Anarchists have the same problem they did when I first ran into them before Facebook: they don't handle crimes like sexual assault well. I skipped queercon at

Anarchists have the same problem they did when I first ran into them before Facebook: they don't handle crimes like sexual assault well. I skipped queercon at my Defcon because of rumors I heard, rumors that were confirmed, about rampant physical and sexual abuse by so called "anarchists". And then, at my second, someone made a show of telling me I'm not a "n00b" and I cannot have a hacker handle, because I hadn't wanted to a shot of alcohol on stage the previous year. So I told the entire conference OK, fine, my legal name is Gregory, but my hacker name is Greg. On my end, it feels like folks treat political ideology like favorite strains of techno or whatever. I don't care if you're a Communist, a democratic socialist, anarcho-communist, Democratic sociaist, a green, a furry, a goon, a progressive, an anarcho-syndicalist, a "left libertarian" or whatever goddamn label you want to put on yourself, if my perception is you claim to not "believe" in things like borders as you very purposefully do as many crimes as possible to bring yourself pleasure, then get on a plane to Berghain or Britain or whatever to do it all over again and demand folks just respect your "mutual association" or some crap. Well, it's why you see me doing things like not post for years at a time then slam espresso and spend the day making it very clear what MY opinions are. It's why I spent the entirety of the Trump administration focused on learning as many technical skills as I could, in preparation for events exactly like what unfolded on January 6th -- because I believe in democracy, and republicanism, and that then, within that framework, people can go do anarchism or whatever, and not interact with "the state" as long as they don't run around raping everyone they come across like Jacob Appelbaum[1], Morgan Marquis-Boire[2] and Joshua Schulte[3] did. I cannot emphasize how personally offended I was to find out the kinds of behavior that were tolerated by so called "civil society". It's why I'm posting as hard as I am today, after spending last night sending out a series of messages on the encrypted line to the effect of "Why do we tolerate these people? Do I need to act like them to be accepted by the hacker community and use my technical skills?" I am not the enemy of the anarchists. I want people to be able to have a nice day. But I will ruin your day, ever day, as I spent every dime of my meager retirement fund, because I am THAT tired of feeling retaliated against for making good decisions. Because the rumors are true: I'm an insufferable troll when I'm in bad mood. I'm not required to be quiet, I'm not required to respect your privacy, and I will literally hack you one by one if I need to (hopefully with a computer), if it will fix the toxic culture I see in the hacker community, where you cannot distinguish between words in a formal whitepaper and words written on the fly after an espresso and a taro bun, because if you break the social contract, we're operating under natural law, and I'm a white man with money, IQ, and skill, and I don't intend to use it to kill a bunch of Iraqis or whatever, and never have, and I'm tired of being made to feel ashamed for that. So maybe instead of picking apart my phrasing, some people on this site should be absolutely terrified that I can write like this with zero preparation, when it would take them years to achieve this level of skill in prose. Then maybe look up the concept of a "libelle"[4] >Of all the public figures subjected to such vicious derision and gossip (often highly inaccurate gossip at that), Marie Antoinette was singled out for especially inventive and vicious taunting. True to French tradition, the slanderous pamphlets, called libelles, were fond of wordplay. For the Austrian-born Antoinette, they coined Austrichienne, meaning “Austrian bitch,” but also resembling the French word for “ostrich.” Thus, layering a visual pun upon a verbal one, one artist actually portrayed Antoinette stroking a massive, ostrich-like penis, complete with legs and a saddle. Mounted upon the penile steed was progressive royalist Marquis de Lafayette, who sympathized with the peasants but was eventually denounced as a traitor by Robespierre (revolutionaries tend not to be terribly fond of diplomatic fence-straddlers). Then after reading about THAT, educate yourself on libel, specifically that in my state[5][6], though I usully strive to tell the truth, if you want to question my integriry, YOU will need to prove what I said was false to move forward, because this is like the fall of the USSR, and I very purposefully set things up so even if a bullet came through the window now, at least I'd know my enemies will die much more unpleasantly. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/sources-tor-project-board-knew-about-allegations-against-jac https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/sources... [2] https://citizenlab.ca/2017/10/open-letter-sexual-assault/ https://citizenlab.ca/2017/10/open-letter-sexual-assault/ [3] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-case-of-a-cia-hackers-revenge https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-ca... [4] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/05/the-necessity-of-political-vulgarity https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/05/the-necessity-of-poli... [5] McLibel: burger culture on trial by John Vidal (Macmillan, 1997; New Press, 1998) ISBN 0-333-69461-9 (hardcover), ISBN 0-330-35237-7 (paperback), ISBN 1-56584-411-4 (US). Afterword by Steel and Morris [6] The original case lasted nearly ten years which, according to the BBC, made it the longest-running libel case in English history.[1] McDonald's announced it did not plan to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts.[2] Following the decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in Steel & Morris v United Kingdom the pair had been denied a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial) and their conduct should have been protected by Article 10 of the Convention, which protects the right to freedom of expression. The court awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government.[3] McDonald's itself was not involved in, or a party to, this action, as applications to the ECHR are independent cases filed against the relevant state.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case