wikileaks dont download!

[ninjamonkeyz]

oh just to reaffirm everything i've said, the ICE unit is shutting down torrent sites left and right to no a vail tho which is kinda funny, they shut em down and they bring em back up within the same hour. I think torrent-finder was the first one hit by the government.

[ninjamonkeyz]

i still think the "classified info"wikileaks was held responsible for was done with inside the government, and it put heat on many online communities, which is why wikileaks was being bombarded with attacks. Like I said political stamina, blah blah.. another way for the government to fund itself with useless security. Make it up blame it on somebody else then throw heat at it and see how much money it brings.

[StatiC]

i still think the "classified info"wikileaks was held responsible for was done with inside the government, and it put heat on many online communities, which is why wikileaks was being bombarded with attacks. Like I said political stamina, blah blah.. another way for the government to fund itself with useless security. Make it up blame it on somebody else then throw heat at it and see how much money it brings.

Ya i think i read that within the first hours, the wikileaks place was being hit by some 10-12gig per second DDOS attacks

[Demiurge]

We dug ourselves into a hole as we drunkenly feasted on propaganda aimed to whet our cynical appetites, on distractingly factional barbs, and on manufactured controversies. In its self-satisfying hubris, the US has become the empire with no clothes. Meanwhile, the modern aristocracy busily continue to turn the US into a plutocracy and build their own vision. As the only citizens who actually maintain an interest and are smart enough to act are the aristocrats with their lackeys in elected office, we sit watching this reality TV like the well-trained monkeys we are. The latest WikiLeaks case is merely another episode of the same. It's just bread and circuses.

The saddest fact of the post-Cold War era continues to be the grave absence of public debate about when and how we'll create and build a new vision of American domestic and foreign strategic policy.

"… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
- "Satire X," Juvenal, 100 AD.

P.S. Baker, the veiled use of Social Darwinism in your statements including "adapt or die" is not only a distortion of Darwinian principles, it's implications are patently offensive. "Adapt or die" in the sense in which you use it has been the basis of rabid despotism, nationalism, racism, and eugenics. Furthermore, to take pleasure in how others struggle to adapt or die represents a rather unevolved state according to Darwin. As Darwin put it in "Descent of Man":

"The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them."

In other words, according to Darwin, the pioneer of evolutionary biology, morality, conscience, and sympathy are the marks of more highly evolved species. I think it rather likely Darwin would reject making entertainment of other people's life challenges as evolved in any sense. But there are those who would disagree with me, namely, those ancient and modern aristocrats who agree that in service to their selfish interests, others must and should adapt or die. Of course, it's this same worldview that's causing us to suffer and making the future uncertain.

I can almost see what you're thinking in code...

for (short u = peon; u < i; i++) { cout << "Adapt or die!" << endl; }

[ninjamonkeyz]

im glad you finally commented on this thread Demiurge. glad to have you aboard. Despite all skepticism how do you see this playing out... how is this going to affect the online community once shared data is compromised by government interference world wide? not just limited to the usa or torrent sites or p2p networks or irc, or any other means of sharing data, Im talking about Uncle Sam presenting himself world wide via the web? I think it will have a big impact on consumers and supplyers of any sort that rely on digital transations... Being from america i wouldnt feel comforatable with every other country's government being able to view every online transaction i make even tho thats probably already true. They can view it but allowing power to shut down my transactions across boarders is going too far. thats just my opinion.

[ninjamonkeyz]

example if google or yahoo, amazon, bing, ebay etc.. started to limited its ties to other countries or their own;states;and or teroitorys.. even quakeone; just to comply with their own/or other countries governments because of great duress.. how would that impact us and how can it be avoided other than obvious answers?

[ninjamonkeyz]

oh hes gonna be up in your porn too.. every time you or whatever else uncle sam will be there, and i find that creepy.

[Baker]

P.S. Baker, the veiled use of Social Darwinism in your statements including "adapt or die" is not only a distortion of Darwinian principles, it's implications are patently offensive.

...

I can almost see what you're thinking in code...

for (short u = peon; u < i; i++) { cout << "Adapt or die!" << endl; }

Ok, for starters ... IF what I say IS TRUE ...

Then ...

#1) It is irrelevant whether or not you find the truth offensive. Objective reality cannot be reasoned with, only dealt with. Emotional responses to objective reality are pointless, irrational and ... a weakness. We all die, is that an offensive fact? The mere question of whether or not a fact is offensive is silly and wasteful. If I am the messenger of an objective truth, shooting the messenger is certainly a waste of time ... I don't make facts true or not true, the world does. If my insight leads to the communication of an objective truth, it is just me providing valuable information ahead of the curve.

#2) Well, I just want to point out that I am not a social Darwinist. I'm in the school of Friedrich Nietzsche.

My thesis is: Reality exists to be defeated by humankind. Only the strong of will can do this, those of weaker will must look away from the truth; the strong will confront the truth for what it is, use it and persevere.

Motto: "Through strength, virtue ... the will to power."

Reality is not subjective, it is not subjective to emotions. Address it, confront it, look it in the eye ... see how you can deal with the cards you have been dealt instead of cowering away in fear.

