I’m not sure what to make of these guys. Are they for real or is it a provocation?
Anonymous is said to be an anti-government hacking “group”, operating all over the world, unified by secret underground “channels”. They’re said to be “anarchic”, but in the colloquial sense of this word, as in “chaos-bringing”, rather than philosophical, as in “opposed to the need for government”.
So… when you think about it, there isn’t all that much that anyone can say about Anonymous on the basis of that. They are, after all, so ANONYMOUS! And that in itself is the issue I have with “them.” ANYONE can post as “anonymous” – and, in all likelihood, “anyone” does. Sure, some posters may be well-intentioned, but equally surely, others may not be. Viewing “their” videos and messages is thus always a guessing game. What’s the agenda? WHOSE agenda am I looking at? Sometimes this is more transparent than others, and it isn’t always consistent.
- The utter ambiguity of the name would – should – normally mean that the mainstream media would ignore them, as would most sensible people. After all quoting Anonymous is like quoting any unnamed person. So my puzzle at this point is that they’re given way more news time than an unknown would ever normally warrant – which is close to zero. And this can only mean: there’s more to this than meets the eye.
- And then there’s the computerized voice, the mask, and the ominous tone. On many levels, it’s a metaphor for the government (or some kind of a government-sponsored psy-op), posing as opposition.
- And then there’s the actual record. What did they actually DO that is of any POSITIVE value, and is PROVABLY “their” doing? If you know the answer to this, please post your answer below!
So, to answer this question – I don’t trust Anonymous any further than I could throw it. In fact, it bores me stiff. Now, this is NOT to dismiss the real, genuine people, who rally behind this symbol and who act, as if unified, in “its name.” My only problem is that this symbol and its message is inconsistent and too easily subverted, and hence, in my book, interesting primarily as a sociological phenomenon, rather than anything else.