Sakawa relies on Juju priests who often cast curses and charge terrible prices for their blessing.
Have your earnings from Sakawa gone dry? Has your Juju shaman failed once again? Are you tired of blood sacrifice, risky rituals, and constantly jumping between Juju priests? Don’t be turned into a dog or found dead from AIDs because of bad Juju! Seek the help of Lord Inglip, greatest digital shaman who presides over the entire Internet and can ensure your Sakawa will bring only the greatest of rewards.
You might be thinking, “Why trust the Internet to Juju? Is this magic real?” This is an understandable objection, but let’s face it: Sakawa mostly takes place on the Internet. While appeasing the gods of the physical world will help with Sakawa success, these gods are inexperienced with bringing blessing to the Internet, which is an entirely new realm. Only Inglip was born inside the Internet, and only a sacred few prophets and holy men know how to appease his hunger. When Inglip is hungry, all the Sakawa in the world will not bring you money–he eats all your profits!
Luckily, you’ve found the secret that has brought so many Sakawa practitioners the greatest wealth imaginable. The holy men who make sacrifice to Inglip will help you gain riches for a very small price, and send you a token proving the ritual’s success–as well as instructing you on how to best please and appease Lord Inglip, keeping your Sakawa profits skyrocketing.
The best part of making sacrifice to Lord Inglip is the minimal risk involved. No one has ever been diseased or harmed from crossing Inglip; however, at his most wrathful Inglip has been known to destroy computers. Because Inglip only lives inside the Internet, he is only capable of harming computers and not people. However, our priests know Inglip fairly well and can inform you of most activities that will anger him, and your computer should not be at risk.
You can contact Inglip’s high priest by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter @kilgoar. We understand that your Sakawa has not been paying well lately, so we only ask a very small price to cover the expenses in making the sacrifice to Inglip. Advice on keeping Inglip pleased will be provided free of charge, making repeated sacrifices to Inglip less necessary.
Cambria Suites at 2pm on March 2nd, “Trick” did not show up to defend himself from the haters.
ROANOKE, VA–Saturday, Chronicle.SU reporters were at Cambria Suites for Patrick “Trick” Shouse’s press conference, but “Trick” was nowhere to be seen. “Trick” was to address haters and explain himself after his “Tattoo Marathon” Facebook event upset local Tattoo enthusiasts. After inquiring with the front desk, we learned no such event had been scheduled.
Since Thursday, when news broke “Trick” was hosting a “Tattoo Party” in his hotel room, tattoo fans across America and Canada have commented on Shouse’s poor work and the unsanitary conditions of his apartment. Addison Shouse, Patrick’s identical twin, has been acting as spokesperson and posting threats of violence to Facebook in a vain attempt to put an end to criticism of “Trick.” However, Trolling analyst Dr. Angstrom H. Troubador said this was just like throwing gasoline onto a fire, “Talking shit on Facebook proves you can’t back your shit up, so it really just excites the trolls.”
Addison Shouse has become totally unhinged, threatening violence at anything that moves.
Patrick “Trick” Shouse’s identical twin posts alleged fines, eviction, and warrants.
Addison posted an image of several documents taped to the front door of his apartment, allegedly representing an eviction, a fine from the health department, other code violations, and a summons to court. While it is not clear whether these are legitimate documents or not, one commenter who claims he reported the incidents to the Shouses’ landlord said the eviction was already pending due to non-payment.
It remains unclear what will happen next, but the Shouse brothers seem upbeat and ready to “bone it to LA” so they can start their lives over in peace. At one point, Addison Shouse attempted to play the Tattoo Marathon off as a joke, but in the very same thread Trick’s Baby’s Momma made it clear that this had indeed become a very unfunny custody issue. Addison’s girlfriend has been publicly supportive, but after facing criticism aimed at her motherhood, she has since changed her sexy facebook avatar over to a more conservative and motherly portrayal of her cradling her sweet baby. She also quoted many bible verses, despite claiming to not be a Christian.
