You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Now why would kafkanarchy do this?
My only question is, why hasn't the Kokesh campaign addressed the allegation directly. We see evidence from a third party. The evidence does show an alternativepoint of view. But this is all hearsay.
Why have we not heard this point from Ben or the Kokesh camp?
This is the official campaign response from the campaign press secretary.
https://steemit.com/politics/@marcus.pulis/statement-from-the-adam-kokesk-american-referendum-project
Posted using Partiko Android
And as you can see in the comments; I asked a simple question for clarification and got down-voted (what you consider to be censorship) by Marcus.
I have seen that post and to me that was not a good response to the accusations that were laid out. These are serious accusations that demand a serious response to each and all of the specific accsations. That vague response gives me the perception of guilt, in my opinion. I understand the opinion that the author is putting out there, and is plausible, but this should have come directly from the accused, not from some third party analysis and therefore assumptions.
Well... The campaign put out an official press release on steemit pubicly declaring they would not and did not have anything to do with it. But your boy Kafka rushed around and had it censored.
So ask kafka
Posted using Partiko Android
This is an outright lie. The "statement" says absolutely nothing in regards to the kafka, to ben, or even to doxxing in general. All it does is mention that they believe in the nap and since both you and Marcus support a post that says and I quote "Doxxing is not a violation of the NAP" and "Hacking is not a violation of the non-aggression principle" that all can be found in the video here.
https://steemit.com/libertarian/@krishool/character-assassination-of-adam-kokesh
Talking about the NAP falls flat doesn't it?
I even commented on the statement asking about what this has to do with Ben and I got down-voted (what you consider to be censorship) by Marcus .
I don't even like Kafka if I'm being honest ( but I don't want to cause him any harm) and I want to hear the other side, but this is ridiculous.
First, I'm not Ben, Marcus, or whomever krishool is.
i am: iamthenerd.
I am a free man just as you are. I am as responsible for the actions and inactions of Ben or Marcus as you are (not at all).
The official campaign statement clearly indicates that we (the campaign) have nothing to do with any of this. It's really that simple. That being a given, how can we speak on the matter without making stuff up or guessing? All I know is what I've been told which is probably all the same things that you know.
If someone worked where you work now, i wouldn't question you if that person had or hadn't done something. it would be impossible for you to accurately speak on the subject.
It’s funny that no one buys the inanity save those on the campaign team. Michael (@iamthenerd) can’t even answer your question, @dfree. He’s also being directly addressed by the infosec source on Twitter, but after asking to talk to them, refuses to even publicly ask there.
It’s a game to these losers. Project because they are miserable people looking to mess with people for entertainment.
Good luck on getting an answer, @dfree, but I wouldn’t waste my time.
kafka... just because you doxxed me doesn't make it ethical or moral to use my name on this platform.
also, i can speak for myself. thank you
Michael, your name and your picture along with Adam Kokesh are posted publicly all over the internet, you dolt.
And yes, the infosec has created an account. Currently they are working, as I understand it. But instead of having me as a middle man: like a mature adult would, ask them when they’ll be active. You have an open connection on Twitter which you don’t use for whatever reason. I imagine they’ll be commenting here soon.
kafka, i choose to use a handle on this platform. i choose not to pronounce myself with my name. everyones name is on the internet somewhere. i do not give you consent to use my name here. you are seriously not a voluntaryist by any stretch.
i look forward to speaking with her here. she has a lot to explain. as do you.
No, I don’t need your consent to use a name you’ve publicly and openly plastered all over the internet. This much is obvious. If that to you is some form of harassment, you may be better served to looking to your own behavior, and ask if perhaps there is a reason people are giving your actual public identity attention now.
As for me. My name is Graham Smith. And after what I’ve been going through, and what you’ve been accusing me of, nah, I don’t respect anything about you other than the fact that you have not physically violated me. You’re only making noise, and that sycophantic racket always happens when an idolized figure is criticized, so it is to be expected.
Now, I’m the one doxxing you by exposing a cyberterror plot against myself and my family? That’s pretty funny.
“Mykl,” Wood, the “Director of Tech” for the Kokesh campaign, listed publicly on linkedin, and posting photos of himself at Adam’s events on this platform, here on Steemit accusing me of all kinds of horrible things, and engaging in non-stop victim blaming.
I do appreciate that your whole blog here as of late is dedicated to me now, though. An impressive string of posts for someone seeking decidedly to not “give attention” to me.
Cheers.
I was able to google the Director of Tech for Adam Kokesh and your LinkedIn came up immediately Michael . This presents the public name in question that you have alleged is an act of doxxing. It appears that those who pieced together this information relied exclusively on public information, especially information posted by you. The investigative technique is merely to look for clues in public information and make connections across multiple online platforms and personas. At least, I could not find any Non-Public Private Information (NPPI) released in your LinkedIn, Facebook or steemit.
So here is what I don't get. If there was any action to be done to a child, it would have been done by you or someone you hired, as Ben never requested any such action in what is public. So how are you not the person being held responsible? There was no order from Ben to cause any harm to anyone, the only place that is ever listed is a list you sent to Kafka, a message in which Ben was not connected to.