Customize

Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous9999, Feb 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anonymous9999 Member

    Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I've seen something "creeping" over to us from the old guard, and it bothers me.

    In the older critical movement, there's a kind of status or reputation effct that comes with knowing impressive secret news. Some of it is utterly harmless, just "I found out something cool!!!".

    Other parts are "you can trust ME, because I've delivered the dirt before". And that's fine for them. But a reputation-based system of trust is not cool for us. It can lead to exagerrating your own news in order to "get more status", and shit like that. It encourages the "we're playing spy games" mindset, which is toxic shit, to us, because that means creating all these bullshit and stupid hierarchies (even if they're informal)...\

    All of which impedes the raw power of reaching agreements by hammering them out as equals, all ideas included equally.

    Now, maybe I'm talking some stupid shit. Or maybe I'm an asshole. Or maybe even both. But that's how I see it.

    What do you think?
  2. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I agree.
  3. AnonymousYKF Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I don't know about anyone else, but I don't even read the screen names on here, I only read what is said.
  4. Artonymous Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Yeah, I was feeling that a bit too. Let's add some *chan standards in here:

    Pics or GTFO

    Yeah, secret news, hidden source, people afraid for their life. I get that. However, we're getting stirred up based on the word of a few people, however good that might be. I mean, how can we be sure there wasn't an OSA order, "Start spreading shit to the old critics, they're on an opium high with these Anon kids and they'll swallow it right up."

    So, could you hold back on the fapping until you get some kind of source we can see that isn't you?
  5. waianon Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Same here mostly. Sometimes I do read screen names but I don't really pay attention to them.
  6. Anonymous9999 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Fair. I wish everyone could do that - hell, I wish I could get in that habit.

    My point is that "spy games" are poison for us to play - that includes "hunt the traitor" and other such chicken little crap, and it also includes "my source is highly placed".

    It may not be poisonous to the old critics; I got no idea either way on that score. Just for us.
  7. Beed9 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I completely agree with OP, good that the post counter has been disabled here too.
    And quoting/naming sources is always good too o:
  8. Anonamour Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I was wondering about that very thing myself. Too easy to slip false information to the up-lookers and subtly steer Anonymous into Fail positions- like underestimating Cos.

    Anonymous reports from insiders = apply salt
  9. saerat Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I only read Magoo... everyone else I dont read em...
  10. AnonMomAnon Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    i've imparted some info on these forums and to some of the organizers of the clearwater protests.

    i haven't been able to give more details about this information because if i give ANY more detail than what i already have? they'll know immediately who my sources are and they'll be able to find out who i am.

    i for one still have to live here in the belly-of-the-beast a.k.a. clearwater and cannot afford to have them find out who i am. let's just say if they found out who i am it would be costly in terms of $$$ for non-$cieno people that i like and it would cost some non-$cieno people their jobs. i'm not willing to be the cause of that happening.

    of course the ex-$cieno's and the old guard are wary. they have a right to be.

    it's also your right to not listen to what they say.
  11. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I agree~!
  12. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    OP I am unclear as to exactly what you mean.

    It is true that many of the old guard still have sources inside the CO$ and it also true that ANON has enturbulated the CO$. The end result is MORE leaks from the inside and more ex co$ who have never spoken up before looking for a way to do so.

    Personally I got into contact with an ex co$ by a VERY unusual by very verifiable means. I had questions, and gave these people information about ANON. After some correspondence I was able to ask questions that I personally felt were very germaine to this group's prior operations and the current ANON protest movement. I got very honest answers to my questions and good advice for ANON. I passed this on to someone here and the decision not to publish this information was made (I guess for the present time) because it might enturbulate enturbulation too much into paranoia.

    I have not and will not go against the wishes although I strongly disagree.

    I feel the more current inside information we get, the stronger we are no matter WHO delivers it. I hope the oldguard keep getting messages and keep passing them on. As for the OG that has not been active before, we are giving them the courage to at least speak in annonymity about what they know.