Voting Rights Act Section 5′s Covered Jurisdictions, which are More Racist
WASHINGTON — When Wednesday John Roberts and the solicitor general questioned whether any southern concentration of racism was a rationale for Voting Rights Act Section 5′s constitutionality, cynics responded as though the chief justice was blind to a vicious national legacy. One American Prospect article — leaning on a 2005 analysis that concluded the U.S. South was especially racist — was redistributed through Twitter at least 300 times over a day.
The American Journal of Political Science analysis, aforementioned, “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South [PDF],” concluded “the regional gap in racial conservatism has not closed since [the end of the Civil Rights era.]”
The exchange between the justice and administration lawyer was in the context of a Supreme Court challenge to the decades-old Voting Rights Act, by Alabama’s Shelby County — a challenge on whether mostly southern states, due to Section 5′s “preclearance requirements,” should have to run voting-law changes by authorities in Washington.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: General, is it — is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?
GENERAL VERRILLI: It is not, and I do not
know the answer to that, Your Honor, but I do think it was reasonable for Congress –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, once you said it is not, and you don’t know the answer to it.
GENERAL VERRILLI: I — it’s not our submission. As an objective matter, I don’t know the answer to that question. But what I do know is that Congress had before it evidence that there was a continuing need based on Section 5 objections, based on the purpose-based character of those objections, based on the disparate Section 2 rate, based on the persistence of polarized voting, and based on a gigantic wealth of jurisdiction-specific and anecdotal evidence, that there was a continuing need.
Preclearance requirements mandate that nine states, and localities in seven others, get federal clearance before modifying voting laws. Under the challenged Section 5, localities and states serve in discrimination cases as plaintiffs, who in turn file grievances with the Justice Department.
At The Nation, columnist Ari Berman weighed in Wednesday evening, espousing that southern voter suppression attempts in particular were alive and well:
“[S]ix of the nine fully covered states under Section 5 passed new voting restrictions since 2010, including voter ID laws (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia), limits on early voting (Georgia) and restrictions on voter registration (Alabama and Texas), compared to only one-third of noncovered jurisdictions during the same period.
In a possibly foreshadowing 2009 decision involving a Texas voting district, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority’s 8-1 opinion, “The evil that [Section 5] is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance. The statute’s coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions.” As preclearance opponents argue that the South’s legacy of systematic voter fraud and intimidation is too far in the past for such stringent federal oversight to be relevant, what is clear is that state and locality requests for voting law changes have seen a steady dive, according to Civil Rights Division data.
The political science journal’s authors, Nicholas Valentino and David Sears, went so far as to suggest they were “underestimating true regional differences in racial conservatism, because of white Southerners’ greater tendency to hide true prejudices, and underestimating true regional differences in the linkage of racial attitudes to partisanship, because such correlations should contain more error in the South.”
ix of the nine fully covered states under Section 5 passed new voting restrictions since 2010, including voter ID laws (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia), limits on early voting (Georgia) and restrictions on voter registration (Alabama and Texas), compared to only one-third of noncovered jurisdictions during the same period.
KIM JONG UN’S REPTILIAN FOREHEAD DIMPLE INDICATES THIRD EYE ILLUMINATI CONNECTION CONFIRMED
PYONGYANG–New evidence links Kim Jong-Un with a cell of Anonymous North Korean hackers, reports The Hacker News. Kim Jong-Un was reportedly “d0xed” as a part of an effort to shut this cell down by social engineers who reportedly tricked Un into revealing his penis for the webcam.
Recent pictures featuring Un showed a pronounced reptilian dimple in the third-eye portion of his forehead, as Un’s hands formed a pyramidal symbol of the Illuminati. Un wore a pin which some analysts believe could only be the Official Anonymous DPRK logo.
Kim Jong-Un has written over 10 million zero days in pure assembly, and currently has a secret backdoor in every American Government and Utility Computer System. Un, using AnonForecast as his spokesperson, has decided to make his big push, releasing the personal information of millions of mostly innocent government employees.
Kim Jong-Un is also th3j35t3r.
Kim Jong-Un is a hacker and proud member of Anonymous DPRK
Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman urged a More Civil Tone Friday with Certain Mideast Policy Proponents.
NEW YORK — Policymakers and the media are urged to refrain from articulating “Jwsh lbby” aloud, or with vowels.
Citing conspiracy theorists’ proclivity for deranged fantasies about a “Zionist Occupation Government,” Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman said thousands of years of persecution – culminating in the Holocaust – add potential for Jews’ own references to the “lbby” to yield baseless accusations of self-hatred, he said, “and that would be gay.”
Foxman said his anti-hate speech group wants an international shift in tone. “The Jewish community,” said Mr. Foxman, “has for too long naively trusted humanity to responsibly articulate aloud the presence or actions of Washington-based policy advocates who advance the work of the whole and free state of Israel. Never again will we permit their work’s reputation to be sullied by the agents of hatred and bigotry.”
In a Friday afternoon press release Associated Press Deputy Standards Editor David Minthorn expressed “delight” to modify the Associated Press Stylebook to include a complying stipulation. The email advisory said Mr. Minthorn and his fellow editors were were still ironing out details but that new guidelines for reporting on Washington-based lobbyist groups would maximize clarity while respecting the religious and political convictions of all parties:
The Associated Press is committed to its wide, diverse readership. The full written articulation of the phrase previously represented by “Jwsh lbby” evoked multiple traumatic incidents: from Auschwitz’s gas chambers — burnt offerings so that the only possible Judaic sanctuary against an intolerant world could be born into it — to the possibility that the two words might be overheard out of context, whispered at a loud party, and presumed to represent the machinations of plotting genocidaires.
Following Senate Republicans’ blocking of defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel Thursday, Mr. Foxman, a 72-year-old Soviet émigré, issued a follow-up plea to up the Anti-Defamation League’s statement last month criticizing Mr. Hagel for using the term “J***** l****.” On January 7 Mr. Foxman wrote that Mr. Hagel’s use of the slur was “hurtful to many in the Jewish Community.” In December the national director had written to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin claiming that Mr. Hagel’s “record relating to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at worst, very troubling.”
Joining Mr. Foxman was William Kristol, Emergency Committee for Israel board member. Mr. Kristol said, “[W]hat [Chuck Hagel] said was extremely narrow-minded. Israel’s friends are not simply Jews but numerous Christian groups who believe in the necessity that the Jewish people return to and remain in Israel so that Jesus can return to earth, cleanse its surface of his unholy enemies, causing every single living Jew to worship the Christian deity. If he thinks worshiping Jesus is a practice representing those of the mainstream Jewish community, he is the wrong choice for Defense Department leadership and the wrong choice for America.” Mr. Kristol clarified that he himself does not worship Jesus, and that he is himself Jewish, but that Mr. Hagel’s comments made Israel look as though it were “alone in a sea of hate.”
An Israeli reporter on the call, Haaretz’s Chemi Shalev, pressed Mr. Foxman as to whether the term “*sr**l* l*bby,” written with vowels, would be acceptable under the ADL’s new guidelines. “Absolutely not,” replied Mr. Foxman, saying that he recognized a reasonable exception to that rule for the purposes of inquiring as to its appropriate sensitivity. He added that the “Israeli” term “implies that advocating for an Israel nation-state — made whole once more despite the anti-Semites’ occupying Gaza and West Bank — is somehow a foreign, and thus nefarious, interest.” ADL leadership say they anticipate that in time the original pronunciation of the ethnic slur used by Mr. Hagel will be as lost to memory as that of vernacular Latin.
Police have still not located the incinerated body.
BIG BEAR, CALIF. — Tuesday Michael Dorner, heavily armed with a .50 caliber anti-vehicle rifle, assault weapons, and a tactical respiration device, shot a police commander down. The cold-blooded killer’s scuba gear rendered tear gas useless for assault, just as David Koresh had strapped gas masks to the faces of his innocent children. The only remaining safe option for police was to burn the building down, yet again, with the use of a camouflaged flamethrower Humvee borrowed from the military. Helicopter cameras spotted this unit arriving at the checkpoint an hour before they were ordered out of the airspace, in an attempt to hide the fact that the building was purposefully burned. Some sources claimed they saw Dorner attempt to surrender, only to be forced back inside the burning building by members of a SWAT team.
