An initiative proposed by the technocratic think tank, the Atlantic Council called ‘Saving Cyberspace’ is a propaganda piece designed to instill fear in the public using the state as a justification to move in, take over, and secure its role as protector of the(long since antiquated idea)private citizen.
There is an obvious need to initiate a process to instill in the public’s mind a sense of fear that some ambiguous enemy is lurking behind every corner to destroy lives.
There has to be a scapegoat for the social ills, a bogeyman; currently the US technocrat-hijacked government is demonizing the constitutional enthusiasts:
“Pernicious patriots” or “Insidious individualists”
One of the most famous of the government’s voyeuristic criminal agencies, the NSA, who has been guilty repeatedly of taking over social media websites, infecting people’s personal computers with malicious software, installing covert ‘back door’ technology into various computers and smart devices to eavesdrop on an unsuspecting public via the device’s webcam or mic, and the massive theft of people’s personal information to catalogue citizens into various data bases, e.g. the regional ‘fusion centers’ which assess ‘risks’ that certain people may pose to national security, and the fire sale tactics of auctioning off meta data to select corporations to grant a competitive edge for insiders at the expense of one’s privacy.
The internet is the last bastion of a free and open society that is being pillaged by trans-national interests in an attempt to eradicate this republic’s sovereignty, and to further throw the citizens of the world into a neo feudal slavery through the collapse of their respective country’s economy, e.g., Europe and South American countries like: Greece, Spain, Venezuela, and more recently the Ukraine.
The internet is a fertile breeding ground for the rising independent media that is filling the information vacuum left by the diseased, crippled, and dying corporate-controlled media monster which will now be finding ways to pull everything down to hell with it, and this includes destroying the means for humanity to retain individual liberties.
The Atlantic Council labels themselves: ‘the most forward-leaning think tank’ when it comes to cyber security matters in Washington, D.C., and perhaps the world. It is very hard to argue with the prospect of being so ‘forward-leaning’ which is to imply that if one points out an inherent flaw in their logic that nay-sayer is crippled with a rigid and backward ideology.
It is a proposition that theirs is the most ‘progressive’ and innovative philosophy on this topic, apparently they are the ones who are able to create such a false consensus in regards to their view in this matter.
The piece mentions that their stance is known for its strong stance against NSA spying, and ‘other cyber attacks’, like stuxnet. This is a very crude understatement of the issue of a government intelligence agency inverting its focus from foreign enemies inward toward its own domestic population, a practice that the Obama regime claims would be applauded by the patriots like Paul Revere who warned the citizens of the incoming attack by the British.
The brief mention of the criminal NSA is an obvious attempt to placate the skeptics who are in full support of state nullification of the NSA spying, in many states like Utah there are bills to cease funding of the data centers which use an enormous amount of water to keep the facilities operating.
Their attempt to present a false concern for mass government corruption distracts from the larger problem of the NSA spreading viruses on internet users to manipulate computers, hijacking social media websites to steal data, and the rampant cataloging of personal information just to name a few areas where this agency has grossly abused its power.
The article then begins to prime the reader’s mind with the foundational pieces of a false flag event, referencing the terrorist attacks of September 11th, making a comparison to a possible future similar ‘cyber 9/11’, or ‘digital pearl harbor’.
The ulterior motives for this casual mention of a massive cyber attack perpetrated by some vague terrorist threat would almost undoubtedly be used for a justification for increased security measures which would most certainly hurt the individual’s rights, and destroy the freedom of the web.
They mention that their system for assessing the cyber security risk with all its potential vulnerabilities, and complexity is similar to how financial institutions evaluated risks prior to the 2008 financial collapse. They neglect the FBI investigation in 2004 that warned of an epidemic of potential mortgage fraud instigated by the lenders, and not the borrowers, and the fact that major financial institutions have been caught manipulating interest rates to generate massive profits for themselves and colleagues.
The strong possibility that top executives engineered the very crisis that led to their inevitable downfall is echoed by the fact that there is evidence that with both 9/11 and the pearl harbor attacks there was prior knowledge of the tragic events by government officials before they happened. The government is left unaccountable, and the people suffer, sacrificing civil liberties for the illusion of security.
A catastrophic event could be implemented by black operative rogue elements of the government, in all of these cases there are usually intelligent agents who pick up on something before it happens, but all attempts to disrupt the looming disaster are halted because it would impede the underlying lucrative agenda waiting to unfold while the public is at its emotionally sensitive maximum after the cataclysm.
The article proceeds to blatantly advertise a corporatist agenda with so-called: ‘global governance strategies’ to initiate the whole process which most likely include contracts administered to select components of the private sector who stand to profit handsomely from a government engineered false flag attack.
Strong criticism must put exercised among a think tank like the Atlantic Council that actually called for false-flag attacks to justify strengthening state power.
On the Atlantic Council website, Harlan Ullman emphasizes the main goal to eliminate threats to the power structure: ‘eliminating the empowered individual’.
In the article, Ullman continues to lump whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning with terrorists, and he goes on to suggest the further overt implementation of the Hegelian dialectic, problem, reaction, solution model of creating a crisis and offering a solution to the public in the midst of wide spread panic.
“Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance.”
Ullman continues by insisting civil liberties and sovereignty are the menace:
“In essence, the 365 year-old Westphalian system that placed sovereign states as the centerpieces of international politics is being tested and in some cases made obsolete by the empowerment of individuals and non-state actors.”
The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia acting as a protection of civil liberties against foreign interests and the oppression of central banks imposed on the public to suck up all the wealth via the euphemistic practices of ‘free trade’ which are imperialist instruments used by oligarchs and neo-colonialists, conversely the ‘fair trade’ system is a safeguard against exploitation and protects the sovereign nation state, protecting a nation’s domestic interests from trans nationalist enemies meddling in and imposing corrupt policies against their will.
In an article by Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet he describes a report leaked by someone associated with Oathkeepers. The document is from the department of homeland security, it illustrates a scenario to organize a drill where the authorities would have to stifle an online attack by a patriot hacktivist group: “Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny”.
The report emphasizes that certain government agents might be sympathetic to the anti government’s cause, consequently certain defenses would be compromised, justifying an internet kill switch to stifle political dissent.
These possible draconian measures put in place as a way to ‘balance liberty and security’ will target vigilante groups such as the ‘hacktivists’ Anonymous, who ironically seem to protect the public’s interest more than the government, who in this day and age are ruled by corporate interests.
The internet is the last refuge of individual liberty in this world, besides one’s own mind, and both are constantly under attack, but not by some vague terror threat coming in the form of a man with dark skin, with a long beard and a turban, bent on jihad against ‘the infidel’, or a well-built, disgruntled, gun-owning army veteran who loves private property and liberty–no, the threat will materialize in a discussion taking place in a corporate boardroom, inspired by a government contract to eliminate the slaves’ ability to have free speech, to organize protests against oppression, and to innovate on a scale never before imagined–the complete empowerment of the individual;
the threat will come from the technocrat’s manipulation of the hearts and minds of the people, the continued effort to convince them it is their best interest to trade liberty for freedom in order to access the right to security.