Skip to content

ORANGE EDICT 17Aug2013

August 17, 2013

From: hsethknight@hotmail.com
To: contacto@fibgar.org; gf@gorby.ru; info@kofiannanfoundation.org; stefanie.bock@jura.uni-goettingen.de; press@sanders.senate.gov; ann.humphrey@mail.house.gov; washington.field@ic.fbi.gov; cfi.digitalcrime@interpol.int; applications@icc-cpi.int
Subject: FW: THE PRICE OF HYPOCRISY
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:22:45 +0000


From: hsethknight@hotmail.com
To: custserv@aba.com
CC: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov; askdoj@usdoj.gov; usarmy.pentagon.hqda-ocll.mbx.web-mailbox@mail.mil
Subject: THE PRICE OF HYPOCRISY
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:20:36 +0000

EVGENY MOROZOV ON SNOWDEN:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ueberwachung/information-consumerism-the-price-of-hypocrisy-12292374.html

An example of Ken deception-the intentional-predatory-fostering of a false understanding among the public by government-factic powers, or the Pentagon techo-financial conglomerate-with regards to the true nature of, in this case, cyber space and people’s relationship with it.

Concept (ken deception) can also be extended to people’s overall conception of the free market, rule of law, democracy as system of opposition, and to how banks relate to their clients through allusion to technical infrastructure and requirements as time hindrances on deposited or transferred-in process-funds; similarly, corporate references as pretext for delays to accounting needs and payroll procedure or doing the books, could also be understood in the same way-as just false pretexts to justify time delays with regard to the transfer and payment of funds from a systemic, aggregate standpoint.

Ken Deception implies the use of false concepts from a position of power as superiority with regards to individuals or groups who, because they have no means of confirming the truth of what is being told to them, are essentially on a lower plane and at a disadvantage.

Clearly, the penal consequences of being able to demonstrate this, the use of a state of superiority to take advantage monetarily of others in a weaker-essentially defenseless-position, are extraordinarily grave, under any judicial focus and tradition I am familiar with, being in all cases the bad faith and intentionality the darkest of its components.

Ultimate penal (criminal) responsibility would depend, of course, on a clear understanding by individuals of this situational and informational discrepancy and their actions to seek, because of this understanding, political and/or economic gain, in detriment in some way to others; but this cannot be said of all individuals as employees of either banks/corporations or government (or any branch of power as governance), but rather in regards to those who eventually implement business models or other organizational procedures.

But we’ll get your names, in the end.

You can bet on that:

___________

SK

Orange

 

.

___________________________________

Legal Disclaimer not in original email:

No individual or entity as email address recipient of the above email is in any two-way communication with me of any kind other than automatically generated server messages.

Advertisements

From → Directives, Orange

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s