On the 15th of March, Anonymous took to the streets again in its War on Scientology. See the “call to arms here”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSNRjPJRRqY. This is the second real life protest for Project Chanology. The date was symbolic: the 15th is known as the “Ides of March”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ides_of_March, when Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. The “next protest is planned”:http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY/IRL_PROTEST_PAGE/Operation_Reconnect for 12 April.
I previously wondered if “the War on Scientology is 4GW”:http://cominganarchy.com/2008/01/25/is-the-war-on-scientology-4gw/. “John Robb thinks”:http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/03/anonymous.html that Project Chanology is a open source insurgency. He offers some succinct analysis of what has been going on in the War against Scientology, and recommends that “it should be used as a template for other non-violent efforts.” I maintain that this is nothing new, at least since the inception of the internet as a tool for rapid organization (rather than mobile phones like the Zapatistas). I do agree with John that so far this has been well-played, and they have been careful not to overstep their bounds into “terrorist” activities, “despite accusations from the Co$”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGEuGsO9cCA. Of course, without any type of control over their organization, it might be just a matter of time before a violent splinter group hijacks the Anon brand. Think of the failure of the second _intifada_. Furthermore, I wouldn’t put it above the Co$ to stage such an operation to sabotage Anon’s momentum. However, I think such an operation would backfire knowing the information gathering/collation power of the Anon hivemind. I am confident Anon could track down any n00bs or fakers. Whether or not that satisfies the MSM, and by extension the general public, is another matter.
Younghusband,
You fail to mention the significance of the April 12th date, or was it assumed to be a given.
The Zapatistas predominantly used the web to mobilize vice cellphones. They continue to do so because web access is significantly easier to come by than relatively expensive airtime in Mexico. Further, wouldn’t this be better described as a netwar/insurgency rather than ‘open source insurgency’?
“@elambend”:http://cominganarchy.com/2008/03/18/anon-analysis/#comment-382900 I haven’t seen any statement as to the significance of 12 April by Anon. If you have let us know.
“@jess”:http://cominganarchy.com/2008/03/18/anon-analysis/#comment-382915 For sure this falls into the category of _social netwar_ defined in Arquilla & Ronfeldt’s book, that is why I don’t think this is so new. As far as OSI, check John’s site for definitions, or read his book “Brave New War”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471780790/ref=nosim/globalguerril-20.
What I was wondering in my old post was whether or not this could be considered 4GW/moral warfare. The discussion at John’s site has continued with a (so-called) member of Anonymous who thinks the “war” is actually an example of “EBO”:http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/03/journal-anonymo.html#comments.
The fact that this war fits so many definitions of warfare means one of two things: either 1) it is something new and we need a new definition, or 2) the definitions we have are too ambiguous and need clarification (and possible deletion).
I explain by anecdote: Soon after I first moved to California my roommate stopped by my bedroom and said, “Hey man, it’s April 12th today so people are going down to the park to celebrate four-twelve and to smoke, do you want to come?”
“Four-twelve?”
“Yeah, you know 4-12, the California police code for marijuana, like 3-5-7 for homicide.”
Everyday in California was a day of learning.
I guarantee that is the significance behind they date that Anon chose.
elam,
Do you mean 4-20? I heard that same story but about 4-20. Regardless, here in Texas 4-20 has always been national smoke-up day (as well as Hitler’s b-day and the Columbine massacre anniversary).
Rommel,
I stand corrected. Indeed, I’m not sure how I could have made the mistake. Consider me red-faced.