09 Oct 2011

The Demonic Twist to “Anonymous”

Conspiracy, Religious 95 Comments

For a while now this “Anonymous” hacker group has given me the creeps. But this recent video release has sealed the deal for me:

I don’t know what the deal is with the new message placed on the screen, calling off the operation. Someone can explain it in the comments.

Anyway, this creeps me out because:

(A) It is making threats to achieve political demands. There’s a word for that.

(B) The computer-generated voice sounds like something the villain in a horror movie would use.

(C) The “We are Legion” sounds suspiciously like the demons Jesus cast out of a man (Mark 5: 1-13):

1 Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes.[a] 2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3 who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him,[b] not even with chains, 4 because he had often been bound with shackles and chains. And the chains had been pulled apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces; neither could anyone tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and in the tombs, crying out and cutting himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped Him. 7 And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.”
8 For He said to him, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” 9 Then He asked him, “What is your name?”
And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” 10 Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country.
11 Now a large herd of swine was feeding there near the mountains. 12 So all the demons begged Him, saying, “Send us to the swine, that we may enter them.” 13 And at once Jesus[c] gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.

Go ahead and tell me all the good stuff Anonymous is doing in the comments, that their methods might be borderline but they mean well. I’ll listen to you; go ahead and say that. But since they say, “We are legion” I don’t trust them. I realize the term is now used in pop culture, and maybe whoever started using it for Anonymous didn’t know the original source. Well the devil has a funny way of getting people to do his bidding.

95 Responses to “The Demonic Twist to “Anonymous””

  1. Prateek Sanjay says:

    The word “legion” means a thousand.

    “My names are in thousands.”

    “Our numbers are in thousands.”

    Are two very different sentences with very different meanings.

    I imagine Professor Murphy is not up to date with 4chan memes or habits among young teenagers with too much time to waste. I don’t expect any grown person in general to be so, but children are known for harmless posturing. And what else is this?

    When was the last time you were bothered by the idea of a 15-year old making threats to governments or major organization?

    • Tom says:

      Isn’t it far more likely they are just using a word they think is cool rather than being part of some satanic conspiracy?

    • David S. says:

      Only an idiot would literally be afraid of demons. lmao

      • Avram says:

        Why do you think this?

  2. Daniel Kuehn says:

    Satanic or no, it’s a fascinating turn of phrase. I don’t think Oppenheimer was trying to say something about Hinduism when he quoted the Bhagavad Gita. When someone doesn’t invest the same meaning in a passage, I’m not sure we can infer anything.

    Another way to put it is this – if the devil is trying to get them to do his bidding, you’d think he’d be a little more subtle than using a phrase that is widely attributed to him!

    • David S. says:

      Is it clear enough to you now that you waste your time arguing with a total cultist? He believes in demons, for god’s sake. lmao

      Seriously, this makes you look very bad.

      • science says:

        An argument can be made based on Einstein’s theory of relativity and Minkowski space-time that past, present, and future time all exist at once and therefore the universe is deterministic.

        In order for humans, and other creatures , to have “free-will” that “something” which makes someone who they are, call it a soul if you wish, has to exist outside the laws of physics and the universe.

        So yes it is possible for creatures of pure mind, whether good or bad, unknown to the ignorant to exist.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      DK wrote:

      Another way to put it is this – if the devil is trying to get them to do his bidding, you’d think he’d be a little more subtle than using a phrase that is widely attributed to him!

      Why, Daniel? Apparently I’m the only one who thinks a clear reference to demons should be taken seriously. The rest of you are too clever to fall for it.

      • Tel says:

        I’m an athiest BTW, but if I did believe in God and the devil, then one thing for sure is that the devil would have to have a better sense of humor.

        Morally debasing someone by brute force… that is just so lame. Tricking someone into morally debasing themselves is kind of clever, but still lacks class.

        Now watching someone fall for a scam, while you tell them it’s a scam, and you put up a warning bold as brass which everyone duly ignores (cos you know, there’s tricksters around, can’t believe everything you see)… that’s a gag that a real arch fiend would get right into. You all know you would laugh if you saw it happening to someone else. You all would, don’t try to hide it.

        But think about this: what if the video is not the real Anonymous? It’s the devil setting up a fake Anonymous to trick righteous people into turning against the good work that the real Anonymous does… leaving us scattered, lonely and squabbling amongst ourselves in this time of great need.

        If I met Jesus tomorrow, how would I know he’s the real Jesus? I mean demanding a miracle on the spot seems a bit, err you know, pushy, and anyhow the devil has powers too, he could probably knock up something that might look pretty convincing at first glance.

