Adam Kokesh: Anarcho-Stalinist
Evidence has come to light showing that Adam Kokesh, and some of those helping him with his political aspirations, are beyond misguided; they are genuinely malicious, hostile and dangerous, and should be shunned by anyone who truly believes in self-ownership, non-aggression and peaceful coexistence.
Patrick Smith’s video on the recent revelations:
Graham Smith’s first Steemit post about it:
https://steemit.com/kokesh/@kafkanarchy84/adamkokesh-benfarmer-alleged-attempts-to-hack-dox-harass-and-stalk-me-using-a-professional-cyber-security-expert
My original articles opposing the Kokesh campaign:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/not-kokesh-for-not-president-part-1-of-2
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/not-kokesh-for-not-president-part-2-of-2
My 2018 Anarchapulco talk about the connection between statism and toxic narcissism:
I felt morally obligated to make and post this video, if for no other reason, so that what Graham Smith (@kafkanarchy84) has been going through is not swept under the rug and forgotten.
Really enjoyed the lecture! It has the Power of Truth behind it! Enough to make the fence sitters stand up..
Thank you.
Highly rEsteemed!
@larkenrose, do you openly believe in "collective responsibility"?
Posted using Partiko Android
People are responsible for what they do, whether they do it individually or in concert with others. They aren't responsible for what they don't do.
as men of logic and reason, would you agree that a man can be a part of an organization and do a deed without the knowledge of those that he works with?
i've been looking at this story for a while. as kafka eagerly attests, i am a fan of kokesh and thus biased just as you aren't a fan of kokesh and carry a natural level of bias.
is it POSSIBLE... that neither kokesh nor those on his campaign team had knowledge of bens alleged actions?
Did I “eagerly attest”?
Of course, nearly anything falls within the realm of possibility. Plausibility, however, is a different issue altogether.
Wouldn’t you agree that if a politician’s highest ranking assistant is implicated in something like this, and documented threats have been delivered at the hand of this assistant prior, saying directly that said threat is from said politician, a statement directly addressing the alleged evidence is appropriate and expected?
And certainly not mockery, censorship, and silence? Any “censorship” (flagging/downvoting) of the “statement” made by the campaign posted by yourself and @marcus.pulis comes after being mocked, deleted, and blocked as a father asking questions concerned for the safety of my family.
I would happily engage you in polite discourse, but you've censored me repeatedly. if anyone else would like to offer me your argument, i'll happily pick it clean.
Why did your press secretary feel the need to downvote my question?
^ Kokesh staff/volunteer staff and supporter. Trying hard to muddy this.
On my profile this morning as well.
No, I'm not "trying hard" to do anything. I asked a simple question. I don't understand why you feel the need to censor me every time I participate.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thank you for posting this.
Being a voluntaryist doesn't mean ignoring things that are wrong. I think you did the right thing by speaking about it and bringing it to attention.
Disassociation is a powerful way to peacefully make a difficult stance against someone you believe is doing wrong. You demonstrated that well here at the end of the video.
I posted a while ago of how my site steemocean.com had showed that Adam was at that time at the top of the list for self voting on the whole steem network and effectively I got him to agree to set out a voting policy to counteract that. They made a post about it and all looked good for about 5 days (IIRC) and then after that they went right back to the massive self voting again.
I noted that then and recognised it as a denial based pattern that would not exist in isolation. Thanks for sharing on this topic. I have absolutely no expectation of people who stand to gain power 'over' other people of being honest, since having power over other people is not honest unless they agree to it and democracy guarantees that many people will not agree to it but will be forced to comply.
i remember that; it was the 1st thing that came to my attention about @adamkokesh how can you be for the people and use all your voting power for yourself? Answer: you can not! What a narcissist he must be; since everything is visible on the block chain, he didn't last long, and he was outed for what he is, an infiltrator . So that when the day finally comes for a 3rd party in Power, it will be some narcissistic assHat like kokesh; someone they put there by design.. No Thank You..
Five days! Until they thought people weren't looking anymore? Ridiculous. When I began on Steemit, I was told early on the etiquette policy of not upvoting our comments unless it had a lot of upvotes already or was a long paragraph. I don't even upvote those. Upvoting for $80 worth a comment that insults another person is just low.
I always forget to upvote myself!
