Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks and one of the great heroes of the Truther Movement, has been set free and is returning to his homeland Australia. Did Assange violate the confidentiality of information he shared? Yes, clearly. Did the greater good of shedding light on immoral behaviour of various players in government and business justify his actions? Yes, absolutely. It is a relatively small and incomplete (because he did spend 62 months in jail and had to plead guilty on one charge) but nevertheless very important victory for freedom.
朱利安 · 阿桑奇，维基解密的创始人，真相运动的伟大英雄之一，已经获得自由，正在返回他的祖国澳大利亚。阿桑奇是否违反了他所分享信息的机密性？是的，很明显。揭露政府和企业中各种不道德行为的更大好处是否证明了他的行为是正当的？是的，当然。这是一个相对较小和不完整的(因为他确实在监狱里度过了62个月，并且不得不在一项指控上认罪) ，但仍然是自由的非常重要的胜利。
In line with this there was an interesting philosophical discussion on Dutch television about the monopoly on violence that governments acquired over time to settle disputes between citizens and maintain an equilibrium of interests between all parties in society. It postulated that since the advent of this social contract the amount of manslaughter has decreased hundredfold and references were made to the writings of Plautus, Rousseau and Locke among others as well as to the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe from 1581, the Dutch declaration of independence from the Spanish crown. (The Dutch declaration of independence was prompted by what was widely considered abuse of power by the then king of Spain Felipe II.) The term organized crime syndicate was actually used and applied to government and the consensus was more or less that it is a necessary construct although citizens have the right to keep it in check as long as their actions are proportionate. The key questions in this current time are to what extent governments around the world have abused the power given to them by the people and how far citizens and citizen collectives can go to resist before their actions become disproportionate. In other words, where does dissent end and terrorism and criminal behaviour start? There is clearly no consensus on that topic. In any case, my signature is missing under any social contract; I tolerate government, respect the most basic laws and welcome those policy decisions that do serve the common interests, but I cannot in good conscience support the current governments in Western Europe or most other governments in the world for that matter.
与此相一致的是，荷兰电视台对政府长期以来为解决公民之间的争端和维持社会各方之间的利益平衡而获得的对暴力的垄断进行了有趣的哲学讨论。它假定，自从这种社会契约的出现，过失杀人的数量已经减少了数百倍，并提到了普劳图斯、卢梭和洛克等人的著作，以及1581年以来的普拉卡特范韦拉廷赫(Plakkaat van Verlatinghe) ，即西班牙王室的荷兰美国独立宣言。(当时荷兰的美国独立宣言被广泛认为是滥用权力，这促成了荷兰的腓力二世。)有组织犯罪集团这一术语实际上被用于和适用于政府，人们的共识是，这或多或少是一种必要的结构，尽管公民有权对其加以控制，只要他们的行动是相称的。当前的关键问题是，世界各国政府在多大程度上滥用了人民赋予的权力，以及公民和公民集体在其行为变得不成比例之前能够抵制到何种程度。换句话说，异议何时结束，恐怖主义和犯罪行为何时开始？在这个问题上显然没有达成共识。无论如何，在任何社会契约下，我的签名都不见了; 我容忍政府，尊重最基本的法律，欢迎那些有利于共同利益的政策决定，但我不能凭良心支持西欧现任政府或世界上大多数其他国家的政府。
Speaking of which, in Cobra's post of last week are some links that tell exactly why most governments are not kosher. Most of the dark Atlantean network has been removed, there is only one stronghold remaining which is an underwater base. The removal of the Lurker is the very last hurdle before the Event, and many people may be triggered and freak out once the process of detachment from the Lurker starts in earnest.
说到这里，Cobra 在上周的帖子中列出了一些链接，它们准确地说明了为什么大多数政府都不遵守犹太教规。大部分黑暗的亚特兰蒂斯网络已经被移除，只剩下一个要塞，那就是水下基地。移除潜伏者是事件发生前的最后一个障碍，一旦与潜行者脱离的过程真正开始，许多人可能会被触发并惊慌失措。
来源：http://www.xekleidoma.info/
