No Subject

At 5:15 PM 12/29/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>This fascist move by the U.S. government is a huge threat to our liberty.
>It may be time to simply give up on communicating with these assholes and
>give them the treatment they have earned.
> ...
>And this a very big one indeed. Not only does it probably put organizations
>like C2 out of business, at least in terms of supporting the development of
>things like the South African and British Web products, but it also may
>mean the *Cypherpunks list itself*, and some of its members, are ipso facto
>in violation of this "giving comfort to the enemy" (to paraphrase) language!
> ...
>This very list advocates violation of the ITARs in various ways (I speak of
>"the list" as a person in the sense of the consensus of the list...there
>may not be unanimity, but the consensus of the vocal members of the list is
>obvious).
>
>
>It may be time for us to go underground. It may be time to take much, much,
>much, much more extreme steps. This fascism is unacceptable.

While Tim May has had many many great ideas, this is not one of them.

To paraphrase Joseph Stalin: Tim, how many divisions do you have?

The cypherpunks have virtually no force at all.  If the battle is
moved to that arena, the cypherpunks (and everybody else) lose big
time.  If the cypherpunks manage to pull off some sort of "extreme
step", those who aren't shot while resisting arrest will go to prison.
Worst of all, most people will applaud the action.  "Extreme steps"
legitimize the radical proposals of the Clipper crowd.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say "I feel your pain", I am
sympathetic with the frustration you must feel when your own
government is the greatest threat to all that it is right and decent.

But, "extreme steps" are the wrong approach and play right into the
hands of the defense establishment.  It saves them the trouble of
implementing a "strategy of tension."

The right approach is to continually reiterate that the cypherpunks
are mainstream and fairly conservative.  Many of us like the "bad boy"
image, but most of what has been proposed is very solidly rooted in
American traditions.

If the ITAR regulations can be amended to make discussions on this
list a "conspiracy", then they are very likely unconstitutional.
Article I, Section I, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be
vested in a congress of the United States..."

Pretty unambiguous.

We should not underestimate the broad public support for private
communications which exists in the United States.  Even people who are
unfamiliar with the issue are shocked when they learn that the U.S.
government is trying to gain access to all communications.

The only people who want GAK are in the government.  There is no
constituency in the population which wants it, and quite a few that do
not.  The more publicly the issue is discussed and the more actively
we scrutinize the lies and deceptions of the U.S. government, the
more successful we will be.

The GAK crowd have not been honest or forthright in their public
statements on their plans.  We must reiterate this again and again and
again.  If they cannot be honest about their proposed policy, how can
we trust them to hold the keys?  Obviously, we cannot.  This will be
obvious to most Americans, and even some reporters.

Red Rackham

Bill Frantz wrote:
> 
> At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
> >Our focus is more radical. We are effectively a cyber-militia,
> >fulfilling Jefferson's recommendation that a revolution happen
> >every 20 years.
> >
> >(Funny, there hasn't been one in more than 200 years. ...
> 
> I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated
> legally mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as
> a revolution. People certainly put their bodies, and occasionally
> their lives, on the line for it.  It didn't happen because the
> political powers that be decided to do it.  It happened because
> people mobbed in the streets and made it happen.

Cryptoanarchy, as envisioned here, is not about people mobbing in the 
streets. It's fundamentally about insulating oneself from the mobs in 
the streets. When Tim says he's an elitist, he means it, though of 
course we may disagree on who is allowed to be part of our "elite." I 
wouldn't exclude people who find the most extreme "satire" in the 
"ebonics" threads, for example.

However, revolutions tend to have unintended consequences. The noblemen 
who drafted the Magna Carta never thought it would become a broad 
statement of rights. The slaveholders who signed the Declaration of 
Independence never thought it would be used against them.

If crypto becomes ubiquitous worldwide, I doubt Tim May's ilk will enjoy 
the result. In the short term, it's a defense that preserves the 
distribution of wealth and privilege, but in the long run, we'll see 
that eroded. There is something to Vulis's latest rants -- his "facts" 
are all lies, of course, but there's something there.

Lies, evasions, and deception give temporary advantage, but eventually 
they come back home to roost. Sometimes it takes generations.

The things that last are the ideas that make people mob in the streets, 
not the things that enable them to hide at home.

-rich

Rich Graves wrote:
> Bill Frantz wrote:
> > At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > >Our focus is more radical. We are effectively a cyber-militia,
> > >fulfilling Jefferson's recommendation that a revolution happen
> > >every 20 years. (Funny, there hasn't been one in more than 200 years.[snip]
> >I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated legally
> >mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as a revolution.[snip]
> Cryptoanarchy, as envisioned here, is not about people mobbing in the
> streets. It's fundamentally about insulating oneself from the mobs in
> the streets. However, revolutions tend to have unintended consequences.[snip]
             
Looks like we're coming to the old "irresistable force meets immovable
object" consensus, yes?

