This week, the hacktivist group Anonymous initiated a cyber war against the attention-seeking troglodytes at Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). After the Topeka, Kansas based church announced its intent to picket the funerals of victims of last Friday’s school shooting in Newton, CT, persons affiliated with Anonymous released the following statement on Vimeo: “We will not allow you to corrupt the minds of America with your seeds of hatred … We will not allow you to inspire aggression to the social factions which you deem inferior. We will render you obsolete. We will destroy you. We are coming.”
According to the Huffington Post, church spokeswoman Shirley Phelps-Roper’s twitter account was hacked. Anonymous also claimed credit for taking down the church’s website and posting the personal information of church members online. In a lame response, Westboro’s homophobe-in-chief Fred Phelps tweeted, “I’ve never heard of Anonymous, but somehow they got our personal info … That is OUR info, not yours to give out! God will deliver us.”
Anonymous, of course, has developed quite a reputation for punishing a wide variety of thugs — from private groups like the Church of Scientology to state actors — that thrive on intimidation or are shielded by the law. You may recall that the group posted personal information from Lt. John Pike (formerly of the UC-Davis Police Department) after he was caught on camera dousing seated protestors with pepper spray. After that incident, the group stated, “We have no problem targeting police and releasing their information even if it puts them at risk … because we want them to experience just a taste of the brutality and misery they serve us on an everyday basis (emphasis in original).”
But here’s the problem. The people targeted by Anonymous may have families or others close to them that could also be harmed (physically or financially) by hacking and release of personal information. Individuals associated with Anonymous have, at times, directly requested information on family members of their targets. During the recent attack on WBC, Anonymous operatives went to Pastebin.com to post information on members of the Phelps family and associates. While looking through this data, I found at least three minors listed.
What is the point of this? Would these children be viewed as “collateral damage” by Anonymous if someone decided to attack them along with their parents? If so, is Anonymous much better than the government agencies it has jousted with? Anonymous (and radicals in general) would do well to remember a great line from Bob Dylan: “To live outside the law, you must be honest.”
In spite of my reservations about some tactics employed by members of the Anonymous collective, I believe their practice of striking back at oppressive, secretive government agencies — rather than going through “official channels” — has been part of a positive trend of putting the state on notice. Hacktivism, along with increased filming of police, represents what I like to call the rise of “little brother.” Anonymous is also right, in theory, to respond aggressively to fascist groups.
When it comes to groups like WBC, the KKK or Neo-Nazi’s, I don’t buy into liberal “just ignore them” tautologies. Did people drive out marauding brown shirts by holding candle-light vigils, singing folk songs or quoting Voltaire? As far as I know, these tactics alone have never quashed the forces of fascism. Fascism spreads when people are feeling economic distress and are in need of scapegoats. This is why it is imperative that we stifle these movements before they gain greater influence.
Organizations like Westboro Baptist Church should be confronted aggressively wherever they gather. This should be a community effort, not the sole responsibility of an activist vanguard. Violence should be avoided, but these moral cretins should feel that they will be in mortal danger if they decide to terrorize people in our communities. Fascists should be considered a threat to all of us until they change their ways or die. Intelligence gathering, picketing of homes or businesses, shunning, public ridicule, boycotting and other forms of direct action may help us to keep fascists boxed in and easy to monitor. If fascists must exist, this is precisely where we want them.
Translations for this article:
- Portuguese, Para Confrontar os Fascistas do Século 21.
This is all well and good, but when are they going to take down the stock market? I agree with the sentiments on fascism arising out of capitalist failure, it's quite clear from Germany 1918+, but there are much bigger fish to fry…
What's the basis for calling the WBC fascist? I'm not too familiar with the group beyond their protest antics. But they don't seem to be promoting nationalism, which is how I tend to think of fascism.
My recent post Not Ron Swanson Too!
Yes, fascism is "revivalist ultra-nationalism" according to most scholars-West Boro hardly fits that. It's a term which is over-used on the left, and should be reserved for those groups fitting that description.
i'm not aware of WBC passing laws,physically hurting any one,and they are a private group that nobody listens to.Sure they are scum for picketing funerals,but to go after them like this is way overboard,and makes me wonder who the real fascist is
I don't think Dave is saying WBC are "fascists", technically, as in comparable to Mussolini's PNF, Hitler's NSDAP or the modern Greek Golden Dawn.
Merely that the tactics/strategy being used against WBC by Anonymous are an effective, scalable and important part in a needed, vigilant fight against fascism in general.
My recent post The Star Fraction – Introduction to the American Edition
they're unable to pass laws because their influence is suppressed by community actions like the ones mentioned in the article.
As the article states, those groups should be confronted. To quote Karl Popper "we should…claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant".
But yeah, totally. Anonymous are fascists. Go with that
Probably true, but "fascist" is used as hyperbole much too often in my opinion. There are other things to call people we don't like besides that, and shouldn't when they don't qualify.
First, thanks to all those who commented on my article. I just started contributing to C4SS, so I appreciate any constructive criticism that may help me to become a better writer and political analyst.
I expected that putting WBC under the fascist umbrella might raise some eyebrows. Indeed, I struggled with how to categorize them. While working on the article, I even had in mind George Orwell's essay "What is Fascism" (1944). In the essay he stated, "By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come." So yes, I know that "fascist" is an overused epithet, particularly among leftists. But in the end, I opted to use the word.
The dictionary I have in front of me at the moment (Webster's Dictionary, published by Harper Collins, 2003) defines fascism as an "authoritarian political system opposed to democracy and liberalism" (p. 177). Granted, dictionary definitions don't always do complex political theories justice. If we were to use this definition, however, WBC starts to look fairly fascistic. I don't think there is any doubt that they are authoritarian and opposed to liberalism and democracy.
Fascists also typically need an enemy or list of enemies that they believe are corrupting the nation. The Nazi's focused on Jews, of course. Golden Dawn in Greece focuses on immigrants. WBC is obviously obsessed with homosexuals. According to their past statements and protest actions, they also hate Jews, Hindus, Muslims, the Chinese and Barrack Obama.
As James Tuttle suggested, I certainly recognize a difference between WBC and the Nazi's or Mussolini's Black Shirts. One of the objections I'd like to address is the fact that WBC does not support "revivalist ultra-nationalism," as Michael called it. Well, it's certainly true that WBC is very much against the United States Government and it's "fag enabling" policies, as they would put it. Does this mean they would not be belligerent nationalists if the American state's policies were virulently homophobic (ie. supportive of the death penalty for homosexuals, like the WBC) and hostile to any religion that was not an ultra-conservative version of Christianity? Based on what I have read about WBC, I don't think they'd be the least bit anti-government if this was the case. What would WBC's ideal nation-state look like? Well, I'm guessing it would be something like a Christian version of Iran or maybe Afghanistan under Taliban rule. And I think the ideology of these governments could be described as a theocratic variant of fascism.
So, keeping these ideas in mind, I decided to but WBC under the neo-fascist banner with neo-Nazi's, the KKK, and others. But the term hate group works just as well, and for historical reasons, may have been a better choice. Good libertarians can agree to disagree on terminology in this case, but I hope you can agree with me on the more important point: we must be prepared to confront (not just ignore) these kinds of people before their movement's get stronger.
Thanks again!
In honesty, since I am aware of Anonymous's own past, I do wonder that. I do think doxing them is overboard, but the tactic would not be overboard in regards an actual fascist group. But, even then, caution.
"We recognize you as serious opponents, and do not expect our campaign to terminate in a short period of time. Attrition is our weapon, and we will waste no time, money, effort, and enjoyment, in tearing your resolve into pieces, as with exposing the incongruity of your distorted faith."
The WBC consists of what? 100 members? They're going to take over america!!! Hilarious. Surely there are bigger fish to fry. And I'm sure anonymouse would support any national legislation banning anything they deem morally unacceptable.
It's the moralistic aspects that worry me. Fine, oppose WBC, but still.
I've been attacked and beaten by neo-Nazis. Beaten unconscious. Inaction in the face of ongoing violence, including beatings, bashings, rapes, and murders, enables violence. It's a good question what the best action is, but inaction isn't it.
And the only relevant differences between Westboro and the neo-Nazis seem to be (1) that they only want to exterminate lgbt people where the neo-Nazis want to exterminate political opponents, Jews, Gypsies, various other ethnic minorities, and lgbt people too, (2) that they aren't as numerous, and (3) that they have better lawyers.