It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks Approaches Anonymous With Caution

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
So, recent rumours emerging that Anonymous have withdrew all support for Assange and Wikileaks over their "Paywall" - A brief period of time where Wikileaks directed users to its donation page to read certain articles, this will remain so untill November 6th.

Now, now, don't panic! You don't HAVE to pay, you can easily get round the page by disabling _javascript, and the Torrents are still readily available.

Although CERTAIN factions within Anonymous seem to find this a "complete contradiction to what Wikileaks stands for"..

Yea well, my man skipped bail, and owe's his celeb friends and the court houses quite a bit of DOH.

So, if he wants to bump his donations for a brief spell whats the big issue?

Please view this thread: Anonymous Withdraws Wikileaks Support to gain understanding, and notice my post in which I defend Anonymous AND Wikileaks...As I have stated, the UK and European Factions STILL SUPPORT ASSANGE.

So whats a foot in the US? o_O

Basic solidarity in WikiLeaks & Anonymous.
By Julian Assange


Freedom isn't free, justice isn't free and solidarity isn't free. They all require generosity, self-discipline, courage and a sense of perspective.
Groups with unity flourish and those without unity are
destroyed and replaced by those who have it.



Groups who do not have techniques of unity derived from
solidarity and common cause will be dominated by groups with coercive unity.

In the end it is the techniques of unity that dominate our
civilization. Unified groups grow and multiply. Groups which lack unity imperil themselves and their allies.

It doesn't matter what principles a group espouses. If it
is not able to demonstrate basic unity it will be dominated
by alliances that do.



When a group grows large the public press becomes a medium through which the group talks to itself. This gives the public press influence over the groups self-awareness. The public press has its agendas. So do insiders who speak to it.



Because Anonymous is anonymous, those who obtain this or other forms of leadership influence can be secretly decapitated and replaced by other interests.



This is exactly what happened in the Sabu affair. An
important part of Anonymous ended up being controlled by the FBI. The cooption of its most visible figure, Sabu, was then used to entrap others.



FBI agents or informers have subsequently run entrapment
operations against WikiLeaks presenting as figures from
Anonymous.



According to FBI indictments the FBI has at various times
controlled Anonymous servers. We must assume that currently
a substantial number of Anonymous severs and "leadership"
figures are compromised.


www.twitlonger.com...

PLEASE VIEW LINK FOR ENTIRE STATEMENT, AS ALL IS IMPORTANT.

This is not to say all Anonymous operations and statements are false, but take this as a reminder that our controllers wish to divide us by deception. Wikileaks still has full support from all TRUE branches of Anonymous.

Remain vigilant, do not be fooled.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Anyway can say anything and say its Anon. I am sure this has upset some people. I can however understand why it was done. WL are experiencing finacial isolation. I think its still not possible to use Visa or Mastercard to make donations. Assange is locked away in an embassy and there are people calling for money. I do not want to WL go under. So under the circumstances I dont think its a real big problem. To whomever sent the statement about WL it does not have overall consensus...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


I agree with them (anon). Wikileaks ruined itself, I was a fan of Assange, but I am tired of it. He used it for his own fame. He put a face on it knowing that it would make him a target, which would make it easier to stop the flow of information. So the leakers who risked their jobs and maybe even lives, leaked to a new gatekeeper who released the info slowly and then stopped all together.

The "paywall" while not technically a paywall is still a little insulting to the people that leaked the info. They wanted to get the information out there, not have it held by a globehopping egomaniac, who was stupid enough to make himself a poster boy thus getting himself in trouble, and tying up the info indefinitely out of fear.

The real question is, is there a no nonsense place where whistleblowers can safely release their leaks without worrying about someone else holding the info as tightly as the place they are liberating it from. Without having to worry about the person being a bigger story than the articles? Julian Assange went from a hero to a secondary gatekeeper.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 



In the end it is the techniques of unity that dominate our civilization.

I heard an interesting quote the other day which really resonated with me. It was something like this:

"We aren't the most successful species because we are the strongest, or fastest, or even the most intelligent. We are the most successful because of our ability to cooperate and work together."

There's a lot of truth to that when you think about it. A single person can achieve a lot, but a lot of people together can achieve almost anything. One man couldn't have gotten us to the moon several decades ago.

Personally I like the underlying concept of Anonymous, a group of faceless ideological hacker types working together to expose high level corruption and take down evil corporations. I mean there's something you've got to like about that idea.

I think the real idea behind the whole "anonymous" concept is that of the faceless masses, the so called common man. It's like a whole bunch of underdogs uniting behind one mask... really there's a lot of unity going on there.

But while I like the idea in theory it's clear that anonymous is facing some very tough and coordinated enemies, and they are being compromised constantly. But I don't really think there's a whole lot of reasons to back Wikileaks anymore either.

When you have excessive control and leadership, especially pyramid power structures, what you have is really a type of artificial unity being directed by a small core whom typically compensate members of the group with monetary payments.

I don't particularly support Wikileaks or Anonymous anymore. A lot of the time now it seems like the same old drama and circus acts. I tend to stay neutral now because both these groups are making major mistakes all the time.
edit on 15/10/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Sinny
 



In the end it is the techniques of unity that dominate our civilization.

I heard an interesting quote the other day which really resonated with me. It was something like this:

"We aren't the most successful species because we are the strongest, or fastest, or even the most intelligent. We are the most successful because of our ability to cooperate and work together."

There's a lot of truth to that when you think about it. A single person can achieve a lot, but a lot of people together can achieve almost anything. One man couldn't have gotten us to the moon several decades ago.

Personally I like the underlying concept of Anonymous, a group of faceless ideological hacker types working together to expose high level corruption and take down evil corporations. I mean there's something you've got to like about that idea.

I think the real idea behind the whole "anonymous" concept is that of the faceless masses, the so called common man. It's like a whole bunch of underdogs uniting behind one mask... really there's a lot of unity going on there.

But while I like the idea in theory it's clear that anonymous is facing some very tough and coordinated enemies, and they are being compromised constantly. But I don't really think there's a whole lot of reasons to back Wikileaks anymore either.

When you have excessive control and leadership, especially pyramid power structures, what you have is really a type of artificial unity being directed by a small core whom typically compensate members of the group with monetary payments.

I don't particularly support Wikileaks or Anonymous anymore. A lot of the time now it seems like the same old drama and circus acts. I tend to stay neutral now because both these groups are making major mistakes all the time.
edit on 15/10/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Whilst I appreciate and rather like your articulate reply... Could you clarify what "mistakes" Wikileaks and Anonymous have made?

I see Julian loosing more and more public support (or so they'd have us believe), and yet what has he done to deserve this?

Infact, Julian has done NOTHING different than that which he was doing this time last year.. What HAS changed is the publics perception of him, thanks to the MSM.
edit on 15-10-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Sinny
 


I agree with them (anon). Wikileaks ruined itself, I was a fan of Assange, but I am tired of it. He used it for his own fame. He put a face on it knowing that it would make him a target, which would make it easier to stop the flow of information. So the leakers who risked their jobs and maybe even lives, leaked to a new gatekeeper who released the info slowly and then stopped all together.

The "paywall" while not technically a paywall is still a little insulting to the people that leaked the info. They wanted to get the information out there, not have it held by a globehopping egomaniac, who was stupid enough to make himself a poster boy thus getting himself in trouble, and tying up the info indefinitely out of fear.

The real question is, is there a no nonsense place where whistleblowers can safely release their leaks without worrying about someone else holding the info as tightly as the place they are liberating it from. Without having to worry about the person being a bigger story than the articles? Julian Assange went from a hero to a secondary gatekeeper.


"I agree with them (anon)"

I feel you missed the basis on which I was posting. Anon has been comprimised, therefore you "believing" them is also a comprimise.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Oh it's awesome! Anon screams about a donation system to keep WL going, and the little hypocrites stamp their feet and cry when a pirate site is taken down, completely ignoring that pirates make money from sharing other peoples work!

Basically it comes down to the same old BS story - a bunch of kids who think they DESERVE everything for free and that they should never have to pay for anything.

They seem to pick and choose their fights based on getting things for free. They're basically muggers, threatening people in order to get their jollies for nothing.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Seems like everybodies missing the point of my OP aha.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Seems like everybodies missing the point of my OP aha.


But the concept of Anon is that there is no leadership, while the "voice" of Anon is presumably created by consensus, and that voice has expressed displeasure.

So are we supposed to believe that it is the voice of Anon as a whole when they're taking down sites and making statements about the injustice of it all, but when they say they are pissed at WL it's just a "faction" within Anon calling the shots?

As I understand it all the primary Twitter accounts associated to Anon have expressed the same intent to distance themselves from WL. Or is that not true?


Sounds to me like an internal battle going on in that case.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Infact, Julian has done NOTHING different than that which he was doing this time last year.. What HAS changed is the publics perception of him, thanks to the MSM.


I very much agree, but its also kind of fun to listen to the conversations around the coffee table at work. People just mimicing what they hear in the news without questioning any of it. I enjoy sitting there as an observer, studying people.



Originally posted by detachedindividual
Sounds to me like an internal battle going on in that case.


Well yeah, since anyone can be anonymous.... seems natural to me. Sure, there are leaders with more influence over what the core group will do, but anyone can do anything in its name.

Its like saying there are internal battles going on at ATS... you bet there is.



edit on 15-10-2012 by Bodhi911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Anonymous? Haha wow.

What can I say about them? Well I had fallen for their propaganda in their early days. Thinking "Wow I agree with everything they stand for". Then, nothing happened during the so called "phases" of their plan.

Then, yesterday I saw on 4chan a bunch of anon Representatives trolling a young girl who had killed herself because of bullying. Anonymous was doing this.

They're just a bunch of loser teenagers who can't get laid. Literally, they're trolls.
edit on 15-10-2012 by swoopaloop because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


I didn't miss the basis. I should have said "I agree with whomever is speaking on behalf of Anon in this instance" I am aware that Anon could be anyone and changes. I hate that I have to explain that I understand the concept of Anon just so I can have a conversation about them.


However, you don't know if Anon has been comprimised. I believe these people disagreeing with WL are the same Anon that supported them. The idea that they have been compromised is just your opinion. I think Anon (whoever you think they were) are the same ones disagreeing with this, and for the reasons I stated. It is disrespectful of the whistleblowers.

So, yes I did understand. I still agree with Anon in this instance(no matter what incarnation). I would have rather you addressed my post than incorrectly assuming I didn't know what I was talking about.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by swoopaloop
 


I think you are judging all members of the group by what some members are doing.

Its like saying ATS is worthless because someone made a bad post.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Precisely. There is no leadership, as stated Wkileaks are still fully supported by my UK and Euro Anon feeds, they'll be flocking in thousands at the Ecuadorian Embassy on Nov 5th.

This division as been created by one faction in the US, and its in the US they have been infiltrated by the likes of the FBI.

To the poster just above this post, if Anon aren't good enough for you, what do you propose as a solution?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Also, I think you misunderstand this information.
I think that this is a legitimate statement on behalf of Anon. The FBI would NOT make such public anouncements. When they compromised ("anonymous servers?") Anon they would not start speaking out on behalf of them, that would send an obvious signal to active members of Anon that they were compromised, and they could oppose the message. The FBI when compromising them, would simply lay low and use it to collect info, not to make a pointless denouncement of WL's "paywall."



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Well, for all your understanding, you've pointed out that "I" believe them to be comprimised - which is true.. But I believe so because Julian believes so.. Or does his opinion count for nothing?

Considering the FBI have already been proven to have comprimised US based Anon factions.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Well, for all your understanding, you've pointed out that "I" believe them to be comprimised - which is true.. But I believe so because Julian believes so.. Or does his opinion count for nothing?

Considering the FBI have already been proven to have comprimised US based Anon factions.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Thanks for the read sinny (both threads)

my humble opinion is that whilst i understand the need for Julian to raise his coffers for costs incurred , somethings screams fundamentally wrong to me that a site set up to give information away freely to benefit the human race is now charging for 'Free information'

Its a little bit pot/kettle.. i guess the masses have spoken or someone is speaking for them :p

ah well they will show up soon .. i expect them..........



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Sinny
 


I agree with them (anon). Wikileaks ruined itself, I was a fan of Assange, but I am tired of it. He used it for his own fame. He put a face on it knowing that it would make him a target, which would make it easier to stop the flow of information. So the leakers who risked their jobs and maybe even lives, leaked to a new gatekeeper who released the info slowly and then stopped all together.


Your whole premise is bit flawed. WL is a media outlet and JA is the spokes person of it. It is his job to be the voice and the face for WL. WL itself is not dependant on JA and can continue to function if something were to happen him. With a new face and spokes person of course. Also WL despite the great effords hasn't stopped at all. Keeps on going daily.
edit on 15/10/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
What ya know, my very first double post. Deleted.
edit on 15/10/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join