      • Silas Barta says:

        Reminds me of an exchange from South Park:

        God: Saddam, are … are you building a chemical weapons plant?

        Saddam Hussein: Noooooooo! I’m just building a chocolate chip factory! See the sign?

        God: Well, it … it looks like a chemical weapons plant.

        Saddamn: Okay, God, give me a little credit here. If I was gonna go out and build a chemical weapons plant, I wouldn’t make it look like a chemical weapons plant! I’d make it look like a chocolate chip factory or something!!!

        God: Oh, okay … just checking.

        Saddam: Moron

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          Let me know when a demon is as empirically verified as Saddam Hussein… then I will take an assertion about said demon as seriously as I take an assertion about Saddam Hussein.

          Until then, I have to filter truth-claims somehow.

          • Tel says:

            Saddam Hussein was nothing more than an ordinary man.

            Needless to say, he was possessed by a demon.

          • Silas Barta says:

            Daniel_Kuehn, I’m not endorsing belief in Satan/demons, I’m endorsing the reasons Bob gave for rejecting your arguments thereagainst … not that your mind can handle logical nesting that deep anyway, but there you go.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        I’m not sure how this sort of thing gets resolved.

        Do you take Santa Claus’s naughty and nice list should be taken seriously? Pretty clear references get made to that list, after all!

        • Bob Murphy says:

          DK not sure I follow you. I’m not saying I believe the devil exists because some kids might refer to him. I’m saying that it’s silly to say, “This can’t possibly involve the devil, because it’s too obvious.”

          So in your analogy, if you and I independently believed in Santa Claus, and I said I saw the work of St. Nick behind the lyrics of “You Better Watch Out,” it would be goofy for you to say, “No, the fat guy is too clever for that.”

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            And I’m saying that you’re acting as if clarity should be a reason to take the statement seriously.

            My point is that credibility is a prerequisite. Clarity doesn’t matter at all unless you’re already convinced the thing exists.

            I’m saying it’s goofy for you to say “you have to take a clear reference to Santa seriously” if you’re talking to someone that doesn’t think there is a Santa. Why must I take a clear reference to the devil seriously, as you suggest?

            • Bob Murphy says:

              DK wrote:

              Why must I take a clear reference to the devil seriously, as you suggest?

              Of course if you don’t believe in him, then this whole post is absurd. I don’t expect otherwise from atheists/agnostics or even deists who reject the idea of a devil.

              Maybe our wires are getting crossed here. If you go re-read some of the initial reactions, people were saying in effect, “Bob, let’s assume for the sake of argument that there were a devil and he wanted to manipulate us. Don’t you think he would hide his tracks a little more carefully?”

              So I’m saying that is a bad argument. It defeats itself. The devil would be very clever indeed if he were hidden in plain sight. Just like people who believe the New World Order conspiracy can go nuts saying, “The frickin’ president of the United States told us he was trying to bring in a new world order!! Wake up people!!”

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            Now, if we both believed in demons I’d still say that given the nature of the devil he’s often one to decieve and I still don’t think clear references necessarily mean anything in a culture where these sorts of Biblical references are common.

            But that’s a big “if” I’m starting that paragraph with!

  3. Ike says:

    do you know what 4chan is? In case you don’t: read the Wikipedia entry. Anonymous are just a bunch of teens which discovered simple “hacking” scripts.

    • RFN says:

      No so. They are a bunch of 20 somethings. Maybe with teen aged minds, but not bodies.

  4. Daniel Kuehn says:

    The threat makes me wonder… ought we to view non-violent threats differently from other threats?

    “Terrorist” can be applied to anyone if all it means is “threats to achieve a political end”. Martin Luther King was a “terrorist” by that definition. Since we don’t consider Martin Luther King to be a terrorist, we seem to mean something somewhat different when we use the word.

    To me, it seems like we are particularly concerned about:
    1. Violence
    2. Unjustified political ends (i.e. – not just ends we disagree with)

    Thus, the revolutionary soldiers are not terrorists. Al Qaeda is. And Palestinians confuse us all and their “terrorist” status depends largely on the circumstances of exactly what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, whether they are acting or reacting, and what we think of the legality of Israel’s policies.

    Is it messy? Yes. People who have not liked the lack of guarantees in my previous posts on al-Awlaki are not going to like this approach to terrorism. But if we’re honest with ourselves, I think it makes a lot of sense. We think bin Laden is a terrorist and we don’t think MLK is a terrorist and this seems to be a good way of parsing why we make that distinction.

