The Cabal Took The Bait!?


inteldinarchron

If you are wondering about the Julian Assange October Surprise Fail, Think Again! It now appears to have been a TRAP set for the Cabal and they took the bait!

Clearly the good guys are still rooting out the bad Cabal Actors, those who are trying to stop this event from taking place. They have just been revealed. This is a multi-faceted event that all played out perfectly as I see it. Let’s look at all the moving parts to see that nothing went wrong for us after all.

The First Step To Protect The Internet

We will need to have uninterrupted Internet service for important upcoming information and announcements. For this reason, the Internet was transferred out of the hands of the U.S. into international control which I think made it safer from disruption. But there are still some weak points in the internet system. They needed to have a “Test” or should I say “TRAP” to find those who would still interrupt the service.

The TRAP was set with Julian Assange as the BAIT

Did you see how much notice was given about the “October Surprise” and that Julian Assange would be releasing damaging information on the Cabal? They made sure that everyone knew it was coming. Also did you notice that all this would happen just after the Internet was handed over to international control? Next, it was arranged that the announcement would happen early in the morning when most Americans would be sleeping. Finally the biggest clue of all, nothing was announced.

What Does This All Add Up To?

They scared the Cabal so badly, that they shut down internet service all over the U.S. at the time that the Julian Assange October Surprise announcement was going to be made. I am sure that most Americans had no idea that the internet went dead during that time because they were sleeping. They tricked the Cabal into revealing their hand, and making them do their dirty deeds of cutting off the internet. Now we know who they are and where they are.

This is a picture of all the places that the Internet “Just Happened” to go out at the same time the announcement was to be made. Coincidence? I Think NOT!

Read More About The Internet Outage Here:

http://allnewspipeline.com/Assange_Exposes_Much_Bigger_Bombshell.php

The Plan (TRAP) Was Perfect

They arranged the announcement at a time when the most people in the U.S. would not be on the internet because they knew the Cabal would be shutting it down. They gave plenty of notice and made sure the email dump scared the Cabal so bad that they would act. And finally nothing was revealed because it was only a TEST, a TRAP for the Cabal. Sure enough, they jumped and shut down the internet all over the U.S. and now the good guys know who and where they are. They can now be picked up and arrested at the least. It was a perfect trap, at a perfect time, and with the perfect bait.

Think About It

If there were really going to be a big release to the American Public why would it be in the middle of the night? It would instead be at a time when the most people would be on line to get the information. Also they certainly wouldn’t give so much notice to the Cabal giving them time to stop them. This was clearly a set up (TRAP) to see where the internet would be shut down and who would shut it down.

This reminds me of the many times we thought the RV was going to go and it didn’t, just to find out later, it was a TRAP to catch the Cabal trying to stop it and to catch the high frequency traders who were trying to take advantage of the situation.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that everything is working out perfectly. Don’t you think that the good guys have thought of EVERYTHING? After all, they have the most powerful technology, resources, and assistance (Think Above) to help this change take place. It is necessary to fake us out, in order to fake out the remaining Cabal bad actors. That’s O.K. The only thing that is important is that they get them all and that the World change goes over without a hitch. Just remember, that no matter how it looks, it is all working out just as planned for our greater good.

May You Get Everything You Want and Live The Life Of Your Dreams

Signed: One Who Believes

Advertisements

Why Tim Berners-Lee is no friend of Facebook


TheGuardian

facebook-zucks-blue

If there were a Nobel prize for hypocrisy, then its first recipient ought to be Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook boss. On 23 August, all his 1.7 billion users were greeted by this message: “Celebrating 25 years of connecting people. The web opened up to the world 25 years ago today! We thank Sir Tim Berners-Lee and other internet pioneers for making the world more open and connected.”

Aw, isn’t that nice? From one “pioneer” to another. What a pity, then, that it is a combination of bullshit and hypocrisy. In relation to the former, the guy who invented the web, Tim Berners-Lee, is as mystified by this “anniversary” as everyone else. “Who on earth made up 23 August?” he asked on Twitter. Good question. In fact, as the Guardian pointed out: “If Facebook had asked Berners-Lee, he’d probably have told them what he’s been telling people for years: the web’s 25th birthday already happened, two years ago.”

“In 1989, I delivered a proposal to Cern for the system that went on to become the worldwide web,” he wrote in 2014. It was that year, not this one, that he said we should celebrate as the web’s 25th birthday.

It’s not the inaccuracy that grates, however, but the hypocrisy. Zuckerberg thanks Berners-Lee for “making the world more open and connected”. So do I. What Zuck conveniently omits to mention, though, is that he is embarked upon a commercial project whose sole aim is to make the world more “connected” but less open. Facebook is what we used to call a “walled garden” and now call a silo: a controlled space in which people are allowed to do things that will amuse them while enabling Facebook to monetise their data trails. One network to rule them all. If you wanted a vision of the opposite of the open web, then Facebook is it.

The thing that makes the web distinctive is also what made the internet special, namely that it was designed as an open platform. It was designed to facilitate “permissionless innovation”. If you had a good idea that could be realised using data packets, and possessed the programming skills to write the necessary software, then the internet – and the web – would do it for you, no questions asked. And you didn’t need much in the way of financial resources – or to ask anyone for permission – in order to realise your dream.

An open platform is one on which anyone can build whatever they like. It’s what enabled a young Harvard sophomore, name of Zuckerberg, to take an idea lifted from two nice-but-dim oarsmen, translate it into computer code and launch it on an unsuspecting world. And in the process create an empire of 1.7 billion subjects with apparently limitless revenues. That’s what permissionless innovation is like.

The open web enabled Zuckerberg to do this. But – guess what? – the Facebook founder has no intention of allowing anyone to build anything on his platform that does not have his express approval. Having profited mightily from the openness of the web, in other words, he has kicked away the ladder that elevated him to his current eminence. And the whole thrust of his company’s strategy is to persuade billions of future users that Facebook is the only bit of the internet they really need.

Ironically, Zuckerberg’s cynical tribute to Tim Berners-Lee came a day after Nick Denton published his obituary of Gawker, the pioneering and raucous news website that he created 13 years ago. Gawker was bankrupted – and ultimately shuttered – by a privacy action that had been funded by Peter Thiel, a billionaire Silicon Valley eccentric (and Trump supporter) who had been infuriated by a Gawker article that called for Thiel to be recognised as the world’s most successful gay venture capitalist.

As that uber-blogger Dave Winer observed: “Gawker is gone because Peter Thiel financed its murder-by-lawyer. It’s legal to do this in the US, but until now as far as I know, no one has crossed this line. Now that the line has been crossed, it’s fair to assume it will become standard practice for billionaires like Thiel to finance lawsuits until the publication loses and has to sell itself to pay the judgment.”

I wasn’t ever a great admirer of Gawker, but Dave Winer is right: Thiel’s strategy demonstrates how tech money not only talks, but can now also suppress freedom of expression, even in the land of the first amendment. Interestingly, Thiel is also a member of Facebook’s board of directors. So will Zuckerberg’s commitment to an “open and connected world” extend to firing him? You only have to ask the question to know the answer. Hypocrisy rules OK.


..

Could The Internet Be Set To Be Shut Down On The Eve of Jubilee, October 1st?


TDV

Ever since we caught on to the Shemitah timetable that Jonathan Cahn had discovered, we’ve discovered clue after important clue about the potential timetable being followed by the globalists towards creating a New World Order.

Christine Lagarde, with her “magic number 7” numerology speech caught our interest.  Then, William White of the IMF talking about how a debt jubilee was coming which will wipe out most paper assets also got our attention.

And, we discovered that the Jubilee Year, also called the Super Shemitah, ends on October 2nd of this year.

Because of that we’ve been watching those dates carefully.  Probably the most significant event we’ve seen yet is that the Chinese Yuan will be put into the IMF’s SDR currency basket on October 1st.  This, alone, could set off shockwaves in the markets.

But, now, another major event has just been announced to occur on October 1st.

The United Nations could take over control of the Internet on October 1, when the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) passes from US administration to the control of a multilateral body, most likely the United Nations International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

While the administration and its defenders have denied that the UN will have authority over ICANN, the Wall Street Journal‘s L. Gordon Crovitz points out that ICANN will need to be run by a state agency in order to retain its antitrust exemption, which makes it almost certainly that the UN will step in to take control.

Given that we consider the Jubilee Year to be the year when the final pieces are put into place for a global one-world government, having the US give up control of the internet to the UN on October 1st, the day before the end of the Jubilee Year and on the same day that a new global monetary order will be positioned is cause for serious scrutiny.

The globalists have hated the internet since they began to figure out it was causing them big problems in controlling the world and its people.  John Kerry in 2013, said, “this little thing called the Internet … makes it much harder to govern.”


He’s right, of course.  The internet has made it so billions of people can actually get access to real information… not the propaganda put out by governments and the mainstream media.

The word government means “govern”, or to control, and “ment” which means mind.  It is, in fact, a form of mind control.  And in order for it to succeed to the point that the entire Earth is governed by a tyrannical, one world government, people need to be kept from the truth.

For this reason, the term “internet kill switch” has been used regularly by the US government.  It’s often put into bills, including the Proposed Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 as a way to “protect” people from cybercrime.  Of course, like all things the government does, it is not to protect the people, it is to protect the government.

Even the two frontrunners for Commander in Crime of the US, Trump and Clinton, both want to shutdown parts of the internet, “Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Plan to Close Parts of the Internet: Censorship in America?

And, since anarcho-capitalists created bitcoin to fight the central banks, the globalists have stepped up all their efforts to shut down the internet as much as possible.

The internet makes it hard to keep people controlled and confused… and bitcoin makes it hard to control the money system.  That 1-2 punch, alone, has them running very, very scared.

And so, when it was just recently announced that on October 1st, the day before the end of the Jubilee Year, that control of the internet will be turned over to the UN… one has to be very, very suspicious.

Would they declare a new monetary system based on the SDR and its inclusion of the Chinese Yuan on October 1st, which is a Saturday, leading to bank closures worldwide AND then turn off the internet to keep most from even knowing what is going on?

You have to consider it a possibility.  The globalists/banksters have no problem killing hundreds of millions of people as they did in the 20th century with all the bank manufactured wars, which included both World Wars.  They had no problem doing 9/11 to scare the world into accepting their War of Terror and a lockdown on any last remaining freedoms.

Will they do it?  Only time will tell.

But we’ve been suggesting to people all year to get prepared for something as big and catastrophic as the internet being shut down… so hopefully many have made plans to prepare for the worst already.

If you still haven’t, we’d suggest getting out of the financial system (especially the banks) as much as possible.  Even if they don’t pull the switch on October 1st, we are nearing the very end of this current financial system.

And, many of the things we’ve suggested people move into have done very well.  Gold and silver have already gone up dramatically this year, bitcoin is up 200% since last summer and many of our other recommendations, such as Ethereum (up more than 500% since we mentioned it in January) and Monero (which we just mentioned two weeks ago to subscribers has since risen over 400%… in just two weeks!).

Monero - The Dollar Vigilante 2

I expect September and October to include significant market volatility and  other kinds of potentially disastrous results. But the reverberations of Jubilee 2016 will continue well after its end date.

As we move into the last month of the Jubilee Year, we are bound to see catastrophic events occur – either ones that take place now or ones that promise a future, comprehensive disaster. We’ll be following these possibilities and predicting them as we have for the past two years.

..

The world wide cage


Aeon

Technology promised to set us free. Instead it has trained us to withdraw from the world into distraction and dependency

internet

It was a scene out of an Ambien nightmare: a jackal with the face of Mark Zuckerberg stood over a freshly killed zebra, gnawing at the animal’s innards. But I was not asleep. The vision arrived midday, triggered by the Facebook founder’s announcement – in spring 2011 – that ‘The only meat I’m eating is from animals I’ve killed myself.’ Zuckerberg had begun his new ‘personal challenge’, he told Fortune magazine, by boiling a lobster alive. Then he dispatched a chicken. Continuing up the food chain, he offed a pig and slit a goat’s throat. On a hunting expedition, he reportedly put a bullet in a bison. He was ‘learning a lot’, he said, ‘about sustainable living’.

I managed to delete the image of the jackal-man from my memory. What I couldn’t shake was a sense that in the young entrepreneur’s latest pastime lay a metaphor awaiting explication. If only I could bring it into focus, piece its parts together, I might gain what I had long sought: a deeper understanding of the strange times in which we live.

What did the predacious Zuckerberg represent? What meaning might the lobster’s reddened claw hold? And what of that bison, surely the most symbolically resonant of American fauna? I was on to something. At the least, I figured, I’d be able to squeeze a decent blog post out of the story.

The post never got written, but many others did. I’d taken up blogging early in 2005, just as it seemed everyone was talking about ‘the blogosphere’. I’d discovered, after a little digging on the domain registrar GoDaddy, that ‘roughtype.com’ was still available (an uncharacteristic oversight by pornographers), so I called my blog Rough Type. The name seemed to fit the provisional, serve-it-raw quality of online writing at the time.

Blogging has since been subsumed into journalism – it’s lost its personality – but back then it did feel like something new in the world, a literary frontier. The collectivist claptrap about ‘conversational media’ and ‘hive minds’ that came to surround the blogosphere missed the point. Blogs were crankily personal productions. They were diaries written in public, running commentaries on whatever the writer happened to be reading or watching or thinking about at the moment. As Andrew Sullivan, one of the form’s pioneers, put it: ‘You just say what the hell you want.’ The style suited the jitteriness of the web, that needy, oceanic churning. A blog was critical impressionism, or impressionistic criticism, and it had the immediacy of an argument in a bar. You hit the Publish button, and your post was out there on the world wide web, for everyone to see.

Or to ignore. Rough Type’s early readership was trifling, which, in retrospect, was a blessing. I started blogging without knowing what the hell I wanted to say. I was a mumbler in a loud bazaar. Then, in the summer of 2005, Web 2.0 arrived. The commercial internet, comatose since the dot-com crash of 2000, was up on its feet, wide-eyed and hungry. Sites such as MySpace, Flickr, LinkedIn and the recently launched Facebook were pulling money back into Silicon Valley. Nerds were getting rich again. But the fledgling social networks, together with the rapidly inflating blogosphere and the endlessly discussed Wikipedia, seemed to herald something bigger than another gold rush. They were, if you could trust the hype, the vanguard of a democratic revolution in media and communication – a revolution that would change society forever. A new age was dawning, with a sunrise worthy of the Hudson River School.

Rough Type had its subject.

The greatest of the United States’ homegrown religions – greater than Jehovah’s Witnesses, greater than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, greater even than Scientology – is the religion of technology. John Adolphus Etzler, a Pittsburgher, sounded the trumpet in his testament The Paradise Within the Reach of All Men (1833). By fulfilling its ‘mechanical purposes’, he wrote, the US would turn itself into a new Eden, a ‘state of superabundance’ where ‘there will be a continual feast, parties of pleasures, novelties, delights and instructive occupations’, not to mention ‘vegetables of infinite variety and appearance’.

Similar predictions proliferated throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and in their visions of ‘technological majesty’, as the critic and historian Perry Miller wrote, we find the true American sublime. We might blow kisses to agrarians such as Jefferson and tree-huggers such as Thoreau, but we put our faith in Edison and Ford, Gates and Zuckerberg. It is the technologists who shall lead us.

Cyberspace, with its disembodied voices and ethereal avatars, seemed mystical from the start, its unearthly vastness a receptacle for the spiritual yearnings and tropes of the US. ‘What better way,’ wrote the philosopher Michael Heim in ‘The Erotic Ontology of Cyberspace’ (1991), ‘to emulate God’s knowledge than to generate a virtual world constituted by bits of information?’ In 1999, the year Google moved from a Menlo Park garage to a Palo Alto office, the Yale computer scientist David Gelernter wrote a manifesto predicting ‘the second coming of the computer’, replete with gauzy images of ‘cyberbodies drift[ing] in the computational cosmos’ and ‘beautifully laid-out collections of information, like immaculate giant gardens’.


The revelation continues to this day, the technological paradise forever glittering on the horizon


The millenarian rhetoric swelled with the arrival of Web 2.0. ‘Behold,’ proclaimed Wired in an August 2005 cover story: we are entering a ‘new world’, powered not by God’s grace but by the web’s ‘electricity of participation’. It would be a paradise of our own making, ‘manufactured by users’. History’s databases would be erased, humankind rebooted. ‘You and I are alive at this moment.’

The revelation continues to this day, the technological paradise forever glittering on the horizon. Even money men have taken sidelines in starry-eyed futurism. In 2014, the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen sent out a rhapsodic series of tweets – he called it a ‘tweetstorm’ – announcing that computers and robots were about to liberate us all from ‘physical need constraints’. Echoing Etzler (and Karl Marx), he declared that ‘for the first time in history’ humankind would be able to express its full and true nature: ‘we will be whoever we want to be.’ And: ‘The main fields of human endeavour will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, adventure.’ The only thing he left out was the vegetables.

Such prophesies might be dismissed as the prattle of overindulged rich guys, but for one thing: they’ve shaped public opinion. By spreading a utopian view of technology, a view that defines progress as essentially technological, they’ve encouraged people to switch off their critical faculties and give Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and financiers free rein in remaking culture to fit their commercial interests. If, after all, the technologists are creating a world of superabundance, a world without work or want, their interests must be indistinguishable from society’s. To stand in their way, or even to question their motives and tactics, would be self-defeating. It would serve only to delay the wonderful inevitable.

The Silicon Valley line has been given an academic imprimatur by theorists from universities and think tanks. Intellectuals spanning the political spectrum, from Randian right to Marxian left, have portrayed the computer network as a technology of emancipation. The virtual world, they argue, provides an escape from repressive social, corporate and governmental constraints; it frees people to exercise their volition and creativity unfettered, whether as entrepreneurs seeking riches in the marketplace or as volunteers engaged in ‘social production’ outside the marketplace. As the Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler wrote in his influential book The Wealth of Networks (2006):

This new freedom holds great practical promise: as a dimension of individual freedom; as a platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more critical and self-reflective culture; and, in an increasingly information-dependent global economy, as a mechanism to achieve improvements in human development everywhere.

Calling it a revolution, he said, is no exaggeration.

Benkler and his cohort had good intentions, but their assumptions were bad. They put too much stock in the early history of the web, when the system’s commercial and social structures were inchoate, its users a skewed sample of the population. They failed to appreciate how the network would funnel the energies of the people into a centrally administered, tightly monitored information system organised to enrich a small group of businesses and their owners.


The territory began to be subdivided, strip-malled and I sensed that foreign agents were slipping into my computer through its connection to the web


The network would indeed generate a lot of wealth, but it would be wealth of the Adam Smith sort – and it would be concentrated in a few hands, not widely spread. The culture that emerged on the network, and that now extends deep into our lives and psyches, is characterised by frenetic production and consumption – smartphones have made media machines of us all – but little real empowerment and even less reflectiveness. It’s a culture of distraction and dependency. That’s not to deny the benefits of having easy access to an efficient, universal system of information exchange. It is to deny the mythology that shrouds the system. And it is to deny the assumption that the system, in order to provide its benefits, had to take its present form.

Late in his life, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term ‘innocent fraud’. He used it to describe a lie or a half-truth that, because it suits the needs or views of those in power, is presented as fact. After much repetition, the fiction becomes common wisdom. ‘It is innocent because most who employ it are without conscious guilt,’ Galbraith wrote in 1999. ‘It is fraud because it is quietly in the service of special interest.’ The idea of the computer network as an engine of liberation is an innocent fraud.

I love a good gizmo. When, as a teenager, I sat down at a computer for the first time – a bulging, monochromatic terminal connected to a two-ton mainframe processor – I was wonderstruck. As soon as affordable PCs came along, I surrounded myself with beige boxes, floppy disks and what used to be called ‘peripherals’. A computer, I found, was a tool of many uses but also a puzzle of many mysteries. The more time you spent figuring out how it worked, learning its language and logic, probing its limits, the more possibilities it opened. Like the best of tools, it invited and rewarded curiosity. And it was fun, head crashes and fatal errors notwithstanding.

In the early 1990s, I launched a browser for the first time and watched the gates of the web open. I was enthralled – so much territory, so few rules. But it didn’t take long for the carpetbaggers to arrive. The territory began to be subdivided, strip-malled and, as the monetary value of its data banks grew, strip-mined. My excitement remained, but it was tempered by wariness. I sensed that foreign agents were slipping into my computer through its connection to the web. What had been a tool under my own control was morphing into a medium under the control of others. The computer screen was becoming, as all mass media tend to become, an environment, a surrounding, an enclosure, at worst a cage. It seemed clear that those who controlled the omnipresent screen would, if given their way, control culture as well.

‘Computing is not about computers any more,’ wrote Nicholas Negroponte of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in his bestseller Being Digital (1995). ‘It is about living.’ By the turn of the century, Silicon Valley was selling more than gadgets and software: it was selling an ideology. The creed was set in the tradition of US techno-utopianism, but with a digital twist. The Valley-ites were fierce materialists – what couldn’t be measured had no meaning – yet they loathed materiality. In their view, the problems of the world, from inefficiency and inequality to morbidity and mortality, emanated from the world’s physicality, from its embodiment in torpid, inflexible, decaying stuff. The panacea was virtuality – the reinvention and redemption of society in computer code. They would build us a new Eden not from atoms but from bits. All that is solid would melt into their network. We were expected to be grateful and, for the most part, we were.


What Silicon Valley sells and we buy is not transcendence but withdrawal. We flock to the virtual because the real demands too much of us


Our craving for regeneration through virtuality is the latest expression of what Susan Sontag in On Photography (1977) described as ‘the American impatience with reality, the taste for activities whose instrumentality is a machine’. What we’ve always found hard to abide is that the world follows a script we didn’t write. We look to technology not only to manipulate nature but to possess it, to package it as a product that can be consumed by pressing a light switch or a gas pedal or a shutter button. We yearn to reprogram existence, and with the computer we have the best means yet. We would like to see this project as heroic, as a rebellion against the tyranny of an alien power. But it’s not that at all. It’s a project born of anxiety. Behind it lies a dread that the messy, atomic world will rebel against us. What Silicon Valley sells and we buy is not transcendence but withdrawal. The screen provides a refuge, a mediated world that is more predictable, more tractable, and above all safer than the recalcitrant world of things. We flock to the virtual because the real demands too much of us.

‘You and I are alive at this moment.’ That Wired story – under headline ‘We Are the Web’ – nagged at me as the excitement over the rebirth of the internet intensified through the fall of 2005. The article was an irritant but also an inspiration. During the first weekend of October, I sat at my Power Mac G5 and hacked out a response. On Monday morning, I posted the result on Rough Type – a short essay under the portentous title ‘The Amorality of Web 2.0’. To my surprise (and, I admit, delight), bloggers swarmed around the piece like phagocytes. Within days, it had been viewed by thousands and had sprouted a tail of comments.

So began my argument with – what should I call it? There are so many choices: the digital age, the information age, the internet age, the computer age, the connected age, the Google age, the emoji age, the cloud age, the smartphone age, the data age, the Facebook age, the robot age, the posthuman age. The more names we pin on it, the more vaporous it seems. If nothing else, it is an age geared to the talents of the brand manager. I’ll just call it Now.

It was through my argument with Now, an argument that has now careered through more than a thousand blog posts, that I arrived at my own revelation, if only a modest, terrestrial one. What I want from technology is not a new world. What I want from technology are tools for exploring and enjoying the world that is – the world that comes to us thick with ‘things counter, original, spare, strange’, as Gerard Manley Hopkins once described it. We might all live in Silicon Valley now, but we can still act and think as exiles. We can still aspire to be what Seamus Heaney, in his poem ‘Exposure’, called inner émigrés.

A dead bison. A billionaire with a gun. I guess the symbolism was pretty obvious all along.

Reprinted from ‘Utopia Is Creepy: And Other Provocations’ by Nicholas Carr. Copyright © 2016 by Nicholas Carr. With permission of the publisher, W W Norton & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

..

How do we know what we know?


FEE

by Bill Frezza

Our Media-Driven Epistemological Breakdown

platocave

How do we know what we know? Philosophers have pondered this question from time immemorial. Julian Jaynes, in his classic book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, speculates that before the development of modern human consciousness, people believed they were informed by voices in their heads. Today, an alarming number of people are responding to voices on the Internet in similarly uncritical fashion.

As Jesuit scholar John Culkin pointed out in his seminal 1967 Saturday Review article, “A Schoolman’s Guide to Marshall McLuhan,” “We shape our tools and, thereafter, they shape us.” Examining history through this lens, one can identify seven great epochs in mankind’s intellectual and social evolution. Each is characterized by the way a new technology changed not only how we think about the world, but our actual thought processes. These are:

1) Spoken language, which first led to the primacy of mythology;

2) Written language, which bequeathed to us holy books and the world’s great religions;

3) The printing press, which spread literacy to the elites who went on to birth the nation state, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the U.S. Constitution;

4) The telegraph, which transformed pamphlets and broadsheets into modern newspapers, whose agenda-setting influence goaded America to “Remember the Maine” and become an imperialist power;

5) Radio, which placed broadcast propaganda at the service of central planners, progressives, and tyrants;

6) Television, which propelled the rising tide of the counterculture, environmentalism, and globalism; and

7) The Internet, a nascent global memory machine that puts the Library of Alexandria to shame, yet fits in everyone’s pocket.

At each transition, the older environment and way of thinking does not disappear. Rather, it adopts an extreme defensive crouch as it attempts to retain power over men’s minds. It is the transition from the Age of Television to the Age of the Internet that concerns us here, as it serves up an often-toxic brew of advocacy and click-bait journalism competing to feed the masses an avalanche of unverifiable information, often immune to factual or logical refutation.

Rational epistemology holds that reason is the chief test and source of knowledge, and that each of us is not just capable of practicing it, but is responsible for doing so. Reason flowered when the Enlightenment overturned the ancient wisdom of holy books, undermining the authority of clerics and the divine right of kings. Wherever reason is widely practiced and healthy skepticism is socially accepted, error becomes self-correcting (rather than self-amplifying, as under a system based on superstition), as new propositions are tested, while old propositions get reexamined as new facts come to light.


Goebbels proved that a lie repeated loudly and frequently in a culture that punished skepticism became accepted as truth.


Yet, reason’s primacy is a fragile thing. As increasingly potent electronic media confer influence on new voices, formerly-dominant media and governing elites fight a rearguard action to regain their status as ultimate arbiters of knowledge and what matters. Goebbels proved that a lie repeated loudly and frequently in a culture that punished skepticism became accepted as truth. We all know how that turned out.

Revulsion at the carnage of the Second World War crested with the counterculture revolution driven by the first TV generation. By the time the dust settled, its thought leaders had grabbed control of the academy, reshaping it along postmodern lines that included an assault on language that critics dubbed political correctness. This was intentionally designed to constrain what people can think by restraining what they can say. The intention may have been to avert a repeat of the horrors of the 20th century, but the result was to strip much of the educated populace of the mental tools needed to ferret out error.

So now that the voices have returned to our heads, we are inadequately prepared to defend against them. Digitally streamed into every nook and cranny of our ubiquitously connected lives, these voices are filtered by our own self-reinforcing preferences and prejudices, becoming our own in the process. The result is an ongoing series of meme-driven culture wars where the shouting only gets louder on all sides.

What causes crime? Is autism linked to vaccines? Should GMOs be banned? Is global warming “settled science”? These are more than factual questions. Responses to them signal identification with an array of ever more finely differentiated identity groups set at each other’s throats. For those who wish to divide and rule, that’s the whole point.

In a cruel irony, this global outbreak of media-induced public schizophrenia has even empowered jihadists bent on taking the world back to the 10th century using the idea-spreading tools of the Internet to challenge a Western Civilization rapidly losing its mojo.

So we come back to the question: How do we know what we know? At the present time, we don’t. And therein lies the problem.

..

Malaysia – The death of Freedom of Information


Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech, a fundamental human right recognized in international law, which is today understood more generally as freedom of expression in any medium, be it orally, in writing, print, through the Internet or through art forms… – Wiki


The Malaysian Insider

Sarawak Report says MCMC blocking site further discredits Putrajaya

Sarawak Report

The main page of Sarawak Report that visitors from Malaysia will see upon trying to access Sarawak Report’s website, http://www.sarawakreport.org, following the move by the MCMC to block access to the whistleblower site. – ‘Sarawak Report’ website screenshot pic, July 19, 2015.

.

Whistleblower site Sarawak Report has labelled the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC)’s blocking of the site today as an act that will only bring further “discredit” to Putrajaya.

MCMC confirmed today that it has blocked local access to the site as it was threatening “national stability” following months of exposes pertaining to business dealings of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), the state-owned investment arm.

But Sarawak Report editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown (pic, left) said that they would not be perturbed by the MCMC move and vowed to continue with its exposes on the scandal and other relevant issues.

“Sarawak Report will not be impeded in any way by this action in bringing out future information as and when its investigations deliver further evidence,” she said in a statement issued tonight.

Rewcastle-Brown questioned if there is a “single person” who would believe MCMC’s claim that the site is threatening national stability.

“So far, no one in the Malaysian government has had the guts to take Sarawak Report formally to task over any factual detail of our revelations or issue legal proceedings which would trigger a public examination of the evidence.

“This is because our information is overwhelming, easily proven and patently substantiated by a mass of corroborative factual evidence,” she said.

Rewcastle-Brown noted that as Putrajaya was not in a position to refute the evidence, certain members of the government had instead spent the last few weeks doing their best to distract from the issue by attacking the integrity of Sarawak Report.

BN’s strategic communications director Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, who is also a Cabinet member, recently used a “confession” by a former Sarawakian journalist, Lester Melanyi, to claim that Sarawak Report had forged and tampered with 1MDB-related documents that led to its exposes.

He also claimed that opposition politicians had worked hand-in-hand with the London-based site.

Rewcastle-Brown said that ministers had shouted about forged, tampered or distorted documents, but they have been unable to highlight even one example of such a deed to date.

She also said that if Sarawak Report exposes were a mere plot and not based on facts, politicians from both side of the political divide would not be voicing anger and concern about 1MDB.

“If all our exposes were a dark and tangled plot of elaborate forgeries and lies, why is it that politicians across the political spectrum have been voicing anger and concern for months and years about the growing indebtedness and missing billions at 1MDB?

“And why is there a mass of official investigations being conducted into this very matter?” she asked.

The state investment arm, a brainchild of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, sits on a RM42 billion debt accumulated over six years.

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is among its chief critics. – July 20, 2015.

..

Malaysia – Instilling fears and insecurities


The Malaysian Prime Minister Najib is under heavy attack by Netizens and is under great pressure to step down. The talk of the town is filled and centered around the scams and scandals he’s deeply involved in, which were disclosed primarily by the Alternative and online Social Medias.

Najib knows he is up against awakened Malaysians and his battle to regain trust and control is diminishing by the hour.

The govern-ment machinery is working overtime to combat and restrain the massive information  pouring on the Internet which finds Najib struggling to survive each day.

Survive he must and will resort to every available tool he has to remain in power. False flag is a favorite tool of the controllers, and is effective in the pasts.

The recent mob incident at Kuala Lumpur’s Low Yat Plaza which started off from a simple theft of a mobile phone eventually ended up as a “racial” riot. The incident went viral online after a UMNO blogger PAPAGOMO painted the incident as racial and the police is now after him. The fracas was caused by thugs purportedly from the Malay group PEKIDA, with shouts of “Allah Akbar”. The police came in and quickly brought the situation under control.

Read more: Pekida’s action in Low Yat brawl regrettable, says moderate Muslim group

Soon afterwards the govern-ment and the police issued statements that it wasn’t a racial incident and that it was only a simple case of theft. Everything is back to normal and life goes on.

The next follow up by the govern-ment is of course to tell and “advice” the people not to spread rumors, especially on Social Medias and that  the people should not listen to lies on the Internet. Perfect!

After Low Yat fracas, minister wants tougher social media policy

Low Yat Fracas

Putrajaya must act against those who promote racism on social media before race relations in the country spirals out of control, says Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri. – Read more

Voila! The Hegelian Dialectic was put in motion. Create and stage the ‘problem’. The people ‘reacted’. Now its ‘solution’ time. The mob incident IS NOT the problem, The problem IS the SOCIAL MEDIA spreading rumors and the “solution” is in the form of a CONTROLLED SOCIAL MEDIA! It was all a set up…a False Flag!

Hegelian Dialectic

The Hegelian Dialectic worked all, if not most of the time in the past. Instilling fears and insecurities are of days gone by. Not now in 2015! The people have awakened and can see through the lies and the setup.

The controllers are out of ideas and their days are numbered. There is no more fear. There is no racial problem. There is only the corrupt govern-ment.

..