I recently said on Twitter – “I am capable of being a total bitch but when the shit goes down, I’ve got your backs. All of you.” This is a really good analogy for Anonymous. As individuals, Anons can be total assholes, if you catch them in the wrong mood. But when it counts, they will sacrifice their own time, resources and lives, to selflessly serve a deserving cause.
The hypocrisy of the mainstream media and their inability to meaningfully question their own narrative prior to publishing, knows no bounds.
The penetration of Occupy & Anonymous-related content into both the 24-hour-news-cycle and pop culture has mutated a number of well-meaning but misguided commercial news “contributors” into self-styled pseudo-experts on activism.
Their inability to truly bridge the divide between observer and participant results in them frequently being manipulated into regurgitating a tainted, covertly implanted narrative or worse; being provoked into reporting a reflection of their own deep-seated fears, rather than on reality.
Key to understanding either Occupy or Anonymous is understanding the difference between the collectives and the individuals.
Both Occupy and Anonymous are autonomous at a collective level which encompasses those who freely agree and participate in any given venture. The collectives are sovereign unto themselves, separate from the State; they are their own State.
The individual is also autonomous and sovereign. An individual can at any time act with equal authority to the collective. But if they act in a way that does not inspire others in agreement to engage, they will find they act alone.
Individual action and collective action are of equal importance but the collective is not responsible for an individual action; nor is an individual responsible for a collective action.
The mutual respect of the rights of the individual and of the collective leave it wide open to malicious actions undertaken by those with intent to defile, defame, shame or entrap the Occupy & Anonymous collectives.
This targeted sabotage is wide-spread and applied within related social justice organisations, at planning meetings, at physical actions, and it is most prevalent of all in the realm of social media.
It is funded by both tax-payer dollars and private enterprise.
The only way to meaningfully combat it at a collective level is to expose the methodology. Personnel can be replaced; but nimble adaptation of widespread practices is much more difficult.
The only way to meaningfully combat it at an individual level; is to know better. To know Occupy better. To know Anonymous better. Then you’ll be less likely to believe whatever nonsense you see planted to discredit them.
For a long time a major smear tool of the State has been to associate democratic movements with Neo-Nazism or even to manufacture a Neo-Nazi reemergence to openly combat public groundswells of discontent.
From the 11th hour Wikileaks Party Neo-Nazi distraction plot to the rise of Golden Dawn, against the background of a true Greek revolution-in-progress, to even our own Occupy Auckland and Occupy NZ admins who were sent pro-fascist propaganda dressed up as 99% rhetoric to trick us into publishing it, only to then “out” us for having done so, the intention is the same; to damage popular support for the movements by associating them with socially distasteful historical abominations.
Which brings us full circle to why this post is being written.
In The Guardian, Emer O’Toole wrote of Anonymous;
“Meh – misogyny in activist movements. What else is new? Many people think of Anonymous as a whole new kind of beast, an unprecedented cyber child of our times. But, actually, the movement fits quite neatly into a history of leaderless resistance, which has been used in the service of sweet causes, such as environmentalism and animal rights, and less than savoury ones, such as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-nazism. If we think of Anonymous like leaderless resistance – as a mode of activism as opposed to a unified ideological entity – then it’s easier to make sense of cells that hack epilepsy forums with flashing animations (lulz!) operating under the same umbrella as cells instrumental to Occupy or the Arab spring.”
That is the full paragraph, for context. A mainstream publication wouldn’t want to expend that many “words” on a quote and would have cut it down to only the sentence that contained the inflammatory words of “Ku Klux Klan” and “neo-nazism”. However in the wondrous blogspace there are no such limitations or premiums on space and we have the opportunity to outperform the mainstream in all respects, via this medium.
I find Ms O’Toole’s paragraph inflammatory for several reasons. Firstly, in my two years of association with Occupy & other movements I have not witnessed any consistent misogyny in the movement. I have, however, witnessed misogyny all around me in every other respect of the entire rest of my life. From school, to work, to being out in the general public.
To target activist movements as being ‘mysoginist’ when they are often bodily in the front-line of the War on Women is disturbing, unjust and ironic.
Secondly, and what led to this post, is her reference of “a history of leaderless resistance, which has been used in the service of sweet causes, such as environmentalism and animal rights, and less than savoury ones, such as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-nazism.”
It is completely irresponsible to namedrop the KKK and Neo-Nazis in relation to Anonymous.
When I pointed this out to Ms O’Toole, and also that the KKK was not in fact leaderless or a horizontal hierarchy, she claimed that she had merely been referencing the nature of leaderless movements that happened to include the aforementioned. But that assertion was then obliterated by her supply of a link in a follow-up tweet, that led to a Storify that purports to contain evidence that “Anonymous has been pushing racist material”.
— Emer O’Toole (@Emer_OToole) December 9, 2013
The Storify pools a handful of tweets across a period of some three years from one individual Anonymous account, then proclaims: “Anonymous must deal with Holocaust denial and the presence of neofascist ideas in its midst” and then then adds two tweets from another Anonymous account as corroboration, describing “a flair for even more lurid racism”.
To anyone who scans the page and sees words like Hitler, Jews, Zionists, you might on the surface, assume the complaints are legitimate.
But to anyone who examines further, the real picture becomes more clear.
The first tweet referenced is a tasteless joke about Jews, Germans and gas, which I don’t care to republish here and which proves nothing other than that one individual made an immature quip. Not even vaguely proof that Anonymous is “neofacist” or “racist”.
The second tweet referenced is a picture of Time Magazine’s 1938 “Person of the Year” Adolf Hitler cover. The tweet states exactly that; that Time made Hitler Man of the Year. This is a proven fact and it is not an indictment on Anonymous. It is in fact an indictment on Time Magazine and the hypocrisy of the mainstream media whose presentation of political figures constantly swings between saviour and demon.