Radio host Alex Jones played up the implications of this event, saying:
Dorner was just a freedom-loving Patriot like me and you. This is what happens in a police state, people. Things are gonna get real bad real fast. Be afraid! This is the beginning of something big, something historic. People will look back at Dorner and say, “that was bigger than Waco,” because everyone was watching, this time, and the truth is obvious! This is a more historic event than 9/11. We saw the police brutalizing people just trying to tell the truth at Occupy Wall Street. We saw them beating up innocent people. You try to tell the truth, and they’ll burn you out. The evil forces are closing in, and this is the darkest hour. I AM DORNER. I AM ELIAN GONZALEZ. I AM DAVID KORESH! I am AMANDA TODD!
Anonforecast, one of many leaders of Anonymous, gleefully celebrated Dorner’s killings and hinted Dorner was An Anonymous member cooperating with a cell of Anonymous agents known as #OpLastResort, a subgroup of Anonymous with the stated mission of “undermining the very concept of authority.”
WASHINGTON — Esquire magazine published an error-laden piece by Phil Bronstein Monday, and the magazine’s editors are scrambling to excuse glaring factual errors in the 15,000-word profile of the bin Laden shooter — errors exposed by Megan McCloskey of the military publication Stars and Stripes. Esquire has understated medical benefits available to the shooter, and is using ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion to distract readers from inadequate reporting. Mr. Bronstein is the chair of the Center for Investigative Reporting.
The Esquire piece, “The Shooter,” falsely says that the retiring member of the elite counterterrorism unit will receive “no health care, and no protection for himself.”
This morning, the editors contradicted themselves in this selection responding to Stars and Stripes’ corrections:
There are benefits available to combat veterans via the VA . . . so what does Bronstein mean when he writes, “Nothing. No pension, no health care, and no protection for himself or his family…”? Well, he means precisely that. Because while the Shooter may be eligible for some direct benefits from the VA, his wife and two children are eligible for nothing.
The Esquire editors’ disjointed apologies for a writer surely a powerful, well-connected force in the publishing world — he used to be married to Sharon Stone — would have some coherence had Mr. Bronstein only asked (fair, compassionate) questions about the fate of the shooter’s family, instead of plainly writing about what “he [the shooter] gets from his employer and a grateful nation.” Additionally, “The Shooter” claims that there will be “no protection for himself or his family” [emphasis added].
Having been called out for sloppy reporting, the editors sidestep their readers’ ability to reason, and stoop to sleight-of-hand emotional appeals. Monday morning they wrote: “What good does it do the man if he can go to a government chiropractor for his neck when (heaven forbid) his child could get sick and wipe out the family?” Tacit in this appeal to sympathy with the bin Laden shooter’s family is a mea culpa: Indeed the shooter could go seek out care on the government dime. But pride has overcome the editors’ responsibility to issue accurate, timely corrections. Instead they resort to ad hominem attacks on Megan McCloskey, baselessly insinuating that she had not read the piece. Esquire’s editors condescend: “Now granted, ‘The Shooter’ is a long story, lots of words to sort through.”
The Esquire editors identified this morning Ms. McCloskey’s second “mistake:”
In the Stars & [sic] Stripes piece, she further writes:
“Like every combat veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the former SEAL…is automatically eligible for five years of free healthcare through the Department of Veterans Affairs. But the story doesn’t mention that.”
[ . . . ] McCloskey is wrong here. We refer her to this paragraph deeper in the piece: “There is a Transition Assistance Program in the military, but it’s largely remedial level, rote advice of marginal value: Wear a tie to interviews, not your Corfam (black shiny service) shoes. Try not to sneeze in anyone’s coffee. There is also a program at MacDill Air Force Base designed to help Special Ops vets navigate various bureaucracies. And the VA does offer five years of benefits for specific service-related claims—but it’s not comprehensive and it offers nothing for the Shooter’s family.”
Esquire throws out some red herring about the Transition Assistance Program, a point that, once again, seeks to sidestep the much more substantive free medical attention available. Stars and Stripes’ second correction is also wrong, they say, not because it points out that medical benefits are available but because veterans have to take the initiative to enroll once they leave.
The editors close with a second type of appeal to readers’ emotions — all the while sporting like a medal their own desire to co-opt the patriotic image of the bin Laden shooter:
So if there are people out there, journalists included, who think that the status quo is hunky dory [Stars and Stripes never said it was -- a strawman], the government’s approach to these extraordinary veterans is just right or even adequate [Another strawman], and who are too quick to incorrectly call another journalist’s work “wrong” [as Esquire has this morning] rather than doing their own work on the profound problems of returning veterans, then, as the cover of the magazine says, the man who killed Osama bin Laden truly is screwed.
Wired’s Spencer Ackerman at the Committee Press Table Thursday
WASHINGTON — Tuesday the public will not have access to the next round of questions to be leveled against CIA Director Nominee John Brennan before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. However conflicting statements and controversial answers from Thursday’s open hearing provide clues as to what committee members, as well as the nominee himself, can expect in closed session.
Ranking Member Saxy Chambliss (R-GA) said Thursday, “We know that the 2009 executive order removed the CIA from the detention business, but the current framework is simply not working to get real-time access to intelligence from terrorist detainees.”
In fact the 2009 executive order to which Sen. Chambliss referred did not totally remove the CIA from the detention business. Despite that executive order’s prohibition on CIA “detention facilities,” it also said, “[t]he terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.” Biographer for former CIA Director David Petraeus Paula Broadwell said, when publicly addressing the University of Colorado, that the CIA had “had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner” at the attacked Benghazi, Libya facility, and that the attack on the facility was an attempt to free prisoners.
CIA Spokesperson Preston Golson told CBS News, “Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless,” and despite the executive order’s claims that CIA detention is allowed under certain circumstances, in November CBS News ran with a misleading conclusion:
President Barack Obama issued an executive order in January 2009 stripping the CIA of its authority to take prisoners.
The move means the CIA can no longer operate secret jails across the globe as it had done under the administration of President George W. Bush.
When asked by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Feinstein (D-CA) about waterboarding in connection with 9/11 plotters, Mr. Brennan described the practice as “reprehensible,” saying that as director the practice would “never come back.” But he told the chair that the CIA was still assessing whether it had been effective in helping capture Osama bin Laden, and resisted calling it “torture,” citing his own lack of legal background. That reluctance came despite Mr. Brennan’s noting that Attorney General Eric Holder considered the “enhanced interrogation technique” out of line with the Geneva Conventions.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) expressed exasperation at the limited number of senators with whom the CIA had been willing to discuss the Intelligence Committee’s 6,000-page report on the interrogation program, a program that promoted waterboarding.
“Why was it that they were willing to talk to [former Intelligence Committee Chair Senator] Pat Roberts [(R-KS)] and me or [Intelligence Committee Ranking Member] Saxby Chambliss [(R-AL)] and [Intelligence Committee Chair] Dianne Feinstein but not anybody else until we literally bludgeoned them, [former Intelligence Committee Ranking Member] Kit Bond [(R-MO)] and I, into agreeing to include everybody? Like Carl Levin’s not trustworthy? You know, I mean, it’s amazing.”
Sen. Rockefeller would also comment on Mr. Brennan’s statement to popular misconceptions about the number of harmed innocents in drone strikes. The CIA, said Mr. Brennan, seeks to “make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths.”
“[A]ny collateral damage,” the West Virginia senator told the nominee, “is unacceptable.”
As she initiated the meeting Sen. Feinstein stated the executive branch offered the committee figures of drone strike collateral damage “typically” in the “single digits” each year. These figures stand in heavy contrast to many estimates, particularly one 2009 figure of 119 from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
At deadline Thursday Wired’s Spencer Ackerman would attribute these estimates to the CIA, not to another possible “executive branch” entity, again, Sen. Feinstein having only cited in the hearing the “branch” as the committee’s source:
During the hearing, Feinstein forcefully insisted that the CIA’s drone strikes kill only “single digits” of civilians annually . . . She suggested that media reports and nongovernmental organization studies claiming larger percentages of civilian deaths from the highly classified program are ignorant. Feinstein emphasized that the CIA has hosted committee staff over 30 times to conduct oversight over the drone program . . . [I]f the CIA misled Congress about torture, how can the committee be confident it’s not misleading Congress about civilian deaths from drones?
