Posted as received.

BBC: Let's Kill the Internet and Start Over


Friday, February 17, 2012 – by Staff Report





Viewpoint:
The internet is broken – we need to start over ... Last year, the level
and ferocity of cyber-attacks on the internet reached such a horrendous
level that some are now thinking the unthinkable: to let the internet
wither on the vine and start up a new more robust one instead. On being
asked if we should start again, many - maybe most - immediately argue
that the internet is such an integral part of our social and economic
fabric that even considering a change in its fundamental structure is
inconceivable and rather frivolous. I was one of those. However,
recently the evidence suggests that our efforts to secure the internet
are becoming less and less effective, and so the idea of a radical
alternative suddenly starts to look less laughable. – / Prof Alan Woodward, Department of Computing, University of Surrey
Dominant Social Theme: Look, can we talk? The
Internet is paedophiles' best friend and a virus manufacturer besides.
If we get rid of it, we'll all be a lot safer. And especially the
children. Good Lord, the children! The children!
Free-Market Analysis: It is clear to us by now that the
is increasingly desperate to shut down the Internet any way it can.
This article posted at the BBC (whether or not the author understands
he's been enlisted on behalf of a larger Western elite agenda) is a
good example of a sub dominant social theme within the context of this aim.
The power elite wants to run the world, and what we call the Internet Reformation has badly dented their plans. How does one run a secret, super-duper conspiracy to create a New World Order when one's every move is plastered on the Internet the very next day?
It's next to impossible. The elites have invested heavily in making
their global operations "user friendly." They've tried to pretend that
increasingly authoritarian Western governments and global facilities such as the IMF and UN have agendas that are entirely supportive of human rights and individual prosperity.
Nothing could be further from the truth. What the Internet has shown
us with increasing clarity over this past decade is that Western
banking elites and their enablers and associates will stop at nothing
in their quest for ultimate power.
They wish for one-world government (the UN), a one-world military (NATO), a one-world court (the recently formed Soros-sponsored International Criminal Court), a one-world central bank (the IMF), etc.
The exposure of the elite's goals and its methodologies – its
dependence on the corrupt counterfeiting practices of central banks for
the trillion-dollar torrents of capital necessary to build world
government – has led to an upswell of indignation and scrutiny around
the world.
As a result, many of the elite's dominant social themes are
beginning to founder and fail. The elites had high hopes apparently for
installing a carbon currency around the world based on the fraudulent
message of global warming. But the Internet helped reveal emails that exposed the fraud.


The so-called war on terror
has long been revealed to be both fraudulent and unpopular. Creating a
so-called long war to generate the kind of chaos that is necessary to
move the world toward global governance is perhaps a good idea from an
elite standpoint ... but not one that has worked out well.


As elite memes
have degraded, the attacks on the Internet have stepped up. This
article from the BBC is a good example of the kind of spurious
justifications that are now being put forward to create a groundswell
of support for the removal of a (somewhat) free and independent
Internet.


We need to understand the root of the
problem. In essence, the internet was never intended to be a secure
network. The concept was developed by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (Darpa) as a means of allowing a distributed computer
system to survive a nuclear attack on the US. Those who designed the
Internet Protocol (IP) did not expect that someone might try to
intercept or manipulate information sent across it.


As we expanded our use of the internet
from large, centralised computers to personal computers and mobile
devices, its underlying technology stayed the same. The internet is no
longer a single entity but a collection of 'things' unified by only one
item - IP - which is now so pervasive that it is used to connect
devices as wide-ranging as cars and medical devices …


While not a popular view, I think that
the current internet can only survive if adequate global governance is
applied and that single, secure technology is mandated. This is
obviously fraught with the much rehashed arguments about control of the
internet, free speech, and so on. Then there is the Herculean task of
achieving international agreement and a recognised and empowered
governance body …


I think the answer lies somewhere in the
middle. We can have areas of the internet that are governed by a global
body and run on technologies which are inherently secure, and we can
have areas which are known to be uncontrolled. They can coexist using
the same physical networks, personal computers and user interface to
access both but they would be clearly segregated such that a user would
have to make a clear choice to leave the default safe zone and enter
what has been described as "the seediest place on the planet".


This article is composed within the parameters of
a typical elite dominant social theme. These are the promotional memes
that the elites use to create ever-more authoritarian government. The
idea is to frighten people into giving up control to specially prepared
globalist entities.


In this case, the Internet itself is
presented as a scary place, “the seediest place on the planet.” It is
not, of course. It is, at root, simply a collection of electrons, and
most of the abuses of privacy are likely taking place at the behest of
Western intelligence agencies.


This is the part of the story that Dr.
Woodward leaves out. Whether it is Facebook, Google, YouTube or Yahoo,
US, European and British Intel agencies have apparently penetrated
every part of these electronic facilities and are aggressively (and
usually illegally) mining personal data from them.


One could make the argument, in fact, that without the intelligence abuses, the Internet would not
have nearly so many difficulties. The chances are that many of its
vulnerabilities were put in place by the very agencies that now claim
the Internet is an unsafe place.


How the Internet's electrons came to be
characterized as “unsafe” is a puzzle we will leave to future
historians. But what is more certain to us is that the Internet
Reformation is beginning to have a significant impact on the elites and
their plans for a New World Order.


Articles like this one, when combined with recent
US legislation aimed at shutting down the current Internet using the
tool of copyright violations, begin to provide us with a sense of the
panic that the elites must be currently feeling about the exposure of
their activities.


Conclusion: It
also seems to confirm our hunch that the Internet was not some sort of
elite plot to impose technological dominance on people but a Hayekian
example of spontaneous social order. The old men who must run the
affairs of the Anglosphere elites apparently didn’t see it coming and
still have no idea what to do about it.