posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:19 AM
The answer to this is both yes and no.
My own belief is that Anon is primarily made up of young people, who while having good intentions, function mainly on the basis of their emotions, and
don't exercise a lot of discernment, or have a lot of knowledge about how the world really works.
As a result of this, I think it is possible for Anonymous to be duped and hijacked into supporting causes, and taking actions, which in reality
further and support the causes of the exact people, that Anonymous themselves think they are fighting. In hindsight, I think #opegypt and the
Egyptian revolution was a case in point.
My opinion about the Arab Spring is that it was largely a case of the cabal wanting to replace old Arab despots, with others who hadn't committed so
many visible attrocities, and who didn't have such negative history with their populations, so that they would be easier to manipulate. You can see
this borne out by the fact that things ultimately haven't improved much in Egypt after Mubarak left; the army just took over, and then it was more or
less business as usual.
So that is the real issue with Anonymous. They have libertarian/anarchic intentions, like I said; but because they operate primarily on the basis of
emotion and reflex, rather than logic, they usually end up actually being pawns in the Problem-Reaction-Solution game.
The current DDoS retaliation over MegaUpload is a classic case in point. The reaction of the fascists who were trying to push SOPA/PIPA through, will
be to simply feel more justified, in response to Anonymous' actions. What weshould really be doing, is attempting to demonstrate to governments that
the Internet using population are sufficiently responsible and mature on our own, that we don't NEED their attempts at regulation. Behaving like
militant 14 year olds is entirely the wrong approach.