Home > Internet > Dear Anonymous, You Are (Scary) Douches.

Dear Anonymous, You Are (Scary) Douches.

Dear Anonymous,

You know, I used to hear a lot about you guys.  Of course, that was a few years ago when people actually thought you might do something good;  back when you had any kind of credibility.

I realize that by writing this letter, I make myself a potential victim of your attacks.  I sincerely hope that I am small enough in scope that you don’t, because while I can joke about it, I really don’t want death threats.  And while I am extremely harsh on you in this letter, I think one thing you should take away is this: I would love for you to actually impact some change in the world.  You just don’t.

And while to those reading this may wonder if I’m actually afraid of retaliation, let me say: yes I am. I thought long and hard before posting this if I really wanted to even take that chance, as miniscule as it is. After all, it is well within Anonymous’ patterns of attack to give out the addresses and phone numbers of people you don’t like.

And don’t pretend it goes any deeper than that.  You are not freedom fighters, you are not heroes.  You are cyber-bullies who decide they don’t like someone for some reason and then take action against them.  If someone within your ranks decides this letter is enough of a threat to your image, I very well could become the victim of your attacks.

Sure, you’ve done some cool stuff.  You brought a couple of internet predators to justice, which is more than most individuals can say.  You have even defaced or managed to take down the websites of organizations with whom you disagree and who are, in general, pretty uncool.

But I began to ask myself a question: what are you guys fighting for?  Ostensibly it looks like free speech. After all, Operation Titstorm was about fighting against censorship.  I don’t disagree with your ideal there.  Only one problem: you attacked the website of a white supremacist a year earlier.  Why?  Because you didn’t like that he’s a racist.  Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you just censoring him?

I mean, that’s what it is, isn’t it?  You attacked his website because you didn’t like what he had to say.  It has nothing to do with freedom of speech in that case, because he was exercising that freedom.  How about your heroic attack on McKay Hatch, founder of the No Cussing Club.   That kid is as non-threatening as they come, after all he’s trying to do is stop swearing.  He hasn’t started some huge movement that murders people for swearing.  No, the damn club is for kids who don’t like swearing and don’t want to do it.  What threat did he pose to you?  Were you afraid he might start writing gently-phrased, cuss-free letters informing us all of why we should stop swearing?  Actually, when you put it that way, he had to be stopped.

The pimply face of evil.

But I guess that’s censorship.  And since he’s a censor he must be an enemy.  So why not put a teenager’s address and phone number on the internet, where you all could so valiantly send him hookers.  Boy, the look on his face must have been priceless when he realized that school club he started was going to cause you all to threaten his life.  You sure showed him.

So really, again, the root of the issue is things you don’t like and things you do, isn’t it? Sure, some of the things you don’t like are pretty clear-cut in their negativity, but then some aren’t.  I understand that in some convoluted way you justified your attack on Sony.  But were the threats and harassment of the employees and their family justified?  After all, they just work there.  I doubt many of them made it their life goal to destroy your freedom.  Hell, most of them were probably just trying to collect a paycheck.

What was the issue at stake there, anyway?  I mean, to most rational people it would look like Sony was defending its intellectual property.  It may have become a little overzealous, but then again it is their property to enforce the rules with as they please.  I understand that you call piracy by the name freedom.  I suppose, then, that you’re not in favor of the artists, actors and everyone else who works on a project getting paid?  There won’t be anything left to freedom once you guys have your way, since all the artists will have moved on to fields that, you know, pay something.

But then, how do you even decide what you don’t like?  You don’t have any leadership and you have no stated goals. You are a loose collection of people under some banner.  So, then, how can you really stand for anything?

And don’t try to argue that some of these acts were done by splinter groups.  It’s called No True Scotsman.  Being that you don’t have any formal membership and no leadership to actually say who is and isn’t Anonymous, anybody and everybody is.  This is part of why you are so dangerous.

But let’s forget about who you attack and why, for now.  I doubt I’d ever understand the logic behind that.  Let’s talk about those fucking Guy Fawkes masks.

Serious douchebags.


Here’s what I don’t get: no part of the Guy Fawkes mask is supposed to be a good thing.  Brief history lesson for those of you who don’t know of Guy Fawkes in a context outside of V for Vendetta: he was a Catholic who hoped to bring his religion back toEngland.  He and a few others got together in the hopes of bombing Parliament and starting a rebellion that would bring Catholicism back.

Seeing as you have issues with Scientology and are all in favor of free speech, an outsider would think you would not like Guy Fawkes for the simple fact that he hoped to push his religion upon others. Englandhad made its choice, and while the government at the time wasn’t cool with Catholics (well, that may be an understatement), it certainly didn’t justify dismantling that government in order to make Catholicism the only religion. This guy used the same tactics as all the terrorist groups of today. Guy Fawkes was (and, I believe, still is on occasion) burned in effigy. He is not a hero.  We do not burn heroes in effigy. Guy Fawkes was hardly an acceptable figure until some books painted him as an action hero a century after he died.

Behind the mask.

The terrifying person behind the mask.

But most of you probably only know of Guy Fawkes in reference to the character V in V for Vendetta. I’m going to over-generalize here, but since you operate mostly in cyberspace and have a specific “skill” set, I’m going to just imagine you’re more at home with comics than history.I find it funny that you would choose that image to represent you.  I guess the whole “identity not being as important as the message” part makes sense (assuming you had a coherent, consistent message to spread), but the rest doesn’t.  V for Vendetta is as much condemning anarchism and the barbaric terrorist acts V uses as it is condoning them.  V is not meant to be a stand-out hero, he is meant to exist in an area of moral ambiguity.  As with all literature, the message is not a clear-cut one.  That is a message you all seem to have ignored, instead taking that mask as your own to somehow symbolize righteous dissent.  You are not righteous, and you do not speak for the majority.

Then there is your so-called “war” on Scientology.  How’s that going?

Let’s look at your “Message to Scientology” from 2008.  Skipping the boring stuff, here is the message in terms of what you were going to do to them:

“Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind–for the laughs–we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle theChurchofScientologyin its present form. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign. You will not prevail forever against the angry masses of the body politic. Your methods, hypocrisy, and the artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell.”

Hmm.  That’s pretty serious shit there, guys.  So, let’s make a checklist of these threats and take them one-by-one, shall we?  For the laughs.

1. We shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Churchof Scientologyin its present form.

Well as of today (April 9th, 2012) the Scientology website is up and running, with no apparent issue.  A few Google searches as well as a browse of the articles related to Scientology, Anonymous and Project Chanology on Wikipedia make no mention of activities past 2010.  Seriously, it seems like most of the activity was in 2008 with a little in 2009.

But please tell me how you are going to dismantle the Churchof Scientology.  I understand that you will expel them from the internet (you haven’t), but how does removing their internet presence do anything other than hinder them in the long run.  Plus, most of your “attacks” are just DDoS attacks that, at your best moments, managed to take down some sites for a few hours.  That is hardly “expelling” them from the internet.

Let’s point out one other thing, too.  The numbers for self-identified scientologists were falling well before you guys declared your war.  In fact, in 2001 that number was 55,000 and in 2008 it was 25,000.

Poor Tom.

Tom Cruise seen here lamenting the loss of Scientology.

I’ll admit that I hate Scientology as much as the next guy (we’ll get to that), but your “war” on them hardly seems purposeful or well-planned.

2. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign.

This is the cop-out line, guys.  This is the part where you admit that you’ll probably not do anything significant to impact their numbers, but where you can go ahead and take credit for the already falling numbers (see above) in five more years.  This is your loophole when you realize how useless you have been.

3. You will not prevail forever against the angry masses of the body politic.

I didn’t actually take a poll (mostly because I’m lazy), but I bet that if I asked 100 of my friends/acquaintances what “Project Chanology” is that about 10 of them would know.  If I asked the same 100 people about Scientology they’d probably say they don’t like it, but what are you going to do.  There is no angry mass, there is only angry Anonymous, righteously indignant at the fact that something they don’t like has stood for so long despite their ever so powerful attacks.

4. Your methods, hypocrisy, and artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell.

If that is true for Scientology I wish it were true for you, Anonymous.  Unfortunately for everyone Scientology and you still exist.

Anonymous, your ideals are inconsistent.  Were any of you to sit down and actually look at what you stood for, not in terms of the words you say but in your acts, you’d find that you stand against now what you once stood for.

Anonymous, you are impotent.  Your attacks consist of random DDoS attacks that hurt websites for minutes at a time.  If you’re lucky, you take someone down for hours. At the very worst of it, you manage to get some fake death threats and hookers delivered.  Congratulations, you’re going to destroy Scientology by inconveniencing people.

Your impotence stems from your decentralization.  The very thing that you think gives you power is the very thing that strips it from you.

Worst of all—beyond everything else—you are just as malevolent as those you so often stand against.  You employ the exact same tactics the Scientologists do: you bully, you release public information and you threaten violence.  You are a cancer upon every cause you stand for.  You are the terrorists of the internet.  While you may well at one point have deserved a redress of your grievances, your tactics have long since made that point moot.  Now the only proper action is to ignore you, lest we feed the fire.


I think the politically correct term now is "high-class escort". This one may not be high class, but I wouldn't turn her down if it were free.

Anonymous, keep it classy.  I can only hope that my blog with a lifetime total (as of this post) of 500 visitors will infuriate you so much that you’ll post my personal information.  I did, after all, call you impotent. You know the best way to prove you’re not impotent?  Find my address and send me hookers.  Really, really expensive ones.  Charge them to Scientology.  That way you show everyone.  We’ll all have learned our lessons then.

I will eat my words (and any pizzas you’d like to send me at someone else’s expense), Anonymous, if you can manage to prove that you have done one thing that has positively and tangibly altered some social norm or law, and that you did so without hurting any innocents in the process. (Please note, the key there is the lack of collateral damage.  You always seem to hurt someone else while you’re trying to be some positive movement.) Taking a website down for 15 minutes doesn’t count.  I want proof that the world is better for having you; the world I see is frustrated by you but too afraid to tell you to leave.

For those of you who want more details about the wonderful things Anonymous hasn’t done for us, here are a few resources about their douchebaggery:

 Timeline of Anonymous’ impotency.
Anonymous dislikes Sony, gets nasty.
Anonymous breaks laws, FBI does their job.  Anonymous dislikes.

(I think my favorite part of the above YouTube video is the guy who says, and I quote: “Anonymous is not a group, it is a thought, an idea, a spark to the flame if you will.” Though, then there are the guys talking about the New World Order and how they love Anonymous.  Gives you a real good idea of the support they get.)

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: