Anonymous Calls for the Overthrow of the US Government

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Remember, anonymous is not a "group" that is "led" by any one person. A individual Op may reflect the desire of one or one millions of people. Getting worked up about anything anonymous does is akin to pissing in an ocean of piss.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Based on what many have said in this thread about Anonymous not having done anything significant, I get the impression people aren't aware of what they have managed to do.

Here is a in-depth list of actions they have undertaken.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29

I found this documentary to be enlightening.....

​

I for one think they are making waves. If anything, they are bringing about an awareness to much of what we are trying to do by working within the confines of the system. I also know a few of the hacktivists have paid dearly for their actions with prison sentences.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is dangerous stuff. I don't trust people who come out and call for this. NO ONE in the liberty movement should allow themselves to be provoked into something like this. It's EXACTLY what the powers that be are waiting for. A REASON. Calmer and logical minds must prevail.

Well, that's exactly right there Ms. "libertygrl". As such, Anonymous will have a name. Problem...Reaction...Solution.

 

[pcosmar]

Anonymous tried to target Ron Paul during Operation Blitzkreig.

http://www.examiner.com/article/hunting-nazis-anonymous-snares-ron-paul-operation-blitzkrieg

NOPE.
Many anons were Ron Paul supporters (if you ever bothered going to sites were they converse).
That was an action by a couple individuals using the Anonymous name, and was generally disregarded by the "collective".

There are other people that use the Anonymous name for personal agendas.

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

This is turning into a productive conversation...first, we're trying to define that which cannot be defined, and now, we're discussing whether or not that is something that is a "good" thing, something that can be supported...since we're all activists here, same as Occupiers or anonymous, I'm going to help you fine people out. Here's a definition of anon from ED, written by an oldfag many many moons ago. It sums things up quite succinctly, as I break rules 1 & 2:

Anonymous is void of human restraints, such as pity and mercy. Those who perform reckless actions or oppose Anonymous will be eliminated.Failure is not tolerated. Enemies are to be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. Anonymous must work as one. Anonymous is everyone and noone. You are. I am. Everyone is. Anonymous is humanity when the gloves come off. Anonymous is legion and its deeds are legend. What most people do not see in anonymous is that they do not go up against Scientology because of their ways, nor do anonymous do anything else for a valid reason. Anonymous in itself is a free-joining attention seeking "cult" as it may be referred to. They go up against Scientology so that they attract attention, moar people join, they become more confident and repeat. Anonymous is the only immortal troll on the internet, which means they will never be banned. Basically this is the Soviet Union all over again.
Anonymous is infinity divided by 0.= Syntax error.
Anonymous is not a person, nor is it a group, movement or cause: Anonymous is a collective of people with too much time on their hands, a commune of human thought and useless imagery. A gathering of sheep and fools, assholes andtrolls, and normal everyday netizens. An anonymous collective, left to its own devices, quickly builds its own society out ofrage and hate. Anonymous can be anyone from well-meaning college kids with highly idiosyncratic senses of humor trying to save people from Scientology, to devious nihilist hackers, to clever nerds, to thirteen year old boys who speak entirely in in-jokes on an endless quest for porn, to 16 year old girls posting pictures of their B-cups because they think they look good, to potential rapists browsing through MySpace to find some 16 year old girls posting pictures of their B-cups because they think they look good. Furries are not included among the ranks of Anonymous due to their supreme******ry. For this same reason all furfags are destroyed within .666 seconds of facing the power of Anonymous.
Anonymous is not so much unlike other web communities, it has in-jokes, culture, extended debates, etc, just like everyone else. Well, anyone stupid enough to join a web community. The difference, and the reason they visit other communities is that Anonymous have a need to be harassed by "nannying" moderators. They hate being denied late night sleepovers. Here, there isn't anyone to do that - yet long and productive edit wars spring up at about the rate you'd never tolerate elsewhere, on topics you'd never believe. They have no leader, no pretentious douchebag president or group thereof to set in stone what Anonymous is and is not about. This makes them impossible to control or organize. Not really a collective at all - more like a stampede of coked-up lemmings. They don't dare to lead for will but rather break the "bridge" instead. And since it's all made out of Legos, fuck it.
Starting as an in-joke itself, "Anonymous" is the name assigned to a poster who does not enter text in the [Name] field onchan imageboards. Anonymous is not a single person, but rather, represents the collective whole of the internet. One time some fag declared that AnonOps was actually Anonymous, and not just a completely infiltrated and manipulated front-end for the lying mainstream media. Within approximately 1999 femtoseconds AnonOps disintegrated forever.
As individuals, they can be intelligent, rational, emotional and empathetic. As a mass, a group, they are devoid of humanity and mercy. Never before in the history of humanity has there once been such a morass, a terrible network of the peer-pressure that forces people to become one, become evil. Welcome to the soulless mass of blunt immorality known only as the Internet.
The first rule of Anonymous is you do not talk about~ [Anonymous].

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

What would you suggest?

Figuring out who our supporters are and establishing a communications network would be a good start.

-t

 

[V3n]

NOPE.
Many anons were Ron Paul supporters (if you ever bothered going to sites were they converse).
That was an action by a couple individuals using the Anonymous name, and was generally disregarded by the "collective".

There are other people that use the Anonymous name for personal agendas.

I would swear I saw a tweet from one of the 'recognized' Anonymous twittererers that (not the word endorse) but said Ron Paul was their favorite candidate for 'being the most transparent' - something along those lines. I can see it in my head, but I haven't been able to find it on the webz.

 

[MRK]

How does one ever know if it is really 'anonymous'. Isn't that basically anyone who calls themselves that?

Yes. This is the thing that Media reports would always leave out. It was common knowledge in the 90's and early 2000's that when an anonymous pulled a prank on a website that it was just someone calling themselves Anonymous, in an attempt to make it seem like the action was bigger than just the one person who did it. Unfortunately media picked up on the anonymous as a group idea but nearly always fails to remind the reader that this was a posting made by one guy, not necessarily a group.