April 5, 2010
Deceit in High Places Part I
"THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR" SECRET WEAPON OF THE DARKNESS
FOREWARNING:
AGENT PROVOCATEUR DEFINED
Agent provocateur [Fr, lit., provoking agent): one employed to associate himself with members of a group or with suspected persons, and, by pretended sympathy with their aims or attitudes to Incite them to some action that will make them liable to apprehension and punishment (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981)
It has often been said, those who win the wars, write the history books. That being the case, one would expect to find the winning side defining its key leaders as the heroes of the saga and the losers becoming history’s villains. But, what if one of the key leaders for the losing side was secretly an inside "plant" for the victors? Chances are pretty good he will look like a failure to future generations. In actuality, he may have done his assigned task very well indeed. He, more than anyone, would have guaranteed that, what was to prove to be the losing side, would be just that . . . the, losing side. Think of it. He was strategically effective because he successfully implemented losing strategies for “his side", willfully mismanaging the movement he was "leading". Indeed, where history knows of such inside agents, they prove to be the determinate of victory.
Of course, the problem lies in knowing who they are. They rarely are ever identified for one of three obvious reasons: (1) their work is perceived as disgraceful, even to their own people; (2) it becomes dangerous to reveal their identity after their work is accomplished; (3) it becomes advantageous to keep the agent in his position of betrayal permanently. However, they do exist. Additionally, every war uses them, including "culture wars". Why? Well . . . who wouldn’t want to CONTROL both sides of a conflict? Especially when the stakes are often so high?
History is replete with such examples. For instance, the Persian Emperor Xerxes, successfully invaded Greece in the year 480 B.C. His massive armies, upwards of a quarter of a million men, ravaged the Greek mainland wherever they traveled. The Greeks didn’t have such massive armies on their side nor the financial ability to stop Xerxes. But, their civilization was being systematically destroyed. What could they do?
Heroism had not been sufficient. The Spartans had taken their heroic stand at Thermopylae and were annihilated. Bribery was out of the question. Xerxes simply could not be bought. He was one of the wealthiest men in the world. In addition, his invasion was designed to avenge the humiliation his father, King Darius, had suffered ten years earlier at the hands of the Greeks at Marathon. As a result, Xerxes burned Athens, already a center of classical culture.
At this point, the leadership of the Greeks hit upon a ruse. You see, the Greeks knew the Persians depended heavily upon the massive Persian fleet. Further; they knew Xerxes wanted the knockout punch, the destruction of the mobile Greek fleet. Most importantly, however, the Greek command knew that, in his vanity, Xerxes believed all Greeks were "barbarians"– men easily bought, having no loyalties nor values.
The Greek command authorized a highly placed Greek agent provocateur who secured Xerxes’ trust. He convinced Xerxes that his information would secure the defeat of the Greeks. Xerxes trusted this Greek "traitor" because the man was a gold mine of Greek information concerning Greek positions, tactics, and plans.
By such counsel, Xerxes was convinced of the necessity of dividing the Persian fleet. The result was the Greek victory of Salamis which saved the Greek civilization from annihilation.
The provocateur’s activity depends heavily upon one point: He must be an astute character analyst. In this case, he had to thoroughly discern the character and motives of Xerxes. As a result he must be able to tell a lie more convincingly than a righteous man the truth. That mean he is usually one who must always be the actor par excellence– outwardly involved and convincing but inwardly detached and conscienceless. His methods are varied and often complex. But, they all revolve around one focused objective: He must secure trust sufficient to manipulate the resources and leadership so as to discredit the character of the latter and erode the organizational efficiency of the former.
Comments(1)
