/32/ - Psychopolitics

We can collect facts, but so far this Puppetmaster (who probably isn't single individual) has been able to hide his intentions very well. We need to consider his actions so far and determine what his goals could be. Once we do that, We can determine the most probable routes he will follow to them.

4chan was always under attack. Why? Because of the things that it's userbase did and said, both of which were only possible because of the anonymity and the freedom of speech.
The latest attack on 4chan was extremely organized and effective, because it explored the vulnerabilities that the system presented (the power given to the mods). Our current location does not share such weakness, which makes us temporarily safe.
The acephalous nature of the "movement" meant that the identification of any single individual within the userbase did not cause significant damage to the whole. Ergo, attacking the anonymity would be pointless, both because of the lack of leaders and because of the huge amount of users. That left attacking the freedom of speech.
The strategy was simple: gain control of the moderator positions and ban users/delete posts that went against the invading group's interests. It worked extremely well, as it is obvious by our current position.

So, why attack 4chan? What did it offer that other surface web sites didn't?
It questioned the established narratives. The only possible reason why one would attack 4chan would be to protect the established narratives, as over the years the website only increased in popularity and in legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Can you imagine if things kept advancing the way they did? In ten years 4chan would be considered a reasonable alternative source of information and opinion. It would have achieved exactly what internet media is supposed to achieve: give the common user the same power of idea propagation as the main media groups of the world.

Working from these conclusions, I believe it is reasonable to assume the following:

>Those who attacked us have as their strategic objective the removal the power of expression of the common internet user, for the maintenance of the monopoly of the media apparatus in the hands of a selected few. On a tactical level, they must silence us, and to do that they must destroy the mechanisms that allow us to voice our opinions, leaving only websites where freedom of speech is an illusion.

>Our strategic objective is to protect the freedom of speech and anonymity of all internet users, which makes us irreconcilable enemies. If we cannot be turned, we must be destroyed.

>>137
Very valid points. I agree that a likely candidate for the title of Puppetmaster would be the corporate media monopoly. Especially given their traditional stance on net neutrality. So if we make the assumption that the attack originated from the large corporate media, and that their ultimate goal is nothing short of the death of anonymous, so as to maintain their monopoly on information. What then is their next target and how will they attack it?

Halfchan may have been the largest source of anon culture but it was by no means the only source. I think it is of vital importance that we determine their next target and come up with a way to defend it.

>> 4chan was always under attack

Exactly why we were defeated. We have had the advantage for so long we foolishly came to believe we were invincible. However we had forgotten that at the end of the day our websites and communities are nothing more than bits on a server someone being cared for physically by a small number of men. That is our weakness and must figure out how to defend it better.

As for their next target my suspicion is that we will see another false flag very very soon and this one will likely be much more controversial than Emma Watson or even the fappenning. Afterward watch for some more congressional or possibly even UN led proposals on internet censorship or maybe I.d. disclosure

>>137
I'm questioning what the Intelligence Community's role in this has been.

>>143
In our particular case? I think minimal. Perhaps there exist some mandate from the top levels, but i believe they would all trickle down into specializations. Intelligence agencies roles would generally be, "find out everything about everything". They would not deal with the particulars, but instead, distribute certain tasks using their many arms.

I can guarantee you they have a role. Just probably not on the personal level

>>142
If you are interested in this I would suggest to take a look around overchan on tor. It is basically distributed chan software where the servers mirror the posts from each other by default and each admin has the ability to choose not to mirror some content. It's cp free, but gets raided pretty often.

>>143

If they carried out the attack, it would indicate the adversary was likely part of the US government; if it's corruption, the order probably came from on up high, though if we're talking high enough it was probably passed on without any thought("4chan? Eh, let the NSA figure it out"). If Uncle Sam did it of his own accord, it opens the question of *why*: was it an attack on 4chan qua 4chan, or was it done as an object lesson?

>>143
I agree with >>144 in the sense that the amount of personnel allocated to this specific task was probably minimal, but I am unsure of magnitude of involvement of the intelligence apparatus.

I am more interested in how such operatives managed to steer the enemy's actions into such an operation.
The first possibility is that leaders of the enemy's intermediary echelons were approached by operatives who made clear that it would be in the best interest of both the government and their groups (game journalism sites, SJ organizations) to remove us from our problematic position. They then offered technical support and guidance on the infiltration of movements and how to effectively turn Chris into a puppet ruler. I find this possibility to be unlikely because of the natural distrust of the intermediary echelons for the government, which they consider an organization of the patriarchy and of the "oppressors" in general. Not only that, but the enemy demographic at that level (relatively young, highly social individuals with little sense of coordinated efforts) would be poor at following orders and even worse at keeping secrets.

The second, and in my opinion more likely possibility, is that the movement's leaders are influenced by operators who don't identify themselves as such. We must keep in mind that the most efficient coercion is that which is partnered with deception, i.e. it is much better to make a person believe that he came up with a certain idea than to convince him of that idea directly. Such operatives would act as force multipliers and political cadres in such a way that would not be recognizable by those being influence by them. They would have to be well versed in coercion, deception, instruction and disguise; at the same time maintaining the illusion of normality (being "just another guy with some really good ideas").

We shouldn't seek to identify such operatives, as our possibility of success is minimal, and if we achieve our goal we will immediately become a priority target for the intelligence apparatus. Even so, for the sake of reference, we can speculate on the traits of such individuals: Young enough to be accepted by the group without raising immediate suspicions, college background, versed with computers, knowledgeable of SJ themes and well spoken. He (or she) would most likely have been recruited during college (one of political sciences, sociology, psychology with a focus on social psychology, computer science or communication), he would be an excellent student and fast learner, falling into the Alpha type personality that the agencies seek. His training would have taken some time and demanded maturity, but in order to meet the previous criteria of youth he could not be more than in his late twenties or early thirties. Such maturity could come from an exceptional mind or from a difficult adolescence, this second being more advantageous as it would increase sympathy and identification from the infiltrated group. Ethnic background cannot be determined. Sexual orientation might not be heterosexual, but gender is binary, as the agencies would not approach an individual with such risk for mental instability. Once inside the movement, he would rise enough to get his voice heard and be able to impose his will, but not so high as to attract attention from other members or external observers. He could probably achieve such an ascension by demonstrating his worth with computers or organization, and claiming that he could muster extra technical help for the goal (the laughable "feminist hackers" could very well be lesser agency operatives who are told to crash this or that site, or track this and that ip). All of this, of course, while maintaining the appearance of normality and casualty.

>>151
Could you please explain what you meant in that last sentence? It wasn't clear to me.

A house divided against itself cannot stand, much less acomplish anythihg positive.

In this case /32/ or 8chan as a whole needs to figure out what it wants to acomplish inthe grand scheme, and stick to those principles to the very end. We must constantly be examining and re-examining the elements and members of the active group so that our purpose would remain pure and uncompromised. Don't doubt that the shills are already lurking here, they'll be lookng for opportunities to strike constantly, so we have to remain strong as steel. This is a war that will change the course of history, beleive it or not.

>>155
I think most of us are aware of the significance of what is happening. This is the maturing of the 4th generation warfare, our places of entertainment and information are the trenches of future and present wars.

I tried to make it clear when creating this board that this is not a place for the discussion of politics, it is the place for the study of psychopolitics. I do not care if you are from the right the left, or whatever other position on the political spectrum, what I do care about is that you are working towards becoming aware and developing counter-measures to these emerging threats.

What is our goal? Protection of the freedom of speech and anonymity on the internet. Those are our Strategic objectives. All who stand with me for that are my allies, and all those who oppose those two points are my enemies, regardless of their ideologies and political stances on everything else.

>>155
On the subject of shills - yes, they are already here…on /pol/, at least. I've noticed a massive shift between two days ago and today. Hopefully we can keep this board pure. I would trust Sniffles to keep this place moderated effectively.

>>156
We share that viewpoint - the true division isn't between left and right, but between independent thinkers and mindless ideologues. At least, that's what matters at this particular point in history.

>>157
Mindlessness in general, actually.

I seem to remember seeing a thread a few days ago that talked how the fappenning was beyond the skill level of the typical channer. This implies that whoever performed the actual hack would have been more than capable of posting the photos practically anywhere, and certainly somewhere where they would have gotten more attention than 4chan. Furthermore the monetary value of the photos to the porno industry means that by releasing them on 4chan the hacker turned down what could have been a significant payday.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the purpose of the leaks must have been to deliberately draw negative attention to 4chan itself. Let us also consider the fan base of the celebrities who's photos were leaked. Overwhelmingly these people are sjws who's devotion to their celebrity idol combined with their youth and naivety gives them motivation to fight for a pro censorship agenda. As well as ample free time to do so.

In short I do not believe that the sjws were behind the attack but were rather unwittingly recruited, likely by one or probably several of the previously mentioned "operatives". The Puppetmaster basically found a way to use anonymous' own tactic against us.

I also believe that while the photos were being hacked moot was likely approached by a different operative and was offered the one he craves most: legitimacy. 4chan was created in the same era as Facebook, tumblr, YouTube, and Twitter. And the community that grew up around it easily rivals any of those sites. However in those cases the founders became icons many of them very wealthy, but most importantly all have been praised for their contributions to modern culture. Moot has seen none of this except on 4chan itself. So think about it, an operative approaches moot, possibly claiming to be from a well known internet company. The operative tells moot that he has a business proposition that will make 4chan a legitimate entity and give him some recognition, all he has to do is regulate the content a bit more. Suddenly the fappenning happens then gamergate. 4chan is suddenly being raided by sjws and the operative threatens to pull the deal. Moot is then left with only one option. He cleans house. Replaces all his mods with sjws and is forced to take a pro censorship stance. We were of course all taken so off guard that we ended up fighting ourselves and fueling the sjw raid.

And so here we now sit anonymous is not dead but we are splintered. Those of us who found our way to this board are prepared to fight back but we are clearly few in number as evidenced by the post count. There must be others out there willing to fight, and we must find them. We must also be careful not to reveal our location to the enemy in the process or else they could flood us to death with their shitposting. Does anybody have an idea how we could do that? Code maybe?

>>165
The best that can be done is strict moderation, until it gets more serious like DDOS attacks and shit like that.

I firmly beleieve in quality over quantity, we dont need to drag 4channera by the elbow to start posting here. Everyone who gives a damn is already here, legit anons and shills alike. Now its just a matter of pooling our resources, learning, and taking real action.

>>168
I'm not suggesting that we drag them here. Certainly what separates this board is quality over quantity. However quantity provides a strategic advantage that anonymous has capitalized on for years. We don't necessarily need numbers on this board, I will give you that. But we ever hope to strike back in a meaningful way numbers will be a part of that.

Maybe we can get these numbers some other way. Perhaps even using some of the techniques explored on this board

>>169
>Maybe we can get these numbers some other way. Perhaps even using some of the techniques explored on this board

I was having similar thougts. We're all familiar with how the opposition has no qualms about using other communities as footsoldiers for their agenda, there's literally no reason why we cant do the same. If we ever come to acting like old men hiding in the mountains then we'll be rendered impotent, it's important for us to value socialization just like the opposition does.

There is the idea that I had not considered until now that these operatives have no connection to the government. Although much more discreet (by their very nature), there are the equivalent of PMCs for the intelligence community, and they have been booming on the past decade or so. They deal mainly with digital intelligence, and probably the more expensive HUMINT to the state. Large companies with interests online could very well hire them to execute this sort of operation, using the same exact methods I previously exposed. In fact, this level of tactical flexibility and innovation discredits the possibility of the involvement of government agencies and supports the hypothesis of Private Intelligence Contractors.

>>165
I will not use code or any other method to hide this board. People who are not tech-savy have a right to come here, and the information is being shared on this board precisely because it should be public.

>>168
Limiting the number of posts will also deal with the possibility that the board rises to the top of the boards list and attract the wrong individuals. I had that in mind in writing board rule 1.

>>169
>>170
I suggest you read the military filed manuals on PSYOPS I posted in the folder. They have interesting information regarding behaviour adjustment for target audiences in all levels of hostility. I am still trying to figure out how to apply them covertly. As for numbers, the acquisition of useful low-level operatives is also a phase of PSYOPS, which will be implemented only after we have developed unified goals and methods. The covert nature of our control will pose a peculiar challenge, but we will dwell on that problem at the specific time.

I have no plans to disable the IDs, but if any of you want to use tripcodes I have no objection. Even if you don't, namefagging might be beneficial in some situations. You can already choose a short codename for that use and for further off-board communication.

>>171
>Limiting the number of posts will also deal with the possibility that the board rises to the top of the boards list and attract the wrong individuals. I had that in mind in writing board rule 1.
Isn't it possible to hide the board, so that it is unlisted? The description on boards.html says:
>There are currently 3693 boards + 421 unindexed boards = 4114 total boards.

>>179
Done