. . .While regarding real threats in”Cyberspace”, Visa and Mastercard companies secretly plan to register the detailed shopping of all their card-users, and for selling such personal information to the rest of the commercial corporate world. No wonder Visa & Mastercard have declared transparency champion Wikileaks their archenemy, seeking its economic strangulation.
By Marcello Ferrada-Noli
The decision from the Judges in London on Sweden’s extradition request of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been announced for November the 2nd. This, coinciding with a conference in London hosted by the Foreign Office on the very same day, in which – among a few other participants – only four foreign ministers will attend: Hillary Clinton (USA), Carl Bildt (Sweden), William Hague (United Kingdom) and a minister from Holland. It cannot be purely accidental that the signalled ministers represent exactly the countries chiefly involved, by primordial foreign-policy interests or by “legal” involvement, in the juridical effort to silence the whistleblowing and cyber-active organization Wikileaks and its main spoke person and founder Julian Assange.
As advanced in a previous analysis on the multiple-front contra offensive against Wikileaks
, Wikileaks withstand these days a formidable and belligerent contra offensive. This is based in one and only strategy, and under one unique command. The London, Washington and Stockholm events of last week show that clearly. In one front, multinational corporate institutions or international banks continue strangle the funding from supporters around the world. This operation could eventually shut down Wikileaks
.As already known – however anew in the international focus after the sensitive denounce done by Wikileaks last week – corporate international bank institutions and in particular Visa, Master card or PayPal have blocked fund-transferences (private donations) towards Wikileaks.Some among the public have mistakenly believed – as suggested by journalists’ deceptive reports – these contributions were directly to serve Julian Assange’s defence fund (I personally would not mind that, since for corporate business and the government directly representing their interests the target is indivisibly Wikileaks and
Julian Assange. Strategically considered, the political survival of both Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange is historically symbiotic). In fact, the financing missing – and crucially need it – is to sustain the historical cybernetic struggle of Wikileaks for transparency and against corruption and power abuse. This opus has already inspired historically-relevant political revolutions in favor of human rights in the Third World.
In another front, the attrition war posed by the long-lasting “legal process” by proxy (taken by Sweden) against Wikileaks founder and front-figure Julian Assange, reveals clearer and clearer (by a seemingly artificial delay) the tactical aim of contribute to the blockade above. One thing is to acknowledge that appeal procedures do take their due time. But another is to explain why so different dates or delays
, have been consecutively announced for such verdicts. Now we know, it had to be synchronized. This strategy, consisting seek procrastination of the “legal” process against Julian Assange (further appeals are expected) aimed ultimately to strangle Wikileaks also economically and organization wise. To this add the highly belligerent front “Trial by the media
“, particularly in Sweden.
Accordingly, the even has been announced as a London Conference “on Cyberspace” with the following main agenda:
“How can cyber crime be prevented and pursued more effectively?”
The question is, what “cyber crime” includes? what are the main cyber crimes of this very epoch – as regarded by the governments participating – and which organization or group of cyber-experts (or “hackers”) has been publicly signalled by those governments as a main criminal cyber organization “behind”? Has not Julian Assange been referred as “Ciber terrorist“?
The Conference organizers provide a discrete list to fill the cyber-crime concept, including “steal identities, ideas and designs, defraud government. . .” etc.
Yes, only “defraud governments”, and NOT “protect citizens from government, corporation or institutional defraud”.
Other participants, among the relatively few chosen to be in the said conference, are Joanna Shields, President of Facebook UK and Sanjay Pradhan, Vice President of the World Bank Institute. As a matter of fact, Wikileaks disclosures or statements from the organization have targeted as well both Facebook and huge world-bank institutions.
Wikileaks is to war what war is to politics and politics to economics. Clausewitz revisited
Wikileaks has given to the modern world the best answer to war. Deflate conflicts by making international politics more transparent. It is not about an armed Deterrence, and it is not only about civil disobedience. It is about active alerting on corrupted politics, on covering-up journalists, on subservient or marionette governments. But is also about pointing to the core of the belligerent conflict, i.e. its origin: corporate profit and profit development, the corporate-establishment’s greed lebensraum.
During the first times of the Wikileaks spectacular disclosures, the public tended to associate those exposed wrongdoings exclusively with governmental political behaviour or/and in maters of foreign policy, occupation wars or revolutions. However, corruption and power abuse are not to be viewed only as a political or military enterprise, indulged by governments, ambassadors, or military commands, nasty dictatorships aside. In fact, a main political corrupted behaviour is to protect the power abuse of the mutinational corporate world against the single, private interest of the modest citizens of the world.
Reflecting in what Carl von Clausewitz
once formulated, that war is the continuation of politics “by other means”, it would be as correct to state that politics – certainly international politics and “foreign affairs” – has become “by all means” the continuation of the economic agenda of the multinational corporate establishment. And this is exercised by the politicians in turn through an aggressive defence of those corporate interests. In a given moment politicians are a financial part in such corporate enterprises and interests. From the oil industry to international banking, from banking to credit-card operations.
What is however less known, at least in Italy or Sweden, is what Visa and Master card are up to as ad targeting
is concern. As revealed in a brief report by Juan Flores in Dagens Nyheter
, today 29 October (not on-line) (the report is based in a publication by the Wall Street Journal
, 25 October):
Visa and Mastercard are planning in secret to register all card-users detailed shopping in order to sell such personal information to the rest of the commercial corporate world. The information is cashed as “shopping behaviour” or “preferences”.The article in the Wall Street Journal informs that a report prepared by Mastercard sums up their concept, after all “You are what you buy”.But what we buy is not always what we need, certainly in the information front.
No wonder Visa and Mastercard have declared transparency Wikileaks their archenemy, seeking its economic strangulation.In the context above, the London “Cyberspace” Conference conveying the foreign ministers involved in the extradition process against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will certainly ultimate details of the tactics around the verdict of November the 2nd
.And neither by accident, the London “Cyberspace” conference have devoted its principal section (Part I) to:
“I. Economic Growth and Development
Realising the benefits of a secure cyberspace for international economic growth and development and use of cyberspace as a prosperity multiplier.”
More Visa, more Mastercard, more business, more war, more profit, more greed. Nada Wikileaks!
La lotta continua