The text of Obama’s Berlin speech can be found here. Video:

A recent quote from a member of cabinet struck me as particularly enraging:

British businesses, and ultimately the British people, would not forgive us if we shirked our responsibility to do what’s right because we wanted an easy ride from green lobby groups.

At the time I was unaware of the identity of the man, but should probably have guessed. It was none other than John Hutton, the arch-Blairite who earlier this year made a speech concerning the rich that set my teeth grinding. Like a true Tory he declared that:

Rather than questioning whether huge salaries are morally justified, we should celebrate the fact that people can be enormously successful in this country… Rather than placing a cap on that success, we should be questioning why it is not available to more people

Because, of course, the cause could not possibly be that if there is a finite amount of money a few people hoarding enough for entire cities to live lifetimes off the consequence is horrifying inequity. How foolish of anyone to suggest as much. And if a couple of connected city boys can make a killing then that’s worth a party.

His latest piece of nonsense is just as repugnant and left me struggling to comprehend the idiocy in much the same way: the green lobby groups he cites are interested in averting the end of mankind as a viable species on a planetary level. In terms of “Responsibility to do what’s right” you would struggle to do much better. He continues, however:

we will continue to show leadership and commitment in advancing the sustainable aviation agenda. We will help make flying greener rather than restricting people’s opportunities to fly altogether.

which is nothing short of baffling. I should clarify: at present the only approach to flying which can make things “greener” is for it to happen less. The damage inflicted upon the environment by releasing vast quantities of CO2 directly into the skies is massive and unless there are less planes doing as much we will continue to have a problem. If Hutton wishes to see less damage inflicted through producing alternative measures then he should announce policies funding the massive costs which any such development would entail. As far as I can tell all that he has done is announce an airport will be expanded.

Furthermore this is clearly not a matter of “restricting” anything. The argument is not over whether or not existing runways should be closed down, it is over whether a new runway should be opened. Therefore Hutton is arguing in entirely the wrong direction: he is not arguing against restriction but in favour of expansion. The two are obviously distinct but with this underhand sophistry he pretends to be acting against forces demanding regression, while in fact making the case for a destructive development.

The reality of the matter is that the effects of the expansion upon both the local and global environment would clearly be disastrous. By focusing upon the fact that there are groups which will give the government a hard time over policies which will inflict such damage rather than the perfectly legitimate arguments which they make Hutton performs a neat but dishonest sidestep. This is, of course, a totally short term approach to the economy: in a globalised economy the impact of large tracts of the planet vanishing beneath the sea and vast areas becoming uninhabitable owing to heat would ineluctably impact Britain. Unpleasant though it undoubtedly is emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced, both here and everywhere.

If India and China produced as much of the stuff per head as Britain does the planet would be rapidly rendered uninhabitable, and if we do not reduce emissions then what grounds will we have for expecting them to restrain themselves? Hutton, however, does not feel that we should establish ourselves as the example which we could easily become. He is of the view that the British economy here and now, or perhaps for the next few years, is all that matters and that what occurs in a few decades is not a concern. Just as well, given that the consequences of environmental disregard will be economic disintegration.

And this is with restraining myself from even mentioning the narrow-minded callousness of focusing solely upon the “British economy” and disregarding the truly vast amount of suffering caused to vulnerable areas of the planet (Bangladesh, the warmest parts of Africa, need I continue?) by climate change.

What with his calling Labour the “Natural party of business” and vigorous defence of the 10p tax rate debarcle is there any option but to consider this foul man the epitome of all that’s wrong with the New Labour project?

Quite why am I reading Robespierre? Specifically, his Justification of the Use of Terror. It’s terrifying (hah…):

It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?

Emphasis mine. The doublethink inherent here boggles the mind. State-terror is justified should it be directed at enemies of liberty, he cries. That this terror requires a basic negation of liberalism appears beyond him. If some people are legitimate target of oppression, and others are not, then clearly freedom from that oppression cannot be a universal value. If that freedom isn’t a universal value, then we clearly aren’t born equal or free - and so on. Robespierre’s words are those of a tyrant.

They represent an extreme perversion; the enabling state gone bad. He posits that we must rid ourselves of tyrants to be free. True enough. But here he falters, with crashing rhetoric demanding an outright tyranny against tyrants. That requires a universal negation of liberty - and a restoration of tyranny. The enabling state exists to make basic freedoms viable for all. When, in order to create liberty, those basic freedoms are cut off - very literally, in Robespierre’s case - that concept ceases to make sense.

Now, let’s put this arcane rambling into a modern context. Quoth Robespierre:

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people’s mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonour the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

Emphasis mine. The same principles abound as before; some are permissible targets for Terror, and so liberty isn’t a universal value. We can kill some of you to make the rest free, and you’d better appreciate it or you’ll be next.

And guess where that logic crops up today? Substitute, “terrorism,” or, “anti-social behaviour,” for, “counterrevolution,” and it becomes clear. The same clear logic of the, “Justification of the Use of Terror,” runs through virtually all modern counter-terrorist thought.

