Will the “cyber threat” be the next bin Laden?
Osama bin Laden and the shadowy network of terrorists he supposedly spawned has been the perfect template for controlling physical reality. The fear created by 9/11, and the even worse fear of having it happen again, has bludgeoned common sense from the average person. The Constitution itself has been overthrown, unleashing roving bands of state-sponsored goons to interrogate, molest, and kill with impunity.
And this is only what is happening in America. The engineered financial collapse of the planet has led to a near-worldwide insurrection, whether it is directed specifically toward banksters, or merely in response to soaring food prices in areas already on the verge of starvation. Globalists are attempting to head off Arab unrest by staging controlled opposition to bring the masses back in line, and to an extent it has worked, albeit in predictably messy fashion. However, formerly isolated collapse/revolts such as Iceland, Ireland, and Greece are beginning to spread across Europe in a seemingly unstoppable wave of largely non-violent protest. The response by government to this threat has been to restrict peaceful assembly and bash heads in lieu of proposing sound solutions and redressing legitimate grievances.
The acceleration of the violent police state response has not been without consequence for the controllers. An increasing number of people are beginning to see what living under hot tyranny can really be like. More importantly, it is evident from videos in France, particularly, that people the world over are beginning to awaken to the true culprits who are bringing about their debt slavery and loss of freedom. This is due in large part to the one place where freedom still rings: the Internet.
Activism of all stripes is increasing on a worldwide scale via a mass awakening in the (still) free market of ideas to be found on the Internet. Many of the deceptions that formerly took years to expose, are now routinely uncovered by alternative media in a matter of weeks or even days. Much of the on-the-ground organization and rapid deployment owes to the quick communication lines in cyberspace. From the controllers’ problem-reaction-solution paradigm, something must be done.
Enter the next shadowy terrorist threat.
Against the backdrop of a spate of hack attacks on corporate and government targets, China has been singled out as the most likely originator. China has offered its response as a denunciation of the United States, saying, “The so-called statement that the Chinese government supports hacking attacks is a total fabrication . . . It has ulterior motives.” Those ulterior motives were spelled out in a later statement from China when it called the U.S. the culprit in an Internet War designed to take down Arab regimes and other governments. Indeed, there has been virtual saber rattling from both the Pentagon and NATO, as they have reiterated their cooperation; virtual attacks will lead to a real-world response, leading one military official to state: “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks.”
Today’s story reported on by AFP marks a change in tone from the U.S. lashing out specifically toward China, as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said from a security conference in Singapore: “We take the cyber threat very seriously and we see it from a variety of sources, not just one or another country.” More ominously, British Defence Secretary Liam Fox alluded to a London-based security conference that will be held at the end of the year to address the “war of the invisible enemy.”
At least they pretended that bin Laden was real and hiding around every corner, but by openly labeling the cyber threat as “invisible” we see the stage set for total, permanent control over the infrastructure of the Internet, as well as the ideas finding a home there. The London conference, as Fox tells us “will include discussions on a potential legal framework.”
There seems to be an orchestrated political theater at work in the backdrop of accusations and denials between the U.S. and China. China already has strict Internet controls in place, and the U.S. is working at warp speed to outdo them, as DHS is already seizing domains for merely linking to copyrighted material, while bills are being proposed to use copyright infringement as the pretext for arbitrarily shutting down even the dissemination of information that is supposedly protected under fair use, as stated in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. Additionally, the rules of war are already spelled out in current treaties, which Gates conveniently ignores when he states:
‘serious international tensions’ could be avoided if there were rules ‘that let people know what kinds of acts are acceptable, what kinds of acts are not, and what kinds of acts may in fact be an act of war.’ …
Gates said this would help achieve a ‘clearer understanding of the left and right lanes, if you will, so that somebody doesn’t inadvertently or intentionally begin something that escalates and gets out of control.’
This latest theater only exposes the wider agenda; one that intends to define an international legal framework of rules and regulations that govern the free Internet in response to a shadowy, undefined enemy . . . most likely funded and controlled from within our own borders. It certainly worked after 9/11, which begs the question: is a large-scale Internet false flag on the way to hack into the final bastion of human freedom?