a reply to: liveandlearn
First of all, I think it is wise to point out two things.
First of all, to those who are looking at this document, and thinking "Was this thing written by Jar Jar sodding Binks?", you are not alone. That was
my first thought too. However, I persevered. What I believe, having read the entire thing, is that the individual or collective who are responsible
for the construction of this document, added the strange cadence and the improper grammatical structure, to defeat forensic analysis of their common
use of language.
It is possible for anonymous authors to be identified by particulars of their craft. The way sentences run, the choice of words itself, errors or
imperfections in the way grammar is used, punctuation deployed... these things can give an agency or investigator with the correct skill set, a very
good idea of who may have written a document, and with the systems available to groups like the NSA, this ability is pretty much certainly present,
given their enormous access to data (despite its being unconstitutional and all).
Therefore, it makes a certain degree of sense for the authors of a document like this, to edit their output in such a manner as to utterly confuse
the reader, because if the incredibly adaptable human mind is so jarred as to find reading a document... less than pleasant, the ability of automated
systems to detect similarities in syntax, grammatical choices, and other ideosyncratic elements of the composition will certainly be quite thoroughly
reduced, keeping the chances of the author being identified as low as possible. If the ShadowBrokers are a real thing, and it is as claimed in the
document, that members of the organisation are former employees of the Deep State, it will be absolutely imperative that they share no identifying
information in documents such as this, in order that their anonymous status is maintained...
With the above being said, I have some serious doubts as to the legitimacy of this statement. It seems to me that former members of the Deep States
infrastructure, would have a better idea of what is really going on, the real threats to the country they swore to serve, and would be dead against
any kind of isolationist nationalism, precisely because that stuff is basically the road map to fascism, and serves no other purpose historically.
Therefore, if the ShadowBrokers are a real thing, they are either not, as claimed, drawn from sworn members of the security and other services in the
US, or they are politically dense despite their experience. I suggest this, because their attitude and some of the things they wrote, do not come
together in my mind as positions which could be adopted by persons who would EVER consider joining up with any government service, whether covert or
overt. They DO however echo some aspects of far right propagandism, which is always to be shot down, stabbed in the neck, pissed on and THEN set on
It is an interesting document, and ordinarily I would have greater faith in its authenticity, coming as it has through the channels of Wikileaks, and
with Snowden having looked it over and found no reason to call shenanigans, but something does not sit right. For one thing, it has some fascistic
elements to it, and leaving things in Trumps "capable" hands, is precisely how one might best arrive at that unfortunate state of affairs. Seems
counter to the stated interest of the author to actually act against a government which is far more likely to bring about the sort of regressionist
bull that is recommended in the document.