From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 22:46:27 PST
To: cypherwonks@toad.com
Subject: The Perils of Leadership
Message-ID: <199312240641.XAA00570@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I thought I would share with everyone the consequences of a failure in
leadership, as expressed by different followers. In a situation where
there is no trust, honor, or integrity in a group, a sort of paranoia
and disattachment ensues. The leaders claim they are not really
leading their followers,  and the followers claim they are not really
following the leaders. Here is a batch of messages I got from the
`followers' in response to one of my messages to the cypherpunks
group. I think it demonstrates rather well the degeneration that can
ensue in a group where  morality takes a back seat to
self-gratification and glory.

It is interesting how most people below avoid the question of
associating with people that might be involved in immoral activities.
By default, i.e. in the lack of protest, the former continues to
support  the latter. That reminds me of a parable by S.Boxx, `The Zen
of Cyberspace',  about a corrupt king who was carried around in a
massive platform  on the backs of his followers, who admitted the
king was corrupt but continued because, in each of their own ways,
they shared one of his vices.

Amazingly, all these people claim that cypherpunk leaders are not
sending them mail from fake identities, apparently without the
slightest evidence or assurance from the leaders, and in fact a lot
of circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Also, I also find it
amusing that many, right after justifying various forms of lies, in
the next breath claim to be `honest cypherpunks' .

Cypherwonks, I hope to serve you in a way that will avoid the
disintegration seen below. Cypherpunks, I hope that you can get your
act together. Or maybe what I mean is that I hope your `act'
continues to fall apart.

===

In the following messages, the following people claim that there is 
no conspirational activity (e.g. pseudospoofing, etc.) going on by
Cypherpunks, particularly by the leaders. They don't answer my
questions on specifics -- how do they know? but perhaps others can
obtain some kind of substantive, verifiable evidence either way from
them.

Jim Demmers <jdemmers@noel.pd.org>
"mycal" <mike@NetAcsys.com>

===
Follower #1

> I thought I might use the honest
> cypherpunks as a wedge into the leader's sense of honor, but there are
> no honest cypherpunks and none of their leaders have any honor.

This was the first cypherwonks message I received and...

I think that this generalization is a bit strong, and as an honest
cypherpunk, I take some exception to it. 

There are many people who either read cypherpunks (or versions of it)
who are honest, and simply interested in cryptography and (potentially)
the side effects of it.  Please try not to  be so harsh to criticize
such a loosely organized group as cypherpunks; many of us have no 
contact or even iterest in the leadership of the organization, and are
just there for the crypto.


===
Follower #2 (Ray Berry)

>> 
>> if the leaders are corrupt, where does that leave the followers?
>> especially if they are unaware of the corruption?

    I have never considered those who dominate the cypherpunk mailing
list my "leaders".  Have you?

>> >I would not be surprised if some of their actions are calculated to
>> >simply further provoke or bait you.  
>> 
>> Let me ask you a question -- do you think J.Gilmore is among the
>> `vermin' you speak of? E.Hughes? T.C.May? who?

    Personally, I don't see any of them as vermin per se.  My impres-
sion of Gilmore is generally that of a moderate.  Hughes and May I
feel less empathy with- probably because of their seeming preoccupation 
with anarchic fantasies, etc.   In order for them to earn 'vermin'
status, they would have to conciously conspire to manipulate me
on a personal level.  As it is I simply see them as misguided souls.
    
    Perhaps more salient is the point that, for me, I would prefer to
simply judge the content on its own merits.  After all, I don't know
who these people really are, or of what cloth they are cut, save for
their statements.   If I cannot know who they are, how can I get very
invested in their particular identity, true or otherwise?



===
Follower #3 (Mike McNally)

"L. Detweiler" writes:
 > False. The issue is about truth and the morality of leaders.

Will you get the idea out of your little head that Hughes is my
"leader"?  You're the only one with any such delusion.

 > >This is exactly like the question "Are you a liar?", to which the
 > >answer is always "no".
 > 
 > False. In an honest society, lies exist. You are asserting that they do not.

No, idiot, the answer is always "no" because a liar would lie.  Duhh.


===
Follower #4

> Anyway, there have been a few questions by people on this list. `why
> should we care about pseudospoofing?' the answer is that you should be
> sure that your leaders aren't doing it. 

What is it with you and this "leaders' bullshit.  I don't recognize any 
leaders per se on this list - just a bunch of subscribers - some with more
knowledge and more to say than others.  This is not the giant, conspiratorial
'movement' that you so love to bang your head against. 

A knight in shining armor you're not.

===
Follower #5

> 
> When I hear strange rumors about deceptions in the media, and your
> eminent leaders fail to reassure me, why is no one else upset about
> this?  Cypherpunks, don't you give a DAMN that articles by reputable
> authors may contain DISTORTIONS AND LIES? Look, Markoff is a highly
> respected writer. And if you lie or deceive a reporter, that is like a
> personal insult. These people could get *fired* if their articles are
> incorrect in a serious way. but you don't GIVE A DAMN. you think it is
> FUNNY that you can TRICK REPUTABLE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN LIES and so you
> can PROPAGATE THEM FURTHER.

If thats the way you feel, why don't you get pissed off at all the
officials in our government.  They lie to respected writers all the time.
Worse they lie to the public that has entrusted them.

Writers don't get "fired" for being lied to, if the writer interviews
an "expert" in a field and prints it, he has that interview to back him
up.  A writer may get "fired" for pissing off the government -or-
a media owner.  If you truely wan't to fight the tenticals of deception
you should go after the mass media, just about all media outlets are
tenticals of some big corporation.

Even if what you were saying was true about Tim and Co (which is not),
in todays world they would still be looked at as heros by the masses, even
if the government and its sheeple looked at them as criminals.

> 
> Is there an honest cypherpunk in the entire world? None have contacted
> me so far. There are a few people that are slinking away quietly with
> their tail between their legs, but I think you all are just the same
> scurrilous cowards that your leaders are.

I consider myself honest [...]