Is our government looking reality in the eye? Well, they are doing a bit better job than in the past. But not so good as they will be doing tomorrow. That is both sarcasm and optimism; in this case sarcasm is that they could today what they will do tomorrow (fear, procrastination, denial of reality, laziness) and in this case optimism is that they WILL eventually come to terms and adapt (there is plenty of hope, victory assured, the human spirit will overcome).

In this case, both my sarcasm and optimism are flawed emotional responses. The sarcasm stems from the fact that obvious solutions will needlessly be avoided, ignored, delayed for years despite me wanting it now. The optimism is that the fear that our government will not adapt will never be realized. Both feelings are emotional rather than me accepting that this is the natural norm of human behavior. Call it a weakness.

[Demiurge]

example if google or yahoo, amazon, bing, ebay etc.. started to limited its ties to other countries or their own;states;and or teroitorys.. even quakeone; just to comply with their own/or other countries governments because of great duress.. how would that impact us and how can it be avoided other than obvious answers?

Thank you for the welcome. I'm having a little difficulty following your point. Can I ask you please possibly to rephrase it?

[ninjamonkeyz]

:

Thank you for the welcome. I'm having a little difficulty following your point. Can I ask you please possibly to rephrase it?

lol damn um that was a drunk mess, just take the welcome and run with it

[ninjamonkeyz]

Ill try my best to rephrase that, look at the porn smileys post.. Thats the best i can make of it but im sure i had a good point in my head at the time.

[ninjamonkeyz]

Wikileaks &#038; ICE Domain Seizures Show How Private Intermediaries Get Involved In Government Censorship | Techdirt <- this is just one refference to my other posts. I don't think ive posted any refferences at all since i started this thread. Other sources include torrentfreak.com.

[Demiurge]

Ok, for starters ... IF what I say IS TRUE ...

Then ...

#1) It is irrelevant whether or not you find the truth offensive. Objective reality cannot be reasoned with, only dealt with. Emotional responses to objective reality are pointless, irrational and ... a weakness. We all die, is that an offensive fact? The mere question of whether or not a fact is offensive is silly and wasteful. If I am the messenger of an objective truth, shooting the messenger is certainly a waste of time ... I don't make facts true or not true, the world does. If my insight leads to the communication of an objective truth, it is just me providing valuable information ahead of the curve.

I can see that it's irrelevant to you whether someone finds the truth offensive and would add that the issue isn't whether it's irrelevant to you, but how much responsibility you'll take to ensure that your own articulated conclusions are true, because everyone knows that merely asserting something as true doesn't make it so.

#2) Well, I just want to point out that I am not a social Darwinist. I'm in the school of Friedrich Nietzsche.

My thesis is: Reality exists to be defeated by humankind. Only the strong of will can do this, those of weaker will must look away from the truth; the strong will confront the truth for what it is, use it and persevere.

Motto: "Through strength, virtue ... the will to power."

Reality is not subjective, it is not subjective to emotions. Address it, confront it, look it in the eye ... see how you can deal with the cards you have been dealt instead of cowering away in fear.

Is our government looking reality in the eye? Well, they are doing a bit better job than in the past. But not so good as they will be doing tomorrow. That is both sarcasm and optimism; in this case sarcasm is that they could today what they will do tomorrow (fear, procrastination, denial of reality, laziness) and in this case optimism is that they WILL eventually come to terms and adapt (there is plenty of hope, victory assured, the human spirit will overcome).

In this case, both my sarcasm and optimism are flawed emotional responses. The sarcasm stems from the fact that obvious solutions will needlessly be avoided, ignored, delayed for years despite me wanting it now. The optimism is that the fear that our government will not adapt will never be realized. Both feelings are emotional rather than me accepting that this is the natural norm of human behavior. Call it a weakness.

I accept that you say you're rather a Nietzschean than a Social Darwinist. Interestingly, Nietzsche had this to say about the virtue of weakness:

Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.

Yet, as for Nietzsche's philosophy more broadly, I think Professor Francis Fukuyama's concluding remarks in his review of Julian Young's Nietzsche biography puts it rightly when he says:

Young appropriately underlines the notion that postmodernism, with its embrace of diversity in values, is no different from the 19th-century modernism that Nietzsche hated. He would not have celebrated alternative lifestyles, non-Western cultures or the right of every fourth grader to be his or her own value-creator. Acknowledgment of the death of God is a bomb that blows up many things, not just oppressive traditionalism, but also values like compassion and the equality of human dignity on which support for a tolerant liberal political order is based. This then is the Nietzschean dead end from which Western philosophy has still not emerged.

It's worth briefly noting the findings that Nietzsche suffered from chronic frontotemporal dementia, which means his work was the product of a diseased mind easily understood as an obsession with his own feelings of inanition and powerlessness. (Friedrich Nietzsche's mental illness--general paralysis of the insane vs. frontotemporal dementia.)

I suspect the embrace of Nietzsche is merely an anodyne for logical positivists who want to make claims of unassailable contribution with their analytically a priori and synthetically a posteriori assertions, rather than do the hard work of contributing synthetically a priori truths.

