Anonymous Claims Neo-Nazi Links to Republican Ron Paul

[Hokahey]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/29037 ... ntisec.htm

Anonymous Claims Neo-Nazi Links to Republican Ron Paul

Comments 48
Print This Article
Send This Aricle
Share This Aricle

Text Size + -

By Gianluca Mezzofiore: Subscribe to Gianluca's RSS feed

January 31, 2012 2:35 PM GMT
Hackers attacked and took possession of the website of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist party
Hackers attacked and took possession of the website of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist party

The Anonymous collective has hacked into and defaced the website of an American nationalist party, claiming it had connections with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Hackers attacked and took possession of the website belonging to American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist party which allegedly has connections with neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing organisations.

A statement posted on the hacked homepage claims that the organisation attempts to maintain a professional public image to hide its underbelly of racism and xenophobia. The hack includes several private messages from forums, personal emails, notes, names, phone numbers and home addresses of A3P members

Anon American3P tweeted: "Mic Check. Nazi losers got haxed. TANGO DOWN American3rdPosition.com #ows #ronpaul #anonymous #antisec #antifa"

Like us on Facebook

Anonymous also claims that the organisation has links with Republican candidate Ron Paul. "We found a disturbingly high number of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul," the statement said, adding that Paul had regularly met with many party members and even engaged in conference calls with its board of directors.

Another target of the hack was the A3P webmaster, Jamie Kelso. According to the hacker collective, Kelso, a former Scientologist and organiser for Paul campaign events, is also the account owner of neo-Nazi forums and websites.

Ron Paul, the American Third Position Party and Stormfront

The hacktivists said they also hacked Kelso's credit card and made donations to anti-fascist organisations, such as the Anti-Defamation League.

"We call upon not only other anti-fascists but all those opposed to white supremacy to utilise this information and make hell for these white nationalist scumbags," the statement added. "It is essential, if we wish to live in a world free from oppression, to expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in the streets."

The Anonymous hacks are part of an ongoing campaign called Operation Blitzkrieg, which is aimed at attacking and exposing the websites of neo-Nazi organisations in Europe and the United States.

The AP3 hacks follow up on its previous assault in Finland, which disabled websites belonging to several German neo-Nazi groups and published members' names.

UPDATE: The defaced website has been mirrored here

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/29037 ... z1lGEDFgxI

Uh..yeah. Well. Shit.

Love the message Ron, but I'm not going to join the blind supporters trying to excuse this shit. I'm saddened and disappointed. Especially because it wasn't about the man, but his message. A message that will now be tied to Ron and his bullshit.

Of course white supremacists would support someone like Ron. He'd allow them to shutter their businesses to whomever they'd like. And I agree with that. I also don't believe a business that discriminates would do very well financially. But it's your business. Drive it in to the ground as you see fit.

Along those same lines, any fringe type group would likely vote Libertarian. They want the freedom to be idiots, I say let them expose themselves as much as possible and face the public ridicule and financial drain of being a piece of shit.

But I'm already reading all of the "ha I knew it" posts all over the internet from people that mistake wanting freedom for all, even idiots, as racist policy.

But I honestly believe Libertarian ideals make things more equitable for all people. The drug war being a huge component, as well as immigration and war policy. I won't spell them out here because this isn't a thread to defend Libertarianism per se as much as it is me sharing my disgust about Ron.

Hopefully a credible and decent candidate will eventually carry the torch for Libertarianism on a national and potentially presidential stage again, or hopefully something comes out that puts a different light on all of this.

:cona:

[CaseyContrarian]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/29037 ... ntisec.htm

Anonymous Claims Neo-Nazi Links to Republican Ron Paul

Comments 48
Print This Article
Send This Aricle
Share This Aricle

Text Size + -

By Gianluca Mezzofiore: Subscribe to Gianluca's RSS feed

January 31, 2012 2:35 PM GMT
Hackers attacked and took possession of the website of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist party
Hackers attacked and took possession of the website of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist party

The Anonymous collective has hacked into and defaced the website of an American nationalist party, claiming it had connections with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Hackers attacked and took possession of the website belonging to American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist party which allegedly has connections with neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing organisations.

A statement posted on the hacked homepage claims that the organisation attempts to maintain a professional public image to hide its underbelly of racism and xenophobia. The hack includes several private messages from forums, personal emails, notes, names, phone numbers and home addresses of A3P members

Anon American3P tweeted: "Mic Check. Nazi losers got haxed. TANGO DOWN American3rdPosition.com #ows #ronpaul #anonymous #antisec #antifa"

Like us on Facebook

Anonymous also claims that the organisation has links with Republican candidate Ron Paul. "We found a disturbingly high number of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul," the statement said, adding that Paul had regularly met with many party members and even engaged in conference calls with its board of directors.

Another target of the hack was the A3P webmaster, Jamie Kelso. According to the hacker collective, Kelso, a former Scientologist and organiser for Paul campaign events, is also the account owner of neo-Nazi forums and websites.

Ron Paul, the American Third Position Party and Stormfront

The hacktivists said they also hacked Kelso's credit card and made donations to anti-fascist organisations, such as the Anti-Defamation League.

"We call upon not only other anti-fascists but all those opposed to white supremacy to utilise this information and make hell for these white nationalist scumbags," the statement added. "It is essential, if we wish to live in a world free from oppression, to expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in the streets."

The Anonymous hacks are part of an ongoing campaign called Operation Blitzkrieg, which is aimed at attacking and exposing the websites of neo-Nazi organisations in Europe and the United States.

The AP3 hacks follow up on its previous assault in Finland, which disabled websites belonging to several German neo-Nazi groups and published members' names.

UPDATE: The defaced website has been mirrored here

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/29037 ... z1lGEDFgxI

Uh..yeah. Well. Shit.

Love the message Ron, but I'm not going to join the blind supporters trying to excuse this shit. I'm saddened and disappointed. Especially because it wasn't about the man, but his message. A message that will now be tied to Ron and his bullshit.

Of course white supremacists would support someone like Ron. He'd allow them to shutter their businesses to whomever they'd like. And I agree with that. I also don't believe a business that discriminates would do very well financially. But it's your business. Drive it in to the ground as you see fit.

Along those same lines, any fringe type group would likely vote Libertarian. They want the freedom to be idiots, I say let them expose themselves as much as possible and face the public ridicule and financial drain of being a piece of shit.

But I'm already reading all of the "ha I knew it" posts all over the internet from people that mistake wanting freedom for all, even idiots, as racist policy.

But I honestly believe Libertarian ideals make things more equitable for all people. The drug war being a huge component, as well as immigration and war policy. I won't spell them out here because this isn't a thread to defend Libertarianism per se as much as it is me sharing my disgust about Ron.

Hopefully a credible and decent candidate will eventually carry the torch for Libertarianism on a national and potentially presidential stage again, or hopefully something comes out that puts a different light on all of this.

:cona:

I'm impressed that you posted this. Ron Paul's economic ideas are nuts, too, but I know we disagree there.

[CaseyContrarian]

Oh, and anti-discrimination laws exist precisely because discrimination can occur outside of economic incentive.

[Hokahey]

Oh, and anti-discrimination laws exist precisely because discrimination can occur outside of economic incentive.

Explain.

I'm not sure where discrimination laws exist outside of the matters of business.

I suppose there are hate crimes, and I disagree with those laws too.

[CaseyContrarian]

Oh, and anti-discrimination laws exist precisely because discrimination can occur outside of economic incentive.

Explain.

I'm not sure where discrimination laws exist outside of the matters of business.

I suppose there are hate crimes, and I disagree with those laws too.

Exactly. Also, businesses that discriminate may not ever feel economic harms due to the ingrained cultural prejudices that systematically deprive rightful US citizens of liberty. I highly doubt that any free market punishment would have been effectively doled out to businesses discriminating under Jim Crow laws, due to the institutional nature of said discrimination. This results in a demonstrable deprivation of individual freedom.

Hence my problem with libertarianism; it exists in an impossible vacuum.

[Larry B.]

Regarding discrimination when hiring, I wish there'd be more common sense and good faith. If I own a company, I shouldn't be forced to hire a black guy, a Chilean woman or an Iraqi. However, I clearly shouldn't not hire a person because they're black, Iraqi or Chilean.

[Hype]

Regarding discrimination when hiring, I wish there'd be more common sense and good faith. If I own a company, I shouldn't be forced to hire a black guy, a Chilean woman or an Iraqi. However, I clearly shouldn't not hire a person because they're black, Iraqi or Chilean.

But then the bigots will just claim that they're being forced to not not hire a person, which is the same as being forced to hire them. (It's not quite, since such a policy would be different in implementation, if not in effect).

[Hokahey]

Oh, and anti-discrimination laws exist precisely because discrimination can occur outside of economic incentive.

Explain.

I'm not sure where discrimination laws exist outside of the matters of business.

I suppose there are hate crimes, and I disagree with those laws too.

Exactly. Also, businesses that discriminate may not ever feel economic harms due to the ingrained cultural prejudices that systematically deprive rightful US citizens of liberty. I highly doubt that any free market punishment would have been effectively doled out to businesses discriminating under Jim Crow laws, due to the institutional nature of said discrimination. This results in a demonstrable deprivation of individual freedom.

Hence my problem with libertarianism; it exists in an impossible vacuum.

Let's just assume what you're saying is true. Where is the liberty for that business owner if he's being forced to allow people he's not comfortable with in to his business? What if that business is being run from his home? Are we not allowed to dictate who is allowed in to our own privately owned properties? Is that sort of forced acceptance a productive way of ending bigotry? If the property is located in an area where the culture would not dictate an economic disadvantage for a business owner practiving discrimination, then are we accomplishing anything in that area anyway? Is that owner going to hire people he's uncomfortable with? Of course not. And he'll find a reason that appears legal. Are the type of people he's uncomfortable with going to seek employment there? Unlikely. So what are we accomplishing other than mandating that the bigotry practiced on a privately owned property be kept hidden, with no possible free market reaction or penalty?

[Hype]

Hoka, I really honestly believe that well-intentioned folk who have aligned themselves with 'libertarianism' (or liberalism, or classical liberalism, whatever the moniker... "freedom loving", as it were), are right about something important, are justifiably worried about something, but have inadvertently and unwittingly ended up supporting a doctrine that undermines the very thing they really are and ought to be concerned with (and do so, misguidedly, in the name of "consistency" which Paul is, in fact, a very good specimin of, and which, thankfully, most people are not.)

Really, rather than libertarians, I think most "libertarians" are just social progressives who latched onto a notion of freedom that only partially captures what they really think is important, politically.

[CaseyContrarian]

Why would there be no free market penalty? Consumer choice still exists; all the regulation does is provide a baseline for the greater body politic to exercise their constitutionally-established freedoms.

I suppose that, had libertarians been ghettoized through years of regressive social norms, you would still think it's OK that me and my business associates bar you from patronizing our pizza joints and movie theaters?

After all, to require us to accommodate you lot would be a diminishment of our liberty.

[Hokahey]

all the regulation does is provide a baseline for the greater body politic to exercise their constitutionally-established freedoms.

The regulation inhibits freedoms. I'm not sure how you can see it any other way. If it's my business I should be able to serve whomever I choose. Are some businesses not allowed to require cleanliness from their patrons? Can some businesses not require someone be of a particular physique to hire them? Hospitals are now refusing to hire smokers.

And then it's your right to set up shop as an agitator on the publicly owned sidewalk out front and let the world know what you think of my actions. That's freedom.

I suppose that, had libertarians been ghettoized through years of regressive social norms, you would still think it's OK that me and my business associates bar you from patronizing our pizza joints and movie theaters?

Do I think it's OK or do I think it should be legal? I would not think it's OK and I would protest the holy hell out of you with an army of sympathetic individuals. We would run you out of town. But legal? Yes. You should have the right to exclude anyone you want from any property you own.

After all, to require us to accommodate you lot would be a diminishment of our liberty.

[Hype]

That's freedom.

No it isn't. We've had this argument several times before though... It's pretty tiring. Instead of thinking you have a monopoly on the concept, though, you really should word things more carefully... It's a KIND of freedom. It's also not the only kind, and it may not even be the best kind.

[Hokahey]

That's freedom.

No it isn't. We've had this argument several times before though... It's pretty tiring. Instead of thinking you have a monopoly on the concept, though, you really should word things more carefully... It's a KIND of freedom. It's also not the only kind, and it may not even be the best kind.

In the context of our discussion though I'd think it's clear what I'm trying to say. Is there a need for me to break things down to that extent for the purpose of this discussion?

[Hype]

That's freedom.

No it isn't. We've had this argument several times before though... It's pretty tiring. Instead of thinking you have a monopoly on the concept, though, you really should word things more carefully... It's a KIND of freedom. It's also not the only kind, and it may not even be the best kind.

In the context of our discussion though I'd think it's clear what I'm trying to say. Is there a need for me to break things down to that extent for the purpose of this discussion?

I don't think it's about breaking things down more... I think what actually happens is that you use the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' as if they only mean what you say they mean, but that unreasonably restricts the use of those terms to a much smaller domain than they actually apply to. The problem with this is that you're starting from an ideological position that doesn't admit true sentences like: "Regulations can increase freedom." And the opponents of libertarianism are starting from a position of already accepting that those sentences can be true. But that's the very thing that's being debated, so you can't just keep insisting that your notion of 'freedom' is the right one without doing much more difficult work. That's why there's no agreement (and can't be, at this level of discussion).

[Hokahey]

"Regulations can increase freedom."

I don't think most people disagree with this. The trick is agreeing on where the line is drawn to maximize freedom and at what level it should those lines are drawn to minimize beaurocratic issues.

[Hype]

"Regulations can increase freedom."

I don't think most people disagree with this. The trick is agreeing on where the line is drawn to maximize freedom and at what level it should those lines are drawn to minimize beaurocratic issues.

Libertarians do disagree with that sentence when it applies to anything but (obvious) issues of (direct) harms. The reason is that they have a very specific (ideological), narrow notion of 'freedom' (negative liberty --- freedom is 'not being interfered with', so laws that prohibit others from interfering with you, actively, are fine, laws that prohibit you from doing what you want on the grounds that this may have an interfering effect on others are, generally, not fine.) But this is to fail to appreciate that there is another, broader, notion of freedom -- that of having greater capacity to act. And this is the sort of freedom socialists have in mind when they recommend wealth redistribution and other social justice-based policy revisions. Libertarians can't stand this, because they see it as restricting the freedoms of some for the (unmerited, for some reason) benefit of others. But this is a non sequitur (it doesn't follow) as soon as you look at obvious cases, like, e.g., a luxury tax that doesn't prevent very rich people from owning a yacht, but does allow very poor people to have access to opportunities they would otherwise not have in any reliable and sustained way.

The other issue with what you said is that there's a more fundamental debate about what the focus of justice should be. Libertarians (as you make clear in what you say) focus on "maximization of freedom". But this isn't the only conception of Justice. The massively influential Rawlsian conception of Justice as Fairness is arguably a much better view (and since Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" was published, pretty much everyone has to use his work, either to make adjustments from within it, or to get beyond it somehow).

You might want to read this (Just the one paragraph that the link goes to): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximin_%2 ... philosophy
Some of this would be helpful, too (Especially the Criticisms section since it talks about Nozick, and the relation between Rawls, socialism and libertarianism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice

[CaseyContrarian]

all the regulation does is provide a baseline for the greater body politic to exercise their constitutionally-established freedoms.

