  >>> https://blog.twitter.com/2017/an-update-on-safety 
  >>>                       ...and no one writing it up seems to know either
  
  >>What I want to know, is:  What is their definition of the word, "harass"? 
>>Contradict?  Disprove?  Argue against?  Make unhappy?   
  >>Is Twitter going to adopt a consistent policy that political statements 
aren't allowed?   >> Jim Bell

>Ask @Support or @jack. Maybe they can tell you.
 
>I would guess it's what their policy always was. If you think their policy is 
>'inconsistent' that's because it depends on who gets harassment complaints 
>against them that are verifiable.
But I'm still waiting for a  definition of "harassment".  Do you have your own?
               Jim Bell

   

Re: change.org "declare antifa illegal/terrorist" petition

[jim bell]

 From: James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
On 2/10/2017 2:31 PM, Marina Brown wrote:
>> Hahaha - tell me where to get my check from Daddy Soros. I sure need it.

>Soros directly funds and directly controls the Tides foundation.

>The Tides foundation directly funds The Alliance for Global Justice

>The Alliance for Global Justice gave fifty thousand dollars “Refuse 
Fascism” which staged the riot at Berkeley.
When the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests were occurring, I noticed that the 
whole thing looked coordinated and 'staged'.   There was media commentary that 
suggested that George Soros was funding it behind the scenes.  But, I also 
noticed that a lot of their activity was arguably criminal, although usually 
just at misdemeanor-levels. (I'm not suggesting that mere protests were 
criminal, BTW.)
 Obviously, Obama's administration was not going to prosecute these things; nor 
would any large city that was run by Democrats.  But my understanding is that a 
conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor can be a felony, depending on the State or 
Federal laws involved.  
Therefore, a repeat performance of OWS-behavior might draw the attention of the 
Federal "Justice Department".  Similarly, Berkeley-level riots might also 
provoke a reaction.  
           Jim Bell



   

NY Post: It only took five seconds for assassins to kill Kim Jong Nam

[jim bell]

Jim Bell's guess: hydrogen cyanide.  (Hydrocyanic acid)

It only took five seconds for assassins to kill Kim Jong Nam

http://nyp.st/2kOmYtb

For more on the New York Post and to download our apps, visit NYPost.com
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: Net Result of Snowden

[jim bell]

 From: Beaker Meeps <bea...@dropperbox.com>
On 2/14/2017 2:04 PM, jim bell wrote:
> *From:* Ryan Carboni <rya...@gmail.com>
> 
>>I have written down so notes on the movie. Also, my cell phone works
> fine in the microwave.
> 
> You might be very near a cell-phone tower.
> 
> Try putting a large plastic or glass container of water in the
> microwave, with the cell phone.  (say, 1/2 gallon of water.)
> A microwave cavity, alone, is fairly well-shielded.  But it is also
> very low-loss without a "load", an object within it that will absorb the
> 2.45 GHz microwave energy.  Usually food, of course.
> 
> One thing that would be useful is an app which showed the received
> signal strength for that cell phone, to a resolution much better than
> the usual 5-bar display.  

>Well put.   
A good radio receiver can have a dynamic range of 100 decibels.  (or, a 10**10, 
a factor of 10 billion) range over which a signal can be input and still give a 
useful, even good-quality result. 
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/receivers/dynamic_range/dynamic_range.php
I could not quickly find a figure as to the typical shielding provided by a 
microwave oven, but let's suppose it's 60 db, or a factor of 1 million 
reduction.  You can see that if the signal outside the oven is, say, 80 db over 
the minimum detectable level, putting it into that oven would reduce it to 
80-60db, or 20 db, still a very useable signal.  Thus, it would appear that the 
phone works fine in that oven.  Adding a large container of water into that 
cavity could further reduce the signal level.
Also, be aware that the effectiveness of shielding in a microwave oven may be 
frequency-dependent.  In some cases, I have seen a "channel" within the 
door-seal structure that I suspect is designed to oscillate at a microwave 
oven's frequency:  2.45 GHz.   Thus, it blocks that signal, but it might not do 
so well at blocking at a typical cell phone's frequencies,  900 Mhz, 1800 Mhz, 
and 1900 MHz.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies      
Combining use of a microwave, with wrapping a phone in a couple layers of 
aluminum foil, should work okay to block it.  ×   

         Jim Bell

For the curious:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=41755.0

tl;dr - frequency bands are different. Although some get lucky because
of the wall density.




   

Re: The "60 Year War"

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
>"For 60 years Robots have been systematically destroying us in 
clandestine economy based war started when Eniac was turned on"

>https://twitter.com/JoseCanseco/status/833745605470023680
And musicians have been singing about the battle for decades.'Machines' by 
Lothar and the Hand Peoplehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDUFaRiUwsk

'Mr. Roboto' by Styx.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cShYbLkhBc

Any more I've missed?
              Jim Bell







   

Re: 10 judges are nuts.

[jim bell]

 From: Ben Tasker <b...@bentasker.co.uk>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution 
http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android

I'm no fan of the US's view on firearms, but this makes no sense to me:
'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the 
weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King
You are right, it makes no sense: 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 " We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and 
carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons 
protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think 
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting 
the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 
(1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, 
The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in 
Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable 
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); 
E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. 
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See 
also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 
65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. 
C. 288, 289 (1874).    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful 
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second 
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we 
have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s 
ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who 
would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia 
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias 
in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual 
in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could 
be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern 
developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and 
the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

However, the only reason that M16's are relatively rare is that they have been 
restricted/taxed/semi-outlawed since their origin.  Thus, that sounds like a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.
              Jim Bell
   

Re: 10 judges are nuts.

[jim bell]

 From: Marina Brown <catskillmar...@gmail.com>

On 02/23/2017 08:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> On 02/23/2017 05:40 PM, Razer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/23/2017 01:04 PM, Mirimir wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
>>>>> Court rules assault weapons are not protected under
>>>>> Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG  via
>>>> They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50
>>>> yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't
>>>> bounce off your coat. 

Sorry to bring up guns.

>Um, Jim. I own a black powder rifle in a common musket calibre.
You may be misattributing what I wrote.  Others added to my original post.
> I've
put a slug deep into hard beech wood at 50 yards. The musketballs fly
even faster than the slugs. With a good charge the balls have far more
energy than an AK-47 bullet. but it takes almost a minute to load
and it makes a pretty big cloud of smoke.

My black powder gun is rifled - the muskets were smoothbores and not so
accurate so the range i can hit things is better.
Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need
>>>> to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger
>>>> missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I
>>>> hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too
>>>> if you talk to him purty.
>>> For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and
>>> people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of
>>> trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the
>>> real weapons and supplies.
>>>
>>> That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result
>>> would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
>>
>> Greed is NOT an Ideology.
>>
>> Greed is a way of life in 'Merica. The ONLY accepted way.
> 
> Well, they call it "free enterprise" :)
> 
>> Social atomization has created the circumstance that 'Merican families
>> and communities are not even understood as such by a large majority of
>> the planet's inhabitants...
>>
>> ROTF! 'Merica is Dmed! Bwhahhhaaa!
> 
> Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing
> Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his
> minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
> 
> 
> 



   

Anarchapulco Presentation

[jim bell]

Went very well.  My speech will probably be posted on their website in a few 
days.
               Jim Bell

Re: Security error leaves 760 gigs on NY airport servers unprotected for a year

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>

>Security error leaves NY airport servers unprotected for a year

>The backup storage drive hadn't been password-protected since April.

>The 760 GB of exposed data included TSA letters of investigation, social
security numbers, internal airport schematics and emails, according to
Chris Vickery, lead researcher from MacKeeper Security Center. He'd
discovered the lapse, noting that the backup drive "was, in essence,
acting as a public web server." If someone had found their way in, they
could access a particular file with usernames and passwords for various
devices and systems, which security experts confirmed to ZDNet would
open up every component of the airport's internal network to a malicious
user.


This is a big reason we don't like Statist fools who like big government, and 
would like to make us all dependent on government's supposed 'protection'.  If 
this outrage were done in private industry, at least we would have the freedom 
to go elsewhere.
           Jim Bell   

Re: Philosophokiddies

[jim bell]

 From: Stephen D. Williams <s...@lig.net>
 On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
  
 On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300
Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tan...@gmail.com> wrote:

 
 I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too.  Just hate his love for
some politicians, like Putin and Trump.  Every person has own value,
but I really abominate politicians, ugh!  :P
 
We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, 
putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list
hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of
politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...

 
 
>Find something better first, and prove it.
 
 >  https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
 Churchill by Himself, 574: 
 >Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of 
 >sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all->wise. Indeed 
 >it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for 
 >all those other forms that have been tried from >time to time.… 
 

Are you aware that I invented a new form of government, in 1995?   
https://cryptome.org/ap.htm     Don't pretend I didn't.  
With all of the advances in technology that have occurred since 1995, or even 
1980, why should you assume that technology shouldn't develop a better form of 
government.
                  Jim Bell

 
 

   

Re: Philosophokiddies

[jim bell]

 From: jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com>
 From: Stephen D. Williams <s...@lig.net>
 On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
  
 On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300
Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tan...@gmail.com> wrote:

 
 I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too.  Just hate his love for
some politicians, like Putin and Trump.  Every person has own value,
but I really abominate politicians, ugh!  :P
 
We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, 
putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list
hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of
politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...

 
 
>Find something better first, and prove it.
 
 >  https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
 Churchill by Himself, 574: 
 >Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of 
 >sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all->wise. Indeed 
 >it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for 
 >all those other forms that have been tried from >time to time.… 
 

Are you aware that I invented a new form of government, in 1995?   
https://cryptome.org/ap.htm     Don't pretend I didn't.  
With all of the advances in technology that have occurred since 1995, or even 
1980, why should you assume that technology shouldn't develop a better form of 
government.
                  Jim Bell

 Also, take a look at this:  
https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-first-interview-with-jim-bell-of-assassination-politics-since-released-from-jail
     

   

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

[jim bell]

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

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



  From: Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net>

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

Feel free to flip a coin though..


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


   

Re: The Unsettling Relationship Between Russia and Wikileaks

[jim bell]

 From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769958/Does-Wikileaks-help-Russia-Information-leaks-Julian-Assange-benefit-Kremlin.html

>Now, Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks are back in the spotlight, roiling the
>geopolitical landscape with new disclosures and a promise of more to
>come.
And I hope they hurry up with all the leaks that they can muster, as early as 
possible.              Jim Bell


   

Re: Philosophokiddies

[jim bell]

 From: Stephen D. Williams <s...@lig.net>
 On 9/6/16 9:01 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, 
putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list
hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of
politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...

  
 
 >Find something better first, and prove it.
 
 >  https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
 Churchill by Himself, 574:  
  >>>Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this  world 
of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all->wise. Indeed 
it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all 
those  other forms that have been tried from >time to time.…  
 
  
 >>Are you aware that I invented a new form of government, in 1995?   
 >>https://cryptome.org/ap.htm     Don't pretend I didn't.  
   
 
>I didn't comment about it.  The Purge movies always remind me of AP.  Not the 
>same, but related.
 http://www.thepurgemovie.co.uk/
 
>My preference is to consider ideas that are likely to improve things.  AP 
>doesn't seem promising, although good to keep in mind.
That's a rather weak answer.  Why is AP unlikely to improve things?  Some 
people have said it will work "too well".  Be specific.  What do you say are 
its faults?  Will it get rid of governments?  Will it defend libertarian or 
anarchic regions?
           Jim Bell




>>Also, take a look at this:  
>>https://steemit.com/assassinationpolitics/@dollarvigilante/world-exclusive-first-interview-with-jim-bell-of-assassination-politics-since-released-from-jail
>>   



   

Re: Philosophokiddies

[jim bell]

 From: Stephen D. Williams <s...@lig.net>
On 9/8/16 9:32 AM, jim bell wrote:
 
  
I didn't comment about it.  The Purge movies always remind me of AP.  Not the 
same, but related.
 http://www.thepurgemovie.co.uk/
 
 >My preference is to consider ideas that are likely to improve things.  AP 
 >doesn't seem promising, although good to keep in mind. 
  >>That's a rather weak answer.  Why is AP unlikely to improve things?  Some 
people have said it will work "too well".  Be specific.  What do >>you say are 
its faults?  Will it get rid of governments?  Will it defend libertarian or 
anarchic regions?   

 
>Ruining the confidence, sense of safety, and decorum is no small thing.

I assume you're saying that AP would 'ruin the confidence, sense of safety, and 
decorum' of the world.Needless to say, I disagree.  Consider a statistic that 
in the 20th century, about 240 million people were killed by government 
action.Do you call that compatible with 'confidence, sense of safety, and 
decorum'?  If you have no solution to that, what is your point?

>  The whole dynamic of society would have to change.
Duh!!!   So, you're still in love with the way things happen now?   In Part 2 
of AP, I wrote:
"Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less time to 
answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be electing people who 
will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us to death, or for that matter 
sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose their wishes.  No military?   One of 
the attractive potential implications of such a system would be that we might 
not even need a military to protect the country. Any threatening or abusive 
foreign leader would be subject to the same contribution/assassination/reward 
system, and it would operate just as effectively over borders as it does 
domestically."
Please try to make the case that the present world, with ALL its faults, would 
be better than an AP world.

>  Hard to see how that would work.
How long have you been thinking about it?  I have been thinking about it for 
21.5 years. 

>  One of my views of much of the past is that most people in most populations 
> were repeatedly traumatized.
And frequently, they were 'traumatized' due to government actions.  

>      Watching people being drawn and quartered in England tends not to 
> produce a caring, cooperative, civic minded, progressive population.
What does that have to do with anything relevant here?
 
 

 
 
>>>A system where anyone can be targeted for any reason will cause fear, 
>>>certainty seeking, last resort alliance building, fatalist resignation and 
>>>>cynicism in the general population, and similar to spiral out of control.  
  >>Imagine you're living in a different country, with no 2nd Amendment.  
Nobody can own guns, at least not legally.   Now imagine somebody advocates 
allowing >>'anyone' to walk into a gun store, buy a gun and ammunition.   
Somebody else points out that if a person can buy a gun, he can walk out of the 
store, load the >>gun, and shoot to death anyone he sees on the street.  Does 
that circumstance justify not changing the laws to what we have in America, 
today?  I say, "no". >> The mere existence of a possible negative scenario 
doesn't mean that such rights shouldn't exist.   
 >Different situation.  Why was vigilantism weeded out in the US?
Why is vigiliantism relevant here?
>The Second Amendment is sort of a license to kill about 1 other person or so, 
>if you're willing to trade your life to do so.
The First Amendment is a license to speak lies, if you choose to do so.  Is 
that really a problem?
 
 
   
  
  >>>                     Groups will develop feudal protection rackets, clans, 
private protection details, and events, mistakes or not, will trigger a cascade 
of blood feuds. 
  >>Why will they need that?  Will they do any good?  

>To gain more peace of mind.  Doesn't matter.
Why do you think the advent of AP won't give them "peace of mind".  Some people 
agree that it will produce a VERY peaceful, POLITE society.  I've long claimed 
that a well-functioning AP system will totally eliminate wars, by supplanting 
them.  That will give plenty of "peace of mind".
 

>>>I haven't analyzed it thoroughly, at a glance it seems that kind of negative 
>>>dynamic, regardless of actual risk, will sour the whole society. 
  >>That's the problem.  You haven't thought about it, and certainly not 
sufficiently.

 
>I've analyzed it more than the general population.  They're going to be the 
>ones reacting.  I'm fairly certain the blow back would be worse than any 
>benefit.  But I'll read your proposal mo

Re: Permutations to scalars and back again.

[jim bell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear-feedback_shift_register
"In computing, a linear-feedback shift register (LFSR) is a shift register 
whose input bit is a linear function of its previous state.The most commonly 
used linear function of single bits is exclusive-or (XOR). Thus, an LFSR is 
most often a shift register whose input bit is driven by the XOR of some bits 
of the overall shift register value.The initial value of the LFSR is called the 
seed, and because the operation of the register is deterministic, the stream of 
values produced by the register is completely determined by its current (or 
previous) state. Likewise, because the register has a finite number of possible 
states, it must eventually enter a repeating cycle. However, an LFSR with a 
well-chosen feedback function can produce a sequence of bits that appears 
random and has a very long cycle.Applications of LFSRs include generating 
pseudo-random numbers, pseudo-noise sequences, fast digital counters, and 
whitening sequences. Both hardware and software implementations of LFSRs are 
common.The mathematics of a cyclic redundancy check, used to provide a quick 
check against transmission errors, are closely related to those of an 
LFSR."[end of quote]
           Jim Bell
×   


  From: James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
 To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
 Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 6:09 PM
 Subject: Permutations to scalars and back again.
   
I need to be able to do two of the following three tasks.

Generate a permutation of eighteen ones and eighteen zeros with equal 
probability for each permutation.  Or equivalently shuffle eighteen 
black cards and eighteen red cards.

Sequentially generate all possible permutations with each permutation 
generated once and only once.

Map between permutations and scalars, such that each permutation maps to 
unique number, and the set of numbers that represents valid permutations 
is dense.

Could someone point me to the relevant literature, or literature for 
converting between different representations of a permutation?

Since there are only two classes of items being shuffled, this class of 
permutations has a variety of special and convenient properties.





   

Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia - [perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]

[jim bell]

Sounds like Australia needs the equivalent of America's First Amendment 
guarantees of freedom of speech and press.But then again, that's the same 
problem Britain has:  They don't have a written Constitution.          Jim Bell

  From: Nadine Earnshaw <nad...@iinet.net.au>
 To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
 Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 3:27 PM
 Subject: Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia - 
[perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]
   
 
No the issue is public vs private speech.
There is also a difference between publicly stating an opinion and being 
abusive.
this is what we are talking about legislatively


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
 (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, 
if: (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the 
circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a 
group of people; and (b)  the act is done because of the 
race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all 
of the people in the group.Note:  Subsection (1) makes certain acts 
unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows 
people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about 
unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. 
Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is 
unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an 
offence. (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken 
not to be done in private if it: (a)  causes words, sounds, 
images or writing to be communicated to the public; or (b)  
is done in a public place; or (c)  is done in the sight or 
hearing of people who are in a public place. (3)  In this 
section:"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as 
of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a 
charge is made for admission to the place.



- Original Message -
From: "oshwm" <os...@openmailbox.org>
To:"Nadine Earnshaw" <nad...@iinet.net.au>, "CypherPunks" 
<cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 08 Sep 2016 06:18:31 +0100
Subject:Re: Free speech - front lines in Australia - 
[perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au: Update: battle for free speech]


So, free speech is ok so long as it is only used to say yhe things you find 
acceptable? :D


On 8 September 2016 04:09:38 GMT+01:00, Nadine Earnshaw <nad...@iinet.net.au> 
wrote:

freedom of speech does not protect hate speech

and that is what 18c which Bernard supports being removed.




He is free to say




"I wouldn't let a gay person teach my children and I am not afraid to say it," 
a Twitter post from Mr Gaynor read.




but there is a line and that is what 18c is about.




http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html




He is free to be a dick in private. Clearly with his being dismissed he has 
trouble with what private is.






 >>Bernard Gaynor is a controversial Australian with conservative
pro-family views whom some would say is ultra-conservative, to which I
would counter "that's just your post-modern moral relativism which
dominates the current Western public and social dialogue".

