The Washington Post and the Human Centipede Theory of Communication

The Washington Post once again revealed itself as a drooling lapdog for the establishment with its article "U.S. funding tech firms that help mideast governments evade government censors."

The basic premise of the article is that the U.S., more specifically the Broadcasting Board of Governors, is funding software companies that produce programs which allow users to mask their online identity, in an attempt to spread "democracy" in the Middle East.

Really?  Democracy?

The Post, and other media of its kind, have led me to come up with a theory that I call "The Human Centipede Theory of Communication."  For those that haven't seen "The Human Centipede" (a classic work of cinema) it's a about three people that are surgically attached from mouth to ass by a mad scientist.  Sorry if I ruined the plot.

The Human Centipede Theory of Dissemination goes like this.  The Pentagon (along with its related alphabet agencies) is the head of the centipede.  It produces the information that the public consumes, and has control over which direction the creature moves in.

The mainstream media-The Washington Post, the New York Times, and the like-are the second link in the chain.  With their mouth surgically sewn in place, they digest the shit that is passed out of the Pentagon, recycling it and passing it on  through to the public, which is the last link in the chain.

I am still working on finding a journal to publish my theory in.  In the meantime, ask yourselves, "Since when has the U.S. really cared about spreading democracy?"

These regimes in which the U.S. claims to be helping dissidents spread democracy are all client states that are propped up by our country.  Governments like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen are hated by their own people, and if it wasn't for the U.S. providing  their leaders with a steady stream of weapons and military training they most likely would have been toppled by local movements a long time ago. 

The U.S.'s goal in distributing these internet technologies has nothing to do with democracy.  It's simply a cheaper and more effective way to carry out regime change.  If we both support a dictator (Mubarak) and, at the same time, support groups opposed to the dictator (The April 6th movement) we can sit back and relax, content with the fact that no matter which way the geopolitical wind blows we will still remain in control.   It's a chess match where Uncle Sam is managing to play both sides of the board and sit in the audience at the same time. 

It's hard to take papers like the Post seriously when they don't call out  Hilary Clinton for her ventriloquist act.  At the same time that the government is seeking greater measures to clamp down on internet freedom, through the use of bills like the Protect IP Act and attempts to create an "internet kill switch" she also claims that we are the lightning brigade for internet freedom in the Middle East. 

And it's hard not to laugh when you hear copies of speeches like Hilary's printed and re-printed across the globe.  But don't laugh too loudly- the centipede is awake and it's hungry.