The Religion of the Cypherpunks

- EH & TCM statements on pseudospoofing
- hypocrisies and the religion of pseudospoofing
- the second pseudospoofing survey
- a tale of two `cypherpunks' (Or: The Postmaster, The Magicians, and the Critic)


EH & TCM statements on pseudospoofing
--

From `someone':

>There is no conspiracy.  EH and TCM have publicly stated several times
>that they have never "pseudospoofed."  Why would they go to such lengths
>just to create an elaborate hoax and attempt to drive you crazy?  There's
>no conceivable reason.  It's easily confirmed that there are hundreds of
>real, unique individual people on the cypherpunks list.  You see their
>email addresses.  This is crazy.  I just don't see your point.  You are
>exhibiting MAJOR paranoia symptoms.  Why do this to yourself?

I missed the public statements by EH and TCM that `they have never
`pseudospoofed'', despite my various requests, both public and private,
over the past few weeks -- could someone email those to me? Mr. May
told me he `had experimented' with the technique (I only say this
because I think it is public knowledge at this point). I have seen some
circuitous statements (quoted in the RISKS article) that pseudonyms are
a fact of life in cyberspace, and `the situations you despise will
occur.' None of these are very authoritative, IMHO. All the statements
I have seen are far from conclusive, and they have consistently
stonewalled and evaded me in private mail. (That is the *only* reason I
have continued to escalate my rhetoric.) If they answered my simple
questions, and been straightforward about their practices, I would have
no objections, and I would have `gone away' a long time ago.


hypocrisies and the religion of pseudospoofing
--

One of the things I don't understand about this pseudospoofing religion
thing -- if it is the cypherpunk religion, as hundreds of email
messages have convinced me it is, why are so many cypherpunks so
resistant to revealing their personal involvement? Isn't religion
supposed to uplifting, something you can be proud of, something you can
announce to the world? Why is there so much secrecy? You don't think
there's anything wrong or criminal or shameful about what you're doing, do you?

I suppose all the secrecy would be useful in promoting a *conspiracy*,
but what's the use in that? Isn't the whole idea that you are trying to
promote all these neat techniques to the whole world, so that everyone
can use them? (Oh, that's that annoying egalitarian idea-- sorry, of
course you have flamed that searingly.)  I always thought that
cypherpunks were against things like secret conspiracies and
corruption. Or maybe they only are against it when a *government* is
engaged in it. Private practice, so to speak, is entirely wholesome,
commendable, useful, and desirable? 

I suppose that the more that people knew about widespead
pseudospoofing, the less susceptible to it they would become, so the
usefulness of the technique would be diminished. (the `robbing the
treasury' principle I wrote about earlier --eventually it becomes
bare!). Or, some people have these nagging taboos against it. For
example, a net legend John Palmer supposedly is famous for it. Also,
some people might just leave anywhere where the pseudospoofing was
really prevalent. That would be unpleasant for anyone who wanted to
practice it routinely on unsuspecting and unwilling participants.

I suppose this secret conspiracy approach does fit in with some of the
Extropian and cryptoanarchist ideas also, about elevating the idea of
private companies, tax evasion, and black marketeering to the point of
the complete dissolution of governments, etc. I asked a top Extropian
leader about their official opinion on pseudospoofing -- neutral, pro,
con, or undecided. He was quite upset by my question and refused to
answer it, and cc:ed his response to all the other prominent leaders in
the group. (I guess this could tie in with a letter by H.Finney to me
saying that one of the Extropian leaders could help verify the
independent existence of J.Dinkelacker.)

I appreciate all the cypherpunks outlining their philosophies in so
many forums. It helps me to understand what you all are about. For
example, I just started posting to a list on Internet Mercantile
Protocols, and was quite surprised to find a group of cypherpunks
already there, strongly promoting things like completely untraceable
cash and total anonymity (and criticizing all alternatives as
Orwellian). In fact, one of them had written one of the most
*beautiful* classic cypherpunk essays in favor of the Joy of
Pseudospoofing (`tapping into new areas of the human psyche' or a
`truer, more free debate', or something like that.)

