Defending Against The Deep Deceptions

I RECEIVED AN EMAIL SUNDAY suggesting that the hackivist group 'Anonymous' is actually a government operation, and containing a link to a YouTube video making an argument to that effect. The timing is kind of ironic in that the video, apparently just released a few days ago, relies in part on the argument that the fact that no 'Anonymous' hacker has ever been caught or prosecuted should be taken as a sign that the group is a government construct. In fact, more than a dozen men and women from various countries are currently facing charges for allegedly being members of the group and having been participants in some of its activities, as reported (among other places) in an article featured here in last week's mid-edition update. Some are on trial as I write.

This challenge to the legitimacy of Anonymous joins similar challenges circulated over the years to the legitimacy of WikiLeaks, of Ron Paul, and even of me. These all involve warnings that the target of the smear is really a government operation (or operator) being put out there in order to capture attention and support that otherwise would go to REAL activists, thereby neutralizing that support. Some of these "beware" emails even go so far as to suggest the target of the smear is a "honey-pot" intended to lure unwary REAL activists into identifying themselves so as to make themselves more easily "rounded-up" when "the hammer falls".

IT ISN'T NECESSARY TO KNOW anything about the real origins of a smear campaign like this (that is, whether the suspicions about the target are sincere) in order to recognize the mental trap that the accusation creates all by itself. Once laid, such a charge becomes impossible to disprove on its own terms. That is, there is no way for 'Anonymous' to prove it's NOT a government operation simply by argument.

After all, what weight would a mere denial of being a government subterfuge hold? Such a denial would be issued whether the charge was true or not. A government scheme isn't going to own-up upon being accused; on the contrary, it would deny 'til the cows come home, just as would a legitimate 'Anonymous'.

Thus, once the charge is made, a degree of suspicion is fastened upon the target in the eyes of anyone who considers only what is said either in accusation or denial. To a greater or lesser degree, if only words are considered, the simple making of the charge is enough to harm its target, and to a greater or lesser degree, paralyze those who otherwise might be active supporters and participants.

So here's something to consider: maybe those making the charge are the schemers... How better for those who fear popular support for an adversary than to float the rumor that what they fear is really their own creature?

IN ANY EVENT, the real answer to the question of how to react to these "bewarnings" is to go past words and judge the tree by its fruit. Is WikiLeaks a CIA operation, as has been floated? Well, someone released to the world a whole slew of documents revealing everything from the shameful to the criminal committed by... well, by the CIA, among others. WHOEVER did that is no creature of the CIA's, I think, and if it was WikiLeaks, then I think it can't be said that the group ( or Julian Assange) is a CIA puppet. Even the notion that doing a leak of some kind to establish false credentials might be a sound strategy for an agency scheme doesn't make it, because such a strategic leak wouldn't have had to be one hundredth of what WikiLeaks has done.

How about Anonymous? The one thing that group is best known for is its shutting down of PayPal, Visa, Mastercard and Amazon in retaliation for those organizations' lawless cut-off of services to WikiLeaks in an impromptu economic lynching when asked to do so by US government thugs after the last big document leak (read: exercise of journalism). Kind of hard to see how that fruit served any interest of the state's, so I'm going to conclude that Anonymous is just what it claims to be.

Ron Paul has opened more American eyes to the crimes and harmful policies of the state than possibly any other person since H.L. Mencken. While I, like many others, feel that Paul could have handled his campaigns more effectively, and should have issued an endorsement of an alternative candidate once he had decided to end his own campaign, to argue, as some have done, that he served to pull the attention of limited-government advocates to himself in order to keep it from being more usefully deployed elsewhere is absurd. I will leave analysis of my own "legitimacy" to others, trusting that I, too, will be judged by my works.

There is an ancient cunning that teaches would-be oppressors to "divide and conquer". We on the "honesty" side of the battle aren't accustomed to cunning, and don't readily recognize it, but we must adopt a sharp eye and be wise as serpents, as someone once put it. We must recognize when the apples of discord are being thrown before us.

Know your friends by what they do, and praise all good works, or it won't be long before there'll be none.