So, notwithstanding anyone's particular views on any particular issue
which Bernard Gaynor stands for and champions (at least one of which I
strongly disagree with), his stand for freedom of speech is superb,
courageous, persistent, and thyankfully a following has formed which
donates to keep him and his family afloat in the face of the legal fees
and the many personal sacrifices he has chosen to make, and some which
he has and continues to suffer at the hands of his opponents, including
the chief of the Australian Army who stepped down to an early retirement
in "moral disgrace" and knowing that he would not survive his very
political attack against Bernard Gaynor's personal stands as an
Australian Army reserve man (he sacked Bernard amongst other things).

So plenty to debate, but the guts of this is free speech and the long
standing statutory infractions against our right to freedom of speech,
and in particular as we name it for necessary but quirky reasons in
Australia for legal and constitutional purposes:

 freedom to communicate on political and related matters

Good luck Bernard,



- Forwarded message from Bernard Gaynor -
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 01:07:53 +
From: Bernard Gaynor <perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au>
To: Zenaan Harkiss <z...@freedbms.net>
Reply-To: Bernard Gaynor <perso...@bernardgaynor.com.au>
Subject: Update: battle for free sp

Hillary Clinton suggested drone strike on Julian Assange in 2010

[jim bell]

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/clinton-assange-wikileaks-drone/2016/10/04/id/751517/

               Jim Bell

"Hey, this is terrific!  It means we really must be on to something, if they're 
trying to kill us!"   Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Episode 3, part 1.    
At:  9:05  
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/clinton-assange-wikileaks-drone/2016/10/04/id/751517/

yahoo sux

[jim bell]

Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources 
http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

[jim bell]

 From: Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>
   
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +0000, jim bell wrote:
>> Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside
>> the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says
>> so.  The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction   I am
>> not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these
>> companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign
>> embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the
>> existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the
>> law.

>The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under
>US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of
>enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info
>from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún.
Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the 
court order somewhere within America, as opposed to an individual outside the 
jurisdiction of that court.  The thing could go as far as the company hiring a 
foreign attorney, communicating with him by Internet (or courier, etc), with 
the foreign attorney announcing the fact of the information.  It would be very 
difficult to formulate a theory that a company isn't entitled to communicate 
with an attorney who was outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., or that the U.S. 
just happened to have legal power to prevent that attorney from speaking.  It 
would be quickly seen as a First Amendment issue, and would fail.
            Jim Bell


   

Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>
On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote:
>>     ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government'
>>     would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the
>>     american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The
>>     subjection has little to do with which point in space the
> >    subjects might be accidentaly occupying.


>I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least)
>are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US
>government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where
>they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in
>the US.

That's an interesting take on the matter, but I don't think you could find 
sufficient legal precedent to force this issue against the will of the 
(vacationing?) employee, or the will of  the stay-at-home corporation.  
Remember, I'm not even talking about an employee who wants to leak the 
information against the will of the corporation:  I'm speculating that the 
corporation WANTS some employee to leak it, but to do so using a means not 
obviously in violation of the requirements of the subpoena/court order.   Since 
a corporation generally is entitled to communicate information to its employees 
(who may not be in the U.S., or ever were in the U.S.), that's a powerful tool 
to launch the relevant information beyond the jurisdiction of the court.        
      Jim Bell

   

Re: [RUS] USA media meltdown (e.g. "It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin")

[jim bell]

 From: Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net>
 Subject: Re: [RUS] USA media meltdown (e.g. "It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is 
Running Against Vladimir Putin")
   
>"Alternative" media having fun with Hillary :)

>http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/12/hillary-clintons-campaign-needs-hire-better-liars/
I read late neurologist Oliver Sacks' book, "The man who mistook his wife for a 
hat" about 20-25 years ago.  In one story, as I vaguely recall, he described 
showing a political speech to a room full of 'aphasics', people who can't 
understand the meaning of actual speech, but who can 'read' issues of honesty 
(or lack of same) very well.   They all laughed  
http://www.aphasia.org/stories/happy-birthday-oliver-sacks/
"Maybe the best place to start is an excerpt from The Man Who Mistook His Wife 
for a Hat, one of the most beloved books from Oliver Sacks, a collection of 
clinical tales about patients with neurological disorders. The book includes 
accounts about aphasia as well. One of those tales relates the story of 
patients with the severest receptive or global aphasia who had gathered to 
watch the President speaking. It begins like this:
What was going on? A roar of laughter from the aphasia ward, just as the 
President’s speech was coming on, and they had all been so eager to hear the 
President speaking…
Dr. Sacks has had many encouraging words for people with aphasia, even those 
who have had the hardest of luck.
I think that even in the most severely affected patients, something can be 
done. If not by way of recovering their language, by way of making life more 
tolerable and more fun."[end of partial quote]
         Jim Bell

   

Re: Fwd: [cryptome] Wifi Hotspots Must have Users Identity and Password

[jim bell]

Can the name of the network be "Password is password"?

  From: Александр 
 To: CypherPunks  
 Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 3:20 AM
 Subject: Fwd: [cryptome] Wifi Hotspots Must have Users Identity and Password
   
How nice...
Enjoy.

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: douglas rankine 
> Date: 2016-09-17 13:14 GMT+03:00
> Subject: [cryptome] Wifi Hotspots Must have Users Identity and Password
> To: Cryptome Mailing List 
>
> see url: https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/ 09/15/cp160099.pdf

> European Court Judgement.  Death of Wifi Hotspots.  Copyright protection is 
> more important and of a higher priority, than individual privacy, or 
> anonymity.

> You vill reveal your identity...the state commands it.  Your rights vill be 
> protected.  The state vill protect your rights. The state vill love you, hass 
> alvays loved you...and vill continue to love you...and efen more...your 
> information and metadata...


   

Re: Fwd: [cryptome] Wifi Hotspots Must have Users Identity and Password

[jim bell]

 From: Александр <afalex...@gmail.com>
2016-09-17 21:06 GMT+03:00 jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com>:

Can the name of the network be "Password is password"?

>Hold a second, Jim...i'm on the phone with the senior judge from the European 
>Court now. Well, the judge says 
<>,  he claims.
<In the "rest" - you are totally fRRRee! :)>>
I think it's unfortunate that people can't "automatically" share some of their 
(otherwise unused) WiFi capacity.  Many people would do this, as long as a few 
restrictions are in place: 1.   A person sharing shouldn't be legally liable 
for anything done;  2.  The owner gets to use "all" of the capacity when 
needed; the external user only gets space when available.   3.   The IP 
addresses of "his" use and that of the "external" use be unrelated in any way.  
Interestingly, Comcast/Xfinity has a somewhat automatic system of this kind:  
Boxes are called "gateways" and, in effect, have two WiFi routers:  One for the 
owner and the other for anyone else.  (However, to use the other side, you need 
to be a subscriber somewhere or have his password/permission.)  For news of an 
objection to this, see:  
https://www.fastcompany.com/3039682/comcast-was-sued-for-quietly-making-your-homes-internet-part-of-the-sharing-economy
              Jim Bell



   

Re: Immunity for Hillary's staff?

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>

On 10/03/2016 12:25 AM, jim bell quotes wall street:

> Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was 
> not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief 
> of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence 
> from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice 
> Department.

>Immunity is Immunity. They can grant it for whatever reason they like if
>the they believe it furthers their ability to make a case against the
>target of their persecution.
As a positive statement of law, that is generally correct.  However, there are 
(at least) two kinds of "immunity":  Transactional (blanket) immunity and "use 
immunity".  The latter doesn't prevent prosecution, it merely prohibits the 
prosecutors from using the material obtained (physical evidence and/or 
discussion/interrogation) from being used to prosecute the person 'immunized'. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity     ×   
But further, in this case, I think it's obvious these staff were given the 
latter immunity (use immunity), but at least not for the reason "to make a case 
against the target of the prosecution".  They WERE among the valid targets of 
the prosecution.  Rather, the goal of this immunity was and remains to make it 
difficult to prosecute these crimes, and those of Hillary Clinton.  But I doubt 
whether the immunity given was anything more than mere 'use immunity', which 
means that a new administration (Trump?) could easily prosecute them still.

Could Obama pardon Hillary Clinton?  It would be rather embarrassing.  
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/a-pardon-from-obama-might-be-the-only-way-to-save-hillary/
    The precedent for Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon exists, 
unfortunately.  But that probably won't be needed if Hillary is elected, 
because she will control the "Justice" Dept.   This makes me wonder if a pardon 
can be withdrawn.  A pardon is an "executive order", and ordinary such orders 
can usually be rescinded.  If Trump wins the White House, and Obama responds by 
pardonning Hillary, can Trump simply issue another executive order, rescinding 
Obama's pardon?  It isn't as if Trump couldn't rhetorically justify this:  
Declare that the upper echelon of the Justice Dept and the FBI conspired to 
help obstruct her prosecution, and those of her staff.  Declare THAT a crime, 
and prosecute.It would be hard to imagine a pardon written so broadly as to 
preclude all prosecution of Hillary Clinton, at least a pardon that had a 
chance to be issued.  
>Advice. Don't vote for criminals to be the Executive of the US
>government. That disqualifies Clinton and Trump, and most likely
>Johnson... Fortune Magazine LUVS Johnson. That ought to tell everyone
>everything they need to know about this Ringer Republican.
To follow such advice, it's necessary to discover and expose WHY these 
candidates are criminals.  In Hillary Clinton's case, we already know plenty.  
Trump?  Less clear.  Who knows, about Johnson.  That's one big reason I 
advocate prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
                   Jim Bell



:
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-blind-eye-1475191703
> 
> [partial quote follows]
> By 
> KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
> Sept. 29, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET
> 1067 COMMENTS
> Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI
> Director Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary
> Committee. When combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey
> gave Hillary Clinton a pass.
> Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation
> that the government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl
> Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether
> Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R.,
> Pa.), who was once a Justice Department prosecutor and knows how these
> investigations roll, provided the first moment. He asked Mr. Comey why
> Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a
> laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain.
> Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence?
> Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . .
> Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer
> from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you
> are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In
> general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements,
> especially when you are interacting with lawyers.”
> The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was
> referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to
> extract an immuni

This REALLY stinks! Agreement to destroy laptops of Hillary staff given immunity.

