Posts Tagged ‘left’

Garbage – Push It – TPM Was Not DDoSed By Anonymous

Vodpod videos no longer available.

So who is pushing garbage on the internet? Is it the groups that are fighting for freedom, truth and full disclosure?  Those that want to promote open science, media and dialogue?  Or those with singular ideas that want to make sure you all agree with them, while they stuff money down their pants?  If you aren’t profiting from the undertaking by expressing on idea, then I am clearly more likely to listen.

With that thought in mind, I was thinking about the recent Talking Points Memo (@TPM) DDoS attack which could have been pulled off by any malicious group with a high school education.  Then I began to think about the thousands of left wings followers (and the thousands of far right wing followers) of the six major Anonymous groups.  What would be in it for Anonymous to attack TPM on the eve of one of biggest world wide protests ever seen? Nothing.

Then I continued the thought.  Who would be best able to mount such a false flag attack on TPM? Who could benefit from discrediting them at this time? I will leave for you to figure out—

I continued the thought.  The six major groups all hash out their plans, vote and always announce them in advance and take credit for the attack afterward.  This has not been done in this case. Why? I will again leave for you to figure out—

The various groups do have a number of principles they follow and it just seems to me that to target TPM for this article would be antithetical to those principles.  And just plain foolish to only target them. Check them out here and affiliates here and here and here and here  and here.  I suppose splinter groups are always possible, but then are they Anonymous?

Now for the oglers that want to see the pictures of innocent people that were momentarily NOT available on TPM you can look here and here and here and here. To just name a few in a brief search. So were they just saying, this is your fault TPM and we are going to risk 15 years in jail to momentarily disrupt information that we can no longer stop being disseminated across the internet? They would do this even though TPM is just doing what what Anonymous risks their freedom to achieve, namely freedom of information? I can’t believe this to be true.

The TPM photos were not available here oddly for the longest (but not as long as I thought). Oddly because that would make it a record for a DDoS sustained attack. Damn near tantric!  On further review I found out  the longest such attack was as long as 60 days!  This brings on reverse of my original thought. If it was really meant to do harm, then why not do it for longer? I still don’t buy that it TPM would be sole target even if they were the origin of all the information proliferation on the internet, and I think the editor will end up apologizing for even suggesting it was a logical implication that it was Anonymous that did it.  By the way, why would they take down the group pictures and not this one? Note who are the historical victims of Anonymous as reported by TPM here.

Don’t mind me. I am just gullible.


OK, I got some comments that Anonymous was not an organization as seen in Gawker.  I clearly disagree.  The left also, professional or otherwise, is not considered an organization either, because in the aggregate we too have no leader, but thought. No wealth, but creativity. And no agenda, but truth. So would someone say those left or right of center are just a loose collection of [insert noun here]?  Since those not in center often see the center as a sheep pen, I suppose the obverse is true as well. All the sheep see are wolves circling.

To be more formal in the organization argument consider a complex distributive network like the heart. A few cells will beat on their own. When hooked to a larger series of networks a simple signal can keep the whole in working order.  Would anyone deny the heart is an organization? I think free societies only work as such when they are modeled on complex distributive networks.

How many times will we let Cain kill Abel?

“The reasonably relaxed man can accept correction without too grievous loss of dignity.  But the solemn man cannot.  He may have heard that the truth will set him free. But he rightly senses that it might also make him seem silly.” ~John Kenneth Galbraith in The Liberal Hour

Let as consider for the moment the difference between the solemn person and the relaxed person.  Let me first say that the solemn person perforce must often sense a crisis on the horizon, no matter when they might have lived from the time of Cain-and-Abel onward, because the strict father always awaits the next disobedience.  I picture Cain as quite solemn and Abel as quite relaxed.  I see them that way because, the former felt unaccepted and alienated from his nature, the latter, quite the opposite.  What would have passed for politics of the time would have appeared quite simple, but I would argue that it is no more so than today, and further let me suggest that Abel being pastoral and Cain being a farmer should tell you all you need to know. The pastoral nomads, Abel being the archetype, living on the margins would have been communal, having horizontal networks, and the farmers, Cain being their archetype, would have had the roots of civilization and an acquisitive need. Cain’s need to ever acquire new land and to save seed would form the nucleus of hierarchical networks of specialization to control and support ever-expanding acquisitions called progress. Cain’s mark of alienation being the insatiable need for more, better and different.

