A real life Stand Alone Complex emerges against Scientology
With the recent appearance of the anti-Scientology Internet-based movement named “Anonymous” we are witnessing the emergence of the first true virtual Stand Alone Complex as envisioned in the anime series Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Allow me to explain. First, some background on what a Stand Alone Complex is, courtesy of Wikipedia:
While originally intended to “underscore the dilemmas and concerns that people would face if they relied too heavily on the new communications infrastructure,” the concept of the Stand Alone Complex eventually came to represent a phenomenon where unrelated, yet very similar, actions of individuals create a seemingly concerted effort.
A Stand Alone Complex can be compared to the copycat behavior that often occurs after incidents such as serial murders or terrorist attacks. An incident catches the publics attention and certain types of people “get on the bandwagon”, so to speak. It is particularly apparent when the incident appears to be the result of well-known political or religious beliefs, but it can also occur in response to intense media attention. For example, a mere fire, no matter the number of deaths, is just a garden variety tragedy. However, if the right kind of people begin to believe it was arson, caused by deliberate action, the threat increases drastically that more arsons will be committed.
What separates the Stand Alone Complex from normal copycat behavior is that the originator of the copied action is not even a real person, but merely a rumored figure that commits said action. Even without instruction or leadership a certain type of person will spring into action to imitate the rumored action and move toward the same goal even if only subconsciously. The result is an epidemic of copied behavior-with no originator. One could say that the Stand Alone Complex is mass hysteria-with purpose.
In the original anime, the Stand Alone Complex emerges in the form of the Laughing Man, a mythical figure under whose banner a large variety of disparate groups and individuals launch attacks against corporations and governments, with a common unifying theme of speaking truth to power. But there was no centralized organization, nor was there even an original who set out to launch such a crusade; the concept evolved spontaneously across the Internet, led by no one person but shaped by hundreds of independent ones.
If you’ve been following the recent anti-Scientology outbreak across the Internet, this should all be sounding eerily familiar to you. It started with the release of a kooky Tom Cruise Scientology video on a public video-sharing site. The “Church” of Scientology filed a copyright claim to take it down, whereupon the Internet responded en masse, with anti-Scientology crusaders congregating on sites like Digg, Slashdot, and 4chan much like the Laughing Man fans, devotees, and emulators did in Ghost in the Shell.
Things got really ugly for Scientology. Many of their secret documents were leaked online, along with full, unedited videos of Scientology conventions and the original Tom Cruise promotional piece that sparked the whole war. Meanwhile, the “Church” responded in kind with more lawsuit threats, take-down notices, and DMCA requests. Throughout all of this, the vast loosely affiliated group of anti-Scientologists spread across Digg, 4chan, other chans, and the like, began rallying under the name “Anonymous”.
“Anonymous” began releasing ironically-named propaganda pieces and unsettling videos of dark, imposing time-lapsed clouds serving as a back-drop to threats delivered in a scratchy synthesized voice. The haunting rhythmic mantra of Anonymous, used to close every subsequent video and propaganda piece, made its debut. Yet there was no central organizational structure responsible for any of this. All of the various prongs of the attack against Scientology — the videos, the leaks, the images and essays, the meatspace protests — came from disparate peoples rallying to the war cry of a single ideal. Heck, I even registered an Anonymous account on a BitTorrent tracker — what torrents I uploaded with it, I cannot reveal.
We are thus dealing with a true Stand Alone Complex, probably the first substantive one the net has ever seen. There was no original person who launched and organized this battle, but at the same time, it’s not accurate to call everyone who is participating in it mere copycats, because they are the entirety of it. This battle will continue raging for some time, and it’s about damn time. Scientology is truly dangerous like many other cults and religions, yet their litigious nature has effectively hamstringed the news media from covering these issues (except in Germany). So it makes sense that a fluid, faceless group should take root on the Internet to oppose them. After all, the threats of lawsuits only make sense if they can actually find you to sue you. Now you understand the meaning of “Anonymous”.
So keep a look-out on February 10, when something big is supposed to happen in this war against Scientology. I’ll be watching, perhaps even participating in a way that I alone decide is apt. And how could I not? We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
Update 2008-02-09: Anonymous’s war on Scientology is going very well, especially considering the disparity in sizes of the two participants.
Update 2008-02-10: With the huge wave of protests seen today, has Scientology’s day of reckoning finally arrived?
January 29th, 2008 at 02:56
Hardly anonymous to announce yourself on a personal blog, don’t you think?
January 29th, 2008 at 09:15
Which is why you won’t see me specifically talking about anything I’ve done, or will be doing.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:37
Have you seen Demonbaby’s post? The gist of it is, stop picking on Scientology specifically, because most religions are just as silly, if not more (or, as Julia Sweeney put it, “We believe that God impregnated a young woman, and the fact that she had never had sex is maniacally important to us”).
