Is our ANONYMITY an impediment to our cause?

Hey all,

In an idle moment today I found myself wondering, as I often do in such moments, if there is any way that we can intelligently, as a community of persons who collectively are of the persuasion that the infrastructure of our society is being cynically manipulated by small cabals of powerful individuals in order to consolidate their power, make use of that same infrastructure in our own cause against these individuals? (those of us here who hold those views, anyway)

In my musings I had an idea, and I’d like to throw it at those here. To be honest, I don’t know if I’m being hopelessly naive in suggesting this, but I’ll throw it out there anyway, so go easy – it’s just a thought experiment on my part, and I’d appreciate some input from you guys.

My idea stems from the fact that ATS is such a HUGE, heterogeneous and information-rich community, and it concerns and is aimed particularly at the contingent of ATS members who live in the UK and US (purely because the situations within those countries are the ones I am most familiar with in this context) who share the opinion I have expressed in the first paragraph and believe they have the strength of their convictions to participate in an organized effort against those we collectively determine require removal from positions of influence in our world. The suggestions made here are humbly offered for your comment.

To the reader with antagonistic views, please understand I am simply presenting an idea for discussion and am not interested in proving the above or any other assertion. I am satisfied that I have proven through my own education what I need to myself in order to justifiably hold the views that I hold, and am simply interested in the input of like-minded individuals here on a thought experiment in organized resistance.


Firstly, to set the context, it should be well known to most here that

1 - Global communications traffic has been minutely monitored for decades, more so today than ever by intelligence agencies through systems such as ECHELON.

2 - Increasingly (especially in the US and UK) an individual’s personal information is more easily acquired by governments, intelligence agencies, large corporations etc. due to legislation continually making the acquisition of such information far easier for the state and other interests.

3 – Disparate reservoirs of information on individuals, held both in the public and in the private sector, are being consolidated (facilitated by continuous amendments to existing legislation and provisions made in new legislation and reforms in services) to allow increased efficiency of access to the private information on an individual by the state and other parties

4 - The breadth and depth of surveillance in a number of forms has increased enormously and continues to expand and intensify, and the powers of the state to identify and track an individual are greater now than ever before

5 – There are measures underway (including new legislation) to collect biometric information on individuals by the state, with ancillary PR campaigns already promoting technologies such as biometric identification and even RFID implants in the mainstream to incrementally set the stage for eventual broad spectrum implementation of the technology in society.

6 – There are measures underway to link together the biometric and personal data stored on individuals by the state to the growing surveillance network such that in tandem these two technologies will embody a society which in its totality is completely transparent to the state.

7 – The new legal landscape in the aftermath of incidents like 9/11 and 7/7 has allowed for authorities to broaden their definitions of those it considers suspicious – namely, to include dissenters in general. Thus, their increased snooping powers are more likely to be used to catalogue, profile, and collate information (and conduct surveillance of varying forms) on dissenters.

Cont.

(Bear in mind here I realize that the vast proportion of people working within governments and security services have the best of intentions and are simply ignorant that small cabals of individuals amongst them at the highest levels are misusing the system, in particular the aspects alluded to in the points above – and I’m not apportioning blame or arguing the overall benefits/justifications/disadvantages of the above, It’s just that I think that the proverbial roof is on fire and something needs to be done to stop those who are abusing the system.)

The reason I have listed the above is to set the context in which I can reasonably make the assumption that those who express views that are deemed a threat to the established order cannot expect, given the above reasons, ANY privacy. And more importantly, there is every indication to suggest that whatever privacy we think we have left will be long gone fairly shortly – that’s just my estimate of the situation, as I honestly can’t see anything stopping this steamroller. This assumption is critical to the suggestion that follows.

Note: This does not mean I believe that every one of those on ATS who has expressed a dissenting view of their government who lives in the UK or US is at this very moment under surveillance – that’s just stupid – I merely point out that none of us can assume anonymity or privacy anymore in any of our actions or in any aspect of our lives, ESPECIALLY if you happen to be a dissenter, and that our privacy and the intrusiveness with which authority can look into our affairs is logarithmically increasing with little being done to slow its progress. Therefore, given that we have only the illusion of privacy, it is my suggestion that we treat it as such. An illusion.

