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.
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.
In the end it is the techniques of unity that dominate our civilization.
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)
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.
Originally posted by Sinny
Seems like everybodies missing the point of my OP aha.
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.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Sounds to me like an internal battle going on in that case.
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.