Anonymous 2.0
In the last few months I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about Scientology, why it’s popular among celebrities, why it’s so controversial, and how it has managed to exist and grow in spite of an outspoken and tenacious critical community pushing against it.
This process of analysis wouldn’t have existed without the emergence of a group of internet activists calling themselves Anonymous. I wish to take nothing away from the grizzled and wearied vets who’ve paved the way over the last two decades to expose the seedy, sinister and dangerous underbelly of the CoS heirarchy, but what these brave critics lacked were the numbers. Anonymous, by its very nature, represents numbers, bodies, a mass.
Present day Scientology CLAIMS it has changed and reformed itself from the scandal known as Operation Snow White, when in the early 80’s several members of the Church were arrested and convicted on charges stemming from their attempts to infiltrate, penetrate and corrupt out own federal government. I contend their claims are dubious, but I do so with the vast amount of resources, irrefutable data and unimpeachable sources from provided by the mass of Anonymous.
As with all movements, Anonymous has reached a crossroads and it must decide how it will move forward. This faceless army is at once both enigmatic and ever-evolving. As we posted a couple days back, there are factions within the group of people calling themselves Anonymous, who have disparate views on who they are how they wish to be perceived. I sense a shift coming. While most are reluctant to distance themselves from their origins, the “hive” as they sometimes refer to themselves, understand the obstacles they are facing.
Some in Anonymous may be wondering “How do we prove ourselves to be this “conscious-driven” wave of activists without fracturing and disrupting the hive?”
It boils down to “Are we Anonymous, or are we something else?” Because from a PR angle, it’s difficult to paint an “activist” picture when you have elements who commit dangerous, callous and contentious acts using your name. Certainly, this will be a complicated and divisive decision to make, as no one person leads Anonymous. This will be a group decision.
Can the anti-Scientology Anonymous be known for their positive, almost altruistic efforts, while still retaining their identity and all aforementioned negative elements? Could it be Anonymous 2.0 or New Anonymous?
Anonymous can no more sanitize its amoral beginnings than the Church of Scientology can from its history of being a money-making scheme concocted by a pulp science fiction writer who may have suffered from paranoid dementia. The similarities are noteworthy, the paths divergent.
These two forces, Scientology and Anonymous, are simultaneously at odds, but moving forward in sync with one another in a high stakes game of cat and mouse, with the winner having proven itself the moral victor. It is epic. One will win and one will lose.
Whoever comes out on top will likely be the one who can control the internets. I’ll leave you to decide whose winning that war.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
The meme “epic” is so apropos.
Comment by marcab — April 3, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
When I go to any meeting IRL, say, a School Board meeting, kid’s Little League planning mtg, whatever, there may very well be people at that meeting with whom I share little in common, have different values, heck there may be PPL there who actually, gulp, do inappropriate things.
It would be just as silly to hold all members of the Little League planning team responsible for an inappropriate act by an individual member as it would be to say the anti-Co$ anonymii are responsible for the actions of all persons who calls themselves Anonymous.
We are ALL Anonymous in one venue or another.
Join us for Operation Reconnect 12 April 2008.
I will never forget the children.
Comment by terryaryeo — April 3, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
I don’t see a “schism” really.
I see a few people who may be averse to being warm and fuzzy getting annoyed and moving on, making noise as they go, but in a few weeks there won’t be much from them re Chanology aside from perhaps comments in passing.
The separation of the anti-CoS pseudo organization Anon and the various people claiming anonymity who, shall we say, have a penchant for pranks that occasionally veer into the land of questionable taste…this will be fairly evident. Much like you can at least narrow down someone’s identity simply from watching their posting and writing “style,” the people That Matter–that being LEOs–will soon be able to reasonably assume the origins of events.
By that I mean the psychiatry-funded German secret service backers, of course.
Comment by Anonymous — April 4, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Cancer.
Comment by David — April 4, 2008 @ 7:01 am
Anon is anon is anon, and no anon is ever “conscious-driven†driven or “warm and fuzzy”. What we have here is an influx of newfags who are “conscious-driven†and “warm and fuzzy” latching onto anon’s epic win vs the CoS. They’re the ones who want to change, want to separate from anon’s origins, want to present a clean and pretty face to the press.
The real anonymous will soon leave, then there will be nothing but cancer, and eventually anon will turn on its own creation. Now that will be a sight to see. Anonymous trolling the entity it created to troll the CoS.
Comment by Anonymous — April 4, 2008 @ 7:16 am
To be honest, Anon @ 5, you’re partially right. There is an influx of “newfags” that make up a majority anti-CoS anons. I think saying they latched on to Anon’s epic win against the CoS is a little self-aggrandizing. DDoS attacks, prank phone calls, and black faxes do not an epic win make. I’d say the epic win in this case is that Anon raised awareness and, out of that, created the “new” Anonymous. Further, I’d say an epic win would be the bill proposed in TX to ban the church and the vast media attention surrounding the Anon vs CoS- and not the initial raids, but the IRL protests that draw thousands a month to the cause.
In short, the oldfags that gripe about the newfags and moralfags/xenufags tend to sound like they’re saying “I liked X band before they were popular, now they suck”…and seemingly because “X band” is more popular than ever and doing bigger things than ever.
You don’t have to be a part of what this particular incarnation of Anon is doing and you don’t have to like it. Hell, you can even bitch about it all you want all over the place, but the fact remains, that Anon is not your personal army and it appears, newfags or not, that the hive mind has spoken.
Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 4, 2008 @ 10:01 am
I completely agree Anon, Anon. This whole bandwagon issue could be resolved by calling the CoS Anon, Anon 2.0, not original to me, but something I’ve been considering for the last couple of weeks.
Comment by d — April 4, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Agreed, D. That would aleviate the issue. I do find it funny that the Anons that bitch about “Anon 2.0″ and who gripe nostalgically about “how things used to be” themselves don’t know the nature of Anonymous. With memes like “Anonymous is not your personal army” and references to Anonymous as a hive mind, it seems odd that the “old guard Anonymous” are complaining about us “moralfags”. I’d like to see the logic there.
Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 4, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Good idea! “Change” Anons questionable credentials by changing the name.
I suggest something like NO REALLY, ONLY *SOME* OF US ARE HACKER PUNKS, CRIMINALS AND ANTI-JEW BIGOTS
Comment by am — April 6, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
@ am
Huh, kind of like making the change from GO to OSA, right?
Hey, judging by your use of all caps and the CoS buzzword “bigot”, I’m guessing you’re a Scientologist. Okay, let’s play a game where I refer you to some research topics and you educate yourself beyond what you’ve been told or skimmed through.
A) – Look up the word bigot in a real dictionary before you use it. Most CoS/Scienos I’ve interacted with are the very embodiment of the word.
B) – Anonymous vs Chris Forcand
C) – Anonymous vs Hal Turner
D) – Keep in mind, teh internetz is serious fcuking business, but some of what you read, assuming you actually read something about Anonymous and didn’t just have your opinion spoonfed to you, should be taken with a grain of salt.
All in all, I guess it wouldn’t really further your agenda to publicly agree that your perceived enemy isn’t all bad. Come to think of it, the “bad ones” could care less about this fight any more and were the ones responsible for the initial raids involving DDoS attacks. Get over it. I know, it’s hard to swallow that good people are opposed to your Church, huh? Makes you think a little, right? Maybe it leads you down a train of thought that would get you into trouble, eh? Careful, you don’t want to commit a thoughtcrime. But, then, those only exist in totalitarian regime–oh wait…
Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 7, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
“Whoever comes out on top will likely be the one who can control the internets. I’ll leave you to decide whose winning that war.”
Dawn, I really don´t know why this little sentence of yours has not been pushed further by the hivemind.
This is why. This is what this is all about. About who controls the information. I´ve picked my side, not because I like everything that has been done in the name of Anonymous but because I know, that, in the end, the internet will be better of without the CoS than without Anonymous.
Comment by Anónimo — April 23, 2008 @ 11:14 am