Currently, for example (and I use ATS as an EXAMPLE here – the principle could be applied elsewhere and in other media), we all post our views on here under conditions of reasonable anonymity FROM EACH OTHER – but, as I have said we can assume no anonymity from those we talk about here variously as criminals or the criminally negligent who are in positions of authority with the means to identify us.

My suggestion is simple;

What if we simply showed the strength of our convictions as individuals and, more importantly, as a community and allowed ourselves ALL to be identified fully and completely to all? (AGAIN, this refers only to individuals who fit the description in the first paragraph).

Now hang on, before you start hammering out fevered and scornful replies, please try and follow my logic on this (which I admit may well be a house of cards ready for any of you to blow down at will – like I say, it’s just a thought experiment) .

The fact that we can all express opinions here anonymously to each other I believe to be a double edged sword. Below I list my reasons for this statement.

Cont...

[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

There are the benefits, which seem obvious to all, which I believe to of little real consequence in light of the above assumption about the true state of our privacy and it’s likely future. However it is my view that the crucial disadvantage of anonymity among people like ourselves is that it prevents a REAL movement emerging.

To illustrate, despite the reams of information presented here (omitted from official statements) on 9/11 which would in a sane world at least DEMAND a true independent enquiry, despite the large number of members here who are very well informed on these matters and can argue their case effectively, despite the honest outrage of many members and their expressed and uniform opposition to the current political status quo, ultimately, because of the anonymity involved, nothing crystallized from this soup of potentially explosive human and information resources that actually CHALLENGES the individuals and parties concerned.

We discuss, we hypothesise, we speculate, on occasion we even prove, but very little is DONE – we must ask why.

Is it because we lack proof? I think not – I believe we have at LEAST enough information here between us that if presented by credible people (again, among us) as part of an organized campaign we could present a very strong case for at least an independent enquiry, wither in the case of 9/11 or 7/7.

Is it because we are afraid of reprisals by government? My position here is that it is precisely this fear that allows the abuse of power by those in government – if a person truly is well informed, is of a reasoning and rational mind, has the strength of his convictions and most importantly IS WILLING TO BE PROACTIVE in resisting what they feel to be the encroachment of tyranny into their affairs, given the assumption made in opening, it is my belief that they should pre-empt the transparency of their affairs to the state by no longer impeding themselves with this fear – ESPECIALLY if they are part of a cohesive community of individuals with the same viewpoint.

It is far harder for corrupt individuals in authority to conduct reprisals against such groups than it against unconnected and vulnerable individuals. It is also far more difficult to character assassinate a movement of people, especially one as well informed and articulate as this than it is the “lone nut conspiracy theorist”. The very fact that we would all be known to each other personally would mean that any harassment of or anything suspicious that happened to any one of us would immediately be known in detail to the rest, which would cause major headaches for anyone trying to keep the disappearance of one of our members, for example (and it’ and extreme example, to illustrate the point), a secret?

Is it because we feel we would simply be ignored? Surely if a community of persons such as I have described are far more likely to be heard if they present their case as a movement with names, faces, areas of specialization and experience, with the knowledge-base and communication network that ATS represents at its collective disposal.

It would be far harder to combat the information warfare (for that is effectively the what we would be engaging in against our opponents) capability of a movement of individuals known to each other, and with duly designated representatives, than the threat of a (admittedly large) internet forum which can simply be ignored by the mainstream media and actually presents an effective resource for corrupt individuals to mine data on dissidents and no REAL threat.

Cont....

[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

I guess the idea hinges on the fact that the example of an internet community I have used, ATS, is as it stands now an enormous POTENTIAL threat to the established order and a REAL resource for them in terms of data on dissenters, their opinions, and possibly on potentially subversive information that has found its way into the public domain. My idea is to reverse this situation somewhat by turning it, potentially at a stroke, into an enormous REAL movement against the established order and only a POTENTIAL resource for them (since as a real movement there would be obvious changes in the way various things would be structured).

