The Globalist Takeover of the Internet

Long before fake news or Net Neutrality (N.N.) became major media topics, the U.S. government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news.

N.N. was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the internet. A sequence that happened so slowly none of you noticed it happening at all. After all, Net Neutrality wasn't even all that bad, right? Sure the internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn't really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right?

But is anything ever that simple?

Ask yourself why N.N. came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it?

Now ask yourself what sequence led up to N.N. and who led it to there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama's final month in office, the internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election.

This is a long piece, and the beginning will cover some material that you already know but it is crucial to understand the big picture. I split this into two posts, the first one covers the two-decade buildup to Net Neutrality, which I will summarize below for those who are lazy.
1950 - Education

U.S. House of Representatives commissions the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator, Norman Dodd, published the final report in which he discovers that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote "moral relativism" and

Other urls found in this thread:

congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf#page=596
thereligionofpeace.com/terror-2016.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

"internationalism" to the end of "oligarchic collectivism." In other words, globalism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down.
1980 - Civil Society Sector

The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn't anymore, and hasn't been for decades. By 1980 all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a "covert role in foaming up-risings," and that "they are doing things the CIA cannot do."
1990 - Media

Bill Clinton's Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalizes the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just six. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck six strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, CBS, and still shrinking.
2000 - Social Media

This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user.

"If you happen to have a right-wing perspective, Google puts your search results on the 10th page, Youtube demonetizes your videos (or removes them), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed." -/u/spydiggity

2010 - The Internet

The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit: the internet itself.

Already controlling much of the internet's media and all the social media platforms that propagate it, the only thing left for the globalists to control is the infrastructure itself that comprises the internet. That's why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open-Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization).

Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules they need to re-classify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as "common carriers", effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title II, ISPs need to apply for Broadcasting Licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.

The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit's outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for Broadcasting Licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because Broadcasting Licenses become the globalist's most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation.

Three judges presided over the case, two Democrats, one Republican:

Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan)

Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton)

David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)

The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title II classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the internet must receive a Broadcasting License. The FCC is stumped and can't really figure out what to do next... So Obama comes in to save the day. He pressures them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move is quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as... Net Neutrality. Surprise!

The public is told that they are saving the internet! But saving it from whom? Hahaha from the very people who are telling them to save it! Whether by intent or by circumstance, the globalists ended up playing both sides and winning. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v. FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape.

Now here's where the story picks up...

Net Neutrality invokes Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides internet service to register for Broadcasting Licenses from the government and regularly renew them.

Well... what if the FCC doesn't want to renew them? Ah but that's crazy talk, the FCC can't just revoke Broadcasting Licenses on a whim. It would be taken to court within seconds!

But imagine what happens when you're appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC, and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules your timeline. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it's violating federal law. Well, you'd probably say "fuck you I voted for Trump" and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).

This is where everything comes together.

Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You're about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you-

"Why don't they just call it 'The InfoWars Act'?"

Nothing will stop this until photo related gets shut down.

Your lawyer simply closes his eyes, as if with erotic satisfaction, and quickly whispers under his breath "...Bill Clinton is a rapist." You look back at the InfoWars Act to read its mission statement.

...counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department..."

That's so bizarre, you think to yourself. Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you're literally going to house it in the White House?

interagency center

Okay so it's a center, of multiple agencies. In the White House...

p. 1399 - The head of the Center... shall be appointed by the President.

...that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?

Maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts

Wait what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening shitposts on T_D? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is propaganda defined? Huh, that's strange... there's no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just... call it whatever they want. Incredible.

You look up to your lawyer, "How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?"

Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar.

"He didn't."

The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,

"He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it."

"Ohhhh shit yeah this is that fuckin propaganda thing that Obama legalized I always see it get reposted on The Donald! God, what a Kenyan pedophile thing to do, amirite?"

"So you've already read through it?"

"Oh... yeah no I'm a simple guy I just see a grey arrow and I make it orange."

"Jesus Christ." The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in pdf format).

SEC. 1287. GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER.

"This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they're going to be doing."

Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation

"Clandestine special operators?? That's like some Tom Clancey shit!"

