posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:19 PM
I can see the point you're trying to make, and I guess they could be accurate concerns, but your 'statement 5' has all sorts of problems with
Firstly, that you call Anonymous 'hacker children'. That is ridiculous, I don't think you are very familiar with them.
Firstly, you assume only children can be involved in pranking. They're not, adults can have fun like that too. Secondly, you assume children and/or
pranksters would not be interested in socially complex issues. Essentially, you think those who take pleasure in the misfortune of others who like
bathroom humour, can't be interested in victims of cults or the good of society overall and the defeat of evil. This is really just generalization
based upon biases.
Most of Anonymous' actions have been anonymous, and involve DDOS attacks on Scientology websites, prank phone calls, etc. The protests are often done
wearing masks, or in groups without providing names, so it is still somewhat anonymous. I do think that those having gatherings are perhaps slightly
deviating from the idea of anonymous as they don't seem very vigilant about wearing masks, and it seems that prior existing anti-scientology groups
are taking advantage of this by attending these things, I saw a woman in one video who was obviously like that, wasn't using /b/ humour or
You also don't need to be a 'hacker' to do any of this stuff. Fact is, some people familiar with technology provide links to guides on how to do
stuff like DDOS, which is how you learn to do it. Do you get your info from Fox News? HAckers on steroids!
I guess in theory you could have government members familiar with Anonymous, and who might propose an operation to inject memes and hope that public
favour turns this way. This would require a lot of familiarity, and the thing is, you can't really force Anonymous to do something they wouldn't
already do. Whether it was a random idea or one created by the government, it doesn't matter.
The public has been aware of Scientology and related things for a long time. South Park played a big part in this. There are lots of scientology
websites, and lots of videos on places like YouTube. In fact, YouTube is what initiated this protest. It was linked to a key event where Scientology
'bit' by suing Google to take a private video down, one which most people had already seen to begin with.
It's not as if the protests began out of nowhere, there was an event that the public reacted to. I guess the government might have taken efforts to
enhance the reaction, but who cares? They didn't need to, it was going to happen anyway.
If you want to create conspiracy theories regarding the government, I would look further back to what was influencing the public's attitudes to begin
with, such as South Park, or to go even further back, who was releasing information, creating anti-scientology web sites that spread and discussed
information, and who was controlling media centres which centred around discussions of celebrities who were members of scientology being such.
To look even deeper, anti-scientology manipulation may not even be anti-scientology. Persecuted groups often gain public sympathy. It is possible that
scientology publicized celebrities who were members, and then initiated attacks on them through seeding the media with rumours, perhaps even inflated
rumours regarding the nature of their organization, so it would look like enemies of the organization were concocting stories to make them look bad,
fearing something legitimate. This does seem to be the response you hear from Scientology.
For example, if it turned out that documents regarding Xenu weren't even real and he wasn't even a part of the religion, the critics who spread
those ideas would be looked upon badly, and it would be very difficult to be a Scientology critic in the future due to critics of it being looked upon
badly. Basically, it might be the presentation of a straw man opponent who will be defeated.