Archive

Daily Archives: 26/01/2011

(privacylover.com) The powers to be have a long way to go until they understand that when you ban something you are making sure that it will be replicated, because let’s face it, most people feels curiosity to look at forbidden goods, specially banned books, pictures, articles and secret Government documents.

The Balkan Leaks website wants to expose organized crime and political corruption in the Balkan states and it works much the same like WikiLeaks, you submit the secret leaked documents and they will host them for you.

Their website gives you instructions about how to submit documents to them anonymously, which basically consists on using the Tor browser bundle and upload your documents to a .onion website they have set up, for those who do not know, .onion websites are only accessible using the tor proxy software sites using the .onion extension are censorship free and extremely hard to take down if at all possible.

Balkan Leaks system to submit documents anonymously is exceedingly safe although not as practical as WikiLeaks PGP encrypted email submission system. IMO.

Who is behind BalKan Leaks?

The website itself does not give too much information about who is behind it and what, if any, censorship free hosting they are using. A whois on BalkanLeaks.eu using the EurID website reveals that the domain was first registered on the 8th September 2010 through French domain name registrar OVH, their DNS also points out to the site being hosted in France using French hosting company OVH.

BalKan Leaks whois domain name contact email is listed as “at @ atanas.fr” that is where things start to get interesting because using StartingPage to perform a search on that email address throws out plenty of results, including a FaceBook page.

Perhaps the most revealing result is the one found at DomainGoat, listing that very same email address as the contact for the registrar of Bulgarian website Pronto.bg (A site containing a link to Atanas.fr)

Whois:
DOMAIN NAME: pronto.bg
requested on: 23/11/2008 22:44:05.971223 EET
processed from: 07/01/2009 14:32:21.667255 EET
activated on: 29/01/2009 23:57:42.657345 EET
expires at: 07/01/2010 00:00:00 EET
registration status: Registered

REGISTRANT:
ATANAS GUEORGUIEV TCHOBANOV
SOFIA, 1000
BULGARIA

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT:
ATANAS GUEORGUIEV TCHOBANOV
at @ atanas.fr

I hope none of that information is confidential because anyone with 10 minutes on their hands can find out about it easily using StartingPage, I just researched their background a little because I could not find any information about who is behind the BalKan Leaks on their site.

Source:
http://www.privacylover.com/other-personal-privacy/balkan-leaks-alternative-website-to-wikileaks/

(organicconsumers.org) NAFTA Truth and Consequences: Corn

NAFTA Defenders’ Myth: The flood of U.S. corn that has been dumped in
Mexico during NAFTA has not harmed Mexico’s farmers because the U.S.
imports are yellow corn for animal feed while Mexican farmers grow white
corn for human consumption.

REALITY: Since NAFTA came into effect on January 1, 1994, U.S. corn
exports to Mexico have almost doubled to some 6 million metric tons in
2002. NAFTA eliminated quotas limiting corn imports (Mexico used to
only import corn when its farmers’ production fell short of domestic
needs) but allowed U.S. subsidy programs to remain in place – promoting
dumping of corn into Mexico by U.S. agribusiness at below the cost of
production. While U.S. corn exports to Mexico were almost all yellow
corn in the mid-1990s, some 20% are now white corn. Even before the U.S.
white corn exports began to increase, the price paid to farmers in
Mexico for corn fell by over 70% as huge amounts of U.S. yellow corn
were dumped in the Mexican market. In 2001, Mexican farmers produced 18
million tons of corn – 3 million of which were left unused.

Read More

(Anonnews.org)

ANONYMOUS PRESS RELEASE

January 25, 2011

 

DEAR JOURNALISTS OF THE WORLD!

You were intrigued by us when we took on the financial sector by attacking Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal as part of Operation Payback. Many of you became enamoured with us during Operation Tunisia and applauded our efforts. Some of you are now paying close attention to Operation Algeria. We know that we have gained support from even a few of you. Those few are hoping against hope that our unconventional methods will continue to have an effect on people, perhaps even the world. Those few admire us, if for no other reason than the fact that, in a world full of apathy, a world filled with people who don’t even bother to read the information you painstakingly present, we are trying to do something. This intrigues you. At the very least, it inspires you to keep an eye on us, hoping we continue to take newsworthy actions.

 

You know that, whether you are risking your own safety – perhaps even your own life – to share the truth, or whether you are beholden to your dictators or your advertisers, unable to write anything they do not approve, we, Anonymous, are on your side and are fighting for you and your freedoms. You, the journalists, reporters, and bloggers. You, the newspapers, television networks and websites who hunt down and disseminate information. We are fighting for you.

 

Some of you have recorded milestones of our efforts. Some of you have reported upon them, and some of you have even participated in our fight. You are the press, and you have our gratitude.

 

We need your help now. From North Africa to Gaza, people are rising up and risking their lives to demand nothing more than basic rights, an end to the corruption, and a fair chance to progress in life. What the Western world is unaware of, and the Western media largely ignores, is the fact that the people protesting and the people dying in the Arab world are just like them. They have the same desire for basic freedoms, similar ambitions for themselves and for their family and friends, the same inherent intelligence and, the same keen sense of injustice as their counterparts in the West when oppressed.