January 29th, 2008 at 12:22
The beautiful thing about being an atheist is that I have the freedom to pick on all religions specifically — an opportunity which I frequently avail myself of, trust me! It’s just that Scientology-hating seems to be the fad of the now, and I cannot resist getting in on this movement.
January 29th, 2008 at 20:05
arensb, Anonymous does not attack the beliefs of Scientology. No, it is the CoS organization and the corrupt individuals that keep this house of cards standing that are being attacked. People are free to believe what they want. Unless you are a Scientologist, than it costs a lot.
February 10th, 2008 at 21:10
When the other religious factions start hiding propoganda videos and suing the crap out of everyone, they’ll get theirs too. Hopefully they learn a lesson from this. Don’t try to make an actual religion outta a fanatic cult. Besides, I heard CoS lieks mudkipz.
February 10th, 2008 at 21:57
Anon (wow, there aren’t going to be a lot of people using that nickname in here): Hiding propaganda videos and launching lawsuits is far from the worst thing religions are capable of. Remember September 11? That was done by Islamic religious fanatics who are far more dangerous than Scientology will ever be. Taking down Scientology is the cause of the now, but don’t forget that it’s part of a bigger picture.
February 10th, 2008 at 22:14
We aren’t picking on scientology, we are attacking an organization full of fraud and abuse. A dangerous cult who kills.
I attended a picket today. If this is just a religion, why was I followed, harassed, and forced to have my picture taken by several scientologists. Why was I screamed at for trespassing on a public sidewalk.
This is the beginning.
February 10th, 2008 at 22:39
Re: Cyde Weys — The thing is, violent islamic fundamentalism is strongly opposed in all of Western society. $cientology is allowed and treated as legitimate. We want to spread the information, and for people to realize this.
February 10th, 2008 at 22:55
Anonymous (wow, this isn’t going to get repetitive): Did you take pictures of the Scientologists who were harassing you? Turnabout is fair play. Post the pictures somewhere and solicit help in identifying them. If the Scientologists pulling the harassment routine on protesters end up themselves being harassed, they may be disinclined to continue their own harassment.
davidmckips: Ignore Islamic fundamentalism then. How about mainstream religions? They’re still very dangerous. Religious views have caused harm in a wide variety of ways: abstinence-only education resulting in STDs and pregnancies when teens have sex anyway but don’t know about protection, the cancellations of needle exchange programs resulting in increased STD transmission rates because “those people deserve it”, cutting off of funding for stem cell research would could potentially save millions of lives, utter contempt for the environment since God “made it for us” to do with as we please (and the end times are just around the corner anyway), nonsensical attacks on science education (especially education) because they think it’s better to be ignorant than to actually be educated and be able to solve real world problems, turning a blind eye to Catholic priests’ pedophilia, etc.
Yes, Scientology sure as hell does have its faults, but it isn’t nearly as influential as other religions in the United States which are doing far more damage. Still, I’m focusing on Scientology for now, because it’s a much easier target, and it may have a cascading effect.
February 11th, 2008 at 00:00
While I agree that all religions can have negative elements to them, the biggest threat is “organized religion”. What one person believes created the world is irrelevant; does my belief that a giant spidergod spun the universe together harm you in any way?
The problem with organized religion is that it forces beliefs on others (a million spidergod followers have much more power than one). Consider the legal aspect of marriage; one man, one woman. Why? Because the predominant religion of the lawmakers believed that was how it should be.
Now, when you have an organized religion like Scientology which insidiously tries to change the beliefs of others (look up some of their secret front-organizations), charges its members money for enlightenment (Sunday donations at churches are entirely optional), and shuts down any opposition with legal threats and violence, you have a problem.
I’m not going to argue that religions have done horrible things over the years. But this is about Scientology first and foremost, and does not foreshadow an organized attempt to destroy religion.
-David
PS: I hate looking back on things I’ve written and wishing I could say it better >.>
February 11th, 2008 at 00:09
Good points David. I recognize it as an attack on Scientology and not as anything greater (though of course my wishes differ). One person’s whacko beliefs are irrelevant until they start effecting negative actions (such as a mother who doesn’t believe in medicine and allows a child who needs a simple blood transfusion to die instead). When millions of people all share the same wacko beliefs, they create undercurrents in society in the form of laws and social mores that harm all the rest of us. Scientology isn’t quite there yet, but many other religions are.
And by the way, Sunday donations are not optional at all churches. I know several people who belong to very out there Christian churches, with an expected annual tithe of 10%. If you do not “donate”, you are ostracized by the rest of the congregation and forced out.
February 11th, 2008 at 00:52
And just before anyone claims otherwise, I’d like to point out that I am not trying to force my beliefs (or lack thereof) upon anyone. That doesn’t really work, and besides, in that way lies fascism. No, what I am envisioning is a world in which religion is cast off because people no longer see any need to believe in it, not because they are forced not to. Granted, that world is a long ways away, because religion is pernicious. But arriving at that end result through any other means simply wouldn’t be right. It will take a lot of explaining, a lot of reasoning, a lot of consciousness raising to get there. But the destination, a human discourse free of superstition, is worth it. I believe there’s a song that neatly sums this up.
February 11th, 2008 at 02:04
I’m not so sure that I agree that this would be a true stand alone complex. A true SAC is caused by uncontrolled radical information infecting individuals similarly to an airborne virus. Essentially a large amount of data on a revolutionary idea exists and many people absorb a sufficient amount of it to become radicalized and take action individually or in small groups. Anonymous does not have leaders per se, but it does have a series of groups which both cooperate with and undermine each other at various points. Anonymous has official media. Anonymous has channels of organization. A common misconception is that Anonymous does not have leaders — it’s a group where everyone is a leader. These are not the solitary acts of stand-alone individuals resulting from infection by a data set with lost origins, but a mass of loosely connected individuals with little specific direction.
February 11th, 2008 at 02:09
On another note, in response to Clyde, I must make a distinction here, the lack of which has caused this whole business to be marred by misinformation. Anonymous does not protest Scientology. Scientology is at its core perfectly valid belief; if someone wants to believe this Xenu stuff, he’s certainly free to do so. Anonymous protests the Church and its actions rather than the movement itself; it considers other independent Scientologists, such as the Free Zoners, to be its friends and allies even though those groups may not be participating directly in the movement against the church.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:50
I’ve written another blog post to address the question of what is or isn’t out-of-bounds in the war against Scientology. See Who speaks for Scientology?
February 11th, 2008 at 22:05
Um…
We aren’t a group of anti-Scientologists that formed under the name Anonymous….
We always were Anonymous, and we are fighting against the Church and it’s blocking and censorship of our freedoms, such as speech and the press.
We have always been Anonymous…. the anti-sci’s are making use of our war to help us destroy the corperation of CoS…
Equal goals create an unusual team.
February 11th, 2008 at 22:40
Who, pray tell, was Anonymous before this CoS incident? I don’t think it existed. It seems to me that you’re trying to retroactively make up a backstory for the group. Sorry, no retconning here.
February 11th, 2008 at 22:57
Alright, nevermind, I’ve done some more reading and I’m ready to concede that Anonymous may have existed before this Scientology debacle, but not in any truly significant way. Sorry, but nobody cares if you make fun of a bunch of furries.
February 11th, 2008 at 23:14
RE: Cyde Weys
Anonymous was pretty significant ‘hackers on steroids’ for that big myspace phish they did.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
February 11th, 2008 at 23:20
Wow, that video was hysterical. Totally overblown local news tripe complete with non sequitur stock footage. I love that guy complaining about gay sex pictures put on his profile, then his girlfriend dumped him, then 32 of his friend’s computers were “destroyed”. It’s as if the investigative team didn’t know a damn thing about computers at all.
So, I take it by your use of the word “phish” that these passwords weren’t hacked at all, but rather, emails were sent to these targets seemingly from MySpace but in actuality were used to get the victims to give their passwords to Anonymous?
Still, despite how overblown that news coverage is, it doesn’t speak well of Anonymous. At least Scientology is a worthwhile target. What the hell could these random people on MySpace ever have done to deserve this?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:08
What the hell could these random people on MySpace ever have done to deserve this?
Probably nothing, they did it for the lulz.
However, having been a spectator of Anon for quite some time, I can say that their motives have shifted more towards people who are getting away with wrong doings, and has been for some time. Kelly Charles, who promoted bestiality, there was another girl who was exploiting guys for money and giving nothing in return, and just in general people who are asshats. It is still in the name of lulz however because nothing’s funnier than putting someone in their place and watching them piss and moan about it. Is Anonymous biting off more than they can chew by taking on Scientology? Some may say yes, and even I did at first, but now I have to disagree. With the rising numbers of Anonymous, taking on Scientology is very feasible.
Anonymous brings their own form of justice to those who deserve it. There are a few bad apples who continue to tarnish the reputation of Anonymous by being fags, however as a whole, Anonymous seeks to rectify the atrocities that are committed world wide. And now that Scientology has incurred their wrath, Anonymous will not stop until their goal is accomplished. The biggest epic lulz will be had when our kids are reading in their history texts about how Scientology was destroyed by Anonymous. The core of Anonymous, the people who have been a part of it for a while are part of this war for the outcome, not for their beliefs. The recent swelling of numbers, including myself, are in it for the belief that the leaders of Scientology are fucked in the head and need to be stopped.
Nevar forget…
February 13th, 2008 at 01:15
>> A common misconception is that Anonymous does not have leaders — it’s a group where everyone is a leader.
I don’t mean to sound like a 1990’s Internet advert, but Anonymous is such a new development in human interaction that I think it’s a mischaracterization to apply the old paradigms of “leader” and “follower” to it. In every single human collaboration that has ever existed, people acted as individuals in a group. They had to jockey for social position, play politics etc… all the overhead that comes with dealing with human interaction. They would elect “leaders” who best reflected their views and follow them.
But anon has removed all of that. Nobody has to worry about whether their opinions will be accepted by anon, because there’s no threat of retaliation for things the group disagrees with (aside from “fail” derision). The individual has lost nothing for presenting his information to the collective, and the collective either accepts it, in the most extreme cases turning it into a meme, or rejects it, just forgetting about it. Nobody keeps score, things just are what they are.
Nobody decided “Hey, let’s go out and take on Scientology,” because there’s no decision making body. All that happened was people started believing that Scientology sucked ass, and that someone should do something about it. The collective accepted this, and it built into a fervor. By the time anyone “decided” to do anything in the real world about it, the general consensus was so strong that the decision was all but already made.
>> These are not the solitary acts of stand-alone individuals resulting from infection by a data set with lost origins, but a mass of loosely connected individuals with little specific direction.
Actually, there IS some infection from a data set with unclear (or at least random) origins… Up until the Fox 11 story on Anonymous,the Anon mantra never included “We do not forget”. It was just “Anonymous never forgives”. As soon as that guy misstated it on that report, anon immediately incorporated it into their repertoire, at first just being ironic, and over time letting it replace their original. Sure, there’s no way to prove that everyone isn’t copycatting a single anon who used it ironically, (I seriously doubt this) but it does at least demonstrate the mechanism by which such a thing is possible.
I honestly think that these SACs will get much more common, and may actually become a huge and obvious influence in society nowhere near the subtle and out of the ordinary nature of the SAC presented in Ghost in the Shell.
(Also, the SAC from GITS was a response to the amount of influence 2ch had on Japanese culture. This is most likely not the first time this sort of thing has happened; just the first time it’s happened in the English speaking world. lol azns)
February 13th, 2008 at 19:21
“These are not the solitary acts of stand-alone individuals resulting from infection by a data set with lost origins, but a mass of loosely connected individuals with little specific direction.”
The original SACs that ghost in the shell is based on didn’t have lost origins either. This is a SAC. See here for the real life stand alone complexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15_Incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glico_Morinaga_case
At least in the Glico-Morinaga case, there was a known “original”, its just that no one knew who it was and they weren’t in control long after their first incident. People kept copying without the control from the original. Individuals imitated an unknown original and appeared to be a complex cooperative enterprise.
This is the same here with project chanology. who knows what the people who put the first video were thinking? who knows where they got their ideas? who knows who they are? but others keep putting up copy cat videos all over u tube and copy cat comments on blogs and message boards. and although it might look like a huge cooperation (and in part it is because there are some leaders), the randoms imitating have probably become greater than and almost replaced the originals.
February 13th, 2008 at 20:26
“Yeah Right”, you make good points. I was aware of the May 15 incident but not the Glico Morinaga case. I especially like how similar the Glico Morinaga case is to the Stand Alone Complex in Ghost in the Shell. So those were real Stand Alone Complexes, but I maintain that Anonymous is one of the first true Stand Alone Complexes in the Ghost in the Shell mold, in that it is occurring in cyberspace. The other meatspace incidents are very intriguing, but occurring on the Internet gives it a unique quality.
February 14th, 2008 at 08:58
beware the ides of March
February 22nd, 2008 at 19:16
>>Anonymous brings their own form of justice to those who deserve it. There are a few bad apples who continue to tarnish the >>reputation of Anonymous by being fags, however as a whole, Anonymous seeks to rectify the atrocities that are committed world >>wide.
No. It is overwhelmingly evident that you not been around for longer than Chanology.
There is no morality to us. We are the monsters that lurk under your bed. We laugh at murder, rape, tragedy.
Quite simply, Scientology will piss and moan about this, providing lulz. We have no problem with their illegal actions, they are actually quite humorous. Have you been to a /i/ lately? We still ruin people’s lives, hit what are “undeserving” targets in your feeble mind.
People like you, people who have more morality than anger, are the cancer killing /b/.
Lurk Moar, being around for a few months definitely doesn’t enable you to talk as if you represent all of us.
If you really think this is a moral quest, you are deluding yourself and trying to belong to a group.
If you truly want to belong to the group, then learn the culture. Else, it’s the equivalent of vacationing in Japan for a week and claiming to be Japanese.
Anonymous is not moral, anonymous is the shadow of humanity.
Your morality is our strength.
February 22nd, 2008 at 20:18
I think Anonymous is becoming more than merely what the “for the lulz” *chan crowd would have it be. Thousands of people across the globe demonstrated against the Church of Scientology on February 10. If Anonymous was only the *chan crowd, it would not have attracted nearly so many people. What attracted many of those people was taking down Scientology, and as such, the movement is changing thanks to their influence.
Face it - your kind do not exclusively control Anonymous anymore.
February 23rd, 2008 at 02:19
“Anonymous” IS the new “Anti-Christ” !!!
I feel compelled to say “Sieg…Heil! Sieg…Heil! die fuhrer”
“Karma” will handle “Anonymous” as it did the “nazi” regime.
There is cowards in numbers.
“As it was, so will it be again”
February 23rd, 2008 at 02:27
“anonymous” has no originator because the originator is really a “sissy coward”.
. . . . and probably homophobic, for good reason! ;-) lol !
Ha, Ha, Ha ! “sissy coward” !!
February 23rd, 2008 at 02:48
Cowards unite under my banner called “anonymous” .
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:17
These Anonymous comments are really going downhill. It’s looking like we’re getting more of the *chan crowd and less of the moralistic anti-Scientology crowd.
February 23rd, 2008 at 16:35
I drove my car into the canal to ruin my sisters wedding day.
I did it for the lulz.
February 24th, 2008 at 08:07
Cyde, great article. I would not worry about the anonymous comments above. In all likelihood these are just cos/OSA goons not chans. No one in chanology talks like that. The OSA has a stat system in dealing with the internet which awards points for discrediting opponents. Whenever such statements are maid, which directly oppose the core shared concepts of the group, the general reaction is FAIL OSA FAIL!
If you have not been, see for yourself. Chanology is an open movement.
http://forums.enturbulation.org/
The reason the cos gets so bitchy about the masks and goads (bullbaits) for them to be taken of is that they cant fight anonymous. We get leaked information even now that shows them clinging desperately to the idea that anon has leaders, something they can target. Some of the protesters on feb 10th who went unmasked got and are continuing to be followed by PI/OSA goons.
They are also deeply pissed by the fact that anonymous has taken of the opinion that scientology and its beliefs are fine, but that it is the corrupt methods and systems employed by the church which should be stopped. Such as
Disconnection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disconnection
RPF and childrens rpf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_Project_Force
Fair game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
Freeloaders debt,where you get courses at a reduced rate but if you leave the church you have to pay the balance of course fees owed, six figure sums in some cases. Leaving thus becomes impossible.
These actions must and will be stopped.
Anonymous is the collective will of those who act with a shared set of goals individually.
Because of this, any entity which carries that title or even the same entity over time can display a totally different overall personality or intention. By swelling the membership of those called anonymous for this cause, the intentions of all those individuals, in a system with no power structure, can radically alter the resulting group response.
Thus the entity called anonymous a year ago, is a totally different group personality to today. They are essentially two different beings. Equally, after chanology dissipates, the balance of voiced opinions in the system will re balance and a new personality intention and will emerge again.
It is a macrocosm of the human condition. If something effects a person, it does so to a degree. And that causes opinions to be formed by the person and a set level of actions set in place regarding that. The exact same can be said of anonymous. If enough members of anon suddenly reported that something is dangerous, say being followed, this will affect the actions of the rest, or at the very least give them cause for investigation and suspicion. Thus group reactions are debated and finally solidified.
What i also think is interesting is that the actions of anonymous are essentially the product of group opinion acting as superego. If a suggestion is made which runs counter to the will of the overall group, that voice will be suppressed by the critical thinking of the group. It is obviously not as self contained as this, as some might take actions which falls outside of the group will as an independent act irrespective of the groups opinion of it. The overall effect though, is to create an organism which is capable of incredible levels of adaptation and evolution.
The organism which can most effectively fight cos is the current form, and will continue in a form thus optimized.
February 25th, 2008 at 01:29
it still boggles my mind that people refuse to educate themselves about this cult.
if i told you that there was an organization that was responsible for the biggest espionage infiltration in the history of the united states and that from the information this group gained from this spying, they won a 25 year battle with the IRS for tax-exempt status by “taking a secret meeting” with the then head of the IRS and well, since no one will fess up to what was said in the meeting, we can only draw our own conclusions as to what was said in that super-secret meeting that suddenly turned the IRS around and gave that group their tax-exempt status….
even though the supreme court of the united states had already declared them as not being a religion (hernandez v. the commisioner of the IRS.)
what would you think of a group like that?
google operation snow white for details.
could the information that $cientology gleaned from operation snow white be the very reason that they get away with murder?
google sea org and cadet org. go to http://www.xenu.net and look at how they treat the children of $cientology. how anyone could not be moved by the plight of these children is beyond me.
check out the disconnection policy.
