What do you guys think about the occult aspects within the military? What's
your thoughts on Michael Aquino? Isn't he still out there somewhere?

On Thursday, September 3, 2015, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@???>
wrote:

> > "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@??? <javascript:;>
> >
> >>>>>>> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>