Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Bill Clinton is right – the U.N. will prove to be a lot worse than the NSA.

Bill Clinton may be a crook (well forget the “may be” – he is a crook), but that does not mean he is not right – indeed it gives him an insight into corrupt minds. And not being in the service of a political ideology (being an “honest thief” rather than a “bitch” [a servant of the Soviets] – in the language of GULAG) he has no reason not to say what it is going on.

We now see what the Edward Snowden thing was really about (as well as giving the FSB some tips in the cyber war – stuff they most likely guessed at anyway). It was about discrediting United States control of the internet – thus giving Mr Obama an excuse to do what he always wanted to do. Hand over control of the internet to the United Nations international telecommunications union (read Russia, China and the Islamic powers). The NSA just wants to know what you are saying – the new masters of the internet (with no pesky First Amendment) will want to stop you saying it.

Was Mr Snowden just a useful idiot – or an FSB agent all along? I do not know – but the censorship of the internet (not practical under American control of the internet) is now a real possibility. Barack Obama may get his dream (control of speech – by P.C. doctrine) by the back door of the “international community”.

The young people (the ones who nod their heads at the “libertarians” on Mr Putin’s “Russia Today” television station) will not (yet) believe me. But the NSA (and yes the CIA also – people such as Mike Baker who risked his life so many times for young people who think he is a “Fascist”) were not the enemy (they never were). They (the NSA and the CIA) were not out to censor you. It is your “saviours” (the people you hero worship) who want to censor you.

“We are techno people, no censorship will work on us” – oh you silly people, that is not what censorship is about. Censorship is about the average person not seeing something.


  1. Mr Ed says:

    ‘The young people (the ones who nod their heads at the “libertarians” on Mr Putin’s “Russia Today” television station) will not (yet) believe me.’

    Name me one such person, just one.

  2. Laird says:

    Bill Clinton is a lot of things I despise, but I don’t know that “crook” is one of them. But be that as it may, your point is that he is like the proverbial stopped clock which is occasionally right, and I’m sure that’s true. What I’m not sure about is whether this is one of those instances. (I’m also not sure of the accuracy of this information, since you didn’t provide a link, but I’ll accept it as given.)

    The US doesn’t “control” the internet today, and the UN will not “control” it tomorrow. The US does have effective control of Icann, the body responsible for managing web addresses (.com, .net, etc), which it is relinquishing. But so what? The internet isn’t going anywhere, and this isn’t going to affect people’s ability to employ (or not) encryption and anonymizing tools. The UN can’t censor the internet any more than the US could. Hell, Turkey can’t even block Twitter!

  3. John Galt says:

    But Laird, you are missing what seems to be the fundamental point.

    ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and as such it has control over the key top-level domains.

    In its current form it is relatively harmless, but if that was transferred to a more malleable UN organisation then it could indeed be used to both censor and to silence those who would propagandise against them and their various agencies and agendas.

    ICANN might be little more than a glorified electronic telephone book, but a lot of critical web infrastructure is dependent upon the way it operates.

    You don’t give that sort of power to your enemies, be it Moscow, Beijing or the UN – and the UN is not a benign organisation, but a proxy for the enemies of freedom, regardless of the masques they wear or the virtues they extol as falsehoods and deception.

    Clinton was a dupe and a fool, but I never had him down as much of a traitor, whereas Obama is most assuredly a traitor in word, thought and deed.

    He is the Manchurian Candidate made real and placed in the highest elected office. He is, the enemy within.

  4. Sam Duncan says:

    “We now see what the Edward Snowden thing was really about (as well as giving the FSB some tips in the cyber war – stuff they most likely guessed at anyway). It was about discrediting United States control of the internet – thus giving Mr Obama an excuse to do what he always wanted to do.”

    I rather suspected as much. Here’s what I wrote a few weeks ago just before the Great Counting Cats Darkness prevented me from posting it (that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it):

    … certain corners of “the international community” have never forgiven President Clinton for refusing to allow them to get their dirty mitts on the Internet back in the ’90s when they wanted a UN agency to take on the functions of InterNIC. (Give Bill his due: he may have been a lying bastard, and the arrangement he did put it place – ICANN/IANA – is more statist than what had gone before, but at least he stood up for America.)

    However, now the Russians have successfully established in the public mind the idea that the US is an unfit steward of the worldwide network (that portrayal of the Land of the Free as a uniquely degenerate, its talk of individual liberty mere hypocricy, with the UK as its lapdog, has the FSB’s fingerprints all over it, by the way), there’s a nice big hole for those incorruptible angels of the UN to step into.

    I wouldn’t trust Snowden or his associates as far as I could throw them. Some of the consequences of what he did have been benficial, no doubt. But I’d argue that most of them will turn out to be the opposite. How much of this was intentional, I don’t know. I don’t think he was an FSB agent from the start, but they were almost certainly involved sooner than anyone involved has so far publicly acknowledged, and I’m quite certain that this was part of their gameplan all along. Not the main thrust, perhaps, but a very useful side effect.

    I might as well finish with another chunk of that unused post. It was partly in response to Snowden’s public denial that he’s a Russian spy:

    See, here’s the thing, Eddie, old son. It doesn’t really matter what you set out to be (and I’m quite prepared to believe that you were, at first, simply a concerned citizen shocked at what you saw the NSA doing). It doesn’t matter what you think you are. It doesn’t matter whether the FSB actively helped you nick those secrets or not (although, to be frank, I suspect you’re being a touch economical with the old actualité there, but that’s just me). And it doesn’t even matter that those secrets were about stuff the NSA absolutely shouldn’t have been doing. Because the fact is – now pay attention here – you took US government secrets and they’re now in the hands of the Russians. You are, like it or not, believe it or not, a Russian spy. Buy a fur hat and get used to it.

  5. John Galt says:

    Because the fact is – now pay attention here – you took US government secrets and they’re now in the hands of the Russians. You are, like it or not, believe it or not, a Russian spy. Buy a fur hat and get used to it.

    Spot on Sam. I wish I had said that. Think you might have to resurrect the entirety of that post of yours…

  6. Julie near Chicago says:

    Ummm….it’s not obvious to me that the Sith didn’t put Snowden up to this his own self. Don’t forget his aim really is (pace Laird) to knock down the U.S. to a position of global power and importance somewhere south of Kenya’s. Don’t forget also that he’s on record as wanting to be Secretary-General, or President of the U.N., or some dam thing. I imagine he really would like to see World Governance in charge of the Internet.

    “But — if he’s such a totalitarian at heart, wouldn’t he hate seeing NSA’s fangs pulled?”

    No, not in the long game. Besides which, this isn’t going to defang the NSA or any other part of government. (And there are legitimate differences of opinion as to just what or how much “defanging” should be done, when all things are taken into account.) A band-aid will be applied, and that’s about it. What’s really needed is a President whose very first act would be to tear up nearly every Executive Order ever written, and demolish most of the Departments along with them.

    Which kind of boils down to what Paul and Sam said in the first place, doesn’t it.

    Anyway, what JG said at 9:22 a.m.

    . . .

    There is also a theory over here that the point of all this was to enable Putin to retake the Crimea:



    It’s hard to tell precisely when Edward Snowden’s ‘moral motivations’ were
    subverted and he fell under direct or indirect FSB influence. Was it before
    or after he arrived in Russia, when FSB lawyer Anatoly Kucherena became his
    de facto handler and began speaking for him? Or was it before then, when he
    traveled to India and took hacking classes, and then oddly failed to
    disclose the trip when renewing his security clearance? Perhaps it was when
    he stole his co-workers passwords, enabling him to take even more classified
    information to Russia. Was he already under FSB influence when left his job
    at Dell and applied to Booz Allen Hamilton, specifically to gain access to
    more documents that could be stolen, or when he used a crawler to automate
    the theft and steal as much as possible? Whether it was planned from the
    beginning or a ‘coincidence’ that turned into a plot of opportunism,
    Snowden’s leakage of documents was crucial to Russia’s seizure of Crimea. Is
    it surprising, then, that Snowden and Greenwald refuse to comment on
    Russia’s violation of international law?

    [SNIP of quite a bit more....]

    From another list. Never heard of this source before, don't vouch for it. But the source does have lots of links. The writer of the piece is a Mike Best.

  7. Mr Ed says:

    Let us not overlook the creeping degeneracy of the Federal Govt, drunk Secret Service agent sent home:

    Do not impute too much competence to the State. The accuracy and selectivity of a creeping lava flow, yes.

  8. Paul Marks says:

    Mr Ed – sadly the young (and not so young) people who repeat RT tropes (such as the absurd idea that Edward Snowden is a good guy) are legion. It actually goes all the way back to the 1960s – when Murray Rothbard started importing Soviet propaganda lines (both from American socialists such as G. Kolko – and straight from Moscow itself) and presenting them as “libertarian”.

    Actually strictly speaking Rothbard in the 1960s was NOT a traitor (nor is the so called Ludwig Von Mises institute today) – the thinking went as follows…..

    “The U.S. government is the enemy.”

    “This thing (say Mr Putin’s “Russia Today” television station) is producing attacks on the American government – for example that they are in the pocket of genetically modified food companies.”

    “So we will pass on these attacks – and call them libertarian”.

    “Down with the American regime – they are in the pockets of the rich capitalists and the transnational corporations!”.

    This utter bullshit (for in reality American companies are some of the most highly taxed and regulated in the world) is not only normal among young (and not so young) libertarians – it has spread out to a lot of populist “conservatives” as well.

    Being “anti government” is only a good thing if someone is “anti government” for the RIGHT REASONS.

    A thing that the people who go on RT (such as many leading libertarians – British as well as American, the author of “Planet Ponzi”, the people from “Zero Hedge” and on and on) either do not understand or do not care about.

    “Name one”?

    Name one who will not. Name one has got the call and has refused to go on (and cooperate).

    Even Conservatives (such as Bill Cash) go on shows such as “Sophie and Co” – where they are flattered by the young attractive presenters.

    They (both the libertarians and the Conservatives) are BEING USED.

    But they seem to have no idea that that all the flattering (the “witty banter” from Max, the Slavic air of mystery from Sophie ….. and on and on) is about USING THEM.

  9. Paul Marks says:

    Many thanks to John Galt, San Duncan and Julie.

    Even if one disregards Mr Putin and the FSB (and I do not believe that flights from Hong Kong to Ecuador go via Moscow – the idea that Mr Snowden went to Moscow by accident is nonsense), a friend of Mr Greenwald (of the Guardian and the New York Times – newspapers that have supported tyranny and evil for so many decades) is no friend of freedom.

    “But he says he supports Ron Paul” – Ron Paul had a lot of odd supporters. Rand Paul is a bit more careful in who accepts as a supporter.

    And if Mr Obama was really angry about the Snowden antics – why are officially authorised “leaks” still being passed on to the New York Times?

    The illusion is that the New York Times boldly released anti government information.

    The reality is that the New York Times (and the rest of the mainstream media) did exactly what Mr Obama wanted.

    Otherwise Mr Obama would have stopped all the help the government gives to the New York Times – the help the New York Times utterly depends on.

    This is a con – a vast con.

    And the Commander in Chief is at the heart of it.

    Actually he (Mr Obama) is probably a more ideologically dedicated collectivist that Mr Putin is – Mr Putin is more of a Al Capone type (a vicious gangster – murderer and so on) than a ideological Marxist.

    It is not really an alliance between Mr Obama and Mr Putin – Mr Obama just sees Mr Putin (and the FSB) as a useful weapon against what he (Mr Obama) hates about all other things – the United States of America.

    And Mr Putin sees no reason not to play ball (on this particular matter) – after all he hates America also (although for less ideological reasons) .

    And Mr Snowden?

    He will be used – squeezed for everything he can be used for.

    Then Mr Snowden may well be killed – and his death blamed on the CIA.

    They will not have done it – but the international media (and education system) will just accept that they are responsible.

  10. Paul Marks says:

    Laird “I am not even sure of the accuracy of this information”???????

    It is not exactly secret stuff Laird – Bill Clinton’s words have been all over the place, even on “Your World With Neil Cavuto” on FNC.

    Most people still get their news from television NOT the internet.

  11. Kevin B says:

    I have little idea what control of ICANN means in terms of censorship of the net but I would caution all of us not to trust Bent Willie. Ever.

    And also to remember that anything he says must be read in terms of a Hilary presidential run in 2016.

  12. John Galt says:

    I always thought the politically incorrect term for Bill was “Slick Willy”, it creates a more visual and indeed visceral image of the old lecher, especially his serial adulteries.

  13. Sam Duncan says:

    “But — if he’s such a totalitarian at heart, wouldn’t he hate seeing NSA’s fangs pulled?”

    No, not in the long game.

    Precisely. The NSA is the wrong kind of totalitarian. The idea is to tear down the structures of Western power, regardless of how much they resemble your own. As I said, some of the fallout will be beneficial, but most of it won’t because the aim is to weaken us.

    There have been no similar leaks from the FSB.

    Mind you, I’m still not convinced that Snowden went into this as an FSB agent from the off (an FSB stooge, perhaps; the Wikileaks mob are very close to the Russians), but it doesn’t matter in the end. The outcome is the same.

    There is also a theory over here that the point of all this was to enable Putin to retake the Crimea

    It seems unlikely that it was the principal intention. But it certainly helped. Then again, so did the EU breaking its agreement not to expand its sphere of influence (jeez, it’s like 1914 all over again) to Russia’s borders, thus giving him an excuse. Not that he needed one in Georgia.

    “I do not believe that flights from Hong Kong to Ecuador go via Moscow”

    Nope. The man’s movements are very suspicious, especially in the month between leaving his job in Hawaii and turning up in Hong Kong. We still don’t know where he was. He claims to have been undergoing treatment for his epilepsy, but it seems there’s no record of him in a Hawaian hospital.

    Listen to Paul, folks. He gets it. The Cold War is on again. Just as people had to get used to watching out for German spies again twenty years after WWII ended, we have to accept that Russia is working against us again. If it ever really stopped.

    I’ve mentioned Anatoliy Golitsyn before. When I first came across his theories I was interested, but very sceptical. The idea seems so far-fetched. While I’m still far from convinced that the USSR and China cooked up the cooling of Sino-Soviet relations, the fall of the Soviet empire and China’s turn to “capitalism” as a massive bluff back in the ’60s, what’s happened over the last year or so makes a worrying amount of sense in that context. He looks more right with almost every news report.

  14. John Galt says:

    I don’t accept Anatoliy Golitsyn’s interpretation of the decline and fall of the USSR, on the basis that I don’t put down to conspiracy and collusion what looks like incompetence and corruption.

    However, the idea that Putin and his ex-KGB cohort would attempt to build a new Russian nationalist empire to reclaim the former territories and enclaves? Oh yes – very!

    I’m glad I don’t own any property in Kaliningrad or between it and the Russian border, because this whole Crimean episode has the Sudetenland play-book written all over it.

    This is not about territorial expansion, but reclaiming power and sovereignty over what was lost with the collapse of the USSR.

    If I was a former satellite of the USSR with potential strategic value to the new Russia I wouldn’t be getting much sleep right now.

  15. Sam Duncan says:

    Pretty much my take on it too, John. I can’t emphasise enough how reluctant I am to accept Golitsyn’s interpretation. Cock-up always trumps conspiracy. But I can’t help hearing his voice nagging at the back of my head as I watch this unfold.

  16. John Galt says:

    Don’t get me wrong, Golitsyn is an interesting character and probably a genuinely brave guy to have done what he did during the cold war, but ultimately he’s looking at Rorschach blots and seeing patterns and interpretations that I just don’t see.

    The Perestroika Deception is a perfect example in that the ex-KGB men were specially selected and highly trained men, chosen in their teens and trained for decades at vast expense to the USSR on how to control the populace through threats, violence, secrets and espionage. Even before the collapse they knew all the people both pro-and-anti USSR, but most fundamentally they knew their secrets and where the bodies were buried.

    After the collapse of the USSR, it was obvious that such men would take positions of power in the former satellite countries, they even co-operate with their colleagues in Russia and elsewhere, but not because they are part of some 40+ year old strategy of Soviet deception, but because they want money & power – more importantly if they don’t have money & power they will be killed by their old enemies or the new ones.

    That isn’t a conspiracy, it’s the behaviour of thugs, bandits and warlords since Adam was a lad.

  17. Putin and co smell more like power hungry vicious gangsters to me than they do Marxists.

    However, I could be wrong – and power hungry vicious gangsters with lots of nuclear weapons and a vast network of agents is not good.

    As for Barack Obama.

    A Frankfurt School Marxist – has been all his life (five minutes research would show that to anyone who does not keep screaming BUT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE…….not it is not, it is only too possible).

    Mr Obama does not need Mr Putin to tell him what to do (Mr Obama may not even like Mr Putin very much).

    Mr Obama will do whatever it takes (cancel key missile systems – whatever) to harm the United States.

    Barack Obama has hated everything the West in general (and the United States in particular) stands for – he has hated it all, his entire life.

  18. John Galt says:

    Putin and co smell more like power hungry vicious gangsters to me than they do Marxists.

    The same could probably be said of Lenin and Trotsky in pre-revolutionary days.

    This is exactly what is revealed when you pull off the thin masque of legitimacy of being agents of the state – all you are left with are “just “power hungry vicious gangsters”, so we shouldn’t be surprised at the way ex-KGB agents behave.

    Same thugs, different suits…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: