Most curious indeed…

very well written – and quite accurate in its describtion of how anonymous works as a stand alone complex

one could call it Anonymous: Thetan In The Shell: SAC (or anonmous tits sac… but that sounds naughty)

well written indeed though – as a member of the scientific community, i find good describtions of anonymous hard to come by. I may just use this as a reference or at least use the terminology in describing a SAC

If, in the future, any member of Anonymous became a cyber-terrorist like The Laughing Man (see image in the post above, and/or Wikipedia), then what graphic would he choose to cover his face with? The original Laughing Man logo, in direct reference to the anime? Or something else?

I think we’d probably see something like this: http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/8724/c5h.png

I believe it’s incorrect to call someone a “member of Anonymous”, since there is nothing to be a member of. There are no leaders, for a concept has no leaders. Anyone who tries to target Anonymous will find themselves shooting at fog. Anonymous is an idea in the minds of countless people (and there is no telling whether it is mere thousands, or tens of millions; I believe it’s somewhere closer to the latter), and ideas cannot be easily destroyed.

Of course, different people have a different idea of what it means to be Anonymous, but there are common elements that everyone shares and recognises. One of the key elements is best expressed as a metaphor. Imagine a single bee. This is an individual. Now, imagine a swarm of bees. This is Anonymous. Each bee is of course unique in its own small way, but in the context of the swarm, they may as well be identical. Sacrificing individuality, they become the cells, the particles, that make up something far bigger and more powerful. And there is something else at work here, too. Those bees do not act as individuals. They act like a single larger and perhaps more intelligent being. This is the phenomenon of the Hivemind, as it is known. Anonymous is proof that such a phenomenon can exist among humans, in some form.

So in conclusion, I believe it’s wrong to consider Anonymous an organization. It’s a mindset shared among individuals, who form part of a greater consciousness. And when you think of it in that way, it begins to raise questions like, is this consciousness thinking for itself? Is it self-aware, even if the individuals that comprise it don’t know of its existence? Does it exist on a higher plane, unable to ever communicate with the individual minds that are a part of it? Or maybe I am just taking this idea way too far, and Anonymous is simply a bunch of internet nerds with some similar ideas…

Remember that when this started, the expectation for retaliation was so high that the participants behaved as cautiously as if they were participating in a crime, but that the situation normalized when it was seen to be relatively safe.

I’d say that the first beginnings of the Anonymous vs. Scientology were a stand-alone complex more than anything I’ve seen, but that it after that turned into a more traditional activist movement.

As for whatsthatagain, I suppose you don’t follow news about the Internet. I didn’t hear about it until after the first protest had taken place because I had little time for reading the news in the beginning of 2008. I am amazed that it is still ongoing, and just how much press coverage there has been on such varied topics.

And in that line of concept, would it be inaccurate to say that there truly never was a “Right” and “Wrong”? Taking out, of course, the concept of “Laws” imposed to keep order, which fundamentally differ and are as such separate from “R&W”. As such, “R&W” are determined, not in courtrooms and government offices, but in the minds and actions of the individuals who believe the original ideals to exist, without questioning the existence of an original, instead taking said existence for granted. Therefore, would not “R&W” themselves, being a subconscious collection of pseudo-laws spontaneously generated with no author or origin, be as true a Stand Alone Complex as any SAC could be?

There is no movement until some people wanted a movement to be there so they can identify/attach to it and feel important and empowered in return.

In the grand scheme of things how much is “the movement” really doing, as opposed to even a cult like Scientology?

Nothing. Pretty sad isn’t it.

I haven’t even heard of “Anonymous” until now- More than a year after February 10th, 2008. The movement even failed to acheive a sufficient amount of infamy for a Joe off the street like me to hear, at least not on anything except a semi-obscure webpage.

Speaking of that, this webpage is high on the search engine for SoC because people want to believe that it’s a real instance of SoC and links to it in their will to believe.

Sounds like another cult following.

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:

After the events of the Section 9 raid by the Umibozu and the last meeting with Motoko and Aramaki, it was discovered that Aoi, though responsible for the initial incident that made the Laughing Man a phenomenon, was not in fact its true originator. He chose to confront Serano only because of the file he found, and despite years of extensive investigation on his own part, he never discovered the origin of that file. It could be said that whoever abandoned the file was in fact the “real” Laughing Man – and it is possible that he obtained it from someone else. Aoi tells Aramaki to make of that what he will.

ghost in the machine / soul in the body – there’s no difference. This reality is a virtual sham of the real world.

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?

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

————

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.

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 ;)