    It is fairly easy to look at any information and decide if it is or is not relevant to the cause, no matter who delivers it. If warnings of possible actions based on past actions of the CO$ (especially if issued by past perpetrators of said actions) make a protester paranoid, so be it, a paranoid person watches his or her back more carefully. A safer ANON=fail for the CO$.

    I also rarely look at the names but the information in the posts.
  13. anonoblong Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    take everything with a bucket of salt

    We are protesting on the 15th of March.

    We know what we are protesting against.

    The rest is fluff as far as I am concerned.

    Victory will come.
  14. DSAnon Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    @ OP...yes you have made some good points. I just look at the info and store it away in my somewhat limited brain cells (2 to be exact) for use later. I'm not saying whether any of the info posted here is plausible or not,it's still info nonetheless.

    The Old Guard do what they do because it works for them and mostly due to safety factors. And they have been dealing with Co$ way longer than we have.

    Meh, I just take it in stride.
  15. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    If it checks out, yes. Of more importance is the 'web of trust'.

    After, what, thirteen years of this we've developed a web of contacts that holds us together. I am more likely to trust A, whom I don't know, because B and C whom I do know vouch for her, because A has done things of which I approve, and so on. In places the web is broken, where E and F really don't like each other and can't work together. It may be that I can work with both, but it would be no good my telling E "F says" because he won't trust that information.

    What you see is not all there is. None of what we don't want DM to know (yet!) will be passed on to you, because becoming part of that web takes time. Some of what you read may be disinformation.
  16. Me Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Agree with you. I think our ability to analyse information as objectively and critically as possible is one of our strongest assets.
  17. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Wait, what?

    Play mind games on your own time.

    IMHO
  18. itsme Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    It's almost too bad that enturbulation.org doesn't force everyone to show up as "Anonymous" when they post ;)
  19. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy


    I think you misunderstood.

    OUR WORLD is COLLIDING WITH THEIR WORLD.

    They don't want Dm to know all that they know, it may blow their sources. There are those undergroud who have been working to take DM down WAY before ANON ever came on the scene.

    In that case the last thing you ever do is give up your source and we have no rights to demand that they do so. I think he is just trying to say that SOME leaks may be misinformation, but that they have good stuff they have not revealed yet because doing so will let the CO$ know their plan. Sometimes loose lips DO sink ships.
  20. MollyBloom Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent here but...

    Is this not how the CoS works also, secret trust, covert understandings/misunderstanding, being part of a 'special club' ?


    Nothing against you but why would you post this here, this is exactly what the OP was talking about, status has no relevance. If anonymous has information it's shared, if you don't wish to share relevant truth then remain silent, spreading disinformation is subversive to the cause.

    The critics have worked long and hard, continue your fight with all good will, we support you in that. I understand the need to protect yourselves and do what you must but...
    Anonymous works tirelessly also and in great numbers for great justice, knowledge is free, truth is free.

    Purposely spreading disinformation is mind games, mind games are control, no one controls anonymous. <shrug>
  21. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    It seems that everyone is forgetting that prior to ANON deciding to get involved in whatever way they "decide" these things, the OG was fighting the good fight by themselves. Web of trust, hell yeah, when you have people who openly post web pages full of shit about your person, and are seemingly invincible MY GOD who would not be constantly on the alert.

    We have the collision of two worlds, the OG who have been persecuted non stop for many many years, and ANON which believes it is invincible because they have the truth on their side.

    What I keep seeing here is not a failure to communicate, but a failure to understand what it must be like to live your life under constant threat for YEARS. MY GOD people have a little understanding of what it must be like...then all of the sudden have ANON stamped onto the scene and be demanding that these folks either change they way they've been doing things for years or get out.

    The OG can losen up a bit, that's true, but still, it has to be a far different thing to sit around on a computer reading CO$ horror stories than it is to actually have lived it for many years. If Shawn Lonsford isn't a wake up call to ANON on what it must have been like I don't know what is.