(and the only time I have done it in the last few months was to counter a bot who kept downvotining me! lol)
lmao..
That is funny.
So downvote bots exist? Ugh, I'm not a bot fan.
Me neither - I used them when I came here at first, but I had moral issues. (how can you have moral issues with bot?lol).
Yeah, I must have pissed someone off (i think I know who...) - but the bot has no real voting power - it's there just to annoy me, I think.
Everyday, on every post, a 100% down vote,
Is there a way to report this bot? Find out who owns the bot and reach out to them perhaps? Maybe reconcile your differences with that person? Dunno.
The only bot I actually like is FullTimeBot because there is a human behind it who programs it to upvote people on the list. Like a curation team, but it's bots instead who take turns upvoting the people the person put on the list. We don't pay, we just exist, and that bot will find us. You can inquire with FullTimeGeek more info on that.
And of course I like curation teams like archdruid and Curie because they are real people managing a team of curators. In the case of FullTimeBot, they form the curation team up to I think 75 bots. As soon as they are at 100%, they upvote someone who has nto yet been upvoted. Sometimes I get one or two votes and other times 4 or 5 votes. It really depends.
I'd try to find the person behind the bot downvoting and try to reach out. You never know, you might make a new friend ;) Maybe you got on some blacklist somewhere by accident. I hope for you that the bot stops at some point. You seem like a decent person :) Followed.
Anyone who is says 'I'm really glad your cat died' will only have one kind of 'reaching out' by me...
Reconciliation (in this case) is a dish best served 6 foot under!
lolol
They used their delegation as a way to fund their campaign directly, rather than working more with the proof of brain concept - in other words, taking from the value/pool of Steem without seeking consent of the community at large. I can understand the motive there and several 'whales' have been doing this day in and day out here for a long time.
Oh ok. Thanks for the info.
I see the 'Kokesh libertarian bandwagon' illusion evaporating - unless he stats interacting - and very quickly.
Or if he has been called out and exposed, he will just disappear...
Depressing, but true..
When someone else just asked Adam for a response, less than an hour before I typed this comment, Adam's response was to say, "We already released a statement. People saying otherwise are deliberately misleading you." However, the "statement" he meant was this, which I already show in my video, and which says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING--not one word--about the allegations.
So that is the official statement from the Kokesh campaign about this. That should tell you all you need to know.
I can sort of understand having that as their statement, but it is weaselly.
Say "damn, this is evil, if it is true, we're shut of the guy and thank you for bringing it to our attention" - then include the bit about the NAP and all.
Just to add on because I'm not sure if its been mentioned, but marcus gave the same "statement" on a steemit post and downvotes anyone who questions further.
https://steemit.com/politics/@marcus.pulis/statement-from-the-adam-kokesk-american-referendum-project
In discussions with @kafkanarchy84 and others, I've mentioned how much I prefer discussing ideas over discussing people, and I appreciate you opening the video mentioning that tension. I also see how those who choose to harm others have to be called to account in a voluntary society. I was completely unsatisfied with Adam's reply to my tweet you mentioned. I expected a response was going to come from them on this issue. I scaled my support back from Adam many months ago, but I still had him on my Steemvoter until now. I was trying to support his ideas.
I really do like the book Freedom. I listed it right along with your book in my post on the myth of authority. In a similar way, I really appreciate some early works from people like Stefan Molyneux (such as his Bomb in the Brain series or his video on human enslavement), though their actions and ideas today are almost unrecognizable compared to earlier content.
I hope we can separate out the difference between supporting ideas and supporting people.
Good ideas deserve support.
Bad people deserve to be called out.
Good ideas from bad people don't make them bad ideas. At the same time, spreading their version of those good ideas could, in the long run, get people to equate good ideas with bad people and harm the progress so many good people are working towards as far as bringing about a voluntary society.
In my personal interactions with Adam and Ben (they came to Nashville a while back), I saw what appeared to be voluntaryists trying to improve the world by removing the federal government through a tactic which would surely fail but might raise some awareness, especially if the book Freedom was involved. I've made comparisons to Ron Paul running for office and that having a positive influence on those who eventually decided to spend their energy working to increase freedom in the world. My thinking was the position "everyone running for office is always bad all the time" can't be true if we have a data set of one where the net result was positive. Not sure if you remember, but I asked about Ron Paul at ProcFest and was surprised how many there agreed he did have a hugely positive influence on their lives while at the same time making fun of the poor guy running for local political office who was trying to hand out his business cards to us. We've discussed this before so there's no need to have the discussion again, and I do respect and appreciate your perspective that all forms of political action at any level is always bad all the time.
