Jake Sully, Anonymous and "WhatIsThePlan" - PsyOps?

[Buddy]

Do yourselves a favor though and don't talk too much smack about Anons. They don't like it and ultimately you'll regret it.

We're a mutual mirroring network. A self-policing collective, if you will. You're dab smack in the middle of the evidence. We'll be fine, thanks.

Besides, moonbattery is funner than smack/back/jive talkin' (Bee Gees not standing with...).

 

[Guardian]

I just want to point out, slobeck, that if you've read this whole thread, which I think you have, then you'll see that no one is talking 'smack' about Anon. When it comes down to it - we don't care! It has nothing to do with us.

Wellll...the MINISCULE part of "Anonymous" that "Marie's" crazy ex husband is trying to use as a weapon against her really does have something to do with us, not that we want it to. OSIT

However, the tiny handful of "Anonymous" stalkers "Jean" has been able to rally have NOTHING to do with WWP from what I've seen.

That "Digital Flood" video was first talked about on "Workdrevolt.net" and then mirrored by "AnonymousNetherlands" and 2 other guys...which is another reason I started a separate thread for Alex Berta and Worldrevolt.net (which is still down)

While Jakesully is old news, we still have the original problem of "Marie's" stalker and his new found Fed friends.

 

[anart]

I just want to point out, slobeck, that if you've read this whole thread, which I think you have, then you'll see that no one is talking 'smack' about Anon. When it comes down to it - we don't care! It has nothing to do with us.

Wellll...the MINISCULE part of "Anonymous" that "Marie's" crazy ex husband is trying to use as a weapon against her really does have something to do with us, not that we want it to. OSIT

True. My point is that I don't think the real Anon has anything to do with that. Their name and 'style' is being used - badly.

However, the tiny handful of "Anonymous" stalkers "Jean" has been able to rally have NOTHING to do with WWP from what I've seen.

I agree, and I also don't think it has anything to do with the genuine Anon crowd - they're being used - badly.

That "Digital Flood" video was first talked about on "Workdrevolt.net" and then mirrored by "AnonymousNetherlands" and 2 other guys...which is another reason I started a separate thread for Alex Berta and Worldrevolt.net (which is still down)

Saw the other thread - that's really where the focus should be, at least from my perspective and, as always, I could be wrong.

 

[Guardian]

True. My point is that I don't think the real Anon has anything to do with that. Their name and 'style' is being used - badly.

That's where the "they" part gets real tricky, because evidently a person becomes part of "Anonymous" by saying "Hi, I'm part of anonymous"
There not even a secret decoder ring or anything like that, so technically if "Jean" says he's part of "Anonymous" he is.

Saw the other thread - that's really where the focus should be, .

I agree, and I'm posting all the new stuff over there. I've JUST started digging into the guy helping "Jean" and Berta ... "AnonymousNetherlands" and I'll add to the new thread as I get this mess into some understandable order.

 

[anart]

I agree, and I'm posting all the new stuff over there. I've JUST started digging into the guy helping "Jean" and Berta ... "AnonymousNetherlands" and I'll add to the new thread as I get this mess into some understandable order.

Something tells me that 'Jean's' new friends are going to be very unhappy with him... (actually, come to think about it, they probably already are)

 

[PlanningAhead]

I agree, and I also don't think it has anything to do with the genuine Anon crowd - they're being used - badly.

False. Anonymous doesn't get used by anyone. It's not possible. If whoever this guy is you're talking about calls himself an anon, he is an anon, period, no matter how much you might not like him. Although I've pretty much been tuning you out whenever you folks start tl;dring about s--t I don't care about, so hell if I know who you're talking about, but that's irrelevant. If he calls himself Anonymous he is Anonymous.

 

[Guardian]

Something tells me that 'Jean's' new friends are going to be very unhappy with him... (actually, come to think about it, they probably already are)

I don't expect Alex Berta, Scott Watson, or John Morris are thrilled either. Didn't their momma ever teach them to leave the crazy old moonbats alone? :P

 

[Guardian]

False. Anonymous doesn't get used by anyone. It's not possible. If whoever this guy is you're talking about calls himself an anon, he is an anon, period, no matter how much you might not like him.

Yup, that's exactly what I've come to understand from what I've read. If "Jean" says he's "Anonymous" he's "Anonymous" and he is free to use the Anonymous name, logo, etc, when stalking his ex-wife and her friends. Just as we are free to "DOX" him and everyone else involved with the defamo video. Of course it helps that SOTT.net readership numbers in the millions. :P

The rules to the this really aren't that complicated, basically 'cause there really aren't any rules.

 

[Mark]

False. Anonymous doesn't get used by anyone. It's not possible. If whoever this guy is you're talking about calls himself an anon, he is an anon, period, no matter how much you might not like him.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Just because someone claims to be an Anon doesn't mean they couldn't be lying through their teeth in order to get closer to people who are Anon. In other words, false pretenses. In that case, every Anon who associated with that person would be used regardless of any names or labels being held out by the lying party.

Not trying to argue with you. Just pointing out that, in my perspective, it'd be the actions that determine when a person is being used and/or abused.