Even the rhetoric matches, give or take the linguistic drift of 214 years and translation. Take that last question - on whether the servants of tyrants are as guilty as those tyrants. Doesn’t that sound just like Bush’s axiom that, “if you feed a terrorist, or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist?” It’s exactly the same principle; if you’ve any connection with terrorism/counter-revolution, you are a terrorist or counter-revolutionary.

Thus, Melanie Phillip’s, “terrorist nation.”  A wall around the West Bank because Hamas exists there, regardless of the blameless children who also happen to exist there. Because, in this system, they’re not blameless.

And it goes beyond that. The enabling state and the values of positive liberty again become perverted. The 42 Days detention farce serves as the perfect example. Labour claims it protects the basic freedoms of life and liberty by introducing the measures; but effectively jeopardises those basic freedoms by allowing the police to grab a citizen off the street and hide them away for 6 weeks without telling them why. In a perverse twist of illogic whereby liberty becomes tyranny for liberty’s sake, liberty loses. And so do we.

It’s absurd to equate Revolutionary Terror with the present situation. But it’s the same thought that underlies both; freedom must be restricted for its own sake. It’s a perverse step which attacks the real purpose of the Enabling State. Certain intervention can make greater liberty available to all - but not when that liberty is undermined at a basic level. Modern politicians would do well to learn that, or face the consequences of their own petty tyranny.

Brown suggests we waste less food and money. Eminently sensible, if a rather obvious point. So, presumably, he’ll be the first to tighten the belt? It’d be totally hypocritical to go on a long, entirely unnecessary trip to Japan (via Russia) to conduct a meeting which rarely achieves much beyond irritating a few anarchists. And, of course, while under protection from those anarchists by 21,000 police, he wouldn’t dine luxuriously on a menu like this.

Oh. Wait. Perhaps he will.

Hello to all from Chennai, Hyderabad, Bhubaneswar, Mumbai, Mahape, Iwade, Kaizuka, Osaka, Higashiosaka, Sakai, Izumisano, Naniwa & Yuasa. We hope you enjoyed the blog.

Also: hello to our lone reader in St. Helier.

The BBC carried some alarming statistics today:

More bloggers than ever face arrest for exposing human rights abuses or criticising governments, says a report.

Since 2003, 64 people have been arrested for publishing their views on a blog, says the University of Washington annual report.

In 2007 three times as many people were arrested for blogging about political issues than in 2006, it revealed.

The worst offenders include China, Egypt and Iran - so little surprise there. What’s less expected is that police in Britain, France, Canada and the US. And arrests look to increase this year in the wake of elections around the world and the Beijing Olympics.

So, a thoroughly depressing read by the sounds of it. The WIA reckon that the increased arrests reflect a growth in the blogosphere. Usually growth would be encouraging, especially in areas challenged by repressive governments where the subversive power of blog should be at its best. But when that subversiveness is crushed at the point of entry, its effect must inevitably be limited…

Can anything be done? Certain nations’ laws are effectively beyond assault from bloggers - if China manages to ignore its people so easily, it’ll hardly have a problem ignoring us. About the most that can be done is making sure any content that does escape makes its way to foreign websites and news-agencies which can’t be shut down with a few arrests. At least someone might take note then.

In the UK, though? Some bloggers surely run into trouble simply through misunderstanding our tortuous libel laws, or making another stupid mistake. And unlike journalists, most of them don’t have a union to step in when they do get into trouble. The obvious solution is to set up a body able to provide some basic protection to bloggers. A website with a clear outline of libel laws in simple (hah…) language would help; so to would a contributory defence fund in case anyone did get into trouble. Bloggers would be welcome to pay in as much or little as they could afford - and would receive the groups’ support in the future should they need it. So - not quite a bloggers’ union, but approaching that.

But, enough talking. I should check whether one exists already, or whether there’s a reason why I haven’t spotted any before. Otherwise…

Miliband seems to think it is worthwhile ratifying the Lisbon treaty despite it having been vetoed by Ireland.  Why?

1. The EU bigwigs have demanded 26 ratifications.
If everyone else signs up, it is easier to see the Ireland vote as a hiccough rather than a final breath.  They will likely ignore the fact that 100% of the countries given the chance to decide to sign up decided to reject it.

2. It keeps the Tories in a sticky spot.
Cameron clearly opposed the Treaty, and gambled that the country would reject it in a referendum.  He was denied the opportunity by the Labour and LibDem promise-breaking, so Ireland’s decision seemed like a gift.  Labour hope to milk this for what it’s worth, though.  Cameron avoided ripping his party up over Europe again, but he will soon find that sweeping difficult issues under the carpet is no alternative for tackling rebels.  The damage this does Labour is nothing to the damage it does the Tories - at least Labour have an (almost) consistent policy on Europe, referenda aside.

What should Miliband do?  If he won’t do as I suggested earlier, he should at least accept that the decision to break his referendum promise was wrong.

One of the main beneficiaries of the EU over the last few decades has, it seems, rejected the Lisbon Treaty.  The only country given the chance to vote on the rehash constitution (after France and the Netherlands blew the original out of the water) has sent a fairly clear message.  Three of the most typically pro-European countries in the Union have rejected the bureaucracy’s advances.  The message must be learned.

1. Europeans citizens do not want a mega-country.
The economic and political benefits of a union of European nations are undeniable.  We have to co-operate as a continent, and a union body is the best possible way to achieve it.  But most people in Europe rather like being national citizens, not international ones.  They like national elections, not international ones.  They like the closeness and accountability of national decision-making, not the faceless international superbody of the EU.  The Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, or whatever you want to call it was an attempt to formalise this continuing development into a superstate and those countries which would most benefit have rejected it.

2. The EU is governed by the bureaucracy, not politicians.
The EU is constructed to channel power to the bureaucracy, not not the pseudo-politicians elected to the Parliament.  The recent Tory MEP expenses farce demonstrates how MEPs are encouraged to exploit the system to their advantage while sitting back from decision-making.  Little legislation is crafted in the European Parliament, but is rather dreamed up by the bureaucrats and waved through with little consideration in the Parliament.  There is next to no accountability for MEPs, with party lists promoting those who would not otherwise be elected and no public knowledge of what MEPs are doing with their time in the Parliament.  It is telling that the media do not cover debates or votes in Europe, and we know nothing of our MEPs - if their work is unimportant, it should stop, and if it is important, it should be made far more accountable than it currently is.  The Constitution was pushed by the bureaucracy, not the politicians, and the dirty tricks employed to replace it with the Lisbon Treaty were the work of deceptive cynics with no belief in accountable politics whatsoever.

3. If this is how the bureaucracy works, we should resist its advances.
The EU is designed to make nations insignificant.  It functions as if it knows best, but lacks the courage to test its convictions in the minds of the people of Europe.  We should resist the whole EU mentality.  We should seek a European Union which promotes economic and political co-operation in a way similar to the UN, which stops far short of trying to dominate nations.  We should defend national self-determination, not allow nations to be subsumed by the giant machine of Brussels.  We ought to reform the EU into a United Nations of Europe, functioning on very different lines to those it currently does.  In short, the failings of the EU should prompt a desire to reform it, not to walk further in - we will only encourage them.

The EU has no respect for nations - indeed tries to promote itself as one.  The longer we take to seek reform, the harder it will become.  There need not be any showdown or hostility, just a new focus in halting the EU’s growth while we reassess its direction.  I hope that Ireland’s rejection of the Constitution / Lisbon Treaty gives the opportunity for this to take place.

This is, at first sight, and then throughout, an article of clichés.

It fails to surprise me that Peter Hitchens {a man not to be confused with his better known and far more intelligent but equally controversial brother under any circumstances} recently wrote a piece on Chavez that consisted of the crude hack-job which has proven ubiquitous on the right. His wielding of the machete is more elegant than most but still presents moments of jaw-dropping idiocy, for instance:

Revenge is already being prepared. Chavez is now demanding that the universities drop their entrance examinations so that he can pack them with young half-educated supporters who can elbow aside Geraldine and her liberty-loving friends.

he alleges, as if there is no other reason at all for such a policy being brought into place in a developing country. He does have some valid points, chiefly the worrying treatment of anti-Chavez protesters by the police. But to connect these instantly with the man himself seems unwise given that in our own nation there was an innocent man gunned down for boarding an underground train. By raising this I intend not to indicate that there are no grounds for Hitchens raising the point but rather that overly brutal policing is seemingly ubiquitous through the world {as also demonstrated by the tendency of American police to use pepper spray upon peaceful protesters until this was outlawed by court} rather than something which is a feature of any “autocracy”.

Indeed the liberal usage of the word “autocratic” is another hackneyed feature of his criticism. As ever though, evidence is thin on the ground. Hitchens, like all in his position, attempts to raise the removal of a programme highly critical of Chavez from terrestrial airwaves. Given the support that the aforesaid channel gave a violent coup staged by militant rightist forces to depose Chavez and then no coverage to the simply immense protests in the wake and in absolute action to this move I should perhaps make another comparison to Britain, this one a conjecture of fantasy. If Channel 4 had, as I personally suspect it might, given full and vocal support to a Marxist coup against Gordon Brown and then had pretended that no dissent in the country over the issue had occurred would Hitchens really imagine Brown to be acting out of bounds if he forced it to function solely as a satellite, cable and digital channel from then onwards?

Indeed, if anything it is remarkable that the network was permitted to remain on publically accessible airwaves from 2002 until over half a decade later.

Unfortunately the unoriginality is seemingly fathomless, entirely in disregard of the faded nature of over-used cards never worth much to start with. He accuses Chavez of

Plotting what was effectively a coup on the constitution

yet if it truly was one Chavez surely has learnt from past experience {both while he was planning them and when victim}. This time around rather than making a military effort to seize control he staged a referendum. Truly dastardly, isn’t it? Now if Hitchens considers the Venezuelan people to be inadequate judges of the conditions their nation faces then he should say so, but as it is he has used a highly intellectually dishonest tactic by associated the forced seizure of power to an attempt by a democratically elected president to obtain a democratic mandate upon the conditions under which Venezuela would function as a democracy.

