PSA: The Epoch Times is a far right extremist publication by the Falun Gong new religious movement (read that, alien cult) folks in China.

"A former Epoch Times reporter who covered the 2016 campaign, Steve Klett, said his editors had encouraged favorable coverage of Trump after he won the Republican nomination, and that "they seemed to have this almost messianic way of viewing Trump as the anti-Communist leader who would bring about the end of the Chinese Communist Party."

Any "take" they have will be extremely biased to their agenda.

"Elise Thomas of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue noted, "Falun Gong has a history of rejecting modern medicine, which obviously intersects neatly with the beliefs of many anti-vax communities." Ben Hurley said, "They've been anti-medicine for a long time. Ex-believers know many people that have died from treatable conditions.

It's their belief that they don't need medicine, because they're superhuman beings."

"Former Epoch Times employees have noted Falun Gong practitioners' involvement in the management and editorial process. Three anonymous former employees said Epoch Times workers were encouraged to attend weekly "Fa study" sessions outside work hours to study Li's teachings.

Former employees have said that criticizing The Epoch Times amounts to disobeying Li."

"Falun Gong is entirely based around the teachings of its autocratic founder and leader: China-born Li Hongzhi.

According to NBC News, to his followers, Li is "a God-like figure who can levitate, walk through walls and see into the future.

His ultra-conservative and controversial teachings include a rejection of modern science, art and medicine, and a denunciation of homosexuality, feminism and general worldliness."

Hongzhi instructs his followers to downplay his controversial teachings when speaking to outsiders."

#cybersecgirl #media

Anti Money Laundering laws are an attack on property rights.

TLDR: Unless AML regulations can be refuted and abolished, property rights cannot exist and we are back to legalized slavery.

Property rights rests on the bedrock of logic that John Locke formulated in 1690 with his publication Two Treatises of Government.

Locke's ideas were instrumental in the rejection and abolishment of human slavery. He postulated that every human is born free and is a sovereign person who owns themselves and the fruits of their labor.

-------------

"Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his."

(Book II, Chapter 5.27, page 130)

-------------

Following this reasoning, slavery becomes a violation of property rights: we can't own another human being since every person is born sovereign. We have no right to what another person earns with their labor. Only voluntary contracts that are mutually beneficial are valid arrangements.

The problem of AML regulations becomes obvious at this point.

First of all, AML reverses the burden of evidence and postulates guilt until proven innocence. Your money is assumed to be laundered - and thereby illegal - until proven otherwise.

This flips the whole Western conception of legal proceedings on its head; the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Instead, AML assumes criminal activity as the standard, with no requirement of the government to spend resources to prove a committed crime in a court of law backed by evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

Under AML, in order to abolish your property rights, the government only needs to raise the bar for what constitutes accepted evidence to prove the history of your earnings. This sets absolute surveillance as the standard.

If the government want to strip you of your property under AML, all that is needed is for the government to reject the history of your property as invalid or inconclusive.

In the case of a banking service that you used in the past, if it no longer exists, or if it no longer have your records, or if you are unable to gain access to those records, your property is confiscated under AML.

AML regulations abolish the right of the individual to own the fruits of their labor, by empowering a third party to determine if your property is valid, without any burden of evidence.

If the validity of your money can be rejected at any point by a third party, your property rights have been abolished, ipso facto.

Returning to John Locke:

".. for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. make me a slave." (Book II, Chapter 3.18)

".. and hence it is that he who attempts to get another man under his power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Book II, Chapter 3.17)

Since AML regulations require absolute surveillance and the individual is at the complete mercy of the third party that determines the validity of their money at any given time, the statements of Locke ring uncannily true.

Locking the fruits of a person's labor under someone else's full power and control, transforms the working individual into nothing more than a slave, chained the whims and conditions of the controller.

The situation under AML regulations is captured in this statement:

"I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it any further"

Following Locke, we don't have to accept a dystopian future without individual rights and property rights, ruled by neo-feudalism.

This is why Bitcoin is a return to the ideas of John Locke.

On a Bitcoin standard there is no third party that validates your transactions. The money you have earned is yours without restriction. Your money cannot be invalidated. Your transactions cannot be stopped.

Under a Bitcoin standard, criminals will have to be found guilty in a court of law, based on evidence.

Bitcoin is a return to justice and property rights for all.

Further on John Locke:

Anti Money Laundering laws are an attack on property rights.

TLDR: Unless AML regulations can be refuted and abolished, property rights cannot exist and we are back to legalized slavery.

Property rights rests on the bedrock of logic that John Locke formulated in 1690 with his publication Two Treatises of Government.

Locke's ideas were instrumental in the rejection and abolishment of human slavery. He postulated that every human is born free and is a sovereign person who owns themselves and the fruits of their labor.

-------------

"Every man has a "property" in his own "person". This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his."

(Book II, Chapter 5.27, page 130)

-------------

Following this reasoning, slavery becomes a violation of property rights: we can't own another human being since every person is born sovereign. We have no right to what another person earns with their labor. Only voluntary contracts that are mutually beneficial are valid arrangements.

The problem of AML regulations becomes obvious at this point.

First of all, AML reverses the burden of evidence and postulates guilt until proven innocence. Your money is assumed to be laundered - and thereby illegal - until proven otherwise.

This flips the whole Western conception of legal proceedings on its head; the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Instead, AML assumes criminal activity as the standard, with no requirement of the government to spend resources to prove a committed crime in a court of law backed by evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

Under AML, in order to abolish your property rights, the government only needs to raise the bar for what constitutes accepted evidence to prove the history of your earnings. This sets absolute surveillance as the standard.

If the government want to strip you of your property under AML, all that is needed is for the government to reject the history of your property as invalid or inconclusive.

In the case of a banking service that you used in the past, if it no longer exists, or if it no longer have your records, or if you are unable to gain access to those records, your property is confiscated under AML.

AML regulations abolish the right of the individual to own the fruits of their labor, by empowering a third party to determine if your property is valid, without any burden of evidence.

If the validity of your money can be rejected at any point by a third party, your property rights have been abolished, ipso facto.

Returning to John Locke:

".. for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. make me a slave." (Book II, Chapter 3.18)

".. and hence it is that he who attempts to get another man under his power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (Book II, Chapter 3.17)

Since AML regulations require absolute surveillance and the individual is at the complete mercy of the third party that determines the validity of their money at any given time, the statements of Locke ring uncannily true.

Locking the fruits of a person's labor under someone else's full power and control, transforms the working individual into nothing more than a slave, chained the whims and conditions of the controller.

The situation under AML regulations is captured in this statement:

"I have altered the deal. Pray that I don't alter it any further"

Following Locke, we don't have to accept a dystopian future without individual rights and property rights, ruled by neo-feudalism.

This is why Bitcoin is a return to the ideas of John Locke.

On a Bitcoin standard there is no third party that validates your transactions. The money you have earned is yours without restriction. Your money cannot be invalidated. Your transactions cannot be stopped.

Under a Bitcoin standard, criminals will have to be found guilty in a court of law, based on evidence.

Bitcoin is a return to justice and property rights for all.

Further on John Locke:

🎬"Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth", Debunks Global Warming & Net Zero Narratives

This new, must-see documentary exposes the hypocrisy of climate alarmists narrative and reveals how this trillion-dollar industry fueled by greed and fear has manipulated scientists and the public.