The regulation inhibits freedoms. I'm not sure how you can see it any other way. If it's my business I should be able to serve whomever I choose. Are some businesses not allowed to require cleanliness from their patrons? Can some businesses not require someone be of a particular physique to hire them? Hospitals are now refusing to hire smokers.

And then it's your right to set up shop as an agitator on the publicly owned sidewalk out front and let the world know what you think of my actions. That's freedom.

I suppose that, had libertarians been ghettoized through years of regressive social norms, you would still think it's OK that me and my business associates bar you from patronizing our pizza joints and movie theaters?

Do I think it's OK or do I think it should be legal? I would not think it's OK and I would protest the holy hell out of you with an army of sympathetic individuals. We would run you out of town. But legal? Yes. You should have the right to exclude anyone you want from any property you own.

After all, to require us to accommodate you lot would be a diminishment of our liberty.

Private property that serves the public is not actually private. If you want a secret beer drinking club, start one of those. Preventing me from patronizing your public establishment based on my skin color is hostile to my exercise of individual liberty.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Hype]

all the regulation does is provide a baseline for the greater body politic to exercise their constitutionally-established freedoms.

The regulation inhibits freedoms. I'm not sure how you can see it any other way. If it's my business I should be able to serve whomever I choose. Are some businesses not allowed to require cleanliness from their patrons? Can some businesses not require someone be of a particular physique to hire them? Hospitals are now refusing to hire smokers.

And then it's your right to set up shop as an agitator on the publicly owned sidewalk out front and let the world know what you think of my actions. That's freedom.

I suppose that, had libertarians been ghettoized through years of regressive social norms, you would still think it's OK that me and my business associates bar you from patronizing our pizza joints and movie theaters?

Do I think it's OK or do I think it should be legal? I would not think it's OK and I would protest the holy hell out of you with an army of sympathetic individuals. We would run you out of town. But legal? Yes. You should have the right to exclude anyone you want from any property you own.

After all, to require us to accommodate you lot would be a diminishment of our liberty.

Private property that serves the public is not actually private. If you want a secret beer drinking club, start one of those. Preventing me from patronizing your public establishment based on my skin color is hostile to my exercise of individual liberty.

Why do you hate freedom?

There's a fine line between a club which only permits some identifiable group and a group that promotes hatred of some other group(s). The former must tread VERY carefully to avoid being the latter. In fact, it may just be impossible.

[Hype]

This might be enjoyable, and relevant: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz ... hoice.html

[Hokahey]

Private property that serves the public is not actually private.

Of course it is. The "private" part refers to ownership, not accessiblity.

Preventing me from patronizing your public establishment based on my skin color is hostile to my exercise of individual liberty.

No it's not. Your individual liberty has nothing to do with being allowed to patronize my business. Your rights are not being infringed upon in any way. You have not contributed tax dollars for my existence and are not required in any way to utilize my services.

Take what you're saying a step further. What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

I think instinctually most people react emotionally at the thought of permitted racism, but we do it every day by allowing clan meetings and racist publications. We can't just stifle the ability of people we disagree with to practice their beliefs.

[Hype]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

[Artemis]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability to the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills hot soup on their foot and scalds it? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

[Hype]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

[Artemis]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

they could use those disposable paper slippers and gowns that hospitals use.

[Hokahey]

What about dress codes? They discriminate against the poor. No shirt, no shoes, no service? Discriminatory against hippies!

They should be challenged in the courts. Baby steps.

That no shirt no shoes or service has more to do with complying with hygiene rules and also preventing against liability the establishment. Say you have a restaurant and some shoeless dude or dudette spills thier hot soup on their foot and scalds their feet? Or,there are particles of glass on the floor from an earlier glass breaking incident?

They should be required to provide loaner shoes and a shirt to prospective patrons who need them, then.

Paid for by the US government of course.