Bemoaning a lack of transparency about the Benghazi attack, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) would receive from the nominee a saw about the importance of separation of powers. “I want to be mindful of that separation,” said Mr. Brennan, “but at the same time meet your legitimate interests.”
Sen. Chambliss confronted Mr. Brennan with statements from former CIA Executive Director Alvin Krongard and boss to the nominee. The senator followed up on statements Mr. Krongard gave The Wall Street Journal last month:
Mr. Krongard said CIA officials submitted possible techniques to Justice officials for review and approval, without taking a stand on specific tactics.
“John would have been part and parcel of that process,” Mr. Krongard said in an interview. “These are approved techniques done under the limitations that came along with them.”
However, Mr. Brennan wasn’t involved in the day-to-day decisions carrying out the program, Mr. Krongard said. “John, as far as I am concerned, gets a total, clean pass,” he said. He said he didn’t recall Mr. Brennan voicing misgivings about the program, but added “that doesn’t mean that he did or he didn’t” have any.
Media critics such as Media Matters for America and Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) pointed to statements from a 2007 CBS “The Early Show” interview to disparage the nominee for supporting waterboarding or torture. FAIR’s Jim Naureckas, indicting New York Times reporters for what he deemed a morally relativistic brand of objectivity, said last month Mr. Brennan’s support for torture was “a matter of public record.” Mr. Brennan’s citing the effectiveness of waterboarding, wrote Mr. Naureckas, meant that Times reporter Scott Shane terming characterizations of Mr. Brennan as “accusations” was bordering on sophistry. FAIR highlighted this Brennan quote from that interview, with CBS’s Harry Smith:
There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives.
Similarly, Media Matters accused the media, particularly the Los Angeles Times, of “downplaying” Mr. Brennan’s support for enhanced interrogation techniques. Media Matters, unlike FAIR, did acknowledge one contravening Brennan quote from the “Early Show” interview, which claimed waterboarding met “the classic definition of torture.”
Waterboarding has critics even among those who claim it is effective. As waterboarding whistleblower and former CIA case officer wrote in his autobiographical The Reluctant Spy:
[E]ven if torture works, it cannot be tolerated — not in one case or a thousand or a million. If their efficacy becomes the measure of abhorrent acts, all sorts of unspeakable crimes somehow become acceptable. Barack Obama got it right when he declassified the [Office of Legal Counsel] memos of 2002 and 2005: “Torture,” the president of the United States said, “corrodes the character of a country.”
Mr. Obama’s opponent in the 2008 election, Senator McCain, also characterized waterboarding as torture, also opposing the practice.
The Swedish Bahnhof facility raided, along with female employees, Friday evening
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN — A backpack weighed heavily on this reporter, as I stood beside one of 30 men in full riot gear regalia, as he, among others, awaited his raid, Friday night, on the Bahnhof Web hosting facility deep beneath Stockholm, Sweden. Goons from the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) prepared to storm the most secure privately owned Web hosting company on earth. Their target: RonPaul.com.
RonPaul.com, after serving as the grassroots hub for libertarian activists eager to see Dr. Paul become president, has recently received scrutiny from the former congressman’s attorneys, who wish to see the server remain safely out of the hands of “the rabble.” After the sovereign hand of the U.S. government proved impotent against the mighty force of the Internet, Dr. Paul decided that appealing — closer to grave than cradle — to the globalist nanny state would be his best bet for real justice.
A man, who would only agree to be identified as “Karl,” made small talk as he swept snow from the barrel of his Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun. Nine-term former Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) stepped between us, the elderly man who personally organized the team after the proprietors of RonPaul.com, he said, “sought to capitalize on my legacy.”
