My point is the war OF terror is a fraud, all wars are a racket, the enemies are created. The ruling elite have worked their asses off making Russia into an enemy, again. That's what they do. So the supposition is that Clinton endangered our security from who? Who exactly did Hillary Clinton expose "secrets" to that could result in my ass getting nuked, bombed or shot during a terrorist action? Russia? Terrorists? Venezuela? A hacker?

As I've said many times, most of the secrets are secrets because they don't want the citizens to see what they're doing and/or because they don't want other countries to see what they're up to, it's not for my safety or our national security. It's not for the national security of this country, its for the security of the financial and corporate oligarchy.

That's why Snowden and Assange and Anonymous and so on are so important. The vast majority of classified documents never should have been classified in the first place.

I honestly couldn't care less if people get to see her boring ass emails. IMO, we have far bigger things to worry about with her presidency than that. The only thing that makes her even slightly palatable is because Trump is worse. But if I had my way, no Democrat would win, no Republican would win, the two party system would go to that proverbial dustbin of history, and we'd elect Jill Stein or someone to her left.

it was front paged a couple of hours ago.

We encourage people to post and participate. C99 wants to be inclusive. This essay is about a subject that we need to talk about if we are ever going to advance the cause of the people.

you raise the question of trust, or rather, of verification.

There is only verification, not trust. Verification happens only when I know the person, interact with the person and can assess on a daily basis whether a person can be trusted.

I believe, that only when we organize locally with those whom we see and with whom we work on a daily basis, do we begin to establish a network which can be verified.

It does not mean that such networks are completely safe from infiltration.

It means, that there is a locus in which effort can be exerted, to solve a problem within a delimited group.

Small groups can cooperate without having to yield verification, so long as they have contact with each other.

That organizational technique does not solve all problems, but it does increase the likelihood of finding someone who has breached the organization before she can destroy it.

Coalitions of local organizations imply redundancy. Should one of these fail, the damage can be limited.

The down side is that to solve problems affecting very large groups, it requires very skilled coordination and communication among smaller groups. There is the possibility that coordinated efforts will be hindered due to lack of communication, or sabotage of one or more elements.

I am skeptical that defeating an established organization with another established organization works. Other than the ideas proposed here, I do not have good arguments at this stage, except that in addition large organizations require large resources. Therein lies the problem: with large resources comes the need to manage it all, which requires a management structure. That structure is filled with individuals, some of whom have to make decisions. Those individuals are much more likely to be corrupt, as such individuals often seek such positions.

Keeping the incentive "clean," through limiting the size of resources, and requiring coordination of command and control, does not work well for a standing army, but it does work well for guerrilla organizations. What I envision here is not in anyway an armed organization, but one which mobilizes for deep social, economic, and political correction. Not change, correction.

Peace and love be with you, reader.