Thus the birth of the Left and the Right is seen in the birth of civilization and as I have said elsewhere, it always boils down to the problem of the horizontal versus the vertical, and it does.  Yet, we could only wish that it were so simple that such singular categories as in this analogy were complete and consistent. The division between the solemn and the relaxed divides further.  There is a solemn pastoral Left that would uncharacteristically always want their communal land back as contradictory as the possessive might seem to them.  They would fight for their freedom to commune.  The relaxed farmers on the Right uncharacteristically would not always want to enslave those lazy pastoralists, even for no other reason than to make sure their freedom as farmers to take what land they wanted. The relaxed on both sides would rather trade and engage in less violent forms of diplomacy than war. The solemn on both sides can always find reasons to fight for freedom.  So we have another level of horizontal versus the vertical here.  What true leftist would refuse to sue for peace and what true rightist would refuse to fight? The purists on both sides have always refused to see this.  Clearly those that refuse are LINOs and RINOs. So we now see the relaxed liberal Left and Right squaring off with their more fundamental brethren.  Following this and history, you can clearly see that history has more often been on the side of the most solemn. Pshaw!

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Consent Vs. Compliance

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Consent Vs. Compliance

Consent Vs. Compliance was written By BOJIDAR MARINOV | Published: JULY 7, 2010. Be sure to let them know exactly what you think too!

Before I talk about the article let me say  that I agree with the premise wholeheartedly.  We the people need to consent to the laws and who is to govern.  To that end I would suggest we immediately dismantle the electoral college and move to popular vote across the country.  Also to that end let us reconsider two Senators per State and the general ability of those with big money or big mouths to consider they speak for the country.  My father used to say that a paper would lay down and take anything.  Well, thankfully, not all people will do the same. As for consent of the governed, well, we vote with our dollars.  Where do you live, work, and eat?

“Now you have socialized healthcare too,” said a European friend of mine.

“Yeah?” I replied. “What makes you think that?”

First off, if you didn’t say, “No we don’t have anything of kind.” then you have no clue about what socialized healthcare means.  If you didn’t say that, “No we still have those no product middle men called insurance companies to suck us dry right after the government,” then you have no idea what the fear mongering Right has cost this country by preventing universal health care.

“Well,” he seemed confused, “Didn’t the U.S. Congress pass Obamacare into a law?”

My reply only increased his confusion: “The Congress did. But the American people didn’t. The law still needs their consent to become valid.”

Which bring me to a number of other points. I thought that once a bill was passed and signed into law by our corporate sponsored government and went successfully unchallenged in the Supreme Court, that it was law, but maybe I am confused. Oh, you mean if 2/3 of the States vote to nullify the law?  Yeah, like that is going to happen. You watch too much Fox News. Granted this law is not really supported by either the progressives or the conservative right. The progressives know without true universal health care that this law only delays our inevitable bankruptcy and the right have their own corporate reasons.  The progressives already see the moral bankruptcy.  So maybe we should just run this out to its inevitable conclusion.  If you want any law to have the consent of the governed, then you must follow a European example and have complete election reform disallowing any private funding of candidates whatsoever and kick out all those lobbyists. Let me see anyone talking about the consent of the governed take on that cause.

Explaining the American social and political system to Europeans can be a tiresome experience. Europeans just don’t seem to be able to climb out of their boxes of digesting everything in terms of the centralized almighty state and its decrees….

I think you must be blind to European politics if you think they blindly follow anything. Take a look here or here or here or here. To listen to some conservatives talk about the founding fathers, one might wonder how much they read of them.  What I hear them talk about blindly follows much of the European thought of three hundred years ago minus all the caveats expressed by our founding fathers.  First and foremost was their warning about corporations removing our liberty.

But the federalism of the political institutions is the smaller problem for the European mind. The bigger problem is the individual vs. the State. Europeans, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they admit it or not, are genuinely terrified of the way Americans view their relation to their own government.

When a law is passed by a Parliament in a European nation, the average European automatically accepts that the law is valid for the very reason that it is passed by a proper parliamentary procedure. … The consent of the governed is never a factor in the European thinking, and the average European never even allows for such a factor to play any part in his dealings with his government.