    If we use something like this definition, I think Anonymous is going to be a lot like the Palestinians – a very ambiguous, context-dependent case that there will be a lot of acrimony over.

    It will be interesting to see what – if anything – happens tomorrow.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      For sticklers – I should not have said “it could be applied to anyone”. I should have said “it could be applied to a lot of people”.

  5. Prateek Sanjay says:

    I am sorry Daniel, but while Martin Luther King’s tactics of making threats of violence would not qualify him as a terrorist, they do show him as a morally debased person of dubious character, belonging to the same category under which we club all moral anarchists, including terrorists.


    Page 228 of this book cites how he agreed with a Senator that a “prediction of violence is the same as an invitation to it”, when he claimed riots will break out if the CRA was not passed. But he only repeated his threat afterwards. And as a charismatic leader, he could follow on that threat, since riots did break out in places that he visited. This man held public safety hostage to pursuing a political agenda.

    Do you not find that evil?

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Well, he didn’t make threats of violence, which is precisely why I think it’s important to highlight the violence distinction.

      But even if we make that violence distinction there are a lot of violent people that we don’t consider terrorists as well, which is why I think we implicitly make an “unjustified ends” distinction.

      I don’t know anything about those accusations you’re making. For the sake of argument, if I were to concede it were all true, I would still put him in with cases like the revolutionary soldiers who may have been terrorists in the eyes of the British (who did not consider their ends justified), but who I do not consider terrorists.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      I am not a pacifist, keep in mind. I’m challenging the idea that violence alone makes a terrorist and I am introducing what could uncharitably be called “relativism” and what could more charitably be called “context” to these designations.

  6. Bob Roddis says:

    Detroit area attorney Kurt Haskell, liberal Democrat as of December, 2009, personally saw the underwear bomber escorted around security in Amsterdam and saw him ignite the fake bomb on the plane:


    The flight path was right over my house.

    I suspect that a major motive for extra-judicial murders is to leave no witnesses of US government malfeasance.

  7. Bob Roddis says:

    Haskell was interviewed by the great Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio days after the incident. The MSM continues to suppress his story.


  8. Mike Maull says:

    I tend to fall on the side of Mr Murphy on this one. Quick aside, Conter-Terrorism was my job for many many years as an SF guy so I thought I’d post. It strikes me as a little bit of navel gazing when we start playing the “one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter game”. “Terrorism” I think is way over sold. The major distinction in my opinion is that terrorism does not enjoy popular support. “Terrorism” will use any means necessary to achieve its goals, be they political or social or simply criminal. Terrorism is and equal opportunity sickness, it doesn’t discriminate in it’s methods or its membership. I think what gets most “lay people” confused, is the commonalities with organized crime. The “Mob” participated in many of the same actions and methods currently used by most terror organizations. I think the distinction between the organized criminal and the terrorist comes back to popular support. At some point the criminal knows that in society, he is and always will be a criminal, So for him it ends up being mostly just a job. The terrorist on the other hand, feels justified in his acts, and looks to not only achieve a strategic goal, but also looks to punish those in society that contribute to his injustice as well as gain enough popular support of the people to bring about some social or ruling class change. As to “Anonymous”, they are shrouding themselves with the mantle of the oppressed but it seems as if they are just straight up organized criminals. I hope for everyone’s sake I’m correct. But to pull off some of what they claim, it speaks of something close to “State Sponsorship” or at he very least collusion. If they do pull of what they claim, our government will brand them terrorists and put them on the list…..that is what we all should be watching for because that opens the door for al-Awlaki like solutions carried out domestically. We all need to be on the watch for the beginnings of a policy shift of that nature….frankly given the current political climate in America today, I think it is inevitable. I pray, literally, that I’m wrong on that point. My first post,,so be gentle

  9. David S. says:

    You’re literally afraid of demons? lmao bwahahahahahaha!!!! I can hardly believe what I read, even coming from you. What a joke you are.

    Watch out for those witches and goblins too.

  10. P.S.H. says:

    “lmao bwahahahahahaha”? I think that’s one of the canonical signs of demon possession.

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      LOL. That is funny.

  11. Ancalagon says:

    “Go ahead and tell me all the good stuff Anonymous is doing in the comments, that their methods might be borderline but they mean well. I’ll listen to you; go ahead and say that. But since they say, “We are legion” I don’t trust them. I realize the term is now used in pop culture, and maybe whoever started using it for Anonymous didn’t know the original source. Well the devil has a funny way of getting people to do his bidding.”

    Please tell me this paragraph is a joke. They say something that SOUNDS LIKE something a DEMON purportedly said in The Bible, and so you fear demonic involvement? Although I am not myself religious, my inclination is to treat those who do believe with all the respect I would myself like to be treated. But when you admit to belief in freaking demons… That is an absolute joke, and I honestly do not see how any rational, thinking person — let alone a PhD from a major university — could believe such tripe.

    • Brian Shelley says:

      You atheists are just the cutest things. Sure Bob and most Christians believe that Mathuselah lived over 900 years, and God flooded the world, and Samson toppled a palace with his bare hands, and plagues hit Egypt, and a pillar of fire led the Israelites through the desert, and stopped the sun during battle, and healed numerous sick people, and raised a dead person to life, turned water into wine, walked on water, quieted a storm, and ascended into the clouds with no visible system of propulsion. But, demons, that’s just too far Bob! Sure, Tolkein and C.S. Lewis were PhDs and professors at Oxford and believed in demons, but that was the 60s. We have science now to answer everything!

      • Ancalagon says:

        That is all baseless drivel as well. I was drawing a distinction between a base belief in God — say, run-of-the-mill deism or a watered down theism, which is at least borderline-defensible — and just this sort of nonsense.

        As to your imbecilic Tolkien and Lewis argument from authority: So what? Most humans throughout history have been religious. It stands to reason that there have been a great many intelligent religious people.

        I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. But atheism strikes me as extraordinarily more plausible than does religion of this sort — belief in demons. I mean, this is so out of a bad Hollywood movie — demons that are so anthropomorphized that they reuse the same lines as they did in the prequels.

        • David S. says:

          Yes, and I think it’s clear now that NYU should, at the very least, have its accreditation reviewed, seeing that they actually supposedly granted Bob a PhD in econ. I am now becoming very skeptical of his claim of holding any kind of college degree.

          • Matt Flipago says:

            What is “actually supposedly” mean? Is this an attempt to act knowledgeable? Your lack of respect for people with different beliefs is laughable, and an insult to all those who share you view.

    • David S. says:


      This should be no surprise, considering Bob’s statements on economic matters. He doesn’t even understand what evidence is or how numbers work, much less how to avoid falling for childish beliefs in demons. He probably sleeps with a nightlight to keep the monsters under the bed too.

  12. Avram says:

    Groups like Anonymous are the best opposition to truth and liberty that money can buy.

    They mean good but there’s no doubt the devil is using that to his own ends.

    e.g. now all people who think there’s something rotten with the way banks and government have their hands in eachother’s pockets all the time will be characterized as weirdos belonging to some group of fifteen year old social out cast basement dwelling super villian wannabes.

  13. ArgosyJones says:

    Pshaw. The NYSE web site may be down tomorrow morning for an hour or so. This won’t amount to much. If you think these dweebs are doing satan’s work…. well maybe, but perhaps not very effectively. The point of putting this video out is to drive web traffic to nyse.com tomorrow, increasing the effectiveness of the ddos attack that is their likely tactic.

  14. science says:

    All of you who ridicule people who believe that good and evil spirits exist, how many of you actually even understand on what basis your so-called scientific arguments rest? It seems most people, including some commenters here, that they just accept their statements on science on faith. Quite ironic in view that they are ridiculing acceptance of religion.

    • David S. says:

      The basis is was largely outlined by Popper, you intellectual peasant.

      • science says:

        So if you ask most/many commenters here why they argue that demons don’t exist they will all reference Popper right?I don’t think so.

        I think most people who don’t accept that good and evil spirits don’t exist base their assertion on “faith” rather than anything they can show by logic.

        • science says:

          last line should be:
          “I think most people who don’t accept that good and evil spirits exist base their assertion on “faith” rather than anything they can show by logic.”

  15. Doodley says:

    “Well the devil has a funny way of getting people to do his bidding.”

    I cannot believe that I’m about to engage in arguing why there’s no superstitious connection here, but here it goes.

    The phrase “WE ARE LEGION HUURRRRRR!” (as in “we are many people”) in this video is meant to reflect its ominous tone. Any teenager who’s played a “legion” of video games, movies, and has a general idea of story telling through current mediums is able to make these types of references. This is the equivalent of a notorious computer hacker dressing up in a dark cloak and rehearsing Borg dialogue from episodes of Star Trek: TNG before he unleashes his doomsday virus upon the global network.

    You would have to make a tremendous leap in logic to start busting out the holy water and bible verses about the morning star drowning pigs after Jesus performs and exorcism.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Doodley, so to prove to me that this isn’t ultimately from the devil, you are saying it’s just kids trying to sound ominous and is analogous to them being like a race of creatures that were trying to enslave humanity?

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        Bob, I think the more that you understand the current computer/gamer/fantasy geek, the more that you’ll understand that it is all sort of a strange roll-play. Kind of like playing a part, I guess. At least, that has always been my observation of what Doodley is (I think) trying to say.

        Look at those weird people who dress and act like vampires, do you really think that they believe that they are truly vampires? Sure, there might be an insane few, but for the most part it is a strange roll-play based upon an obsession with the subject (vampires). It is the same with witches, though the Wiccans ad a religious twist based on nature.

        I am not going to get into a theological argument for reasons that I have explained in the past. All I will say is that I think that you are over-thinking this and drawing out conclusions that are not very close to the truth. The truth in my opinion being that they’re using words for effect.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Joseph, go re-read my post again. I said (paraphrasing) that even though these people might not consciously be picking the term because they identify themselves with the devil, nonetheless they might be serving his interests unwittingly.

          And then you and Doodley keep trying to show me I’m wrong, by pointing out that these people might not be consciously serving the devil. Do you see why that’s not really addressing my point?

          • MamMoTh says:

            They could also be serving god, wittingly or not.
            But there is no evidence they are either serving some god or some devil, nor that gods and devils are anything more than human fantasies.

      • David S. says:

        There’s no such thing as “prove” in science and you can’t “prove” a negative Bob, you living joke. “Prove” to me that you’re not Satan. lol

        • Matt Flipago says:

          You can prove a negative, take a math class sometime.

          • David S. says:

            I’m talking empirical science, not math, ignoramus.

            • MamMoTh says:

              But economics is a deductive science, not an empirical one!

  16. Cody S says:

    So, we should trust them and think their intentions are good despite what they say about themselves?

    This whole discussion is weird. Are you guys actually saying Bob should ignore what Anonymous says about itself, because “you know those nerds. Always trying to look cool and tough.”

    Does the language they use to imply their coolness and toughness not alarm you?

    What if you met a car dealer who said basically,

    “I can make you the best deal on the market. I’m like the guys from Boiler Room.”

    Would you assume he was honest and forthright because that talk was most likely posturing, and as well because what he thinks of movie con men and their practices has no importance to whether he is a truly honest guy.

    Because groups that gather useful idiots and kids together to act as delivery channels for propaganda and civil unrest are usually intended for good purposes, regardless of the sorts of rhetorical and lingual constructs they build and use?

    Just because they think of themselves as, or might be obsessed with, demons and being demonic, Bob, doesn’t mean they aren’t just everyday, vanilla-bread American teens out for good times and clean fun.

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      “So, we should trust them and think their intentions are good despite what they say about themselves?”

      I don’t think that anybody is saying that. In fact, I don’t think that many people here are defending ‘Anonymous’ in any way, really. I can’t speak for everybody else, but I think that Bob’s “Satan’s hand” analysis is a little much.

      I am no fan of ‘Anonymous’ or its actions, because it violates my principles with regard to aggression and property. But, I still think that using “the Devil did it” explanation is no explanation at all. There are many screwed up people in this world, as well as evil, misguided, ignorant, elitist, etc people. Sure, I judge people/groups based upon their words, everybody does to some degree. But, my primary focus is on actual actions.

      I don’t care if it is the devil behind them, or if it is merely misguided ideology, the fact is that their actions are deplorable from a libertarian perspective. Even worse, they aren’t an actual “thing” or “entity”, anybody can claim to be ‘Anonymous’, or any action can be claimed as being the work of ‘Anonymous’. It is all theater, nothing more. It is a role that can be claimed by anyone for anything at any time.

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        Look at any message board or comments page on any site and you’ll begin to understand what exactly ‘Anonymous’ is.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Joseph wrote:

        I don’t care if it is the devil behind them, or if it is merely misguided ideology, the fact is that their actions are deplorable from a libertarian perspective.

        OK see this I have to say is a silly statement. If you don’t believe in these things, OK, fair enough, it’s probably hard for you to get inside the worldview. (It would be like me saying, “If I had to ride cross country on a unicorn, would I want to wear jeans or sweatpants? Not sure.”)

        By definition, if the devil is behind something, it’s bad and you should oppose it. Even if you don’t see why at first. That’s one of the attributes of the devil, that he gives you deals that at first look good and then you come to regret. Right?

        It’s like saying, “Even if I knew the guy inviting me to dinner at his castle at midnight was Dracula, so long as I didn’t think he intended to break property rights, I’d go.”

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          Jeans, duh.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          Bob, you know that I am an atheist. However, I must say that I am probably one of the most respectful atheists around these parts when it comes to discussions of religion.

          What I am trying to get to is that to say that it was the devil that caused/did something offers no explanation and in my mind almost gives a pass to those doing to deed- after all, the devil made them do it.

          But, this gets exacerbated when discussing “Anonymous”, because I am of the impression that you believe “Anonymous” to be an actual thing or group of people. As I was trying to say to Cody (and, as tootoot has pointed out below), “Anonymous” is nothing more than an idea, a role, a character, etc.

          It’s odd, I am almost having the same debate with you (well, more with Cody) that I was having with DK when AA got killed. DK, like most people in the west, actually think that AQ is an actual group or entity, when it is nothing more than an idea and/or system of beliefs. People are essentially attributing actions to a name (e.g. Al Qaeda, Anonymous) as if it were a real thing. There is a lot of bad that can come from this way of thinking, IMO.

          Now, let’s say that there is a devil and that he has influence on people. You would say that the bad stuff that “Anonymous” has done can be attributed to the devil. I say that “Anonymous” doesn’t exist as an actual entity, that the actions can only be attributed to the individuals acting under the banner of “Anonymous”. To go along with my assumption above, the most that you could say is that the individual who made the above video was doing the bidding of Satan.

  17. MamMoTh says:

    We, MMTers, are legion.

    • David S. says:


      Can you believe what a total loon this guy is? He puts this on his “consulting” blog. lmao I already wouldn’t have hired him to do anything, but mop floors, but now I wouldn’t even hire him for that. He’ll scare away even a lot of libertarians with this kind of crap. lol

      • MamMoTh says:

        This reminds me of those outraged and scared by the satanic lyrics of Hotel California!

        And those guys kept singing it until Hell froze over…

      • jj says:

        David, where’s your blog??? Oh yeah, you ain’t got one, so you probably should keep quite. I quite like the fact that Murphy doesn’t just post econ stuff. I mean his religious posts get up my nose a bit, but it’s his blog and if can write what he wants. It’s you who chooses to read it or not.

        • jj says:

          And please forgive the spelling of quiet, lol.

    • Tel says:

      You keep printing more when you start running out.

  18. Cody S says:


    I am familiar with the meaning of the word anonymous. We are talking specifically about the group. But, for that matter, can it possibly be a good sign that they call themselves Anonymous? Just think the name choice through logically.


    I am pretty sure Bob is devastated. His whole future was predicated on working for you. Won’t you reconsider?

    Speaking for myself, please go on posting comments in as many places as you can. The power of your personality just seeps through in every exquisitely-chosen sentence. The forces you generate in all thinking and feeling people with the purity and magnetism of your arguments…they have the power to remake the world. It’s like watching a star filled with logic and human understanding go supernova.

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      The point that I was trying to make is that there is no group called “Anonymous”. It is merely a role, a part, a joke, etc, that anybody can claim. That is the whole idea behind it. It is a play on the whole screen-name idea found on message boards. Nobody belongs to “Anonymous”, because it isn’t an actual thing, it is an idea.

  19. Watoosh says:

    This has been said before, but you are definitely overthinking this. These are kids that want to act and sound cool and meaningful. Remember how in the 90’s (and probably even now) there were websites that had an ominous midi playing in the background, lots of flashy gifs and a thorough explanation of how Bill Gates (or Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson or any other celebrity) was really Satan? This is no more spiritually meaningful than that.

    As for the attack… yeah, it’s a violation of property rights, and perhaps not directed at the right people either. But it’s probably not going to be that effective either, and people like Anonymous have a funny way of drawing out the state’s true identity – politicians will want to police the internet even harder, and because they’re protecting Wall Street, that will be unpopular as hell.

    Also, seeing as Wall St. violates property rights all the time, I find it hard to shed a tear for this.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Incidentally, why do you guys keep acting like this is exclusively a bunch of 15-year-olds? On NPR there was a guy who was a “spokesman” (in quotes because he said no one could speak for them) of Anonymous, and he was in his 30s I think. He certainly didn’t say they were a bunch of kids.

      When they were attacking Amazon et al., some of the descriptions of the people involved said they ran massive operations and controlled hundreds of computers that they’d gained access to over the years. So you’re telling me this is all a bunch of 15-year-olds?

      • ArgosyJones says:

        That’s just the problem, Bob. Anonymous isn’t an organization. There is no membership list, no official spokesperson, nor coherent ideology, or even a consistent list of priorities. It’s more like a mask that people put on when they want to get some vigilante justice on the internet, or just pull a prank to show they can.

        We don’t even know that this video is even put out by anyone who even knows other people who are planning some attack on wall street web sites. It’s just a youtube video.

        I would think that an anarchist theorist like yourself would be interested in such an example of a decentralised non-state system of norm-enforcement, whether successful or not.

      • Watoosh says:

        I never said 15-year olds, I said kids – in other words, Generation Y people (who, when compared to older and less computer-savvy people, can be considered kids). I’m 23 years old and if I partook in these hackings, I think I would qualify as a kid. (That said, I couldn’t hack myself out of a paper bag)

        The thing you have to understand about Anonymous is that it’s not a group so much as a swarm. The operations are massive and there are hundreds of computers because lots of hackers participate in fairly straightforward DDoS attacks. It’s not some professional group located in a fortified warehouse in Mojave Desert, it’s mostly lots of nerds around the world with more or less computer experience exerting a lot of pressure on particular servers. (This seems to be their plan of attack for the NYSE as well, if I’m not mistaken.) If you know your way around a computer, you can fairly easily learn how to join such an “operation”.

        Sometimes the Anonymous do serious and professional hacks as well (as Wikileaks has shown), but that’s because there are some extremely talented and experienced hackers involved. But they are few and far between, and most seem to be young 4chan-members whose talents include copypasting lolcats and reciting Dragonball quotes.

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        Just to be clear, I never said that it was kids. I don’t know if I was part of the “you guys” that you were referring to, but I figured I would just put that out there anyway.


      • RFN says:

        His name is Barrett Brown. He wrote for the Village Voice if I remember correctly and he is late 20’s or early 30’s. These aren’t kids. They’re 20 and thirty somethings. Still harmless prattle from harmless goofs, though.

  20. David S. says:

    Bob Murphy is a total kook in the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell vein. Everything he thinks is bad is ultimately the work of Satan and/or demons I guess. Who knows? With untethered beliefs, who knows what he’ll say next?

    • Dan says:

      I bet I can guess what you’ll say next because it is the same childish rants over and over and over. At least come up with something new. You replied 9 times on this post and you just kept throwing around insults over and over. You are so boring.

  21. David S. says:

    Hey Bob, is Mick Jagger aligned with Satan too?


  22. PrometheeFeu says:

    “Well the devil has a funny way of getting people to do his bidding.”

    This is a joke right?

    • Dan says:

      Why would that be a joke?

      • PrometheeFeu says:

        You mean an evil supernatural being is a hypothesis worthy of consideration when looking at the causes for human activity? I thought we took care of that with Occam’s razor…

        • Dan says:

          Occam’s razor disproves religion? Good to know.

          • PrometheeFeu says:

            No. Occam’s razor shows that supernatural root causes are useless as explanatory variables. Why does Anonymous act? Because of reasons X, Y and Z. Adding that “the devil provides reasons X, Y and Z” adds nothing of value to the theory.

  23. tootoot says:

    “Anonymous” is just a self-referential in-joke used on certain imageboards that don’t require you to post with a name. These boards are often located in the deepest, filthiest, most abysmal and soulless crevaces of the internet; no surprise that they are populated mostly by overly sarcastic nerds. As somebody said above, some of them know how to DDoS or find Facebook logins when they be in need of amusement, so the media, with its usual grace, paints “them” all as some kind of elite cadre of super-hackers. But anyone who claims to speak for “them” is a publicity-seeking attention whore. Whoever anonymous is, there is no “movement” and they have no “demands”. These people for the most part can’t take anything seriously (do you think there is some calculated reason behind their wearing of V for Vendetta masks?), let alone commit to a political cause. Of course, some of them are desperate for camera time and these ones are the usual subject of mockery.

    For more info:


    Adult material there, so proceed at your own risk.

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      Thanks, tootoot. That is what I was trying to get across above. Anonymous isn’t a thing or a group, it is merely an idea, a role, a part, etc. Anybody can play.

      • Tel says:

        I suggest that applies to the devil as well.

        I certainly applies to his advocates.

    • Anonymous says:

      tootoot has got the right idea. it was a running joke on websites like 4chan, 7chan, et al. then they personified this “anonymous” as one poster who made all the posts, and started giving him phrases like “we are legion”

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        Oh my goodness!!!! It is one of them (anonymous)….

        Do you get it now?