"Not even Tom Clancey would write something like this. Earlier you called this a 'Kenyan' thing to do. But even Kenyans have never sent secret agents to brainwash their people. Really let that sink in."

"Yeah... Malik Obama would never do that."

The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists...

"But just when it couldn't get worse... it gets way fucking worse."

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government... provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government...

"They call in their globalist friends from some "totally neutral third-party" and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who's been flagged by a third-party "fact-checker" without having to take them to court. "

"Oh fuck."

"Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term "fake news" to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of "neutral third-parties" policing online content. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google, all the tech companies, and the White House itself were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers... across the entire internet. "

"Fuckin' Snopes."

"It's brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them."

The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations...

And that's it ladies and gentlemen.

That's why passing Net Neutrality is so important.

The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.

STORY TIME IS OVER THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL

Are you imagining how real this is?

They can physically shut down your access to the internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you shitpost on The_Donald! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, The_Donald, Sup Forums, Voat, and any other right-wing website that pops up to replace it! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years, like they always do, so that nobody would notice until it's too late! They could've taken us down one buy one, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions!

And it was 100% legal! They passed every law they needed to do it!

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY WE ARE TO HAVE WON THE ELECTION BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN.

AND NOW ONE FINAL QUOTE:

p.1446 - "The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

They thought she would win.

[LAUGHS IN KENYAN]

bump

I guess we've figured out why Net Neutrality was pushed so hard. How do we dismantle the progress they made?

Holy shit. Holy shit. Holy shit. What are we going to do?

A-a-user, I...

bump
too big if too true

Bump, this shit is important

Why do good threads like this always get slid?

Damn... Shareblue really does have control over this board holy shit

Not sure whether to believe this or not, it seems a bit shaky but a bit believable.

mumps #2
dont led this get slid omg someone screencap this

Seems hopeless but have my bump

Well thx god pajii is stopping it, isn't it.

Thank fuck Trump won.
Thank fuck NN is being repealed. Holy fuck.

Superman was created by 2 Jews!!
Take that honkey!!!!

Why do you think?

Not hopeless if NN is repealed with Trump in office. If Trump didn't win, I don't see how there would ever be any coming back from what the western world would have become.

This is actually terrifying

bump, NN shills on suicide watch

This deserves another bump. We came within a hair's breadth of losing the USA during the election.

Its was always obvious if Hillary won they would take drastic measures to make sure nothing like Trump happens again. Its why its imperative Trump leaves no loose ends.

Gonna need screenshots of these m80s

I meant that my bump was hopeless; however, this thread is miraculously still alive so I am happy to have been proven wrong.
I agree with you, or rather, I think that we are probably fucked, but if Hillary had pulled off stealing the election, there would be no "probably" about it.

Cropped posts

Net neutrality is a big deal right now because the Trump administration is ending it. Full stop.

If you ever needed proof that Sup Forums was made entirely of corporate shit-eaters this is it.

>The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes.
This is a violation of the First Amendment and would be struck down by even by the most liberal (or conservative) Supreme Court.

The rest of your post is Infowars-tier garbage.

His points are paranoid but valid.

Regulation was always the name of the game and the NSA proves it, now the freedom to do things like hate speech and overall propaganda moves on social media it's seen as "dangerous and undermining", which means we were winning, until we simply weren't anymore.

Excellent

oh? and how so?

>it's seen as "dangerous and undermining"
It is not illegal to be dangerous, or undermine the United States, unless you are inciting imminent lawless action. This is firmly established First Amendment case law.

I gotchu fɑm

That boat sailed when bushy signed the patriot act.

Also not being illegal for you, doesn't means they don't see me as a "weird foreigner danger"

>That boat sailed when bushy signed the patriot act.
No, it didn't. Supreme Court case law remains good law until overturned and is binding on all courts.

If you are lawyered up american citizen in american soil, maybe.

While I cannot argue with your numerals, you are breathtakingly naive if you think our courts have any more respect for the 1st Amendment than they do for the 2nd.
>No lie, one of my jewgle-word-game words is "frei".
I'm forced to conclude that you are sincere in your beliefs, but dead wrong.

