I check these sites every day. Rense [+] Larouche [+] Cold filter [+] The world's financial/monetary system is being destroyed-- by the London based financial cartel-- ONLY Larouche has the answers-- So without that as a backdrop, you have no grasp of reality. [+]

Saturday, February 2, 2008

INTERNET PSEUDONYMN DEFENSE PROJECT-- IPDP-- 01-- Dept. of Justice

The Department of Justice has a program involving the defense and protection of real world people on the internet. I'll be looking into this as the CADC continues to associate a real world name with my pseudonymn and blog. This is the first point of entry into a ratcheted up defense.

Note to CADC-- Let's explore this area together. You keep using the real world name and I'll keep looking for indications that you're use of the real name can be legally stopped. It'll be a fun project since neither of us seems to know much about this area of law. I've been using a paralegal lately and i'll be down there next week. I'll ask about this-- just as a way to start.

The DOJ had a radio ad on the other day in which they were interested in a case where a woman's picctures were posted to the net against her will-- nude and all of that. That's a far cry from "our" case but it's in a similar area of "threat level" to a degree. The Internet Pseudonymn Defense Project, IPDP, will-- time permitting-- which is unlikely-- be able to establish it's own blog and forum-- and will gather momentium diuring the 21st century. This might not be resolved until after you and I are in the tanks-- but future history will prove me correct I think--

Just a point of order-- for your benefit. A blog is quite reasonably about a single person's areas of interest. My wide range of interests, even if some are a bit crazy, are perfectly legit to follow in the same blog as legit topics. This no longer has anything to do with any particular topic-- It's topic-neutral. Essentially what you're doing is attempting to twist my arm to not follow your favorite topic along with MY other topics-- which completely destroys the concept of a personal blog. In effect, you're on very thin ice. The Dept. of Justice IS getting more interested in things like this-- and I'll be following their work in this area to see how it applies to you. As I say, it'll be lots of fun.

My advice to you is, of course, to desist from using the real names attacked to the pseudonymns-- but more than that-- to simply counter my ideas, if you want, with your counter ideas in a blog called Anti-PhilOssifur Blog or something. Anything you say is fine-- as long as you do NOT lead the outside world to my doorstep from behind your own mask. Eventually this will become a bigger issue-- again time permitting-- since I have to work on house repair too-- and dental stuff, tax stuff etc..-- but in an IDEAL world, I'll be gaining ground on this issue-- and eventually expose you.

My position is a viable one-- and what you're doing is "unfair" according to the rules of the Code of Conduct of Arguing Online... It's akin to Road Rage, I think-- where there's a difference between cursing under your breath in your car-- and breaking out into an actual dangerous move or hand sign. The first is permitted, the the second is not.

As far as the defaming of an idea goes, again-- that's not sustainable. I have to tell you that I've been through several years of university, have read many many books and that I'm currently reading a lot. I understand things. I understand parameters. You and your CADC should reconsider using real world names and now-- locations and addresses-- in association with psuedonymns who do not wish to be exposed in such a way. Ben Franklin and Jonathan Swift were both forced to use psuedonymsn for reasons similar to my own....so there is a long historical traidtion of doing what I do-- for the reasons I do it.

Now-- aside from all of that-- the idea that you get to frame cryonics and I don't-- that is an entire philosophical issue where you're really out of touch with reality I think. You come across as a controlling reductionist-- with very LITTLE experience in and around the HUmanities departments of universities where ideas are bandied about all the time-- in varieties of context. If the Mormon chruch wanted to adopt the topic at stake here and frame it in their semantic frame, would you go up against them? You might, but would you have a legitimate case? No, you would not.

You're position would be laughable if it weren't so potentially damaging to me. You and your CADC, once exposed, will be laughed at in coming generations. Laughing stocks in history-- for the idea can be defamed. With a wreckless disregard for the points of views of others, I'm sure Justice Department would be very interested in you at some point-- They're very interested in online harrassment. I'll be happy to offer them examples of what I personally consider a threat to my person. You can help me demonstrate that to them-- by continuing to post a real world name in association with desired psuedonymns.

