I love the Internet and am thankful as a writer and researcher to have lived long enough to experience the freedom of this phenomenon.

However, I hope to die before a body of incompetent bureaucrats and politicians destroy the Internet like they do everything their grubby, greedy mitts touch.

I also love to hate the United Nations, a big waster of money that my hero, the eminent columnist Lord Conrad Black, describes as “a ludicrous playpen for the failed states and most odious despotisms of the planet.”

Eight years ago, in the immediate wake of 9-11 when world governments were passing legislation equivalent to Canada’s scary Bill C-36 that was purported to be a War on Terrorism, I was writing about Prime Minister Jean Chétien and his political plumbers declaring War on the Internet.

See my story below: War on Terrorism Is a War on Internet (Whitehorse Star, February 25, 2002). Thank goodness, the Canadian LIEberals, salivating to take control of cyberspace, weren’t able to pull off the sham.

Now, a little behind schedule, shrieks have grown shriller and the veil of the United Nations has been pulled back to reveal more dirt. Any form of government is but a body therefore has no head with which to contain brains with which to think. Big government bodies can’t be expected to run anything properly without brains.

Yet the rapacious United Nations, operating under a One World Order agenda, proposes to police and control the Internet for lucrative reasons.

This notion has been sanctioned by a number of legitimate governments of the world behind the masquerade that protection is needed from those ”bad ol’ hackers, leakers and undisciplined Internet users”.

World governments, especially the United States, were waiting in the wings for WikiLeaks to dump “stolen” booty onto computer networks, an orchestrated diversionary fraud of monumental proportions, if I ever saw one.

I’m no computer wizard nor technological genius but I surmise a great deal of time would have been required to download 250,000 documents.

Bureaucrats aren’t always bright. But nobody manning an important computer system could sit day in and day out with his head up his armpit not noticing material being sucked out of the system–especially after WikiLeaks boldly announced they were going to strike again.

Who in the United States government unlocked all security programs and released passwords that allowed a website owner and publisher to waltz unencumbered into so-called secured government systems and roam around in the confidential files for days downloading sensitive information without interruption?

Under that open-door policy, a five-year-old could have accessed the same material. Jason Assange can hardly be labeled a “hacker” if the material was served to him on a silver platter. While I don’t know about Assange’s nationality, Americans are involved in this exercise who have every right under the U.S. Constitution to take and disseminate documents that prove the government lies to, cheats on, and steals from the people.

The so-called “national security breach” is an excuse to do a major brain sudsing on the gullible public, making people believe once again a need exists for government to regulate and control the Internet to keep them safe.

Evidently groping groins at airports didn’t satisfy the perverts.

Government’s job is not to keep people safe; government’s job, first and foremost, is to uphold the constitution to keep the people free.

In the past, the United Nations, operating on its One World Order mindset, was thwarted from seizing Internet control because it couldn’t rally support from freedom-loving, democratic nations.

Now the sordid subject has raised its ugly head again, reminiscent of when the Attack on America on September 11, 2001 spurred the United States, Canada and other governments to brainwash people into believing security trumps civil liberties in the name of “public safety”. Those with a herd mentality sickeningly agreed: “Whatever it takes to be safe”.

Overzealously, in the wake of WikiLeaks, on last count the United States had pulled the plug on a minimum 25 websites without ceremony, notice or reason. The only recourse to web administrators is to ask “why”, a question which will not be answered and the server, if it knows the answer, is not allowed to divulge information.

These weren’t porn sites. Did a complainant grouse about a copyright infringement? If so, only the questionable material needs to be removed, not the whole site taken down. Under the circumstances, it is doubtful that the server will return money to the web administrator for service not provided.

Recently, InfoWars.com received notice from Google that their videos were being removed from You Tube without opportunity to defend itself. Why? Did a Marxist not like Alex Jones’ subject matter in his hard-hitting exposés and Google took action on maybe one ludicrous complaint?

Google is a private company free to set its own business policies but it’s unprofessional not to offer guideline criteria to users. Time has come to supplant You Tube with an alternate site where libertarian-type viewpoints can be posted without worry of arbitrary deletion.

Jay Rockefeller, a Senator of West Virginia, Democrat, of course, has the chutzpah to specifically target Fox News and MSNBC for banishment from the Internet on the basis right-wing alternative news networks are becoming too popular and are posing a competitive threat to the Marxist mainstream media and left-wing opinions.

As usual, dealing with government is like fighting feathers and will be a thousandfold worse if you have to deal with the monstrous United Nations.

Government involvement or take over of the Internet infringes individual natural rights of freedom of speech as exists as a reminder in the U.S. Constitution First Amendment and echos the same infringement of natural rights that exists in Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

Big bucks would be realized for the UN to have a world monopoly on the Internet. It would be tantamount to all gambling casinos and financial institutions being government-operated. The patrons pay while only the house wins.

A stifling, freedom-sucking UN diktat would drive Internet user fees into the stratosphere. UN Thought Police would start nosing around into confidential business of individuals and companies and hacking into the computer industry’s programming secrets.

The UN would censor the flow of free ideas and material from citizen journalists; prevent criticisms of governments by sending a UN Thought Police to raid your house or office; shut down bloggers and right-wing alternate news broadcasters. The UN would dictate to newspapers, regardless of political slant, what materials they can publish, when they can publish it and who they can hire.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao–every tyrannical dictator in history–has curtailed news sources except for the distribution of party-line newsletters. No book or film could be produced unless personally authorized by the Party’s High Priest.

Yet this depressing scenario can’t happen as long as Internet users and savvy IT entrepreneurs are vigilant. There are technological ways to simply duck next door to build a closed network system, encrypt all computer language and messages into indecipherable cipher, and block signals to prevent government snooping.

It is past time for users who cherish Internet to take an activist stance by going ballistic and firing a few well-directed warning volleys across the bow at Internet servers and at politicians and bureaucrats at all tiers of government. Let them know in no uncertain terms that the Internet community is on guard and will not allow the Internet to be stolen by a bunch of despot dictators.

An offensive ballistic attack mode now is far better than being forced into having to go nuclear from a weaker defensive position later.

The United Nations and its depraved scheme for a One World Order/New World Order/One World Governance/One World Government–whatever handle suits your fancy–should have been burned, embalmed and buried 30 or 40 years ago before its stench ripened into socialism, Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, totalitarianism–all of which don’t work, never did work and never will work.

For those scoffers too young to remember Nazi history and that the One World Order was originally architected by Hitler to fulfill his dream for a 1,000-year Reich, Savant Noir has penned a few words on the subject in his excellent article “Root of All Evil”:

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/12/14/creeping-sustainability/

”Many people have been forever speaking of some major ‘conspiracy theory’ afoot, and alluding to The North American Union, or the New World Order. They were partly right, although wrong. There is no conspiracy…there is no secret. If this is a conspiracy, it is the worst kept secret ever made by mankind, as it is published everywhere. You can type Sustainable Development in your search engine, and the millions of hits it will return will range from the U.S. Government, the United Nations, every major University, Corporation, NGO’s (non-government organizations), and on and on. Wow! Stealthy, aren’t they? When last I looked, there were over 26 million hits. Some secret!”
As it stands now, about the only way to dismantle the UN–which has encroached on our lives and sucked up our tax dollars without our knowledge or consent–is for the United States and Canada to withdraw from this international organization along with the disgruntled countries who are clamoring to break free of the European Union bondage.

When crumbled from lack of funding, the crooked, odious caliphs, dictators and potentates should be indicted. Then the extravagant 47-floor New York City monument could be renovated into much-needed housing for low-income families.

On December 17, IT News posted “WikiLeaks Sparks Push for Tighter Controls”. John Hilvert’s full story, “UN Mulls Internet Regulation Options”, plus hundreds of luscious comments from like-minded UN haters and Internet lovers, can be read at:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un-mulls-internet-regulation-options.aspx

*******