Ultimately, there is one and only one reality. And as far as we know, no human being is fully aware of reality in toto. And each of us merely experiences the perception of a variety of reality's parts. This means none of us can yet claim fully to know objective reality. And so one of the tools our progenitors gave us in our quest to better understand this objective reality is the rules of reason and logic. This tool has proven quite useful in disentangling the sensationalising effect of facts from what is true. A fact in and of itself has no meaning, because it serves as a mere premise and entails no necessary conclusion. Yet, logical truth is the precise way we determine the validity of meanings derived from facts. This also means that there are ways of presenting truth which is fallacious but gives the appearance of truth and is often a tool in rhetoric. Unfortunately, I'm not yet persuaded by your thesis with its premise that "Reality exists to be defeated by mankind," because as has been repeatedly established by others and myself in this post, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't yet know all of reality and have provided no claims of its intended origin. As you have yet to identify the nature of reality and the intention of its creation, your premise is false, and therefore your thesis is false. And if we were to take it as true in the context of your own beliefs, then it is how you've chosen to conceive of and feel toward reality, and it isn't necessary that anyone else join you. So I agree with you that what we feel sometimes is quite irrelevant. The more relevant question might be, "What do we want to achieve with our society through our government, and what makes this important to us?"

[Baker]

I can see that it's irrelevant to you whether someone finds the truth offensive and would add that the issue isn't whether it's irrelevant to you

.
.
.

The more relevant question might be, "What do we want to achieve with our society through our government, and what makes this important to us?"

I'm not sure what this has to do with the economy or the way government does stuff. Philosophy is fun to argue, but I long ago lost interest in it ... I've never been looking to convert anyone to my point of view. And a lot of your points (what is reality, perspectives, intent) are entry level philosophy kind of discussions with no answers. Philosophy isn't to get to a debate, it is to get to a purpose or perspective. I have mine. Others have theirs. Philosophy is an approach to view the world, concrete results achieved aren't related to what drove you to collect information or analyze a problem from a certain point of view.

Anyway, perhaps another way to phrase my Fredrick Nietzsche inspired philosophy:

1. Be the best you can be.
2. Rise up to challenges and overcome them; be active

The opposite of this would be described as complacent, passive or making plans depending on luck or false hope.

I would describe the current state of things as: ostrich! Pretending there aren't problems or hoping some sprinkles of fairy dust will revive the economy is where we are at the moment.

[Demiurge]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the economy or the way government does stuff. Philosophy is fun to argue, but I long ago lost interest in it ... I've never been looking to convert anyone to my point of view. And a lot of your points (what is reality, perspectives, intent) are entry level philosophy kind of discussions with no answers. Philosophy isn't to get to a debate, it is to get to a purpose or perspective. I have mine. Others have theirs. Philosophy is an approach to view the world, concrete results achieved aren't related to what drove you to collect information or analyze a problem from a certain point of view.

Anyway, perhaps another way to phrase my Fredrick Nietzsche inspired philosophy:

1. Be the best you can be.
2. Rise up to challenges and overcome them; be active

The opposite of this would be described as complacent, passive or making plans depending on luck or false hope.

I would describe the current state of things as: ostrich! Pretending there aren't problems or hoping some sprinkles of fairy dust will revive the economy is where we are at the moment.

Nearly everyone is already taking self-interested action in one form or other. And it's these unphilosophical--ultimately unwise--actions that only temporarily give the appearance of overcoming problems that have led us to our current state. Rising up to challenges and overcoming them merely by a policy of bold action does get results. And, however, one properly calls this behaviour pursuing immediate gratification, which is one of the chief problems our government and our culture has right now.

Accusations of complacency is another self-serving and easy charge to make. For instance, I could say that your choice to dismiss and avoid the challenge to your stated beliefs is an example of complacency. Of course, you could also easily counter that you responded in a way that you thought appropriate. As long as it feels good, right? Just like I have seldom if ever witnessed you thoughtfully and substantively responding to a challenge to your stated beliefs, so I see our populace and politicians refusing to do so too.

There are a variety of differences over political positions. Some ardently want a smaller government and lower taxes. Others want a more active government with a central locus of leadership, which deals with the many problems people face. Both sides can present strong arguments about their merits. Unfortunately, because there is a wretched lack of philosophical thinking, neither side recognises that both views are two sides of the same presupposition, and so whichever we get, we're actually getting the same thing: Mismanagement of public resources. That is to say, while the public gets enthralled in the size versus scope debate, we don't hear anyone saying, "Listen, I don't care how big or small my government is. What I want is a government that has a clear mission and a consistently prudent use of resources. The size and scope will take care of itself."

It's like the little technique shop clerks use when they ask you, "Will you be paying with cash or credit?" They give you the gratifying illusion of choice, but as you're thinking about that, you've forgotten you have a choice not to buy any of the shop's useless crap made by China's slave-workers and waved in front of your nose by oligarchs who follow your policy in boldly acting and overcoming your resistance to becoming a slave-worker too. These oligarch mouthpieces will tell hoist your hopes with the tired line, "A rising tide lifts all boats." But they conveniently neglect to tell you something more important. When you compete with a slave, you become a slave.