Why “Anonymous” is completely irrelevant

Anonymous refuses all definitions, yet a close look at their actions is all one needs to understand what they are all about. Anonymous is not a group of socially minded and technologically savvy internet users that want to change the world for the better. They are not a group at all. Instead, they are a loose federation of loud mouths and hackers who mostly want to make a buck or achieve the goal of inflating their selfish pride-albeit anonymously. In the most sophisticated achievement to date, Anonymous has managed to cripple and embarrass HBGary, a security firm that insulted Anons everywhere by infiltrating their IRC channel and figuring out the handles of those responsible for deployment of the LOIC. Not only is this attack childish, spiteful, and pointless, but it shows that Anonymous is most willing to use their potential for positive change instead for self-aggrandizing and meaningless pursuits.

As Iran continues to injure and kill protesters as in 2009, Anonymous continues to take down symbolic political targets on the web with their weakest tool, LOIC. The power of a symbol is in the attention it receives from the media and Anonymous has only been truly successful in these kind of attacks on Visa and Mastercard. It is hard to grasp and explain the Anonymous mindset because there are very few things that “Anons” have in common. Firstly, they are all internet users. Secondly, “Anons” choose to remain anonymous, but only in principle. The truth is that “Anons” assume the security of anonymity whether or not it truly applies.

I feel it is a wholly weak and pitiful trait of humankind that we must hide our identities to speak our mind or to take action. I believe anonymous is comprised of weaklings who take action in fear and would not do so if they did not believe they could get away with it anonymously. You are not brothers to protesters in the streets, you are cowards who sit behind computer screens and put your greatest efforts towards selfish pride instead of greater good. Hacktivist is too good of a term for Anons. That implies an ultimate purpose where there is obviously none.

Of all the facets of Anonymous, AnonNews is the most despicable. I’d challenge them to release their financial records but that’s not even necessary. Using PayPal, hated enemy of free speech, the owner takes donations and PayPal gets their dirty little share. Not only that, but they’ve gotten some cash from Military Recruiters. Yet no one seems to care about what amounts to blatant financial exploitation of the Anonymous phenomenon.

Anons are weak and pitiful for not holding AnonNews to account.

Anons are weak and pitiful for attacking HBGary when they could make a change that matters.

Anons are weak and pitiful for remaining anonymous.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive,
We do not forget,
Expect us

Photoshopped to highlight what no one seems to pay attention to. See what I'm doing here?

203 comments to Why “Anonymous” is completely irrelevant

  • anon

    You gotta thank anonnews for getting you all this traffic though, no?

    Seriously what the fuck is this website and why is it talking about something else’s irrelevance?

  • Go Anon!!:)

    Kilgore, do you really think Anonymous is irrelevant after the HBGary fiasco? I don’t know much about em but I’d hardly call them irrelevant!

  • Anonymous

    Anonymous have no names. But does the “writer” of this stuff say its name ??
    Having no name permits us to focus on ideas, or arguments, not persons. Here there are no arguments in this article. I agree with you : YOU’re a coward.

  • Anonymous

    Evidently the format of this board mitigates against the development of in-depth conversations – I’ll be kind enough to chalk that failure up to ‘OldBrutus’ rather than yourself, and add it to the reasons to consider him a fucktard.

    Again, your advice is redundant to the extent that you believe it to be revelatory. And again, insistence on altering a reality rather than restating an alternative is to opt for weakness over strength. Not that there isn’t an argument for bending like the reed and all, but all of your ‘advice’ proceeds from an apparently unshakeable belief that you’re the only one who has thought about ‘looking at external news sources analytically’ or shaping the narrative they so habitually distort. And you also assume that it’s not happening.

    Let me assure you once again, that you are mistaken and probably a little defective. Really, it’s utterly offensive to be advised of the importance of ‘retain[ing] a steady observation and awareness of the general political state’. So presumptuous; so condescending. Maybe I overestimated your capability.

    On that note, I’m not sure precisely how you drew the conclusion that ‘the administration of a general aesthetic’ has anything at all to do with ‘facts or even logic’. Really, you couldn’t have gotten much further from the point.

    If you’re going to figure out what’s going on here, you need to loosen a lot of preconceptions – you’re not alone in that regard, this is part of the transcendence of false-reality which is on the cards for all – but you seem interested in being at the vanguard, so need to get with the game quicker than most if you don’t wanna be left wondering what the fuck just happened.

    • Kilgore Trout

      Speaking in such broad generalities is a dangerous thing. I apologize for offending you, and maybe you’re taking my statements the wrong way. I’m agreeing with you on a level that’s not above you in any way, just lateral. I suppose you believe I should not push where I could instead pull? I do not annoy any more than I feel is necessary. I do not take credit for the ideas I am trying to spread or feel like they put me above anybody else. I promise you that I have long been forming actionable ideas and that I will share them with the legion when I feel the time is right. Defective is as defective does, and you can judge my intentions and my beliefs as you want. You’re much closer to the mark than most. If it’s a game to stay on top, well, game on. +1 (or should I say -64) for chronicle.SU

      • Anonymous

        “I suppose you believe I should not push where I could instead pull?”

        Impressive insight, but you got it backwards. Instead of focusing on the end (the aufhebung in Hegelian terms, the concrescence per Whitehead, the Omega Point of Teilhard de Chardin et al), focus on the dialectic.

        The reason for this is not that it is impossible to achieve a designated end through the manipulation of polarities in the present – the very fact that the term ‘false-flag attack’ has entered the cultural lexicon shows that such approaches are known – the reason is that trying to contain that end conceptually at this point is beyond the capacity of any of us, and any attempt to do so is a diminishment.

        I guess what I’m effectively arguing is that the ‘pull’ is being taken care of. What is required are capable individuals in tune with the call to ‘push’ when and where the occasion (not any leader) demands.

        This is not to say that ends are beyond discussion, but the tone counts, if for nothing more than revealing conceptual constraints; there is a point at which the only content left is the shadows cast by our own ignorance.

        I like to assume when writing on the internet that every reader is smarter and knows more than myself – I find it leads to more productive engagement, and provides a check against the distortions of egotism. I did, however, take the bait on this occasion, and hope that the opportunity to engage in some good-natured indignant pontification has served to get a little more message ‘out there’.

        (And maybe schooled a fool or two in the process)