This quite odd, since Europe being the birthplace of capitalism, thrives due to its diversity. We are a baby. Much of our thought and culture is European and that might be why we are still the ugly Americans to much of the world. In our multicultural world we are in the minority, except in our abuse of the world’s resources.  Europe is in the throes of our history in reverse.  They seek a union of states and argue it much as you would, the union is taking away the rights of the individual states to treat their populations any way they see fit.

Compliance is the key word that describes the relationship between the individual and the State in the European setting. The European citizen is not allowed nor expected to exercise discernment once a bill is codified into law. There is no option for the citizen to exercise any active opposition to it, only passive compliance. …

Civil disobedience exists everywhere in the free world. To deny it is to be blind. Although one of the European Union’s (EU) biggest disagreement was to deny Turkey entry into their EU Christian club.

Such is the attitude of the European mind. When it relates to the law, its first thought is “compliance.” There is no higher lawgiver than the national legislature, no higher court than the Supreme Court, and no higher executor than the government. Therefore whatever civil law is, must be right and must be obeyed. A law cannot be opposed except through the same legal and political process that produced it –… There is certainly no higher moral law to give the ideological basis for any opposition, no divine law, and no God to …

Nor will there be anything like this in the United States either.  If we want a theocracy, then maybe we should consider Sharia law? The legal history of law in Europe actually has some deep ecclesiastical roots which is completely absent from our system on purpose and excluded explicitly by law. Try to get that nullified, why don’t you?

A powerful example of this European mentality is the recent decision of a European court against the display of crucifixes in public buildings in Italy. Even though the decision was made by a court far away from Italy, by judges who know next to nothing about Italian traditions and history – or care nothing about it –…

Oh, you mean like you do. Your European mentality nonsense sounds like outright bigotry on its face. It reminds me of the ethnic national characters of the last two centuries.  I bet without much prodding you could expound on the German, the French, the Italian and the Irish spirit. There is an interesting point in this.  It is the authoritarian personality.

We in America very often make the mistake to believe that just because in the last 60 years most governments in Western Europe – and in Eastern Europe in the last 20 years – never used force against their own people, Europe is somehow free, and the rights of the individuals are safe and protected. We assume that because European nations have experienced the “the rule of law” that the Founders of these United States envisioned, therefore Europeans are free and their rights are protected. Nothing could be further from the truth. …

Yes, nothing could be further from the truth. You totally miss the point that almost all our rule of law comes from Europe and it is the United Sates that is still a babe in the woods.

In stark contrast to this stands the political ideology of the original American Republic. One of the things that made – and still makes – America unique as a political setting is that little phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Yes, we are unique. Outside our borders lie great barbarian hordes.  We allow just about anyone to get on their soapbox and preach to the great burnt over regions of our country.  Sometimes we even listen.

Consent is the key word here. In this foundational document of our American liberty, governments are declared to be secondary and derivative, rather than a primary source of law and power. A true American doesn’t consider his government to be the source of its own powers; its “just powers” are derived from his consent to acknowledge the government as legitimate and just. Furthermore, government is not an end in itself; it serves a purpose: “To secure these rights.” …

Yes, to secure the rights. So we have another would-be constitutional scholar. Check out my link to why universal health care is a constitutional right.

True, a European might be able to relate to the principle of the consent of the governed, but they would do it in a very limited way: That the governed exercise their “consent” by appearing regularly at the ballot box. Outside of that ritual of confirming their “consent” the governed can use different means of protest against specific government measures or laws. But compliance with the laws is non-negotiable…

In a parliamentary system the whole government can be dissolved due to lack of confidence.  Let’s try that.

A true American must disagree with such a limited view of the value of his political consent or non-consent. The value of the consent of the governed is not limited merely to a general recognition of the political system as a whole at the time of voting. Such an approach would have seemed irresponsible to the early colonists. A responsible and freedom-loving citizen must exercise his consent or disagreement concerning every single law or act of the government, not just in relation to the general political and legal system. …

I thought this was worked out in the Whiskey Rebellion? Certain forms of disagreements are just not allowed.