If anyone else knows of other cypherpunks posting to various Internet
development project lists, esp. those related to digital cash or
identification protocols, I would be interested in hearing from you.
Have they generally been polite? Do they look at all sides of the
issues? What do they have to say about identity protocols?

Really, though, the bottom line is that anyone doesn't like to talk
about their religion of pseudospoofing is nothing but a hypocrite. If
pseudospoofing is OK, then why hide it? If you are hiding it, does that
mean it is not OK?


the second pseudospoofing survey
--

As an example of this idea of disclosure, I asked two prominent
cypherpunk `leaders' (who object to the term, and will remain nameless
to protect their `privacy') to answer the following questions, which
would obviously unequivocally resolve their own involvement in the
practice of `pseudospoofing':

> I will stop harassing you two personally over the issue of
> pseudospoofing if you post the following, and cc: me:
> 
> 1) how many identities each of you is currently maintaining
> 2) how many U.S. states they span
> 3) how many countries they span
> 4) how many independent phone numbers you have established
> 5) what mailing lists you are using them in, past & present
> 6) what newsgroups you are using them in, past & present
> 7) the people you have privately emailed under them
> 8) how many other people you know in Cypherpunks who are routinely pseudospoofing
> 9) their own responses to these questions
> 10) your software capabilities in promoting the pseudospoofing agenda
> 11) the number of hours per day you spend on pseudospoofing
> 12) your future intentions in promoting the capability
> 
> Note that I am not requesting that you actually disclose any of the
> identities (or even close geographical information). Since you find
> pseudospoofing entirely ethical, I see no reason you would object to
> answering any of the above.
> 
> Otherwise, `the beatings will continue until morale improves'
> 
> p.s. what do you think of the RISKS article? I think it turned out
> great. Hope to hear from you. <g> 
> 
> If you wish to make your own demands, I'm negotiable.
> 

I asked these questions because I was disapointed by the results of my
survey I posted to talk.politics.crypto. While I received many
responses, few were from the cypherpunks who had openly advocated
pseudospoofing on this list. And the `core cypherpunk leadership' was
completely unrepresented. I was laboring under the impression that
everyone that passionately pursued pseudospoofing was also passionately
interested in explaining their brilliant techniques! But it appears
they are very reluctant to talk about their obviously highly refined
culture of science, religion, and art of pseudospoofing. I greatly
despaired that the cypherpunks were so unrepresented officially,
especially given their strong advocation of pseudospoofing. Surely,
they would want to let the world know about their religion! If they
didn't, it might look like they were not holy saints but just lowly
conspirators! Also, this could be the comprehensive official cypherpunk
statement crafted by EH and TCM (revered cypherpunk leaders) on
pseudospoofing that has so far eluded me.


A Tale of Two `Cypherpunks' (Or: The Postmaster, The Magicians, and the Critic)
--

So I devised this new variation of my previous survey, designed to be
completely free of `invasions of privacy', and targeted at the core
cypherpunk leadership. Sort of like a direct mailing approach. Anyway,
in response to my questions, one of the two eminent cypherpunks was
very terse, as he has a habit of being, and called my questions
`inquisitional'. I guess he was referring to the Spanish Inquisition,
where all kinds of grisly torture devices were used to extract
`confessions' from supposed criminals (often completely innocent). I'm
not clear of the connection. Perhaps someone could elaborate on this metaphor.

The second cypherpunk was more grandiose and verbose in his rhetoric.
He acknowledged that `I have resisted until now responding to your
recent rants'. For those not currently familar with the unique language
of the Pseudospoofing Religion, he was saying here that he has not
answered any of my questions directly so far because, likely, the
answers would be embarrassing, incriminating, humiliating or all of the above.