Oh one more thing. I think you and your group are more concerned about my following Larouche in the same blog than any other topic. THAT I think is at the heart of this. Because there are lots of blogs out there-- wacky blogs-- that deal with our topic-- and you have nothing to say about them... only mine. So I think it's Larouche who gets under your skin.

To that point then-- allow me allay your fears. Larouche isn't who his detractors say he is. There is a psyop war going on-- and it's all very complicated but the bottom line is that-- from one point of view-- the physical economy-- you might be interested to realize that the civiliziation itself must acknowledge ideas carried forward by Larouche by definition. If you argue against those points, I'd be interested in seeing that.

[+] FBI internet safety page

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

We have nude photos of you too, "Phil". We haven't gone that far though and are glad you are going to stop posting cryonics-defaming material to the google search engine.

To your question - we probably would not have concerned ourselves with you, due only to LaRouche material. It was your recent insistence that no one can validly look at cryonics without understanding it within the framework of LaRouche cultism, that got some of us going on this. That is a total turnoff to the public, and no one else is doing that kind of thing, despite how wacky some of their blogs/websites are (the "Tiffany" one for example).

But that is water under the bridge. We are into this now and for the long haul if necessary. We are not interested in debating issues with you. Most of us consider you and LaRouche irrelevant, kind of like you consider wealthy cryonicists with fat deposits, irrelevant. Oh and a couple of us have plenty of money, so bring on the lawsuits, not a biggie. But what am I saying - you're quitting, right? Yeah right. We'll be watching. Meanwhile get your house fixed and don't fall off of the ladder.

-- The Committee

Rick Potvin said...

Nude photos? You must be joking Mr. Fineman.

You can't frame what I'm doing as "stop posting cryonics-defaming material to the search" because that's A) not possible B) wasn't done even by your definition since it's a blog, like other blogs and deals with a variety of topics. Why is Mark Plus "allowed" to discuss cryoncis and "atheism" and "anti-religion" in the same blog. No-- again, you're really unhappy with the idea of Larouche's philosophy being able to accomodate cryonics-- but you don't truly know what that philosophy is. So...

YOU wrote--

t was your recent insistence that no one can validly look at cryonics without understanding it within the framework of LaRouche cultism, that got some of us going on this. That is a total turnoff to the public,

ME--

Well I hit the nail on the head, albeit the hammer didnt' quite strike square. And this is the difference between me and the other blogs that mention cryonics along with other things. Your previous apparent disturbance with me looking at ancient astronauts in the same blog as cryonics for example is a minor point compared to Larouche.

Why did it take us so long to get to this point? Becaues you've been attempting to avoid that central significant issue. Why? Because deep down, you know what you're doing is wrong. Fundamentally wrong-- in a civilized society.

You have no right to tell anyone what they can blog or not blog about and to make up a concept like cryonics-defamation is truly remarkable for what appears to be otherwise educated people. You guys really need to spend some time in the humanities depts instead of engineering and science. There IS life in those faculties. Substantial life.

Your use of the word "turnoff" is interesting. It's a "word that works". You almost have me believing what you write when I read it, as in "Larouche is a turnoff to the public, therefore I should not blog about Larouche in the same blog that I blog about cryonics".... something like that. But to the heart of your issue with me... which is as you said-- your recent insistence that no one can validly look at cryonics without understanding it within the framework of LaRouche.

Well, I guess that IS my position. Because the WORLD and human history canNOT be understood without at LEAST going THROUGH the Larouche interpretation. That IS my position-- but it's not JUST cryonics. It's everybody on the planet. And certainly everybody in the USA.

There may be MORE than Larouche's world going on-- which fundamentally involves an historical interpretation of oligarchal sea-based power vs. sovereign land-territory power-- this goes back in origin 20,000 years at least-- and then before the ice age-- there are precedents going back maybe 100,000 years or more. So this is what you're up against-- and you should know that. I offer it to you because you won't read larouche on your own-- so I offer it to you in little bite size pieces.

