Karakorum
Ron is the source that will lead you to grief
This came up when I was reading the "reject buttons" thread of Panda Termint.
Let me list the false flag personas that I can recall (I'll use my own names for them):
The reject buttons are an example of a false flag op.The "Reject Buttons List" was (as far as I remember) a list of things to say (and assert annoyingly) whilst "pretending to be a critic of scientology". They were hyperbolic words such as "biggest, baddest, meanest, worstest (lol)" etc words that painted the speaker/writer as hysterical and prone to exaggeration, the purpose of using them was to make the listener/reader reject the rest of what was said in "criticism of scientology" and (hopefully) make them reject other instances of the same/similar criticism of Hubbard and/or scientology. You might have noticed plenty of that sort of thing on ESMB (if you were looking for it) over the last few months.
Let me list the false flag personas that I can recall (I'll use my own names for them):
- The Fool. This is a persona that will be stupid, obnoxious, over-the-top, use reject buttons etc. The purpose of this persona is to draw ire, contempt, anger and disbelief. This persona will then openly "support" a real critic, especially in contentious matters. So for example if say Chris Shelton will say something controversial, "the fool" would instantly jump to support Chris's opinion. Thus giving an impression of: "If the fool supports Chris, then Chris must be wrong". Real life examples would be the KKK supporting any political candidates. Its the "kiss of death" tactic.
- The divider. This persona will post controversial topics, trying to draw real critics in and then play them against one another. This is the Hubbardian "3rd party" tactic. An example would be posting very controversial things about Hubbard and the tech with the aim of dividing "independent scientologists" from "atheistic critics". Or he can post things unrelated to scientology - for example post controversial political issues to have critics argue with one another over US politics. The more divided the critic community is, the easier it is to deal with. Also, critics busy arguing with one another are not criticizing the church. Its designed to draw resources and distract.
- The white elephant herder. A persona designed to draw confidence, sympathy and trust. This persona will then advocate certain ideas or projects (the "white elephant") that on first glance seem like real good ways to strike at the cult, but in reality are harmless. They will nevertheless draw the money, attention, time and effort of critics. The more real critics that pick up this project, the better for the cult. I have a suspicion the "Where is Shelly / Free Shelly" issue might be a white elephant.
- The aggressor. The persona is there to incite critics to do illegal or generally frowned-upon things ostensibly against the church. This way the church will then "expose" the "nefarious" actions of critics, or win lawsuits and get people in jail or get them to pay fines. I suspect the anonymous members who were convicted for a DDOS attack on the church fell victim to this false flag op. The goal is of course black PR and exposing people to lawsuits and the justice system.
- The obvious target. A persona that behaves openly in ways that look like an OSA agent would. So real critics would say: "Ah-ha! That guys is OSA" and focus on this one, distracting them from the less obvious OSA personas. It can create a false sense of self-confidence: "We know how OSA works and can easily spot their lame attempts at infiltration".
- The inquisitor. Like the white elephant herder, this persona is constructed in a way to earn people's trust (through knowledge, friendliness, humor etc), but will at some point be used to "expose" real critics as OSA agents. This sows division, discontent, confusion and paranoia among real critics. This is probably the most dangerous false flag persona, if used skilfully.
- All of the above can be used to feed disinformation and add to the chaos, mess, division and mayhem in the critic community.