From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 10:45:58 MDT
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 11:34 am, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>> Even if you insist on finding a cause for counter-revolutionary
>> tactics,
>> we can do so without terrorism. Hack into government websites and
>> display the truth. Spy on government facilities and reveal the truth.
>> Sneak in government facilities and destroy their resources and
>> propaganda machines. If you really insist on trying to destroy and
>> idea, then go directly after the idea. Run your own disinformation
>> campaign. Destroy information if you want to suppress it. Killing
>> every person is not an effective means to suppress an idea. Haven't
>> you
>> heard that the pen is mightier than the sword? This is a million times
>> more true as technology increases our information processing and
>> network
>> communications abilities. Old methods of violence won't be able to
>> compete with new information technologies.
>
> Excellent. The problem is that little or nothing you describe is being
> done. ExI, Pro-Act, and this list are conspicuously anti-action,
> anti-initiative, with many claiming that any action of any kind, to any
> degree, is an offense against their allegedly libertarian sensibilities,
> while at the same time hyperbolizing those who propose any action at all
> as proponents of assasination and terrorism. I'm beginning to wonder
> just who is in the majority on this list, Extropians or Luddites.
You confuse inactive with anti-action. I think a lack of funding, time,
and opportunity has kept most of our plans from going anywhere. I could
likewise claim that you are inactive. The sad fact is, we really are
pretty ineffective. I won't argue with you there. Compared to what we
wish to accomplish, reality seems pretty resistant.
I also think you are confusing anti-violence rhetoric with anti-action
rhetoric. I don't think anybody is really arguing against any action of
any kind to any degree. However, I can see how it might seem like that
if every suggestion you make seems to get shot down. It would begin to
seem like every idea is rejected.
I would have argued your last point, but I have been in a few
"discussions" recently. I am beginning to wonder how closely our
viewpoints on this group really jive. We all generically support fun
toys in the future. But when it comes to specifics, principles,
tactics, methods, and goals, we suddenly have a million different
interpretations. Even the basic Extropian Principles seem to have
various interpretations to different members. We seemed to think we
agreed in general, but when we discuss details it all seems to fall
apart. We may be a much more diverse group of people than we thought.
It may be that anybody who proposes more action would be branded as a
radical. Anybody who proposes more caution would be branded a Luddite.
Anybody who proposes more development would be branded a destroyer of
the environment. Anybody who proposes less development would be branded
an ecoterrorist. Anybody who proposes self-help would be branded an
unsympathetic anarchist. Anybody who proposes outside help would be
branded a pro-government socialist. Maybe we only have superficial
agreements, like computers and freedom, with no agreement about what we
are going to do with our computers and freedom.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST