"A cypherpunk is one who advocates the widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a means of effecting social and political change."[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

The book in question. What was the intent or purpose of coming at this sideways?

https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/113373898014727437041/pl...

I have photos of the individual exhibit pieces too if anyone's interested.

I don't think you need a pretty landing page and the content of https://www.cypherpunkbooks.com/collection

could directly live under

https://www.cypherpunkbooks.com/

it's a website with information and I really want to see the collection and information insteda of just a single headline with an animation

I've peeked into that one. I've expected those people to be radical to some degree, but I didn't expect they write it down so clearly.

This writing wants to see the collapse of governments and democracy. I find it painful to read such radical statements. So I didn't get very deep.

But I am riddled how those people think a collapse of that scale will work out in their favor. They are deeply reliant on technology and the first thing to happen on collapse, is that many lights turn off.

It’s interesting to think about the ‘best’ way to organise a society; its enticing to think that society could be contained in a single encompassing structure, but such a structure is impossible.

Human-implemented anarchism might be futile, because it is already implemented, and there is no sovereign with agency above our institutions. It becomes apparent, in the second quarter of the 21st century, that any co-operative agreements and intergovernmental treaties are just as vulnerable as gang treaties.

If the world only stratified, with no balkanisation, it would form a homogeneous structure, but something prevents this. What?

A park where anything goes ... because sentry robots keep the peace. When the robots break, things get scary quickly.

I've become convinced that a well-governed society is the perfect foundation for a limited anarchist commune set up on property legally purchased. Libertarian, essentially. Or Amish.

I think most superficial interpretations of anarchists are based on edgy LARPers rather than real political ideology.

Fun fact: Anarchy means "without rulers", not "without laws" or "without social order". There's a wide diversity of political thought under this umbrella, but the key underlying common denominator is (on some level, at least) a rejection of hierarchy (and often a rejection of capital).

Though it's fun to imagine what the philosophical and political beliefs that underpin a colloquial understanding of the word might look like, the answer is usually simply: Teenagers.

Recommend reading "Against the State" by James Stout, wherein he describes history of various Anarchist societies, including Barcelona during Spanish fascism, Myanmar where they are very successfully fighting the junta which wrested control from their civilian government, and Rojava where he personally visited and gives a firsthand account.

Not the absence of a society, where utter lawlessness reigns. Most people's colloquial idea of anarchy is a Mad Max film.

I'm not being dismissive at all of anything except the public's misconceptions.

Try talking to some anarchists and its pretty obvious their ideas don't go deep nor can stand well some questioning. Once you are in fairy land, anything may seem like a good idea to tackle ie some injustice.

What's sort of funny, is how all these seemingly polar-opposite anti-establishment flavors are actually far closer to each other than they are to mainstream political left or right.

The anti-establishment part ends up overriding everything else

That's how you end up with Bernie/Trump crossover voters

I have no clue how any equality minded person could vote republicans or trump.

I get that you want to point out the overlap of the ideologies, but I don't see how they are remotely attributable to the current political landscape. (Strictly in the equality matter)

Trump is not a socialist or an anarchist of any kind (I have a hard time believing he has any political ideology or even ideas about governance at all), and neither are the vast majority of the political establishment.

Maybe it just reads weird or I read it weird, to read trump at some point and someone else ending the sentence with equality.

"Government" is the creator and enforcer of the rules of society; it's merely a matter of flavor of what that looks like: democratic, Church, warlord, corporate state, etc.

Nature abhors a vacuum and a power vacuum will always be filled -- I'd rather it be a democratic version, which is the least-worst option.

Though, of course, to each their own.

To me, how can you possibly enjoy reading something some other person simply ... made up? Like an elaborate lie?

Contrarily, non-fiction tells it how it happened within the very reality I myself live in, subject to the same laws of nature and real psychology, and therefore, and only therefore, able to teach me something about real life on this earth.

Do you enjoy watching movies or series, reading comics? Going to the theatre (as in - not movies, but actual theatre)?

Edit: Do note that I wrote enjoy - I've certainly read my fair share of non-fiction. A classic Agatha Christy murder-mystery, while set in the real world, is anything but realistic.

I really for the most part do not. I've not even seen any of the big oscar winning pieces everyone keeps talking about.

As I said to another commentator on here as well:

Without any disdain, I cannot bring myself to watch hours of another person's fantasy, when I could instead be shaping my own reality.

and dont write off comics either, there is some genuine phenomenally emotional works in that medium.

But I don't understand how those could not only be held to the same level as The Hobbit, but that you seem incapable of even reading Animal Farm.

Do you enjoy any fictional media? TV, movies, plays, interactive murder mystery dinners, tabletop games (d&d, etc)?

Nope, I truly live under a rock when it comes to those.

I've been wanting to watch the big ones (Hobbit, LotR, ...), but – and I say this with no disdain:

I simply cannot get myself to consume hours upon hours of somebody else's fantasy – when I could instead be shaping my own reality.

— William Shakespeare, Fantasy Author

  "non-fiction tells it how it happened"

Do you happen to be female?

Did your reply to my throwaway help you in any way?

Srsly didn't expect people to overreact like this. It wasn't that deep everyone, Jesus!

Cool project nonetheless! Enjoyed browsing through the options

Firefox user here too.

In the past you could argue about legal stuff but now the LLM training companies have proven that beyond all doubt, it is not only possible but even legal to use any Internet material as you see fit.

H in HN = D in DPRK

Let me beat that dead horse once more for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_culture