I know for a fact that access to my own website is blocked by many colleges and libraries in the UK, who put me on their ‘proscribed’ list for my non-PC views. But, at least there are other ways to access it. I can put up with this kind of childish game… but there now appears to be a different, deadly-serious game afoot – the complete silencing of dissent on the internet.
It is almost impossible to see dissent displayed in other media, who tend to stick to popularist and government lines. In this way, the current social movement is determined not by the people but by small bullying groups with vested interests. Right now these are leftist, immoral, anti-religionist, Marxist and Fascist. The few are intimidating and controling everyone else.
Until now, the internet has been a refuge, the only place you will find alternative views and opposition to enforced opinions. We have seen this most recently in the matter of climate change, though there are other nasty movements that are opposed on the internet.
Web Sites Being Blocked
Reports are flying around on the internet - until they are stopped - that many sites providing dissident views are not just being blocked but may also be closed down. Some years ago, Asian sites providing blatantly awful sexual images and really bad sexual text, were closed down by Singapore authorities, because youngsters could access the internet and be badly affected. Frankly, I agreed with this. I also agree with those who say such sites should be placed in a special hard-to-reach section of the internet, where access can only be provided to those who deliberately seek-out such disgusting stuff, by going through a process of registration. Yes, this is a form of censorship, but there cannot be total free speech. Everyone knows that, because some things are just too vile to be given ready access. Jihad sites promoting head-chopping are just one example.
But, when it comes to voicing legitimate views about politics and religion, etc., there should be no ban. Only those who wish to tighten their grip with fake theories will resort to controlling the internet for these reasons! They are afraid of alternative views and want to retain power, so they clamp down with false legal prerogatives. The wolves are trying to silence the lambs!
It is now claimed that the printed media, through governments, are considering the ban of all sites publishing political and socially inconvenient material that could take away support from them. There is talk of an ‘Internet 2’ being installed, to replace the current internet. The UN would never admit to it, but given its Marxist structure and intentions, it is not beyond imagination for it to act that way. This isn’t ‘conspiracy theory’ – it is based on hard facts already known to us about the UN, Obama and other politicians like Gordon Brown, who try their very best to omit any opposition from the media.
Free Speech Sites Blocked
In the first week of February, Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com were blocked to readers in New Zealand. The block was removed when the sites made formal complaints. The blocking was done by ISPs using Asia Netcom for international traffic. (infowars.com 8th Feb).
The site receives regular emails from readers, who say the Infowar site is blocked to them. The reason given is ‘hate speech’ or ‘offensive material’. These are the same ‘reasons’ given for blocking my own site in the UK, by academic and library sites, by local councils, by ISPs (Internet Service Providers), and also by routers (who act as go-betweens). Yet, like similar sites, all I am doing is providing alternatives to current social and political propaganda!
A major railway station in the UK, St Pancras, used by millions of international travellers every year, blocks Prison Planet and Infowars and other political sites. MySpace also blocks such sites. And I have known Google to block mention of my name and work on many occasions, depending on the topic! Most of the time these blocks are not known to the websites who are blocked. Many months or even years can elapse before they discover large sections of surfers are precluded from reading their material. Very often, a complaint will resolve the situation… but this is not the point. The point is that websites with valid opinions and views are being censored because owners of ISPs and major sites do not like what is being said.
Time Warner subscribers in California were also barred from reading Infowars and Prison Planet material until readers complained. The UK’s Tiscali blocked the sites after the 7/7 bombings in London, though everyone had a right to be horrified and disgusted by Islamic extremism, and to say so publicly. As Infowars said “the fact that ISPs can selectively block certain websites at the flick of a switch, gives us a frightening preview of what a Chinese-style government regulated internet would look like, which is exactly what influential insiders are calling for.” It is what Obama wants. The UK Labour Party wants the same thing. So does the EU and UN.
At a Davos Economic Forum, the Chief Research and Strategy Officer for Microsoft said that ‘the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers’ licenses – in other words, government permission to use the web.’ (blog.seattlepi.com) Yes, it is easy to say that this is only theorizing… but Obama is presently slamming the US with his socialist ‘theorizing’, which is destroying the country as a whole!
Google is very pro-green (because of the financial rewards). Though I have requested instant updates when my name or my books are mentioned on the internet, I get nothing routinely about them! Instead, I have to do searches. This applies in particular to anti-green material I produce.
Laws are being formulated in the UK, Australia and US, to ban anything government considers to be ‘undesirable for public consumption’. In the UK, for example, anyone who even queries the normality or morality of homosexuality can be hauled before the courts. The same applies if anyone mentions Islam in a poor light. In both cases, expressing a legitimate opinion is called ‘hate speech’ and the law is used to full effect! The same can easily be done for political and religious material. Socialists cannot stand alternatives to their party thinking. And it is socialists who want bans on the internet. Do I have any respect for socialism? Nope. None at all.
Cass Sunstein has called on Obama to ban internet sites that host non-socialist views, or, a tax, on anything government does not like (Prison Planet, Jan 14th, 2010). As I keep on saying, this is outright Marxism and Fascism in operation. It is going on under your noses… but who will stand and fight? You might think banning a website is no great shakes. But, wait until the same laws are used against you if you say something in the street. Wait for the single-party country as a form of police control! Then, it will be too late.
Laughably, Sunstein wants to ban ‘conspiracy theorizing’. But, if he does that, the theories will prove to be real! In the Infowars site’s comments section, someone said that if Infowars wants to stop Sunstein barring views he doesn’t like, then it is no better than Sunstein. Hardly. Sunstein et al want to ban what does not serve them well, and that promotes only a socialist outlook. People like us only want to ban the banners from banning! Rather different.
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-2010
This UK Bill is currently waiting to be ratified and has just been through the House of Lords for approval. Bear in mind that the Labour government wants to put chains on the internet, to stop anti-socialist material being published. Part of the governments slyness is to allow as many immigrants into the UK as possible (most of them Muslim), because polls show that 80% of them invariably vote for Labour, who are pro-immigration. The hatefulness within Islam does not concern greedy MPs, who only want to keep their seats and therefore their unearned incomes and expenses. Anything that will remove opposition is an acceptable activity!
In the White Paper, ‘Digital Britain’, published June 2009, government wants to extend the role of the government media watchdog, Ofcom, so that it can report on the ‘communications infrastructure and media content’. It also talks about ISPs actively stopping copyright infringement, when it is really the job of those who are infringed. The Bill would also allow the Secretary of State to intervene in internet domain name registration.
As I have said before, don’t just look at the exact wording of laws. Look at their potential to make that wording into huge precedents. Generally, the looser the wording, the more opportunity there is to create precedent. The tighter the language used, the less opportunity there is to make any changes. It is the very words of a law that allow further changes to society to be made.
Obama and the Internet
Obama hates the internet, because it is the one thing he cannot presently control. “The Obama administration has moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.” (Newsmax, 31st Jan., 2010).
“The key to the control America has over the internet is through the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the giant servers that service the internet.” (Newsmax). Notice the inclusion of domain names in the proposed new UK law? Domain names are managed through the IANA (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority). Without an IAN nobody could operate on the internet, or even receive or send emails.
I wonder who this proposed ‘foreign power’ might be? Oh, you’ll never guess! It is the UN!! “The ‘international community’… want an international body such as the United Nations… to manage all aspects of the internet on behalf of all nations.” In ordinary language that means socialism will control anything it does not like, such as anti-socialism, including religious, political, freedom and morality sites.
We all know that paper news is dwindling as the internet assumes poll place in providing news and comments. So, when a major media hitter such as Rupert Murdoch says “The current days of the internet will soon be over”, we should ask why he should say it.
In other reports I have told of the biggest media companies taking control of all media output. It is already part of UN structure and the structure of the environmental scam. Now, readers of news on some established media sites, such as newspapers, have to pay a fee to read items. It is but a short step for the moguls, who are real forces behind any government, to push for control of the internet. Whether this is under the flag of the UN or any other organisation does not really matter, because the real power is in the hands of big money.
Fees to read articles on the biggest newspaper websites are already proposed by Murdoch and other owners, so we can expect not to access their pages unless we pay fees. This will happen sometime in the next few months or so. (prisonplanet.com 7th May 2009). In this way, the moguls can easily control not just readership, but also dissemination of information.
YouTube has been systematically pruning its site, so that user-contributions are marginalized and big-time media offerings are put on show (income!). Therefore, if these big-timers don’t like certain user-videos, they will be pulled, as is now happening. In particular, anything seen as anti-Muslim is banned or pulled. Same will soon happen with anti-green.
As readership of physical publications dwindles and internet readership grows, the big media companies and papers will charge for access to their newspapers online. But, by doing this they will lose readers! It does not really matter, though, because they will just find other ways to increase revenue. They will also call unanimously for world-control of the internet. Because they are the faceless few behind the financing of everything, they will then control internet content and boost their own incomes. Easy. That is why they want a phasing out of the present system, to be replaced by ‘Internet 2’.
This is socialism in action. It is the silencing of opinion, views and even truth. Money, and the power it engenders, rules. What you say doesn’t count. The recent Superbowl ad by Audi, spoofing Green Police, was funny on a very superficial level… but not to those of us who see it as a very real parody of something already happening in the world today. What better way to get socialist rule accepted? Humour has often been used to ‘soften the edges’ of immorality, social thuggery and economic disaster. But, it isn’t funny.
South Carolina Legislation
Under the title ‘South Carolina Code of Laws (unannotated) Current Through the End of the 2009 Session’, we have ‘Title 23 – Law Enforcement and Public Safety’. (scstatehouse.gov).
Chapter 29 deals with the ‘Subversive Activities Registration Act’. Section 23-29-20 defines what is covered by the Act. It includes organisations that want to overthrow the government by force or unlawful means. Seems okay, except that what is meant by ‘unlawful means’ and ‘force’ becomes crucial. Such organisations include those funded from overseas. This works well with Islamic terrorism… but what about websites that oppose government? The possibility of these being included will be seen in the exact wording of the law. If it is vague at points, or if ‘unlawful means’ and ‘force’ are not fully described, then the possibility (or probability) of a precedent to include websites is a very real threat. Yes, it is the old ‘precedent’ problem again.
Section 23-29-30 claims that freedom of speech is not included amongst those groups to be affected by the law. However, the paragraph that deals with this talks of the freedom “guaranteed by the Constitution”. When looking at this we must acknowledge that Obama cares nothing for the Constitution and has even said he wants to be rid of it. He has not allowed the people to gain legitimate access to his birth certificate nor to any other of his files. So, what trust can we place in this South Carolina legislative language?
The new law seems fine. And so it would be in normal days when there is freedom of information and expression. But, where Obama has a Czar who wants to silence opposition, there is plenty of room for speculation and fear of total socialist clamp-down. It is what Obama has so far done the best: no real political progress, only real oppression and repression. Once the Carolina bill is passed, it will be relatively simple to alter the definitions of one or two vital words, so that websites can be obliterated and taken to court.
Yes, these are my own conclusions. Yes, they are not fully based on what is, universally, but on what could come to be (though the reality is already seen in the UK). As I have said before, just join the dots! Otherwise – and if we don’t speak out – publications such as Christian Doctrine may not be around for much longer, much to the delight of all who want to remove our freedoms.
© February 2010