BBC: Let’s Kill the Internet and Start Over
(THE DAILY BELL) 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. – BBC/ 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 Anglosphere power elite 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.