Anonymous trashing of Assassination Politics

17 Dec 2003

      ...
Jim Bell writes:
...
While this would normally be my cue to offer up my "Assassination Politics"
idea, which (if presumed to be correct) would stabilize "anarchy" and
prevent "lawlessness and social disorder" (at least as normally seen by the
average reader) I think that under the circumstances that would be redundant
here.
I'm not *sure* that your Assassination Politics trip is the worst piece of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[on cypherpunks@toad.com]

At 01:54 AM 1/27/96 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
tripe I've ever seen on the list, but if it's not, it's right up there.

I notice that you responded through an anonymous remailer, and didn't even 
use a nym.  This is strange.  If anything, the people who criticize my idea 
seem to be under the illusion that it is _I_ who should be embarrassed for 
proposing it, and in fact vociferously promoting it.  "Those of you" who 
object to it should be the ones who are "proudly" taking the "moral high 
ground" and thus should be happy to identify yourself and defend your position.

Even if, arguably, you invented the fiction that you feared for  your life 
trying to argue with people like me, nothing prevents you from developing a 
stable nym and arguing your position using it, secure in the knowledge that 
your body is safe from attack.  Your arguments would still be subject to 
sudden death, however.
...
Those of us who are anarchists
What?!?  You imply that you are an anarchist, yet you don't approve of a 
system which might not only produce anarchy, but in fact in record time?  
Well, EXCUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEE!  Sorry to put you out of a "job."
...
are often that way because we think the *means* the State uses are evil, 
not to be excused by any amount of >mumbo-jumbo.
I think the state's ENDS are evil, too, not merely their MEANS.
...
And you gleefully propose to let us *all* in on the immoral game of 
murdering those who annoy us >sufficiently.
Actually, if you followed my arguments carefully, you will notice that my 
position is most accurately described by pointing out that I _could_not_ 
keep you from participating in this "immoral game", even if I wanted to.

For the record, I suspect some people who are total pacifists view the rest 
of us, those willing use use violence to defend ourselves, as "immoral."
...
I'll pass.
Others won't.
...
You know, if I were constructing an agent provacateur, I'd want a persona
who's willing to be loudly clueless with ideas that show minimal or 
non-existent awareness of basic human hopes and fears, like security from 
random hit-squads.  I'd have him go on and on with his ideas, until 
eventually they can splashed all over headlines and used to discredit the 
whole realm of privacy protection.

Aha!  You're implying (actually, implying is an understatement here) that I 
am an "agent provocateur."  Naturally, it would be useless to deny this 
(although, for the record, I will deny it), because anybody who was 
convinced of its truth wouldn't expect me to tell the truth anyway.

But hey, let's put it up for a vote.  How many people out there believe that 
I am an "agent provocateur"?  C'mon people, don't be shy, you've seen my 
prose.  What do the rest of you think?
...
But no, I don't think you're an agent.
Good!  I'd hate to argue with a person who didn't realize I am SERIOUS.
...
More fool you, you're willing to do the government's disinformation work 
for it without even thirty pieces >of silver or a 401K.
To be perfectly honest, I did a lot of soul-searching in early 1995 about 
whether I should publicize my ideas.  No, it wasn't because I was AFRAID 
that it might happen.  I _WANTED_ it to happen.  Every little bit.  Every 
government on the face of the earth, to come crashing down in a heap.  
Complete, total, absolute anarchy.  (But not the "anarchy" that most people 
are pre-programmed to think of...)  No more governments, no more borders, no 
more taxes, no more holocausts, no more wars, no more politicians.  Forever 
and ever and ever.  

Rather, I was fearful that by publicizing the idea, I might end up 
PREVENTING it from occurring.  You know, by giving the governments advance 
warning about what was going to happen, I might actually help them prevent it.

That worried me, a lot.  But eventually, I made my decision. After a huge 
amount of thought that some day I might be inclined to relate.  However, if 
I'd REALLY wanted to PREVENT this, I would have alerted the government 
secretly, so that they could manipulate things behind the scenes, secretly, 
to prevent this "crypto/digicash/internet anarchy."   _That_ I did not do.  
I publicized it, allowed it to be criticized and therefore "perfected" (not 
that it's "perfect, by any means!) it, and I'm now promoting it the best way 
I know how.  And with all due modesty, it's getting a pretty good reception, 
considering how extreme and drastic it initially might appear.

Part of my reasoning was that unless I engaged in the absurd conceit of 
believing that I was, cumulatively, smarter than everyone currently in the 
government, I had no choice but to conclude that the government was already 
aware of the potential problem.  And if that were the case, they were, at 
that very moment, working desperately to PREVENT what I wanted, desperately, 
to ACHIEVE.

At that point, I made the choice of forcing the government's hand.
...
At this point I recommend to you the 12-step program I explained to Vladimir.
Signed,
A Friend
Recommendation:  If you really want to be taken seriously, use your real 
name or at the very least generate a stable nym.  Preferably, with messages 
signed by the nym's public key.   Without it, you are a silly, unbelieveable 
ass.  Even with it, you may STILL be a silly, unbelieveable ass, but at 
least people would pay more attention to you.

Anonymous trashing of Assassination Politics

jim bell