To the point here-- I-- ME-- I have a total 100% :"right" to "frame cryonics inside the Larouche view" so to speak for me-- and to blog on it-- as the way I see it-- and to invite others INTO cryonics or the Larouche view-- in fact I'll be inviting larouche youth to LOOK at cryonics!-- I'm starting that now.

My position is that cryonics will NOT survive-- and civilization will NOT survive withOUT the Larouche view!!! yes, it's radical. Yes, it might SEEM like a cult-- but it's not. What IS the cult-- is the RESISTANCE to the Larouche view-- an integrated historical view.

Now-- there are some problems I see with Larouche. He thinks man land on the moon in the LEM. I don't think so. He thinks we can go to Mars. Well, with liquid helium radiation absorbing plastics-- maybe. But I don't think man can currently withstand radiation beyond the Van Allens.

Also, Larouche still talks about taxation-- and I just simply don't see the need for it-- because a national govn't utters currency (not central banks) and that currency would "trickle up" from the foundation-- into macroengineering projects-- and social safetey nets-- INTO entrpreneurial society-- where there would be regulations and fair trade.

Cryonics deals with the future, among other things. And maybe you have forgotten about the stimulating ideas we all had about the future-- that got us all into cryonics in the first place. It's not JUST about anti-death-- it's about seeing the future, as Ben Franklin wanted. To that extent, the future isn't something that just HAPPENS-- it's designed with principles and agreements. That's what larouche represents. larouche's view is the ONLY exclusive yellow brick road for civilization, including cryonics.

ONLY? Yes... because his view cuts dichotomies taht can only go one of two ways.... that's how BIG his integrations are. For example... you can't have FLOATING currency exchange rates, you must have FIXED. You can't have "GLOBALSIM", you must have "NATIONALISM"... You can't have "nuclear war", you must have "international agreements"... You can't have "low energy flux density power like solar and wind, or ethanol", you must have "full burn nuclear". That sort of thing. He "DICHOTAMIZES" every issue like that... and it becomes clear that the future of cryonics-- and civilization-- is along the path of fixed rates, nationalism, int'l agreemnets and nuclear power-- not the alternative-- which is what YOU represent but don't SAY so.... becuase you have the public duped so far-- for the most part.

YOU
We are not interested in debating issues with you.

ME
This is clearly the mark of the engineering faculty's effect on you. Had you induged in the humanities, you would see how absurd that is. You pretend that you can DENY me the ability to PUBLICLY frame cryonics in a Laoruche world view-- which is ABOUT issues-- and then REFUSE to consider those issues. You're concerned ONLY about the "effect" on the the public-- who have been brainwashed to associated Larouche FALSELY with what larouche's enemies try to pin on him... which are false.

Therefore-- it appears that EVEN IF YOU THOUGHT Larouche was RIGHT about fixed rates and nuclear power, that you wouldn't CARE-- that it's OK for Larouche to be RIGHT-- but STILL-- the "public" doesn't know that and therefore I'm not to discuss Larouche's ideas on the same blog as cryonics-- becuase the public is already PREDISPOSED to tune him out.

Where does THAT leave us?

Well it leaves us in a position like a man with raised arms pinned to a pole. Impossible.

What you have submitted to is the REDUCTIONIST method of language and argumentation-- that is consistent with "words that work" and with "memetics". In other words, you are GUTTING the use of language itself!! You're a behaviorist and you are treating the public mind on the Google search AS "DIGITAL MINDS".

And there ARE digital minds out there-- a lot of em. You're actually one of em. The digital mind is as opposed to ANALOG mind. The question becomes is it possible to reach analog minds or to upgrade digital minds to analog. Obviously, I would say yes. And obviously you would say no.

Either way, what we have here is a question of how we're going to treat people-- as human beings with higher potential cognition-- or as lower stimulus-response units-- as robots-- that can be manipulated with a word-- in our case the presence or absense of the word "Larouche".

YOU
We are into this now and for the long haul if necessary.

ME
Well sure-- you'd have to be because what you're up to is a whole new way of "managing humanity"-- a method of making language itself a stimulus response mechanism... treating human beings-- the public as mechanisms-- and this is the view consistent with oligarchal rule that DENIES the public access to the higher integrations of human creative cognition. So it's not surprising that you're in it "for the long haul".

But so am I.

So now what? Well-- as I say-- I have my house to upgrade-- transhousism... and eventually posthousism... or maybe superhouse... House into SuperHouse...

You shouldn't make the mistake of ever thinking that because I'm not blogging as usual that it had anything to do with you. I sometimes don't understand myself-- on this point. I wake up full of fight and fire-- and by the end of the day-- I'm giving up on everything. It's entire mood cycle in each 24 hour period. Quite bizarre even to me.

Final thought-- I'm afriad Laoruche might be onto something with the idea of the digital vs. analog mind-- and the REASON I'm probably going to be blogging less is to really indulge in analog for awhile... but I find that, already, I pretty addicted to digital fixes by blogging-- and it's really hard to stay away. So don't pin too much hope on my saying away. And if you post those nude pics, be sure to feature the gential mutilation of my penis-- the so called circumcision. It now appears to me that circumcisions are down-- because they can now GROW skin. Modern circumcision, in my view, were the result of illegal skin harvesting for burn victims. It's quite an astonishing and original discovery by me. I'll be blogging on that perhaps-- in the same blog as cryonics-- by definition you won't mind-- unless of course, I muse on whether or not Larouche was circumscised. Were you? Did your father beat you and thtreaten you too?

oh-- almost forgot.

It's ironic-- it suddenly struck me as ironic-- how YOU remain anonymous. Why? Why not name yourself? I mean-- if you believe your position is right, why not sign your real name? It'll be interesting to find out who you are... I'm in THAT for the long haul. or maybe not...

Likely not on second thought because you represent a MINDSET in cryonics that pretty much everyone has... so it doesn't matter.

It's the nature of the MINDSET that I'll describe TO Larouche youth on my blog who will eventually LOOK at cryonics-- and I'll be there to help.

My thinking is this-- by NOT introducing Larouche or by AVOIDING larouche-- for NEW cryonics newbies-- THAT is unethical. it's the OPPOSITE of your view. And my view is that what I'm after-- is having FIRST more recruits to the Larouche movement-- and from THAT pool-- recruits into cryonics...

My Larouche buddies will actually FEED cryonics customers to the cryonics firms because THAT way, we have a civilization FIRST-- THEN we take the cryonics concept-- which is NON PRODUCTIVE-- it's a luxury-- and make that happen-- based on the WEALTH-- the REAL wealth generated by the Larouche world view.

Now-- you guys are going to have a real problem if I blog more because I ain't talkin to cryos no more see-- cryos are NOT my audience. LYM (Larouche youth movement) are.

Your problem is that you have to now have a position where I "may not recruit people into cryonics from the LYM".

There's where I'll leave off... for you to toss and turn at night.

He he.

Just take it easy-- larouche isn't all that bad-- as you think-- he wants a 2 state solution for you and the palestians-- you do too-- likely...

We're well aware of new weapons systems.. but the over arching principles of international behavior are the controlling features. The DYNAMIC process of philosohpy might seem frightening to you-- but you should be aware that your STATIC process-- leads into a dead end for cryonics.

Another interesting aspect to what I could do is recruit cryos into the LYM-- which is perfectly legitimate. It hasn't happened in 7 years of working with this idea-- but as a pinoeer in this area-- I can go on telling cryos new to Cryonet or wherever-- that it's "safe" out here... and I can go on telling them that the "alternative" that you represent is consistent with world DEPOPULATION and the crash of civilization... that cryonics has INDEED taken a wrong turn.