read up on what happens to older $cientologists who have spent their whole lives slaving away and never making enough money to achieve the highest goal in their “religion.” find out what happens to them after a lifetime of not saving, no pension, no retirement benes of any kind, no health care/dental/vision, no social security.
nothing. what happens to them when they are no longer useful? they’re thrown out to fend for themselves.
and please do not get me started on the forced abortions. you don’t even want to know.
how can anyone not try to stop these people?
i can’t fight al qaeda, but i can sure fight an oppressive cult in my backyard.
i really don’t care that they believe the way they do. to each his own in that regard, but when they enslave and murder people, when they harm children, when they force a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will….that’s when they no longer get to do whatever they want and call it part of their religion.
anon protested peacefully on feb. 10th. they will continue to protest peacefully on march 15th.
educate yourself and then get back to anonymous with how you feel about the cult of $cientology.
March 3rd, 2008 at 13:24
I don’t consider project chanology the first SAC. while it is one of the first to have “real world” effects, what about LOLCATS, Rick Rolls, You suck at life, or all the other MEMEs out there? Whats the difference between a MEME and a SAC, is it nothing more then its motivations? The internet is rapidly become copies of copies without originals, an amazing phenomenon indeed.
March 3rd, 2008 at 16:44
A Stand Alone Complex is a lot more than just a meme, it is a movement. Read the Stand Alone Complex article again (and watch the Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex anime series if you have the time). It’s a lot more meaningful than people just making variations of a joke online.
March 3rd, 2008 at 20:07
Sorry about the double post. Hopefully this will actually work this time.
If not, just go here.
http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/3/3/f_g2345m_1379ab7.png&srv=img31
Laughing project Clambake ;)
March 3rd, 2008 at 22:05
Awesome image! When I first wrote this post I was actually thinking of Photoshopping the “We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.” mantra into the Laughing Man logo, but I realized I didn’t have the skills to pull it off. I’m glad someone else actually managed to pull through with a variation on the theme. Now if only I could get this on a t-shirt.
March 6th, 2008 at 01:52
I thought you might be interested in this. It’s a related conversation I had earlier today. Unfortunately I had to go to work shortly after posting and the thread was gone by the time I got back, so I didn’t get to see many reactions:
————
What are my thoughts on the raids? I think they’re interesting. While the event itself accomplished next to nothing, it was a fascinating first.
Cyde Weys’ suggestion that this was the first Stand Alone Complex because it had no leadership or central body to speak of is, I think, a bit too limiting. By that definition SACs happen all the time and a rally of only 8,000 people is hardly significant. As an example, “According to French academic Dominique Reynie between the 3rd of January and 12th of April 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against war in Iraq.” What stops this from meeting the same criteria? The only really directed factor was the time frame in which it would happen, and the Call to Action video provided the same.
No, I think what happened on February 10th was much more significant than SAC by that limited definition.
Much like a meme the idea to fight against Scientology had no singular point of origin and spread through an uncontrolled medium - that is, one uninfluenced by identifiable individuals or the media. The people who chose to copy this idea didn’t even have similar motives. Some did it in the name of free speech, some for revenge, some for comedy, some for justice, some for a sense of power, some for a sense of purpose, some for the desire to destroy, and some for the sheer fascination - a want to witness these motives converge. In this sense each individual was acting independently for independent reasons, influenced only by an idea propagated through an uncontrolled universal flow of information. Yet to the un- or misinformed observer, on 2/10 an organized group known as “Anonymous” planned and carried out a protest against the Church of Scientology’s corruption.
That, if anything, is your Stand Alone Complex.
The fight against Scientology is no longer a new phenomenon - it is now organized and structured with leadership - but I argue that it began as one.
————
An anonymous reply:
According to the wikipedia explanation of a stand alone complex, the raids definitely don’t qualify. It was not a “phenomenon where unrelated, yet very similar actions of individuals create a seemingly concerted effort.” The actions were totally related; the vast majority of the people protesting had been organized through the chans. There was nothing unrelated about their actions and it wasn’t “seemingly” concerted. It was concerted. Just because the people who went about organizing the events were anonymous doesn’t make it an SAC.
For an SAC to occur, an action must be committed that is well documented through the media, but which has no actor committing it (or has an actor, but this actor isn’t related to subsequent actors). This seems impossible, but a good example would be a fire. Say a fire burns down a church. Lots of people assume arson is involved, but really it was, say, a malfunctioning pilot light. The truth here is irrelevant. If people think it is arson, this is the first step. The second required step for an SAC is that other people attribute this arson to some greater goal, and then do it themselves. This doesn’t even have to be a conscious decision. Say a few people are wandering around town late one night. They’re bored, but they’re also frustrated. They are advocates of stem cell research, or they’re gay, or they’re strict constitutionalists who demand a seperation of church and state. Or maybe they’re sympathizers of any of these causes. Regardless, they feel that the church is bad. Maybe they don’t remember the news cast about the “arson”, but something in them does (I’m not a big fan of the subconscious argument, but its still part of this theory). They feel that they have stumbled upon a plan to solve their problems. So they burn the church. The same thing begins to happen in other towns. None of these groups are connected. But all of a sudden, it certainly looks like there is a concerted effort to burn churches.
So basically, the catalyst for the SAC was the “arson”. This catalyst struck a very important nerve in many people’s minds. They suddenly came to realize that they want something- the destruction of the church system. Churches burned. To everyone looking at the situation from the outside, it looks like there’s a well orchestrated attack on the church system. But investigators, if they ask the individuals who are burning the churches, will soon find out that none of them are related, and that no one lit the first fire (or if someone did, he/she wasn’t related to any of the other people). The point that Ghost in the Shell makes is that, as we become more interconnected through communication technology (like the internet), the chances of this occurring increase. People share ideas, becoming similar as they come to common conclusions. This means there are more common “nerves” to be struck. This increase in technology also means that information about potential catalysts spreads quickly and that many different people hear about it.
————
And my response:
First, to your second and third paragraphs, you make a valid argument and, while I don’t feel the wiki article is completely true to the concept in GitS, I’ll agree then that this was not, in that sense, a SAC. I still hold that it was a unique perhaps as of yet unnamed phenomenon that deserves analysis in its own right.
As for the event being organized through the chans, that calls in to question the nature of the chans themselves. They are in a sense nothing but a stream of ideas and information which encompass the greater part of the internet community. Traditional organizations rely on great orators, knowledgeable behind-the-scenes leaders and specialists, and hierarchy to manipulate people to support their cause. Here you have none of that, therefor I don’t think the word “organized” as we think of it can be applied.
And while the chans are their own communities in a sense, they also encompass the entirety of the internet community. Due to the size and scope of this chan in particular, when something interesting or funny happens here it is always disseminated to the rest of the internet. I never browsed here, but I would often be linked to particular threads and take part in them, or make a thread of my own and observe the reactions. (The same applied for SA years ago.) Does that make me a part of either community? I don’t believe so, but I nevertheless played a role in “organizing” through the chans.
So in short, I believe that the chan “community” that spawn the raids and the wider internet community that attended were one and the same. This board was just a convenient medium for the spread of an idea.
March 7th, 2008 at 06:21
Anon itself is an SAC, even though project chanology might not be.
Anon never had a central identity, the headless tuxedo was a pretty obscure image, and the slogan never included “We do not forget!” until Fox News’ stupid misstatements.
That’s the malfunctioning pilot light in your metaphor.
March 20th, 2008 at 02:58
“Have you seen Demonbaby’s post? The gist of it is, stop picking on Scientology specifically, because most religions are just as silly, if not more (or, as Julia Sweeney put it, “We believe that God impregnated a young woman, and the fact that she had never had sex is maniacally important to us”).”
It isn’t against Scientology but the Church of Scientology. We allow people to believe aliens did whatever they did but when the church starts to use lawsuits to quiet people, send out C&D’s, don’t allow South Park to air, harass real people (operation freakout), harm families (exscientologykids.com), charge money to know about it (the major religions I know don’t charge money to read their holy books and will let you read them before even joining), etc. This is about a corrupt organization not about what people believe.
April 22nd, 2008 at 17:34
It was said a while ago by someone else, and though I don’t remember who said it, I’ll quote it now for truth.
“Anonymous started as a bunch of people who wanted to look at porn and laugh at the same jokes over and over again.”
Imageboard humor and culture, with a manic and malicious edge. If it is funny, it is acceptable. That was always the spirit of Anonymous. Morality was not part of it.
The Tom Cruise vid caused a change. Anonymous is rabid over freedom of speech and the defense of net neutrality. It is vital to Anonymous’ lulz, and to their existence. The actions of the Co$ to censor the internet caused Anonymous to react. That was the origin of the current war.
Anonymous used the information available on the internet to reveal the evil actions of the Co$, not because they opposed evil, but because it was a useful strategy in their war against the cult. When they did this, many joined their cause. Anonymous failed to predict the results of their actions in this case.
The influx of people with morals, who were not conversant with the imageboard culture, changed Anonymous. Since Anonymous is an entity defined solely by the beliefs and actions of its members, Anonymous itself became more moral. There is a cold war within Anonymous between the moral Anons and the amoral ones, who are in it for the lulz. Currently, there is an uneasy truce while the Co$ is the target. When the Co$ finally dies, Anonymous will split in half.
Then Catnarok will begin.
April 22nd, 2008 at 22:38
Dare I ask what Catnarok is?
But I think you’re dead on with your declaration of an uneasy truth between the two halves, as it were, of Anonymous. They are united by a common enemy, but once that is no longer in vogue and some of the imageboard Anonymousfolk start turning on the ethical ones, the ethical ones will realize they had more enemies than just the Church of Scientology all along.
The attack on the epilepsy forum really didn’t help the ethical half of it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 04:49
It didn’t, did it? Though, I heard it was Ebaum’s World that was behind that. ;)
The good thing about Anonymous is that none of us know who is responsible for anything. So for all I know Ebaum’s was involved. All I know is that I was not.
To discuss the camps within Anonymous is to discuss politics and drama, all the more complicated by the fact that there are no leaders. The Anonymous ideology is always changing, and elements within it will always resist such change. To put it mildly, this is a drastically oversimplified explanation of what is going on.
I don’t really expect Anonymous to break out into war with itself over ideologies. I expect it to break into separate camps with different goals, that will eventually have conflicting aims.
But it is true that among the older ones, resentment of the new ones is, and always has been, a matter of course.
As for Catnarok, it is a joke. Think of it as the ultimate conflict between two diametrically opposed but equal forces, springing from the same source. Let’s call them Longcat and Tacgnol. Lulz and Antilulz. Good and Evil. When it is over, all that is left is the unified being of balance that existed before the conflict, setting up the whole thing to happen again.
That’s Anonymous in a nutshell. One cat that thinks it’s two cats, always arguing with itself over which cat is which. Until a ball of string rolls by.
June 15th, 2008 at 23:51
I think you are right in comparing ‘Anonymous’ to a ‘Stand Alone Complex’.
I had the same thought not long ago and just did a search to see if anyone was thinking the same thing.
Thats how I found your blog. Great minds think alike ;)
A big danger with this kind of political organisation is it lack of centralized control and stability. It would be very easy for it to be highjacked by a few influential members and sent in a completely new direction.
For example a few people using the name ‘Anonymous’ could get tired of attacking Scientology and attack something else like Abortion Clinics or Fundamentalist Islam and attract a whole different group of followers in the process.
June 29th, 2008 at 16:03
It’s cute that some of you attack organized religion as if the philosophy and the people who subscribe to it are one-in-the-same. That you espouse liberal philosophies and disagree with the more “traditionalist” ideals of, for instance Catholocism, doesn’t make Catholics the purveyors of social injustice. That you fail to or refuse to acknowledge their programs help society doesn’t make them wrong, nor does it make you right.
It’s interesting that you blame a “program” for STD transmission. I’d blame the irresponsible behavior and those who practice it, personally. Seems brutally obvious to me, but then, liberals tend to fail to understand the obvious. Maybe that’s why you have so many of them in Scientology.
In any case, I like your cause. I’d like to see the CoS take a fall. I’ve seen what they do to people, bilking them of $1000’s. However, I take issue that your movement is the first Stand Alone Complex. For years, I’ve rejected the idea that the over-arching Socialist views in American media/entertainment was a conspiracy; that is was more like a Stand Alone Complex. A large group of like-minded people attracted to similar fields; fields that are the vehicles of mass-produced, mass-distributed ideas.
Good luck with your movement. Try to remember that “movements” like yours are very similar to organized religion - a large group of like-minded individuals sharing a belief system and engaging in similar behaviors. Also remember that any human endeavor is prone to mistake and error. Humans are fallable. Is it Christianity’s fault the Crusades took place, or is it the fault of the times and the geo-political structures and individuals in positions to move men and materials around the world? Was every Christian a participant in the killing of innocent people? Do you justify and support persecuting every member of a group because of the behavior of a portion of that group?
August 1st, 2008 at 14:53
but - isn’t The Laughing Man real, in Ghost? The guy that leaves the catchers mitt as a reminder, and wipes memories of his having been there.
ghost in the machine / soul in the body - there’s no difference. This reality is a virtual sham of the real world.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:17
Jaycen: It’s not true that responsibility is only assigned to one group in any given situation. Yes, people who have sex and catch HIV are partially to blame (for having human urges?). But the church is also directly responsible for discouraging methods that are proven to work in preventing the transmission of the disease. Putting all of the blame on the people and none on the church is completely unfair. Also, what about children who are born with HIV (and will thus go on to die very early) because their mothers listened to the stupid Catholic church’s opinion on condoms? Is it the baby’s fault for catching HIV? How can you possibly support a policy that contributes to so much harm not only in adults who are responsible for their actions, but also to babies who cannot do anything to protect themselves? Encouraging condom use to help halt the spread of this illness is a no-brainer — and the Catholic Church’s part in stopping it can really only be described as evil and self-serving.
zupakomputer: I believe you’re referring to Aoi. He didn’t set off to start a movement though — he did one thing six years ago (in the storyline of the series), and then every incident after that was a copycat. But the whole Laughing Man mythos evolved independently of him, to the point that it bore little resemblance to how he started it off. He wasn’t actually even the originator of the concept. I quote from the Wikipedia article: