"Anonymous" and Comments on Recent Talkback

Last night in my Introduction to Fiction Writing class one of the short stories the class was reviewing concerned religious cults. Of course, Scientology was brought up in the conversation because Scientology is really just the funniest of all religions. When I say "funniest" I mean most comedic; however, in this context "funniest" could also be interpreted as strangest. Even though I find Scientology the most comedic religion it really is not that much more ridiculous than other religions. In Scientology there was apparently some intergalactic war millions of years ago, and the souls of the dead aliens now posses human beings. In Christianity God impregnated (I would argue raped) a human being and she was able to give birth to God's son without losing her virginity. This son then went on to perform magic tricks like turning water into wine, then wine into his blood to wash down the bread he turned into his flesh. Christianity also argues that 3 = 1, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three beings but they only make one God. This 3 = 1 reminds me of 2 + 2 = 5 from 1984. I always think that is worth nothing because like the government in 1984 God can make up facts, meaning God can never be wrong when He actually really is wrong. Judaism believes that a Moses was not crazy even though he carried on a conversation with a burning bush. They also follow a religion that preaches peace accept when they have to invade a land their imaginary friend told them was theirs. Islam believes that Mohamed ascended into heaven on a horse even though horses do not fly. Islam also has a similar problem to Judaism in that they preach peace accept when they have to kill people innocently practicing different beliefs. Be aware I am not talking about the terrorists I am talking about the slaughters and massacres of innocent pagans carried out by Mohamed and his cadre. You can read about this in the Qur'an, which is the same book that preaches peace. As you can see by comparison Scientology is not all that strange. The reason people laugh is because the other religions have heaven, God, and angels instead of other planets, intergalactic war lords, and aliens.
In any event when the conversation digressed into Scientology I learned that a video of Tom Cruise speaking about his personal beliefs in Scientology had been released on Youtube. So part of my day I spent watching this video and it was somewhat entertaining in a disturbing sort of way. He used abbreviations like SP, or suppressive person also known as non-believer, and KSW, or Keeping Scientology Working by the prestigious L. Ron Hubbard. Hearing abbreviations like this always reminds me of 1984. Obviously, every organization has their own jargon and abbreviations, but I just keep associating 1984 with religion because they are basically the same. After watching the Tom Cruise Scientology video I saw a related video titled Message to Scientology. I thought it was going to be a bunch of disgruntled people shouting at a camera about how stupid Scientology was, and one of them would say something like, "America's a Christian nation." However, the video was spoken by the generic computer voice that come with every PC stating that they were a group of people calling themselves "Anonymous" who were declaring war on Scientology. I found another video from "Anonymous," and it said that they were declaring war on the Church of Scientology and not the believers themselves. I would argue it is impossible to draw the line. After hearing these videos I assumed they were made by some teenagers bored on a Saturday afternoon, but I wanted to make sure I was correct so I searched for "anonymous scientology" on Google and found a whole list of articles about Internet hackers calling themselves "Anonymous" who were destroying Scientology websites and stealing Scientology documents. "Anonymous" actually has there own wiki page explaining how a non-member of "Anonymous" can help their war effort. I am in favor of protesting religion and intellectually challenging religion, but hacking into website and stealing documents is no good. Firstly, people have a right to believe in whatever philosophy they choose. Even though many of those philosophies like Scientology, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism it is a person's natural right of liberty and pursuit of happiness to believe in such philosophies. Secondly, "Anonymous" is initiating force against the Church of Scientology, and all initiation of force is vicious. "Anonymous" will argue that the Church of Scientology has convinced people to surrender their life savings to the church, and that through their other practices the Church of Scientology has ruined several lives. I would point out that the Church of Scientology has not actually stolen money from people or intentionally ruined people's lives. Following Scientology, or any religion, can certainly ruin someone's life, but that individual must choose to follow the religion. People chose to give their life savings to the Church of Scientology, people chose to accept everything Scientology said. The Church of Scientology is wrong, but what happened to those people is their own fault. I am not saying "Anonymous" should halt its whole campaign. I think they should continue challenging Scientology and I think they should expand to challenging every religion. However, they should remove the force plank from their platform. Destroying websites and stealing documents is an initiation of force that violates an individual's natural right of property.
I would also like to point out that the government should actually be trying to stop "Anonymous" actions that violate people's natural rights. I have not read many articles about "Anonymous's" war, but it appears the government is doing nothing. Of course there is an excellent upside to this. I believe it is government's purpose to use force against those that initiate force, like "Anonymous;" however, I would really rather not see the government involved in this Internet war. The government would just call for more laws to be passed so they could expand its power and limit people's rights on the Internet. What I do like is that the Church of Scientology has hired a private organization called Prolexic, which is basically like a private security firm for a website. This is clearly a step in the right direction. Government would cause a whole variety of problems on the Internet if it tried to combat "Anonymous;" however, Prolexic is defending the Church of Scientology and several other people on the Internet from initiations of force from people like "Anonymous." There is no reason for the government to get involved, and I think people should follow the Internet example of the Church of Scientology and Prolexic by bringing more of that kind of security into the physical world.
Now to move on to Talkback, which is a podcast I listen to concerning entertainment from a fan's standpoint. What I mean by that is the hosts of Talkback, The Merc and Have Hope, are fans of specific franchises. For example Batman, Superman, Rambo, Indiana Jones, Terminator, etc. On their show and website The Merc, Have Hope, and on occasions special guests comment on new films coming to the silver screen from a fan's standpoint. Talkback argues that many of the franchise films such as Superman are not given the respect they deserve; consequently, Hollywood studios take these franchises and make horrible films. Talkback argues, and I agree, the reason Hollywood studios do this is because they are only concerned with making money. Talkback calls it greed, I say it is an irrational focus on money. Let me clarify myself for I am an Objectivist and right now I sound like a collectivist. I support Hollywood studios' right to make any movie they want with whatever franchises they own; however, this does not make the movies good. I understand Hollywood studios are business are they need money in order to function. However, my problem is the studios are not concerned with the work they are concerned with the money. I am reminded of Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead answers no, and that is the truth. Howard at the point where Ellsworth Toohey asks Peter Keating if Howard Roark like money. Peter Keating Roark is not concerned with money he is concerned with his work. Howard is concerned with producing the greatest possible buildings he can create; money is just the reward for his work. This also reminds me of Ayn Rand's other novel Atlas Shrugged. At one point Hank Rearden says he will never sell anything for less than it is worth. Howard and Hank Rearden have the same philosophy. Howard and Hank are both concerned with producing the best possible creations; however, they will not accept anything less than what it is worth. In other words, they put a lot of work into what they create, they are proud of it, they will not give it away like hard candy. This is the approach the studios need to have. Currently, the studios' approach is that they will create whatever they need to make the most money. If the worst movie to ever make it to the silver screen makes them the most money they will do it. They are putting the importance of money before the importance of work. Studios need to have the understanding that every time they make a movie they should try to make the best movie possible, and whatever they create should earn the money it deserves. If the studios had this approach then characters like Superman and Batman would get the proper respect. Honestly superheroes and other franchises have incredibly interesting characters, and those characters should be used to explore interesting themes. Most of the time, however, studios produces movies like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.
In the most recent episode of Talkback they addressed this topic in respect to video games. However, another interesting topic came up. Every time there is a school shooting, like the several occurring at universities in America, parents always point their fingers at the gaming industry. Talkback argued, and I completely agree, parents are shirking their responsibility. As I understand it when parents have a child they basically own that child's life until he is eighteen. That child is just short of being the parent's property. Therefore, it is the parent's fault if their ten year old is playing a Mature rated game. Talkback pointed out that conservative favorite news station Fox News had a guest on arguing that children were going to get their hands on the video game anyway. I really have no idea how this is possible. Video games are locked up behind glass cases, which store clerks need to unlock. Furthermore, if store clerk looks down at a ten year old, sees the ten year old buying a Mature rated video game, and that ten year old has no parent around the store clerk will not sell that ten year old the Mature rated video game. Unless there is some elaborate video game black market for elementary school children to buy Mature rated video games there is no way these children are getting the video games without the help of some adult. Maybe there is an extensive adult renting service for elementary school children. The child can pose for the store clerk with the rented adult so the store clerk believes the child is buying the Mature rated video game with the permission of his parent, but I doubt it.
Furthermore, the logic of blaming a school shooting on the video game industry is ridiculous. If that argument is valid let me supply three more valid explanations that should be given equal credit. The city provided the electricity for the individual to play the video game; therefore, it is the city's fault. He was wearing Nike sneakers when he attacked the school. If Nike had been more careful as to who they were giving their sneakers to the shooting would not have happened. He use a gun made by Colt to attack the school. It is Colt's fault for making guns. Colt is responsible for the shooting. Selling electricity, shoes, guns, and video games do not sell an individual the permission to violate others' natural rights. The city, Nike, Colt, and BioWare did not initiate any force, it was the shooter who chose to initiate force. Responsibility completely lies on the shooter because he chose to commit the act. Responsibility does not shift to those that sold the shooter his supplies or inspiration. Again those items were not complete with permission to initiate force. The responsibility is not passed to the peaceful suppliers.
I think this shifting of responsibility from shooter to business man is related to parents shirking their responsibilities. The problem manifests from the idea of collectivism. The concept that all of humanity is in "it," whatever it is, together causes people to shed responsibility. If humanity is all in "it" together then no one has to care for himself because everyone is caring for everyone else. Not only is this a vicious way to live, but it is a blatant lie. People try to argue they are living altruistically, but they are not. Everyone lives selfishly whether they admit it or not. People are naturally selfish and it is incredibly difficult, nearly impossible, to commit a truly altruistic action. If people would just embrace their selfishness and stop trying to live under the vicious guise of altruism then people would stop shedding responsibility because they would realize they have complete responsibility for their own actions. Since the majority believes everyone is living altruistically when no one really is, they keep passing responsibility to people who are not responsible. There is this obvious and horrible disconnect existing. People pass responsibility when no one is behaving altruistically. If people were truly living altruistically then it would make more sense to pass responsibility on to someone else because an individual would not be caring for himself, another individual would be caring for him. However, man lives in this lie that they are altruistic or should be so they think they can pass responsibility, even though everyone is living selfishly, which makes the passing of responsibility utterly illogical. I would argue altruism and passing responsibility is always illogical, but it would make more sense if people were actually living the way they thought they were. Once again this is not to say it would be completely logical or that it would be good, only that it would make more sense. In reality altruism and shedding responsibility is always irrational and always vicious.