• Head for the Hills, the End Is Nigh

    Email Print
    Share

    On
    December 20 (2002), the New York Times published a story
    with an exceedingly ominous headline: "Bush
    Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet
    ."

    I
    can think of some reasons not to be as alarmed as I am at this bit
    of news and to greet this is just another ho-hum from a big journal.
    When you ask, Who is so naïve as to suppose the administration
    was not monitoring already? This simply appears as confirmation
    of what is going on.

    Another
    yawn comes from realizing this news is actually old stuff, as noted
    in the article. The proposal was adumbrated September last in "draft
    form." (When the draft appeared it called for "industry"
    to do the monitoring, but now, in the current version, government
    will undertake to do it. Surprise! Surprise!)

    And
    I am sure you can find other notes of "business as usual"
    in the article.

    The
    dead-pan reporters, John Markoff and John Schwartz, who never come
    even close to saying the dread word censorship, run on for a couple
    of dozen short paragraphs about how the purpose of the proposal
    is, of course, the urgent search for terrorist activities and not
    at all about invading privacy, etc., etc., which is the worry of
    the Internet service providers and others they interviewed.

    But
    any lover of the Internet is going to get cold chills from, if nothing
    else, the story's lead: "The Bush administration is planning
    to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a
    centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and,
    potentially, surveillance of its users."

    Surveillance!
    Ah, how deliciously World War II (movie version). Can you see those
    marvelous Nazi officers that Hollywood always had on tap, asking
    for your papers as you attempt to escape on the last train out of
    Berlin? They'll surveillance you all right, have no fear. Ach! Ceeteezen
    Weiss, strengst verboten! (I remember those words from some
    war movie).

    I
    have long felt the Bush Administration is not shaping up as the
    most glorious friend of freedom the world has ever seen. I have
    said before in this space that whenever the boilerplate rolls out
    from the Oval Office you can usually do a direct Orwellian translation:
    peace means war, security means danger, freedom means government
    control, etc. That's when they are talking platitudes or denying
    the obvious.

    But
    when they are telling you what's coming they manage to be a bit
    more direct: the title of this proposal is "The National Strategy
    to Secure Cyberspace."

    Also
    one Ms. Tiffany Olson, deputy chief of staff for the President's
    Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (don't you love those titles?)
    said, according to the Times article, that the need for a
    large-scale operations center is real, because Internet service
    companies and other online companies only have a view of the part
    of the Internet that is under their control. "We don't have
    anybody that is able to look at the entire picture. When something
    is happening we don't know it's happening until it's too late."
    (Like 9/11 presumably?)

    Or
    this from an unidentified official with a "major data services
    company": "Am I analogizing this to Carnivore? Absolutely.
    But in fact it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much smaller
    feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole Internet."

    Gary
    North has made a virtuoso demonstration of the miracle of the Internet
    in offering just three or four links that revealed the depth and
    extent of the linkage of the CFR, the OSS and CIA, the Rockefeller
    interests, and the national government under a whole string of Presidents
    since FDR.

    Just
    for starters, FDR was a Rockefeller man through and through and
    his alter ego, Harry Hopkins, often credited with "winning
    the war," carried water for the Rockefellers all his life.
    The Rockefellers hired a couple of historians (academics are notoriously
    cheap) to falsify the record of FDR's role in the start of WW II,
    and that's just one thing to their credit. As a friend of mine said,
    they rigged up a long-lasting depressed stock market in the 30s
    and then "bought the country back with sandwiches."

    Missing
    from the panorama North opened to view was any comment on a particular
    bte noir of mine, Beardsley Ruml, the inventor of the withholding
    tax, a Rockefeller employee and later government official, who is
    deserving of a special day on the national calendar set aside for
    the burning of his effigy in every county public square. Money buys
    loyalty big-time, but loyalty to the commonwealth? Not a bit of
    it.

    I
    hope that somebody who knows more about the possibilities in this
    area, and the technical side of whether or not it is possible for
    the Powers That Be to control the Internet as they now control the
    major media, will now come forward to reassure us that I am wrong
    to see this as a real threat to the ability to check the suppressed
    history of the age just past and to find out what is really going
    on today.

    I
    have great respect for people mastered by the desire to dominate.
    In the end they are headed for ruin, but they are the devil's own
    instruments while they are in action, and they famously don't like
    criticism. They are very thin-skinned and, like Orcs, very ugly
    when aroused.

    December
    21, 2002

    Tom
    White [send him mail] writes
    from Odessa, Texas.

    Tom
    White Archives


         

    Email Print
    Share