- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Spare Ass Annie and other tales
by \0xDynamite 22 Oct '17

22 Oct '17

Since the list wants a little break and a little anarchy: https://youtu.be/smhbMzV570A?list=PL264C9EAE05949B9A \0xd

1 1

Donate today to keep Tails alive!
by Hold Up 22 Oct '17

22 Oct '17

> Tails is free but we need your support to stay alive! > Threaten quit. What is it with French and surrender. > be protected from surveillance Tails surveils every user. Usage stats. tails.boum.org/news/report_2017_09/#index12h1 > and censorship Torah Project censors criticism. Mail lists. trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/emailLists#HowdoIgetpermissiontop…

1 0

[MINISTRY] - when your Twitter campaign fails - Silberstein, SDO + failed undermining of Austrian Elections
by Zenaan Harkness 22 Oct '17

22 Oct '17

Well well well, who could have predicted that (((some people))) are liberal underminers of ostensible democratic elections, and that (((those same people))) make liberal use of 'false identities making strong anti-Semitic diatribes and using hard-core Nazi slogans'. Who would ever believe that Zio-Jews would pretend to be Nazis? I mean, weren't they all gassed at Auschwitz and turned into human lampshades? (I mean, before escaping and being thrown back in the ovens, before escaping -again- and finally being "let my people go"ed to the newly created Israel…) “That's where you're, kiddo :)” Throw in a little Palestine and Ukraine FTW! :D This one's a slow start, but damn, if I were a Zionist Jew, I would not like this sort of exposure <snigger>. No chuckling folks, it's unbecoming. Enjoy, Z Anti-Semitism Weaponized by Israel Shamir, Fri, Oct 20, 2017 http://www.unz.com/ishamir/antisemitism-weaponised/ (Alt link: http://russia-insider.com/en/anti-semitism-weaponized/ri21291?ct=t(Russia_I… ) … “So the attempt of Silberstein to frame Kurz as an antisemite had failed, up to a point. He anyway continued to smear another Austrian politician as a Jew-hater. That was the FPO leader Heinz-Christian Strache. The end of the story may comfort us: the Austrians preferred these two parties, Kurz List and FPO, despite the alleged antisemitism, and punished SDO, the kosher party. However, before celebrating let us see the downside of this wonderful event. In order to extricate themselves and their parties from the Jewish smear, the two leaders swore loyalty to Israel. They went (separately) to Israel, took photo-op with PM Netanyahu and at the Holocaust memorial, they spoke endlessly how much they adore and appreciate Israel. The antisemitism accusation is a win-win proposition for Jews. If a politician doesn’t do what the Jews want, they call him antisemite, and he (a) does what they want, and/or (b) swears fealty to Israel. In case (a) he is a liberal, in case (b) he is a nationalist. In both cases, Jews win. And the Palestinians lose. They are locked up behind a high wall; they can’t leave, and the Jews drive in whenever they feel for it, to snatch a man and kill him, or drop him into their nameless goals. From time to time, the Jews take over a hill or a valley and build there a gated community just for Jews. They take water, they take fields. If the Palestinians build themselves say, a power plant, Jews bomb it to smithereens. They say, otherwise the Palestinians will be able to use electricity to make weapons and kill Jews. It is better for Jews to sell them electricity: the EU pays for some of electricity, the PNA pays for the rest, the money goes to Jewish pockets, while the power switch remains in Jewish hands.” … “The Jews want more war anytime – from the Iran-Iraq war to the War on Terror to the Syrian war, they are always for war, but especially the Jews want a Palestinian civil war. And here the US comes in, by saying that Hamas are terrorists and the US will block PNA in the US courts and banks if they accept Hamas. So the Jews keep using this wonderful tool of attacking antisemites. Even if they do not destroy their enemy – Trump hasn’t been destroyed, Corbyn hasn’t been destroyed, Kurz hadn’t been destroyed – they force the attacked politicians to support Israel even more. Heads you lose, tails I win. And this is the road to perdition. The only way out of it is to desensitize people to the antisemitism charge. That is why I welcome certain pugnacious publications on the Unz.com and elsewhere, for even if not perfectly fair, they still help to desensitize the reader.” …

1 0

[MONEY] tick tock ... jump ship if you still can → USA with $210 trillion in unfunded liabilities
by Zenaan Harkness 22 Oct '17

