From: bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <remailer@bureau42.ml.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:56:35 +0800
To: cypherpunks@manifold.algebra.com
Subject: Re: Memo From...(7 of 7)
Message-ID: <oEeFRZ4OG9l1HM/KwYbu7A==@bureau42.ml.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



(Part 7 of 7)

> The isolation works to reinforce their views, which in 
> turn gives them new purpose.

Translation: "We think we have a really, really clever
protoargument here for nullifying the right to peaceably
assemble. If we can characterize the resisters as nut
cases we can make the argument that they cannot be allowed
the right to assemble because they reinforce each other's
illness. Isn't that neat-o?"

>This new purpose may take ordinary ideas to extremes, rationalize
>their problems into blaming government, and cause members to
>compete with each other to make stronger statements.

Translation: "Just as happened in the 1770's. We can't have anything like THAT happening here and now, can we? That was THEN, this is NOW! SHUT UP and SIT DOWN!"

> Trend and Incident Reporting
>
> If you become victimized by paper terrorism, contact the
> Washington State Patrol Organized Crime Intelligence Unit at
> (360) 753-3277, extension 121. All acts reaching a criminal
> level should be referred to your local law enforcement agency or
> prosecutor's office.

She never mentioned "Paper Terrorism" perpetrated by government
agencies, did she? Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to
the relative magnitude of government victimizing citizen-units
vs citizen-units snapping at the heels of government by means 
of the tactics she lists above?  1,000-to-1?  100,000-to-1?

Karen's definition of what constitutes "Paper Terrorism" is,
basically, anything in the way of communication, court 
pleadings, cases, liens, etc. that the government doesn't 
like. 

If she wants to fly with a subjective definition then
she can't very well argue against the subjective view of
citizen-units who feel they are being terrorized by numerous
and multitudinous, often false or frivolous communications,
court pleadings, suits, charges, liens, seizures, convictions,
sentences, fines, etc. Their subjective views are at least as
valid as Karen's or the government's.

(She's an elected ass-wipe, but she's OUR elected ass-wipe!
If we want to elect someone on the Totalitarian ticket, that's
our right. There's no law that says a Representative has to
represent our interests.)