On 2/9/16, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:15:53AM +0000, shakeitoff@ghostmail.com wrote:

...

The ideal would be idea to have more code, more crypto.

"More code" is an ideal?

I for one want _less_ code, but of higher quality.

i just want one code; the flawless version. no one can suggest an improvement - self evidently complete, correct, a construct thought no'er to be seen... :P best regards,

Hey Steve, I've never posted much to CPunks, preferring to listen when people who now no longer post such as Peter Gutmann, John Young, Eugen Leitl, Cathal Garvey, Griffen Boyce, and others. My first post to the cpunks list that I've archived was in early 2010, in a discussion of Mozilla Perspectives. That was back when the CPunks list discussed things of that nature, rather than "racial strength," which is assuredly crypto-white nationalism (in the "attempting to disguise" sense, not in the "cryptographically secure" sense). Most of the people I name above no longer post. I notice the first post I see from you is from 2014, which might indicate you missed this period of the cpunks list. You might want to read some of the archives from the previous five years, rather than limiting yourself to the last six months. This list used to be quite good and contained reasoned discussion of a variety of technical topics. As for ideology, I use my real name on this list because I'm already openly anarchist and cypherpunk in my meatspace identity and see no reason to hide this. However, you seem confused on the nature of anarchism. As a rejection of all forms of coercion and hierarchy, anarchism is both implicitly and explicitly feminist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and anti-imperialist. If you're still confused about this, I suggest "Said the pot to the kettle: Feminism for anarchist men." It's very basic, but if you find it too basic you can look at the recommended further readings for more advanced topics. If you do consider yourself an anarchist, I urge you to meditate on why you chose to embrace anarchism as an ideology, and whether those reasons also compel you to embrace feminism and anti-racism as explicitly as anarchism. If you're a "libertarian," I urge you to stop using a word that everywhere but the united states means "anarchist" in the sense I have been using it and in the sense anarchists throughout history have used it including but not limited to Emma Goldman, Assata Shakur, and Bill Haywood, and instead say "neo-feudalist" which is perhaps more appropriate. Cypherpunk technology always appealed to me as an anarchist because it equalizes all people against those who would attempt to oppress them. Technology does have the capacity to be liberating. But for that ideal to be realized, the communities around those technologies need be at best ideologically neutral. If a black liberationist, who should be the ally of any anarchist, came on this list today, I'm sure she would be dissuaded from using any actually secure technology because the tone of this list has shifted from discussing cypherpunk technology, to "racial strength" and arguing over whether people should have the "free speech" right to build fascism. The only way this can happen is if people like you look inside yourself and decide what side you're on. On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 08:44 -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 02/08/2016 09:15 PM, shakeitoff@ghostmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Ted,

Yes, I agree with you.

As well you might: It appears that Ted has made six posts to the CPunks list since June of last year. Each consisted of complaints about the ideological impurity a.k.a. political incorrectness of the CPunks list and those who post to it.

Ted and "shakeitoff@ghostmail.com" have a lot in common, including their vocabulary, grammatical construction, New Left ideology and a hostile attitude toward what passes for "native culture" on the CPunks list. A few posts from years earlier suggest that Ted probably exists somewhere in meatspace, whereas shakeitoff@ghostmail.com appears to exist only as a pseudonym created for a single purpose.

...

Supposedly, this list was for anarchists who wanted to advance strong cryptography and individual liberty.

However, it seems like the large majority of postings here are unfortunately not about cryptography, nor anarchy. Agreed about the white fascism.

Our morally superior critic shakeitoff@ghostmail.com appeared to come here to help us eliminate degrading, insulting and hurtful language on the CPunks list by installing a censorship regime. But now I see a New Left ideologue providing us with yet another demonstration that "Those who make and enforce the law are above the law."

Authoritarian much lately, shakeitoff@ghostmail.com? No matter: The CPunks list will not censor you.

...

The ideal would be idea to have more code, more crypto.

Please cite examples of your contributions to the creation, vetting, promotion, defense of, or end user tech support for "more code, more crypto."

...

However, as you said, it might be a lost cause. Which is quite sad, considering what it originally represented. But thanks for writing this nonetheless :)

It would make sense to abandon PC trolling of the CPunks list as a lost cause. Most of the participants in the CPunks list self identify as Anarchist or Libertarian, both of which indicate high sales resistance to New Left ideology. You will not beat a crowd that includes veterans of USENET in open battle. Uncommitted third parties do not know or care that the CPunks list exists, so what potentially receptive audience do you address?

...

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Ted Smith mailto:tedks@riseup.net> wrote:

...

...

I'd appreciate any suggestions, onlist or offline, from anyone who thinks similarly of the ideological drift of this list from generally anti-authoritarian to crypto-white nationalism.

Racist much lately, Ted? No matter: The CPunks list will not censor you.

Several people on the list have taken the issues raised by shakeitoff@ghostmailseriously enough to discuss them rationally. "Counterfeit coins exist because there was, first, real gold." One should always assume good faith on the part of correspondents, until persuasive evidence indicates otherwise.

But apparently shakeitoff@ghostmail.com and Ted want more: Committed ideological converts who will trash the CPunks list, an ongoing and rather successful experiment in free speech, by installing a shiny new censorship regime. If "they" can't get their way, at least they can stamp their little feet and call people names.

-- Sent from Ubuntu

On 2/9/16, Steve Kinney wrote:

... Ted and "shakeitoff@ghostmail.com" have a lot in common, including their vocabulary, grammatical construction, New Left ideology and a hostile attitude toward what passes for "native culture" on the CPunks list. A few posts from years earlier suggest that Ted probably exists somewhere in meatspace, whereas shakeitoff@ghostmail.com appears to exist only as a pseudonym created for a single purpose.

heh, we all have our coping mechanisms! ;) best regards, to all the digital incarnations of yourselves on this list,

Troy Benjegerdes wrote:

It's kinda hilarious. Personally I've developed a nice sales resistance to neo-anarchist and fasco-libertarian ideology, *cough* bitcoin *cough* which I actually find more irritating than the New Left BS.

What the world need now is ANOTHER mythical currency like I need a hole in my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42V8CqWw0xM -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"