"In the service, the words sliding off of one's tongue at a whisper
are nothing less than the execution of death warrants carried out
across the globe; when plastered upon a page, they are a primal scream
demanding that violence be meted out, and the orders are answered."

Caleb James DeLisle:
> Hi Odinn,
>
> Sorry for not getting back sooner. I have to agree with you that
> there is a batshit-crazy contingent within the US military
> establishment, however I would urge that they should be judged by
> what they do more than by what they say. Not to appologize for
> anyone but just because much of that they say is either kicking up
> a smokescreen, pandering to some extremist voting demographic
> inside of the US or possibly both.
>
> Interesting somewhat related quote from John Perry Barlow on Dick
> Cheney: "But he is a careful listener and not at all the ideologue
> he appears at this distance." [1]
>
> I respect your opinion on anonymity as I recognize you've put
> significant thought into it but I still feel that somehow anonymity
> is a compromize. A truce with oppression and intollerance, and as
> long as there is still legitimate reason to hide one's identity,
> there is still work to be done.
>
>
>
> PS. Quinn just talked me into pledging some money for Lessig
> https://medium.com/@quinnnorton/my-plan-and-why-you-don-t-want-it-b6bc
af0403f2
>
> If he doesn't get 1mn by labor day (looks like he won't) then it's
> free license to be smug.
>
>
>
> [1]:
> http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/other/on-the-practical-exercise-of
- -power-or-why-the-old-white-dudes-keep-winning-2598
>
>
>
> On 01/09/15 09:58, odinn wrote: Recent news article which I saw
> today, which (sadly) not just lends credence to the arguments I
> made, but also suggests that the position of the US military is now
> to target legal scholars or critics of the USA's legal system "even
> if it means great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties, and
> civilian collateral damage."
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/29/west-point-professor-ta
rg
>
>
et-legal-critics-war-on-terror
>
> Which is to say, that there are certainly people in the US
> military who would target us for making these critiques on this
> list.
>
> Curiously, the military is disavowing him, stating that he was
> “never an NDU employee nor an NDU professor.” Yet they went ahead
> and published his fascist rant in the National Security Law Journal
> and then published a halfhearted apology for having published it:
> https://www.nslj.org/a-message-to-our-readers/
>
> Note how the military author (William Bradford) plays to certain
> racist or nationalist sympathies by suggesting that “Islamic holy
> sites” and “law school facilities, scholars’ home offices and
> media outlets where they give interviews” – all civilian areas, but
> places where a “causal connection between the content disseminated
> and Islamist crimes incited” should be targeted and blown to
> smithereens. His hope, apparently, is that any possible public
> unease over this enthusiastic expression of hatred would be quelled
> merely by the implication that those who are on the receiving end
> are, you know, 'just Islamic,' and so not as deserving of
> consideration and compassion as other people (whoever it is that he
> might actually love, if indeed he remains capable of that).
>
> Another thing to observe here is that it is apparently his intent
> that we believe that this belligerent and violent attitude is
> being directed at Muslims. Yet clearly he is using this as a mask,
> hoping that his ideas (of targeting and killing legal scholars or
> critics of the US legal system abroad) will gain favor, so that
> they can also be applied more broadly to anyone inside or outside
> US borders. This broader goal of killing as many people as
> possible (whenever they criticize the United States), certainly
> regardless of their background, is obviously an ultimate objective
> of an increasing number of the reactionary and fascist members of
> the militarized corporation-state.
>
> The real terrorists are such people within the US military who are
> applying these ideas; the institutions such as the US military and
> the ISIS groups essentially function as terrorist organizations.
> When we give our resources to them either voluntarily or because of
> a coercive system (e.g. taxation) then we are enabling and
> empowering them.
>
>
> "Rather than solely creating a(...) “culture of giving,” we should
> be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking." - Mathew
> Snow
>
>
> Decentralized, voluntary systems to facilitate altruism are good
> alternatives to today's society~ but society's "taking" must be
> challenged.
>
> Anonymity will be, by necessity, a component of any viable
> decentralized, distributed, and peer to peer system enabling
> altruistic spending.
>
>
>
> Caleb James DeLisle:
>>>> Excellent analisys, thank you !
>>>>
>>>> I've seen a pattern that when someone lives in a country
>>>> which has a strong government / legal system / police force,
>>>> the US will use pressure through that legal framework if
>>>> possible (exception is Russia where they just don't care
>>>> about US pressure). When someone lives in a "lawless"
>>>> country, one which has weak government, if the US military
>>>> doesn't like them they will not hesitate to pwn them with
>>>> drones.
>>>>
>>>> Your raising of the Ferguson murders is quite interesting
>>>> because it runs counter to this logic. I think the Ferguson
>>>> murders are something that the US empire has a strong
>>>> interest in quickly stemming because there is a risk that
>>>> gun-toting psycopaths bent on establishing a "marter's
>>>> legacy" will form an informal alliance with the
>>>> disenfranchised masses who see dead cops as the lesser of two
>>>> evils. This would be more difficult to squash than a simple
>>>> assasination market because in such a system there is no
>>>> central authority and no money changing hands, simply a tacit
>>>> nod of support from people who cannot and will not explicitly
>>>> support murder or take the risk of being charged as an
>>>> accomplice or co-conspirator. For a desperate psycopath with
>>>> nothing to lose, a tacit nod of support may be all it takes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31/08/15 02:10, odinn wrote: I've seen a lot of reporting
>>>> on this. What occurred is unsurprising (if we assume that he
>>>> was helping ISIS). It's entirely possible he simply became a
>>>> horrible person helping ISIS, but that's not I want to write
>>>> about. I'm not going to get into a whole "why was he helping
>>>> ISIS or not" thing here, nor am I going to get into a debate
>>>> about what some people like to call "laws of war."
>>>>
>>>> What should be concerning is that it's relatively easy for
>>>> some ("three-letter agency" of "government X") to accuse
>>>> someone of being associated with ("designated "terrorist
>>>> group Y"") and thus make that someone immediately subject to
>>>> ("law Z") ~ where that law either expressly contains a death
>>>> penalty or a statement that the person is not afforded rights
>>>> any longer at that point in the traditional sense (depending
>>>> on the country, the law will be worded differently, but with
>>>> the intention of the same end results). The end result to
>>>> which I refer is that we'll see increasing numbers of people
>>>> being dead by drone without any due process at all ~ in no
>>>> small part because countries like the USA have abandoned due
>>>> process anyway:
>>>>
>>>> In the detention and due process context (which I argue was
>>>> the critical level at which failure to continue to uphold due
>>>> process in essence meant at that point the state or its
>>>> agents had clearly abandoned the system of law (or legal
>>>> protections) upon which it actually relies): 1)
>>>> http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/detention-challenge-denied/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
In a long post here (dated Sept. 8, 2014), I have argued that at
>>>> the stage of the decision in Hedges v. Obama, the US
>>>> government actually rendered the entirety of US law invalid.
>>>> For my reasoning on this subject, please see:
>>>> http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s8t6v4
>>>>
>>>> In the death by drone context (by this point if it was not
>>>> already apparent, it should be obvious that you can be killed
>>>> in such a manner without due process even if you have done
>>>> absolutely zero to harm anyone, and US courts will simply
>>>> dismiss the cases: 2)
>>>> https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-chall
eng
>
>>>>
e-
>>>>
>>>>
> killing-three-us-citizens?redirect=targetedkillings
>>>>
>>>> 3) One could also insert here any manner of ways in which
>>>> the state kills innocent people, which have resulted in
>>>> popular unrest, e.g., Ferguson, etc.
>>>> http://killedbypolice.net/ In general, there is no recourse
>>>> when this happens, or if an avenue exists in the courts it
>>>> routinely results in dismissal of the case or a decision
>>>> which exonerates the killer.
>>>>
>>>> The cumulative effect of these corporation-state decisions is
>>>> that it turns people away from having any faith they might
>>>> have had in the legal system as we know it. It's easy to say
>>>> that we hate ISIS or that we think that the antiquated
>>>> corporation-state model (US, UK being typical examples) are
>>>> not desireable and are simply no longer solutions for the
>>>> modern world; it's harder to find viable replacements for
>>>> such systems because it takes a lot of work, but the answers
>>>> are out there.
>>>>
>>>> Present day notions of governance, an observation:
>>>>
>>>> "The truth of the matter is that all things must eventually
>>>> end. The modern state, lubricated by 1700s-era orts of
>>>> Hegelian romantic nationalism, is no exception. Within this
>>>> context, which has been carried forward from the 1700s to the
>>>> modern day, the state attempts to assert a political
>>>> legitimacy based primarily upon the concept of unity of a
>>>> people within certain fictitious boundaries, which are
>>>> primarily defended not through reason, but through violence
>>>> and coercion (imposed upon those inside and outside the
>>>> modern state's fictitious geographic boundaries). The notion
>>>> of 'representation,' considered revolutionary and generally
>>>> new and interesting at the time of the French Revolution, is
>>>> now antiquated and does not provide an adequate framework for
>>>> newer social and technological developments that have ensued
>>>> well past the emergence of French constitutional monarchy and
>>>> the United States of America in the period of 1776-1789.
>>>> Indeed, by 1989, just 200 years after the beginning of the
>>>> French Revolution, it was apparent that the notion of a
>>>> strong, unified state, controlled by a leader or leaders that
>>>> everyone would be required to follow, was (with more than a
>>>> little finality) cast into doubt, and the notion of
>>>> "citizenship" as something defined by the state was likewise
>>>> in the early process of being discarded, as communities began
>>>> to form online with the development of the internet. The
>>>> notion that current systems of "government" should be
>>>> preserved and maintained is nothing more than a desperate
>>>> grasp at living in the past -- a past which we are now
>>>> removed from by over 200 years!"
>>>>
>>>> Tim Patrick:
>>>>>>> Wasn't he helping ISIS?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 30, 2015, psy <epsylon@???>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.csoonline.com/article/2976282/cyber-attacks-espionag
e/r
>
>>>>>>>>
epo
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> rts-ex-teamp0ison-member-killed-in-syrian-drone-strike.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>>>>> list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>>>> list: http://unsystem.net
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem

- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn