>>143I agree with
>>144 in the sense that the amount of personnel allocated to this specific task was probably minimal, but I am unsure of magnitude of involvement of the intelligence apparatus.
I am more interested in how such operatives managed to steer the enemy's actions into such an operation.
The first possibility is that leaders of the enemy's intermediary echelons were approached by operatives who made clear that it would be in the best interest of both the government and their groups (game journalism sites, SJ organizations) to remove us from our problematic position. They then offered technical support and guidance on the infiltration of movements and how to effectively turn Chris into a puppet ruler. I find this possibility to be unlikely because of the natural distrust of the intermediary echelons for the government, which they consider an organization of the patriarchy and of the "oppressors" in general. Not only that, but the enemy demographic at that level (relatively young, highly social individuals with little sense of coordinated efforts) would be poor at following orders and even worse at keeping secrets.
The second, and in my opinion more likely possibility, is that the movement's leaders are influenced by operators who don't identify themselves as such. We must keep in mind that the most efficient coercion is that which is partnered with deception, i.e. it is much better to make a person believe that he came up with a certain idea than to convince him of that idea directly. Such operatives would act as force multipliers and political cadres in such a way that would not be recognizable by those being influence by them. They would have to be well versed in coercion, deception, instruction and disguise; at the same time maintaining the illusion of normality (being "just another guy with some really good ideas").
We shouldn't seek to identify such operatives, as our possibility of success is minimal, and if we achieve our goal we will immediately become a priority target for the intelligence apparatus. Even so, for the sake of reference, we can speculate on the traits of such individuals: Young enough to be accepted by the group without raising immediate suspicions, college background, versed with computers, knowledgeable of SJ themes and well spoken. He (or she) would most likely have been recruited during college (one of political sciences, sociology, psychology with a focus on social psychology, computer science or communication), he would be an excellent student and fast learner, falling into the Alpha type personality that the agencies seek. His training would have taken some time and demanded maturity, but in order to meet the previous criteria of youth he could not be more than in his late twenties or early thirties. Such maturity could come from an exceptional mind or from a difficult adolescence, this second being more advantageous as it would increase sympathy and identification from the infiltrated group. Ethnic background cannot be determined. Sexual orientation might not be heterosexual, but gender is binary, as the agencies would not approach an individual with such risk for mental instability. Once inside the movement, he would rise enough to get his voice heard and be able to impose his will, but not so high as to attract attention from other members or external observers. He could probably achieve such an ascension by demonstrating his worth with computers or organization, and claiming that he could muster extra technical help for the goal (the laughable "feminist hackers" could very well be lesser agency operatives who are told to crash this or that site, or track this and that ip). All of this, of course, while maintaining the appearance of normality and casualty.