He was so compassionate as to remark on my recent apparent strain over
the topic of pseudospoofing, suggesting that I seek counseling or take
a long vacation from the Net (thanks so much for your concern). Then he
talked about how my `threats' especially the `violent ones' could not
be `idly dismissed'. This cypherpunk has an extremely active
imagination (this is evidenced in his love for great works of science
fiction, especially those that refer to the blurring of identities).
I'm not sure where he got the idea about `violence'. The only violence
that has ever been involved is entirely metaphorical, happening on the
plane of reputations and credibility. (I assure you that lately I am
bloody myself!) Maybe he took the obviously satirical line about
`continued beatings' literally. Ah, he is quite suggestible. I guess
the only thing I can remember on this subject was Dinkelacker's letter
to me, `you better start looking over your shoulder'. That was
*definitely* unpleasant! Oh, and there was what's-his-name's comment,
`I'm going to come over and kill your family with a rusty razor blade'.

This cypherpunk goes on to say that I have turned myself into the
`laughingstock of the Net [...]' from `your latest paranoid descent
into fantasy in RISKS, and your email harassment of many of us.' As for
`paranoid descent into fantasy', I think everyone understood this was a
hypothetical scenario. Maybe Mr. Cypherpunk has information that
suggests otherwise. If so, I would love to see it, as I'm sure everyone
else here would too. Actually, it's all I've been aiming for over about
a dozen posts and articles now.

I'm not sure what he is referring to as `harassment'. I think some of
the questions I have raised in my writings on pseudospoofing, and
perhaps the questions above, he considers `harassing'. I'm quite at a
loss as to why. The questions I included above are very innocuous. I
would think that someone proud of themselves and their beliefs would
humor me immediately in answering them, recognizing that I will not go
away until they do so (and answering a simple question, of course, is
just common courtesy). Certainly, I would fill out the questions
myself, and am sure many other honest cypherpunks would see no invasion
of privacy in doing so either (they are vague enough to protect
privacy, IMHO, as designed to do, but of course I'm biased!).

This cypherpunk closes by stating that `I have a strong feeling that
you're going to have a very hard time getting a job in the computer
industry after this spectacular series of rants.' Thanks, again, for
your concern! Actually, I have made some very valuable contacts from
professionals from the RISKS article, who are as concerned about these
issues as I am. My mailbox has been quite deep with requests for the
`Joy of Pseudospoofing' essay, first posted here! (Again, if anyone has
not seen it, please email me.) I'm quite glad I managed to get in this
prestigious journal, because now others can be aware of the potential
abuses of widespread, systematic, routine pseudospoofing. The
cypherpunks have been largely uninterested or critical in my writings
on the subject, so it's very refreshing to find someone else in
Cyberspace who can discuss something as important as pseudospoofing
dispassionately, knowledgeably, and honestly.

The `terse' cypherpunk had earlier notified my postmaster about my
public posting here revealing Mr. Metzger's (prominent cypherpunk and
close friend of the core leadership) mailbombing me and further
mailbomb threats. He didn't find it necessary to notify my postmaster
this time about my `inquisitional' questions. I guess he understood
when my postmaster and I both sent him mail explaining why this was an
inappropriate tactic.

The second cypherpunk had not previously mailed my postmaster, but

>I am taking the step I have never before considered doing, in more
>than five years of active participation in the Net, of copying your
>postmaster on this note. Maybe he can talk some sense to you.

I guess the `terse' cypherpunk had not informed him that my postmaster
was uninterested in his personal problems. (This is surprising, given
their obviously strong affinity for each other.) But my postmaster did
send him a note later explaining why he `didn't have time for this
nonsense'. There do not appear to be any new developments along this
line. I am crossing my fingers that my postmaster will not be further
harassed by other cypherpunks. Anyway, I think he has already decided I
have just offended a particularly vocal group of raving religious
fanatics. (Some other people have gotten this impression from the RISKS
article. Maybe the clarifications on pseudospoofing by the top
leadership will help resolve all this.)

I generally regard all these lamentations and supplications to my
postmaster as extremely desperate attempts to censor me where all other
efforts at silencing me have failed. Also, I think they are definitely
invasions of my privacy. How many other people out there would like to
have your postmaster bothered just because you offended some
particularly sensitive people? Again, if you object to what I write,
just stick me in your kill file. You will certainly save us both a lot
of trouble! Mr. Hughes, our eminent and esteemed moderator, has
recommended this numerous times in other contexts. I'm absolutely
aghast and amazed at how many cypherpunks think that the most effective
way of getting me to be quiet is to send me mail. It is quite a curious
and perplexing approach. (Even more baffling was Mr. Metzger's
procedure of sending me mail, saying essentially `do not reply to this
or I will mailbomb you with 400 messages.' I respond to virtually all
personal mail, but as I noted I have made a worthy exception for His
Royal Eminence, as learned the hard way.)

(I would like to thank those who have the power to censor me and have
refrained. It shows you have a strong and admirable sense of morality.
At one point someone told me `If I did not allow you to post, that
would not be censorship'. I never understood the reasoning. But so far,
it appears that the cypherpunks are generally opposed to direct
censorship, although the indirect route is not taboo.)

The bottom line is that my efforts at enlightenment, now spanning many
weeks, have so far have gone `unrequited'. The top cypherpunks do not
wish to reveal the extent their amazing feats of pseudospoofing. We can
only continue to speculate on their sheer prowess and fantastic span!
(I'm currently investigating the opportunity to do so in reputable
publications -- email me and I will toss your offer into the current
batch under consideration).

I guess the Tantalizing Two feel that `a magician never reveals his
secrets'. And what amazing feats of deception we have witnessed! Dozens
of Rabbits emanating from a Single Hat, all while the magician says,
`nothing up my sleeves!' Are there any stagehands or informed audience
members that would like to comment on their masters' remarkable skill?
So far, it is a remarkably unified front. But I am continuing to `cram'
wedges into the cracks...

Ah, the pity of it all. The tension, anxiety, and anticipation is
driving me crazy! I wish to consummate this affair, so to speak! The
spotlight continues to burn down hotly! When will the show be over?
When can I go home? Tell my friends what happened in the end and write
my review? When will the fat lady sing?

p.s. anyone in Colorado, PRZ is giving a talk in Boulder on Sunday I
think. if you email me I might be able to scrounge up the details
somewhere in my piles of slobbering hate mail. <g>

Go away and leave us alone, Mr. Detweiler. I am losing my patience.
I use to think you had something to contribute; I used to think that it
was cool that someone from my hometown was on the list; I used to
think you were kind of funny. This stopped about the time you (quite
seriously, and in some detail) compared me to Darth Vader... I convinced
you I wasn't the "Hydra", so I was just a seducing minion.

You have become major pest, you have done more than anyone else to 
disrupt this list and make it next to impossible for real work to get 
done on it (including work that would help mitigate problems of the 
kind you believe your "enemies" are perpetrating on you.) 

You persist in baiting the less-restrained members of the list with your 
antaigonistic, paranoid, policial/social rants, which have accomplished 
nothing producive, except to sap the energy of people who would otherwise
be writing code, engaging in PR for our cause, educating one another, and
working towards a consensus or at least an honest delineation of where
we disagree as mature individuals (rather than characterizing folks as evil 
spawn of darkness).

Note that your postmaster, when I contacted him, made it clear that he
had instructed you to stop doing whatever it was you were doing that
was upsetting people so much. If anything, you have gotten worse; you
have turned this thing into a nonsensical, paranoid, one-man jihad against 
cypherpunks on a variety of *other* lists, while continuing your activities 
on this one.

I intend to go beyond your postmaster on the next try, to various former
classmates and old friends of mine who are computation center employees,
faculty, and administration members at CSU now.  Unless, of course, you 
cut this shit out and leave us alone, or at least go back on whatever 
medication you were taking before you went from a mildly annoying over-
eager wannabe to a full-fledged psychopath.

Doug


-- 
----------------                                             /\ 
Douglas Barnes            cman@illuminati.io.com            /  \ 
Chief Wizard         (512) 448-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v)      / () \
Illuminati Online          metaverse.io.com 7777          /______\

Mr. Barnes, obviously deeply upset, emotionally objects to my simple
questions, but not ever directly, but implicitly buried and obscured in
the most spectacular set of ad hominem attacks I have ever been
privileged to find in my mailbox, outside of His Royal Eminence.

Mr. Barnes, I would be interested in your own responses to that set of
questions, or your reasons for why you should not have to answer them.
Do you think they represent a `witchhunt'? perhaps an `inquisition'?
Would you like me to show you my own responses, to help you figure out
how to understand them? are they too complicated for you? are they an
invasion of your privacy? would you be embarassed by the answers? would
you have to lie to evade incrimination? do you wish to deceive others
of your pseudospoofing?

>I used to
>think you were kind of funny. This stopped about the time you (quite
>seriously, and in some detail) compared me to Darth Vader... I convinced
>you I wasn't the "Hydra", so I was just a seducing minion.

Mr. Barnes, you tried to convince me of the Joy of Pseudospoofing, for
which I suggested you were trying to convert me to the  Dark Side
(actually, I am indebtedly grateful for that beautiful inspiration for
my essay). You told me that E.Hughes' lectures on the subject of
pseudospoofing were what drew you to it in the first place! But this is
buried very deep in my comprehensive archives, from many weeks ago. (I
encourage all other cypherpunks to keep very good archives, because
some day we will be able to separate all the pseudospoofed identities
from real ones, and it will be quite shocking, I assure you. Some
prominent cypherpunks are extremely terrified and staunchly opposed to
archives, for obvious reasons.)

>you have done more than anyone else to 
>disrupt this list and make it next to impossible for real work to get 
>done on it (including work that would help mitigate problems of the 
>kind you believe your "enemies" are perpetrating on you.) 

No one is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here, quite to the
contrary they are interested in secretly pursing it at the expense of
others, including their own associates in this group,it is the NUMBER
ONE PRIORITY, and I am quite repulsed by your baldfaced lie in the face
of reality and my oceans of fanatic hate mail (which yours is only the
latest on the pile). I asked many weeks ago that E.Hughes and T.C.May
condemn pseudospoofing. They had problems doing so, for obvious
reasons! I asked that they prohibit it from this list, or ask promises
to refrain from it. Again, an outrageous demand, apparently, based on
the response. I asked that they reveal their own practice! I have been
continually whittling down my demands, and have every time been
rebuffed. Honest cypherpunks, why is that? do you care if other people
are systematically deceiving you? When will you be free of the jaws of
this delusion? I am even offering to GO AWAY COMPLETELY if some SIMPLE
QUESTIONS are ANSWERED HONESTLY.

As for disruptions in the list, it is a fantasy that *I* have caused
any over its lifetime. It is the evasions and the stonewalling that
have caused all the *recent* commotion! it is the rampant
pseudospoofing that has poisoned `real work', and you make me your
scapegoat and martyr for its evils and your own depravity and perversions.

>You persist in baiting the less-restrained members of the list with your 
>antaigonistic, paranoid, policial/social rants, which have accomplished 
>nothing producive, except to sap the energy of people who would otherwise
>be writing code, engaging in PR for our cause, educating one another, and
>working towards a consensus or at least an honest delineation of where
>we disagree as mature individuals (rather than characterizing folks as evil 
>spawn of darkness).

Nothing but stark and utter lies. You blame the `movements'
shortcomings on myself, one person who has had the audacity to
challenge those who wish to promote their secret conspiracies of
pseudospoofing. PSEUDOSPOOFING IS THE ONLY ISSUE. I have done
everything productive to sap the energy of those writing code solely to
promote their pseudospoofing, engaging in false PR for the cause of
`Privacy for the Masses' or the `Cryptographic Revolution' when in fact
it is all nothing but deception and lies in favor of pseudospoofing,
and conspiring between one another--And I have been flamed into
oblivion by snakes and tentacles who urinate on Democracy and Consensus
and anything Egalitarian, so do not assault me with your hypocrisies
about `working towards a consensus' or `an honest delineation of where
we disagree as mature individuals', because there is nothing here but
PUERILE PSEUDOSPOOFING FANTASIES.

>Note that your postmaster, when I contacted him, made it clear that he
>had instructed you to stop doing whatever it was you were doing that
>was upsetting people so much.

I wonder how your postmaster would feel about pseudospoofing. Or are
you your own postmaster? Or does E.Hughes help maintain your site?
Those who mail my postmaster are nothing but vile and shameful cowards
with machine gun arsenals assaulting a man who has attempted to expose
frauds, poseurs, and hypocrites with nothing but his bare hands and the
Truth. You are such a slimy hypocrite, to have never have even used the
word `pseudospoofing' once in your little rant, only to say that I am
`upsetting people so much'.

>you
>have turned this thing into a nonsensical, paranoid, one-man jihad against 
>cypherpunks on a variety of *other* lists, while continuing your activities 
>on this one.

`jihad'? well, yes, I would call your pseudoreligion precisely that.
very curious how many lists they have invaded and infiltrated and
littered with their eloquent prose for Glorious Privacy, True
Anonymity, Liberating Cash, and No Oppresive Identification, yourself
included. Perhaps you would like to indicate what lists that other
cypherpunks are on, and what they have said there? (Reminds me of my
essay in RISKS -- have you seen that, by chance?) What is your own
knowledge on the the subject, hm? Can I ask without you going into
seizures or convulsions?

>I intend to go beyond your postmaster on the next try, to various former
>classmates and old friends of mine who are computation center employees,
>faculty, and administration members at CSU now.

Anyone I respect will not ask me to compromise my ethics.
Unfortunately, you do not meet this criteria.

>Unless, of course, you 
>cut this shit out and leave us alone, or at least go back on whatever 
>medication you were taking before you went from a mildly annoying over-
>eager wannabe to a full-fledged psychopath.

it is the pseudospoofing psychopunks who are the full-fledged
psychopaths. I will leave when the so-called `leadership' answers some
simple questions truthfully. Look, honest cypherpunks, OPEN YOUR EYES,
see to what extreme lengths that they have gone to, to deceive you of
their pseudospoofing, and EVADE AND STONEWALL. Reminds me of someone
talking about `betrayal, treachery, and high treason'!

You can have your secret conspiracies, xor your public credibility, for
the moment. some day, you will have neither. I suppose you could censor
me, too. Maybe E.Hughes could conduct a little poll, and state that the
majority decided to censor me. Oh, wait, you guys don't believe in
polls and voting and the majority. The Majority is Always Wrong. Well,
let's see, I guess Mr. Hughes could decide to unilaterally censor me.
But that wouldn't seem to be compatible with the cypherpunk charter. I
was looking at it recently!
(soda.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks/brainwashing). it said that
`cypherpunks do not seek to prevent others from speaking' or something like that. 

Maybe E.Hughes will change the charter and throw me out. You guys in
California could do that at your next monthly `conspiracy'. BTW, when
is it?  What do you do at those great meetings, anyway, Mr. Barnes? I
asked that someone provide minutes, so that everyone on the list may
share in the lovely `movement', but there was a lot of hostility to
that idea. Why could that be? 

Mr. Barnes, please let me know how the CA group decides to persecute me
further, beyond all the depravities I have been subject to so far.   I
do appreciate your indicating that you are going to attempt to
blackmail me through close associates, it's a fair warning. Clearly,
`they' are desperate. The facade is crumbling.

Imagine, all this fantastic hostility directed solely at me, for asking
some wholly innocuous questions. Cypherpunks, why is everyone so upset?
It makes me wonder if there is a core group hiding something or
covering something up. a `conspiracy'? (hee, hee, love that word).
Maybe I would have to move to CA to find out, eh?

Once again, I volunteer to leave if they are answered truthfully and
publicly revealed!