Wow. That's almost $5k per insurrectionist! Not bad!
U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
181–190 of 243 posts
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#182I hope this will get attention. Just so more people will realise that bitcoin is dangerous to use and accept because it is not private. Even if youre doing nothing wrong, would you want to unintentionally receive funds linked to this?
You do understand that I can go to your bank and make a deposit into your account with just your name and DOB, right?
You cannot do this in the US without presenting your own ID and electronic fingerprinting.
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism is "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". Trying to coerce / kidnap / etc. Congress people sounds like terrorism. They don’t have to be successful.
That applies to a lot of situations if taken literally. You have to use a lot of care when labeling somebody with such a charged word. We wouldn’t want to see a bunch of rioters from sent to Guantanamo.
Most of the protesters were just protesters. Some of them may have had quasi-violent intent, such as 'let's break in an make a point', but a very small few seemed to have some very dark intent.
If you rile up enough people, then a small slice of them will be on the radical margins.
It only took a ~5 Serbs to kill Franz Ferdinand.
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recall thinking of the Unabomber manifesto when I first started seeing the alt-right emerge in a big way in the early 20-teens. The alt-right and adjacent movements sort of do belong under the umbrella of neo-primitivism. There are a lot of ideological parallels and deep similarities in the emotional appeals. It takes me back to when I read the Unabomber manifesto online as a teenager when it was first printed. I l…
I read it too after reading Kevin Kelly's analysis in What Technology Wants. I recall it was very meandering, not particularly well supported, and from what I understand, not very novel either. In retrospect, if Ted Kaczynski thought that he could start a movement with that much wandering text, there wasn't much hope for anything super cogent.
Turns out he was a few decades too early.
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#185so ... Luke Smith is an "insurrectionist" now?
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of a good take, but these points actually makes their attitude even stranger: they are not afraid of neoliberalism, which is the defacto economic position of both the left and the right, but of "communism." Biden is a "communist," or "godless," or "anti-American." What do these statements actually mean? You can argue that their feelings of economic greivance make sense--but their voting habits are a rejection of…
>they are not afraid of neoliberalism, which is the defacto economic position of both the left and the right, but of "communism." Biden is a "communist," or "godless," or "anti-American." What do these statements actually mean? Compare: >Fascism is strongly opposed to the individualism found in classical liberalism. Fascists accuse liberalism of de-spiritualizing human beings and transforming them into materialistic…
The issue with teaching it is it would hit too close to home as the captains of industry found a more subtle way way to bring Fascism to America in the form of corporate Fascism via lobbying, but at one time, they contemplated just trying to finance the violent overthrow of the government to instill a Fascist regime in the US. Prescott Bush was a big proponent of Fascist, so I think it is safe to assume some of those ideas where instilled in his son and possibly his grandson. While it is not a defense of the man, I do find it strange that people all of the sudden are screaming Trump is a Fascist, when the Bush family has a documented legacy of supporting Fascist policy.
https://timeline.com/business-plot-overthrow-fdr-9a59a012c32...
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given Breitbart's reputation, the publication date, and the title: This is at-least one source of coal (and other fossil fuels) being politicized this election cycle. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/29/joe-biden-no-c...
Okay, that source also mentions coal, but oil is the part of that statement that really set people off. Since Obama took office to just before Covid, US oil production nearly tripled. The decline of coal is economically priced in, but shutting down domestic oil and gas production anytime soon would take a shotgun to the economy.
> but shutting down domestic oil and gas production anytime soon would take a shotgun to the economy.
You should watch the relevant answer from Biden[0], the Brietbart article is heavily biased and misleading.
His position is simple and data driven, it is no longer economically viable and the market will no longer create any new coal or oil fire plants in America.
To fact check Biden: "Under the 25-year contract ... Los Angeles ... would pay less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour ... the lowest price ever paid for solar power in the United States, and cheaper than the cost of electricity from a typical natural gas-fired power plant"[1]. This includes the cost of production and storage.
But what about other parts of the country with less sun? "solar and wind energy will dominate America’s new generation in 2020, making up 76% of new generation ..., while coal and natural gas will dominate 2020 retirements with 85% of plant closures."[2]. And this was 2020 while Trump was helping the fossil fuel industry.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ&start=1h44m03s
[1] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-27/los-ang...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/01/21/ren...
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
That applies to a lot of situations if taken literally. You have to use a lot of care when labeling somebody with such a charged word. We wouldn’t want to see a bunch of rioters from sent to Guantanamo.
I don't want that because I don't want anyone sent to Guantanamo. But this absurdist doublethink has to stop somewhere. The IRA were terrorists. The Weathermen were terrorists. And setting fire to a courthouse in order to change laws is, in fact, terrorism. If we can't apply laws to people we agree with, we do not live in a society of laws at all.
Setting fire to a courthouse is already against the law. What benefit is there in calling it Terrorism?
Are there things which are currently legal that will become illegal under this 'domestic terrorism framework' that is being discussed? What are these things which are currently legal that will be addressed by a 'domestic terrorism framework'.
Were the result Church Hearings justified or did they go too far in the restrictions they placed on law enforcement?
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#189French far-right and alt-right have been commenting the aftermath of the Capitol events with absolutely no distance, just as if it was a domestic affair. That is of course a distortion enabled by social media. I find it so troubling in ways I cannot explain with words. Their audience obviously makes no difference between what occurs in their neighborhood and what happens on another continent, as evidenced by the letter left by this donator.
Re: U.S. insurrectionists received $500k in bitcoins from French donor
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The book, she said, “was generating wide acclaim for its racist views” and her intention in opening the letter “with an absurd claim that Black people are superior based on the melanin in their skin” was to “hold up a mirror to reflect how reprehensible the premise of black inferiority was set.” > “It was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ri…
So she sets the record straight over 20 years later, only after being appointed by Biden, that she was only pretending to be racist. Yeah... sure... Would you accept this statement from a white supremacist? Again, we need consistent rules against racism. Otherwise you're opening the door to racists and extremists on both sides.
So she sets the record straight over 20 years later, only after being appointed by Biden, that she was only pretending to be racist. Yeah... sure..
From your own link: Later, in an interview with The Crimson, Clarke suggested that "The information [contained in the letter] is not necessarily something we believe, but some information that we think those pursuing a true understanding of The Bell Curve theory should either address, ignore or refute."
So it's false to say she is only addressing the matter now; she responded to questions about it at the time.
While claiming to have been unable to detect any irony in the letter co-authored by Clarke, the Crimson editorial is pseudo-objective at best, and at worst comes off as an example of insincere concern trolling.