I see why my comparison is so disliked because, unlike Ron Paul, Adam isn't acting consistent with the ideas he's spreading. Prior to this happening, I haven't had the conversations you've had with people harmed by Adam, so that part of all this wasn't as real to me. I don't like to get caught up in hearsay drama over how other people act unless I know the people involved. Otherwise, there can be a lot of she said / he said back and forth, and it can be difficult to know what's a smear tactic and what's for real.
Initially, in my personal dealings with Adam, I didn't see or experience anything I'd consider a violation of the NAP. He approached me about a Freedom book drop idea in New Orleans, and I connected him with a friend who I thought might want to support it as well as with the SmartCash community which did support it. What happened after that was disappointing. From my perspective, the project was mishandled from a business point of view with unreasonable expectations about cryptocurrency always going up in value and overly optimistic projections on timing and costs to get the books printed and delivered according to the timeline promised to the supporters. When Adam called me in August to see if I'd be interested in finding more financial support for the project, I told him straight up how I think the project was managed very poorly. During that conversation he talked about using some DOXing tactics against a local politician regarding zoning drama with his property which I didn't agree with, but at the time I rationalized it as a defensive action against an aggressor (an agent of the state). It seems I was naive to think he hadn't at least considered using these same tactics on others and justifying it as defensive. I don't normally bring up content from a private phone conversation, but I hadn't thought about it until just now and how others knowing about it may be relevant to protect people in the future.
The lack of response to this issue from either Ben or Adam is disappointing and hopefully this video and any events/conferences/etc that pull their support for Adam will get him to deal with this stuff openly.
Been tough dealing with all the shots about just “seeking attention,” or being “divisive” coming from you and others this past year, after I noticed these discrepancies and glaring lack of principle from Kokesh early on. You may not like how I communicate, and I can respect that disagreement, I guess, but I hope you will take a step back next time, and consider what the other party is saying, before jumping to conclusions and riding the bandwagon.
Thank you for sharing your side of the story here as well. Just more evidence of the same brand of threatening and dishonest behavior from the “anarcho” statist.
My interactions with you weren't meant as shots but (mostly failed) attempts to communicate how your approach was not helping you accomplish your goal (at least as it related to me understanding your perspective). I wasn't jumping on the bandwagon to judge Adam because my own lived experience to that point and the ideas he put forth in Freedom were in conflict with what was being said about him. I really am sorry it was so difficult for you. You may not see it this way, but I was trying to help you see the approach you were taking was causing at least some of that difficulty.
I hope we get to a place where the people don't matter as much as the ideas. When we focus on the people, we get stuck in hierarchies as I've talked about before. I also appreciate how we need to clarify reputations within the communities we're involved in, and I do respect your attempts to do that, even if your approach turned me off.
Thank you for your efforts. I hope in the future we can communicate more effectively.
Implying that someone is seeking attention and telling me I behaved like a “troll” is not an examination of an argument. Glad you see now.
Is it at all possible in any way that you did behave in some ways like a troll? Is that even in the realm of possibility? If so, then why not accept others may perceive some of your behavior as trollish? Please, don't try to control my perceptions of your actions. You disagreeing with my perceptions doesn't change them. They are mine based on my own experience with you.
I'm not sure how a troll behaves exactly, except for the ones I've dealt with. I would be very interested in learning more how trolls tend to act in a context such as this. I see it as people either trying to communicate, understand or be abusive. When I see abuse on my stuff, I delete it (like on YouTube) because I won't tolerate that kind of things. I've had heated convos with people here, but it always ended with us understanding each other better, even if we didn't agree.
What I know of Kafka, is that he can be passionate at times. I can realte to that, though I won't publicly show it all the time. He won't hide from it and will show it. In a way, it's a way to be vulnerable.
