Rockefeller: Internet is "Number One National Hazard"

page: 2
240
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Of course,Jay Rockefeller is upset people online have been saying some very mean things about his imperialist family and he's been tasked to put a stop to it,the fact they seem to not understand that the horse has left stable and there is really nothing that can be done against the net.




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SpadeofAces
 


Currently, the internet is key to globalization and the expansion of Capital Business. The actual network infrastructure wont disappear, but the public access to it probably will. ISP's are constantly working at ways to filter our specific traffic types and packets at large. Total information control is not hard from a technical stand-point, just look at China.

I think its better phrased, "The Internet as we know it, will come to an end" And its the "Internet as we know it" that Rockefeller is referring too.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
It would be such a shame if one of their private jets was to fall out of the sky.

The internet does not like you, rockyfeelers.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Without the internet 90% of all ATS members would still be stupid sheeps with no clue about the dirty stuff going on in this world. These people who define the internet as a threat must miss the times when there were only newspapers and TV - no possibility to communicate, only to receive.

What I find very scary is that these people are so influential that they can ''silence'' the internet. What the hell would we do if they'd shut down ATS, for instance in times of crisis. Suddenly you'd become dependent on the communication channels they fully control: the MSM.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I have no doubt that the NWO desperately hates the Internet.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
every right-wing, neo-con who was right behind the Bush Administration's Warantless surveillance scandal believes in this?

You do know that the Rockefellers are democrats, right?

Facism knows no party line.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Autonomous

Originally posted by whaaa


Internet is "number one national hazard"


Of course it is! Knowledge is power and those Right wing nuts know their time is limited when the truth is known about their corruption, lies and greed.

The truth will set you free! That's what they're afraid of!

Stinking elite Pigs that want nothing more than to control the mind set of the people they consider rabble.



[edit on 23-3-2009 by whaaa]


Again, Rockefeller is a democrat.

I'm not a republican, before anyone starts pointing fingers. If anything I am a strict constitutionalist; do anything you like as long as it doesn't infringe upon my freedoms nor bring danger to my family.

What I am trying to point out is that silencing the internet is not a republican only or democrat only agenda. It is an agenda of those in power stifling the flow of information to the general public, under the guise of security.

We've given up too much in the name of security! To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither".



***edited for spelling only***

[edit on 3/23/2009 by Autonomous]


Read it again.....

Where did I say Republican or GOP? I said "Right Wing Nuts" no party specified.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
To a large degree, the internet is comprised of business' that are co located within link providing facilities. As one of these businesses' I have received zero information from the powers that be about censoring our clients.

I suspect that the core method of censoring that will become the norm will be Google blacklisting or blacklisting on other search engines. Through this means they will be able to approve or disapprove the individual sites.

The beauty of this is that a new uncensored search engine will undoubtedly surface and until it too is censored we will again have free flow of information.

Each of us, in our own can help make a difference by not utilizing the services of the really huge companies. When you host your stuff, at one of the huge companies, you further the control they have over their part of the internet. By supporting a smaller local company you keep the level of communication the PTB need to have to maintain some control far far more expensive and diverse.

There is a reason the huge companies are undercutting the local small isp or hosting provider. That is to starve them out. If the local company is allowed to starve, then when there is no more freedom of the internet, you can't really complain, because you could have made a difference.

I'm not saying this to try and convince anyone to utilize my company, just their own local providers.
In the case of a free internet, BIG company = BAD.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
One of the important things that will save the www. is it's capacity to

be used as an advertising medium. Soon it will be like TV, with
little content and ads, ads, ads.

Notice the Difference in ATS from just a few short years ago.

oops, not saying the content on ATS is anything other than first rate.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


If i could find a reliable cable net provider in my area i would gladly take it over rogers. But from my understanding, regardless of the company Rogers still owns the backbone.

Control the infrastructure, control the flow of information.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
God damn this makes me mad again. Why won't people stand against these fu%¤#&s! They should be treated like Mussolini and Nikolai ceausescu!

Just opened a thread about these MF:s couple of days ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

What I find very scary is that these people are so influential that they can ''silence'' the internet.


Maybe not. There are some very creative minds out there. I myself do not know much about how to set up a parallel internet, but I bet it could be done. If they want to ensure that hackers attack them, restricting the internet is a great way to start a tech war.

I think that this war is one they would ultimately lose. Corporations have a lot of resources. But they dont actually invent the things that they profit from very often. The intellectual capital resides in the underclass. (Which is why I hate the term "elite intellectuals," most of the elite are good exploiters of intellectuals, not intellectuals themselves, despite their fancy schools) If you look at the people who have actually invented or created most of the math, science, technology, etc., that have made us great, you will find few members of the wealthiest families in that group. What we need to stop doing is selling our intelligence to those whose only mental gift is the art of exploitation.

They need us far more than we need them, and this is the truth now, and it always has been.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Mr Rockefeller, a more severe THREAT to national security and the wellbeing of United States are the misbehaving banks and financial firms on Wall Street. I think he just fired a M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank in a greenhouse.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Many large companies not only control the software side of the internet, but also the lines, server racks, and processor banks required to run it. Like I said, Control the infrastructure, control the flow.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Yeah but who really controls the infra structure? We do.

Does that Rockefeller know how to splice cable? I doubt it. They use us, our intelligence, our physical strength, and our technical know how to enslave ourselves. All we have to do is stop working against ourselves. This isnt a hopeless situation. Unless we let our feelings of hopelessness make us queue up and get in line.

These "elite" dont know how it works, cant create it, cant repair it. We do, we can. We just need to see where our own self interest lies. And it isnt with them. Unfortunately, humans are slow to see where their self interest does lie, until something happens which makes it crystal clear.

Again, they are utterly and completely dependent on us. We are not dependent at all on them. They are living off of us. We not only could easily live without them, we would live better.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


There's absolutely no doubt about it! The Rockerfeller/Rothschild cabal is horrified by the internet.

The internet is just as powerful a weapon for the "free" people of the world as guns are... as long as the internet itself is "free". We have to make it abundantly clear to our ISPs that any attempt to start to censor the internet will be met with real trouble. It will start off with seemingly harmless, slow little steps just like all the other sneaky changes they have gotten us accustomed to (like taking vaccines full of live and harmful viruses that would have never otherwise gotten into your body). And like sheep, we just accept it! Well I sure as hell don't accept it. I personally simply don't let anybody stick a needle in me for any reason, ever... period.

In Canada there are three major internet providers, Telus, Rogers and Shaw. Telus and Rogers are openly admitting that they think internet censorship is a good idea and should be instituted "for the surfing safety of our children". Jesus, cut me some slack here!

On the other hand, as far as I know Shaw is not willing to participate in internet censorship. At least that's the word I got from a woman who works in their head office and knows the president of the company by casual conversation only. She says he's a straight up guy with huge morals and just isn't the type of guy to interfere with the public's freedom. But what's unknown, is how much freedom he has to stand solid in favor of the Canadian peoples' rights.

For obvious reasons, Shaw is my provider. If they're not yours... make the change and send a very powerful message to your current provider. Your freedom hangs in the balance.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Thats a little reductionist, dont you think?

I mean, when you boil it down, you are correct. We build the racks, we lay the cable, we hit the enter key. But there is a strict system of control in place and enforced by many powerful (police, security, paramilitary) forces. If we could all rise up as one, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. But i think its pretty obvious there are many of us who would rather tow the party line than reject it.

I would love to see it happen, a truly free exchange of information and idea's. But under the current set-up, its doubtful.

Cudo's to you for your idealism though.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Ive always wondered about the internet. Seems to be the only solid resource for organizing mass movements against the government. Gee, I can't imagine why this illuninati family doesn't like the internet


Im not so sure about this "internet 2" and how it will work. Jones says there will be only a few 1000 sites and corporate controlled news outlets. Is this all real? I mean, what should we be doing between now and the time when internet 2 is in full swing? Are they expecting that the people will revolte? I can imagine it being damn near impossible if the internet is controlled in the way they want it to be.

But I still can't see it. I mean, are they going to monitor emails too? Will there be any freedom at all outside of government monitored safe-sites?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



The straw that breaks the camels back indeed. We see posts here asking where we draw the line in the sand. Right here folks...

ahhh it all starts to make sense now... Today for some unknown reason I let my radio stay on FOX after Imus was over (man Imus is really more painful to listen to now than ever as Alzheimers/dementia steps in) and Glenn Beck comes on. He played clips of Maher calling him out about his FEMA camp bit. Glenn Beck then states that (paraphrasing) "all I said were that we were going to look into the FEMA camps and try to debunk them. We are still looking at it, but our general conclusion was DON'T GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET." ....

yep NOW I see where he was going ..... especially when I remebered hearing Beck CLEARLY say "I tried to debunk the FEMA camps ... but I couldn't"...... and now that has turned into "The Internet is Bad"..... Just another wolf in sheeps clothing... but I digress ....

keeping the thread on topic .... THIS THREAD SHOULD STAY ON THE FRONT PAGE AS A REMINDER UNTIL THEY TAKE ATS AND THE LIKE AWAY FROM US....

WHICH IS COMING.

THIS is our line in the sand. When should the resistance "stiffen-up" ? when we cannot communicate with like minds anymore? When we are only getting information that the MSM deems appropriate? yes.

truly a frightening thread.


[edit on 23-3-2009 by sayiamu]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Many large companies not only control the software side of the internet, but also the lines, server racks, and processor banks required to run it. Like I said, Control the infrastructure, control the flow.


This is already the case.

They already do control the infrastructure, so if they are not already controlling the flow, why not?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
In truth, the BIG providers do own the links, however it is the nature of the internet to be resilient. The whole purpose of this kind of switched network is that if one link goes down, the packets are rerouted to different switches until the packet reaches its destination. So I think the huge companies could slow it down, but not stop it altogether.

Many co location providers operate a multilink connection (called BGP). And in Canada it is true the big 3 are Shaw (VAC) Telus (TAC) and Rogers. There has also been a large influx of additional providers like Peer1, Bell and Allstream.

The additional providers are probably leasing space on TAC or VAC lines. In Canada, these lines aren't really owned by the Telcos. A company called Ledcor ran the fibre in the 70's at their own expense. The fibre is then leased to the telcos by Ledcor. I'm not sure how its done in the states.

The problem with the telco's running their own fibre isn't the cost of the fibre, it is the cost of obtaining a "right of way" with the farmers. Since the whole thing is regulated by the Canadian CRTC just putting huge filters on, wont really help.

So, except the CRTC, which isn't really telco friendly as they are the regulatory board, just censoring has to happen at a different level. They could demand censoring at the CRTC level, but there would be a lot of noise from the public at large.

In any case, by supporting your local companies, you have a much better chance of dealing with a person who values your support, and will more likely speak with you rather than against you.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex





top topics
 
240
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join