I'm a real problem for you because as it stands, I still view the Larouche view as having the potentail to save civilization including cryonics-- and to create the future in which cryonics CAN exist. To deny that, leads me to think that you are not true cryonicists who understand the need for a viable future. YOu don't have a website discussing the nature of the future-- which is a sort of proof of that. Your motives, then MUST be something OTHER than the thesis cryonics represents.

I can only conclude that you're phoney cryoncists who are in cryonics for reasons OTHER than the publicly understood thesis. I've been proposing that cryonics is a cover for cryonics for some time-- in other words cryonics is a cover for PHONEY cryonics...

To NOT consider the futurist ideas of Larouche is a KEY signal-- that A) you treat other humans as behavior response machines that don't ahve the capacity to creatively reason and follow my arguments and B) you MAY be running A) as a cover for your TRUE motive or deeper motive which that you're running cryonics for reasons OTHER than what the publicly stated objective is.

If it's B), you may be running cryonics for your selves-- and you're not interested in joiners- you don't need them and you don't care if the world is depopulated-- in fact, you're quite ok with the oligarchical principle where we end up in a Dark AGe with massive wars and disease leading to less than a billion people on Earth-- including the cryonics dewars and you-- as long as YOU make it-- you're fine with that. If THAT'S not the ultimate motive then...

Maybe it has nothing to do with that either-- and there are some sort of financial inducements going on here beyond my ability to understand.

Ultimately, I don't need to know who you are.... and you're right about lawsuits and prosecution-- it seems to me-- although that's not 100% true--

The feature of this debate this morning that fascinates me is the continuation of my interest in cryonics from about 1978-- when I was at McMaster and first telephoned Ettinger. The histocial narrative of cryonics in the history books in the HUMANITIES depts of universities-- that lead toward Classical humanist-- will NOW include you-- as a significant feature.

You are the "guards" that I was warned about in the late night phones calls I got during the TW situaiton. The warnings included "watching my back"... and some warning about my personal safety. I believed it then, and I believe it now.

You've at least made your presence substantial enough, and tested enough, that I can say that the curvature of response here invokes a type of danger I think. And to that extent, I think new recuruits to cryonics should be AWARE of at least that much-- that there is a Cryonics Pretorian Guard... willing and able-- as you admit-- to go further in what THEY feel is a defense of cryonics as a concept...

Again, my only problem in proceeding herre is that I'm afraid I might be losing my analog abilities-- so I might desist for awhile-- but I must say-- you and your group are truly significant features of the cryonics movement that the public should be aware of (alarmed over?)--

Like those kids who taunted the tiger in the San Diego zoo, I would say that I'mm not going to taunt you because I think you DO have teeth. And I think you ARE operating on level where you could take more drastic measures against me.

The denial of creative powers of reason to the public, however, is central to this. The idea that "Larouche" and that my idea that "ONLY Larouche" worldview can be a vector for civilization including cryonics-- is an idea that REQUIRES debate and undertanding of the issues-- and you REFUSE to consider those issues. That tells me you're operating PURELY on behavioral responses of humans-- which is subhuman.

Ultimately, you're going to lose this case you know. We have, in the Larouche field- openly talked about out-flanking the enemy. You can only do that with creative reasoning. Somehow, some way, the future will involve the support and sustance of 6.5 billion people on Earth-- in a continuous smooth manner... and Globalism and the British method will be exposed... and along with it-- your position of mechanistic attempts to control thoughts on blogs-- will become anachronistic.

The history of mankind is moving in that direction-- it's a long battle-- and it's unfortuante that cryonics for the most part, subscribed to the oligarchical method. It's a big disappointment for me. My Larouche movement friends will get a big laugh out of this story-- and evntually "we" will look at cryonics from a fresh persective. it's on the agenda. It's just that we have more pressing and urgent matters right now.

Now--- I must get back to the analog space.

Alphabetically ordered tags

[+] Larouche feed
[+] Larouche PAC latest
[+] YouTube

Finding this blog on Google blogsearch using keywords

This blog appears on Google blogsearch using the following keywords

[+] "classical humanist" in quotes
[+] zionist hoax