22 Oct '17

No new surprises, just larger figures than most are aware - future spending promises of military, pensions, public services etc total $210,000,000,000,000.00, i.e. $210 trillion, in today's money. Implosion imminent, for ❴any time now ←—→ up to a few years❵ values of “imminent”. Good luck all, "You May Be Hopping Mad When You Finish Reading This" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-08/210-trillion-problem-you-may-be-ho… … The fiscal gap is the present value of all projected future expenditures less the present value of all projected future taxes. The fiscal gap is calculated over the infinite horizon. But since future expenditures and taxes far off in the future are being discounted, their contribution to the fiscal gap is smaller the farther out one goes. The $210 trillion figure is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 Alternative Fiscal Scenario projections, which I extended beyond their 75-year horizon. The journalists used a very poorly researched analysis, which fit their political bias (shocking, I know). Apparently they take that fabricated analysis more seriously than they do the views of 17 Nobel Laureates in economics and over 1200 PhD economists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia, Penn, and lesser known universities and colleges around the country. Each of these economists has endorsed The Inform Act, a bi-partisan bill that requires the CBO, GAO, and OMB to do infinite horizon fiscal gap accounting on a routine and ongoing basis. Now why would 17 Nobel Laureates and over 1200 US economists, all listed by name at www.theinformact.org, including many, like Jeff Sachs, who lean to the left, and others, like Glenn Hubbard, who lean to the right, endorse infinite horizon accounting. Because they understand something that I told Michelle repeatedly and have also told Bruce Barlett repeatedly. The fiscal gap is the only measure of our fiscal position that is mathematically well-defined. Every other fiscal measure, including fiscal gaps calculated over any finite horizon, such as the CBO’s 25-year fiscal gap Michelle references, are not mathematically well defined. The infinite horizon is mathematically well defined because it is the same number no matter what choice of internally consistent fiscal words we use to label government receipts and payments. Moreover, the infinite horizon fiscal gap is the only measure of our fiscal policy’s sustainability that puts everything on the books. It is also the only measure of our fiscal policy’s sustainability that is invariant to the choice of words. …

1 2

Fw: From old Phrack: The Feasibility of Anarchy in America
by jim bell 21 Oct '17

21 Oct '17

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "jim bell" <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> To: "Georgi Guninski" <guninski(a)guninski.com> Cc: "ivrit(a)missvalley.com" <ivrit(a)missvalley.com> Sent: Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 13:41 Subject: Re: From old Phrack: The Feasibility of Anarchy in America From: Georgi Guninski <guninski(a)guninski.com> >http://phrack.org/issues/62/16.html >The Feasibility of Anarchy in America >From that article: " A very real problem to be faced if the central government were removed is the military situation and the protection of this country from hostile foreign powers. It is well known and goes without saying that quite a few foreign nations would take little time in responding to the collapse of the government and militarily invade and occupy the nation to their political and economic advantage. Thus, it would be imperative that a collective military be formed and trained in order to resist such a fate. However, another problem then arises: if a military is formed, and there is hierarchy within this military (as there needs be if it is to be effective in protecting the nation from coordinated foreign attacks), then what is to stop it from staging a coup and forming a new governmental body under military rule, with the commanders being the upper class and the new leaders of an unwilling populace? This is not an impossible or even an improbable scenario. Take Afghanistan, for instance. After the Mujahideen shook off the yoke of Soviet dominance and government, they found themselves in quite a problem: there were several militias, all led by separate commanders with different ideals. Soon, fighting erupted between them, and the country was in a state of war-torn chaos. Nothing productive came from them, and they never ruled with any sort of authority. This serves as an example for how useless a struggle is against an oppressive regime if no stable government can be formed afterward. After their many blunders, a new group rose up against them and their corruption: the Taliban. They were originally a group