See other Resistance Articles
Title: WikiLeaks sets the stage for the ‘No Send List’
Source:
Aletho News
URL Source: http://alethonews.wordpress.com/201 ... he-stage-for-the-no-send-list/
Published: Dec 17, 2010
Author: Richard K. Moore
Post Date: 2010-12-17 12:55:07 by Original_Intent
Keywords: Wikileaks, disinformation, PsyOp, Control
Views: 885
Comments: 84
Hillary Clinton has called WikiLeaks “an attack on the international community”. Coming from her, we must assume that is meant in all seriousness. We must compare it to what we saw on our screens on 9/11: “America under attack”. When a Secretary of State announces that we are ‘under attack’, it follows without saying that we can expect some kind of response to that attack. Indeed the word ‘attack’ is more or less reserved for occasions where a response is planned. Otherwise the statement would be interpreted as reflecting weakness and impotence. When America was ‘under attack’, we got the Patriot Act domestically, and never-ending war internationally — the Constitution was shredded along with international law. That was a very big response. What kind of response can we expect when the ‘international community’ is declared to be ‘under attack’, because a website has revealed a few relatively harmless secrets? If the State Department really felt that the WikiLeaks operation was a serious threat to national security, or even a serious embarrassment politically, they could have shut it down at any time. They have their ways. And they could have ‘gotten to’ Assange in one way or another, as they got to David Kelly, who really was a threat, with his testimony that WMDs did not exists, testimony that was never heard about again, after he ‘committed suicide’. Instead, with WikiLeaks, we have Assange at large flaunting it, and we see the leaks being published in the mainstream media, both in print and online, conveniently indexed. What’s wrong with this picture? If the leaks are harmful, why are they doing everything they can to make sure everyone, including any ‘potential terrorists’, sees them? The WikiLeaks affair has become a major dramatic story line on the stage of the global mass media. It’s very much like the launch of a new television series. We’ve got a dramatic personality at the center, seen by some as a super hero and others as a super demon, who is able to reveal a million secrets at a single bound. We’ve got increasing dramatic tension, as the attack alarms ring, the secrets keep coming out, and… nothing decisive is being done. Something must be done! That’s clearly where this story line is leading. By doing nothing decisive, and with Assange out on bail, the message between the lines is that new legislation is needed. Perhaps new legislation is already being discussed; I haven’t been following that part of the story. But as the dramatic tension mounts in the media, so that it becomes ‘obvious’ that something must be done, we can be sure we will end up with a draconian Cyber Terrorism Act, akin to the Domestic Terrorism Act. Clearly, the provisions of this act will be very far-reaching. That has been the consistent pattern with each of our various ‘terrorism’ acts. Currently, anyone can be arbitrarily declared a domestic terrorist, and be locked up forever incommunicado. That hasn’t been happening on any significant scale, yet, but the provisions are that far reaching. Similarly, in a Cyber Terrorism Act, we’ll get a provision that any website can be arbitrarily declared ‘in aid of terrorism’, closed down, and anyone involved with it can be treated as a domestic terrorist. The Act will be that far-reaching, but we probably won’t see a lot of such closures happening. Instead, we’ll get hit in more subtle ways. Websites will simply be seized, without fanfare, and that’s already been happening, under the logo of Homeland Security. I think we can take a clue from the TSA experience at airports, as regards what we can expect at ‘net ports’. Consider, for example, the ‘no fly’ list. If you’re on the list, you can’t fly, they don’t give you any reasons, and they even seem to flaunt how arbitrary the list is. They are arbitrarily restricting your ability to connect with people face to face. Similarly, from what might be called the Communications Security Administration (CSA), we can expect a ‘no send’ list. If you’re on the list, you can’t send or post messages, and no reasons will be given. They will be arbitrarily restricting your ability to connect with people remotely. Already, I’ve been encountering problems with sending, where my IP address has been mysteriously tagged as a spam source, and my ISP claimed to have no explanation. Consider also the invasive screening process at airports. Everyone is treated as a potential terrorist, until they pass the invasive screening process. Similarly, every message anyone tries to send will be treated as a ‘potential cyber threat’, until it passes an invasive ‘threat filter’. Google is already deploying such a filter, and calling it a spam filter. Currently, with manual intervention, you can rescue a message from the filter. The CSA’s filter will simply delete your message, end of story, before it even gets to your ISP. Air travel and the Internet have been the ‘great global connectors’, of people and of ideas. The thrust of ‘security’ measures has had little to do with terrorism, and everything to do with making ‘connection’ more and more difficult. Same story when you try to cross a border in your car. (My Note: For example requiring a Passport to travel to and from Canada. The point being to restrict travel, and, more importantly, the exchange of information.) WikiLeaks is indeed the 9/11 of the Internet. The leaks themselves are an inside job, just like the Twin Towers, with the leaks carefully selected to avoid anything really damaging, or anything embarrassing to Israel. And just as they didn’t scramble the interceptors, they didn’t close down the WikiLeaks site. They let both events play out, down on Highway 61, and then they splashed them all over the media. Such things are always done for a purpose.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 76.
