United Nations is Eyeing Complete Take-Over of the Internet

by Jane Gaffin

 

I am thankful to have lived long enough to experience the miracle called Internet. I also hope to die before a gang of United Nations tin-pot dictators and potentates destroy the Internet like they do everything their greedy mitts touch.

For decades, the UN member-state delegates have deliberately wasted our tax dollars paid to them without our knowledge or consent, dismantled our constitutions, controlled our legislation and immigration, encroached on and controlled our personal lives to the point of turning earth’s inhabitants into prisoners.

The eminent Lord Conrad Black aptly describes the United Nations as “a ludicrous playpen for the failed states and most odious despotisms of the planet.”

Following the 9-11, 2001 attack on America, Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s Liberals started its march to control cyberspace. The fast ushering in of the draconian parliamentary act purported to be a War on Terrorism turned into a War on the Internet.

Industry Canada’s first step was to firewall all e-mail sites on its Canada-wide network of computers. Thank goodness, Ottawa was not able to pull off that scam.

Now, the rapacious United Nations in its bid to operate under a One World (Dis)Order, a monster that ought to be put Out-of-Order like a rusty relic that has outlived its uselessness, proposes to police and control the lucrative Internet to feed its insatiable appetite for money and power.

A number of world governments are in agreement of a UN Internet take-over in the belief that protection is needed from those “bad actors, hackers, leakers and undisciplined Internet users”.

Translation: stupid, low-life minions aren’t qualified intellectually to express and share ideas and opinions over the Internet. Only the elite should have the privilege to access such a valuable commodity.

The loudest cheerleader to sanction a take-over is the United States that was quietly waiting in the wings for WikiLeaks to dump booty onto computer networks, an orchestrated diversionary fraud of monumental proportions, if I ever saw one.

Even a techno-peasant with a grain of gumption would know that a great deal of time was required to download 250,000 government documents.

Not even a dull-witted bureaucrat manning an important computer system could sit day in and day out with his head up his armpit not noticing material was being sucked out of the system--especially after WikiLeaks boldly announced it was going to strike again.

Who in the United States government unlocked all the security programs, disconnected the alarm bells and sirens, and released passwords that enabled a website owner/publisher to waltz in unencumbered to so-called secured government systems and roam around in the confidential databases for days downloading sensitive information without interruption?

Under an open-door policy to a 30-year-old antiquated system, a five-year-old could have accessed the same material. Jason Assange can hardly be labeled a “hacker” or a “thief” on an espionage mission if the material was served to him on a silver platter.

Although Assange is said to be an Australian, Americans are involved in this exercise. Under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment they have a right--nay, an obligation—to download and disseminate documents that prove the morally-bankrupt government has been lying to, cheating on, and stealing from the people for no less than 50 years.

The so-called “national security breach” had to be an “inside job” so the manipulative government would have an excuse to do a major brain sudsing on the gullible public.

Taking over the Internet will keep the world safe from “cyber terrorists”, the politicos chirped.

After any disaster, panicked citizens can be convinced of anything. Once again, the government falsely claimed a great need for tightening security in the guise of “public safety”.

The same attitude prevailed when the 9-11 attack spurred the United States and Canada to brainwash the masses into believing “security” trumps “civil liberties”. People with a herd mentality mooed in unison: “Whatever it takes to be safe.”
Government’s job is not to keep people safe; it can’t. Government’s job is to uphold the constitution and keep people free.

In the wake of WikiLeaks, the United States immediately pulled the plug on a minimum of 25 websites without notice or reason. The only recourse to web administrators was to ask the unanswered question “why”.

Google, parent of You Tube, sent notices that InfoWars.com videos were being removed. Why? Were Marxist groups not able to stomach Alex Jones’ hard-hitting exposés? (Some videos have been reposted.)

I have no quarrel with Google as a private company holding the right to set its own terms and policies. But it is unprofessional not to offer consumer guidelines and not to provide reasons why a video is dumped. Is it possible that Big Brother Google is reaching out to clasp hands with the UN devil?

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), speaking on a You Tube video, had the chutzpah to specifically target Fox News and MSNBC for banishment from the Internet on the selfish basis that right-wing alternative news networks are becoming too popular and are posing a competitive threat to the Marxist mainstream media.

Proponent of prohibition for some but not all? Tell it to the ghost of your elitist great granddaddy, Johnny D., who proclaimed he didn’t want a nation of thinkers but a nation of workers.

The wasteful UN holding a worldwide monopoly to the worldwide web would infringe individual natural rights of freedom of speech and drive Internet user fees into the stratosphere. Internet service would be rendered prohibitive for the ordinary person.

Anybody privileged to stay online would be confronted by UN Thought Police poking around in industry and individual secrets (which Google and governments already do).

High-risk take-down squads would swoop in to conduct raids and drag the computer criminals off to a concentration camp.

No more free flow of ideas. No more criticizing governments. No more fun.

The UN would dictate to newspapers what materials they can publish, when they can publish it, and who they can hire. No article, book, broadcast, video or film could be produced unless personally authorized by the One World Order’s High Priest.

In the interim, Reclaiming Media is happy to try filling the slot.

For these and other reasons, the Internet must never be hijacked by the United Nations or any government. The Internet must remain unregulated in an open market. In case the UN--or any government--should successfully sink its claws into the Internet, technological wherewithal does exist to establish a closed telecommunications network, capture a signal, encrypt computer language, code messages into indecipherable cipher and block signals as shields against snoops.

Should the barbarians manage to break down the door, the IT wizards can repeat the iteration and burrow deeper underground. Doing business on the black market means you would be operating perilously as a criminal.

If you, an ordinary citizen without political connections, could somehow still afford the luxury of staying on the Internet, you could operate on the open market.

Open market means prohibition to all information except government-controlled websites. You would have to endure government-issued registration and permits just to own a computer. Only politically-correct, specially-selected writers or broadcasters would possess essential government licenses and be microchipped to practice their craft on restrictive websites.

To thwart a probable enemy coup, the Internet community must be on guard, firing well-directed warning volleys across the bow at out-of-touch politicians, bureaucrats and other troublesome figures, then prepare to elevate the campaign to “nuclear” because the Internet is already showing grave signs of usurpation by a den of United Nations thieves.

December 28, 2010

-- 30 --

The author can be reached at Jane(at)diArmani.com

Copyright 2010 diArmani.com