  24. Matt M says:

    I read the ” Well the devil has a funny way of getting people to do his bidding.” and thought “exactly right, Bob.”

    The practice of witchcraft, sorcery, etc is prohibited in the Bible. Consulting mediums and other forms of magic are pretty clear. It doesn’t really matter if it is done out of “fun” or a “bunch of kids” or if is a subliminal move away from God. Still wrong and evil. Using phrases associated with demons, regardless of intent, is not a good idea. Bob clearly pointed out that may not have been the author’s intent, but enough to know that it is something to stay away from.

    Whether you believe in the Bible or not, that is your choice obviously, but the message is pretty clear.

    Lev. 19:31, “Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.”

    Deut. 18:10-14, “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12“For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you. 13“You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. 14“For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so.

    The Devil cant “make” you do anything. You have to choose. However, as Bob was saying, it is easy to be swayed by certain things that look innocent or just “games” or childish things that can lead someone down a very wrong path. 2 Corinthians 11:14 New International Version (NIV) 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

    David S.
    I really haven’t been on this blog much recently, but I was surprised to see the negativity and insults in your comments. Usually not like that here. Disappointing.

    On another note, do you think that maybe your extreme reaction to the concept that the Devil is real and can have an affect on the world is a result of you not being very confident in your own beliefs and maybe you are hurling insults to cover up your own fear? I do. Does it feel like an itch you can’t scratch? Maybe like a little tug in your heart that you are just try to smother with anger? 🙂

    • PrometheeFeu says:

      “On another note, do you think that maybe your extreme reaction to the concept that the Devil is real and can have an affect on the world is a result of you not being very confident in your own beliefs and maybe you are hurling insults to cover up your own fear? I do. Does it feel like an itch you can’t scratch? Maybe like a little tug in your heart that you are just try to smother with anger?”

      I think it’s more that because invoking “the Devil” is entirely divorced from empiricism, it can be invoked in any situation making it the king of all confirmation biases. As a result, invoking “the Devil” can easily lead you to believe that your opponents are some form of evil that must be destroyed. As a result some of us get fidgety when we meet people who play the Devil card. Think of it as self-preservation.

      • Matt M says:

        PrometheeFeu: I understand what you are saying. The reaction is because it can stir up conflict where every issue is me against the Devil. I get that. Here is what the Bible has to say. As you can see, the response to the “fight” against the Devil is prayer and supplication, protecting yourself with truth and righteousness and the gospel of peace.

        Ephesians 6:10-18
        10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

        14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—

    • MamMoTh says:

      The practice of witchcraft, sorcery, etc is prohibited in the Bible. Consulting mediums and other forms of magic are pretty clear.

      I always said consulting Murphy was wrong and evil.

  25. Tom Us Pain says:

    This thread started off with a mentally impaired man babbling about fantastical things such as devils and hell ….evil…..etc. Then, to make matters worse and to make himself look like an even bigger boob, he quotes from the bible! Lol! That’s rich! Cracks me up. That sap gives ME the creeps. When I heard that message from Anonymous? I got a stronger sense of hope and patriotism than I did when Obama was elected (A feeling that has long since died. Another discussion. Another time). It made me feel inspired. I felt like sacrificing myself for a greater good. I felt intense courage and patriotism. I felt empowered. I felt like I had people standing alongside me for once. Nothing else matters as I contemplate the goals of this group. I have read Confucius. I have read other inspired teachers who have talked about what one’s responsibility is underneath a tyrannical …overlord. I am proud of Anonymous. And a definition of Anonymous, as they use it, could be ‘Fed up American’. If that were so, I am Anonymous too. Signed, a Fed Up American

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Tom Us Pain wrote:

      This thread started off with a mentally impaired man babbling about fantastical things such as devils and hell ….evil…..etc.

      You don’t believe in evil?

  26. Matt M says:

    So a video of a group planning to attack private property cause intense feelings of inspiration, courage, and patriotism? Enough so that you “felt like sacrificing” yourself? “Nothing else matters?”

    I think you are proving Bob’s original point quite well actually!

    Good thing that you are so logical and pragmatic that you dont’ believe in such silly things as the Devil, demons, or the Bible.

    P.S. I don’t believe that Bob quoted the Bible, it was I.

  27. Joseph Fetz says:

    Sorry to come back to this thread, but I just could not help myself. I have found a tune that embodies “Anonymous'” whole being….


    Or, if you prefer a more modernized version, here is an evil band of cricket players…


    Look at all of those Anonymous people in the crowd!!! We must stop this…