How to determine real from ruse member, on the outside?

December 6, 2005 9:35 PM

How can the difference be determined between a genuine member vs. a fake member bent on deceptive overthrowing/subverting of a socio-political group's public perception (speaking from an outsider's POV, not belonging to either group)?

Say for instance a group of people B wanted to libel or damage a socio-politcal group A's reputation in the public eye. Could that group B not all simply pose as an A-chapter and commit atrocities in the name?

As an example, many Muslim clerics downcast suicide bombers as legitimate martyrs because it's starkly against the teachings of the Qur'an. But now that the damage has been done, a discredit has been placed (in the eyes of many) that Islam is a violent religious group, despite their actual text which promotes peace.

How has this been seen historically, and if such were done today, how could we tell the difference? Is it really just one word against another?

posted by vanoakenfold to religion & philosophy (18 comments total)

Could that group B not all simply pose as an A-chapter and commit atrocities in the name?

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Northern Ireland.
posted by frogan at 9:41 PM on December 6, 2005

My best friend's dad is a republican, but he's registered as a Democrat so that he can vote for the "worst one" in the primaries...does that count?
posted by SassHat at 9:57 PM on December 6, 2005

(Psst- the phrase you're looking for is "agent provocateur".)
posted by Asparagirl at 10:09 PM on December 6, 2005

Lavon Affair.
posted by ori at 10:48 PM on December 6, 2005

As an example, many Muslim clerics downcast suicide bombers as legitimate martyrs because it's starkly against the teachings of the Qur'an. But now that the damage has been done, a discredit has been placed (in the eyes of many) that Islam is a violent religious group, despite their actual text which promotes peace.

Are you saying that suicide bombers do not actually believe that they're furthering the cause of Islam, and are in fact carrying out their missions with the intent of destroying that religion? I don't think this is really an example of what you're asking for, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
posted by gyc at 11:57 PM on December 6, 2005

Well, such a plan could backfire... :)

But seriously, Richard M. Nixon's campaign was famous for tactics colorfully referred to (by themselves) as "ratfucking." Most of their tricks weren't exactly what you're asking about but they came close.

They'd do things like issue damaging letters and press releases on their opponents' letterhead, pose as the opposition and call venues to cancel scheduled appearances, make it look like attacks on one opponent were coming from another opponent, etc.

And here's an interesting bit of history: one of Karl Rove's first jobs was working for Donald Segretti, the fellow in Nixon's campaign responsible for most of these "Dirty Tricks."
posted by Opposite George at 12:16 AM on December 7, 2005

Oh, and to answer your other question, the extent of these tricks wasn't fully appreciated until the Watergate investigation, so apparently these sorts of tactics can be pretty successful at fooling the public.
posted by Opposite George at 12:21 AM on December 7, 2005

To directly answer your question the best recourse you have as an individual to evaluate different opinions is critical thinking.

Regarding your example, the Koran promotes "peace" in some parts and promotes warfare for others. The idea that Islam means "peace" is wrong at best and a lie at worst. It means "submission" -- the "to God" is implied. Also, there are Muslim judges that think suicide bombing is acceptable as a means of warfare. If the person's cause is considered just, and they go on a suicide bombing mission they are not called terrorists, but witnesses. Each Muslim decides for himself what is just and what isn't.

What I'm trying to say is you probably shouldn't consider Muslims as one large group and one interpretation of the Koran they're all trying to come to terms with. There are many different groups of Muslims, lots of different jurist schools and many judges issuing their own statements on issues sundry. When Western pundits call for an Islamic "Reformation" they are speaking, in my opinion, from a completely ignorant perspective regarding Islam. It shattered into many different groups, some openly hostile, some who simply disagree on certain matters, long before Christians thought about the possibility of reading the Bible in their varied native tongues.

Anybody know why the mass media decided to use cleric with Muslims and why I've never seen them use "cleric" for Catholics? "A high Catholic cleric ruled today that there may in fact be something to evolution."
posted by raaka at 12:32 AM on December 7, 2005

a) New guy, emitting zealotrons, proposing very militant and somewhat dangerous crap.

b) New guy, attempting to link your happy ass with some shady characters or activities.
posted by By The Grace of God at 4:05 AM on December 7, 2005

This is incredibly hard to manage, especially in public actions (in private meetings, it's easier to address). I can't tell you how many times I've seen undercover police in public rallies try to get the crowd to vandalize or attack stores. It's very rarely difficult for the organizers of a group to spot the provacateur, but it's extremely difficult to distance yourself from the public perception of their destructive actions.
posted by allen.spaulding at 5:08 AM on December 7, 2005

I can't tell you how many times I've seen undercover police in public rallies try to get the crowd to vandalize or attack stores.

Oh man, the first time I read this I thought you said, "I've *been* undercover.." Heh.

Yeah, this crap goes on all time, especially in labor demonstrations. I often have wondered how much of the anarchic looting in the "battle of Seattle" was caused by agent provocateurs.

It reminds me of the party game "Werewolf" or "Mafia."

I had an older roommate that used to spy on political groups for cointelpro, posing as a member.
posted by craniac at 5:52 AM on December 7, 2005

Look at PETA. They were infiltrated by secret agents of the meat industry years ago. I mean, there is really no other way to explain their behavior, which has alienated every possibly allied movement or group, as well as the general public.
posted by crabintheocean at 6:46 AM on December 7, 2005

Mad props to asparagirl.....
posted by Pressed Rat at 6:47 AM on December 7, 2005

The simple answer is, "you can't", except perhaps in retrospect if compelling evidence comes to the surface.

One admittedly faulty method might be that most organized groups have a mission statement or a manifesto or some form of published and accessible set of goals and guidelines. Where an individual or faction begins acting identifiably against that mission statement, it should be a cause for concern, regardless of the underlying motive. This is not to suggest that it's appropriate to stand up in a meeting and scream, "Agent Provocateur, thy name is Dennis!" when someone (presumably named "Dennis", in this example) appears to be acting or agitating against the group's established mission statement; it may, after all, result from the normal human tendency to schism over seemingly esoteric and trivial issues.

Failing anything else, keep an open mind and if the activities of the group interest you enough, acquaint yourself with whatever material they've published that is supposed to provide the framework for their activities, and use that to at least better understand what constitutes a positive action by the group (in terms of their stated goals) and what constitutes a negative one.
posted by planetthoughtful at 7:19 AM on December 7, 2005

Cannot we then, as the public, opt toward setting aside those who act drastically different from the rest of the group of whom they supposedly belong as special cases for further study, instead of linking all of the group together? Would that not be the wiser thing to do? I wish this were one of those inherited-knowledge things like how dogs automatically know how to swim ;-P

Another example would be a pastor or priest who gets into some sort of scandal -- Why must all or much of a denomination thus be discredited when one of its leaders succumbs?

Are you saying that suicide bombers do not actually believe that they're furthering the cause of Islam...

I guess that was actually from the perspective of the denouncing clerics. After having read much of the Qu'ran myself (I am not a Muslim) I've noticed that a drastically remarkable amount of the scripture repeats, almost incessantly, that "Allah knows what you're thinking" as if, "He knows why you're really doing what you do."

I frankly am baffled at how Islam's text could be interpreted as violent, because it is quite frankly very peacemaking. Pretty much the brunt of the warfare allowance is just when it keeps the person from worshipping, but when that obstruction is gone, you gotta quit. It's not like the US is preventing Islam from worshipping -- quite the contrary, allowing all to worship as they each seek. Based on this, I am persuaded by the Qu'ran text itself that the suicide insurgents are either imposters or seriously haven't read the text and just listen to brainwashing leaders, who are in the bare minority compared to the vast array of otherwise nonviolent believers. But that's just an aside remark, though.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:39 AM on December 7, 2005

Cannot we then, as the public, opt toward setting aside those who act drastically different from the rest of the group of whom they supposedly belong as special cases for further study, instead of linking all of the group together?

But how is the public to know which group represents "the mainstream," particularly when all groups will claim as much? Many moderate Christians will say that the regressive fundie-types don't represent mainstream Christianity, but if their form of Christianity is the one dictating policy, for example, is that really true? And what's the difference if it is? And of course there are people who will say that Christianity isn't about hate or judgement, so the "God hates fags" crowd aren't truly Christians. But when they're the most visible and the most vocal, how is "the public" to compartmentalize as you describe? Of course all of the above is meant purely as an illustrative example and not to spark a debate about Christianity.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:11 AM on December 7, 2005

If they're any good, you can't.

However, I'd take a careful look at the jackass who insists on acting like the the other side's stereotype of your side. (E.g., the loudmouth "antiwar" idiot who yells about how much he hates the troops and loves Al Qaeda to anyone who'll listen--but you don't know anyone who socializes with him.)
posted by MollyNYC at 1:45 PM on December 7, 2005

The original question was about how you can tell from the outside public's perspective, but the discussion has drifted into how you can tell, period. I was joking about PETA before, but here's my serious response as an organizer:

What difference does it make?

You need to deal with them and neutralize their influence either way if you're going to keep making progress toward concrete goals. Get rid of them. Undermine other group members' confidence in them before they undermine the other group member's confidence in each other. Find a way to make sure they aren't at meetings.

The problem is the same, and the solution is the same, regardless of the person's intentions.
posted by crabintheocean at 8:01 PM on December 7, 2005