#26. To: Original_Intent (#0)
That's not true. Between web sites being accessable via IP addr, mirror sites (over 1500 that I last saw) and bittorret tech out there, keeping any info off the net is beyond any government's capability. Just FYI...
That's not true. Between web sites being accessable via IP addr, mirror sites (over 1500 that I last saw) and bittorret tech out there, keeping any info off the net is beyond any government's capability. Just FYI... Oh, I agree that once the information is out there it is out there, but as an operation there are any number of ways to shut it down. Sometimes people have "accidents". Just ask Dr. David Kelley, Deoborah Jean Palfrey, and Paul Wellstone. The debate could be moderated by the Reverand Martin Luther King and scored by John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It is naive to think that people who would murder millions, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, would hesitate a second to murder a flea that was biting them UNLESS he was their flea.
By that logic, anything that happens that appears to be against the government's interest is presumed to be a fake, covert op. And since discussion here on 4um is generally anti-government (while still being pro-country) then I suppose 4um is presumed to be a covert op as well. After all, if they wanted to shut 4um down, they could. While I do agree that there are people in this world who would not and have not hesitated to instigate the murder of 100's of thousands or even millions to further their interests, and that W Bush is one of those people as he demonstrated handily, I don't subscribe to the theory that the government is all powerful. It is, after all made of up of the same dumb-down public that passes for educated in the USA today. And killing Assange wouldn't stop it. Nor would killing the whole crew. Hackers wouldn't accept that. Others would rise up, but probably what the hackers would do is design a new internet protocol for sharing info anonymously through something similar to a bittorrent type service. In fact there is/was a "darknet" type protocol for filesharing that way. In cyberspace, the field is permanently slanted against those desiring to keep secrets and in favor of those who wish to share info. Hackers will win this war in the end. Mark my words.
By that logic, anything that happens that appears to be against the government's interest is presumed to be a fake, covert op. Did I say that? No. You're engaging in weak logic. As we both know there are other data points as well. However, deaths of inconvenient people is not uncommon either - take Ron Brown for example - and the Flight Attendant who allegedly survived the crash but sadly and unfortunately died in the helicopter flight down the mountain from a severed femoral artery. Look up the femoral artery sometime it is the most major artery in your legs. If you have a severed femoral artery you are going to lapse into unconsciousness from blood loss in about 30 seconds. A Stewardess with a severed femoral artery would have been long dead before any medivac. However, there are circumstances where people who are inconvenient do manage to stay alive - usually by getting out and getting as much public awareness as possible. However, if Assange was actually wreaking as much havoc as all the caterwauling would suggest a way could be found to silence him one way or another. Don't kid yourself the forces at play under the surface have the power to do just that. There are only two likely reasons for his still being alive: 1. He's their boy. Or 2. Too much publicity at the moment. (However, that did not stop them from whacking Princess Diana, JFK, RFK, JFK jr., Paul Wellstone, or MLK.) I'm sure they could, but it would be too obvious and shutting down one small forum cures nothing. There are plenty of other forums some of them a lot more anti-government and conspiratorial than 4um. I've never accused criminals of being bright - just brutal. Although some of the people working in the shadow government/black ops are are what could be classified as "evil geniuses" - after all their Psychs have turned American Television into one gigantic mind control scheme. Being insane does not stop them from being insanely intelligent. However, they have a poor sense of prediction and their logic is that of the insane. It does not take a great degree of intelligence to be evil since most people are not evil and often it is simply not real to them that someone could be as evil as the people we are up against who have managed to grasp the reigns of power. Not being willing to accept it and being able to stop it are two different things. Why do you think the shadow gov is working to find a way to corral the internet without stampeding the sheep? Hackers are a nuisance, nothing more. Some of the most proficient hackers already work for the government. The Israelis have them, the Chinese have them, and we have them. The shadow gov is not yet so powerful that they dare announce their supremacy as the society around them would collapse taking them with it. That is why you have seen the gradual militarization of police, the build up of Mercenary outfits such as Blackwater/Xe, and the imposition of tighter and tighter controls on movement and expression. Free Speech Zones anyone? The frog is being boiled slowly and the puppet masters will not become open about their control until it is absolute, and they are working hard toward that end. Cyberspace can be shut down on a moment's notice. Sever the backbone and it is dead. That would of course be in and of itself a big revelation as to the true state of affairs, but you are not going to get a lot of hackers doing much of anything if all of their access routes are disabled. People would try to get around it, but it would be local and disorganized. No hacker group can muster the same level of resources as a national government.
The government NEEDS the net running for commerce and so much more, so the gov has a love/hate relationship with the net. And that assumes they really could if the wanted. Unless other countries agree and do the same, the US, including the gov, would suffer more than anyone/anything else.
The government NEEDS the net running for commerce and so much more, so the gov has a love/hate relationship with the net. And that assumes they really could if the wanted. Unless other countries agree and do the same, the US, including the gov, would suffer more than anyone/anything else. You have to understand the logic of power. More than they need or want the internet the hereditary Bankster Families and the Royals they are allied with and intertwined with desire power, and they will do whatever they feel is necessary to maintain that power. From the point of view of the normal person it is not sane or logical, but that is their perspective. You can see the action at a smaller scale in the tinpot dictator who will kill anyone and everyone to maintain their autocratic position. And they are in constant fear of revolt and loss of power and thus you see the creation of Secret Police and all the apparatus that goes with the oppressive dictatorial state to maintain power. So, while it might be a major inconvenience if it is in their view the internet or their position atop the pyramid the internet loses every time. At this point the U.S. and the U.K. (including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the rest of the British Commonwealth) are pretty much under control, and that is also where most of the top hackers are.
This is not about their *desire* for power. This is about the ability to control it. Bottom line, you really over estimate what they are capable of. Actions have consequences. It's true at all levels, small and great.
This is not about their *desire* for power. This is about the ability to control it. Their inability to sanely control power is part of the problem. The desire to be in a position of power is in and of itself not bad. It is how that power is exercised which truly defines it. Left to their own devices, unopposed or ineffectively opposed, I see two possible outcomes: Social collapse into an anarchic state followed by the rise of an autocratic state. Or the imposition of a totalitarian system somewhere between "Brave New World" and "Dante's Inferno". I want to be careful to not be insulting because that is not my intent, but quite frankly the naivete encapsulated in your statement surprises me. You are an intelligent man, of that I have no doubt, however your view of the capabilities of our opposition woefully underestimates them. There are so many evidences of their activity and the results of their actions that your statement bespeaks an unawareness of the scope of the problem. At this point we are facing: Nearly total control of all major media - television, newspapers, and motion pictures. Nearly total control of the banking and monetary system (the Chinese are fighting back but it does not do us much good - other than to slow the tightening of the financial hegemony). Essentially complete control of the U.S. Federal Government, that of Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (and all their possessions). Through those puppet strings they control about 2/3 of the effective military of the planet. The military budget of the U.S. alone is greater than the rest of the world combined. The centralization of police power in the U.S. through various Federal Agencies and Programs e.g., FEMA and the "Fusion Centers" etc., ... The complete control of CIA and FBI (which were corrupt to begin with but have grown far worse). The proliferation of the medicalization of life's problems with the solution being drugging via various Psychiatric drugs - Anti-Depressants and Atypical Anti-Psychotics being the two largest categories. This has been done to the point to where about 1 in 7 adults is either now on or has been on one of those drugs. The control has been established without a lot of fanfare or advertisement but it is there. Jesse Ventura was very revealing when he pointed out that there was a CIA detachment in the Governor's Offices when he took over as Governor of Minnesota. I presume that there are like detachments in every State Capitol. Much of the control is exercised via mass manipulation - television being the main venue, but it is not limited to TV. No, the control is not yet absolute but it has reached a very very dangerous level and the approach is being made upon absolute control. The Internet has been a two edged sword as it has allowed the spread of information, but that is not enough. As long as the electoral system is under the control of outside influences, which it is on the national stage, then there is no peaceful way to defang the beast. We still have some freedom at the local level but even that is beginning to come under control with installation of psychotic police, and increasing controls on speech and movement. I could spend several hours on this, and I could organize the presentation a little better, but the signs are all there. They, what we call the "NWO" which is mostly the Banksters, the Old Nobility, and organized Psychiatry are spending a lot of time and money to build their "Brave New World". That it is a psychotic vision is what makes it dangerous. Just envision the worst of "Brave New World" and "1984" combined and you can reach a basic approximation of where all of these plans are headed.
Evidence, like how WL must be a covert op because the info they released hurts Israel's enemies? Which is the same thing as saying "I didn't like what they published?" That is not evidence, OI, especially when they are supposedly only 1-2 % of the way through publishing the cables, but that is what some of the supposed patriot types are citing. I know what it's like to run a forum and attempt to defend the right of others to speak their minds, and in doing so I was attacked, OI. Perhaps much like Assange is being attacked. Christine didn't understand why I was doing the things I was on LP, until she started running 4um, and then I remember her mentioning to me that "I know what it's like now" to do the best job you can at a thankless job, but doing it because it's the right thing to do, only to be attacked for doing it BECAUSE you just didn't do it the way some armchair warriors, of which there are no shortage on the net, *KNOW* it should be done though some kind of divine revelation, no doubt, since they have no experience whatsoever in the subject. I was further relentlessly attacked here because I dared, in one fleeting moment, express some degree of value of life for the Iraqi people which was somehow twisted into being anti-2nd Amendment. Thankfully there were some who listened to me but others refused to, those whom you and I would both agree are intelligent people. So I guess OI that I can kindof empathize with what Assange is going though right now, which is much like what Ron Paul has gone through as well. There will always be people, in spite of being intelligent, who will come to wrong conclusions about good people simply because they disagree or refuse to understand the decisions those good people make, again, the lack of experience in the work those people actually do being no obstruction. Now do I know for a fact that Assange IS on the level? Of course I can't know that. But I do know for certain that people who do conscientious type things and become well known ARE ALWAYS demonized and accused of having screwed up motives, so the accusations that are being targeted on Assange is, or should have been, fully predictable from the outset. I understand "openleaks.com" is going to be coming online in about a week, started by WL defectors, and they have some nifty plan to release info to one reporter after another until someone finally does a story on it. How long will it be before they too are accused of some Israeli ties? That by, again, people who have no idea of the logistics that are behind running an operation like that? OI, even intelligent people can delude themselves into seeing things that simply are not there. Intelligence is no safeguard against falling for such a thing. Perhaps one difference between you and me is that I know what I don't know. As for your quote above, I stand by my previous statement. Actions have consequences, and that is true for anyone who tries to control, great or small. I think the PTB's would be very happy for fiat money to continue to work as it has been, but the consequences are now coming to bear, and it's not something that they can control. Of course one can always say "It's all part of the grand plan, they planned for the economy to crash". Unfortunately events will unfold in only one way and there will always be intelligent people who will claim that, regardless of how it unfolds, it unfolded according to some master plan. Ergo, the PTB's are just all powerful types and we have no hope of ever fighting back. And if planet Earth exploded tomorrow, that would be part of their plan as well. No OI, I do not accept that these PTB's are on par with God himself. But if I'm wrong, I'm just wrong.
Your summation is terrific. Yet, two days has elapsed since your post and no response. Can't OI (at least) acknowledge your otherwise well thought out post?
Uh, buck, we were at an impasse. He is well aware of the evidence and chain of reasoning as laid out. Since he has his mind made up regardless there is little point in continuing. I believe a preponderance of the evidence and actions point at WeakeyLinks being a PsyOp to justify Internet Censorship. The exemption given to Israel is really just an indicator as to the likely force behind WeakeyLinks (along with collaboration with the major media which is firmly under Zionist control). So, there is little point in rebutting again. The facts and circumstances speak for themselves.
I agree there is an impasse. We're both convinced of things the other does not see. Not much else to be said.
Concur. But I'm right and your wrong. Mom said so. Na, na, na, na, na.
Okay, now THAT is funny! I think in time we'll see what the real story is with WL. I'm in no rush.
I think in time we'll see what the real story is with WL. I'm in no rush. Glad you enjoyed. I didn't want to turn a legitimate divergence of opinion into anything more than we disagree on our interpretation of the currently available facts. I can't say that I am in a rush other than I have a passion for wanting to know the truth - and that applies to any issue or circumstance. One of my other reasons for leaning toward thinking it is a PsyOp (other than all of the suspicious connections to the Rothschilds etc., ...) is the convenience and convergence of events. The FCC has just approved letting the big ISP's have means of soaking the using public for more - along with an implied censorship via fees. It is one of those "coincidences" which I question whether it was a "coincidence" or part of the overall program. Kind of like the way S.510 "The Food Control Act" was rammed through at the last minute.
Yeah... between BP, this past year and your pal, Gordon Duff ... you have really expressed the same. You are a bull-shitter MAXIMOSIS.
OMG .. a plagiarized picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am comforted about your capabilities more and more.
Just a quick point ... its your thread. You can chose to defend your own silly BS or not. So far, you can post plagiarized pictures. This makes you a candidate for state institution getting a PEP talk about the Internet because you can't defend yourself. Oh well..... where is all that intellectual might that you want us to believe that you wield? In your sanitized state-workers handler's hands just before the walk in the backyard before giving some hearty dinner? OI, you can't discuss ANYTHING with a clear, objective perspective other than soe rant about conspiracy theories. And, as soon as you feel that you are placed on the defensive, you get into a continuous grind.... to a halt. Its OK... I know your shortcomings ... its not all your own fault... so don't take it personally.
#77. To: buckeroo (#76)
Poor buck. All that hard work Trolling and all you get in return is disrespect. That must make you the Rodney Dangerfield of the forum (although between you and me he was funnier at it).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIf the State Department really felt that the WikiLeaks operation was a serious threat to national security, or even a serious embarrassment politically, they could have shut it down at any time.
#28. To: Pinguinite (#26)
If the State Department really felt that the WikiLeaks operation was a serious threat to national security, or even a serious embarrassment politically, they could have shut it down at any time.
#30. To: Original_Intent (#28)
It is naive to think that people who would murder millions, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, would hesitate a second to murder a flea that was biting them UNLESS he was their flea.
#33. To: Pinguinite (#30)
It is naive to think that people who would murder millions, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, would hesitate a second to murder a flea that was biting them UNLESS he was their flea.
And since discussion here on 4um is generally anti-government (while still being pro-country) then I suppose 4um is presumed to be a covert op as well. After all, if they wanted to shut 4um down, they could.
While I do agree that there are people in this world who would not and have not hesitated to instigate the murder of 100's of thousands or even millions to further their interests, and that W Bush is one of those people as he demonstrated handily, I don't subscribe to the theory that the government is all powerful. It is, after all made of up of the same dumb-down public that passes for educated in the USA today.
And killing Assange wouldn't stop it. Nor would killing the whole crew. Hackers wouldn't accept that....
In cyberspace, the field is permanently slanted against those desiring to keep secrets and in favor of those who wish to share info. Hackers will win this war in the end. Mark my words.
#34. To: Original_Intent (#33)
Cyberspace can be shut down on a moment's notice. Sever the backbone and it is dead.
#35. To: Pinguinite (#34)
Cyberspace can be shut down on a moment's notice. Sever the backbone and it is dead.
#36. To: Original_Intent (#35)
You have to understand the logic of power.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#36)
(Edited)
You have to understand the logic of power.
Bottom line, you really over estimate what they are capable of. Actions have consequences. It's true at all levels, small and great.
#39. To: Original_Intent, Christine (#38)
I want to be careful to not be insulting because that is not my intent, but quite frankly the naivete encapsulated in your statement surprises me. You are an intelligent man, of that I have no doubt, however your view of the capabilities of our opposition woefully underestimates them. There are so many evidences of their activity and the results of their actions that your statement bespeaks an unawareness of the scope of the problem.
#43. To: Pinguinite, Original_Intent (#39)
Evidence, like how WL must be a covert op because the info they released hurts Israel's enemies? Which is the same thing as saying "I didn't like what they published?" That is not evidence, OI, especially when they are supposedly only 1-2 % of the way through publishing the cables, but that is what some of the supposed patriot types are citing.
#44. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, Nostradumbass, Pinguinite, all (#43)
#54. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, Nostradumbass, all (#44)
#55. To: Pinguinite (#54)
#59. To: Original_Intent (#55)
But I'm right and your wrong. Mom said so. Na, na, na, na, na.
#68. To: Pinguinite (#59)
Okay, now THAT is funny!
#69. To: Original_Intent (#68)
I have a passion for wanting to know the truth
#71. To: buckeroo (#69)
#74. To: Original_Intent (#71)
#75. To: buckeroo (#74)
#76. To: Original_Intent (#75)
Replies to Comment # 76. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 76.