The sheeple are going to plod along slowly and resistantly towards
personal, "secure" encryption,
while the rulers would rather eat their children than give up money.

My guess is that the public (see: sheeple) is *never* going to become
technically oriented, no matter how many gizmos or crypto programs they
have and can use. Therefore, the rulers, possessing ever greater numbers
and quality of intrusive devices, will inch forward toward total control,
despite temporary advances by the sheeple.

The (perfect) example of the 1960's revolution was vastly outweighed by:

1. Decapitation of any independent leadership, i.e., assassinations.
2. Co-opting of schools, businesses, media, welfare programs et al.
3. Tremendous advances in disinformation and propaganda technology
   which has no analogy amongst the general public.

Some people think the Internet will help the average guy win back some
freedom, but the reality is that capital is still being shifted away
from the common folk to the wealthier folk, even as the Internet expands.

The sheeple have had one (unintended) weapon on their side:  The fact
that the scumbag fed agencies and their beneficiaries have been fighting
amongst themselves a lot (see: assassinations). This will instantly stop
if the sheeple become a real threat.  You won't believe how fast.

It's the dream of every elitist that they will someday be able to enjoy
a really comfortable and yet productive existence, where the non-elite
are satisfied and happy with their jobs (or are somehow being supported
without unduly burdening the elitists), and most important, are just
comfortable enough that they won't riot (or at least won't riot in the
elitist neighborhoods).  Most likely the electronic implants and drugs
(Soma, HDTV/3DTV) will alleviate most of the sheeple's unhappiness, so
as to reduce the requirement for the elitists to give any more attention
to these problems.

At 5:54 PM -0500 12/30/96, Bovine Remailer (Red Rackham, apparently) wrote:
>At 5:15 PM 12/29/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

>>It may be time for us to go underground. It may be time to take much, much,
>>much, much more extreme steps. This fascism is unacceptable.
>
>While Tim May has had many many great ideas, this is not one of them.
>
>To paraphrase Joseph Stalin: Tim, how many divisions do you have?

I'd say remailers have been a pretty powerful weapon in our arsenal, as
have been offshore sites, the "anarchy" of the Net in general, and, of
course, PGP and other such programs. The government clearly views strong
cryptography as a weapon, as a munition. More on this later.

>The cypherpunks have virtually no force at all.  If the battle is
>moved to that arena, the cypherpunks (and everybody else) lose big
>time.  If the cypherpunks manage to pull off some sort of "extreme
>step", those who aren't shot while resisting arrest will go to prison.
>Worst of all, most people will applaud the action.  "Extreme steps"
>legitimize the radical proposals of the Clipper crowd.

I gave up on trying to "appear reasonable" long ago. Take it or leave it.

"Extreme step" doesn't mean doing anything that is traceable to a
particular person, and certainly doesn't mean doing militia-type things to
physical buildings or the criminals who work in them.

Rather, pushing for things like violating the ITARs, which we do. (Bill
Frantz noted, tongue in cheek I think, that Cypherpunks do not adovacate
breaking such laws. Well, this is of course absurd. Our whole focus on
steganography, on remailers, on carrying CD-ROMs out of the country, etc.,
is basically advocating various circumventions of USG laws.)

Gilmore's SWAN (getting machine-to-machine links widely encrypted) is
another "extreme step."

As to our "reasonableness," I make little effort to hide the fact that I
support strong cryptography because it means that the plague of democracy
and "mob rule" can be turned back...I view crypto anarchy as an elitist
development, one which the ubermensch will appreciate, but the masses will
recoil in horror from.

Fuck the herd.

>The right approach is to continually reiterate that the cypherpunks
>are mainstream and fairly conservative.  Many of us like the "bad boy"
>image, but most of what has been proposed is very solidly rooted in
>American traditions.

But most of the active voices here are simply *not* "mainstream" and
"conservative" (except in some senses).

>If the ITAR regulations can be amended to make discussions on this
>list a "conspiracy", then they are very likely unconstitutional.
>Article I, Section I, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be
>vested in a congress of the United States..."

Careful, Red! Would it make you happier with the ITARs if Congress passes a
law enacting the regs? It won't make me any happier.

>We should not underestimate the broad public support for private
>communications which exists in the United States.  Even people who are
>unfamiliar with the issue are shocked when they learn that the U.S.
>government is trying to gain access to all communications.