[jim bell]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-laptops-clinton-aides-with-immunity-deal-sources-say.html
l


[partial quote follows]

Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement 
obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House 
Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday. 
Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills 
and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later 
than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the 
period after the email server became public -- in turn preventing the bureau 
from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources 
said.  
The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to 
Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the 
restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after 
finishing the search.
“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions 
than answers,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote in the letter 
obtained by Fox News.
“Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops 
destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been 
withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, 
doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?” 
Goodlatte asks.
The immunity deals for Mills and Samuelson, made as part of the FBI’s probe 
into Clinton’s use of a private email server when she served as secretary of 
state, apparently included a series of “side agreements” that were negotiated 
by Samuelson and Mills’ attorney Beth Wilkinson.
The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director 
James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought 
against Clinton or her staff.
Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops 
is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as 
evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances 
arise.  [end of partial quote]

   Jim Bell's comments follow  =
WHAAT?!?!?!?
Just after somebody claimed, more or less, 'Well, Hillary may be bad, but Trump 
is worse!', I get greeted by the news item above.  This is ASTONISHINGLY 
CORRUPT!  First, they give immunity to people, for no obvious reason (they 
could get the laptops by subpoena anyway), and they fail to go after the most 
obvious target, Hillary Clinton.  NOW, we hear of a secret side-deal to ensure 
that the laptops of these co-conspirators are destroyed, and are not even 
searched after a given, specific date.
Imagine how much we owe to people, private citizens and organizations, that 
have chosen to go after (by lawsuit, etc) these government crooks.  They use 
FOIA requests, lawsuits, and subpoenas.    Anything the  Hillary-cronies had in 
their laptops needs to be exposed, and used to sue them.  Effectively, however, 
they are trying to use the FBI to carry out ("officially") the kind of 
large-scale evidence-destruction that previously, Hillary only attempted to do 
with the assistance of her lawyers, deletion of those 33.000 million emails.  
Now that she has been raked over the coals for that, her minions try to further 
insulate themselves by getting the FBI to agree to take a hammer to them.

Look, guys, how much more obvious does it have to get?  Hillary's staff is 
thoroughly, completely corrupt.  And now, seemingly shamelessly so.  And 
government organizations are being brought into play solely to assist them.
Prosecute ALL of them.  Convict ALL of them.  Jail ALL of them for the rest of 
their worthless lives.            Jim Bell

Re: Attempt to re-create and test Hillary's email server for security?

[jim bell]

Now, now, I didn't say I am qualified to do this.  I'm not.  But I think it's 
important to do this.I just found this article about the history of Hillary's 
server, which is 
interesting.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/its-alive-fbi-files-reveal-how-clinton-server-was-created-in-k-street-lab.html

           Jim Bell
×   


  From: Cari Machet <carimac...@gmail.com>
 To: jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: cpunks <cypherpu...@cpunks.org>
 Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 6:05 PM
 Subject: Re: Attempt to re-create and test Hillary's email server for security?
   
Yay not many people have the brain capacity you do jim so thats why no one is 
doing that level of work
On Oct 1, 2016 3:27 AM, "jim bell" <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I wonder if somebody has attempted to re-create the software suite used to make 
Hillary Clinton's email server, fill it with dummy (test) data, and place it 
online, and challenge the world to try to crack it.  Too often I've heard the 
comment out of Hillary's camp, 'There is no evidence anybody hacked the 
server', more or less.  Such a claim seems obviously questionable to me.  They 
are already admitted that various somebodies TRIED to hack the server, and that 
those running that server were aware of these attempts, and then shut the 
server down for a few minutes as a consequence.  But whether anybody succeeded, 
I don't know.  It would be useful to actually show that such a server could be 
successfully hacked.
            Jim Bell
Here's an example of discussion of study of her server, mostly in order to 
retrieve or re-create the seemingly lost emails.  What they are not describing 
is what I advocate:  Implement a recreation suitable to expose it to the world, 
challenging the world to crack it.
http://www.motherjones.com/ politics/2015/08/hillary- clinton-emails-server-fbi

×   




   

Attempt to re-create and test Hillary's email server for security?

[jim bell]

I wonder if somebody has attempted to re-create the software suite used to make 
Hillary Clinton's email server, fill it with dummy (test) data, and place it 
online, and challenge the world to try to crack it.  Too often I've heard the 
comment out of Hillary's camp, 'There is no evidence anybody hacked the 
server', more or less.  Such a claim seems obviously questionable to me.  They 
are already admitted that various somebodies TRIED to hack the server, and that 
those running that server were aware of these attempts, and then shut the 
server down for a few minutes as a consequence.  But whether anybody succeeded, 
I don't know.  It would be useful to actually show that such a server could be 
successfully hacked.
            Jim Bell
Here's an example of discussion of study of her server, mostly in order to 
retrieve or re-create the seemingly lost emails.  What they are not describing 
is what I advocate:  Implement a recreation suitable to expose it to the world, 
challenging the world to crack it.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/hillary-clinton-emails-server-fbi

×   

Immunity for Hillary's staff?

[jim bell]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-blind-eye-1475191703

[partial quote follows]
By 
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Sept. 29, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET
1067 COMMENTS
Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI Director 
Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When 
combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey gave Hillary Clinton a pass.
Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation that the 
government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather 
Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled 
classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), who was once a Justice 
Department prosecutor and knows how these investigations roll, provided the 
first moment. He asked Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills was so courteously offered 
immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted 
investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, 
get a subpoena, and seize the evidence?
Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any 
time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a 
lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into 
a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do 
things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting 
with lawyers.”
The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing 
here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity 
deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview 
because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills 
could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. 
Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege.  
Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not 
acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of 
staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from 
that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” 
nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s 
server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions 
about the server.   [end of partial quote]

             Jim Bell

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[jim bell]

 From: aestetix <aeste...@aestetix.com>
>I'll preface by saying I hate both candidates, and support neither. However, 
>if>there is something in the public interest, they should publish it, 
>regardless of
>timing. I'm reminded of the NSA wiretap story that was delayed due to the 2004
>election, and would possibly have influenced the outcome.

One thing I don't understand is why 'they' haven't talked more about the NSA 
storage facility in Utah, the one outed by Snowden, that was said to be set up 
to record "all" (or as many as they could get) emails. (They were shut down by 
Federal court order awhile back, but I don't recall anybody saying they were 
ordered to delete already-acquired emails.)   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_CenterWhy wouldn't that have 
included those of Hillary Clinton, her correspondents, the Clinton Global 
Initiative, etc?  Maybe 'they' don't want to admit officially that this thing 
ever occurred, but hey, guys, "the word is out!".  And now, if anything, for 
them to fail to use that data set to re-create Hillary's deleted emails smacks 
of collusion.  While this specific facility was said to only have been opened 
in 2013, presumably it isn't the first such data storage bank, so Hillary's 
missing emails should be findable somewhere.
             Jim Bell
   

Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[jim bell]

 From: Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>
On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 01:13 +0000, jim bell wrote:
>> http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/02/wednesday-hillary-clinton-done-reports-julian-assange-s-announcement-tuesday-will-finish
>> "Is it the October surprise?
>> MSNBC’s Jesse Rodriguez posted what could be interpreted as an ominous
>> reemark on social media last week regarding Julian Assange.
>> …ominous if you’re with Team Hillary.

>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.
Explain your reasoning.  I myself would prefer that Gary Johnson, the 
Libertarian candidate, wins.  And of course I will vote for Johnson.  But if 
the American people decide, as a consequence of (truthful, accurate) 
information revealed by Wikileaks (or anyone else) that Hillary Clinton 
SHOULDN'T be president, aren't they entitled to their choice?  After all, I 
don't think people are advocating that anybody forges fake information.  They 
want true information.

>I'll be honest, there are a lot of things I do not like about Hillary Clinton.
Welcome to the club!
> However, they pale in comparison to what I do not like about
>Donald Trump, a man who can legitimately be compared to Adolf Hitler,
One big difference between Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler is that when Hitler 
was chosen as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the public didn't know him to be a 
criminal, except for the "beer hall putsch" in 1923.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch      I am quite convinced that 
the Clintons are running a massive pay-for-pay operation, calling it the 
"Clinton Global Initiative".   
I am also convinced that Hillary and her staff deliberately erased 33,000 
emails AFTER being subpoenaed by Congress, which amounts to 33,000 Federal 
felonies.  Does that bother you?  I certainly hope these emails are among the 
information eventually to be released by Wikileaks.  Hillary might call them 
"private", but I suspect that most of them were actually CGI material which 
would have been incriminating.
>and even setting that aside, a man who has shown he is unqualified and
>would make the most dangerous president we have ever had.
I think it's too bad that Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz, wasn't selected as Republican 
nominee.  But I think the main reason Democrats reject Trump is that he clearly 
isn't PC (politically-correct), but mostly they lie and claim other drawbacks 
of Trump, real and imagined.  Further, I think the RINOs deliberately steered 
the nomination away from Ted Cruz and other Repubican candidates, primarily 
because Cruz wanted to shake up the system, perhaps even more than Trump 
wanted.  Blame, in large part, the MainStream Media for giving Trump $1-2 
billion in free publicity prior to his winning the Republican nomination.
> I don't know
>what the fuck Julian is thinking trying to get Trump (or as I refer to
>him, Rump) in office. If he was doing something useful, like leak Rump's
>tax returns, I'd obviously have a different opinion.
Releasing true facts has potentially dangerous consequences, it is true.   Look 
at the 'Arab Spring' thing, a few years ago.   But if mistakes are to be made, 
I would prefer those mistakes to be releasing the information, rather than 
failing or refusing to release the information.