The key term here is AT A STROKE – political dissident movements are at their most vulnerable when they start, and historically they have been subverted and dissipated by authorities often long before they have become any real threat. What I am suggesting here is the possibility of somehow engineering the near-instantaneous precipitation of a REAL (if geographically widely distributed) resistance/truth movement out of the one that, currently, exists predominantly in the realm of 1’s and 0’s.
There are already in existence massive communities of people who express dissenting opinions on the internet, which I cannot help but feel are REAL movements in every respect but the most crucial one – they don’t exist outside of the virtual world of the internet, and this state of limbo is imposed upon them as much as any other reason by the (I feel spurious) condition of anonymity. All it would take would be spontaneous agreement between like minds (for example, here) on this point to turn this slumbering, harmless leviathan into a fire-breathing dragon.


Imagine, for a variant on the idea, if an online community was purposely set up with the intention of being a truth movement on, say, the subject of 7/7 in the UK – but on the condition that although initial membership would be granted anonymously, the intention is for the movement to first collate evidence and arguments by member contributions and debate until it is determined that the argument is strong enough to warrant an independent enquiry into 7/7 and at THAT point, all members still wishing to go ahead would fully disclose their identities to the rest of the community and the large group of persons then present their case formally as an organized group with appropriate representation, ie. As an organized MOVEMENT.
This way, a large community is built up quickly, and members can determine for themselves democratically when they feel collectively that their case is strong enough to present, and can therefore decide whether to actually figuratively PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS and commence an active movement, with representatives approaching the government, the media, the judiciary, etc to state their case.

Cont...

[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

Again, my apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, and if I am simply being too simplistic, but I feel that if ever there was an overwhelming reason to abandon the illusion we have of privacy it is that by doing so and actually showing that we have the strength of our convictions enough to put our IDENTITIES behind them, we can in every REAL sense be a truth movement, one that presents a REAL face and a REAL voice, and one which potentially, given the size of these communities, presents a REAL challenge to those we feel have abused their power.

And believe me, I see the problems in this. I see them clearly, all the way from the obvious idealism to the logistical problems with it, but hey, it’s a thought experiment, and please feel free to point them out because I feel that it would be good to discuss them.

But there’s something delicious in this idea that won’t seem to go away and bugs me every time I dismiss the idea as impracticable. The opportunity it represents, and the NEED for something tangible to crystallize from the truth movement won’t allow me to get rid of the niggling impression that we need to discuss this.

Anyway, sorry for the ramblings, but I felt I had to justify such a seemingly impractical suggestion as I’ve made here, and your input here would be greatly appreciated.

I just get the impression that people feel powerless, even in the face of our numbers, our collective resources and the wealth of information we have on our side, to do anything about the crimes we discuss here, and I’m throwing this unpolished idea out for discussion as a possible direction to go in. What d’yall think?


Fulcanelli

(Note: All edits on above posts for grammar and bbcode errors while writing)


[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

Actually it was DARPA.

Remember the bumper sticker "I Love My Country But Fear My Government."? Remember the news stories of web stalkers? Even the popular movies "Men In Black" promotes the notion that the gov will get you if you work against it. Sneaky Hollywood mind control.

Wel, ........ the truth is, as you say, (different words perhaps), we are the gov, and if we do not identify ourselves, the true gov has no identity. How effective can a gov like that be? I support all your points about revealing our true identities in order to become a true cultural/poltical movement.

Seriously, this issue is so important that we actually cannot expect any one to take us seriously while we are hiding behind usernames.

The infiltrators of our government COUNT ON OUR FEAR. They use it. Shall They've used it to get away with murdering 3000 of us. Now they use it to dominate the land of other peoples, murdering them with our dedicated soldiers (dedicated to the US Constitution) and we are paying for it at least twice. Do we give this fear to them that they use so well, against us? Do they deserve it?

How do you take it from them? When it comes under your control again, how do you use it?

I am Christopher A. Brown and I use what is mine that they have taken from many, for my purposes, something the many can relate to, to protect my childrens, children, childrens children.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by Christophera]

Christophera,

Thank you for your comment, and I am in complete agreement with you on every level.