There is an argument against this, one which does not rely upon distortion and spin. Instead Peter writes in a fashion that he is aware his American audience will respond to with a vigorous knee-jerk {despite the fact that it is highly likely a substantial number of the readers supported Bush’s attempts to amend the American one over gay marriage in what would have amounted to a far less democratic manner, had he had the 2/3s of both houses of Congress required}. What makes his failure especially galling is that in the country he tends to operate there is no written constitution at all. If he truly considers a constitution to be worthwhile and worth adhering to rigidly and making no efforts to amend I consider it peculiar that I have no recollection of him writing an article advocating we create a written document outlining the rights inalienable to us as Queen’s subjects.

Indeed the powers of Parliament are entirely unrestrained owing to the potency of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which states that no government in power may make laws incapable of being over-ridden by those that follow. Given that the executive has a vigorous grasp over self-interest {the quantity of MPs willing to oppose important bills that will lose them their current jobs in government or/and deny them any chance at future positions is not negligible but generally insubstantial} and the First Past the Post electoral system tends to ensure that there are no minority governments in parliament we are effectively left with an executive capable of doing as it pleases, with Blair only prevented from exerting his will over the country once in his ten year tenure. By no means does this mean that Hitchens’ definition of autocracy is rationally bankrupt, but I would suggest that he start raging about the shoddy state of our means of government a little more at home given how abhorrent he appears to find democratic governments having excessive power abroad.

Presumably Peter Hitchens’ concern for the liberty of the Venezuelan people and longing to protect them from themselves is greater than for his own countryman.

His intellectually insubstantial rant is in places unintentionally hilarious:

If there were any justice, Chavez would long ago have been forced from office by bankruptcy. His economic management is wasteful and sloppy and involves a great deal of expensive largesse to the poor in return for their votes,

In my piece on Pragmatic Socialism I suggested that the simple fact that it works justifies its usage where perhaps some more intellectual considerations of it do not. I think that upon some levels Hitchens accepts that Venezuela has made great progress but unfortunately he has shied away from this. He rails that it is unjust for somebody who performs the largesse of offering the basic facilities such as a solid education and healthcare along with less than extreme redistribution of wealth remain in office. This is perhaps acceptable on some ideological levels but the reality of the matter is that Chavez remains immensely and nearly overwhelmingly popular amongst the impoverished masses that make up the vast majority of Venezuela.

This is for the simple reason that he, for the first time, was a man pursuing their interests. He, for the first time, helped.

Of course, this should come with a cost. According to the doctrine of the New Right the state’s intervention into the private sector’s affairs ought to cause calamity. There is no way that it is conceivable that statist policies could improve the economic situation of a nation and even by the inadequate basis of GDP per capita {which, of course, fails to asses how much each person is worth and assumes that everyone is of equal value and thus deserves and equal amount of cash} it will bring more woe overall as the state strangles business and this throttling results in the economy falling to pieces.

Alas, for Hitchens at least, “the proportion of Venezuela’s GDP in the private sector has actually increased.”

Compounding his error Hitchens references the state of Venezuela’s

And here is the usual trite contrast, long common in the Third World and rapidly spreading to the First World—gross wealth on display next to rancid squalor. Yes, there really are hovels a few hundred feet from a freeway crammed with new SUV’s. How obvious. How stupid.

In the aforelinked article by Johann Hari it is exposed exactly how foolish this point being raised is. In South America it would be a struggle to find a government that has done more to bridge this gap than that of Chavez. The damage done by this dichotomy of wealthy and poor has been reduced considerably and how exactly the lazy claim of Chavez being “The Next Fidel” {which, to Hitchen’s defence, was a headline and thus he may well not have written} is reconciled with his claims here is beyond me. For any earnest socialist intending to “Revive socialist Marxism” would not have done so in the fashion chosen by Chavez. Firstly they would have began by executing the wealthy once they seized power, or at least enslaving them, and secondly they would certainly have seized power rather than it being politely given them by the people of Venezuela acting in a democratic fashion through what Marx considered “A committee for the organisation of the bourgeoisie”. Reformist Marxists moved away from such talk while Revolutionary Marxists most certainly did not.

Which rather brings us to our next point:

Many believe he wanted to ignore the result—he is widely accused of constant, highly scientific ballot-rigging of the kind that is very hard to prove—and was only dissuaded from doing so by a phone call from his friend Fidel Castro.

The emphasise for “Many believe” was my addition, for this form of statement permeates Hitchens’ essay. In Wikipedian terms this pattern of writing is referred to as “Weasel Words” and I consider Hitchens to be a man who would do well writing a few articles for Wikinews and seeing how they were received. Effectively he uses this phrase and its variants to avoid explaining exactly who he is talking about.

Furthermore his allegations concerning vote-rigging fall foul of what his brother Christopher considers amongst “The elementary rules of logic”, to wit: “that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” I am tempted to invoke this, but would also point out that the testament of various independent election observers {every one that has observed, in fact} combined with the fact that when it came to the referendum Chavez lost suggest against such a claim.

If he is intelligent enough to make things “Very hard to prove” he surely should be capable of making sure it works.

Venezuela ought to be an advanced and free country under the rule of law. It has plenty of educated, articulate people. It has wealth. It has most of the constituents of a serious civil society, including strong public opinion.

To conclude Hitchens is educated and articulate. He has wealth. He observes the problems facing Venezuela to which there are no short-cut solutions. But in his failure to realise that Chavez could not have established himself without the popular approval and repeated mandates given to him by the vast majority of Venezuelans he also fails to make any proper assessment of the man. Constantly seeking out negatives and seeking a totalitarian iron fist where none exists he transforms the narrative of a man offering the poor a slice of the national wealth that no other would give to them into one of a vicious autocrat scheming his way into office.

Doubtless this article was highly pleasing to its readers, who wanted their suspicions of a leftist loved by his people and doing much to help them besmirched as thoroughly as possible in order to avoid their preconceptions being challenged. I have little suspicion that it failed at this but these predictable, tiresome smears do nothing to tarnish the true success of Chavez.

The nature of the current efforts of Anonymous against the Church of Scientology has yet to have any obvious influence upon the core nature of the target but has already rendered almost unrecognisable both the average critics and the previous absent face of Anonymous.

Previously critics of the religion were a dedicated and largely middle aged selection of those brave and tenacious enough to tolerate the infamous “Fair Game” policy {revoked in name only a few decades ago and still in de facto operation since}. They were often vigorous campaigners and mostly entertaining eccentrics, as well as those who had suffered most from the church’s policies. For the most part they exposed the inner doctrines rather than attacking the religion openly, mainly aiming their attentions at the Church rather than faith. Although with their Usenet presence alt.religion.scientology and personal websites the old guard anti-scientologists were perfectly adept at using the internet the shift of “Web 2.0” left them rather behind. They did, however, pave the way for what was what to come through providing the vast amount of information readily available to all interested online. ARS was responsible for leaking the infamous OT 3 documents, which included the now notorious Xenu theology. A large amount of this currently informs the Wikipedia articles written on the topic of the strange religion and the brutal organisation that acts as its guardian. Without what came before the present campaign would be an impossibility. Be this as it may the similarity they bear to it is minuscule. Anonymous in its present manifestation, and previously, is largely a youth movement that depends entirely on new networking methods to spread its efforts, having been began with a YouTube video and since been publicised heavily on the same, with pictures of the vast-scale raids being posted up on Flickr and, in a meeting of the old and new school, daubing Operation Clambake’s URL “XENU.NET” across a visible section of Drawball.

Anonymous’ former nature is, if anything, more distinct. The term came into existence owing to the imageboard 4Chan’s distinctive trait of leaving everyone who posts upon their /b/ “Random” board anonymous. It is highly likely that the forceful and total lack of any identifiers, even e-monikers, contributed substantially to the extremity of the content posted their and the seeming lack of any form of inhibitions and netiquette present. The efforts of those while operating outside of their confines invariably simply termed them all as a collective of what all individual posters were named. Anonymous consisted of whoever was online and there was never any way of being certain as to exactly this was. When not exchanging porn or memes they tended to entertain themselves through spilling out onto the rest of the internet for thrills and lulz. Their motto ran “Because none of us is as cruel as all of us” and at times they seemingly lacked any form of restraint or mercy. Passwords were hacked, real life locations and phone numbers found, death threats issued, entirely unprovoked flames were hurled at targets such as an underage teen who posted bestial photos of herself and dog. A feminist who mused on a forum that it would have been better had her pornography viewing teenage son been aborted was hounded off of the internet. A paedophile was found and arrested, much the same treatment was delivered to someone who told /b/ about his plans for a school shooting/bombing accompanied by a picture of his firearms. A haughty leukaemia sufferer was mobbed with mockery for his arrogance and pretension. A schoolboy who had shot himself after having his iPod stolen had his Facebook and MySpace flooded.

This reached its epitome on a break-away image board, 711Chan, where the only acceptable motivation was “For the lulz”. Breaches of this near nihilism was committed by “Moralfags”. Amongst their greatest achievements was embedding strobe GIFs into a forum for epileptic sufferers and triggering seizures.

