From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 07:20:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Subject: Snickering at the Compromisers
In-Reply-To: <199705122042.NAA06412@fat.doobie.com>
Message-ID: <v03007807af9d5841653f@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I'm not seeing some fraction of the list's traffic, for reasons unclear to
me (but problems at cyberpass.net seem to be involved), so I'll have to
respond to messages as best I can.

At 12:42 PM -0800 5/12/97, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
>Peter Trei wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote:
>> >>Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right
>> >>thing. Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all
>> >>that.
>
>> I'm getting progressively more turned off by
>> Tim's developing survivalist/confrontationist stance. I fear that
>> journalists and other casual readers will mistake his positions
>> for common 'cypherpunk' viewpoints.

I never worry about representing the "common 'cypherpunk' viewpoint." I
represent my own views. Those who agree, can agree. Those who don't, don't.
Sounds fair to me.

As for anger and a survivalist mentality...some readers obviously weren't
around right after Waco, for example. (Though much of the anger was vented
on related lists, such as Extropians.)

And the creation of the group and mailing list can be traced back to a
strongly "survivalist" mode of thinking in 1992 and then into 1993, when
the implications of the Clipper program became clear. (Some of us saw the
seeds of Clipper six months earlier, in events during the first month of
the list's existence.)

Now that those who only want to talk about mathematical algorithms have
their own moderated mailing lists, there is much less reason to avoid
sociopolitical essays. Those who don't want to hear about politics and want
only to discuss C++  programming tricks are free to avoid the Cypherpunks
list.


>> The type of armed, ingrained bitterness towards all aspects and
>> manifestations of government he displays is hazardous to himself
>> personally; I can envisage a simple traffic stop turning violent.

Only if I'm stopped illegally. I've been stopped, but my truck has never
been searched.(Though California is, like any good police state, expanding
the grounds under which vehicles may be searched.)

>> Worse, he's demonizing his opponent. This is counter-productive.
>> It's better to try to understand the actual underlying goals of
>> your opponent - it gives you a much better chance at turning
>> him into your ally, or avoiding a conflict if you cannot do that.
>> If he can be neither turned nor avoided, the minimum action to
>> change the status quo should be used.

I freely admit I have never had the patience to analyze in detail their
world view. This is why I'm not a "policy wonk," I suppose. I did analyze
the writings of Denning in enough detail to figure out where she was going,
which made her appearance as the Clipperchick hardly surprising.

Do I "demonize" them? No, I just think they're thieves and liars, and in
many cases murderers. I could recap the many examples of this, from
well-substantiated evidence the CIA was running drugs, to acts of military
terrorism by the U.S....but this is all well-trod ground. (Part of why
little effort need be expended trying to "understand the actual underlying
goals" of these politicians and bureacrats.

As with gun rights and the NRA, understanding the "goals" of a Sarah Brady
or Diane Swinestein is a waste of time...their goals are transparent. The
NRA, a vasly larger and better organized group than we are, tried to
"understand" and "reach common ground" with these folks and got stomped on
by the process. Ditto for the EFF. Washington, like Paris, like Teheran,
like all imperial capitals, thrives on such Borg-like assimilations.

>> The policies of the current gang in power are bad, and may well
>> get worse. But terrorism is not yet an appropriate response, and
>> I pray that it never will be.

For the 3rd or 4th time, I have never advocated terrorism, at least not of
a physical sort. I have said I hope to see D.C. nuked, which is hardly the
same as "advocating" terrorism in any meaningful sense (not even the "will
no one rid me of this corrupt city?" sense, given that I have no
Beckett-like powers).

And I have said I can understand some of the motivations of McVeigh, though
I think what he did hurt the cause of liberty.

Those who don't like my honest expressions of opinions should go elsewhere.
Things are bad here in this growing police state, but it isn't yet evidence
of a crime to wish for certain things. (There appears to be an exception
for publically wishing something bad will happen to certain persons who
play golf a lot and ride in Air Force One...part of America's New Royalism.
Though even in this case a leading Senator who warned that Clinton had
better be wearning a bulletproof vest if he visits his home state was not
charged with any crime...if some college student had made exactly the same
threat he'd have been raided, thrown in jail for a week or so with Bubba
(the other Bubba), expelled from college, and so on.)

The Cypherpunks list is clearly not for everyone. Many who were once major
contributors have left, or moved on, or whatever. Some even work in crypto,
and at least one company is mainly made up of folks who met on the
Cypherpunks list.

That some of them have lost interest in politics, or denounce the current
list as "too political," or refer to anyone not doing a crypto company as
"Cypherpunks hobbyists," well, that's to be expected. The Cypherpunks list
was not to everyone's liking even 4 years ago, as any reading of the
Detweiler Wars will obviously see. And back then there were calls for more
compromises with the Washington power establishment, for working with
legislators, and so on. Some even left the list back then because the list
was too "anarchic," and wouldn't adopt an official Charter, an official
Spokespunk, and so on. So?

As a final note, some of the folks over the years urging more official
links to the Washington establishment, more "crypto outreach" to
legislators, actually lived in the Virginia-D.C.-Maryland area. In one
telling example, at the famous post-Clipper emergency meeting (4/93), some
of them called for more Cypherpunk outreach to D.C. "Fine," we said (we
being the 40 or so folks in the crowded room in Mountain View), "we're glad
you've volunteered to make political action your special focus." Those of
us in Silicon Valley, 3000 miles away from D.C., were happy to hear some
"locals" planning a D.C. effort. Alas, but predictably, this never went
anywhere. So, everytime I hear suggestions on the list that Cypherpunks
should "work with Washington," I think of this and snicker.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."