I agree. But there are plenty of forums (fora) for "reasonableness" (some
would say namby-pambyness). EFF is one such "reasonable" forum.

Our focus is more radical. We are effectively a cyber-militia, fulfilling
Jefferson's recommendation that a revolution happen every 20 years.

(Funny, there hasn't been one in more than 200 years. Jefferson would
likely be shocked. And the Founders who revolted over comparatively
miniscule tax rates imposed by the King, would surely be stunned by the 50%
or more in taxes paid by many or even most taxpayers. And the laws of all
sorts.)

>The only people who want GAK are in the government.  There is no
>constituency in the population which wants it, and quite a few that do
>not.  The more publicly the issue is discussed and the more actively
>we scrutinize the lies and deceptions of the U.S. government, the
>more successful we will be.

>Red Rackham

I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism in
the defense of liberty, as some wise men said.

--Tim May



Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

It's always sad to see another sometimes-reasonable (though sometimes
foaming) writer go down the Detweiler-Vulis route, e.g., by making his
arguments hinge on calling me "Timmy" (what _is_ it with this nickname that
makes it so damned attractive to Vulis, Vlad, and Attila?).

At 8:14 AM +0000 1/1/97, Attila T. Hun wrote:

>        your elitism is crap; if you know it and persist, you are asking
>    to lose the "war" with the Feds; if you don't know it, you're just
>    ignorant.  you are doing nothing except feeding your own ego in the
>    hope of winning one battle and establishing that self-same elitism.
....
>        I didn't fight in foreign wars for this crap from an 'American.'

Actually, the war you apparently fought in was of course a total waste.
This is too well known to repeat here.

Making rhetorical arguments hinge on the notion that you fought in some
god-forsaken war in the middle of nowhere is absurd. You were just cannon
fodder, a pawn in the geopolitical chess game, a means of enhancing certain
political careers...though you ultimately let them down, as LBJ chose to
bow out, and Nixon resigned. You were playing your role, Attila!

As for my "elitism," I've never presented myself in any other fashion. I've
discussed this issue many times. Get used to it, or ignore it, or just keep
foaming at the mouth and ranting about how I need to take "yellow pills" to
avoid being an ally of "Bubba."

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:

> 
> It's always sad to see another sometimes-reasonable (though sometimes
> foaming) writer go down the Detweiler-Vulis route, e.g., by making his
> arguments hinge on calling me "Timmy" (what _is_ it with this nickname that
> makes it so damned attractive to Vulis, Vlad, and Attila?).

It's a meme, both self-perpetuating *and* spontaneously generating.  The 
antagonist, in the passion of the moment, doesn't hit the space, shift, 
or 'A' keys while typing fast.  Other people, insensed by the post, respond
in kind, and so forth.  

Alan Bostick               | To achieve harmony in bad taste is the height
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | of elegance.
news:alt.grelb             |      Jean Genet
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

Alan Bostick <abostick@netcom.com> writes:

> On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
> >
> > It's always sad to see another sometimes-reasonable (though sometimes
> > foaming) writer go down the Detweiler-Vulis route, e.g., by making his
> > arguments hinge on calling me "Timmy" (what _is_ it with this nickname that
> > makes it so damned attractive to Vulis, Vlad, and Attila?).
>
> It's a meme, both self-perpetuating *and* spontaneously generating.  The
> antagonist, in the passion of the moment, doesn't hit the space, shift,
> or 'A' keys while typing fast.  Other people, insensed by the post, respond
> in kind, and so forth.

Does Timmy's middle initial (C.) _really stand for Cunt?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Timothy C. May wrote:

| >The cypherpunks have virtually no force at all.  If the battle is
| >moved to that arena, the cypherpunks (and everybody else) lose big
| >time.  If the cypherpunks manage to pull off some sort of "extreme
| >step", those who aren't shot while resisting arrest will go to prison.
| >Worst of all, most people will applaud the action.  "Extreme steps"
| >legitimize the radical proposals of the Clipper crowd.
| 
| I gave up on trying to "appear reasonable" long ago. Take it or leave it.
| 
| "Extreme step" doesn't mean doing anything that is traceable to a
| particular person, and certainly doesn't mean doing militia-type things to
| physical buildings or the criminals who work in them.
| 
| Rather, pushing for things like violating the ITARs, which we do. (Bill
| Frantz noted, tongue in cheek I think, that Cypherpunks do not adovacate
| breaking such laws. Well, this is of course absurd. Our whole focus on
| steganography, on remailers, on carrying CD-ROMs out of the country, etc.,
| is basically advocating various circumventions of USG laws.)
| 
| Gilmore's SWAN (getting machine-to-machine links widely encrypted) is
| another "extreme step."
| 
| As to our "reasonableness," I make little effort to hide the fact that I
| support strong cryptography because it means that the plague of democracy
| and "mob rule" can be turned back...I view crypto anarchy as an elitist
| development, one which the ubermensch will appreciate, but the masses will
| recoil in horror from.
| 
| Fuck the herd.

