From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:53:55 +0800
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: [RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
Message-ID: <199609071720.LAA29986@InfoWest.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In Cypherpunks, on 08/19/96 
   at 01:34 PM, mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) said:

=If Singapore bans alt.sex.hooters, you could simply post to
=alt.culture.singapore.i.got.your.hooters.right.here. 
    [snip]

=It would also send the correct message that "newsgroups" are simply
=one of many labels on an article, and are not cyberspacial tearooms
=where bad people congregate and there is guilt by association.

        I don't fault your argument on "sending the correct message," 
    but since when has an oppressive government ever been 
    concerned with "the correct message?"   LEA's could care less 
    about the message; their only interest is another opportunity to 
    behave like the jack-booted thugs they generally are.
    
        but public opinion, certainly the government interests in 
    control, have already determined in the court of small minds 
    that "we" are inherently evil (and beyond redemption without 
    coercion).  A repressive government can not afford publications 
    from unredeemed (and unrepentant) cyber-anarchists with a 
    world wide audience. 

        Is the daily comics the last refuge of freedom; witness 
    today's "Thatch:"

                "cubicle cliches are one of the few things we 
            all share; they're one of the few things that unite 
            us as americans!"

                "that and utter, corrosive contempt for our 
            elected officials."

        sarcasm has always been a potent weapon, and one of the 
    hardest to silence. ..in bits and pieces it can slowly undermine
    the target.  why is it tolerated?  I'm sure our malicious uncle 
    wanted to shut Doonsbury down during Vietnam, but 
    joe-six-pack rarely understood the underlying message.

=The alternative to doing something reasonable like this is probably
=to see mass migration from "banned newsgroups" to off-topic groups,
=like Lolita pictures in rec.pets.cats, when the inevitable crackdown
=comes.

        has not the crackdown arrived?  and are not the various 
    skirmishes between governments on one side and the ISPs & 
    users on the other sufficient evidence of governmental 
    intentions?

=As long as people can post
=anonymously, they will simply switch to another existing newsgroup
=when the one they are posting to becomes blocked. Once the =inevitable reciprocal pissing contest between posters and censors 
=gets going, Usenet as we know it will likely be destroyed.

        let's put it this way, the first reaction will be to 
    "eliminate" the anonymous remailers, then ban the "alt" 
    groups which can be created at will.  

        if there is migration from alt.sex.binaries to rec.cats, the 
    government will eliminate the entire usenet and we will be 
    forced back to the NWO controlled media conglomerates, 

        or mail lists.  of course, then the fascists will block or 
    close down the list servers on some flimsy pretext such as
    violating the US postal monopoly and regulations....  

        Many companies block the alt groups; 15 years ago, 
    even I blocked the alt groups during business hours (and 
    usenet was only 1.5 MBytes per day then!), restoring them 
    at 1800. 

        --why?  because the office staff spent *at least* all 
    morning reading usenet,  occasionally even refusing to 
    talk to customers before their daily dose!

        My point is simple:  I reacted by limiting the **time**
    of access, ** not access itself. **  

        On the other side, Reed, Buchannan &c. have decided
    *they* should judge what is fit (G rated) for our consumption; 

        and, of course, Big Brother has determined they should
    be the judge of political correctness and all that shit which is    

    numbing the minds of joe-six-pack until America is a 
    controllable homogeneous bowl of putrid gruel.

        government, in and of itself, may be able to selectively
    prosecute cyberspace "violaters," but the real danger is big 
    business.  Print newspapers receive $64 billion in ad revenue, 
    80% of which is local. Virtually every major US newspaper 
    (most owned by the group of 5) has a net presence --some 
    very informative.  And, even Mexico has more than a dozen 
    of their papers on line.

        However, in the US the news is still the same collection of
    what the NWO wants us to hear/see. So far, the foreign 
    press is not so inhibited and is often openly critical of 
    US bumbling in foreign affairs, Bubba's alleged (alledged?) 
    cocaine habit and criminal behaviour, --likewise critical of all
    fools.

        Where does this lead?  Well, we've probably peaked on 
    freedom; the rest is downhill as our "non-elected" government 
    degenerates to deploying more and more thought control to 
    maintain the oligarchic fascist form of what Jefferson thought 
    they were creating as a representative republic.

        I for one enjoy tweaking their nose, but it only stiffens 
    their resolve to squash me/us/whatever. 

        How do you show resolve without being in their face?   
    most regulation is created to "eliminate" abuse of a "public" 
    privilege; unfortunately, we all suffer "collateral damage" 
    to use their term.  

        does voluntary compliance work? unfortunately, no.

        where does that leave us?  confrontation, I guess. 
    preserve our advantage as long as we can.  we all know 
    from münchen that Clement Atlee made a fool of himself 
    appeasing Hitler for a false peace.
  
        might as well carry on with what we do best:

            rape, pillage, and burn... a scorched earth policy....