 

Here is where we need your help. We ask you, the journalists, to bring to the rest of the world the humanity of these revolutions. What we are witnessing are not extremist acts that are committed by misled, ignorant people. Indeed, they are committed by intelligent, but desperate people – people willing to sacrifice themselves in order to inspire their fellow citizens to rally against their oppressors. The world needs human news. The world needs to know who it is that needs their support, and not just the number of casualties or the politics involved.

 

What we ask is simple. There are people protesting in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Albania, Libya, and many other countries at this very moment. Tell us who they are and what it is they want for their country and their people, for now and in the future. So many voices are raised in protest right now and all the world can hear is the noise. Tell us what the people are saying.

 

Some of you will ignore this message. It announces no new operations, as we are still focusing our efforts on Operation Algeria. This message issues no threats, as you are the press and are always safe from us. If you heed our request, however, it could make all the difference in the world, as it made a difference for the Tunisians to know that they were speaking and the world was hearing their message. Help us do this for Algeria, Egypt, and other countries where the people are imploring to be heard.

 

Signed,

 

 

Anonymous.

 

We are Anonymous.

We do not forgive the denial of basic human rights.

We do not forget those who assist the oppressed.

To the Tyrannical governments of the world… Expect us.

Pdf version: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/25/jan25pressrelease/jan25pressrelease.pdf

Source: http://www.anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=289

The message translated: First – in the name of all Tunesien people – I want to thank Anonymous. Anonymous were the only ones to help us. Anonymous has blocked all governmental websites [of Tunesia] because they [the Tunesien government] have blocked our internet access so we may not get information. Thank you Anonymous! We want to let you know that you have found new allies and that there are many more people living in oppresion.

And that you have won us to aid you in this fight against all dictators thay still remain in this world.

We will never forget. We will never forgive. We are Anonymous. We are legion.

[part hard to understand] to the people in Tunesia: Forgive us that we are so far away from you. We want to be with you so much. But now my brothers and sisters, it is up to us, support your family, support your neighbours, support the [Tunesian word]. Collect money, we let a small basket go round, we will make certain that [Tunesian word] will receive it. God is greater.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbwuT7ZY_dc

(c4ss.org) “President Obama,” writes The Atlantic’s Daniel Indiviglio, “is announcing today that General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt will take over as head of [the Economic Recovery Advisory Board].” Reflecting on the “conflict-of-interest” that Immelt’s new role potentially creates, Indiviglio points out that “[c]ritics of the coziness between big business and Washington aren’t likely to be pleased with today’s announcement.”

By now, though, Barack Obama’s fondness for turning high-powered corporate executives into federal government footmen is no secret. From Tim Geithner, to William Daley, to Roger Altman, the President has been very cozy with big business indeed, and not just big business, but the biggest. It is, to be sure, a very confused, twisted political lexicon that would adjudge the President as hostile to business, but that judgment is no more absurd than the myth that to be pro-business is to be pro-free market.

And regardless of the sound bites they direct at the public, politicians and CEOs understand full well that the myth is just that, a handy piece of rhetoric intended to obfuscate what’s really going on. As Immelt himself said in 2009, “It’s never been a free market; it’s never gonna be a free market. That’s just the way it is.” That’s just the way capital wants it too, preferring for the corporate world “to work in concert with” the state to foster a secure and sheltered environment for the economic exploitation of privilege.

So when, earlier this week, the White House issued an executive order instructing a review of regulations that may retard economic growth, you can be sure that the industries benefitting from them aren’t breaking a sweat. Contrary to the howls of what Roderick Long calls “left-conflationists,” regulations serve the interests of the regulated industries; their added costs establish barriers to entry that protect the Big Guys while their minimum requirements eliminate the possibility of substantive differences that are the natural subject of competition between firms.

The whole economic system of violence is founded on the staggering shared experience of this mythos of the state, on an idea that society will fall to pieces but for this thing that is thought to hold it together. And that’s the way we’re conditioned to think of the state, as an independent, external application rather than a pervasive phenomenon intertwined with the rest of society.

This is the mistake that “right-conflationists” make when their arguments tacitly assume that the commercial institutions of today are so readily severable from the patterns of statism. Surveying the corporate landscape, they see the words “for profit” stand in sharp relief against the seeming antithesis provided by the institutions of theformal state, but the de facto perimeters dividing the two are not as easy to draw as the artifice of de jure lines.

Just like the popular identification of “pro-business” with “pro-market,” the words “public” and “private” — at least within the current political colloquy — are thoroughly misleading. When deciding who owns property for the purposes of taxation and other legal implements, the law looks past pro forma indicators and asks who has the “incidents of ownership” — who “holds the strings” and actually controls a piece of property.

Onlookers evaluating the raveled heap of myriad property arrangements within the corporatist system might do well to dispense with the recognized public/private dichotomy and ask who “holds the strings.” Murray Rothbard cogently attended to the ridiculous false premises of the “public sector,” explaining that “[g]overnment ownership means simply that the ruling officialdom owns the property.”

As for the other side of the divide, the “private sector,” Kevin Carson has described the corporate economy as a “self-perpetuating oligarchy in control of a free-floating mass of unowned capital.” Taken together, we have a full and accurate picture of the American economy, a monopoly system with elites (in Rothbard’s word) “reserving” valuable resources to make them more expensive for working people.

In view of the libertarian reverence for the advantages of competition, the bias in favor of the corporate form, one so widespread among them, is particularly odd. If we think that competition between institutions themselves is a desideratum, then why don’t we also think that competition between types of institutions is as well? There’s no good reason to give credence to the idea that companies like General Electric would be fixtures of a freed market. Rather, we have every reason to suspect that they owe their very existence to interventions in the free market that never fail to favor the rich.

by David D’Amato

C4SS News Analyst David D’Amato is a market anarchist lawyer currently completing an LL.M. in commercial law at Suffolk University Law School. His aversion to superstition and all permutations of political authority manifests itself at www.firsttruths.com.

 

Source: http://c4ss.org/content/5900

(wsm.ie) As the scale of the debts loaded onto the Irish people became clear, the calls for defaulting became louder. The moral argument for default is certainly strong: why should Irish workers pay for the poor decisions of Irish and European capitalists? But justified though it may be, would defaulting cause more pain than gain?

The counter-argument, which has been a constant refrain from the government since the crisis began, is that if Ireland doesn’t assume the debts of the banks, then international credit will dry up and we’ll be unable to finance our state-run essential services.

Lenihan’s argument makes one thing obvious: Ireland is enmeshed in a global economic system that leaves precious little room for manoeuvre. Of course, with the arrival of the EU Commission and the IMF to directly oversee operations here, nobody even bothers to say that Ireland is a sovereign country anymore.

What does this mean for alternatives?

One option would be to place Irish industry under public control. However, the current owners of this capital would try to withdraw it and shift it overseas. This in itself could lead to economic collapse.

It should be clear to everyone that a small country like Ireland cannot operate in economic isolation. It was hard enough for a large one like the USSR to do so and it’s simply impossible for Ireland to survive unless it’s our ambition to become a latter day version of North Korea.

Irish nationalist projects are therefore a waste of time. There is no point in fighting to return to being a minor player in the capitalist system, especially as it’s only an illusion of sovereignty.

The economic crisis is an international one and as such it can only be solved internationally. The only question is whether that solution is going to be a capitalist one or a socialist one. At the moment, despite the severe dent to the credibility of neo-liberalism, and indeed capitalism itself, it remains the dominant ideology amongst the population at large.

Indeed its dominance reaches so deep that most people aren’t even aware that they support it. There are lots of complex reasons for this dominance, but one that can’t be avoided by the left is the lack of a viable alternative.

The Soviet Union versus Socialism

Mention socialism and most people think of the USSR and immediately associate the concept with failure. With the absence of a vibrant labour movement advancing the idea that socialism is possible, most people fall back on the ideology pervading society.

It is up to the left to respond to the crisis and advance plausible socialist solutions. A keystone of any viable alternative to capitalism is going to be its internationalism.

Just over a month ago there were major strikes in France and, as the crisis gets worse, they could easily break out again. It is almost impossible to know what could spark a renewal of the struggle there, but given the fragility of the European financial system an Irish default – if it was on the basis of rejecting domination by capital itself – could well serve as the inspiration.

It is in this context and with our eyes firmly oriented towards developing international solutions that a default would make sense. Otherwise Lenihan is right. The difference is that the government and the main opposition parties only think within a capitalist mental framework. It’s time to broaden our horizons.

The wealth that capitalists own isn’t so much the Euros they have in the bank, but their control of the production process that generates those very Euros. And that control depends on dominating workers and getting them to produce commodities for the capitalists to sell on a profit.

So capitalists withdrawing their wealth and moving it overseas is only a problem if they can take the production process itself away. Currently they have that ability, but it’s not a law of nature that they always will. If enough countries moved towards a socialist society and put businesses under public control then capitalists wouldn’t find it so easy to move overseas and at the very least we’d be able to produce enough ourselves to maintain our society.

Realistically, Ireland must unite with Europe if it is to avoid a pillaging. This means something different than the EU, given its current role as an agent of European capitalism rather than as a representative of the interests of the people of Europe. But the takeover by the EU of the Irish finances has the advantage of focussing our attention away from the charade at Leinster House and gets us thinking on a bigger scale. There is zero point in trying to go back to a pre-EU era of Irish independence, which after all was only ever a disguise for us being an adjunct of the UK.

Only large countries have a chance of maintaining genuine sovereignty in the face of the power of the financial markets. And if any country is to be democratic it’s going to have to be socialist. Unless we wish to remain supine before the wealthy elite, we’re going to have ditch primitive notions of national independence, embrace the idea that democracy is only meaningful if there is economic equality and be ambitious enough to try these radical ideas on an international scale.

Source: http://wsm.ie/c/capitalist-crisis-default-ireland-default