I also feel that in addition to the empowerment of us all finally as a true movement, this could finally forever dispel the efforts of some here to derail reasoned discussion of critical events like 9/11 and 7/7 into fruitlessness (whether motivated by their own genuinely opposing viewpoints or, as I suspect with some regret, as part of the likely machinations of intelligence agencies and private interests to obfuscate the truth and prevent its revelations through discussion here) - ultimately such people would think very carefully before posting their often misleading, circular and spurious arguments if it was required of everyone to identify themselves.

It all rests on the question if you have the strength of your convictions. You clearly have, and are to be saluted for it. I do too. My name is Miran Ahmed. Nice to meet you, Christopher.

Originally posted by fulcanelli
Christophera,

Thank you for your comment, and I am in complete agreement with you on every level.

I also feel that in addition to the empowerment of us all finally as a true movement, this could finally forever dispel the efforts of some here to derail reasoned discussion of critical events like 9/11 and 7/7 into fruitlessness (whether motivated by their own genuinely opposing viewpoints or, as I suspect with some regret, as part of the likely machinations of intelligence agencies and private interests to obfuscate the truth and prevent its revelations through discussion here) - ultimately such people would think very carefully before posting their often misleading, circular and spurious arguments if it was required of everyone to identify themselves.

It all rests on the question if you have the strength of your convictions. You clearly have, and are to be saluted for it. I do too. My name is Miran Ahmed. Nice to meet you, Christopher.

Miran,

I think we come from the same humanist position which allows an open mind and understanding of ourselves and others, acceptance of what is of material substance, logical and explanatory of events, to meet our needs of safety, security, and other vital aspects, for ourselves, family and friends, or others having same needs knowing love as a good thing.

Your focus is a rare, even sacred focus upon the purposes of our sharing and is to be commended, much. I too see that media and corporations generally have usurped the purpose of communication from us, and life is suffering from this. When I first saw how vulnerable the web was to this, forums specifically, I decided to conceive of a message board configuration/function, that would empower the intentions you and I have, to dominate. The intentions to use communication to protect life by building rational structures of understanding of the true nature of events critical to our existenc in the present and the future.

i call it "Poll to Post". A person must respond to a poll in order to post. In order to be at the top of the ques with your thread, or in your thread, you have to make the most sense. The other users evaluate your expressions and rate them, but, ............ they have to rationalize their rating of your post or suffer the opinions of the rest. People can respond to the poll without posting. Here is a link to a page I made to describe it. Check the site generally as it has an entire strategy that uses reasoning in legal approaches to control media.

algoxy.com...

I've been trying to find a non profit that will finance its development for 3 years now. These non profit corporations are as impenetrable as for profit corporations. Not accountable either.


[edit on 29-6-2006 by Christophera]

Wow, I've just read through your proposition and I must say, I'm extremely impressed

The explanation is necessarily complex, and to be totally honest, although you humbly mention that there will inevitably be problems with implementing your proposal, I personally lack the technical ability in this sphere to adequately assess them myself; to me it appears you have hit upon an extremely practicable and eminently original method to radically tighten up the validity and veracity of discussion and make it far more relevant and focussed, at a time where such a revolution is critically necessary in forums such as these, in order to protect rational discussion from deliberate derailment as much as for any other reason.

Again, I congratulate you on your insight, and I've bookmarked the page so I can study and think on your proposal in more depth (it's around 2am here and the "robot needs sleep", to coin one of Timothy Leary's mantras!).

Truly, I had my doubts about posting this, but if your response and relevant expertise is any indication of what is to be expected on this thread, I'll retire tonight with a great big smile on my face in anticipation of the replies I'll read over my breakfast tomorrow.

Interesting post, Fulcanelli. You make an interesting point about privacy being an illusion. And I have a simple reply: Just go join any one of the existing 9/11 movements, petitions, and groups that exist, non-anonymously. This is just one site. I might point out that people like Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, Stephen Jones, Jimmy Walters and many many more are all doing what they are doing with their real names- demanding answers to many of the 9/11 questions all the anonymous people are asking. And gaining every bit of respect of mine, at least, for having the balls to do so, to the government's face, and without reserve.

So is anonymity an impediment to our cause? Well, I think that statement needs to be put under some scrutiny in itself, prior to answering: First of all, by you stating "our cause," I think it would help if you clearly identified what that cause is, specifically, regarding 9/11, that you seek to pursue. And frankly, if at this point anyone could produce some solid evidence against the perpetrator of 9/11, including the government itself, this "cause" would have already been more clearly defined- as in- send all the bastards to lethal injection executions, imo. If you were to join some other groups, you might be pleasantly surprised to find out that in many circles of those who are serious about 9/11 and uncovering its mysteries, there is little anonymity.

The government's silence on the key issues is not only deafening, but it is damning, and causes only further suspicion of its possible complicity in 9/11. How much hell has to be raised before the government realizes the hot seat it is in and comes forward with some legitimate and verifiable information that answers the tough questions and secures their innocence? They will not be able to hide behind the veil of "national security" for much longer, imo. In the past and in previous administrations, if this much heat was turned upon them, from their own people, something would have gotten done already. Questions would have been answered. But in this administration, we are basically being ignored:

"oh, so you want to know what hit the pentagon?"
"and you want to see those tapes we confiscated from the gas station?"
"and you want to know what was in that blue tarp covered box we hauled off?"
"and you want to know why Cheney issued orders to stand down?"
"and hey, how bout those buildings coming down? pretty slick huh?"

This what our government is doing to us right now: in our faces. At some point, and I'm not sure where, they went from being our servants to being our masters. And according to our very own Constitution, it is every American's duty, military included, to insure that this does not happen. Checks and balances- uh huh- the only checks and balances going anywhere are Haliburton's.

Hey TrueAmerican,

Thanks for the reply and the input. To answer your specific points with my own opinions, and in further explanation of my own position, I offer the following.

originally posted by TrueAmerican

You make an interesting point about privacy being an illusion. And I have a simple reply: Just go join any one of the existing 9/11 movements, petitions, and groups that exist, non-anonymously. This is just one site. I might point out that people like Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, Stephen Jones, Jimmy Walters and many many more are all doing what they are doing with their real names- demanding answers to many of the 9/11 questions all the anonymous people are asking. And gaining every bit of respect of mine, at least, for having the balls to do so, to the government's face, and without reserve.

(Note: My own emphasis in bolding the points in the wbove quote and in subsequent quotes, which I address below)

I of course completely agree that it is important to be transparent when affiliating oneself with any movement or cause one professes to truly believe in, if for no other reason than to demonstrate you truly have conviction in pledging your name to and associating your identity with it.
To illustrate, I am a member of several existing "truth" movement groups and have supplied my details to many organisations working in ways I feel important and effective in addressing the issues I am concerned about. In my own activism on the issues I have felt required it, I have been completely free with my identity both to authorities and others. My original point as stated in my original post was that, if I might summarise, the illusion of privacy works against us if we surrender to it - if we do not, then we reap the many benefits listed in my post (such as, but not restricted to, more responsible, relevant and reasoned discussion) and can use the pre-existing groups of currently anonymous but like minded and determined individuals to form the nuclei of actual grass roots movements which - crucially - have representatives that can liaise with authorities and the wider world in a very real sense to present their case. Judging from the above post we find ourselves in complete agreement.

I of course concur that people such as Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and the like deserve applause for their courage and their efforts - I am simply considering how much more of an impact we'd make collectively here at ATS and elsewhere if we all followed their example

originally posted by TrueAmerican

So is anonymity an impediment to our cause? Well, I think that statement needs to be put under some scrutiny in itself, prior to answering: First of all, by you stating "our cause," I think it would help if you clearly identified what that cause is, specifically, regarding 9/11, that you seek to pursue. And frankly, if at this point anyone could produce some solid evidence against the perpetrator of 9/11, including the government itself, this "cause" would have already been more clearly defined- as in- send all the bastards to lethal injection executions, imo.

The question is of course a fair one. In answer, the title I chose was a question, firstly, not a statement (a small but I feel significant point), and was arrived at not without some uncertainty only after puzzling over what to title this thread for a good while, and trying to summarise my ideas into one short sentence that would catch the right kind of attention.
You might notice that I used the word "cause" only once apart from in the title, but then I believe I did clearly indicate the audience that this "thought experiment" in "organised resistance" was intended to reach in my original post, the appropriate sections quoted below:

continued...

[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

...continued from last post

originally posted by fulcanelli

In an idle moment today I found myself wondering, as I often do in such moments, if there is any way that we can intelligently, as a community of persons who collectively are of the persuasion that the infrastructure of our society is being cynically manipulated by small cabals of powerful individuals in order to consolidate their power, make use of that same infrastructure in our own cause against these individuals? (those of us here who hold those views, anyway)

My idea stems from the fact that ATS is such a HUGE, heterogeneous and information-rich community, and it concerns and is aimed particularly at the contingent of ATS members who live in the UK and US (purely because the situations within those countries are the ones I am most familiar with in this context) who share the opinion I have expressed in the first paragraph and believe they have the strength of their convictions to participate in an organized effort against those we collectively determine require removal from positions of influence in our world.

To the reader with antagonistic views, please understand I am simply presenting an idea for discussion and am not interested in proving the above or any other assertion. I am satisfied that I have proven through my own education what I need to myself in order to justifiably hold the views that I hold, and am simply interested in the input of like-minded individuals here on a thought experiment in organized resistance.

To clarify both the reason for the wording of the title and my intention in posting the original article, I simply wanted to present the possibility that the abandonment of anonymity - by those with the moral conviction and courage to do so in the cause of denying tyranny and bringing those who they feel are criminals within their governments to justice - dispels what is effectively an illusion which has so far only seemed to detract from our effectiveness by making us afraid to speak out other than anonymously, and has allowed others to "anonymously" impede their progress (intentionally or otherwise).
As you can see from that last sentence, not only am I naturally a bit wordy but it's a difficult proposal for someone like myself to summarise in such a short sentence as is allowed for a title! . Anyway, I hope this clarifies matters a little.

As far as presenting evidence backing up specific theories about 9/11, I direct you again to my original post:

originally posted by fulcanelli

I am simply presenting an idea for discussion and am not interested in proving the above or any other assertion. I am satisfied that I have proven through my own education what I need to myself in order to justifiably hold the views that I hold, and am simply interested in the input of like-minded individuals here on a thought experiment in organized resistance.

I believe again the words of my first post speak for themselves here. It is my opinion that I have seen enough evidence and testimony on 9/11 (and 7/7) that indicates that cabals of government at LEAST were criminally negligent or at MOST (and again, in my opinion more likely) DIRECTLY CULPABLE. I have yet to post any information on ATS concerning my own views on 9/11, but I have shared some of my views on 7/7 and the justifications thereof on another, slightly more tongue in cheek (at least to start with) thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was not the intention of this thread to debate the facts concerning 9/11 - they have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere and it is up to the individual to decide whether they accept the official story or do not.

continued...

[...continued from last post)

If like me they do not, then they must decide for themselves, on the basis of the available evidence and relying on their own intellect to verify and collate it, whether they believe that elements of the government can be demonstrated culpable conclusively enough to warrant the presentation of the said evidence as a case against them. And if again like me their answer to this question is yes, then it is my belief that they can only benefit by combining their efforts in OPEN resistance and hinder themselves by anonymity, for the reasons I have stated previously.

Finally:

originally posted by TrueAmerican
The government's silence on the key issues is not only deafening, but it is damning, and causes only further suspicion of its possible complicity in 9/11. How much hell has to be raised before the government realizes the hot seat it is in and comes forward with some legitimate and verifiable information that answers the tough questions and secures their innocence? They will not be able to hide behind the veil of "national security" for much longer, imo. In the past and in previous administrations, if this much heat was turned upon them, from their own people, something would have gotten done already. Questions would have been answered. But in this administration, we are basically being ignored

The only thing I partially disagree with here is that in bold (again, my emphasis). On every other point we are in agreement. I disagree partially with you here in the sense that I do believe that, as you say, they cannot hide behind their National Security comfort blanket long - but I believe that this is ABSOLUTELY contingent on every human being with the conviction and the insight to do so to so doing everything in their power to ACTIVELY challenge that and other protections that these criminals hide behind, and that we can best do that if we all know who we all are on forums such as this (along with the other possible benefits of identifying ourselves I listed in my original post), and that further, it is my assertion that it would greatly impede efforts to subvert such discussion as would further this cause by our knowing who our opponents in discussion and debate are. And my use of the word "our" in the foregoing sentence refers to ALL members of ATS. As I say, on all other points in the above quoted paragraph, I am in complete agreement with you, as with the rest of your post TrueAmerican.

Thank you again for your reply.

(edited for bbcode error)

[edit on 28-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

I wouldn't have any problem declaring my identity and the fact that I support the truth movement. Hell, my username here consists of my first two initials followed by my last name. And my first name is Brian. So there you go. (The number 11 doesn't really signify anything, or didn't when I made the username, but they could symbolize the Twin Towers if you'd like. )

Personally, I think developing communities in person similar to the truth movement online should be a major priority. This would be a horrible thing for the system, and it would be a real pain to put a stop to without being overly dramatic (think 'nam protests in the '70s). Things like the LA Conference are a good step in this direction. But at the same time, I would also have some serious plans to gtfo of my house or whatever in the case of a REX 84 going live, or any variation thereof. Double-edged sword is about right.

Originally posted by fulcanelli
Wow, I've just read through your proposition and I must say, I'm extremely impressed

The explanation is necessarily complex, and to be totally honest, although you humbly mention that there will inevitably be problems with implementing your proposal, I personally lack the technical ability in this sphere to adequately assess them myself; to me it appears you have hit upon an extremely practicable and eminently original method to radically tighten up the validity and veracity of discussion and make it far more relevant and focussed, at a time where such a revolution is critically necessary in forums such as these, in order to protect rational discussion from deliberate derailment as much as for any other reason.

Again, I congratulate you on your insight, and I've bookmarked the page so I can study and think on your proposal in more depth (it's around 2am here and the "robot needs sleep", to coin one of Timothy Leary's mantras!).

Truly, I had my doubts about posting this, but if your response and relevant expertise is any indication of what is to be expected on this thread, I'll retire tonight with a great big smile on my face in anticipation of the replies I'll read over my breakfast tomorrow.

I appreciate the sincere evaluation and comments.

You know what I feel was the best idea of the whole concept? To use lower numbers as a higher value to relativity in the 2nd and 3rd digits of the rating value. Something about it leads to satisfaction in the choice, changes the perspective, the emphasis. Less is more.

Clearly, the deliberate derailment issue has got to stop. No authority wants to take the responsibility for stopping it, they can hardly detect it without reading the posts. And perhaps they shouldn't have to. The 3 digit perspectives used as criteira for rating, mimick, in a simplistic way, our human gestalt mentation surrounding, evaluating and assimilating information. It may work quite well. Humans are very agile in adaptation anf tolerant. Look what we live with now and it doesn't function!!!!! Can't see that it will as it is set up as it is without some real leadership outside the web.

The Poll to Post concept may be a vital need to our unity. Non profit corporations are scamming us. Grant entities want to work with non profits and the non profits won't work with me or I would have had this thing funded 2 years ago.

Did you see (post id: 2303803) www.abovetopsecret.com... and my effort to get a mod here to comment on the Poll to Post concept?

Christopher,

Having read the thread you included a link for in your last post I see that in that thread, like in many others (an increasingly here on ATS), many mentions were made of the possibility that within ATS are groups of individuals who may be working collusively to derail genuine discussion of issues for a number of reasons, and as you rightly mentioned in that thread, the recently mentioned outfit Netvocates is but one of many possible sources for this kind of subversion.

I believe that it is fruitless ultimately to point the finger, as many here seem to do all too often, and accuse other members of being "Counter-Intelligence" or "Disinformation" agents since this merely serves, again, the purposes of such persons (whether the accusation is true or not) by derailing the discussion and leading it off topic.
The mere fact that there is ample historical precedent for operations like this and the current obvious importance to elements within governments (and other implicated parties) of micromanaging the info-fallout from psy-ops such as (IMHO) 9/11 and 7/7 makes the infiltration of such subversives into communities like ATS almost a certainty (which rises in probability in logarithmic proportion to the accuracy of the information here presented against them) - I cannot prove this, but it is my opinion that it is highly likely, and that we should all therefore assume the worst but act upon it by making their subversion a far less easy prospect rather than name-calling and petty recriminations.

My understanding of your using a reverse gradation for the second and third values in the three digit rating system is so that the number assigned to the post reflects the place in order of relevance of a particular post, 1 being MOST relevant and 9 least, as determined by voters. One clever device among many.

I too would genuinely be interested in what any of our respected mods (or anyone else here with the relevant expertise and experience with forums such as ATS) here would have to say in evaluation of your proposed "poll to post" function, as I feel that the content of discussion here is far too important to be allowed to continue with these vulnerabilities to subversion, and that TRANSPARENCY between members and the successful implementation of a system such as yours could potentially be the answers to this problem as well as imparting us as a movement with the other various benefits we have described.

Hey bsbray11,

Originally posted by bsbray11

I would also have some serious plans to gtfo of my house or whatever in the case of a REX 84 going live, or any variation thereof. Double-edged sword is about right.

Good point. I am wondering here myself whether such de-anonymisation of members would make such actions taken against them harder to implement for the government and authorities like FEMA. My reasoning here is that as a cohesive group whose individual and agreed collective opinions have an INTERNATIONAL stage and several media through which to voice and record (for perpetuity into the public domain) their opinions and motivations, I believe that plans like REX 84 would be far less of a threat to our ability to conduct our dissent since it (at least in its wording ) appears to apply only to massive emergency scenarios involving widespread civil unrest, and as such would necessarily require effective whitewashing and anathematisation of the dissenters.
As such it is a far more powerful tool to be abused in the way you have alluded to if it is used against dissenting individuals or small groups and would be of little efficacy therefore in application to a movement with the scale, cohesion, mutual support and resources (both in terms of information and mass communications ability) that is potentially there already within communities like ATS and requires only TRANSPARENCY and organisation to be added into the mix to "activate" it as a serious challenge to the established order, again in my opinion.

In addition, would it not benefit anyone here who DOES become the object of such harassment by authority to be part of a community of people who KNOW you and your opinions (because you have voiced and recorded them for all to see - and save) and who can be relied upon to lend their support in pleading your case to whomever necessary and providing other means of support? Imagine some of the powerful, concerned and humanistic minds here on ATS being known to you personally and knowing of your plight under such circumstances, and being there along with potentially thousands of others to lend their voices in your defence, using the resources and size of the ATS community as their tools! I'd certainly sleep more soundly at night expressing the views that I do if I truly felt that this was the case, wouldn't you? In every other way, though, I concur with you, Brian.


I believe that to be truly effective such backing and protection of each other can only be possible if we know each other's identities, and frankly the more that is known about each individual by the community the better in this respect, in my opinion.



[edit on 29-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

WOW Vulcan eddie...

You must have cyborg fingers to type so much in your posts

Annnnnnyway!!

I think the path to true freedom IS to present oneself in the public eye and stand for your beliefs whether they be deemed right or wrong.

Martyrdom is the ultimate act of free speech(in the true sense of the word,not as a terrorist act)

So many people i see have ''extreme'' opinions in private but turn to sheep when presented in public!!!...why???

It seems to be bred into us now to..

CONFORM..OBEY!!!

Express yourself and your beliefs in public if you truly believe,but always be prepared that you will be opposed however righteous you are

NO man has the right to demand that his views be superior than that of the lowest of us..

When people realise that.. only then we will have true peace,freedom and privacy

AGENT_T,

Originally posted by AGENT_T
WOW Vulcan eddie...

You must have cyborg fingers to type so much in your posts

LOL

I did say I'm a bit wordy! Just wait until I can work up the courage to do my first rantcast!

Originally posted by fulcanelli
I did say I'm a bit wordy! Just wait until I can work up the courage to do my first rantcast!

Personally, I think you should challenge Majic to a debate.
(Skeptic Overlord! Damit man, we need more servers!!!)