 

[anart]

I agree, and I also don't think it has anything to do with the genuine Anon crowd - they're being used - badly.

False. Anonymous doesn't get used by anyone. It's not possible. If whoever this guy is you're talking about calls himself an anon, he is an anon, period, no matter how much you might not like him. Although I've pretty much been tuning you out whenever you folks start tl;dring about s--t I don't care about, so hell if I know who you're talking about, but that's irrelevant. If he calls himself Anonymous he is Anonymous.

Not about 'not liking him' - it's about looking at the objective facts of his actions and it being blatantly clear that the guy is a deviant. Not a moral deviant - I don't really believe in such things, since morals differ from culture to culture. A clinical, pathological deviant.

You see, there IS a truth here and it's not about 'he said, she said' - it's not about opinion, or liking, or not liking or any of that nonsense. Sooner or later, everyone runs into reality, and all that means, and people like this deviant usually only learn that once they've lost everything.

I get your point on the Anonymous thing and - I gotta tell ya - for a group that isn't a group, but is a group, and isn't identifiable, ya'll sure do seem to get touchy about what Anonymous is and isn't. I honestly don't mean any disrespect by that at all, it's just a curious thing. Thanks again for your clarification, this has been a truly edifying thread.

 

[anart]

False. Anonymous doesn't get used by anyone. It's not possible. If whoever this guy is you're talking about calls himself an anon, he is an anon, period, no matter how much you might not like him.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Just because someone claims to be an Anon doesn't mean they couldn't be lying through their teeth in order to get closer to people who are Anon. In other words, false pretenses. In that case, everyone who associated with that person would be used regardless of any names or labels or branding.

Not trying to argue with you. Just pointing out that it's the actions that determine when a person is being used and/or abused.

I think his/her point is merely that if anyone says they're Anon, they're Anon - period. So, from that logic, he can't be using Anon, because he is Anon. I don't pretend to understand it, but I appreciate having it explained to me.

 

[Mark]

I think his/her point is merely that if anyone says they're Anon, they're Anon - period. So, from that logic, he can't be using Anon, because he is Anon. I don't pretend to understand it, but I appreciate having it explained to me.

Ah, Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Guardian]

I think his/her point is merely that if anyone says they're Anon, they're Anon - period. So, from that logic, he can't be using Anon, because he is Anon. I don't pretend to understand it, but I appreciate having it explained to me.

I think I'm starting to get it... sorta. Anonymous is kinda like Christianity in a way. All you have to do to be a Christian is say "I'm a Christian" There's good ones, and bad ones, and in-between ones, they come in a wide variety of denominations...and they all spend a lot of time arguing over history and who wrote what.

 

[Buddy]

I think I'm starting to get it... sorta. Anonymous is kinda like Christianity in a way.

Maybe antiestablishmentarianism without an actual person to make the claim? Never mind, it's just the first time I found a pseudo-reason to use that term.

 

[doublea1535]

Would it be possible for them to shut down the entire internet for everybody except military or government people?

Yes. One way this could be done is through a legal mechanism that would allow them to enter large POPs (points of presence) where the backbones of the Internet converge and literally shut them down. I am pretty sure they already have these legal mechanisms, although I haven't been keeping up on the law. To actually shut down these POPs is actually ridiculously easy. In the states at least, data centers have to have an EPO switch (emergency power off) button located somewhere on-site. It's normally very big and very red and is only a plastic door away from being pushed (in some cases, it's totally exposed). This button exists in case of an electrical accident, pushing it is supposed to disable all power on the data center floor, where all the Internet routers are working. If they do this just in a few places in CA and NY they would almost completely severe the US from the rest of the world via the Internet. Repeat this process across a handful more sites, and anyone not using satellite Internet would not reach non US-sites. Other countries are surely more controlled and maybe one or two sites would need to be shut down to disconnect that country from the rest of the world. On this note, they already flexed this muscle some in Dallas, Texas I think it was about 1 year ago. The FBI powered down an entire data center down because the company was under investigation, effectively shutting down lots of businesses that relied upon their servers being up.

Taking control of the root DNS servers would also do a lot of damage, especially if coupled with packet filtering at all of our national Internet borders. The PTB's already have deep claws into the telco's and service providers, and just blocking port 53 on UDP and TCP would be relatively easy to do and sufficient to stop most people from being able to use international DNS servers. 99% of people won't be able to browse the Internet with DNS down. The feds just need to demand the network engineers at L3 and such hand over the core passwords, then the fed neteng's will lock them out and implement their filtering.

In my opinion, to swiftly and effectively shut the Internet down would require taking physical possession of Internet sites where transit providers such as Level3 and ATT reside. I am thinking some massive and massively intentional virus that "sweeps the nation" and jeopardizes our "national security". The feds will say they are reacting swiftly to the threat as they swoop in via mass raids on the relatively small number of large POPs across the country.

Military and goverment would be unaffected, as they have their own separate networks that they use. I would guess these are separate fiber optic strands (although perhaps in shared bundles with civilian fibers) but that run to dedicated facilities powered separately. These would run between all major military bases and installations, and certainly underground bunkers. Things like SIPRNet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet