Phrack has a technical depth you don't often see on HN, it's a shame there aren't more people producing content like this.
Mirrored for anyone behind a corp firewall that might block phrack.org: http://paste.click/s/amfVqd
> Furthermore, we dread the thought of being alike, of sharing multiple views and opinions. As such, we are turning progressively judgemental of who we should be partnering with, on the basis that "they do not understand". [..] No one ever feels like we do. They are not to be trusted and we do not have the time for them. The only attitude consonant to our search for a comfortable, safe life is to constrain ourselves to our own limitations, ignore the intelligent life out there, and surrender to the mediocracy that our society has condemned our leisure time to.
...reminded me of this:
> Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points.
( from http://russell-j.com/0583TS.HTM )
Even knowing this, and knowing it's silly, doesn't really change it; it's a more ingrained habit than that, at least for me. But it's worth a mental note to self and those whom it may concern :)
> 'Collectivism is triumphing because of too much individualism' is not a strongly coherent argument.
I wouldn't equate lack of tolerance and cooperation with "individualism". Russel didn't write people should be more alike or less individualistic, at least I don't read it that way.
> Also note that those of the intelligent alluded to here did in fact combine, with historically significant results
Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by this?
As for what I meant, what I was trying to say is that - contra Russell - people actually did in fact overcome their differences and collectively combat the Nazis, but I obfuscated it to avoid, y'know, mentioning the Nazis.
I suppose it's too much to hope that you've just Kafka'd me into my own Godwin and are about to drop a YHBT.
The question is, when? Not within Germany, not at first. Or at least not to a high enough degree. Unless we simply define as intelligent those who resisted or were Jewish etc., but that would be cheating. The Nazis didn't really get much successful resistance until they openly tried to conquer the world, and I can't fathom how much more they could have gotten away with if they had stuck to annexing Austria and Poland, and had "just" murdered and brainwashed in their "own" territory. There might never be a plaque at Tiananmen square. And last time I checked, Dick Cheney still wasn't in jail. And so on. Either fascism and murder aren't actually a thing intelligent people successfully combine against to keep in check, or they suck badly at doing so.
At any rate, that there was such a monstrosity to defeat in the first place is due to lack of resistance early on, and the major political groups cannibalizing themselves before the Nazis even started attacking and murdering them. And then many intelligent people made an about-turn, too. Hannah Arendt said in an interview that many intellectuals were good at "coming up with something". That is, they adapted and came up with all sorts of elaborate rationalizations. You could say the intelligence of a person didn't determine their resistance to the Nazis, but the complexity of their justifications for not doing so. Just because there were (and are) exceptions doesn't mean it wasn't (or isn't) the rule. As the White Rose wrote in their second leaflet:
> The greater part of its former opponents went into hiding. The German intellectuals fled to their cellars, there, like plants struggling in the dark, away from light and sun, gradually to choke to death.
"The only attitude consonant to our search for a comfortable, safe life is to constrain ourselves to our
own limitations, ignore the intelligent life out there, and surrender to the mediocracy that our society has condemned our leisure time to."
I came to 2600 late in life so I can't get nostalgic about it, but I look forward to picking up new issues at B&N and do so in order to encourage them continue stocking the store. I discovered 2600 by randomly browsing at a comic book shop and wouldn't have had that experience if it were digital or subscription only.
--- edit ---
Doom is a good example: It both made it into popular culture (sold lots of copies, the Doom movie, etc.), but also hat cultural impact in the sense that it pushed 3D graphics. L0pht, the CCC, etc. had cultural impact in the same sense but never really made it into popular culture. Anonymous on the other hand did make it into popular culture but had no cultural impact (that I can think of right now).
I think Wikileaks and Snowden should get some credit for this as well. Also, I think the silk road guy should get most of the credit for "darknet" being a thing.
> Popular culture is culture.
Yup. But it doesn't necessarily affect other popular culture (which is how I defined "cultural impact").
It probably changed peoples reaction to Guy Fawkes masks, but that's about it.
Honestly I'm not sure, after reading it half a dozen times, not finding any unfamiliar words or concepts and reading the refs I still have absolutely no idea what the word salad between the intro and the end actually means.
On the other hand I very definitely can think of a bunch of pragmatic reasons (outwith the lack of extant unisonant collectivist hive minds) that people aren't currently busy openly forming underground, anarchist, borderline criminal (more in bravado than fact, but still) networks.
I stumbled over Phrack around issue 20-something, and have read every issue since then (and at least most of the earlier ones), something I can't actually say about the two magazine subscriptions I've kept since becoming adult-shaped.
Geez a few years have passed since then!
issue 66: 2009-11-06
issue 67: 2010-11-17
issue 68: 2012-04-14
issue 69: 2016-05-06
Are they now on an exponential backoff tendency? Will their next issue come out in 2024?
Edit: changed to existential claim.
Nice try, FBI!