of freedom fighters who claimed to have no desire for power or rule. They said that their goals were to remove the Mujahideen and their atrocities from Afghanistan, and to restore order, security, and peace to the region. We all know that, afterward, they indeed became the new rulers of Afghanistan, and were no better than the former Mujahideen in the least." [end of long quote] Maybe most people who actually read the article, and who are aware of my AP essay https://cryptome.org/ap.htm , will understand why I say, "Aha" at this. Evidently, the author (the article appeared in 2004) was unaware of AP and its principles. Although unaware of it at the writing of AP, in 1995-96, I later learned of David Friedman's (son of late economist Milton Friedman) 1973 book, "The Machinery of Freedom". (Reprinted in 1989 and 2014). Friedman had a chapter titled something like "The Hard Problem" , later it was edited to this, http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Machinery_3d_Edition/The%20Hard%20Problem%20I… in which he explained precisely this problem: Historically, and certainly up to and including 1994, "anarchy" (and an anarchist Libertarian society) were unstable, because such a society could be attacked and conquered by an external, statist-based, non-anarchistic society. Friedman evidently considered this problem "hard", because it WAS hard, fiendishly hard. While I too was aware of this general problem long prior to 1995, I did not know of David Friedman's existence, nor of his book, nor the fact that he had titled his paragraph, "The Hard Problem". Ironically, even until today, I strongly suspect that most people who call themselves "anarchists" are entirely unaware of this problem! They are intellectually invested in an idea that prior to 1995, could not possibly have worked EXCEPT for the solution to the "Hard Problem". The one that I found. Indeed, that was precisely why I classified myself prior to January 1995 as a "minarchist libertarian": It wasn't as though I wanted some tiny residual amount of government to exist; rather, I simply could not figure out HOW to make that final, tiny amount of government vanish, like a pufff of smoke. I was sufficiently intellectually honest that I could not advocate a kind of society that I suspected would be unstable and unavoidably open to external attack. I probably didn't even suspect that there was a solution to this problem, let alone did I think I would be the one to solve it, which I did in my AP essay. Unfortunately, I think David Friedman must somehow resent me, because I think even in his 2014 revised edition of "The Machinery of Freedom" doesn't mention me, or my AP essay, or the implications for his "Hard Problem". I give credit to Friedman for identifying the problem, recognizing that it was "hard", and leaving it for somebody else someday to solve. I think Friedman should give me similar intellectual credit for describing what I believe is, or at least some day will be, the solution to this problem. But that leads me to a gripe: Having gone to the trouble of finding a miraculous solution to Friedman's "Hard Problem", I occasionally see misguided references to the idea that this problem still exists! This essay, "The Feasibility of Anarchy in America", is just one such example. Nine (9) years before "Anthony" posited that problem, I had solved it. Jim Bell That author Anthony <ivrit(a)missvalley.com> concludes with: " I conclude this rather brief essay by answering the question posed in the beginning: it is not possible that anarchy can exist within America if only because of the fact that the population could not handle it, and can not be trusted to act with the best interest of society in mind. Not many in this culture of ego-gratification and self-centered hedonism would find it in their best interests to give up their many enjoyments, possessions, and sheltered way of life so that they could exist with more responsibility and self-reliance. Not only this, it would also be impossible to rid the majority of the population of the idea of private ownership of property, and because of the self-centered nature of this culture, it would be entirely out of the question to assume that a form of communism or communal-lifestyle would be acceptable to the majority involved. Besides, without some form of central government deciding the fate of this communal property and what should be done with the material harvested or grown from it, we would be hard-pressed to come to any agreement upon what should be done with it. Thus, without any sort of unification or democratic government, or even an authoritarian dictator imposing his will upon the population at large, nothing can be achieved except factionalism, strife, and inevitably destabilizing, unconstructive conflict." [end of quote]

1 0

From old Phrack: The Feasibility of Anarchy in America
by Georgi Guninski 21 Oct '17

21 Oct '17

FYI: http://phrack.org/issues/62/16.html The Feasibility of Anarchy in America

4 4

Fwd: Re: From old Phrack: The Feasibility of Anarchy in America
by Jim b 21 Oct '17

21 Oct '17

1 0

How to shut down the US Federal criminal "Justice" System, for $10-15 million per year.
by jim bell 21 Oct '17

21 Oct '17

A few years back, probably 2011 (while I was still in prison) I thought of a marvelous way to virtually destroy the Federal criminal "justice" system. At least, the people who make up that system will certainly think it is being destroyed. I mentioned it a few years ago. It might cost little more than $10 million per year. There are many high-profile cases which would militate in favor of initiating such a system. One, Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life terms for, ostensibly, running the Silk Road website. Another Kim Dotcom, who is threatened with extradition in New Zealand. Julian Assange, whose story is too well known here to need to describe it. Edward Snowden, who is presumably still in Moscow for leaking a huge quantity of NSA information. There are also major drug cases, such as El Chapo, Joaquin Guzman. In some of these cases, the defendant should have had a lot of money, such as Ulbricht, although it was lost to the Feds. Kim Dotcom may still be rich. Julian Assange could probably raise a lot of money, Snowden might do so as well. Guzman, and probably many other Mexican drug cartels, could easily raise millions per year, if they actually wanted to do this. Maybe even Martha Stewart would hold some residual grudges. Anyone who thinks he is at risk of Federal criminal prosecution would want to see the system essentially shut down. How? Well, let's go to the statistics. Last year, there were 77,152 new criminal defendants in the Federal criminal system, see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/28/federal-criminal-prosecutio… . According to https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/rese… , "In fiscal year 2016 the vast majority of offenders (97.3%) pleaded guilty." If that figure can be believed, then there were presumably no more than 2.8% x 77,152 criminal trials, or only 2160 trials. Perhaps this statistic would surprise most people. I think the average sentence is about 3 years. The ability of the Federal criminal system to actually put on criminal trials is very limited. There are only a limited number of courts, and judges, and prosecutors, and this system must share space and time with civil trials. It is quite possible that it would be very difficult to put on much more than those 2160 trials. That court space has to be shared with civil cases, as well. All, or at least most of those people had a right to a jury trial. If all, or most of those defendants were somehow motivated to demand such a trial, rather than plead guilty, havoc would ensue. Even if the number of trials could increase, say to about 3000, then the remainder, 77,152-3000, or 74,152, would have to walk free, because the system could not possibly try them all. The limitation is not merely court space: Trials are "expensive" in preparation, research, and evidence. And that led me to yet another "awfully wonderful, wonderfully awful" idea, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch. What would motivate all of these people to demand a jury trial? Well, currently they are threatened with much more punishment if they plead not guilty and demand a trial, and lose. Like a variant on the "Prisoner's dilemma", each one is forced to conclude that it is better to 'take the deal' rather than resist, and demand a trial. What would change this system around? Well, the lot of a prisoner in Federal prison is poor, if he has no money. No money, no commissary. No drinks, cookies, crackers, soups, candies, etc. I know: I spent 13 years in prison, time I shouldn't have spent. Many enter prison broke. What if they were offered, say, $3000 if they agreed to demand a jury trial, and thus forced the government to actually put them on trial, form a jury, and put on a trial. If the government dropped the case, or reduced the charges to something that didn't require a trial, the defendant would get nothing. If we assume that the Federal court system could put on 3,000 trials, one defendant per trial typically, the cost for such a project would be 3,000 x $3,000, or 9 million dollars. It would be limited by the number of actual trials the Feds could put on each year, multiplied by the dollar amount that would have to be paid to motivate a defendant to demand a trial. Tell each new Federal defendant that if he pleads not guilty, and insists on a jury trial, and if he actually gets that trial, he will be paid the $3,000. Guilty or not guilty, it won't matter. Have a trial, get the money, simple as that. I am merely guessing what the 'proper' figure would be, in order to motivate such people adequately. But if most people were already demanding a jury trial, and tens of thousands of fellow defendants were being freed due to lack of ability to give them trials, it shouldn't take a lot of money to induce these people to 'stand in line', and demand a trial. After all, they would know that if they didn't get the money, that would mean that they would have been freed. And that's the goal, isn't it? At least for the defendant, that is. You can imagine what would happen. The Feds would have to ration trials. Only the most "worthy" defendants would get prosecuted. And yes, there are definitely some worthy defendants. I met a few!! But the total number of people who could enter the Federal prison system per year would drop from perhaps 75,000 per year to 3,000 per year. This year, there are about 185,300 Federal prisoners. Drop the input to 3,000 per year, and the total population could easily drop to 20,000, and perhaps to as low as 10,000, after a few years. Dozens of prisons across the nation would have to close, maybe well over 100. It costs approximately $40,000 to feed and house a Federal prisoner. Most of that money probably goes to prison staff salaries and supplies, and most of the rest goes to prison construction. Drop the total Federal prison population from 185,000 to 15,000, and they will save about 170,000 multiplied by $40,000, or about $6.8 billion dollars per year. Doesn't this sound like a worthy goal? We may speculate about who would be motivated to fund such a project. Give them the ability to donate anonymously, and they might act. There might arguably be 200,000 people per year who fear some sort of Federal prosecution. A donation of $50 per year, average, would raise $10 million. It would not take many tax evaders, resistors, or avoiders to foot the bill. People who resented a prior prosecution would add up, as well. Why not? Jim Bell

5 8

Free Speech - welcome America, to your local Liberal Democrat Lefty Loonies
by Zenaan Harkness 20 Oct '17

20 Oct '17

America's Liberal Lefty's to be are just so tolerant of human rights, like freedom of speech and freedom to associate - it goes with the territory of free dope and Razer-backed Antifa street-Jihad I guess: ** College Republicans meeting hijacked by unhinged protestors screaming they reject “right of assembly” (Video) http://redpilltimes.com/college-republicans-meeting-hijacked-by-unhinged-pr… “In liberal left, crazy land, free speech is only acceptable when the speech is promoting liberal left causes. Anything else is deemed “evil” and must be silenced, with violence if necessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcTJ-YgjfYw …” Demoncrats, of course, are absolutely squeeky clean at all times: ** EXPOSED: Amazon executive wanted Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon to “show their t*ts” http://redpilltimes.com/exposed-amazon-executive-wanted-big-little-lies-sta… But at least the "elite" in the USA are putting their priorities in the right order: ** Ivy League University set to spend $100 million to increase diversity of faculty http://redpilltimes.com/ivy-league-university-set-to-spend-100-million-to-i…

1 0

Re: "CO2 close to lowest levels ever for our planet"
by Zenaan Harkness 19 Oct '17

19 Oct '17

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote: > On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > This is one of the best put together summaries of the “Global > > Warming” (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate > > I've ever seen: > > Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels. Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...

6 17