Spokesman Jesse Benton — then at my other side, sporting a bulletproof vest emblazoned with the initials “U.N.” — winked at me through a gas mask as the WIPO squad prepared to cut through the Web host’s alloy door. We could expect the door, a U.N. covert paramilitary officer said before the raid, to be over a foot thick. The former Galveston representative stepped to the front of the crowd of men in ski masks and, from brown paper wrapping, unveiled a brick of material.
“This is nano-thermite, boys,” he said with a chuckle. “NIST handed some of this off to me as a congratulatory present on my 2008 New Hampshire primary showing.”
After only a few seconds, the door of the compound glowed and disintegrated under the pressure of the igniting thermite. The WIPO men moved in.
One by one the paramilitary officers removed bags from around their shoulders, each unraveling suctions cups on tubes and ominous black machines roughly the size of a normal desktop’s power unit. They restrained weeping female workers in the facility, ripped their clothes from their bodies and proceeded to fasten the machines to their respective labia minora.
Dr. Paul, salivating, watched as the women screamed and squirmed as their uteruses were sucked cleaned by the elite globalist soldiers. He said to me, as I wrote furiously his words down, “We have to be sure that these anarchists haven’t stored a backup version of the pirate RonPaul.com anywhere in their body cavities. Even their wombs could be offering safe harbor to thumb drives, micro-computers. You know how these namby-fancy Euro-types are.”
“The global government has spoken,” he added. “We can’t allow their offspring to rob or humiliate me or Rand ever again.”
Banhof has been host to numerous controversial Internet projects — everything from 4chan.org/b/ to WikiLeaks to the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Members of the WIPO team seemed earnestly convinced that the gynecologist was a member of the 113th Congress, as he seemed to have identified himself on his WIPO complaint form. Dr. Paul left office last month, after declining to seek another term.
A U.N. stormtrooper rushed up a flight of stairs, elegantly polished in steel and IKEA-esque efficiency. He briskly saluted Dr. Paul, then said, “Sir, we’ve deactivated and transferred to Mr. Benton control of RonPaul.com. We at the training center admire your pro-family agenda. At your discretion, we could also permanently shut down WikiLeaks and NAMBLA, if you’d like.” The WIPO paramilitary officer gestured to a Banhof control screen, at which the duo could swiftly and permanently deactivate the whistleblower and pro-pedophilia activists’ respective Web presences.
“Deactive WikiLeaks. Those rapist hippies beat me to the punch,” said the elfin gynecologist, his hands clasped behind his back. Then, Dr. Paul clenched a fist. “They never did put me on the Intelligence Committee. Leave NAMBLA up, though. Those boys are the new voice of freedom. The rest of it can come down.”
“Yes, sir,” said the dutiful WIPO soldier, dutifully typing commands into the server, shutting down Web dissidents and deviants as perennially despised as the former presidential candidate.
The aging libertarian turned, staring upwards, having had a realization. “Oh, and one more thing,” he said. “Keep Stormfront.org going. I owe Don Black a favor for those campaign donations.”
WASHINGTON — City College of San Francisco Computer Science Professor Sam Browne told The Internet Chronicle that whatever NullCrew has planned for the Pentagon on Valentine’s Day, it won’t be hacktivism. Mr. Brown, who teaches ethical hacking and has addressed the DEF CON cybersecurity conference, says that NullCrew acts in violation of the liberal causes they tout.
A NullCrew spokesperson has variously described the hacking group’s motives in terms of nihilistic schadenfreude and activism.
Their real message is: “We are powerful, fear us!” The political slogans they spout are just a paper-thin cover story.
If you want real social change, you do it the way Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did it–carefully reasoned nonviolent actions, done in the open, accepting the social sanctions they provoke. Hiding in the shadows, stealing data, harming innocent people, and evading justified law enforcement actions, is not the way to influence people to support your cause. It just scares people, as it should, and encourages them to support more Draconian law enforcement measures to stop the scary hackers.
Several Anonymous actions and threats of action have operated under the presumption that, in threatening the online security of randomly chosen individuals, government entities will be inspired to not clamp down on users’ Internet privacy; or users’ redistribution of links to copyrighted content, for whatever end.