The third tweet is a link to a You Tube video about 1915-1938. It contains no commentary or suppositions, merely links the video.
The fourth tweet collated states “They claimed it was a deliberate genocide by Nazis. The allegations included Nazi death ray guns, gas chambers and turning jews in to soap”. Again, this is a recounting of the official mainstream media narrative and is not “racist” or “neofascist” in nature.
The fifth tweet is quite telling; as it clearly states the obvious. “Once again, stating the fact that 6 million jews didn’t die in holocaust is not denying holocaust and it is not antisemitic.”
Those five tweets are the sum total evidence supplied that Anonymous is “racist” and “neofascist”.
Whether an individual believes 2 million, 4 million, 6 million or 100 million Jews died in the Holocaust, does not mean the Anonymous collective is racist or neofascist. What it means is that one individual doubts the mainstream media narrative which was clearly the construction of the victors of World War II (as goes the old adage “history is written by the victors”.)
Occupy and Anonymous have witnessed media manipulation and suppression of events on an epic scale. You only have to You Tube: “One Police Plaza” and realise we watched that live then turned on our TV’s & read our newspapers only to discover NO acknowledgment of it.
We witnessed the 20-day global mainstream media blackout of the Occupy movement. We witnessed the NYPD doctoring of the Brooklyn Bridge footage; the astroturf media events set up by saboteurs, the endemic press corruption and complicity with law enforcement, council and government P.R. reps.
Experience has taught us to question everything and for an Anon to consider counters to conventional historical narrative and to circulate that counter-narrative is not unusual – it is a natural result of exposure to widespread corporate media and governmental corruption and manipulation of information.
Using myself as an example – were someone to cherry pick my own Twitter account you would probably find links to a dozen different videos claiming various different parties were responsible for 9/11. This does not mean I believe any or all of those versions of events. It means I believe in watching and considering all options and that the spread of ALL information better empowers people to inform themselves and come to their own conclusions.
I am suspicious of any and all organisations who claim people must ascribe to a fixed doctrine or rhetoric in order to participate. The full-spectrum nature of both Occupy and Anonymous means you can actively participate whether you consider yourself “left-wing”, or “right-wing”, or whether you think both left and right are nuts and refuse to proscribe to either.
All are welcome. All contribute. All have autonomy and sovereignty, regardless of individual political ideology.
Therefore cherry-picking the words of an individual (or two) and using them to draw broad generalisations and conclusions about a global collective, is counter-intellectual.
Especially the tweets displayed in the Storify supplied by O’Toole – tweets which repeatedly state they are not anti-semitic; tweets which do not include the types of violent hate speech espoused by true Neo-Nazis, who as part of their very doctrine proudly and openly pronounce their anti-semitism.
Now. Let’s do what these authors should have done – some due diligence to get to the bottom of what Anonymous really thinks about the KKK and Neo-Nazis.
To do so, I used a really advanced journalistic technique. I googled (yes, guilty as charged) “Anonymous Neo Nazi” & “Anonymous KKK”.
Here’s what I found, without having to look beyond the first page of results.
And RT’s report: “Anonymous hacks ‘Aryan Front’ Neo-Nazi website”
And how does Anonymous feel about the KKK?
Web Pro News: “Anonymous Takes Down KKK Websites In Operation Blitzkrieg”
Well well well.
While some mainstream journalists have been (fooled into?) depicting Anonymous as racist and neofascist – Anonymous has in fact been involved in substantial anti-KKK & anti-Neo Nazi actions, across a significant period of time.
So how is it that entire Anonymous operations can go unnoted while random tweets of one or two individuals get referenced?
Let’s look a little further into the author of the Storify collation.
The Storify account has 1 follower. Yet this link was supplied to me by a presumably high-profile Guardian contributor.
How does an account with 1 follower get picked up by a Guardian author?
Let’s look at the other work of the same Storify account. Their last three Storify’s were titled:
1. “Nazism on Twitter goes mostly unnoticed”
2. “Anonymous and lazy racism”
3. “Antisemitism at Anonymous Continues Unchecked”.
The 3 Storify’s were all posted within the last 7 days. A prolific anti-Anonymous effort.
Glancing down at the comments section, there are other statements that stick out like a sore thumb.
“Anonymous could not give a damn about Palestinians” claims the Storify author. “Many people that hate Jews pretend to like the Palestinians but in reality they don’t. Such is the nature of Jew haters“.
That is a huge black-or-white blanket statement and an impossible supposition.
Even more interestingly, a commenter that calls themselves an “Investigative journalist” and says “they seem to be pro Palestine. (I couldn’t care less about the Israel – Palestine conflict)”
I’ll give Ms O’Toole the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is not the journalist in question who posted that comment after discovering (or being supplied with) this Storify link, 7 days ago.
The third (but chronologically first) comment really sums everything up and is a fitting conclusion for this story.
It appears to be from someone who knows better. Someone who knows Anonymous.
Says Huitzilopochtli: “We should always keep this in mind. http://intellihub.com/2013/08/09/us-military-caught-manipulating-social-media-running-mass-propaganda-accounts/”
Yes, we should. And we should always remember that it is not just the U.S. military doing it. Far evolved from the ever-reaching military industrial complex, there is now an international network of for-profit social media companies whose very livelihoods depend on tainting the information available on the internet, to their clients benefits, and the vulnerable opinions of the unwitting general public are their perennial target.
Which is why we must be smarter.
Do not believe everything you read.
Look deep inside and trust your gut.
Seek the truth, and share it.
Written by Suzie Dawson
Official Website: Suzi3d.com
Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!