The history of America is replete with examples of active resistance of citizens against immoral, unjust, or stupid laws. The early colonists were smugglers at sea, rebels at home, and evaded paying taxes when they disagreed with them. They also disobeyed the Proclamation of 1763 and moved to settle new lands west of the Appalachians. They kept their guns when the British governors tried to confiscate them, and they obstructed the King’s tax-collectors. And of course, the event that started the Revolution, the Boston Tea Party, was a display of defiance against the ability of the British government to impose laws on a people against their consent. The American Revolution was only a logical outcome of a political ideology that had been developed in the colonies that no government and no law can have just power without the consent of the governed.

There you go.  I want to forcibly remove certain states from any commerce with the rest.  How about a fence starting from north of Arizona and going right straight across?

Admittedly, this healthy political ideology for the legitimacy of government has been in retreat for the last 200 years, but even in the 20th century we see it at work in America. Even today, there are hundreds of federal and state laws that have failed to become reality because the governed refuse to comply with them. Federal gun-control laws are the best example, being defied by state governments and individuals alike, but they are not the only example. Back in the 60’s there were hundreds of heroic Christian fathers and mothers who defied the law of the State and took their kids back home to educate them, very often facing persecution and jail sentences. The infamous “anti-hate-speech” laws, designed specifically to kill any Christian testimony in the public square, have only produced the opposite result, encouraging many individual Christians and Christian leaders to speak publicly about their beliefs. True patriotic America may have been in retreat for quite a while but she is far from defeated, and in fact, she is getting prepared to strike back at the new tyranny of the centralized State, learning from its Founding Fathers. Amazingly enough, even the Left in America, with its worship of the State …

The Right has no idea of the Left, not the real Left.  We have no leaders save thought and heart.  We have no structure save creativity.  We have no backing save freedom. We do not worship authority.  So now you make me angry.  You are speaking about something I know well.  I too home schooled my child, and not as many in the sixties, not for a bogus religious reason masking bigotry.  I home schooled her because I equated socialization with domestication.  As for you madam, I will have none of your slop either because what you condone is nothing less than murder.

And that’s why it is still not sure if we have socialized total Federal healthcare in America. The American people haven’t spoken yet. And therefore the healthcare law is far from valid.

Yes, let the people speak.  I will be out there speaking loud and clear with them.

What is amazing is that this confuses my European friends. It is obvious that in contrast to the European political ideology, the American ideology is the one that fosters and encourages political liberty; it is the system that imposes truly realistic checks on the expansion of government power. In fact, it is so obvious that one wonders what is it that makes Europeans unable to see it….

Maybe, just maybe, it is you that does not see.

The reasons for their blindness are religious. After the French Revolution, European nations have based their entire political and moral thinking on a rejection of the Triune God and His revelation in the Bible. … The individual lost any right to appeal to anyone higher than the State because there was none higher than the State, the State becoming god on earth. In such a religious system any thought of considering consent before compliance would be tantamount to sacrilege, a blasphemous act, an affront against the god.

You, my friend, are a zealot.  Yes, it is a spiritual matter, and yes, the truth is one.  You are, however, blind to the truth. Jesus wept.

There is no way to understand the history of Europe after the 18th century without understanding this major religious change in Europe’s political and moral philosophy. The rise of the nation-states, the two world wars, Marx, Hitler, the national liberation movements, the rise of Communism, the founding of the European Union, and the beginning of its demise in the last one year – none of those events in history make any sense unless we understand the paradigm shift caused by the abandonment of the Christian religion in Europe…

I understand fascist dictators very well. They are made from the likes of your thought. Constantine would be proud that Hitler was able to move a Christian nation.

In contrast, our American system was based from the very beginning on the belief of our Founding Fathers that it was not the State, but God Who rules over the affairs of men. This denied the civil government any role of being divine or declaring the divine will. The individual and the State in such a political ideology are equal before God, they both have equal rights and responsibilities to search and interpret God’s will for their society. Therefore the consent of the governed is the pivot of the political system, it is the practical application of the verse in Proverbs 11:14, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” ….

You do go on. I see nothing that you have said that David Koresh could fault.

Therefore, my European friend won’t be able to understand our political system unless he understands its religious foundation first. As long as Europeans reject Jesus Christ as their Lawgiver, they will have political false messiahs for ultimate lawgivers, and will have no recourse against their immoral and foolish laws. Passive compliance with tyranny and oppression is the fate of a godless people. Only a God-fearing nation can force …

Only a god fearing self-righteous fool could write such drivel. The last time a God-fearing anything tried to force me to do anything, I told him to got to hell.

%d bloggers like this: