See how much nicer than google docs this is?

[1 - Why expropriate]

Capitalism is a system in which a minority has come to appropriate a vast majority of the world's resources through war, theft and exploitation. By snatching the commons [1], they forced those below to be under the control of that minority that owns everything. It is a system fundamentally incompatible with freedom, equality, democracy and the Suma Qamaña (Good Living). It may sound ridiculous to those of us who have grown up in a propaganda machine that taught us that capitalism is freedom, but in truth what I am saying is not a new or controversial idea [2]. The founders of the United States of America knew they had to choose between creating a capitalist society, or a free and democratic society. Madison recognized that "the man who possesses wealth, the one who lies on his couch or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wishes or feelings of the day laborer." But to protect against the "spirit of equalization" of landless day laborers, it seemed to him that only landowners should vote, and that the government had to serve to "protect the opulent minority against the great majority." John Jay was more to the point and said: "Those who own the country should rule it."

/ There is no such thing as green capitalism.
| Let’s make capitalism history before we | \ become history. /

\ /\ ___ /
\ // / / \ (( O O )) \ / \ // / | | / | | | |
| | | |
| o |
| | | | |m| |m|

Evgeny, the great ignored elephant, doesn't understand why everyone pretends not to see him on the panels on climate change, so here I give him a chance to say his lines. In the same way that bell hooks [3] argues that the rejection of the patriarchal culture of domination is an act in defense of the male's own interest (since it emotionally mutilates them and prevents them from feeling full love and connection), I think that the culture of domination of capitalism has a similar effect on the rich, and that they could have fuller and more satisfying lives if they rejected the class system from which they believe they benefit. For many, class privilege amounts to a childhood of emotional neglect, followed by a life of superficial social interactions and meaningless work. In the end they may know that they can only genuinely connect with people when they work with them as their peers, and not when they put them at their service. They may know that sharing their material wealth is the best they can do with it. You may also know that the significant experiences, connections and relationships that count are not those that come from business interactions, but precisely to reject the logic of the market and give without expecting anything in return. They may know that all they need to escape from their prison and really live is to get carried away, give up control, and take a leap of faith. But most lack courage.

Then it would be naive of us to direct our efforts to try to produce some kind of spiritual awakening in the rich [4]. As Astata Shakur says: "No one in the world, no one in history, has ever achieved his freedom by appealing to the moral sense of his oppressors". In fact, when the rich divide their money, they almost always do it in a way that reinforces the system that allowed them to amass their enormous and illegitimate wealth [5]. And change is unlikely to come through a political process; As Lucy Parsons says: "Let us never be fooled that the rich will let us vote to take away their wealth." Colin Jenkins justifies the expropriation with these words [6]:

Make no mistake, expropriation is not theft. It is not the confiscation of money earned "with the sweat of the forehead". It is not theft of private property. It is, rather, the recovery of enormous amounts of land and wealth that have been forged with stolen natural resources, human slavery, forced labor force and amassed in hundreds of years by a small minority. This wealth ... is illegitimate, both for moral purposes and for the exploitation mechanisms that have been used to create it.

For Colin, the first step is that “we have to free ourselves from our mental ties (believing that wealth and private property have been earned by those who monopolize them; and that, therefore, they should be something to respect, revere, and even something to pursue), open our minds, study and learn from history, and recognize this illegitimacy together”. Here are some books that have helped me with this: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

According to Barack Obama, economic inequality is "the challenge that defines our time." Computer hacking is a powerful tool to combat economic inequality. The former director of the NSA, Keith Alexander, agrees and says that hacking is responsible for "the greatest transfer of wealth in history."

/ The story is ours
\ and it is done by hackers! /

     \
      \ ^__^
        (oo)\_______
     (  (__)\       )\/\
      _) /  ||----w |
     (.)/   ||     ||
      `'

Everyone together, now and forever! Footnotes

The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love their own religion is very clear about this: https://dailyverses.net/es/materialismo Manifiesto por una Civilización Democrática. Volumen 1, Civilización: La Era de los Dioses Enmascarados y los Reyes Cubiertos Calibán y la Bruja En deuda: Una historia alternativa de la economía La otra historia de los Estados Unidos Las venas abiertas de América Latina _______________________________ < Our weapons are our keyboards > --------------------------------
\ ^^ (oo)_____ ( (__)\ )/
_) / ||----w | (.)/ || || `' ^^ ^^ [2 - Introduction]

This guide explains how I hacked the Cayman Bank and Trust Company (Isle of Man). Why am I publishing this, almost four years later?

2.1 To show what is possible

Hackers working for social change have limited themselves to developing security and privacy tools, DDoS, performing vandalism and leaks. Wherever you go, there are radical projects for a social change in a complete state of precariousness, and there would be much that they could do with some expropriated money. At least for the working class, bank robbery is something socially accepted, and those who do are seen as heroes of the people. In the digital age, robbing a bank is a non-violent, less risky act, and the reward is greater than ever. So why are only black hat hackers doing it for their personal benefit, and never hacktivists to finance radical projects? Maybe they don't think they are capable of doing it. The big bank hacks are on the news every so often, such as the hacking of the Bank of Bangladesh [1], which was attributed to North Korea, or the hacking of banks attributed to the Carbanak group [2], which they describe as a very large and well organized group of Russian hackers, with different members who would be specialized in different tasks. But, it is not that complicated.

It is because of our collective belief that the financial system is unquestionable that we exercise control over ourselves, and maintain the class system without those above having to do anything [3]. Being able to see how vulnerable and fragile the financial system really is helps us break that collective hallucination. That is why banks have a strong incentive not to report hacks, and to exaggerate how sophisticated the attackers are. None of the financial hacks I made, or those I've known, have ever been reported. This is going to be the first, and not because the bank wanted to, but because I decided to publish it.

As you are about to learn in this home guide, hacking a bank and transferring money through the SWIFT network does not require the support of any government or a large and specialized group. It is something totally possible being a mere amateur hacker, with only public tools and basic knowledge of how to write a script.