The Internet: a net? A web? A trap?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The Internet is a trap. It's 1984 in reverse: the TV monitors aren't watching everything we do -- we're providing the TV with the information.

I looked into how the Internet got started, and the NWO fingerprints are all over the place: The US Military, the Rand Corporation, Stanford University.

Even the names given to the Internet are suspicious. What comes to mind when you say "net" or "web"?

Would you think to use "web" as a way to communicate? Of course not -- a web is a trap. So is a net.

I think the Net was set up as a way for the elite to figure out who's who. They certainly know everything about me: what I like, what kind of things I'm turned on by sexually, my political views. I willingly provided all this information, not thinking that it could be a trap. Now, it's too late.

I also think the inconsistencies surrounding 911 were done on purpose, in order to nudge people toward seeking out alternative information online. As one blogger characterized it, it was like herding sheep to the nearest opening. They put on this obviously fake "terror" event, then had the government publicly and blatantly try to cover it up -- and nobody in the mainstream media batted an eye. Of course, thinking people would go online for answers.

As the great Dave McGowan pointed out on his site:





"Wasn't it, after all, France's Le Figaro that dropped that little bombshell about bin Laden meeting a CIA operative in a Dubai hospital room shortly before September 11? And isn't Le Figaro owned by the Carlyle Group, whose investors and principals include the Bushes, the bin Ladens, and various ranking members of the national security infrastructure?

And wasn't it that mouthpiece of the far-right, the Wall Street Journal, that dropped the story about the stock market manipulations that occurred in the days immediately preceding the September 11 attacks?

And wasn't it a vice-president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, itself a fully-integrated part of the military/intelligence complex, who initially identified the collapse of the World Trade Center towers as controlled implosions?

And wasn't it James Bamford (a man with uncomfortably close connections to numerous NSA operatives), working with Doubleday (a publisher not known for bringing the work of dissident authors to light), whose book -- released just five months before 9-11 -- revealed the details of 'Operation Northwoods' -- a purported anti-Cuban operation involving a staged provocation with marked similarities to the events of September 11?"






I don't know if this particular site is a Cointelpro operation or not, as has been discussed in another thread. But when you stop and think about who was involved in creating the Internet, and the fact that "they" decided to call this a "net" and a "web"...well, it at least makes you wonder.

So I must be an idiot to sign up for a forum like this and make this my first post!!!!


Oh well...I don't care. I'm glad I found this place. If this is a trap, I suppose we'll all go marching off to those FEMA camps together.




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
something to think about...



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I think that it was labeled the "web" because when you visually link the servers together on a map, it resembles a spider web. And the "net" probably originated from the word "network". But any of these could have double meanings and there could be some truth to what you're saying.

And I do agree that the internet is a great way to track and catalog what people are doing. Google is pretty much ahead of the game on that.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Porn and Marketing are the biggest values traded on the Internet.

The WAW numerical value in hebrew is 6. WWW so gives 666.

- Old stuff.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Yes, the Internet came from ARPANet and was originally designed to be a network designed to survive a nuclear attack. So a distributed design was chosen instead of a centralized one.

But today, the Internet is so large that its impossible to monitor everything that is being said. They cant even shut down piracy. It was designed to be a network without central control and so it has remained.

Just because they created the Internet doesnt mean they control whats ON the Internet. Thats the main difference from having a news station, where a private owner can tell you what you can and cannot talk about. There are no rules for the Internet, only rules on different sites.

So nope, I dont agree. If anything, the Internet is the only free one-to-many form of communication there is. Its the largest power we as normal citizens have to influence public opinion and educate people. Its the most democratic medium there is. And it plays a major role in changing societies in this day and age.


[edit on 18-11-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Welcome VF. Excellent post. I've had this exact same thought ever since I first heard of the internet. If used intelligently, information is available to be gathered from the world wide web that can be used to save one's self before the "big, bad spider" comes to eat us all. Trick is: knowing when to get out before we're helplessly cocooned beyond escaping.

I believe a lot of people have become dependent on this system of communication and information gathering. Libraries are quietly closing, cyber-relationships are replacing real life relationships, information on-line can be changed at anytime by anybody making "reality" (and history) a playground for hackers.

A lot of good has come from the internet. Businesses can reach a lot more people, education is global and instantaneous, shut-ins/handicapped/homemakers can all support themselves (or a family) with the tools available via internet. I guess those advantages are the bait but we all know that certain sites can be blocked by the powers that be as evidenced by other countries already blocking certain sites they deem "provocative".

Adding you to my friends list and looking forward to your posts on the board.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave

I believe a lot of people have become dependent on this system of communication and information gathering. Libraries are quietly closing, cyber-relationships are replacing real life relationships, information on-line can be changed at anytime by anybody making "reality" (and history) a playground for hackers.



Exactly. The prevaling wisdome is: if something isn't on google, it doesn't exist. I fall into that trap sometimes too when trying to verify something I've seen on one of the various sites. If I can't verify info by a google search, then my first instinct is to discount it. Then I remember exactly what google is...



[A lot of good has come from the internet. Businesses can reach a lot more people, education is global and instantaneous, shut-ins/handicapped/homemakers can all support themselves (or a family) with the tools available via internet. I guess those advantages are the bait but we all know that certain sites can be blocked by the powers that be as evidenced by other countries already blocking certain sites they deem "provocative".



I agree. The rule of thumb should be: Take everything on the Internet with a grain of salt.


Adding you to my friends list and looking forward to your posts on the board.



Thank you for the kind welcome.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Victory Faust
Exactly. The prevaling wisdome is: if something isn't on google, it doesn't exist. I fall into that trap sometimes too when trying to verify something I've seen on one of the various sites. If I can't verify info by a google search, then my first instinct is to discount it. Then I remember exactly what google is...


Yes, there is a danger in this, but only because people are ignorant. I was on the Internet long before Google existed and used other search engines such as AltaVista.

Today, its probably a good idea to use a meta-engine that combines the results of several engines, to make sure you get all the results that are out there. I use DogPile sometimes, but Im sure there are others as well.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus
Yes, the Internet came from ARPANet and was originally designed to be a network designed to survive a nuclear attack. So a distributed design was chosen instead of a centralized one.



ARPANet...which was spawned from DARPA. Thanks, you reminded me: another elite fingerprint on the Internet.




But today, the Internet is so large that its impossible to monitor everything that is being said. They cant even shut down piracy. It was designed to be a network without central control and so it has remained.



Who says they have to monitor "everything that is being said"?

If a particular person does something to get on the elite's radar screen, it would be an easy matter to quickly hone in on every site that person ever visited.



Just because they created the Internet doesnt mean they control whats ON the Internet. Thats the main difference from having a news station, where a private owner can tell you what you can and cannot talk about. There are no rules for the Internet, only rules on different sites.


I agree with this.




So nope, I dont agree.


What is it you don't agree with? It's an irrefutable fact that the Internet came out of DARPA, the DoD, with help from Rand and Stanford -- NWO fingerprints all over the place.

I guarantee: the Internet was not just allowed to "happen."



If anything, the Internet is the only free one-to-many form of communication there is. Its the largest power we as normal citizens have to influence public opinion and educate people. Its the most democratic medium there is. And it plays a major role in changing societies in this day and age.



All this may be true, but I don't think it detracts from the points I made. Sure, it's a great power to influence public opinion and educate people. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't set up/managed by the elite in order to monitor who is doing what, IMO.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Victory Faust
Who says they have to monitor "everything that is being said"?

If a particular person does something to get on the elite's radar screen, it would be an easy matter to quickly hone in on every site that person ever visited.


How? Do they have some sort of caching server running logging everyone's personal web habits online?

I know Google does this if you use the personalised google service, but you can turn it off. Also you don't even have to use a web browser to be doing bad things on the internet.

How are they tracking IRC dcc servers, or proprietary methods of communication? How can they find you if you are not leaving a trail?

It's a far cry from 'an easy matter' as you suggest.


What is it you don't agree with? It's an irrefutable fact that the Internet came out of DARPA, the DoD, with help from Rand and Stanford -- NWO fingerprints all over the place.

I guarantee: the Internet was not just allowed to "happen."


Do some research on how it actually became so widely popular.

Or turn your PC off and foil their evil world domination plans...



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Victory Faust
Even the names given to the Internet are suspicious. What comes to mind when you say "net" or "web"?

Would you think to use "web" as a way to communicate? Of course not -- a web is a trap. So is a net.


Actually the term "web" and the web (world wide web) itself was invented much later than ARPANET, and all the other networks and systems you referred.

The web was created in 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau at CERN in Switzerland.



I think the Net was set up as a way for the elite to figure out who's who. They certainly know everything about me: what I like, what kind of things I'm turned on by sexually, my political views. I willingly provided all this information, not thinking that it could be a trap. Now, it's too late.


I don't think the Internet is a trap, per se.
Even though it was born out of a military project, the idea behind it was 'noble', in the sense that they really just wanted a system to easily and rapidly exchange information.

I also don't agree that it was set up as way "for the elite to figure out who's who". I agree that they are trying to make it so, but the Internet as of now - unfortunately for the powers that be - is still not under their control.

If they already controlled the Internet, the NSA (and who knows who else) wouldn't need to install "spy rooms" in AT&T and other ISPs' facilities.

Also, it's exactly because they don't (yet) control all the information and know who everyone on the Internet is that they are trying to redesign it from scratch claiming it as "the only way to truly address security, mobility and other challenges that have cropped up since the Internet's birth in 1969."

Even though I believe that the Internet is not yet under their control, we should keep up to date and aware of what they are trying to do, the new technologies/systems/networks they are trying to implement, and not let the "threat of terrorism" be again used as an excuse for them to keep taking away our freedoms and take control of all the information.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I would say that you are basing your entire argument off of mere semantics. Although suffixes, prefixes and other sections that construct a word do symbolize meaning, I would lean more toward the word "network" than "net."



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyyuulle
I would say that you are basing your entire argument off of mere semantics. Although suffixes, prefixes and other sections that construct a word do symbolize meaning, I would lean more toward the word "network" than "net."




Well, perhaps you're right -- maybe it is a stretch to assume "web" and "net" mean something sinister.

But do you honestly believe the Powers That Be would allow this revolutionary new way of communicating to "just happen" without having control over it in some way? I very seriously doubt it.


[edit on 20-11-2007 by Victory Faust]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
You know im amazed i never considered it and i normally consider all angles. i think your right i think it was made public for data mining and it got out of control. or they may have simply gotten so arrogant that they don't care what we find out and its a long term plan to make all history and information easily changeable any time they want among other benifets. think about it if all media news history and such becomes total electronic they then have total control of it once they learn how to do it

[edit on 30-11-2007 by HuntaXX]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HuntaXX
 


it was created for communication after a nuclear strike. Not as a data mining device. It can be used for that purpose, but there are only theories and no hard, un-debunkable proof.

The duality of the word net... A net can catch you when you fall. It can be used to entrap or to restrain. We get caught up in our internet lives, millions of people are on myspace thinking they have thousands of friends. It can rescue our falling self-esteem but wrap us up and capture us. An opinion can be prodded, examined and shoved down our throats. A visual of human wonder and thought, now placed on a grid for all to see. Life without living for those who find themselves wishing only to observe.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Internet, a trap?
Probably not, but like everything else it comes with both good and bad circumstances.
I remember when it was believed that WWW was the same as 666.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
It is known that the interweb was designed and implemented by the US Army.

My curiosity is: what if the internet crashed as a whole tomorrow. Would it be worse now than in Y2k?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I certainly believe that the NSA and other agencies are using the net to mine data, of all sorts, on individuals. Especially since the Patriot Act. They do not have ultimate control over the net though. The governmet has moved from line fishing, to trawling. They don't need to get every fish in the sea, just most of them. And the ones that taste best.

But what about books? Someone mentioned about libraries closing up, and I suddenly saw a mental flash of "book burning". But now done with so much more subtelty. Make books obsolete -> production/distribution shuts down -> personal collections liquidated by upcoming generation who place no value in books -> kill the net = nobody knows anything but what they're told.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
well,heres a lil tid-bit from my side,i just stumbled across an article about the prominent social-networking site Facebook,this article reveals some glaring information about the site,let me just consolidate for you what the article says in a nutshell

"The Big-Brother is watching!"


Check it out yourself!




We have a private organisation that openly states in its terms of service that it intends to use any information you post on its site, for any purpose it feels like. And we also see that there is some fairly straight forward connection to the CIA with a member of the Board. And thirdly, we have an organisation that need never destroy your data.




Looks,like we do indeed have to be careful about what we post in sites like these!



[edit on 1-12-2007 by xenomorph07]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HuntaXX
i think your right i think it was made public for data mining and it got out of control.


I don't think that was the original intentions, those ideas were probobly thought up after it was created. The internet is really run by the folks who spend the most of their free time on it, then pursue it as a profession. I don't think this factor was considered in the early stages, nor did they think it would catch on so quickly. Just think how far we have come in the last twenty years, and most of the credit goes to those tech geeks that work hard at something they are enthusiastic about. Not some government suit sitting in a cubicle.

While the internet can be used to monitor individuals that are already under suspicion, it's not yet capable of monitoring everyone. But who knows what plans are for the future, and I certainly wouldn't doubt that it's possible.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join