The striking thing about this set-up was its similarity to Scientology. They spoke largely in esoteric jargon that outsiders would require a glossary to understand, with much the same being true of Tom Cruise’s references to “SPs”and “KSW”. They had no respect for traditional ethical systems much as Scientologists are told to be wary of “Out-ethics”. The major difference is that while Scientology intends to “Clear the planet” and thus save the world, while the Chans had no such high illusions. Another difference was generational: the Scientologists see fit to legislate against those that defame their Church. Even although hosted upon the dreaded “JewTube” (Anonymous loathed all that was conventional and mainstream, be it Gaia Online or Ebaums World) the removal of the notorious Tom Cruise interview from the site after legal action was threatened enraged the Chans. Project Chanology consisted of an alliance between the important Chans to destroy the Church of Scientology. This was directly triggered by the litigiousness of the Church, which Anonymous viewed in as much disdain as the efforts to enforce “Digital Rights Management”.

Shortly after the Party Hard protests of March 15th, however, this functional coalition collapsed completely. 711Chan had long considered the surge of “Newfags” the initial video declaring war had attracted to be unfavourable. They were deemed (quite correctly) to be moralfags, epitomised by Mark Bunker who implored Anonymous to abandon their tactics of blankfax and DDOS attacks. Effectively he called for an end to the approach of /i/nsurgency, an approach to which 711Chan, amongst others, was strongly dedicated. The influence which he had was considerable, drawing much of Anonymous away from the guerilla tactics that had previously been the norm. The new form of Anonymous swiftly emerged: dedicated to the task of destroying the Church many were ignorant of their collectives previous manifestation and most demonstrated a focus never previously displayed in Anonymous, which tended to have a fickle mood and a minuscule attention span. /b/ was largely abandoned due to the swift deletion of all that is posted there, which occurs instantly once the 10th page on each board is past. Instead they adopted old school methods: Enturbulation is a large and traditionally used forum and IRC is amongst the most old-school of chat systems. The new Anonymous members are largely those who have been interested in Scientology for a considerable portion of their short lives and see Anonymous as as much a tactic to evade Fair Game as an established entity. In as much as it is defined it is considered a collective with a shared goal and membership of inherently concealed identity. Whereas previously the defining picture had been a headless suited man (still a prominent symbol) now the Guy Fawkes mask dominates.

This chasm came to a head when 711Chan was overwhelmed with drama between those wishing to continue and end Chanology, with the latter camp far stronger due to its long-standing disdain for all new and moralfaggotry. The /xenu/ board was purged and hidden (the URL is active but the location unlinked on the main site) and the IRC channel #xenu killed (although replaced with #xemu, an alternative spelling for the same alien overlord). However it became apparent that they were incapable of killing the new faceless being, despite all their protests of Anonymous’ bad name being defamed: Enturbulation proved resilient to efforts to down and an attempt to perform a Denial of Service upon the newly formed 315Chan resulted in a disastrous, hilarious backfire that caused 711Chan to go offline. The wisdom of launching an attack on a website sharing your server is limited.

/i/ planned a large raid on the Xenu.net to be found on Drawball but failed entirely in ruining visibility, their puerile defacements being swiftly cleaned away. The URL remains perfectly visible from 100% zoom. 315Chan remained standing but has since been felled, although this is a limited loss given the rarity of its usage.

Against this background of inter-chan warfare and strife the April 12th protests loomed in importance. The theme of Operation Reconnect most likely contributed substantially to the unpopularity amongst the Chans, given that it was selected to attract media attention rather than enthuse the Chans. This was certainly achieved, with the Observer and Reuters on this occasion picking up on the story along with various local and foreign national news broadcasting services and presses. This was at the cost of reduced turn-out, although it is likely that this was contributed to by the fierce forecast which I, as always, failed to read as well as April being holidays for students, which it is likely constitutes a fair proportion of Anonymous.

Regardless, when I arrived (at some point after noon, I’d been to Fabric the night before and this made for rather a sleepy time at some points) I observed around 300 anons were present. There was, once again, delicious cake present and indeed a piece was given to me just as I arrived. Memes were also out in full force, although we were lacking on this occasion a Longcat poster. More than compensating for this though was a the now legendary Xenu.net trailer, which was driven past the Church, and later the centre, by a promotional van. Who exactly hired the thing out is still unknown but whoever it was that stumped up the cash certainly managed to keep us enthused and made the entire affair additionally joyous.

The protest was set up much as last time, with the surprisingly convenient balcony filled with milling anons and delicious cake. We were strikingly lucky in getting this and despite the disconcertingly deep pit between it and the pavement it made a perfect place to get an overview of the protest. The Scientologists were huddled inside and the door occasionally, amusingly, blew open the door slightly a few times, meaning that one had to stand there holding it shut. Various music was played, including the obvious Rick Rolls as well as a remix of certain snippets of the Lord of the Rings soundtrack that I had first heard on YouTube the day before the protest and had great fun dancing to. The self-appointed “Happiness Officer” stickered me to certify me as happy.

We soon moved on to Tottenham Court Road, on this occasion the police had used their horses to block off a street leaving us to funnel in the same direction to the tube. Once again I saw the rush of people flowing across the Millennium Bridge and found it a pity that we hadn’t flyered it. The flood of anons was less powerful but still pleasing. We were told on this occasion to turn off all stereos as we headed through the ticket barriers, which was irksome but the massive amount of leafleting that happened to those who past us on escalators more than compensated. There was no in-tube raid upon this occasion since a fail anon wearing face-paint said that people would complain (as if that ever changed anything about the tube before!).

