It would seem that the spike of new members in Reddit's /r/bitcoin was caused by the rumor of islamic terrorists using bitcoin.  At least, the top thread and several other threads are on that topic:
http://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin

Aren't enemies like beacons, in that, although you very much want to keep clear of them, you are glad they are there because they show you whether you are in the right path?

Brock Pierce, notable member of The What-Was-It Foundation, launches RealCoin:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/08/dollar-backed-digital-currency-aims-to-fix-bitcoins-volatility-dilemma/

Unless you are an academic with enemies, why should you care?

Sigh, again, I wrote

BUT indeed I believe that anarchy, no matter how it starts, is unsustainable, and is quickly replaced by a government, internal or external; and, in the first case, often an authoritarian government, rather than a democratic one.

Got a comment on my twitter: "Well, it could be worse. We could be playing against Argentina."

Perhaps that is why you are one of the most cool-headed posters here? 

And it is difficult to get a man to agree on something else, when the value of his investment depends on others not understanding it. 

By the way, the word 'anarchy  is ancient (Oxford Dictionary: "mid 16th century [ in English ]: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler').  Proudhon may have been the first to use it as the name of an explicit political model.

But I just told you that I do not define 'anarchism' as 'chaotic lack of order'.  You are kicking the wrong dog.

No, by anarchy I mean just the absence of a government and its "monopolistic" courts, police, etc.  I know that anarchists dream of an orderly and free society without government; but, based on history and human nature, I don't believe such a society would survive long enough to be remembered.

"Anarchist" is pejorative in most countries, but in Italy Anarchism has a rather positive aura -- intellectually, but not in practice.  That's because the Anarchists were much involved in the political movements that led to the expulsion of foreign colonial governors (from Spain, France, and Austria) and the independence and unification of the country.  They played the role of the American activists who first spoke and conspired against the rule of Britain, I guess.  But, of course, as soon as the country was unified, the Anarchists were thanked and pushed aside, and monarchy was established (with a branch of the French House of Savoy on the throne). 

Mussolini and Hitler also indirectly benefited from anarchists who called on people to refuse to take part in the "political game" of  "sham democracy", and thus helped weaken the governments that they then took over.

Was it so?  My understanding is that there is no reliable information about the governance of Ireland before the first written records, and by then it was just like any other place on Earth with similar level of development:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland

Acedemics have enemies too; who knows who may be reading this thread? 

i don't know the examples you mention. I know of a few conscious attempts at anarchic communes going back to the middle ages, but all of them small and toppled by external forces.  Anarchy on a larger scale often arises involuntarily after the collapse of a centralized government with a complex administrative infrastructure; and in that case it is often succeeded by a domestic tyranny. The French and Russian revolutions may be examples of the latter.

I don't know of any example, anytime or anywhere, of an urbanized society that survived without government for more than a few months. (Although I gather that achaeologists have yet to find signs of a government at Çatal Höyök, "the very first city").

And nothing, but it could be a way of getting even, too. 

Wasn't there an announcement, a month or so ago, of a facebook app that would allow tipping in a dozen cryptos, EXCLUDING bitcoin?

Just as anarchism quickly degenerates into totalitarian rule, under laissez faire capitalism every market quickly becomes a monopoly or oligopoly; and then the companies can demand special laws and bailouts with the excuse that they are too big to be allowed to fail.

Laissez-faire capitalism was not Reagan's invention of course, nor an exclusive of Repubican governments.  It ran amok before 1929 and led to that classic collapse.  The earliest example of the "too big to fail" argument that I remember watching live on TV was Lee Iacocca getting a huge loan (from Jimmy Carter, perhaps?) to save Chrysler, then one of the three only US car makers.

Obviously they expect that the opening of that new market will create a demand for BTC (indirectly, via their fund) greater than their holdings, so they will get a lot more $$ than they would by selling them now. 

Which it may.  However the SMBIT and PBP funds do not seem to have created much extra demand over their history.  Would it make much difference having a fund traded on NASDAQ, instead of privately?

SMBIT started in September 2013 with a stash of ~18'000 BTC, and sold shares that represent ~107'000 BTC, about 2/3 of them before December: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337486.0  So they sucked up about 90'000 BTC from the "great market" (including OTC).  (Apparently they haven't sold any net shares in the last month; which may explain their sudden desire to help the poor Argentinians, instead of the poor Americans.)

Their profits are hard to estimate since they depend on how much they paid for those 107'000 BTC compared to the market price at the time they sold the corresponding shares.  However, they should make at least 5 million USD just on fees over those shares. So, even if the SMBIT owners were "dumb" and made no profit from strategic buying, and had to hire a couple of staff to manage the fund, they can sleep soundly and smiling every night, no matter what color stands out on the BTC/USD charts.

Or pretended not to notice it, out of respect for academic decorum?