               Jim Bell   

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

[jim bell]

>>electric cars today and the Coltan to make the Tantalum for your BIG
>>Win10 touch screen is in jeopardy because the DRC, about the only large
>>source of Coltan, is devolving into a state of 'social unrest' and the
>>US has told all it's people to split.

[snip]>We need to colonize the Moon, Mars, the asteroid
>belt... Would be a massive job creator. 
>I liked Elon Musks little video showing his SpaceX 
>systems blasting off to Mars..
>https://youtu.be/0qo78R_yYFA
>John 

I hope you're just being sarcastic.  
My understanding is that there are probably very few economical reasons to be 
on the Moon.  Perhaps the potentially most important of them is to mine the 
lunar soil of a rare isotope of helium, specifically He-3 (helium-3), for use 
as a nuclear fuel.  ( helium4 will be given off along with a lot of binding 
energy.)  Helium is on the moon because it is emitted by the Sun and eventually 
captured, and presumably He-3 could be easily separated from the majority He-4 
while on the moon using mass-spectroscopic techniques, sending only the 
valuable He-3 to the Earth.
Curiously, a few years ago I saw a minor movie  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_(film)       
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEsypRdBjcA    about helium-3 mining on the 
moon.  An added personal touch was that the main character(s) were named "Sam 
Bell", my late father's (and grandfather's, too) name.  (the characters 
eventually concluded that they were actually two clones of yet another "Sam 
Bell".)
           Jim Bell   

Re: Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[jim bell]

 From: Georgi Guninski <gunin...@guninski.com>On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 
07:58:01AM +0000, jim bell wrote:>> What a relief!!!Thank heavens for leaks!!!
>>         Jim Bell
>I am not feeling for the bitch at all. But votes based on hatred (i.e.
>choose the more delicious shit) are just social engineering trick, from
>which the organizers profit.
>IMHO the sheeple who voted for either shit are quite guilty for the
>current situation too.
Well, I've been a libertarian all my life, and have known that since 1975.  
I've voted Libertarian for president in every election I could have since 1976. 
 So, this year I voted for Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate.  And if that 
reason didn't exist, yet another reason was that the state in which I live, 
Washington, ended up voting for Hillary Clinton 56% versus 38% Trump:  Nobody 
here could have realistically believed that their vote, one way or another, 
would have changed things.  This would have been an excellent reason for 
libertarian-leaning voters, BOTH R and D, to have voted for Johnson this year.  
Very few people, including most Republicans, probably believe that Trump won 
because of some inherent desireability as a candidate.  Trump won because he 
went up against a very corrupt candidate, albeit one where the thumbs of most 
of the news media were pushing on the scales for Hillary.  
I would have preferred to see Ted Cruz as the Republican nominee, although I 
would still have voted for Gary Johnson.  (of course).  Blame for the fact that 
Cruz wasn't chosen should go to certain types of Republicans, let's call them 
"RINOs", among whom I classify John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, the  two of 
which were so ineffective at parrying their Democrat counterparts that they 
angered their Republican base tremendously.  Cruz, too, would have been trashed 
by the biased media, but they would have found much less to capitalize on:  
Trump is inherently outspoken, while Cruz is a politician, who is used to 
guarding his words.  
I feel that certainly in hindsight, and to a great extent in foresight as well, 
the election was tipped finally because of the revelations of corruption and 
misconduct revealed by the leaks and disclosures of the DNC emails, as well as 
those by Hillary's staff including John Podesta.  Such a cesspool of cynical, 
evil behavior.   I think that Hillary's own emails will eventually be revealed 
to the public; too bad that hasn't happened so far.  If these leaks hadn't 
occurred she would almost certainly have won the election.
NOW would be an excellent time for the Republican party to adopt libertarian 
principles and positions.  That too would apply even more correctly to the 
Democrats, but the latter are still too busy sucking up to what they currently 
see as their natural constitutencies.           Jim Bell


   

Re: Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[jim bell]

"Chaos" is not identical to "change".  Nevertheless, "Chaos" is a state in 
which there is very low resistance to change.            Jim Bell

  From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>
 +10
 
 Addenda: Americans are confused. They mistake chaos for change.
 
 On 11/09/2016 09:28 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:
 

 
 On 11/09/2016 02:58 AM, jim bell wrote:
 > What a relief!!! Thank heavens for leaks!!!
 
 Meh.  I prefer Trump by a /small/ margin; better chaos and gridlock in
 DC than a massive, well coordinated murder machine IMO.  I'm
 sentimental:  I hate to see millions of people slaughtered so a
 handful of billionaires can keep growing their wealth & power right up
 to the collapse of our present civilization.  In the case of Trump vs.
 Clinton, better to roll the dice than accept a status quo that assures
 the highest obtainable body count.
 
 But I don't see a Yuge victory for the humans here, only a new set of
 problems that /may/ be more tractable than those presented by Clinton.
 
 I was rather shocked by the election results, because I have kept an
 eye on developments in election rigging over the years.  Given the
 aggregate power of entrenched interests sponsoring Clinton and the
 scale of the cash flows that Trump's election have placed in jeopardy,
 I did not expect a Trump win to be permitted.  Maybe someday we will
 find out what happened behind the scenes - and whether the FBI
 director's strange behavior had anything to do with it.
 
 Before election day chop wood, carry water, smash the State.
 After election day chop wood, carry water, smash the State.
 
 :o)
 
 
 
 
 

   

Re: Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>

 Subject: Re: Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!
   
 
  
 On 11/09/2016 11:13 AM, jim bell wrote:
  
  >"Chaos" is not identical to "change".  Nevertheless, "Chaos" is a state in 
which there is very low resistance to change.   >                   Jim Bell 
   
 
>I disagree. The tendency of people confronted with Chaos is to embrace what 
>they knew did work and attempt to restore it... traditionalism... ie. >One of 
>the features of Fascism. No change if it went in that direction.
If that's the case, then that ISN'T "chaos", at least not yet.             Jim 
Bell

 
 
 
  
From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>
 +10
 
 Addenda: Americans are confused. They mistake chaos for change.
 
 On 11/09/2016 09:28 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:
 

 
 On 11/09/2016 02:58 AM, jim bell wrote:
 > What a relief!!! Thank heavens for leaks!!!
 
 Meh.  I prefer Trump by a /small/ margin; better chaos and gridlock in
 DC than a massive, well coordinated murder machine IMO.  I'm
 sentimental:  I hate to see millions of people slaughtered so a
 handful of billionaires can keep growing their wealth & power right up
 to the collapse of our present civilization.  In the case of Trump vs.
 Clinton, better to roll the dice than accept a status quo that assures
 the highest obtainable body count.
 
 But I don't see a Yuge victory for the humans here, only a new set of
 problems that /may/ be more tractable than those presented by Clinton.
 
 I was rather shocked by the election results, because I have kept an
 eye on developments in election rigging over the years.  Given the
 aggregate power of entrenched interests sponsoring Clinton and the
 scale of the cash flows that Trump's election have placed in jeopardy,
 I did not expect a Trump win to be permitted.  Maybe someday we will
 find out what happened behind the scenes - and whether the FBI
 director's strange behavior had anything to do with it.
 
 Before election day chop wood, carry water, smash the State.
 After election day chop wood, carry water, smash the State.
 
 :o)
 
 
 
 

 
  
 
 

   

Re: Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[jim bell]

  From: Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>
2. As a result of #1, a vote for any candidate who finishes below second
place is effectively the same as voting for the eventual winner. Put
another way, it robs the second place candidate of the votes needed to
win.
This is called "Duverger's Law".  See:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law"In political science, Duverger's 
law holds that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) 
structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system and 
that "the double ballot majority systemand proportional representation tend to 
favor multipartism."[1][2] The discovery of this tendency is attributed to 
Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it 
in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further 
research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or 
principle.Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system 
and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the 
electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality 
system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known 
as a two-party system.While a principle of political science, in practice most 
countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United 
States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and India 
have consistently had multiparty parliaments.[3][4] Eric Dickson and Ken Scheve 
argue that there is a counter force to Duverger's Law, that on the national 
level a plurality system encourages two parties, but in the individual 
constituencies supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing.[5]
"So... in Texas, Trump won. That means voting for Gary Johnson was the
same as voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein was the same as voting
for Trump. Voting for Evan McMullin was the same as voting for Trump.
If everyone in Texas who had voted just for Gary Johnson had voted for
Hillary instead, we'd be having an entirely different discussion because
Trump would not have won."
This development is, in general, very good for Libertarians such as myself.  It 
means that we are going to be consistently influencing elections, probably from 
here on in.  And that means that the two major candidates will have to start 
listening to libertarians.

>I will say this: at least Jill Stein or Evan McMullin couldn't have been
>any worse than Trump. But the system as it stands now doesn't even give
>them, or others who run outside of the two major parties, a realistic
>chance to win the presidency. This sucks, but it is what it is.
My proposed solution is to give each candidate for a Congressional office 
influence in voting, proportionate to the vote totals in the election.  If 
there are three candidates, A, B, and C, with 50%, 45%, and 5% of the vote, the 
minority candidate gets an office elsewhere, and can neutralize part of the 
vote of the majority-vote candidate, if he wishes.If the majority-vote 
candidate is voting on something that is uncontroversial, agreed with by the 
minority-vote candidates, his vote will get an influence of 100%.  If the 
minority candidates choose the opposite position, the net result will be 
50-45-5=0:  There will be no net vote from that state.

                     Jim Bell


   

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[jim bell]

What a relief!!!Thank heavens for leaks!!!
        Jim Bell

Re: US: Post Election Protests

[jim bell]

e effect of a $250,000 
reward on the prosecutor in a case alleging an AP action, or $500,000 for a 
judge.   Or perhaps a reward of $100,000 for each juror who participated in 
such a trial, and voted for acquittal, where the outcome was such that a 
retrial would be impossible, or at least did not occur.    Such rewards could 
become very high, in large part because there would rarely be legal cases in 
which they would have to be paid.  

> But other than that...\

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
        Jim Bell

   

Re: US: Post Election Protests

[jim bell]

aud?) the AP organization
> did not play fair.   That would destroy the credibility of that
> specific AP organization; others would soon take its place.
> 
> > potential targets to take proportional defensive measures, which "at
> > best" would inhibit the social progress promoted by the system.
> The system would adapt.  Consider Le Chatlier's
> Principle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle
> A working AP system might, for example, authorize spending (for
> concreteness) 10% of donations on defensive contracts:  Consider the
> effect of a $250,000 reward on the prosecutor in a case alleging an
> AP action, or $500,000 for a judge.   Or perhaps a reward of $100,000
> for each juror who participated in such a trial, and voted for
> acquittal, where the outcome was such that a retrial would be
> impossible, or at least did not occur.    Such rewards could become
> very high, in large part because there would rarely be legal cases in
> which they would have to be paid.  
> 
> > But other than that...\
> 
> "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
>         Jim Bell
> 
>    


   

Re: US: Post Election Protests

[jim bell]

 From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:56 AM, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems to be a first for any US 
> election.https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5c4xxl/protesters_block_entrance_to_trump_tower/
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5c1vo7/protests_erupt_following_donald_trumps/

>This compilation from before election...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc

>Violence not a good solution.
These people are very misguided.  If anyone, they should be protesting Hillary 
Clinton, the DNC, John Podesta, her other aides and allies,and the various 
examples of corruption that have occurred.  Do they not realize that the 
election went the way it did not merely because of the email leaks, but more 
fundamentally because these corrupt people did things the way they did, and 
then they chose to talk about that in a medium that at one point they 
considered secure and safe.  Didn't turn out to be, huh?
In, say, 2013, the average Hillary-supporter could have said that she was 
capable, competent, experienced, and honest, and not risk too much laughter 
from the rest of us.  By late 2016, everything had changed.  Do her supporters 
actually believe that the only problem is the exposure of her, rather than her 
underlying behavior?
        Jim Bell



   

Re: US: Post Election Protests

[jim bell]

 From: John Newman <j...@synfin.org>
>> On Nov 10, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Razer <ray...@riseup.net> wrote:

>> On 11/10/2016 03:47 AM, John Newman wrote some non-analytical nonsense:
> 
>>> Violence ended slavery in the South. 
>>> Violence created the so called "land of the free" =)
>> 
>>> Sometimes it's the solution. 
>>> John
> 
>> Violence is a tactic. It can LEAD to a solution but it is not the
>> solution itself

>Yes , truly spoken.

>The thing about violence is - science has advanced so many "wonderful ways" 
>for us to kill ourselves, it becomes increasingly obvious humanity needs to 
>either disavow war altogether (how to do that I have no idea) 
I DO claim that I have the solution to war.At the risk of tooting my own horn, 
I described (in general terms) the solution to that problem 21 years ago.   
https://cryptome.org/ap.htm    Now, I didn't and don't expect people to 
automatically accept what I wrote, without challenge.  But I think there is a 
certain responsibility of people who continue to argue that there is no general 
solution to the problem of war, to explain why my AP idea can't or won't work. 
See AP, Part 9, where I review a correspondence between Albert Einstein and 
Sigmund Freud, on the subject of war.  
Since 1996, tools like TOR and Bitcoin have been developed, and Ethereum and 
Augur are well on their way. Governments killed an estimated 240 million people 
in the 20th century.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide , although this 
article does not cite the figure 240 million; I recall the figure from 
elsewhere.)
If you consider that to have been an unacceptable number, then I think you need 
to try to explain away any system that claims that it has the "horsepower" to 
stop such slaughter.    If anything, the only criticisms I have heard of AP is 
that it would be TOO effective, not that it would not be powerful enough to get 
rid of the governments that kill.  (And, ultimately, ALL governments.)
                Jim Bell   

Re: Intercept Greenwald Klein Talk Waffling Full Disclosure

[jim bell]

 From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/
youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
[quoting the article above]
"Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted
substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the
archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was
published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive
have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously
secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate
herself. While the significance of particular stories has been
debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a
valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great
political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be
among the most powerful officials on the planet."
"Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist
Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and
other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort,
particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of
someone’s personal emails."      [end quote]-
Jim Bell's comments follow:
I'd say, in response to the referenced comments from Naomi Klein:  "NONSENSE!"  
The public is being the victim of extreme corruption, and finally a mechanism 
exists (leaking) to combat it.  "Go Leaking Go!" I say.   Leaks of "personal 
emails" of those who are perpetrating government and political corruption, as 
the Clinton cronies are clearly doing, should be considered "open season".  I 
am not at all bothered by the assertion (even if assumed to be true) that these 
documents might have been 'hacked':  If that's the case, whoever did it is 
doing the public an amazing service that must not merely continue, but should 
be expanded greatly.
Fools like Republican Marco Rubio have echoed similar opinions to these by 
Naomi Klein, which I saw this morning on video:  It is as if he believes that 
the two main wings of America's single big political party (the "Demoblicans", 
or should we call them "Republicrats"?) are desperately trying to close ranks 
to protect itself from being exposed as the corrupt edifice that it really is.
Indeed, while I just saw a clip this morning from Rubio, his fear as expressed 
to other Republicans, apparently, is something like, 'Today' it is [against] 
the Democrats, tomorrow it could be us! [the Republicans]".   at: 0:26:  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soS4lGsBiu0   
   (And:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9IFSjfeAm0     )
Does Rubio not understand that expressed in this fashion, in a forum that we 
all can hear, it is as if he's identifying the American people as being THE 
ENEMY, our attention directed today threatening the Democrats, but tomorrow 
potentially going after the Republicans too?  Is Rubio under the impression 
that as heard by the average, relatively-non-partisan American, his words would 
not be seen as a virtual declaration of war against us?    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0X0ZYbnHxA  I'd say that if the Republicans 
have as much to be leaked as the Democrats have, so far, "Let's go!  Leak it!"  
Let the chips fall where they may!  
The American public should be utterly aghast at this kind of thinking, by Klein 
and Rubio.
             Jim Bell

   

Re: Astonishing Lie by Hillary regarding Trump "Choke"

[jim bell]

L quote.  This one was widely misrepresented by the 
news media, which was and is in the tank for Hillary.  As I recall, a large 
fraction of these kinds of controversies were based, in large part, on 
misrepresentations of what Trump said or did. 


"They are none of them any good. There is no good choice. I don't think there's 
ever been a good choice."
Yes, but a lot of the criticism of Trump is utter biased, misleading NONSENSE.  
That still doesn't make him a "desireable" candidate, but Hillary's supporters 
are desperately grasping at straws to help her.

                    Jim Bell
On Oct 21, 2016, at 4:22 AM, jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:


I'm really floored about how disgustingly low Hillary (and her cronies)  will 
go to criticize Trump.  A few months ago, both were invited to see the Mexican 
president; only Trump went.  When Trump returned, he was asked by the MSM 
(mainstream media) if he had discussed who would pay for the wall.  Trump said 
that he hadn't.  For a few days, there was criticism of Trump for FAILING to 
negotiate this matter.  That criticism re-surfaced within the last day or so 
(October 20), with Hillary claiming Trump had "choked".
  Well, as radio commentator Paul Harvey would have said, here's the rest of 
the story.   It turns out that there is an American Federal law called the 
Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomatic activity 
with foreign nations.  It's been around for 200+ years, and violation is a 
felony...although there have never been any convictions and only one indictment 
in that entire time.  It does not prohibit a person from merely meeting with a 
foreign government official, just engaging in diplomacy with him.  (What 
amounts to "diplomacy" has not been tested, due to the virtual lack of 
prosecutions.)
  Hillary Clinton is supposed to have at one point been a lawyer.  Not a good 
lawyer, I have to conclude.  In fact, she must have been a very bad lawyer.  
But she has now outdone herself for criticizing Trump...for Trump's FAILURE to 
commit a Federal felony!   You see, she has actually claimed Trump "choked":  
That Trump DIDN'T negotiate this matter, apparently not to Hillary's 
satisfaction.   So, indeed, Hillary is blasting Trump for FAILING to engage in 
diplomacy with the Mexican president:  For FAILING to commit a felony!
  And don't try to suggest that maybe, Trump did indeed secretly try to 
negotiate with the Mexican president, but simply failed to get an agreement.  
While such a hypothetical scenario might be called a violation of the Logan 
Act, at the same time it couldn't ALSO be called "choking":  To raise the issue 
during the meeting, but to merely fail to get positive results wouldn't be a 
"choke", of course.  So, by calling Trump's supposed actions (or lack of 
actions?)  "choking", Hillary has essentially admitted that she DIDN'T believe 
that Trump had attempted to negotiate, and thus had not violated the Logan Act.
  But others in the media were even more clueless.  And it's not that I'm the 
first person to raise this issue:  Do a Google search for 'hillary trump mexico 
wall Logan', and you can even find some articles within the first few days of 
Trump's Mexican visit, claiming that Trump DID violate the Logan Act.  If Trump 
had actually said he negotiated, you can be sure that Hillary would have 
accused him of committing a crime.  But no, he didn't, so now she's accusing 
him of, in effect, NOT COMMITTING a crime.  Failure to negotiate as a private 
citizen with the President of Mexico.  Failure to commit a Federal felony.   
How awful!  How cynical can a person be to try to prepare not one, but in fact 
TWO separate, and opposite traps for her opponent:  If Trump tried to 
negotiate, she would accuse him of a crime.  If Trump failed to try to 
negotiate, she would, and in fact did, accuse him of "choking".   
   Is it possible to engage in a more disgusting and devious fraud in front of 
the entire world, and not be called out on it?  How dishonest can a person get?
   To be sure, I'm still going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian 
candidate, as I always do.  But I feel I must challenge anyone who would 
otherwise vote for Hillary Clinton:  Do you feel proud that your chosen 
candidate is such a massive liar, fraudster, influence-peddler,  scam-artist, 
and deviously corrupt woman?   "And those are her GOOD qualities", I hear her 
supporters fawning.
          Jim Bell   


   

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

[jim bell]

 From: Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>
On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 10:15 +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

> A little search for e.g. "Trump marijuana" turns up some interesting
> articles and quotes. Left for the curious...
>Regardless of his position on drug prohibition, Rump is a terrible
>choice to lead this country. I wish Bernie was on the November ballot.
>Failing that, I wish Jill Stein had a realistic chance of winning the
>election; I really would prefer her over Hillary. The two-party system
>is broken. I don't really want Hillary, but I really, really, really
>don't want Rump, and a vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or for that
>matter, a vote for Charlie Brown or Santa Claus) could potentially help
>Rump win.
>Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com

Some of the first Green Parties were found in the 1970's, when Communism was 
dying and a bunch of European nuts were embarrassed about being seen as 
Communists.  So, they figured they would form a crypto-Communist/Socialist 
party, pretend it focussed primarily on environmental issues.
The "Green Party" has been jokingly referred to as the "Watermelon Party":   
"Green on the outside, and Red on the inside".    
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/05/green-party-conference-natalie-bennett
  
      Jim Bell



   

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

[jim bell]

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

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

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

[jim bell]

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

  From: juan <juan@gmail.com>
 To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
 Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 10:58 AM
 Subject: Re: Why Cypherpunks Shouldn't Vote for the system of their own 
oppression
   
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:48:57 + (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


   

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

[jim bell]

 From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>

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

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

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

Corrupt Hillary's position on Encryption.

[jim bell]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/video/leaked-emails-suggest-cozy-relationship-09345.html



[Don't worry:  Hillary always has a PUBLIC position and a PRIVATE position.]
           Jim Bell

Re: What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[jim bell]

 From: Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net>

On 11/21/2016 10:02 AM, Razer wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 09:49 PM, jim bell wrote:
>> Oh!  I see you are justifying robbing people based on the mere 
>> assertion that they can 'afford' it.
> 
> 
>> No. I justify it on the fact that they're the criminals and taxes 
>> appropriately applied are really a form of restitution. If they
>> don't like it they can hire an army. They can afford it. After all
>> that's how they robbed the rest of us in the first place.

>Taxes are payment for services rendered. 
Collectively (over an entire nation), that may be claimed to be true.  But it 
is definitely NOT true from an individual standpoint.  

> In the United States, 500
billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;
Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  If illegally, enforce the law.  If 
legally, change the laws if necessary.  
> to retain
control of those assets they need a legal system that defines their
rights of ownership and enforces them, 
I thought that personal property is to be considered a "right", rather than a 
"privilege".  I guess you have a different opinion.
>civil Courts to arbitrate their
internal disputes and legitimize abuses of power against outsiders,
Again, if there are genuine problems, fix them.

>civil infrastructure built and maintained at public expense to support
the productivity of their capital assets
Numbskull Obama said, "You didn't build that!".  A factory-owner may have a 
road in front of his factory for transportation.  But the government didn't pay 
for that road:  The people who paid gasoline taxes (including the 
factory-owner) paid for that road.  Ascribing all this infrastructure to "the 
government" misleads.
>, and a propaganda regimen to
persuade the rest of us that this is all for the best. 
Blame the MSM.  I do.  

> Thing is taxes aren't appropriately applied. That 50% tax on the
> wealthy you speak of doesn't really exist after deductions and
> writedowns nd donations of high-heeled shoes to the Haiti relief
> fund. Right? Some wealthy people pay less taxes than that guy
> living in a box in a field. Actually most wealthy people pay almost
> nothing percentage-wise after all the bennies their plutocrat
> friends write into tax codes compared to their UNEARNED (as in they
> didn't actually work or produce anything useful to society)
> income.

>I was wondering when someone would mention this.  Rich people pay avery small 
>fraction of the taxes they whine about and want to see
abolished;
From:      
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data  ×   
"The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income Taxes; the 
Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and the Top 1 Percent Paid 
35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"
I consider this to be evidence of a very serious problem.  Actually, a big set 
of problems.  You won't see it, however.  


> instead they pay accountants and attorneys to advise them
on how to avoid taxation.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.  If a person lost, regularly, 30% of 
his income to burglary and theft, he'd see nothing wrong with hiring some form 
of protection to see it reduced or stopped.   Naturally, people who don't think 
it's theft would disagree, and would resent the fact he was trying to reduce 
that theft.  Even more naturally, a person who actually benefits from that 
theft would really, really hate the fact that the person paying the taxes would 
even THINK about seeing them reduced, in any way.

>Political activists are presently running a "Fight For Fifteen"
campaign in the U.S., asking for a de facto 40% pay cut relative to
1968's more or less "living" minimum wage.  How fucked up is that?
I guess you're confused.  After WWII, America became the de-facto manufacturer 
to the world.  Little competition.  Wages were (relatively) high.  The rest of 
the world was, relatively, poor.  Most families got by with only one 
breadwinner, usually the man.  This continued through most of the 1960s, and 
even the 1970's.   Then Europe and Japan turned on as manufacturers.  Then 
Taiwan, South Korea, Mexico, now China and India.  America has a great deal of 
competition.  America's wages needed to be reduced to compete, or at least they 
couldn't rise as much as they ultimately might have done.  That is simple 
economics.
So, when you say,  "asking for a de facto 40% pay cut relative to 1968's more 
or less "living" minimum wage", you are really railing against the fact that 
America has had to begin to compete with the rest of the world in 
manufacturing.   But either you don'[t realize that, or you are pretending not 
to.  The world has changed, and not for the worse.  But if anything, this rise 
in manufacturing, outside 

Re: What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[jim bell]

 From: juan <juan@gmail.com>

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:11:11 + (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net>
>> > In the United States, 500
>> > billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;

>> Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  

>    Do you have to ask?
Yes, I DO have to ask.  Chalk it up to my not being PC.  Sorry if that 
microagression offends the snowflakes.

>Basic political economy
What is "political economy"?  Are you simply talking about economics?  
Remember, I'm a LIBERTARIAN.  I believe "taxation is theft".  This means that I 
don't automatically accept the idea that government is somehow entitled to rob 
people of their assets and income.  
> and natural rights theory should inform you...But the answer is, for the 
> record,
    ILLEGALLY.
What is "natural rights theory".  At least, how do "natural rights" somehow 
allow a system (American, for example) of taxation that didn't exist for 99% of 
world history?  Doesn't sound too 'natural' to me.


> If illegally, enforce the
> law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.

    I'm not really following. Why should libertarian anarchists
    bother with state legislation?
Despite being a libertarian anarchist, I can engage in discussions which do not 
assume that libertarian anarchy exists or is proper.  For example, I can 
consider the existing political system, and discuss various improvements to it, 
ones short of actually implementing libertarian anarchy.    Properly used, 
brains can do things like that.

>    That doesn't mean that 'restitution' by means of taxes makes
 >   much sense either. Obviously the state, whose purpose is to TAX
 >  THE POOR and give the money to the RICH is not going to do the
 >   opposite.
If the job of the government is to "tax the poor", it isn't doing an especially 
effective job.  As I previously cited, "
"The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income Taxes; the 
Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and the Top 1 Percent Paid 
35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"
Assuming you agree that "the poor" inhabit the region "the bottom 50 percent of 
all taxpayers", then those "poor" are only paying 3% (100%-97% = 3%) of the 
total Federal taxes collected.  That's not very effective "tax the poor" 
results, is it?  If "the poor" are those in the bottom 10% of taxpayers, then 
the statistic (which I don't have) would probably be even more extreme.
Looks to me if they are trying to CONCEAL their taxing the poor, they are doing 
an excellent job.
But then again, if you are content with simply inventing reality, such 
statistics aren't much of an impediment.
             Jim Bell

    

Re: What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[jim bell]

 From: Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net>On 11/21/2016 01:11 PM, jim bell wrote:

>> In the United States, 500
> billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;
> 
> Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  If illegally, enforce
> the law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.

Under the jurisdiction of State institutions created for the benefit
of the very rich, anything they agree among themselves to permit is
"perfectly legal." 
Okay, then.  legal.  But it sounds like you simply resent the fact that people 
can become wealthy.  
> That includes running a rigged house game
supported by massive deception and economic coercion, and assuring
that theirs are the only games in town.
I don't like government either.  I want to have it eliminated.  But somehow, 
most of the people who resent government don't act as if they want to see it 
eliminated.   They LIKE big government.  It's just, they want that big 
government to work for THEM, and people who think as they do.

>> to retain
>> control of those assets they need a legal system that defines
>> their rights of ownership and enforces them,
> 
>> I thought that personal property is to be considered a "right",
>> rather than a "privilege".  I guess you have a different opinion.

>Libertarian ideology relies heavily on false context. 
Chuckle.  Vague.
> When people
hear "personal property" the think "physical objects under my control,
and the fruits of my personal labors." 
That's part of it.  

 >This context is not comparable
to possession and trading of legal instruments defining ownership over
geographically dispersed industries, vast tracts of land, anticipated
profits from as yet unexploited resources, etc., in locations occupied
and facilities operated by what the commies call "wage slaves."
Sorry, I disagree that it "is not comparable".  It's called personal property, 
what distinguishes freedom from slavery, for instance.

>In the U.S., most people's personal property is actually a collection
of legal instruments specifying the rent they pay on a finance
company's car, a mortage company's house, etc. 
Actually, I'd call that "other people's property".  If you want to buy an item, 
but you don't have the full price, there are arrangements which can be made.  

> Low wages 
How do you define, "low wages"?   Low, compared to what?

>plus
expensive Real Estate creates forced dependency on land lords for the
majority of Americans.
If you want to buy property, paying for it over time, you can do so.  Why 
resent this?

>> civil infrastructure built and maintained at public expense to
>> support
> the productivity of their capital assets
> 
> Numbskull Obama said, "You didn't build that!".  A factory-owner
> may have a road in front of his factory for transportation.  But
> the government didn't pay for that road:  The people who paid
> gasoline taxes (including the factory-owner) paid for that road.
> Ascribing all this infrastructure to "the government" misleads.

Ah so:  Taxation is payment for services rendered when that supports a
Libertarian argument, otherwise not.  :D
I'm not sure what you mean by "supports a Libertarian argument".I'm objecting 
to others (such as Obama) who tried to use the existence of roads (which are 
generally not financed by a single entity, as being justification for taxation. 
 There is a valid system in place to allocate the costs of road-building and 
maintenance between users of those roads.  It's not perfect, but at least it 
should prevent the argument that roads are solely constructed by public funds.  

>> , and a propaganda regimen to
> persuade the rest of us that this is all for the best.
> 
> Blame the MSM.  I do.

> From: 
> http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-dat
a
>> "The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income 
>> Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and
>> the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"
> 
>> I consider this to be evidence of a very serious problem.
>> Actually, a big set of problems.  You won't see it, however.

>Libertarian ideology relies heavily on cognitive bias and false
assumptions.  The argument presented above is persuasive - as long as
a "normative" distribution of assets and incomes is assumed.  But in
reality, a fraction of 1% of the population dominates in both income
and assets.  The models presented above does not have sufficient
resolution to accurately describe the subject matter addressed.
I don't automatically consider it "natural" that people who happen to make more 
money should pay more tax.  That's more of a default position, a convenience in

Re: What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>

 On 11/21/2016 07:35 PM, jim bell wrote:
  
  From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>

  On 11/21/2016 12:49 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
 
  THIS! "Libertarians see absolutely nothing wrong with the very rich "gaming 
the system" for personal advantage in every way that having a lot of money to 
spend makes possible. "  >>WRONG! This libertarian, and I suspect most 
libertarians, object to the EXISTENCE of a "game-able" system, one that employs 
>>something called a "government", to take "personal advantage" over others.

 
>In my experience with LIbertarians IRL that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I'm seeing. 
>Maybe you should consider the moniker's been usurped like >"Marxist" and 
>"Socialist" have been and borged into the belief system and demands of the 
>existent US society.
Ha ha!  Let me explain what I think you are doing.  You don't realize how weak 
what you just wrote, above.  You said "that is absolutely not what [you're] 
seeing".  But I notice that you don't explain at all what you meant, what you 
saw, and where you saw it.
In 40+ years of going to libertarian meetings, I have rarely (and, perhaps 
never) been in the situation where another attendee was even in the position of 
demonstrating a "Libertarian [seeing] absolutely nothing wrong with the very 
rich 'gaming the system' for personal advantage".  It just doesn't happen!  
They are usually a bunch of people in a room, talking, none of whom engage in 
"gaming the system."   They may certainly talk about living with the existing 
system, true.  But not "gaming". 
Maybe you are talking about something you saw, perhaps on TV?  But again, 
libertarians are rarely in positions of power (yet) so it is hard for me to 
imagine that you have actually observed that kind of behavior.    
See the problem?  It sure sounds like you simply invented that claim.  The fact 
that you don't respond to anything else in my comment, below, suggests that you 
just wanted to exit the discussion as quickly as you could.  Inventing a vague, 
certainly unsubstantiated, and even UNDESCRIBED circumstance as somehow 
refuting what I have said, is a very weak way to convince others.  Maybe you 
realized that it would be hard to invent a plausible scenario in which you 
could have observed what you just claimed to have observed.    Who was it?  
Where?  When?  What was the issue involved?  What was the 'gaming' you are 
asserting was happening, or being planned?
Go ahead, and actually tell us of a few incidents where you claim some 
libertarian was 'gaming the system'.  We are all waiting.
 
              Jim Bell
See, below, you've responded to nothing else.  Why?
 
 
 
   The existing gameable system was not constructed by libertarians. It was 
constructed, in America, by Republicans and Democrats.  Libertarians, in 
America, have to operate within the existing system."This leaves everyone 
else on the losing end of every deal that was supposed to be "fair and honest" 
under rule of law."  The existing system, to whatever extent you believe it was 
"supposed to be fair and honest", is NOT that, and never was. Not libertarians' 
fault.  "Perhaps this explains why the Libertarian Party was co-opted by well 
funded right wing extremists around the turn of the century and has been 
working under their direction ever since.  Be much more specific. Which 
"right-wing extremists"? And "extremist", how?   "What may have been a 
disruptive influence on national politics is now only a propaganda platform, 
pushing political discourse to the Right"  I have to laugh! Gary Johnson got 4 
percent of the vote this year, far more than the 1% which libertarians have had 
to settle for in previous years. For a "propaganda platform", they did pretty 
well!!  "as far as it is able. If you are too smart for the RNC, the 
Libertarians have a better idea - and the same domestic economic agenda, both 
functional and fictional."  Provide a little evidence for your fictional 
allegations.  Jim Bell  
 
 

 
 On 11/21/2016 01:11 PM, jim bell wrote:
 
 >> In the United States, 500
 > billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;
 
 > Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  If illegally, enforce
 > the law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.
 
 Under the jurisdiction of State institutions created for the benefit
 of the very rich, anything they agree among themselves to permit is
 "perfectly legal."  That includes running a rigged house game
 supported by massive deception and economic coercion, and assuring
 that theirs are the only games in town.
 
 >> to retain
 > control of those assets they need a legal system that defines
 > their rights of ownership and enfor

Re: What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[jim bell]

 From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net>
 
 On 11/21/2016 12:49 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
 
 THIS!"Libertarians see absolutely nothing wrong with the very rich "gaming the 
system" for personal advantage in every way that having a lot of money to spend 
makes possible. "
WRONG! This libertarian, and I suspect most libertarians, object to the 
EXISTENCE of a "game-able" system, one that employs something called a 
"government", to take "personal advantage" over others. The existing gameable 
system was not constructed by libertarians. It was constructed, in America, by 
Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians, in America, have to operate within the 
existing system. 

"This leaves everyone else on the losing end of every deal that was supposed to 
be "fair and honest" under rule of law."
The existing system, to whatever extent you believe it was "supposed to be fair 
and honest", is NOT that, and never was. Not libertarians' fault.
"Perhaps this explains why the Libertarian Party was co-opted by well funded 
right wing extremists around the turn of the century and has been working under 
their direction ever since.
Be much more specific. Which "right-wing extremists"? And "extremist", how? 
"What may have been a disruptive influence on national politics is now only a 
propaganda platform, pushing political discourse to the Right"
I have to laugh! Gary Johnson got 4 percent of the vote this year, far more 
than the 1% which libertarians have had to settle for in previous years. For a 
"propaganda platform", they did pretty well!!
"as far as it is able. If you are too smart for the RNC, the Libertarians have 
a better idea - and the same domestic economic agenda, both functional and 
fictional."
Provide a little evidence for your fictional allegations. Jim Bell
 
 

 
 On 11/21/2016 01:11 PM, jim bell wrote:
 
 >> In the United States, 500
 > billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;
 
 > Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  If illegally, enforce
 > the law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.
 
 Under the jurisdiction of State institutions created for the benefit
 of the very rich, anything they agree among themselves to permit is
 "perfectly legal."  That includes running a rigged house game
 supported by massive deception and economic coercion, and assuring
 that theirs are the only games in town.
 
 >> to retain
 > control of those assets they need a legal system that defines
 > their rights of ownership and enforces them,
 
 > I thought that personal property is to be considered a "right",
 > rather than a "privilege".  I guess you have a different opinion.
 
 Libertarian ideology relies heavily on false context.  When people
 hear "personal property" the think "physical objects under my control,
 and the fruits of my personal labors."  This context is not comparable
 to possession and trading of legal instruments defining ownership over
 geographically dispersed industries, vast tracts of land, anticipated
 profits from as yet unexploited resources, etc., in locations occupied
 and facilities operated by what the commies call "wage slaves."
 
 In the U.S., most people's personal property is actually a collection
 of legal instruments specifying the rent they pay on a finance
 company's car, a mortage company's house, etc.  Low wages plus
 expensive Real Estate creates forced dependency on land lords for the
 majority of Americans.
 
 >> civil Courts to arbitrate their
 > internal disputes and legitimize abuses of power against
 > outsiders,
 
 > Again, if there are genuine problems, fix them.
 
 How?  By litigating against offenders whose ability to pay attorneys,
 expert witnesses, etc. exceeds one's own by five or more orders of
 magnitude?  By lobbying for changes in the law, in competition with
 these same offenders, their massive financial resources, and their
 long standing alliances with dominant political and Deep State factions?
 
 >> civil infrastructure built and maintained at public expense to
 >> support
 > the productivity of their capital assets
 
 > Numbskull Obama said, "You didn't build that!".  A factory-owner
 > may have a road in front of his factory for transportation.  But
 > the government didn't pay for that road:  The people who paid
 > gasoline taxes (including the factory-owner) paid for that road.
 > Ascribing all this infrastructure to "the government" misleads.
 
 Ah so:  Taxation is payment for services rendered when that supports a
 Libertarian argument, otherwise not.  :D
 
 >> , and a propaganda regimen to
 > persuade the rest of us that this is all for the best.
 
 > Blame the MSM.  I do.
 
 I blame full saturation propaganda operati