Google: Don’t be Hypocrite!

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 19, 2012

Yesterday The Real Agenda explained what would a government controlled Internet would mean for all of us. Today, I want to help us understand how Google, Yahoo and other Internet giants are playing as hypocrites. Many technology corporations, but especially Google supported a major shutdown to protest a government initiative to gain more control of the Internet. However, Google itself is an NSA creation. So why would this Internet monster show opposition to a government sponsored bill that in fact would give it even more dominance in the race to monopolize the net?

Google is already operating on SOPA and PIPA-like measures, blacking out websites and information that should be circulating free on the Internet. Google also helps Youtube remove content from its site, promptly responding to government requests to censure video and audio files. And no, I am not talking about copyright violations. Most of the times the censored content is audio, text or video that directly criticizes government policies around the world.

The real reason Google, Yahoo and other Internet companies are really supporting the movement to oppose SOPA and PIPA is because although these companies are controlled by the governments, there is a power struggle between the giants’ operating heads and their equals in government. Google couldn’t care less about an open, free internet. In fact, this company aids nations like China to carry out mass censorship of websites stationed outside the asian country so that its people cannot access information from abroad.

While Google publicly says that it supports Internet freedom, in private it eliminates websites from its search engines and news search feature. Google de-listed mainly alternative news websites, that in many occasions attract more readers than main stream media sites. Google’s owners are publicly supporters of Barack Obama as well as attendees of the yearly meeting known as Bilderberg. That opens some room to think that Google’s censorship is, in part, a more against political dissent.

The important point here is that whether you agree or not with anyone’s position on politics, the economy or anything else, there is no room to allow politicians or corporations to determine what content is seen and which content is censored. There is no legitimacy on any initiative to give partial or complete control of a tool that has been built with taxpayers’ money to a single government or corporation. As a reminder, although Google itself built much of its operating platform, the truth is that it navigates its tentacles on citizen-owned property.

So if Google and other search engines are already “doing it”, why do they need a law? It has been a common occurrence that when the powers that be desire to impose censorship or any other kind of limitation on The People, they do it incrementally and as quietly as possible. It is exactly on that incremental and quiet nature that lies the success of their freedom-ending policies. Now that Google and Youtube have managed to get away with censorship inside the USA and elsewhere, it is just the right time to introduce legislation that once and for all makes it legal to censor anyone who does no comply with political correctness and government policy. This is what happens in China today.

Don’t expect the US government to simply shelf the SOPA and PIPA bills as the main stream whore media is reporting. They will do the same they did with NDAA, Cybersecurity Act and Patriot Act: Shelf it for a while, until some fake intelligence is thrown out. Then there will be 80 accomplices in Congress who will vote for it and a puppet president to sign it into law. It is also important to remember that just because something is the law, does not mean it is legal. More often than not it is illegal.

Internet 9/11 Courtesy of Staged Wikileaks Disclosures

Is Wikileaks the Internet’s Pearl Harbor? Will Julian Assange and his web operation help bring Martial Law to Cyberspace?

by Zen Gardner

Think about it. Where is this seemingly staged Wikileaks furor taking us? While we participate in digging into the juicy tidbits of information that incriminate just about anybody and everybody, where is it all going?

Julian Assange

Lessons of 9/11

While 9/11 served as a wake up call to those awake and aware enough to see the obvious demolitions and misinformation and resultant “Pearl Harbor” effect, most of the world fell for it. And now people are literally bending over, as in airport ‘screenings’, to the onslaught of police state fascism worldwide. It’s staggering. In fact, it’s Orwellian. The armies, police and private sector are at war with the vague concept of terrorism – an unbeatable enemy in a war that can be drawn out indefinitely and fought in any arena necessary.

And what was the result of this declared war on terrorism? Not a war on terror, but an increase in fear and terror, all to justify the economic, social and political clampdown that has followed.

What will the Wikileaks debacle herald?

You guessed it–the last bastion of freedom of information and expression, a free Internet, will topple. After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium–all for the safety and protection of ‘we the people’.

Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the “approved” list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get “on the net”. No biggie. Thanks Julian–job well done.

Warning Signs

#1. Wikileaks—WAY too approved and publicized. Every TV and cable network, press worldwide, official recognition from every level of government. Heck, he even does a TED talk!  Where’s anyone else trying to expose the agenda? Only Julian. Hmmm.

#2. Biggie: This supposed system fighter says the 9/11 truth issue is “a distraction”. Mustn’t step on your bosses’ toes now, should we Julian..  Very suspicious if you ask me.

#3. Wikileaks and Assange’s sketchy background:

The WikiLeaks website first appeared on the Internet in December 2006.[15][16] The site claims to have been “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”.[5] The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified.[17] It has been represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assange and others. Assange describes himself as a member of WikiLeaks’ advisory board.[18] (Wikipedia)

Also, Assange reportedly wrote for both the New York Times and the Economist which is fishy as well–not a real enlightened or ‘alternative’ mindset. His mysterious persona also plays well to the Wikileaks furtive image so people won’t expect to know too much, which also is very ‘convenient’ for keeping anything hidden.

[NOTE: There doesn’t have to be deliberate, conscious involvement in some agenda on Wikileaks’ part, but it helps. He, they, could be ‘useful idiots’ whose program has been conveniently co-opted by the controllers to serve their purpose. Either way, look for the pattern and the effects.]

#4. Watch the hype: There’s a growing crescendo of anger and hate that is now being whipped up–to the point that Assange is being called a new kind of terrorist–and more disturbingly, and as expected, the comparison is now being drawn between Assange and Bin Laden:

Social Media Leaks Categorize Julian Assange  As the Osama Bin Laden Of The Internet

The founder of WikiLeaks is not only a wanted man by the American authorities, his now infamous Web site

WikiLeaks is also under attack by notorious hackers, while its services are being cut-off by Amazon and EveryDNS.net. Although not officially announced, Julian Assange might be considered today’s public enemy number-one, taking the place of the illusive Osama bin Laden. Not since 9/11 has any one figure reached such notoriety due to what many consider acts against a state.

Like bin Laden, Assange has no permanent address, does not maintain a headquarters, employs only a select few confidants and has taken to hiding in covert areas. Younger than bin Laden, Assange at 39 years-old may be a little more mobile than the 53 year-old, choosing to hopscotch the globe versus hibernating in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

While his face resides on the covers of magazines and newspapers around the world, similar to a Wild West ‘Wanted’ poster, little is known about his day-to-day activities. Like bin Laden’s video addresses, while the CIA and other mercenaries are seeking his where-a-bouts, it’s amazing that he still finds ways to release updates justifying his actions. (SOURCE)

Notice also how we’ve been hearing about Wikileaks’ exploits for a few years now, giving us time to make the connection between it and sensational and ‘destructive informational terrorism’. Similarly we heard about Osama through the Yemen and Nairobi attacks being attibuted to him, imprinting his “brand” on the collective mind which led to the foregone phony conclusion that he had masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

Ah, ‘But what about these apparent exposures? Would they attack their own?’

Could all these serious indictments against their own just be a deflecting smokescreen to hide the real purpose? Sure worked last time. So why wouldn’t they risk taking down some of their own to give this psychological operation credibility?

The Tactic Is Very Familiar – Know Your Enemy

First there’s the Hegelian Dialectic – create a problem, provoke a reaction and then implement the pre-planned solution. The staged 9/11 attacks, including the internationally inhabited World Trade Center,  ‘justified’ the ensuing wars and worldwide clampdown on freedoms in the name of ‘security’, including the horrendous Patriot Act that was already written and just waiting for an excuse to be signed and implemented.

Similarly, this attack over the international Internet and drawing in diplomatic communities worldwide by exposing state secrets from a variety of countries will greatly help usher in international measures in the name of ‘security’, probably spearheaded once again by the fascist US government with coinciding EU, Canadian & Australian measures. It’s already under way with the Department of Homeland Security confiscating websites.

All they need is ‘the right incident” to justify bringing on full control. Like “Internet Terrorism”? They just can’t use that term enough now, can they. After all, it’s a war on terror, and “if you’re not for us, you’re for the terrorists.” The ultimate false choice, just like everything else they foist on the human consciousness.

Pretty clever these ol’ boys. It’s in their blood

Those manipulating world events belong to a cult, a brotherhood that hides behind many names and guises, and to which they pledge their absolute loyalty above everything, even their own flesh and blood. Commonly referred to as the Illuminati, this cult has an agenda they work to fulfill using certain rituals, methods and tactics.

One of their central themes and modus operandums is “Ordo Ab Chao”– order out of chaos. Create the chaos, pitting anyone against anyone while controlling and fomenting both sides–hence the double headed red phoenix symbol– for any reason, even killing or exposing their own, to create an illogical madness that they think only they can see through and understand. All the while they are manipulating world governments, banks, armies and corporate leaders and drawing the net on the outcome they have already planned.

Fear and confusion is the climate they love to foment. As long as there’s a confused and uninformed populace, the ignorant and fearful masses will be crying out for help from the ‘powers that be’ – the very “powers that be” that caused all the problems in the first place.

They’re not out to help, they’re out to control. At any cost, by any means necessary.

 

Goodbye to the Free Internet

U.S. Feds Warrantlessly Tracking Americans’ Credit Cards in Real Time…

Washington Times

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will “preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet.” No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the “freedom” of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski‘s draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped “non-public, for internal use only” to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for “openness.”

The issue of “net neutrality” is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user’s connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the “problematic” services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they’re going to be mad. If companies don’t act, they’re just as likely to find irate customers who don’t want their experience bogged down by others.

It’s not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it’s not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC‘s last attempt in this arena. “That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss,” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. “And now the team is about to run the exact same play. … In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so.”

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That’s why Mr. Genachowski‘s proposal should be rejected and Congress should make it even more clear that the FCC should stop trying to expand its regulatory empire.

Related Article:

U.S. Government Violating Limits in Spying