Okay, it was literally the D word (u-b-s) that was flagging my post for spam. Here's the rest of what I was trying to post:

Also I'm not sure what the fuck happened here but I'm getting this fucking bullshit
>Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again.
message and it makes me want to commit crimes against jewgle.
Getting real sick of this shit. I'm gonna get this to post one way or another.
>AVENUE Germans

>88
AHAHAHAHAHA! Self-checking because Jewgle can die in a lake of fire.

Huh?

tl;dr?

ch-ch-checked

bumping before the fucking nigger mods delete this

page 7? UNACCEPTABLE

i guess people are too busy talking about BBC and e-celebs. thank god hillary lost.

so maybe send the rundown to breitbart or drudge? maybe tucker will do a story if it gets big enough

Nice shit but ling to the source and author faggot

It's very dense dude.

Bamp dis sheeeit
>Captcha: farm guest
I think I'm being insulted here, having actually grown up on a farm.

All obvious stuff. NGO think-tank groups are the worst sucking scum.

Jesus. Whats to be done?

Post this information in as many places as you can, send it directly to anyone you know will accept it, and ask them to propagate it as well.

Excellent fucking posts, you have my gratitude for this effort user

Thank you

Bump for exposure. Good summary and well-framed, user

Communications engineer here
own my own ISP that covers 2 counties
This is 100% real, it's just so complicated I have had problems explaining why USA "net neutrality" is a complete sham.

OP is not a faggot.

Needs to be condensed so that normies can interpret it
Also need to threaten their entertainment in some capacity

Well they like to watch conspiracy videos...

DMC take downs, no more free streaming TV.
gone in seconds.

Disgusting that this is so clearly a copy/paste from a reddit post, but it's good information, and accurate.
For those that want to read it for themselves, here's the Global Engagement Center part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act: congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf#page=596
The page I linked to is at the end of the section, where it states that the Global Engagement Center will be terminated 8 years after the act is passed. The section, Sec. 1287, starts 3 pages before the page I linked to.

>you are breathtakingly naive if you think our courts have any more respect for the 1st Amendment than they do for the 2nd.
I read Supreme Court briefs as well as circuit and appellate court opinions involving the First Amendment, which is protected by courts in ways that make all the other amendments look like trash. The courts protect the First Amendment just fine.

It's fine to be cynical, but it's not fine to be both cynical and ignorant.

The absolute degeneration of the average citizen's comprehension is why these sort of veiled threats are allowed to pass. The US majority public is too ignorant to make any stand on its own. Thank God for Trump standing for us.

The average comprehension of the average user in this thread is breathtakingly stupid. Not a single person in this thread seems to have any understanding of either law or the internet.

...holy shit.
What are we doing?
Screencap this and send it everywhere?

Imagine learning for an important issue for the first time from a bunch of posts copy-pasted from another website and thinking that it represents a breaking news bombshell with important revelations that you need to share with everyone you know.

It's complex but we need to make this into an issue, we failed at making a clear point about NN before and this it's the rosseta stone.

>It's complex but we need to make this into an issue, we failed at making a clear point about NN
If the best you can come with is the shit in the OP and telling people that "the president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election" you're better off keeping your mouth shut and not making people dumber.

it's one thing to have posts with
>government bad
but it's another to have specific sections of legislation listed out that string all of the potential abuse together. it doesn't have to be in meme-story format. but making the average american dumber isnt' possible.

If some of the things in your list are blatant lies with no basis in ANYTHING it discredits everything else in the list. The President cannot now, and never has been able to, legally take down any website in the United States, let alone "within imnutes."

Take this bump. Spread the word.

"Net Neutrality" is one of Obama's special little scams. If it was REALLY something 100% good that kept big ISPs from screwing little guys over, Reddit and Imgur(Both owned by Comcast) and Tumblr(Owned by Verizon) wouldn't be shilling for it.

>Reddit and Imgur(Both owned by Comcast)
It's really amazing that you can't go a single post in this thread without somebody making shit up out of fucking nowhere.

tl;dr, Net Neutrality is a law Obama put into place to replace the consumer-protecting laws already in place with some loophole-laden bullshit.

The loopholes here combine with some loopholes in some other laws Obama passed, allowing him to basically decide what is "Propaganda that needs to be silenced" and what isn't.

If Hillary won and Net Neutrality was renewed, Alex Jones could be arrested. Posters on Sup Forums and Reddit could be arrested. Conservative twitter users and blog operators could be arrested. www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com and thereligionofpeace.com/terror-2016.htm would go down in a fucking week.

It's that bad. Obama was that bad. The Globalists are that bad. Now scroll back up and read the whole fucking thing.

Fuck this shill. Hide and ignore this shill. Here's just here to shamepost and shill.
Scroll up, you'll see a screenshot of these posts. Post them everywhere. Post them in other threads. Put them on Reddit. Put them in your own custom-made Sup Forums thread simulators, I don't give a fuck, just fucking get more people to see these things and don't let any shamefags stand in your way.

>Hide and ignore this shill.
It must really suck when somebody points out that your unsourced lies and fabrications are lies and fabrications. What's the matter? Need a safe space?

>If Hillary won and Net Neutrality was renewed, Alex Jones could be arrested. Posters on Sup Forums and Reddit could be arrested.
This is, as I've said and you ignored because it was an inconvenient fact, illegal, and would continue to be illegal until the Constitution were amended to remove the First Amendment.

The posts are still not clear enough, we have to polish this pasta before doing anything or we will end with a bunch of non english speakers interpreting whatever they want and spreading it like that on the net, just like reddit did before.

The average citizen's ability to comprehend this shit was in the past maintained by good public education and a relatively honest media.

>If some of the things in your list are blatant lies with no basis in ANYTHING it discredits everything else in the list
This can very easily just be used a tool to discredit any opposition narrative; "accepted" narratives have similar inconsistencies and innocuous falsehoods embedded in them, it's just a matter of who controls the mouthpieces responsible for calling out inconsistencies and thereby shaping people's perceptions of "what the most important thing to call out is"

NN blah blah

internet thought police is already in effect. content they don't like will just silently vanish.

you can't avoid this timeline.

Let's focus on one article that has no room for second interpretations, with that we can attack the whole and future versions of this same law.

>"accepted" narratives have similar inconsistencies and innocuous falsehoods embedded in them
So point out the inconsistencies and falsehoods. If the accepted narrative is true this will strengthen it. If the accepted narrative is false this will discredit it. Either way the truth wins.

[this website]

what are you babbling about?
dont you know?
Hate speech isnt free speech
Fake news isnt free speech
wrong think isnt free speech
See when you can change what defines these things, you decide what is right and wrong. Deeming something " hate speech" or " fake news" allows it to be removed

muh living document

>Hate speech isnt free speech
>Fake news isnt free speech
>wrong think isnt free speech
These are popular opinions, but they are objectively wrong because no court has ever upheld it.

alright you shill, what's wrong in the initial post? it has legislation numbers and acts, text straight from these documents. just because they aren't being used that way now doesn't mean they won't be stretched in the future.

this whole thread you've just been attacking people without posting anything of value.

how long until these "opinions" become policy? le 34% face?

bump

Comcast wants to end NN though.

wut?
they are subjective terms, that was the whole point of my reply you tard

Do you mean that Ajit Pai was our guy all along?

>how long until these "opinions" become policy? le 34% face?
When insane people compose a majority of the Supreme Court. There is a not a single justice on the Supreme Court that would uphold any of these because they're plainly illegal.

Provide a single legislative number/act/document that supports the assertion that "The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election."

I'd like a quote of some sort rather than the entertaining fantasy that the OP whipped up out of nowhere.

congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf#page=596

>president chooses staff
>staff have authority
its really not that much of a leap desu

This is terrifyingly fucked up

If hillary had won then you'd have at least 1 on the supreme court. then i guarantee that ginsburg would've retired so there would be two. then if kennedy retired you now have 3. easy. it's not a stretch when the prevalent theory being espoused by our "top" law universities is critical theory.

all of the acts in the op. if they could label any "non-state actor" as a propagandist then they have the authority to use "whole-government" to shut it down. they would be relying on third-party expertise as to who would be labeled a propagandist and they'd be training these third parties. it's an aggressive feed-back loop. look at the UK and the EU, we'd have similar speech laws in 20 years if our trajectory wasn't changed.