by Mike Adams
the Health Ranger
December 07, 2010
Regardless of what you think about the Wikileaks release of state secrets,
there's no debating the astonishing fact that the internet made these leaks
Without the internet, no single organization
such as Wikileaks would have been able to so widely propagate secret
government information and make it public. In the old model of information
distribution - centralized mainstream media newspapers and news broadcasts -
such information would have been tightly controlled thanks to government
But the internet allows individual information publishers to bypass the
censorship of government. In the case of Wikileaks, it allowed an Australian
citizen to embarrass the U.S. government while sitting at a laptop computer
in the United Kingdom.
Governments don't like to be embarrassed. They don't like their secrets
aired on the internet.
Sure, it's okay for governments to tap all of
your secrets by monitoring your phone calls, emails and web browsing habits,
but every government seeks to protect its own secrets at practically any
cost. That's why the upshot of this Wikileaks release may be that
governments will now start to look for new ways to censor and control the
internet in order to prevent such information leaks from happening in the
What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize is that
a free internet is ultimately incompatible with government secrets, and
secrets are essential to any government that wants to remain in power.
That's because, as even Noam Chomsky
stated in this DemocracyNow video interview (WikiLeaks
Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on The Part of Our Political
most government secrets are based on information governments wouldn't want
their people to discover - secrets that might threaten the legitimacy of
government if the people found out the truth.
How the FCC plans to
seize authority over the internet
As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the FCC is
now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the same way it has
long exercised content censorship authority over broadcast television and
The reason you can't say those seven dirty words on broadcast television, in
other words, is because the FCC controls broadcast television content and
can simply revoke the broadcast licenses of any television station that
refuses to comply. This is the same tactic, in the internet world, of
yanking a web site's domain name, which the Department of Homeland Security
has already begun doing over
the last several weeks.
The FCC also controls content on the radio and can yank the broadcast
licenses of any radio stations that refuse to comply with its content
censorship. This is why operators of "pirate radio stations" are dealt with
so harshly: For the government to allow any radio station to operate outside
its censorship and control is to invite dissent.
The internet, of course, has been operating freely and without any real
government censorship for roughly two decades. In that time, it has grown to
be what is arguably the most influential medium in the world for information
distribution. Most importantly, the internet is the medium of information
freedom that is not controlled by any government.
The U.S. government wants to change all that, and they've dispatched the FCC
to reign in the "freedoms" of the internet.
How to crush internet
The first step to the FCC's crushing of internet freedom is to assert
authority over the internet by claiming to run the show.
The FCC, of course,
has no legal authority over the internet. It was only granted authority in
1934 over broadcast communications in the electromagnetic spectrum - you
know, radio waves and antennas, that kind of thing.
There is nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 that grants the FCC any
authority over the internet because obviously the internet didn't exist
then, and it would have been impossible for lawmakers in the 1930's to
imagine the internet as it operates today.
So instead of following the law, the FCC is trying to "fake" its way into
false authority over the internet by claiming authority in the current "net
neutrality" debate. By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC
will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to
control and censor the internet.
This is why "net neutrality" is a threat to internet freedom. It's not
because of anything to do with net neutrality itself, but rather with the
FCC's big power grab in its assertion that it has authority over websites
just like it has authority over broadcast radio.
The FCC may soon tell
you what you can post on the internet
Where is this all heading? Once
the FCC establishes a foothold on the 'net,
it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the
Here's how it might unfold:
First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls "information traitors," which
will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state
secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can't be a traitor since he's not even
American in the first place, but don't expect the FCC to care about this
Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to
include "information terrorists" which will include anything posted about
Ron Paul, the
Federal Reserve and the counterfeit money supply,
Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution.
The anti-state website
(where some of my own
articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned
because its information is so dangerous to government control.
After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the
corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large
corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews which
teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and
Big Pharma's high-profit pharmaceuticals.
The way this will come about is that the FCC may require a license to
publish health information on the web, in much the same way that states
currently license doctors to practice medicine.
This is how conventional
medicine has operated its monopoly for so long, by the way: By controlling
the licensing of doctors at the state level. Any doctor who dares prescribe
nutritional supplements or suggest that medication might be harmful to a
patient immediately gets stripped of his license to practice medicine (and
thereby put out of business).
The FCC will likely do the same thing across the
internet. Sites that publish health information without a license will be
deemed "a threat to public health" and be seized by the government.
The first target? Anti-vaccine websites.
Vaccines are so crucial to the
continuation of disease and medical enslavement in America that any site
questioning the current vaccine mythology will be deemed a threat to public
health - or perhaps even a "terrorism" organization.
Essentially, once the FCC has gained power and authority over the internet,
it will use that power to push a Big Government/Big Business agenda that
censors the truth, keeps people trapped in a system of disinformation, and
silences anyone who challenges the status quo.
The FCC is poised to become the FDA of internet information, banning
alternative speech and enforcing an information monopoly engineered by
Think of the FCC as the new the Ministry of Truth from George
This is not about net
neutrality, it's about the FCC power grab
Remember, I am not arguing here for or against the principle of net
neutrality itself, but rather warning about the FCC's imposition of false
authority over the internet in the first place.
The idea of net neutrality has merits, but
granting the FCC the power to control the internet is a disastrously bad
idea that will only end in censorship and "information tyranny" - especially
now that governments around the world are witnessing the "dangers" of
information freedom via the Wikileaks fiasco.
If there's one thing governments hate, it's real freedom.
Sure, they all
talk about freedom and publicly claim their allegiance to it, but behind the
scenes what they really want is total information control. That's because
freedom gives people the ability to say what they want, to whomever they
want, and even to oppose the doctrine of the government.
Just look at China and how it has censored the internet to the point where
you can't even log in to Facebook from that country.
Governments hate freedom because freedom threatens centralized power and
control over the People. And because governments hate freedom, they also
hate the internet as long as it's free.
This is why bloggers and internet journalists
are right now imprisoned all over the world for merely
posting the truth.
Noam Chomsky said in his
what the recent Wikileaks releases really show is that the U.S. government
"a profound hatred for democracy."
It also happens to have a profound hatred for
actual freedom, because people who are free to think for themselves and
write whatever they want are always going to be a threat to a government
that wants people to conform, obey and acquiesce.
agencies seek to expand their power
What do the FCC, FDA, TSA, DEA, FTC and USDA all have in common?
They all want more power.
They want more authority, bigger budgets and more
control over the world around them. They are like cancer tumors, growing in
size and toxicity while they consume more and more by stealing resources
from a healthy host. The bigger these cancer tumors become, the more
dangerous they become to the health of the host body, and the more urgently
they need to be held in check or excised from the body entirely.
There is no such thing as a government agency that wants to be smaller, with
shrinking budgets and fewer employees on the taxpayer payroll.
departments - just like people - incessantly seek more power even at the
expense of freedom among those they claim to serve. And this move by the FCC
to assume control over the internet is one of the most dangerous power grabs
yet witnessed in the short history of the information age.
By the way, one of the reasons we created and launched NaturalNews.TV was
because we wanted a video site that could not be turned off by YouTube.
You've probably heard the horror stories of
famous content producers like Alex Jones having their YouTube accounts
suddenly terminated. NaturalNews.TV is a safe haven for alternative health
content that cannot be turned off by a large corporation that doesn't
recognize the value of health freedom.
Feel free to participate by uploading videos or viewing the many thousands
of free videos available right now at www.NaturalNews.TV
By the way, I recommend reading another outstanding article on this topic
written by John Naughton at
Here's a taste of what he writes:
Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed
in just a year.
On 21 January, secretary of state
Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech
about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people welcomed and
most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged cyberattack on Google.
"Information has never been so free,"
declared Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks
are helping people discover new facts and making governments more
She went on to relate how, during his visit to
China in November 2009,
Barack Obama had,
"defended the right of people to freely
access information, and said that the more freely information flows the
stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information
helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new
ideas, and encourages creativity."
Given what we now know, that Clinton speech
reads like a satirical masterpiece.