comprehending the heart's nationalism

Stephen D. Williams sdw at
Wed Jul 6 18:51:03 PDT 2016

On 7/6/16 12:51 PM, juan wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:27:03 -0700
> "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at> wrote:
>> On 6/30/16 1:10 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:33:22 -0700
>>> "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at> wrote:
>>>>  In the unlikely
>>>> event that we elect Trump, 
>>> 	He is unlikely to be elected because he's marginally better
>>> 	than that murderours cunt, your boss hitlery.
>> Not sure why a sexist slur makes any difference.
> 	"sexist"? The fuck are you taling about? Oh wait. I guess that
> 	pandering to feminazi cunts is your way to try to get laid?
> 	Sad.

Perhaps you were using the UK definition of 'cunt', although that usage is, I think, often as an endearment, much like 'bastard' or
'dude' in the US.  In some locales, it's almost always used in a sexist sense.  Anyway, your stooping to ad hominem attacks means
you've already lost the argument.

I was on BBSs in 1982, Compuserve in 1984, UUCP/Usenet in 1987 (a couple hops from uvax), running a server on the Internet
continuously since 1992, setting up a couple ISPs including a satellite link in the early 90's, on AOL in 1995 (I wrote BuddyList
for AOL.), and various other things.  Calling me names on the Internet is not going to phase me.

>>  Murderous?  Are all
>> US leaders, in general, murderous 
> 	Of course.

Well, no wonder.  So, if you were President of the US, what would you do differently?  How would that work better?

> 	Now tell me Stephen, what does an establishment bot like you do
> 	in an allegedly crypto ANARCHIST mailing list?

Define 'anarchist' and 'crypto-anarchist', think a little, and you may find some answers.

Let's go with the Wikipedia definition:
> Crypto-anarchists employ cryptographic <>software to evade prosecution and harassment
> while sending and receiving information over computer networks <>, in an effort to
> protect their privacy <> and political freedom
> <>.

From that, you can derive a number of reasons to support and/or be aware of and/or use the techniques from cypherpunks.  For
instance, you could look at the US as being largely based on free-speech-anarchism, as per the First Amendment.  Based on that, and
perhaps borrowing from the Second, Fourth Amendments and other sources, you could easily justify an effort like cypherpunks.  In the
90's, Cypherpunks, individually and as a whole, were super important to avoid things going the wrong way in the US.  It was
important for clear-headed arguments to be made, legal and other challenges mounted in just the right way, and education and code
spread widely and evolved quickly.  Paranoid babble would not have helped, and is still not helping.

Understanding the "establishment" doesn't mean being "their" bot.  Your lack of understanding and/or irrational distrust doesn't
make you an anarchist; it shows your ignorance.

"You don't know your own argument unless you know your opponent's." - anon (I think.)  You can't even understand who your opponent
is unless you understand all sides as much as possible.

> 	I can counter your sick garbage/propaganda, but I'm
> 	curious why you post it here...?

Quite a weak and lazy response; you obviously have nothing but bluster.  If you can't back up your statements with evidence, you
aren't really saying anything useful.  Plonk.

I think I've probably been "here" much longer than you have.  I was learning and participating since fairly early, and continuously
for quite a few years.  For instance:


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 10298 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list