Could that have been the cause of him being targeted, perhaps, but it is not a fault in my opinion. He saw a wrong being done, he called it out. He saw abuse being repeated, he repeatedly called it out. If that got him targeted, probably, but it's also what is necessary. If no one had ever said anything to me that I was being abused when I was, I would not have one day opened my eyes and realised it was true. Did it cause friction? Yes! Did it make me angry? Yes! But it helped me, saved me. I would do the same for others. Granted this is different than witnessing real live abuse, but it is repeated behaviour that is unfair. We need people who are not afraid to stand up for others and call others out.
I think that even if Kafka had had the most amicable approach, been diplomatic with his words, used non-vigilant communication to a T, it would not have changed a thing. He was still calling them out, pointing out something he believed to be wrong, like upvoting a comment that insults another with an upvote worth $80.
But I would like to know more about how trolls act, because I just see it either abusive behaviour or not.
Good stuff, Luke. Always appreciate your honestly.
🤦♂️
Luke, I agree with everything you just said. In case you hadn't seen it, when yet ANOTHER person asked Adam to finally respond, he posted (on Twitter), "We already released a statement. People saying otherwise are deliberately misleading you." But he was referring to THIS, which only the most delusional, slimy politician would try to pass off as a response, since it says exactly NOTHING about the case.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. That really does sound like a politician's answer. Vague and non-specific. Disappointing, but I guess that's just because I had invalid expectations to begin with.
You knew I'd write this, but Kokesh is no Paul. Paul was trolling the government. Kokesh is trolling HIS SUPPORTERS. That's been clear for a VERY long time too on Steemit and elsewhere. It is incredibly frustrating to me that so many people failed to see the obvious too. People have to be consistent. Their actions have to match their objectives. Noticing inconsistencies is not that difficult either.
Graham has been pointing out the TRUTH and defending genuine VOLUNTARYISM on Steemit and elsewhere for years. Most people abandoned him and distanced themselves for various reasons. Fuck that in particular. It's disgusting. It takes a huge effort by many people, and now some people form the past are basically coming forward to say, "Oh, my bad. I was mistaken." Really? REALLY?!
I can't speak for people, but as it relates to me personally, my own relationship with Graham was based on the way he interacted with me personally. His approach made it very difficult for me to appreciate his perspective. I do my best to withhold judgement on people until I have direct experience with them to corroborate the claims made. This approach allows me to avoid judging someone based on hearsay. It also means I might be late to the party in rightfully judging someone as a bad actor if I've only ever seen good (from my limited perspective).
As I've mentioned in comments above, I'm not as interested in exposing people as I am in exposing bad ideas and promoting good ones. From the beginning, to me, this seemed all about Adam the person which is a conversation I wasn't all that interested in, especially if the ideas put forth by Adam in Freedom are good (and I think they are).
I'm sorry to hear this has been so frustrating for you. I think in any healthy community we need all kinds of diverse perspectives. Maybe some people do have to focus more on the personalities, reputations, and identities involved. Maybe that's not for everyone though.
Finnian is frustrated for good reason. It appears you still don’t quite grok the scope of this, @lukestokes, and are going even further to continue misrepresenting the situation.
I made it painfully clear it was about principle and voluntaryism from the beginning. It is very disturbing to me that this is still being presented by you as being a personal thing. It is, was, and always has been only about one thing: individual self-ownership. I will not stay quiet when those pretending to support this axiom denigrate it, communication styles suitable to everyone or not. A is A. A is not B. Whether I am caustic or not, and whether that is not a healthy communication style, does not change the reality of what was being indicated.
I really wish you could give me a chance here, but even now you are misrepresenting this as though I had some personal beef with Kokesh. I could care less about slimy politicians. Slimy politicians that call themselves voluntaryists, however, need to be called out loudly.
I'm not sure what you want from me. When you say "those" and you talk about "slimy politicians" I see a focus on people. I prefer a different approach. I'm not saying you don't also focus on principles and if that's what you're hearing than please allow me to clarify: I know you care very deeply about voluntaryism and self-ownership principles.
AND I don't prefer the way you focus on individuals (from my perspective), writing whole posts about them (as you did about me). We have different approaches and preferences. Let's leave it at that.
I focused on principle, from the start, and the record is on the blockchain. Yes, I will leave it at that, and let others arrive at their independent conclusions.
Before marginalizing dissidents and targets, though, I would urge and encourage you to please step back, and truly consider the argument next time, and not the person making it, as the primary factor.
