Nevermind Obama - Vote Anonymous in 2012
Nevermind Obama - Vote Anonymous in 2012
Posted 07/08/2011 at 10:51am
| by Brad Chacos
22
Comments
Print
LulzSec may have been in it for the laughs, but Anonymous has always claimed that its hack attacks and DDoS bombs are designed to push forward a liberating social agenda. "Hooey," you might say, "What about that time Anonymous harassed that kid with the No Cussing Club?" and we'd have no option but to nod our heads thoughtfully. Someone in the group takes the social message to heart, though; Anon recently announced a splinter political group called the Anonymous Party Of America, made for people who empathize with Anon's civil liberties message, but disagree with hacking the Church of Scientology.
Some elements in Anonymous disagree with the idea of Anon being a group, rather than a loose coalition. A tweet on Anonymous' @Anon_Central account says "Anonymous is not a f**king group or a party. If someone is telling you that they can lead this then you are getting butt f**ked and you don't even know it."
Whoa! Slow your horses, Anon – the Anonymous Party of America isn't looking to steal your DDoS thunder. Testudo Smith, a spokesman for the political splinter group, told ComputerWorld that "This (party) is just another group that wants to support the goals of Anonymous. It isn't going to replace it... We have no control over Anonymous as a whole. There aren't any leaders, and it would be futile to attempt to control Anonymous."
So what's the point, then? Smith, who apparently doesn't believe the "anonymous" part of "Anonymous," says that the political party's goals line up with what Anon's been asking for all along: transparency and accountability from the government and a focus on individual rights.
If you're picking up what Smith and the Anonymous Party are putting down, you can check out their website at anonymouspartyofamerica.com, but you might want to give it a few hours; the server's not resolving at the time of publication. Google's cached different portions of the site, though, so you can check out their populist rants by going that route.
More like this
22
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
HeartBurnKid
July 11, 2011 at 1:41pm
If the organizers of APOA decide to stop kicking the hornets' nest that is Anonymous, I would suggest allying themselves with the United States Pirate Party instead. They seem to share most of the same ideals.
boodiespost
July 08, 2011 at 11:57am
Seriously, Brad.. Bra, why are you guys falling for it? That is what these punk kids want. Attention. So please do us a favor and stop glamorizing these punk bisquits. We don't want to know. Please stop submitting news regarding lulsec.. nut sacks.
Marthian
July 08, 2011 at 12:20pm
this is anonymous, not lulsec. Lulsec *supposedly* stopped their attacks.
Either way, hackers are still not helping anyone.
DDRDiesel
July 08, 2011 at 11:33am
"the server's not resolving at the time of publication."
Because Anonymous is DDoS-ing the Hell out of them. Not surprised
TerribleToaster
July 08, 2011 at 11:17am
'"Anonymous is not a f**king group [...]"'
*Googles "Anonymous"*
Top Result:
Anonymous (group) - Wikipedia, the free encycolpedia
Sounds like a group to me, let's check for sure
*Opens link*
Anonymous (used as a mass noun) [...]
Hmmmm, mass nouns...
*keeps reading*
Beginning with 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism, undertaking protests and other actions, often with the goal of promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech.
So they are a collection of people that work in sync? But that's not a group.
Then again, this is coming from an anarchist group.
Ghok
July 08, 2011 at 1:16pm
Anarchy just means a lack of leadership. Not a lack of working together. (A pipe dream, I think, though it is a nice thought).
I like to think of Anonymous as a banner. People rally under this banner to fight for a common cause, but it's not really the same as an organized group. Of course, it's still technically a GROUP, but that has a pretty broad definition. That's all this guy means.
TerribleToaster
July 08, 2011 at 2:57pm
It is actually impossible for true anarchy and a collective effort to exist in the same thing. Simply because it must mean you accept someone is above you in doing some thing (collaboration, no matter how democratic, always requires an acknowledgement of someone being in some position).
Esseintally, it is impossible to have organzied anarchy beacuse a side effect of anarchy is a loss of organization. If you aren't organize you can't be collaborative.
