So, anonymous goes after the only guy who stands against the SOPA bill and all other bills that will puppet the SOPA bill. And yet, there supposed to be a non-government "hacker" group?
This smells of CIA or other establishment "false flag" operations.
Just a short while ago, they "hacked" into documents that showed that Iran was a threat and must be taken out. I don't know why they had to "hack" for documents like that, or "leak" them...the establishment/State would have been super happy to publish those all over big media.
I thought the same when i read that "news". Or either the CIA is taking advantage of the fact that "anonymous" is really anonymous and they covertly act on its behalf or the whole anonymous thing is made up to fearmonger about internet dangers and hence legislate on it.
Bored script-kiddies with cosmic egos + intelligence services with an agenda = Anonymous
Anyone with real hacking skills will probably be using those to make money, not engage in political activism.
"Anyone with real hacking skills will probably be using those to make money"
I believe they are making money. They have been hired by the CIA and are making money doing their part to get people to pass a SOPA like bill, and go along with other establishment ideas, like get rid of Ron Paul.
You can find what they dug up here. I don't really get the point of this. All I see is this Kelso guy claiming in various places to have set up "meetings" with Ron and Rand Paul, which of course anyone can do. Ron is a pretty reachable guy and I think he includes his name in the phone book. This is the sort of "personal association" you might have with the Church of Latter Day Saints if a Mormon knocks on your door.
Also remember that anyone can campaign for Paul; it doesn't mean he approved of it personally. "Much of Ron Paul’s support comes independent of him or his official organization. For example, Dr. Paul was not personally responsible for the 2008 Ron Paul Blimp, the Tea Party ’07, or the various ‘money bombs’ that catapulted him to stardom." (link)
It would be intresting to see who first broke the story. I doubt someone even vaguely sympathetic to Paul would jump to such sweeping conclusions.
Also whether or not these allegations are true they will be used to further the left/progressive narrative wherein libertarians/free marketeer are bestest pals with the neonazis and plan to rollback "progressive" achievements, institue a corporate dictatorship and let the Klan ride again while the poor starve in the streets.
I see people already trot out TEH NOOSELEDDERS and that donation from the Stormfront guy as irrefutable proof that Ron Paul is the second incarnation of Adolf Hitler.
Tunk is exactly correct. The problem that Paul is such an outlier in mainstream politics that "setting up a meeting" = "such and such requested a meeting with my staff and my staff approved it and I know exactly what I'm getting into and this person isn't Joe Schmo off the street or else I wouldn't be meeting with them." The problem is, Paul approaches Joe Schmos off the street all of the time without reservation. He is the most reachable candidate. White nationalists have had this tendency to make it sound like they are making inroads with Paul when they are really not.
The main reason they support Paul is because he has been hostile to the CRA's provision about telling private owners who to deal with in their private property. And this is a legitimate aim. This is not to say that "white supremacism" is a legitimate aim, as my previous statement would inevitably be twisted to sound just like that. It's like saying Paul supporters only support Paul because he'll let them smoke pot. This ignores the fact that, gee, maybe smoking pot should be legal? Just as involuntary integration should be illegal? I think the question boils down to the non-radical position of assuming that, no matter your stance on personal matters, everybody should be afforded political rights. Assuming this, white nationalists have rights too just as pot smokers and religious fundamentalists and hippies do.
As for Anonymous, I don't know what their goal ultimately is. I think they are trying to stir up trouble. I doubt they are a "CIA front." Lew Rockwell posted an article by somebody yesterday that suggested that Facebook is as CIA Front. Everything can be a CIA Front if you try hard enough to concoct reasons for it.
BTW here's a sort of sympathetic NYT article from some years ago that corroborates what I and Eric am saying:
There is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He communicates with his constituents through birthday cards, August barbecues and the cookbooks his wife puts together every election season [...]. He is listed in the phone book, and his constituents call him at home. [...]
“We’re in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other ‘wackos’ for their beliefs whether that is simply because they’re liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. [...]"
| Post Points: 5
Facebook is a CIA front. So is Google. So is YouTube. These are not organizations you should trust or think of as "free market entities."
If RP was "associated" with white supremacy groups, then the media might as well say that RP is a CIA agent since so many white supremacy groups are themselves CIA fronts, just like a lot black/women/gay movement organizations were CIA fronts. Btw, the media is using "associated" very vaguely. WTH do they by it? You can pretty much associate any one with anything; I could be an an-cap since I have associated with an-caps, but I could also be a socialist since I have associated with socialist as well. Hell, I could be a government agent since I know people who are... actual government agents.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I was gonna create thread about this the other day:
Anyone else baffled that Peter Thiel co-founded a Ron Paul superpac? Sure, he's a libertarian and supports the Seasteading Institute, but he's also been directly funded by the CIA. He co-founded Planatir Technologies, which received funding from In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA's admitted venture capital firm. Why would a libertarian accept money from the CIA. (Yes, he has other co-founders and investers to deal with, but still.)
He also angel invested in Facebook, which is CIA front, as Clayton points out. He's even an official member of the Bildeberg group.
EDIT: Here is a Charlie Rose interview with one of Planatir's co-founders: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10549.