	Crypto anarchy is not an elitist development, nor is
'equalizing.'  The privacy and tax avoidance features of crypto
anarchy are already available to the very wealthy, as Unicorn can
doubtless explain.  They are not available to the moderately wealthy,
nor are they easy to take advantage of.

	I'll declare victory the day McSwitzerland starts advertising
for business in the pages of Newsweak.

	Cheap, easy, universal access to the techniques of tax
avoidance, binding contracts with escrowed bonds in jurisdictions with
unemasculated contract law mean that things available only to the very
rich are available to anyone who chooses to use them.

	Tim sees this as eliteness, since those who gain will be self
selected.  I see it as a democritization of privacy, one the
'masses' will be glad to be involved with, if its presented properly.
(See 'The Great Simoleon Caper' for more on proper presentation.)


Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism
> in the defense of liberty, as some wise men said.

Barry Goldwater describes the person who said that as a stupid, selfish 
kid. I believe those are his exact words; he did lunch at my dorm in 
Spring 1991. He had a book out at the time.

Some people mellow with age. Others go the other way.

-rich

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
>
> I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism in
> the defense of liberty, as some wise men said.

Of course, "cypher punks" are opposed to liberty. Have you noticed that the
only crypto-relevant thread in weeks is about protocols to stop free speech?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> >
> > I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism in
> > the defense of liberty, as some wise men said.

  How about extremism in the defense of moderation?

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> > I'll continue to be radical in my views. Nothing wrong with extremism in
> > the defense of liberty, as some wise men said.

> Of course, "cypher punks" are opposed to liberty. Have you noticed that the
> only crypto-relevant thread in weeks is about protocols to stop free speech?

Could it be that most "serious" list subscribers are "security people"?

And who are the people in the U.S. who are most abusive of individual
rights and freedoms?  Voila.  Hence the heavy emphasis on preventing
this and that....

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v03007801aeef0dff9afe@[207.167.93.63]>, on 12/31/96 
   at 10:54 AM, "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> said:

::As to our "reasonableness," I make little effort to hide the fact that 
::I support strong cryptography because it means that the plague of 
::democracy and "mob rule" can be turned back...I view crypto anarchy as 
::an elitist development, one which the ubermensch will appreciate, but 
::the masses will recoil in horror from.

::Fuck the herd.

        yes, and that is why there was a Robespierre and a Madam 
    Defarge.  do you wish to be the first to be strapped to the board?

        your elitism is crap; if you know it and persist, you are asking 
    to lose the "war" with the Feds; if you don't know it, you're just 
    ignorant.  you are doing nothing except feeding your own ego in the 
    hope of winning one battle and establishing that self-same elitism.

        either your "elite" stoop to the level of the 'herd' you so 
    glibbly label 'Fuck the herd,' and enlist their support of *their* 
    rights to free speech, or you might as well invite Bubba into your 
    living room after the advance party has taken your much touted 
    hardware and your clips of hollow points "for public safety."  and 
    what do you say to the most corrupt and despicable President in our 
    history?  "Fuck the herd?!"  

        You and Bubba can hold hands, dancing around the room, jumping 
    up at down, screaming "Fuck the herd!" "Fuck the herd!"  

        welcome to the world of bubba and hillary.

        these statements do nothing but confirm you are riding a 
    self-styled ego trip to be above the "herd" and flaunt your rights 
    to a lethal weapon. 

        I didn't fight in foreign wars for this crap from an 'American.'

        take a little yellow pill. a mother's little helper. then check 
    in again for a little help; you've lost it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMsogIL04kQrCC2kFAQFZswQAm3H/12VUQ4q2S6E5nmWvDwZ9LTdvJf7/
y1/0LJEgNMV9CB37Jc0e8pKrg/ax983cjbSUi1j9rLqqPgS7YolfB1rcHaCQeuXB
yVznc4H7DF4JXIoJGNISF5po8ucXYcZ3l3PtetAzzoJxiszk8G3RJZVSYLOXWpbP
9AJ+Dq4YKZw=
=dTHR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Attila T. Hun" <attila@primenet.com> writes:
> ::As to our "reasonableness," I make little effort to hide the fact that
> ::I support strong cryptography because it means that the plague of
> ::democracy and "mob rule" can be turned back...I view crypto anarchy as
> ::an elitist development, one which the ubermensch will appreciate, but
> ::the masses will recoil in horror from.
>
> ::Fuck the herd.
>
>         yes, and that is why there was a Robespierre and a Madam
>     Defarge.  do you wish to be the first to be strapped to the board?
>
>         your elitism is crap; if you know it and persist, you are asking
>     to lose the "war" with the Feds; if you don't know it, you're just
>     ignorant.  you are doing nothing except feeding your own ego in the
>     hope of winning one battle and establishing that self-same elitism.
>
>         either your "elite" stoop to the level of the 'herd' you so
>     glibbly label 'Fuck the herd,' and enlist their support of *their*
>     rights to free speech, or you might as well invite Bubba into your
>     living room after the advance party has taken your much touted
>     hardware and your clips of hollow points "for public safety."  and
>     what do you say to the most corrupt and despicable President in our
>     history?  "Fuck the herd?!"
>
>         You and Bubba can hold hands, dancing around the room, jumping
>     up at down, screaming "Fuck the herd!" "Fuck the herd!"

"Cypher punks'" opposition to free speech is another good example of their
elitist attitude. They only want freedom to express the ideas they agree
with. Not only is the notion of supporting freedom to express idea they
don't like totally alien to "cypher punks"; they actively seek to promote
censorship. Indeed the only crypto-relevant thread on this mailing list
in many weeks was a "pseudo-crypto" discussion of protocols to suppress
free speech and to limit the expression to views approved by the cocksucker
John Gilmore.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
>Our focus is more radical. We are effectively a cyber-militia, fulfilling
>Jefferson's recommendation that a revolution happen every 20 years.
>
>(Funny, there hasn't been one in more than 200 years. ...

I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated legally
mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as a revolution.
People certainly put their bodies, and occasionally their lives, on the
line for it.  It didn't happen because the political powers that be decided
to do it.  It happened because people mobbed in the streets and made it
happen.

The same argument applies to the actions which forced the withdrawal from
Vietnam.

With the end of the cold war, and the ensuing reduction in need for the
entrenched national security establishment, we may be ripe for another one.
I personally hope our government will continue to show that it is civilized
by keeping the blood shed to a minimum.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | in Pittsburgh, Packets in  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | Pakistan. - me             | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Bill Frantz wrote:
> At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:[snip]
> I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated legally
> mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as a revolution.
> People certainly put their bodies, and occasionally their lives, on the
> line for it.  It didn't happen because the political powers that be decided
> to do it.  It happened because people mobbed in the streets and made it
> happen. The same argument applies to the actions which forced the withdrawal
> from Vietnam. With the end of the cold war, and the ensuing reduction in
> need for the entrenched national security establishment, we may be ripe
> for another one. I personally hope our government will continue to show
> that it is civilized by keeping the blood shed to a minimum.

I'll tell you exactly what they'll show.  They are a *lot* more hardened
to civil unrest than they were at Kent State, etc.  This time, as in the
late 1970's, the leaders, organizers, and other influential people will
be removed, one way or the other.  Dissidents will be allowed, as long
as (like Chomsky) they're not a real threat.

Again, can anyone tell me how I can stop receiving this mail. I have to
stay off for a month and I am afraid I will not be able to read it.

Thanks & Happy New Year















On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Bill Frantz wrote:
> > At 10:54 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:[snip]
> > I would say that the street action which effectively eliminated legally
> > mandated racial segregation about 25 years ago qualifies as a revolution.
> > People certainly put their bodies, and occasionally their lives, on the
> > line for it.  It didn't happen because the political powers that be decided
> > to do it.  It happened because people mobbed in the streets and made it
> > happen. The same argument applies to the actions which forced the withdrawal
> > from Vietnam. With the end of the cold war, and the ensuing reduction in
> > need for the entrenched national security establishment, we may be ripe
> > for another one. I personally hope our government will continue to show
> > that it is civilized by keeping the blood shed to a minimum.
> 
> I'll tell you exactly what they'll show.  They are a *lot* more hardened
> to civil unrest than they were at Kent State, etc.  This time, as in the
> late 1970's, the leaders, organizers, and other influential people will
> be removed, one way or the other.  Dissidents will be allowed, as long
> as (like Chomsky) they're not a real threat.
> 
>

ABB Electrical Engineering  <abbee@ritsec1.com.eg> writes:

> Again, can anyone tell me how I can stop receiving this mail. I have to
> stay off for a month and I am afraid I will not be able to read it.

Is .eg in Egypt?

> Thanks & Happy New Year

Happy New Year to you too.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

All I can tell you is brother, you'll have to wait.

-rich