Banksters

THOUGHTS ABOUT “ANONYMOUS”

June 18, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

Well by now most of you are probably familiar with the story of "anonymous" in one form or fashion, the international "disorganization" of ...well...pissed off hacker-type people that have been hacking into the secrets of large corporations, especially with those connected, or perceived to be connected, to the "military industrial complex" of the West. Consider the following articles:

\'Anonymous\' PlayStation Hackers Arrested

Anonymous hackers attack US security firm HBGary

Anonymous hackers hit Indian government IT organisation

\'Anonymous\' Warns NATO: \'This Is No Longer Your World\' Read more: http://techland.time.com/2011/06/10/anonymous-warns-nato-this-is-not-your-world/#ixzz1P2GFQmFB

On and on we could go but you get the idea. "Anonymous" is a kind of cyber-vigilante group that, at least at first glance, appears to be exactly what the various news outlets claim it is, an organization (if one may call it that), of pissed off people fed up with the corruption in their governments and corporations that are willing to make other people live by laws they break all the time. Thus far, Anonymous hasn't attacked private persons, other than those it deems a part of that corrupt elite. And certainly cyber attacks against such paragons of "virtue" and "human compassion and concern" like Monsanto or the IMF won't sit too uneasily with anyone who knows anything about those corporations.

However, I have serious reservations about accepting the claims being made about, or even by, this group at face value, especially given the wider context of what's going on in the world. For one thing, while apparently united around a broad "philosophy," the group appears to be too well-organized, and financed, to be solely or exclusively a group of pissed-off people upset about threats against internet freedom. There is, it seems to me, a hidden player here, using these people for a deeper agenda, namely, as cats' paws to target that predatory corporate elite that so dominates the West. The direct message against NATO seems to indicate a geopolitical preoccupation that would transcend the preoccupations of such a group, and would to my mind indicate a hidden player, capitalizing on the growing discontent and cynicism of western populations in their governments.

My guess is this is "payback" by someone, possibly an Asian power or even Asian alliance of some sort. If not, the western elites had better be quick and organize a false flag operation against an innocent party, and blame it on Anonymous, so that they can then launch an all out effort to shut it down. In any case,  I think  that we're also looking at deeper players, with older scores to settle. It will be interesting to watch this story unfold, for if Anonymous is really serious, then it will eventually strike those institutions, corporations, foundations, and even personal files of those names and families so closely associated with those elites. If or when that happens, we'll know whether or not Anonymous is for real. But don't expect to catch that news on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC. In any case, Anonymous, and their hidden backers, have given those elites something to think about. I for one, remain extremely skeptical of the group, as I do about any vigilante type organization, but that is tempered by my greater skepticism toward those very elites that cloak themselves and their own corruption in the mantle of legality.

And there's a final problem: are we really looking at just one organization, or, rather, at an idea, that has thousands of copy-cats? Are we perhaps also looking at a well-orchestrated and deliberately planted meme? Whatever one makes of anonymous or these questions, my instinct still tells me we're dealing with a powerful hidden player.