In other words, to take your own advice and admonitions here.
Thanks, Luke.
Not everyone is compatible with everyone's approaches. Like, some people ca't stand how bubbly I am in my videos, and that's ok. Others love it. Kafka is very passionate and in your face sometimes. I get it, I can handle it. I don't vibe with certain other people and I vibe with others. Not everyone is compatible.
All kinds of diverse perspectives? Kokesh is not a Voluntaryist. Kenny is not a Voluntaryist. When someone says or writes that they are for individual liberty and self ownership but prove otherwise, they should be called out for being inconsistent. This has NEVER been about attacking anyone in particular. It has been about defending the truth and the life long objective of furthering individual liberty's cause.
You were wrong, and you defended the wrong people. You were defending people who were being inconsistent. Either you're for furthering individual liberty and self ownership, or you are not. What Graham, myself, or anyone else does is meaningless compared to that primary objective. None of us are important. The objective is. This is the problem I have with so many fair weather friends in this battle.
There are very few principled people who put the mission before the individual. Graham has ALWAYS done that from my experience. Larken has too. I will not drop my "ideology" to get along either. What we are fighting for is worth way more than you, me, Larken, and everyone involved combined. The literal liberty of future generations is at stake. Fight like you understand that fact.
You don't believe in private property, Kenny. Sorry, you're no friend of mine or individual liberty.
You're calling out individuals while saying it's not about individuals? That's confusing to me.
My diverse perspectives comment referred to the different perspectives Graham and I have about calling people out and trying to control labels. To me, it comes across like a form of identity politics. Others may not see it that way, but that's how I perceive it.
I'm fine with saying we have different approaches. What I see as calling someone out (or even attacking them), you see as a principled action about protecting a larger ideal and not about the individual at all. Okay, we have different approaches and preferences there. I'm fine with leaving it at that.
Imagine thinking that claiming a stance which violates the central axiom of voluntaryism, is not voluntaryism, is “identity politics” 🤦♂️
By labels you mean the term Voluntaryist though, right? If you do not believe in self ownership, you cannot be a Voluntaryist. If you do not believe in private property, you cannot be a Voluntaryist. I'm not trying to control that label. The term means a very specific thing. Therefore, do not fault people who try to defend it.
The Voluntaryism wikipedia page doesn't mention property other than in reference to Frédéric Bastiat's book The Law which references what responsibilities the government should have (such as protecting property). You and I would probably agree that's not anarchy or voluntaryism as much as it's minarchy. My point in bringing that up is that no one person has a monopoly on the definitions of these words. Your definition of voluntaryist includes private property. I think others who do not violate the NAP may take a different approach on that point. Does that mean they aren't voluntaryists if the base meaning is "a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary"? To me, that's not even worth discussing. To me, the use of labels in this way is tribalistic.
There are many flavors of anarchy from ancap to ancom to a number of others. I don't try to police those labels or who uses them. To me, that's a waste of effort. In my opinion, it's more useful to build things to create a voluntary society than to argue. I've wasted too much time in ancom/ancap debates to see any real value in it.
I don't fault people for trying to defend what they care about. If I think the approach they are using hinders their stated goals, then I may comment on it, especially if I become a target of the approach. That's the beauty of voluntary interactions: we're all allowed our own opinions.
Every definition of voluntaryism is ultimately founded upon ISO (individual self-ownership) and by extension property. This is basic, elementary, libertarianism/voluntaryism. It matters not if “Wikipedia” specifically states it or not. Logic and concrete reality dictate it. Without self-ownership (the foundation of property) voluntary interaction cannot occur, as it takes free, self-owners to be able to voluntarily choose any action.
An opinion about a rock being an apple pie would be equally irrelevant.
The position that all human interaction should be voluntary requires ISO, otherwise—clearly—voluntary can have no meaning.
Kokesh’s campaign is incompatible with this, and thus, is not Voluntaryist by the common and accepted definition. Nor is such an interpretation of “voluntary” logically feasible as ISO is required for voluntary interaction to even occur.
Saying an apple is a fruit and a rock is not, is not claiming a monopoly on the concept of “apple” anymore than saying “a circle is round” is an “opinion” or “interpretation.”
I don't give a fuck about what a wiki page states. I don't care because it is not the truth simply because it is listed there. Do you automatically believe everything on Snopes and Google too? LOL
There is no way to avoid trampling on my individual rights if you do not believe in individual property rights. If you plan to try and take away what I have rightfully and fairly obtained, you are a wannabe tyrant.
My life is spent obtaining my property. It is not simply the time spent. I will defend it with deadly force if necessary too.
Sounds like something ben farmer would say...
Except, I live it and believe it 100%. He's just a wannabe tyrant who's deceiving people. Search for yourself. I have said and written numerous times that individual liberty is worth ANY price to me. People who agree are my friends. People who choose security over liberty are not.
With your "by any means necessary" approach I would also consider you a tyrant.
"ANY"? I wonder; would you doxx someone like ben did? Would you run for office like AK? Would you kill someone? I have no idea how you might answer these because according to you:
Are you just dumb or a bad troll? I shouldn't have to explain that I obviously mean only using violence in defense.
Ben didn't just try to Doxx. He tried to ruin someone's life. There's a reason Larken is comparing Kokesh and Farmer to Stalin. Maybe you're not capable of understanding such simple concepts though?
Larken -
Thank you for facilitating transparency on the story of a man named "Adam". Arrogance is the tell that never stops giving, and every psychopath revels in their differentiation. "Not For President", how stereotypical. The need to feel clever while exposing themselves is a highlight thrill. Fuck 'em all. Freedom is serious business. There is no future for men who don't man up.
I'm personally far removed from the "Anarchapulco" crowd, never attended and now that this Kokesh fantasy has emerged endorsed and already exposed I don't expect to ever attend the future events. I live voluntaryist straight edge no tobacco, no alcohol, no drugs and so when I first watched video of the "Not For President" ego-trip I dismissed it for what it was/remains, pure betrayal. Traitors are not entitled to debate. In your debate with him you were too kind to him. Holding a person accountable is an act of respect as surely as vengeance is an act of justice.
"All statist positions are cowardice." - Larken Rose
Cowards are the most dangerous people on earth. I cut cowards out of my life like cancer, and in kind I cut people on drugs out of my life like cancer. Hunter S. Thompson said, "you can turn your back on a person but you should never turn your back on a drug, especially when it's waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye." Tell me, is this the story of a man named Adam?
Congratulations on your survival, money makes nothing out of nothing. Freedom, Truth and Justice is the only way forward and mankind has yet to demand it. You've done your part, thank you.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
Thank you, Larken! Upvoted and resteemed.
Yowser! I'm listening to your Nature of the Beast presentation and don't know if it's making me feel like laughing or crying today. It hits home
Well, I'm sorry it hits close to home, but I hope it helps.
Don't be! For real!
5-years-ago-me wouldn't have been able to hear it at all. And it definitely does help on both a personal level (reminds me of how far I've come in rehabbing my attitude about what's acceptable treatment from others) and on a broader scale (reminds me what I'm moving toward in developing a sound community of good company). Hearing it keeps the lessons I've learned fresh- that's part of the problem with conditioning of this sort. It's insidious and will return unless it's kept at bay.
The message is useful for people who have lived, or are currently going through something worse than just your garden variety "bad" relationship(s). No doubt. But when applied to matters outside the realm of strictly individual experience, it is extremely empowering stuff!
I think as more people realize that the victimhood they perpetuate (on either side of the coin) is a result of systematic, generational training, the easier it will get to correct. That may sound naively optimistic but once I came to understand that it can be selectively rejected, the bad guys (not just in a romantic sense) were a lot easier to spot and became totally unattractive. More than that, I think they stopped seeing me as an easy "mark" because I've found, since changing my own attitude, that I encounter fewer of them.
Now is the part where I resist spending the next 2hrs fiddling around with the above statement to make it perfect. Just going to leave it as is and hope it makes enough sense to anyone who reads it. lol
Resteemed for the purposes of news coverage
Where does this guy get his money to hire people to cyber harass his enemies? I thought he had an insanely large amount of steempower for a fringe candidate. Is he raking in donations? Getting paid by the KGB? I have nothing but good things to say about Graham Smith
Thank you, @viraldrome.
He had a large delegation from a supporter who was an early team member at Steemit inc.
which has now been removed
Thanks for the explanation!