It's why self-proclaimed anarchy organizations like Anon are self defeating. Of course, anarchy isn't the only side of Anon, but it is the one I find most amussing.
steakkills
July 09, 2011 at 9:50pm
But that is just the way our society is run I'm positive if there were some way to work out a true communist state the world would be better no major equality wars or ethnic wars would take place bcause everyone would be the same in the eyes of that ideology.
TerribleToaster
July 11, 2011 at 5:48am
Not sure who this was directed at, nor what it was addressing because I don't think anyone talkeed about Communism.
But I'll point out that Communism does not equal Anarchy. Though there is a form of Anarchy (or Communism, depends how you want to approach it) called Anchro-Communism that blends both.
illusionslayer
July 08, 2011 at 5:13pm
In a perfect Anarchy everyone is equal. If a member of the group does not flow with the group or threatens to harm the group's ideals or the group itself that member is pruned and thrown out. Have you ever actually given this any thought or are you just repeating what your popPsy teacher told you?
Everyone votes on every matter.
TerribleToaster
July 11, 2011 at 5:44am
"In a perfect Anarchy everyone is equal."
No, in a perfect "Democracy" everyone is equal. In a perfect Anarchy, no one is equal.
"If a member of the group does not flow with the group or threatens to harm the group's ideals or the group itself that member is pruned and thrown out."
Anarchy's can't act as a group, as that requires representation. If it was a Anarchy they would be required to, in order to stay an Anarchy, to do nothing about a "rogue member" of the "group". If the "group" acted together to throw out the rogue member, they would be creating a leadership position (that is, the group is the leader and its members the followers), which would be a Democracy.
"Have you ever actually given this any thought or are you just repeating what your popPsy teacher told you?"
Baseless personal attacks totally prove your point. -_-
"Everyone votes on every matter."
That is called Democracy. Literally, it is the definition of it.
steakkills
July 08, 2011 at 1:11pm
they arent really anarchist they are just pushing for a more true democratic system
TerribleToaster
July 08, 2011 at 3:33pm
They claim to be anarchist group. They have made this claim multiple times. :P
You are right that what they really push is a more "true" democracy, but I am also right that them thinking of themselves as an "anarchist group" is, well, wrong.
illusionslayer
July 08, 2011 at 5:19pm
Also, if I claim to be an 8'7'' purple unicorn and make that claim several times it makes it true in some fashion?
TerribleToaster
July 11, 2011 at 5:18am
That was my point. They claim it, but it's not true. Your hostility is pointless as you are agreeing with what I'm saying.
illusionslayer
July 08, 2011 at 5:17pm
Tell me, how can a group that is so massive and uncontrolled make a collective claim. I for one know that Anon is not an Anarchist. It follows a group mentality based on what a few members suggest they protest. Someone throws together some facts on a pretty poster that's made to aggravate Anon and they attack.
You would be right about them being wrong if they actually thought they were anarchists. Sure some newfag might tell you "Anarchy ftw man. Fuck The Police!" But I assure you that is not the collectivew agreement, as evidenced by this splinter group.
TerribleToaster
July 11, 2011 at 5:31am
"Tell me, how can a group that is so massive and uncontrolled make a collective claim. I for one know that Anon is not an Anarchist."
As do I. If you had read anything of my posts, you would realize this. A simple summary of all I've said so far:
"Anon Central thinks of Anon as anarchist, they are not."
Pointing out they aren't Anarchist is a pointless (i.e. red herring), it's a agreed upon fact.
"You would be right about them being wrong if they actually thought they were anarchists."
What was the point of your first paragraph? It's clear from this sentence that you already know I don't think Anon is anarchist.
"Sure some newfag might tell you "Anarchy ftw man. Fuck The Police!" But I assure you that is not the collectivew agreement, as evidenced by this splinter group."
Funny thing is that if you read my post you realize I was quoting the Anon central claim that anon was not a group/organization. Which I then pointed out that this anarchist idea was false and that Anon was a group.
From what I've seen of what you posted here, I must have somehow pushed your buttons because you aren't even trying to prove a point, but rather disagree with me for the sake of it.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy1 day 21 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj1 day 21 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 18 hours ago