    We just need to be more understanding towards each other's "cultures" prior to the collision of the OG and ANON.
  22. Anonymous9999 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Note to the confused: Harley is part of the old guard.

    Harley:

    Right, and all of that is cool FOR YOU. But not only is it late in the game for us to become that - but trying to become that would destroy what we are, the very thing that makes us strong - the willingness to accept just about anything as "equal value" in ideas.

    When J.Swift, and Arnie, and others share info from the their sources, that's great - and, since they're critics, that's awesome. When they, or Wise Beard Man, give advice "from the outside", also great. They are being critics.

    But when someone - anyone - actually wanders into Anonymous discussions, the "special treatment" they get as an outsider will slowly erode, and their thoughts and ours will have to duke it out on completely equal footing, with all reputation and status thrown to the winds. Anonymous produces criticism and opinions at high speed - and grinds them down just as fast and hard. All opinions. All criticisms. Regardless of who you are. Magoo has met this (though only a little thus far), though she may not know exactly what it is, yet. She's holding up pretty well. Others, entering our discussions and meeting our willingness to kick every idea until it shines or dies, can't take it, and get all butthurt. This is, and will remain, their problem.

    Do you catch what I'm getting at?
  23. MollyBloom Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    This

    and


    I am not forgetting what they have endured, I am in no way demeaning it, I am not asking that they loosen up, in fact I believe that the OG needs to tighten their ranks and work their 'magic' they way they can do best with their inside information but...

    when I see posts such as this my mind takes a step back and wonders if some of them understand us, spreading disinformation among anonymous with specific intent to use the force that is anonymous to move them in any specific direction seems dubious; anonypawn to DM' bishop 3, does not make me feel comfortable at all.

    All I can hope is that I am misunderstanding this particular posters intent.
  24. Anonymous9999 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Here's the thing:

    Without that whole "economy of trust"? They have no special reason to believe you any more than the wildest theory, even if you're telling the complete truth.

    As you share information form the position of that "economy of trust", you become less and less Anonymous; you develop an identity, status, reputation. And whether or not you are totally honest and mean well doesn't change the basic fact that doing so makes you more into a critic, and less into an Anon.

    I think that keeping that division in "methods of operation" present is important. We have two protocols here; they don't merge well.
  25. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I'm not entirely sure you got my point (I know i was brief in just stating it as a sum of an idea but I'll expand on it).

    I don't care if it's a clash of two cultures (or 30 for that matter). I don't like being used like a tool, ie we know this is a bullshit post to the enturb boards but it's ok we're fucking with CoS. That right there is over the line and just bad shit. That kinda of thinking in my opinion is levels of epic fail. I don't have to adapt to a practice that is utter bullshit, it just shouldn't be done.

    What I'm stating is rather simple and in light of this revelation that the "OG" is using disinformation I'll put it plainly. Link or STFU. If it's of a sensitive subject that people involved might be hurt, don't say shit. I don't want to have to learn to apply to standards of judgement based on who posts.

    Make more sense now?
  26. orly Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    We don't like secrets and we don't like a "we're too special for you so we're holding some stuff we know secret, nyahnyahnya" mentality. If you can't tell us something, don't mention it, period. You can either have status as an outsider, or as one of anon. And quite honestly? Anon eats its children. If your ideas and comments aren't verifiable in some way, and you're posting as Anon, it's not going to work out well.

    Anon does not "take things on faith" or believe in someone else when they say "just trust me, I'm right", because Anon is anonymous and the person who says "just trust me" could be trustworthy, or could be an idiot with shitty ideas that'll drive everything into the ground.
  27. Me Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I think that's a bit harsh Skeptic.
    I'm somewhere in the middle, I think:
    ...is definitely right, because Anonymous is a weird and wonderful new creation for a lot of people. Jeez some of us still seem to be working it out!

    Having said that, none of us would be here if it wasn't for the old guard, and in normal everyday life, trust's key; and I'm guessing because of the unusual situation they've been in, it's particularly central to the way they do things.

    Anonymous is obviously never gonna be like that - for reasons that are self-evident - and it means everything gets analysed critically irrespective of source. It doesn't mean that some information's not granted more consideration than the rest (it's natural and healthy that it should be), but nothing will ever be accepted unquestioningly.

    As a PS if it's not verifiably sourced, it's pretty useless. At best it's a vague notion we might keep in the back of our minds, but even that's unlikely.
  28. Anonymous9999 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Not from inside, at least.

    Critics acting as critics are great - they just need to know that ideas of theirs that come to us without evidence will not just get "taken with salt", they may get chewed up in open and brutal debate. And this is in no way something personal. In a way, nothing we say in debate is personal.

    (Cheese warning!) That's just how we roll.
  29. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Not really, and here's why, not all information can be "linked".

    And because each person has to decide for his or her self what they will or will not believe and what they will or will not act on.

    When you made the thread with that vein of commentary it was applied to the US of ANON, or at least how I took it not even the US of ANON but the old ANON of the chans who have always stated collectively that they are not anyone's personal army.

    You in fact did exactly what you are accusing the OG of doing, using the collective US, the power of the message board to get others to AGREE with your POV which is based on what ANON used to be rather than what this segment IS NOW.

    OG did not manipulate ANON into protesting the CO$. I haven't seen anything I could term as manipulation since. I have seen them behave cautiously in some respects and I have also seen people coming right out and saying what it is.

    What I think you are accusing them of doing is posting things here or on their own boards in order to manipulate ANON into thinking certain things are true when they are not, and that you don't feel like being used.

    Since your post was full of I and US it was accusatory and an attempt to get people on your side. Explain to me how that is any different cause I am lost on that. It is one thing to hold an opinion that you are being used, but it is quite another to say this without proof (note*you did not link to proof of manipulation) and it was and US versus them approach which is never helpful.

    No one likes to be used. It is up to each individual to decide if that is what is happening and act accordingly but starting an US verus THEM movement is certainly not helpful.
  30. Anonymous9999 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Ur... right.

    But he didn't claim to be doing so out of some special authority of knowledge. Which is, I think, his point.

    Everyone does it. I do that thing, and so do you. But the claim to authority of "I know more, as well, so listen to what I say here without evidence"?

    That claim deserves no respect at all from Anonymous. And there are a few (not all, but a few) critics that have made it (J.Swift? I'm looking at you.)
  31. itsme Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I give the power of the message board the POWER OF GREYSKULL!!!

    Seriously the US of ANON is so much more powerful now.

    *lightning flashes*

    *Anonymous turns into He-Anonymous* (sorry girls the 80's were pretty clear)
  32. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I'm actually stating that there is no US or THEM. I've been hands off on some of the "inside info" posts for that reason, my own fault really. I'm stating that I (again look at thatuse of addressing it as personal opinion) think the concept of posting "pseudo" news is shitty. If some one agrees with me fine. I'll just be applying the same level of trust on all posts from here forward and by that I mean be a cynic through and through. :)

    I just took humbrage to an explicit admittal that disinformation was actually something being actively practiced. See why I would think that as a poster, regardless of who it was would be just complete discreted from here forward? I mean sure it's fine to troll if that's what the disinformation is supposed to do. I'll just treat as troll material, kinda defeats the purpose though doesn't it?
  33. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy


    BUT HE DID, he made the claim (unlinked BTW) based on his specific "insider" knowledge of ANON or rather what it used to be because I have no knowledge of what he speaks and I am here.

    The inclination to automatically rebel when someone (who may or may not be communicating in the most effective means) makes what appears to be an authoritarian statement is natural. But is it right? Knee jerk reactions to someone who does not communicate with you the way you would LIKE to be communicated with does not automatically mean what they are saying is wrong.

    A communicator needs to look at their audience and find a way of conveying his or her message to that specific group in a way it will be clearly understood by that group. I think we can say that for instance WBM gets that and so does Magoo. That others do not or cannot manage to alter the way they communicate to us does not mean they are an evil manipulating force. Some people are stuck in a mindset, some older people may not understand how to talk to the young or communicate their ideas clearly. That does not give anyone the right to immediatly cast suspision on them.

    When I read shit I know shit and I know most ANONS do too, so, where is the problem? The Maracabian Fleet "leak" might well have been a falacy, but what harm did that do except elicit EPIC LULZ? Aside from certain "insider" posters who use more of an authoritarian approach to sharing information, I have not seen any of the OG purposely trying to mislead us.
  34. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I think I know towards whom you are directing this and I honestly feel it is a misunderstanding on your part as to what the poster meant when he said "some might be misinformation". He did not say the misinformation was coming from the OG did he? (He is a little terse and brusk as a poster)

    THis is how I understood that statement...that persons may be purposely posting information about the CO$ here to mislead us. Well that is certainly true, how many trolls have posted fallacy here and been called out on it? I think you are saying that you FEEL the OG is telling ANON shit in order to manipulate it as an entity more towards the cause. I did not read into that tersity that the POSTER was admitting to posting misinformation, (that would be pretty stupid, especially with this crowd).
  35. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I'm sorry but can you point to where exactly I said I had some specific "insider" knowledge in my posts of how anon works (and sorry this is such epic lulz is not funny). I know you are trying to make a point here that discenting opinions are some how bad but I'm not seeing it what you are referencing.
  36. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    Ok

    Seems pretty clear to me.
  37. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    When you speak of WE (as in we here) I do not understand what you are talking about regarding the "old rulz" of ANON. I was never at a CHAN, or ever part of what you and others were prior to my involvement here. Thus your information, to me, is insider information. I have no knowledge of your specific creedo, how could I? I have my personal skills in how to approach information, but I don't know the ANON insider "secrets". Thus when you use WE here, I don't know what you are talking about. I can read your words and see what you believe, but at the same time not understand that YOUR creed and beliefs should now be mine or I should just GFTO.
  38. Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    But it is NOT clear to me. What I understood him to be saying is that the OG has information on DM that they do not want him to know they know. And because ANON is so large they are not yet comfortable sharing that with us. Thus some opinions expressed will not contain ALL the information that they know. I do not see him saying "and I post disinformation because I don't trust you and I want to mind fuck you." I also see him saying that there will likely come a time when it is OK to release that information, but that time is not now.

    I have personally been told that there are people in the background who have enough on DM to put him in jail for life. I don't know what that is and I didn't ask, I just said GO GET HIM. There is a saying in the intelligence community called "need to know" and apparently according to this person's opinion (terse or not) we do not yet have the 'need to know>" I'm find with that. It does not interfer in any way with my mission at hand.

    YOU should decide what you believe about posters and their information and heed it or toss it out based on what YOU believe to be true. Nothing more, nothing less.
  39. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    I'm not sure were you are seeing a WE in my statements. I could be wrong but you might want to reread. I'm not stating GTFO at all, I'm discenting to something spoted here just as you are free to contradict, flame or meme should what I post be something you disagree with.

    My stance is pretty simple on this, specially to the old guard. If you cannot coraborate your source (and that's totally cool) or it's something you don't wish to disclose. Hinting at it might not garner the responses you expect. Posting things here to disinform the CoS, well that might work out short term but if it gets debunked down the road that's a fucked up bridge to burn even if the intentions were noble.
  40. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Old Guard, Status, Secrecy

    The answer to this is pretty simple, he posted it he can redefine or clarify it if he wants. If he meant something other than what I think is obviously implied there then it should be easy to shut me up, right?

    Simple really, this is a written medium. I can except multiple interpretations of something, even yours. I know shocking aint it?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins