Annonymous

We talk on here about disinfo agents shills, however anonymous thinks he's serving what at face value seems to be his/her/their revolution when all he's doing is giving ammunition to those who oppose real change. The same disservice the anarchists gave to any chance of real change in the 19th and early 20th centuries across Europe and America. Any means of restriction they apply because of anonymous will impact on the rest of us much more severely.
Is that all they/he/she is then. Something to blow up all social structures. Surely the majority on here seek change not destruction.
Destruction can be seen as the PTB's weapons.
Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind. Anonymous has become that they/he/she claim to despise.

So many people just don't seem to understand what "Anonymous" really is..

People look to it as if it's some organized group, or a person.. it's nothing of the sort

The "members" who make up anonymous change constantly.. they are every day people, though a large number of them are honestly probably teenagers with a free schedule out looking for something to occupy their times.. many are also professional adults.. the point is it's just people..

Someone might be browsing a forum and find some random conversation that causes them to group up and do something under the banner of anonymous for example.. then after whatever it is, is over with.. they go back to their lives of not knowing eachother .. more often than not it's just randomness... you can be a member of anonymous for a day and never again.. all depends on if you want to hold that banner or not.. there's no central office, nowhere to pay your dues.. and there's no CEO, Chairmen or president.

There are areas where "Anonymous" members frequent and I'm sure there are those that consider themselves full time members but there's no rank, no hierarchy, no chain of command whatsoever.. if I wanted to go make a fancy graphic tomorrow and take on a cause.. "Operation Elect Ron Paul" for example, I'm sure I could.. and it would be as valid as any Anonymous project could be.

oh for the love of pete..

"Anonymous" is a bull# movement started in 4chan about half a year into the imageboard's first days. "Anonymous" is named so because of the way posting was done back then: no names allowed so nobody can get traced to anything except by IP, and even then, use proxies.

"Anonymous" has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, nor does it have any real ties to anything the media has reported on as "Anonymous"'s doing. These are all the works of "moralfags", or users on any *chan type imageboard who have not abandoned any sense of morality or common decency. "Anon" does it strictly for their own amusement, not to help people. "Anon" does not give a damn about you, "Anon" is not your personal army.

Scientology? Done by "moralfags." Anonymous was not Anonymous then, it was a bunch of kids, and loser teenagers deciding they were going to "do something big!"

You want to know what "Anonymous" does? They hack, they destroy, they insult, and they ruin. For their own sick pleasures.

"Anon" is not your ally, "Anon" does as it pleases, when it pleases, HOW it pleases. Disinformation? If it gets them a chuckle, they'll post animal cruelty or kiddy porn.. just for it's shock value.

Stay the hell away from "Anonymous." It's a hive of hornets waiting to swarm you man.

I was in my own way attacking them in the same way you both are. However I was also trying to raise a point of how such groups make those of us questioning seem.

[These are] persons who are not repelled by the absurd, but who, on the contrary, engage in it. They are attracted to projects and ideas precisely because they are absurd; and so anarchism comes to be known precisely for the illogical character and ridiculousness which ignorance and bourgeois calumny have attributed to anarchist doctrines.1

That more or less covers anon in it's criticism and it's from an anarchy website so I won't attribute it because of t&c's.
I feel I am being attacked as if I am some how in awe of them or believe in them as any sort of entity. In my post that should have been clear by my use of he/she/them.
There was a thread recently about how the MSM had never used the term conspiracy theory so much. With groups /individuals like anon threatening various institutions and structures how long before they give themselves the excuse to silence all of us. A little melodramatic perhaps, however I obfuscated it in a poor post the point was they could equate to a false flag in the grand scheme.

Most of Anon activities fall under the realm of peaceful protest. What is wrong with bearing witness to the fact they think something is wrong.Maybe if more people were willing to stand up and be counted, things would change. It is easy to be critical, but what are you doing..

kx

Whether we agree with their ideas or not, at least Anon sees things they do not think is fair and when normal channels of communications are closed and TPTB refuse to listen to reason and open a dialog for discussion.

At least they are doing something about it while most people are just accepting the status quo. At least they are out there putting themselves on the line to affect change.

>Peaceful Protest

Don't make me laugh. This is a group of anarchist hackers who collectively make up the internet hate machine. There's nothing peaceful about the true Anonymous legion, only the "moralfags" believe in a peaceful protest.

I invite you to google search on: "/i/nsurgency", "get your ass behind a proxy and join the raid", "dangerous kitten", and "low orbit ion cannon."

Nothing freaking peaceful.

The interesting thing about anon that most people don't understand but has been pointed out earlier is the fact it is not a group as most define the word. What they are is what the name suggests. Whether a group of anon's link up for a white knight cause or just for the lulz is really irrelevant in determining who they are. While I find the idea behind anon interesting I do think it will slowly start to look extremely foul since any group of users can be anon for any cause they want. But trying to define anon or tying it to a specific action as if its a set group is useless. Although that is how they will be perceived in the media and also how most people will think they operate. Just keep in mind they are the exactly what the name implies anonymous.

reply to post by purplemer


The original thrust of my post was meant to be how they are harming us as a less destructive form of protest and how a hostile MSM could quite easily tar us with the same brush. Guilt by association they scream conspiracy so thereby anybody that questions the PTB is associated in a media hysteria. 'If you ain't against the terrists you're with the terrists.'
It's the road to greater web controls and thereby greater censorship. I posted because of anon's threat against the Department of Commerce, yeah right just what we need right now!
As to what I'm doing, well there is not that much left I can do. They've already taken everything and destroyed everything I held dear. It's been a life long struggle for me that really came to a head between 87-88 and the first Gulf war and it's been downhill since then. My protests against religion and politics were heard disliked and they acted upon them. They expected different from me and their disapproval is evident in what they have reduced a once very promising life to.

reply to post by goldentorch


>'87- '88

Anonymous did not exist until mid-2004. You fail at internet history forever.

reply to post by goldentorch


here let me explain it.

you are anonymous

potentially.

anonymous is a mask and anybody and everybody can put that mask on,
strike a blow at TCOTBIP,
and disappear...

into anonymity.

got it now?

why are you afraid of being guilty by association?

does what the MSM and TCOTBIP say matter that much to you?

sounds like a magnified case of:"oh no we can't do/say that, what will the neighbors say/think?"




you are still asleep, in the sleep of reason. wake up. try to remember.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/079089982f75.jpg[/atsimg]

see how easy it is?

reply to post by SireFurious


what about all those books Anonymous wrote long before the internet was an idea?

see my previous post in case of confusion

reply to post by SireFurious


no the internet hate machine is something else.
label much?
we've got one here on ATS
usually seen on the CT threads and may also have gotten PT banned recently.

i will soon be exposing them
after demonstrating that they are lacking upstairs

encyclopediadramatica.ch...

reply to post by SireFurious


No if you check the post correctly the answer was to the question "what are you doing". A personal question that I created a seperate paragraph to go slightly off topic.
And to go off topic again I worked with a very early intranet system as part of the Cold War forces in Germany in the mid 70,s. Crude and limited but very much part of the overall development of the web.

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by purplemer

 

The original thrust of my post was meant to be how they are harming us as a less destructive form of protest and how a hostile MSM could quite easily tar us with the same brush. Guilt by association they scream conspiracy so thereby anybody that questions the PTB is associated in a media hysteria. 'If you ain't against the terrists you're with the terrists.'
It's the road to greater web controls and thereby greater censorship. I posted because of anon's threat against the Department of Commerce, yeah right just what we need right now!
As to what I'm doing, well there is not that much left I can do. They've already taken everything and destroyed everything I held dear. It's been a life long struggle for me that really came to a head between 87-88 and the first Gulf war and it's been downhill since then. My protests against religion and politics were heard disliked and they acted upon them. They expected different from me and their disapproval is evident in what they have reduced a once very promising life to.

maybe if you had done things anonymously?

again i get the impression that you want to "work within the system."

sorry, but that never works, because you are playing in a game that is rigged and TCOTBIP change the rules when it looks like they are going to lose.

example: people start filming cops,
now there are attempts to criminalize that

Focus on the critical sentence: "Yet, when a victim explodes or acts out in unacceptable ways, these same officials are shocked and indignant."

What exactly are these "unacceptable ways" of exploding or acting out? Who decided they were "unacceptable"? Why is it that "reluctant school officials" will not "take definitive action" against the bullies -- thus tacitly conceding that the bullying itself is not all that "unacceptable" -- while the same officials are "shocked and indignant" when the victim protests too strongly?

This pattern, and certain of its origins, will be found throughout history, in every culture around the world. The pattern is a simple and deadly one: the oppressor -- that is, those who are in the superior position, whether they are parents, school officials, or the government, or in a superior position merely by virtue of physical strength -- may inflict bodily harm and/or grievous, lifelong emotional and psychological injury, but the victim may only protest within the limits set by the oppressor himself. The oppressor will determine those forms of protest by the victim that are "acceptable."

You see this pattern with regard to many helpless, lonely children in addition to Billy Wolfe...
The oppressor may inflict unimaginable cruelties on innocent victims -- but the victims may only protest in ways which the oppressor deems "acceptable." The profound injustice is obvious, but not in itself remarkable or unexpected: this is how oppression operates. But ask yourself about the deeper reason for the prohibition. This is of the greatest importance: the victims may only protest within a constricted range of "permissible" behavior because, when they exceed the prescribed limits, they make the oppressors too uncomfortable. They force the oppressors to confront the nature of what they, the oppressors, have done in ways that the oppressors do not choose to face.

Take some time to appreciate the unfathomable cruelty of this pattern. You may be grievously harmed and even permanently damaged by the actions of those who hold unanswerable power -- but you may only speak about this evil and its effects within the very narrow limits set by those who would destroy you. If you are killed, the identical prohibitions apply to those who still manage to survive and who would protest the unforgivable crime committed against you. In this manner, the complacency and comfort of those who possess immense power and wealth are underwritten by the silence forced upon their victims. The victims may speak and even protest, but only within severely circumscribed limits, and only so long as their rulers are not made to feel too uncomfortable, or too guilty. Anything which approaches too close to the truth is strictly forbidden.

Memo to the Victims: You Yourselves Will Pay for the Crimes of the Ruling Class

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by goldentorch

 

here let me explain it.

you are anonymous

potentially.

anonymous is a mask and anybody and everybody can put that mask on,
strike a blow at TCOTBIP,
and disappear...

into anonymity.

got it now?

why are you afraid of being guilty by association?

does what the MSM and TCOTBIP say matter that much to you?

sounds like a magnified case of:"oh no we can't do/say that, what will the neighbors say/think?"




you are still asleep, in the sleep of reason. wake up. try to remember.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/079089982f75.jpg[/atsimg]

see how easy it is?

I just don't want to be associated with them. From Luigi Fabbri:

[These are] persons who are not repelled by the absurd, but who, on the contrary, engage in it. They are attracted to projects and ideas precisely because they are absurd; and so anarchism comes to be known precisely for the illogical character and ridiculousness which ignorance and bourgeois calumny have attributed to anarchist doctrines.1Text

The anonymous authors of 'You can't blow up a social relationship: the anarchist case against terrorism had this to say

You can't blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities. Proponents of terrorism and guerrillaism are to be opposed because their actions are vanguardist and authoritarian, because their ideas, to the extent that they are substantial, are wrong or unrelated to the results of their actions (especially when they call themselves libertarians or anarchists), because their killing cannot be justified, and finally because their actions produce either repression with nothing in return, or an authoritarian regime.2 Text

Chaz Bufe says this which I find relative to the point I am trying to put forward and your assumptions of my attitude to the state, MSM etc. I quote:

Anarchism is not amoral egotism. As does any avant garde social movement, anarchism attracts more than its share of flakes, parasites, and outright sociopaths, persons simply looking for a glamorous label to cover their often-pathological selfishness, their disregard for the rights and dignity of others, and their pathetic desire to be the center of attention. These individuals tend to give anarchism a bad name, because even though they have very little in common with actual anarchists—that is, persons concerned with ethical behavior, social justice, and the rights of both themselves and others—they're often quite exhibitionistic, and their disreputable actions sometimes come into the public eye. To make matters worse, these exhibitionists sometimes publish their self-glorifying views and deliberately misidentify those views as "anarchist." To cite an example, the publisher of a pretentiously (sub)titled American "anarchist" journal recently published a book by a fellow egotist consisting primarily of ad hominem attacks on actual anarchists, knowing full well that the "anarchist" author of the book is a notorious police narcotics informant who has on a number of occasions ratted out those he’s had disputes with to government agencies. This police informer’s actions—which, revealingly, he's attempted to hide—are completely in line with his ideology of amoral egotism ("post-left anarchism"), but they have nothing to do with actual anarchism. Such amoral egotists may (mis)use the label, but they're no more anarchists than the now-defunct German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was democratic or a republic. The full absurdity of identifying amoral egotism—essentially "I'll do what I damn well please and # everybody else"Text

reply to post by goldentorch


You don't have to agree with Anonymous. A lot of people don't. I find some of the things they do definitely suspect and concerning but then they hit a target like Westboro Baptist Church (presently, it looks like their websites are still not functioning 100%, takes a long time to load them) I find myself applauding and thanking them.

Anonymous is a topic many of us have chosen to agree to disagree on.

I find it odd that no one has brought up the idea that people operating under the Anonymous banner could be different groups with different goals.

Attacks on HBGray (A UK Security group), During the Iran Elections, Sony, Visa, Mastercard seem to be different from attacks on Westboro baptist church, Scientology, virtual on-line hotels. ECT

It's easy to see from the early 2006 attack/praks to hardcore network outages to political economic manipulation that while some are definitely kids/ young adults to what I suspect are State Sponsored groups, again operating under the Anon Flag.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Good point, but can I assure you I have been apart from the system for quite some time for not acting anonymously. I am arguing tactics not acquiescence I am noted for my opposition to the state/PTB because of my outspoken means of opposition.

To those trying to trash Anonymous listen to this and listen good :

This group gives us a cyberarmy in our war against TPTB and those that call them destroyers are just mad because they can't play their video games and are forced to look at the world for what it truly is.

They are not terrorists but the true definition of what a patriot group should be.TPTB thought in 2003-2004 timeframe that they could do whatever the flip it wanted unchequed and when this group launched its first strike around 2008 it shook them to their core and have been running scared ever since. We now have TPTB running scared. If you are against them you have declared fully and without a shadow of doubt that your allegiance is with TPTB and are an enemy of freedom, humanity and free thinkers.