The initial plan had been to flier on the side of Tottenham Court Road we weren’t allowed onto last time. Before we came into the view of the police, that is. As it happened many were distributed but the police let us hand them out on that side of the road anyway as well and the Scientologist presence consisted of a tight cluster and some people randomly off in Camden instead of them lining the street as they had done last time. They formed an odd bunch, hanging around in a superfluously large cluster that basically let us yell memes at them more efficiently. The saddest of the bunch was an old boy who seemed to have been given no leaflets and thus just stood there forlornly staring us as he stood on the street doing nothing.

The rest of the Scientologists were in their usual positions, with bald man missing but the cameramen all in position and filming us, as usual. Angry woman was there, as well as the classy broad none of us have come up with a name for yet who spent much of the time she was there filming us. The most notable point about them became apparent after the police decided that the street blockage was too great to be tenable and, as in February, shifted the barriers forwards to block off half of the Road. The previous protest had been the longprotest, which had its advantages but was certainly no match for being quite so close to the Scientologists and getting the thrill of obstructing all of the traffic. From this distance we could see quite distinctly that there was a far greater impact than on previous occasions. As always they had undergone a slight shuffle so that the same faces were not on offer, one new man was hefty of frame, burly and good looking in an early middle age kind of way. But all of them seemed far less oblivious than previously, when they had done their best to pretend that we were not even there despite standing en masse right in front of their eyes.

Fake smiles seemed to be the order of the day but these faded swiftly. The woman with camera seemed the most animated, we really appeared to have got to her as she was mouthing to the crowd at some points, waving her hands at us to get a bigger reaction for photos at others and mouthing the words to Rick Astley when we blasted it in the direction of the centre.

The ex-scientologists I previously mentioned being present at the last raids were on this occasion both more numerous and given an opportunity to talk to the gathered anons. I saw two of these, the first being a friendly looking chap giving a vigorous speech on a poor mic. His talk was bizarre but only enough to reflect the utter oddness of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’s writings. Apparently Scientologists do not accept evolution, or at least not from apes, but instead believe that humans used to be creatures named Boo-Hoos and Weepies that were fish-like, beach-dwelling creatures that were terrified of birds and this primal fear formed the source of all emotional discontent in the modern day homo sapien. I had never heard of this before and spoke to him once his speech was done. Apparently he was talking about low level doctrine since the vast majority of Scientologists never reached any OT, let alone the OT 3 which we were quoting at them. According to him most blew long before then and he simply wished to use Hubbard’s early teachings to encourage this process.

He also told me that he had encountered hallucinations after auditing, as did everyone. Not of the beach-dwellers but another character who resided in Hubbard’s writings. This was, again, something entirely new to me but something utterly common. I asked whether we would establish a long-standing problem for the Church: if OT3 was to be revealed to those who reached it then surely the harm them if they’d heard it from us first. He said, however, that as so few reached it this would only cause a few problems.

This was something that I had considered and it made me wonder about the effectiveness of much of our tactics. Certainly Anonymous was left rather muddled by the mixture of RL troll urges and the desire to help the Scientologists. Although we told them to reconnect in a firm chant we also said “Nobody likes you” and yelled “We’ve got better leaflets”. Naturally “C-U-L-T” and “That is a chicken/church/casino, that is a cult” point-chants were also heavily present. Generally attempting to mock and bait them mixed with making an effort to lure them into the outside world. This is perhaps inherent in any effort of Anonymous. We do not forgive, we do not forget but we are fickle.

The Scientologists, however, seemed to be connecting with us more than previously but still seemed very much opposed. This was displayed most clearly when camera lady began to beam and jump for joy when the hail began. No doubt this was a pre-planned demonstration of the infamous “Cause over MEST” than the higher OT levels obtain and it truly was horrifying to experience, dispelling all doubts about Hubbard’s claims to give his most accomplished followers super-powers. The power and persistence of this cosmological onslaught really can not be understated, it battered us heavily and caused all the Anons to huddle closely together beneath all umbrellas, ending up totally covered but still very cold. The Scientologists retreated from the streets and into their org, sheltered but incapable of distributing their leaflets for a time.

The reaction of the Anons beyond sheltering in huddles (one took to a phone booth and wrote a sign saying “I lost the game”) was striking: rather than departing they simply hid, waited and remained. Indeed we even crafted the most amusing chant of the day, pointing to the skies and then the centre to say “Hail, Xenu!” After it a defiant cry of “We’re still here” broke out. The Scis noticed this and seemed rather disappointed.

Their leaflets were obtained and seemed to have been altered since last month, being highly glossy and seeming very expensive indeed. Certainly an improvement in almost every way, but it did give Anons an opportunity to read out some of the 24 “precepts of Scientology” in a rather mocking way (“Do not steal” was especially a favourite, along with “Be trustworthy”). The girl formerly known as awesome azn anon was on this occasion identified as “Save Point” and having set up bins for anons to dispose of “Dianetics and other rubbish” in after the hail ceased was to be found picking up rubbish off of the blocked-off road to save litter-pickers the efforts and our reputation. True dedication from an awesome anon.

Speaking of which Anonychickenonymous was back and dressed as a Starship Trooper. Being a total ethics fag I disapprove of the cruel KFC but the chips I appreciated. Apparently they spent well over £300 on the stuff, which was all collected from anons chipping in together. The entire thing rather had the feel of anarchy, indeed seems to be a fine instance of it. Everything we contributed was brought along save the mystery truck, all of the signs homemade and all of the fliers and stickers from the same source.

Happy from our survival of the rain {indeed, my sticker had been swept off of my coat by the force and thus the officer issued a replacement} we emerged and filled out the same amount of space as we did before, with the Scis showing up outside again as well, the old chap finally finding a use and holding an umbrella but oddly only doing so after it had stopped raining, going back inside and taking it with him shortly before it started to drizzle as well.

To conclude the day a speech from a former Scientologist was given. I had actually not believed me when I had asked him who he was after a brief interview with a journalist and he said “Oh, I’m a scifag” but it turned out that this had been the truth. He gave a moving and rousing speech that effectively pwned the Scientologists still inside with their own doctrine. The impact was so great that once we got the Internet Hate Machine (which had been set up on the crowd barrier directly facing the Church) plugged in and playing Camera Lady lasted about ten seconds before turning on her heel and darting back into the Org. It seemed that our ex-sci was there to “Speak his truth” despite the best effort of Angry Woman, apparently a SeaOrg member, and his own sister’s attempt to “Handle” him.

There were only a few minutes left until the protest ended shambolically but in a glorious fashion, the Scis clearly shaken and a strong happy mood washing over us. We had been filmed by window man for much of the protest and I gestured for him to hug me, his initial confusion resulting in the ex-sci, who’s name was James, giving me a massive embrace to show what I meant. For a moment I was convinced that we had actually coaxed him out as he headed downstairs but when he left the org he turned sharply to the left and walked away instead of crossing the road towards us. “It’s not too late!” I cried as we headed off to the pub.

There I engaged in a fascinating conversation with the ex-scis and another anon, with the younger one James being only a few years older than myself and the other having been 12 when her father joined the Church in the 1960s. James told us more about his experiences within the Church, where he had been born and lived until a matter of months ago. He showed us a text from his sister attempting to “Handle” us and told us that at that time he was no member of the SeaOrg and was looking into a number of different things. He seemed a bright and intelligent man and made no secret of the fact that he had benefited in some ways from Scientology, especially in the introspection it promoted. He was also amazingly nice, even buying me a pint. Apparently though the auditing courses had caused him problems as he had failed to progress yet the Church struggled to find anything defective about him, which presented something of a paradox given that the tech is perfect in Scientology doctrine. He had been forced to disconnect to his sister and father after his mother had been declared a Suppressive Person but resisted, meeting with his sister despite the wishes of the CoS and enduring her efforts to handle him patiently, not allowing her to discourage him from attending the raid. The second ex-sci had had a worse experience of the Church, having had a father part of SeoOrg and thus ending up on Apollo, one of the numerous rustbucket vessels Hubbard spent his dupes’ funds on. Her experience seemed to consist largely of scraping paint and tedium, with various intermissions of total misery such as being locked away with a friend in the hold as a security risk after talking to Greek boys. She remembered Hubbard as a nocturnal type who wrote a good deal, which reminded me uncomfortably of me.

Speaking to those who had suffered due to the church face to face was not something entirely new to me but devoid of my mask and in the comfortable setting of a pub (well, comfortable once I had acquired a seat) it made it especially hard hitting.

Once they left I went to hang with the various anons present. It turned out that they’re pretty much all young and all immensely geekish. The pub contained most of the more dedicated types but there was no srs bsnss, just everyone enjoying themselves and having a good time, besides one twat bombed out on magic mushrooms who everyone disliked and is an effectively inevitable element of any movement that doesn’t exclude anyone actively. They were a fun bunch and the girls surprisingly attractive for a geek meeting. The talk lasted for a long time and the spillover of memes into RL was made complete by the toilet graffiti reading “Poop ‘08” with a reply of “LOLWUT?”.

Eventually we walked past the Church and home, giving the Scientologists a wave as we went by. There was quite a lot of talk on Enturbulation after the protests of numbers falling and it is still a long haul if they are going to destroy the Church completely. But the ex-scientologists both told me that the efforts of Anonymous had left them feeling empowered and invigorated, as well as generally far more willing and happy to speak out. The theme of Reconnect may have caused us woe with 711Chan and the rest but frankly the people who we attracted with it are worth any number of lulz-seeking /i/nsurgents That the movement has helped them confront an institution that damaged their life and speak their stories about the harm it inflicted on them makes it entirely worthwhile and even if it fades away entirely before the next month if its achieved than then I’m happy with the outcome.