Sounds like a Neal Stephenson novel.

I tried to note that the "group" -- if it had any ideology evinced by action -- was of a certain bent.  I'm sure the members distribute all along the spectrum.




On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Jeff-

Sorry, just noticed that I was evoked in your previous post.

I said that Anonymous is comparable to the Weathermen. It would be
better to think of them as a decentralized and Dadaist version of the
Freemasons. The Freemasons had symbols; Anonymous has symbols. The
Freemasons loved nothing more than to see their symbols manifested in
the public eye without the masses at large understanding their origin;
Anonymous has a similar urge. Sometimes these symbols leak into the
culture at large. LOLCATS derive from /b/ at 4chan, for instance,
although most people don't realize this.

There is no collective political agenda to be found among Anonymous.
You may recall the raid against John Edward's online HQ on Second
Life, which was widely reported. This was conducted by a splinter
group based largely around 7chan's /i/ board, which was itself
concerned with raids, trolling, and the like. Edwards was not targeted
for any particular reason other than that he was among the few
candidates who had an online HQ. When the same general group attacked
Hal Turner for some two or three months, it was not because Hal Turner
was a racist; it was because Hal Turner published the info of members
who had prank called his radio show.

If you go to 4chan and read for a while, you'll learn that Anon is
made up of Republicans, Democrats, anarchists, libertarians,
communists, and the apolitical; you'll see plenty of political
arguments regarding the ongoing election. These are Europeans,
Americans, Russians, Asians, South Americans, and even some Africans.
These are atheists, agnostics, Christians, and Jews. They vary wildly
in age, occupation, taste, and other such things. What they tend to
have in common is a love of high-concept humor and a disregard for
convention.

What needs to be understood is that this kind of organization, while
comparable to secret societies of the past, is an entirely new
development in information flow and power. I keep tabs on it because I
am of the firm opinion that this is the beginning of something either
very promising or very dangerous. But what really needs to be
understood is that these are not kids hanging around in basements
eating Cheetos. These are people with a variety of talents, and
occasionally, when a consensus is reached, these talents are pooled in
an effort to strike at some individual, institution, or even just a
concept.

In the future, such organizations could replace the nation state.
Stranger things have happened.

Barrett