[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Jacob Appelbaum in Germany



James A. Donald <[email protected]> wrote:

In practice, it is pretty obvious that most practitioners of civil
> disobedience believe they are above the law, that they usually *are* above
> the law, and that in particular Swartz believed he was above the law, and
> was shocked to find that he was not.
>
> There might be some sincere practitioners of civil disobedience, but
> Swartz was not, and the big heroes of the civil disobedience brigade,
> Ghandi and Thoreau, were not.
>


It seems in practice that there is a relation issue involved in
who judges and determines lawfulness in the shared situation.

oftentimes, the person who judges is actually 'the criminal' and
can "represent the state" and 'the people' though misleadingly,
subverting this relation. such that, a person who exists within
and operates in a criminal way, including relying upon lies as
a day to day framework, then convicts those who may break
one law or tell one lie in their lives or go beyond a boundary
out of principle and larger ethics that question the ruleset

and what happens or appears to is that all the power is with
those who cheat, lie, and steal within the state along with
their accomplices, and that these people 'are the state' that
then judges and determines the fate of otherwise law-abiding
citizens or those who seek to serve its best interests, not least
by enforcing its framework or utilizing its freedoms, testing the
parameters only to find they are not observed, are fiction only


(else, perhaps other more active strategies exist though are
correct in principle, in not adhering to laws that are inaccurate
or overbearing and allow the corruption its continuing power)

what this is to suggest is that the judge-convicted relation is:


    99.99% falsity + 0.01% truth   vs.  99.99% truth + error


(in that the evaluation occurs in a warped framework where
judgement is divorced from its own adherence to truth, via
the same corrupted constitution that allows for this relation)


    99% wrong  ---> judgement ---> 0.01% wrong


and yet this viewpoint (based on power) is itself based upon
LIES and deception, unaccountable to the same rules and
thus is beyond law. and thus it _must show falsity in another
yet never allow this to be accounted for in its own viewpoint
or actions-- which is how authoritarian, totalitarian, and the
secret dictatorship triumph in these conditions, because it
is beyond accountability, it is just about believing in higher
power that is based on lies and opinions, as it filters down
into culture via illiteracy, loss of education, social relations,
normalization of vice, oppression, exploitation, criminality


this is why the state must be abolished, because it has
become thoroughly rotten from the inside out due to the
outdated source code that provides loopholes to oppress
citizens and humans and the planet and animals worldwide
due to loss of truth, and making this lying 'legal' as a basis
for 'shared power' by who shares and is in on the lie, as this
then scales and becomes organization, authority, judgement

fjisw  sosip  wsznx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131231/c1aa1432/attachment.html>