Just Fuck My Internet Up Senpai

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3763094/The-United-States-control-internet-s-addressing-United-Nations-September-30-pledging-not-to.html

What could possibly go wrong if we gave complete control of our internet over to the globalist UN?

Other urls found in this thread:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2672549
mappingtheinternet.eu/node/41
mappingtheinternet.eu/node/42
unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf
ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14790&
youtube.com/watch?v=_Wlsd9mljiU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

User has been banned for violating UN Online Decency Rule #127: Use of offensive or inappropriate language.

>They thought it was a joke
>They are not laughing anymore

>unprovoked surrender
Nice play Obama

This isn't a surrender or anything like that

The UN is our enemy. Plain and simple. They are funded mostly by the U.S., but used by globalists to take the U.S. Down as a 'greater good' sort of organization.

Trump's right when he says he wants to defund the UN

If Trump wins, I hope people remember how extraordinarily close the liberals brought us to losing our sovereignty.

How hard they were pushing to genocide whites.

bump spread this

this will affect everyone

More cheese pizza for them

All those goals sound like bullshit

Trust me, the UN is satanic as fugg. Well I mean I'm not a Christian or anything so I guess I can't use that word but I mean they are basically a ploy by the globalists to get nations to give up their sovereignty to a body of people that is unnaccountable

Which is the biggest problem with democracy: lack of accountability

Why are leaders not held accountable?

Saddam was hanged, plenty of other elite should be too

> complete control of our internet over to the globalist UN

You can say goodbye to the internet forum forever. Their will also be a global internet tax as well, paid only by white countries.

wheres the notodaily mail source?

I saw thisa few days ago on bbc or someplace

>What could possibly go wrong if we gave complete control of our internet over to the globalist UN?
You fucking tard. ICANN has been essentially independent four up to 20 years and has nothing to do with key internet infrastructure in the first place.

Not to mention that they've rarely if ever been good guys either. If you think this sort of organization hasn't been globalist since its inception you're utterly delusional.

so.. U.N control over the internets isn't a bad thing

Because of the way democracy works.

This is why contrary to what a conspiracy theorist will tell you, a politician actually WANTS you to vote. Because by voting, you effectively shift accountability from them to a formless mass of voters, that has dissipated the moment the voting is over with.

Like the immigration bill during the civil rights era. I've heard the argument 'you believe in democracy right liberal?' "Yes" 'well, we didn't vote for these people to come to this country.' "Well we voted FOR the politicians who made the bill'

See? Most people in democracy basically believe politicians are a conduit.

Look at it another way

if Obama was not elected, but rather he was an emperor, do you think people would as passively accept the shit he is putting down? Think about it. When you have an unelected aristocracy, there are people you can actually blame. When elected, everyone has this feeling in the back of their head "well, I guess the majority of my people wanted this"

I dont get it. Obongo was trying to get the Internet classified as a utility, now he wants to give it to the U.N for absolutely no raisin. What the fuck.

The main problem is that if you started an Internet domain that globalists didn't like, it would have been harder for them to simply rescind the domain because of our freedom of speech and press laws.

The UN has no such law, nor a court system that would protect your domain.

Not to mention
>you make an Internet domain
>this domain has been seized in violation of X y z UN order
>what do? Call the UN?

>What could possibly go wrong if we gave complete control of our internet over to the globalist UN?

Once the ITU takes control, say goodbye, to..well, everything. It won't be immediate, and it won't be overt. It will happen quietly, and in human rights language.

It will go like this
>International Treaty for Privacy Protection on the Internet
There will be a group of strict laws that will make service providers liable for doxxing, mean communications, etc It will be about 'privacy' but really its the first step for censorship. There will be liabilities specifically for US services. This will be under the guise of 'protection from the NSA' or other nonsense. The EU, dutiful servant to globalism, will do its part by fining Google et all at 4% of global turnover a year (see the General Data Protection Regulation) and beating them up over taxes (like Apple in Ireland) until they comply with this future treaty.

>Rules on identification
To better protect everyone, there will some form of identification to use the Internet, a kind of ID system, so that we can 'track terrorists'. Justification will also be made about protecting privacy better.

>Rules on content
With the systems in place that provide authentication and a diminishing of US services, the next stage is to 'fight extremism'. This is where the censorship will start happening. Shitposting will be the first thing go because 'trolls' are just the worst. That will easily bleed over into censoring political discussion.

You might be thinking that this is all happening now already. You haven't seen shit yet. Look at the UN's agenda for the internet, look at their rapporteurs' reports on privacy, hate online or whatever other nonsense. This is all in there and the relinquishing of ICANN is the final step so they can swoop in and begin to implement this 'utopia'.

He's doing what the Clintons did.

He's trying to loot as much sovereignty and dignity from the country as possible before he's out.

Fuck dude. I wish Trump was as intense as we imagine him to be. Imagine if Trump was 100% Machiavellian.

Gives Hillary LSD before a debate

Kneecaps all her fucking traitor scum allies

Takes over the country through blackmailing homeland security

Fucking all of these disgusting fucking traitorous infestation of our country HANGS at high noon

People remember for generations to come that maybe it's not such a good idea to be that obvious of a traitor

>imagine what would happen to liberals if Trump literally sentenced Obama to be hung in the gallows at high noon for the public to see

Obama:
"N-N-N-N-N-n-ow okiedoke none uh uh uh uh uh of this has to happen you know Mr Trump"

what is the reasoing behind this?
this feels like a plot out of some domsday movie.

2014 was Obonga trying to get the FCC reclassified as a utility, now he wants to give it to the U.N so they can censor speech and information without violating the constitution.

that's like, giving China major League baseball and asking them to re-write the rules.

So our internet will be more regulated... does this mean .onion is going to be popular again?

That's how these guys get around it though. Haven't you noticed?

I know it's unconstitutional, but they do it all the time. It's not that they can't do it elsewhere

In all honesty, I believe it comes down to one thing and one thing only. Hear me out:

>Manufacteuring Consent
I think that the reason we aren't in literal matrix-like bondage, is because they want our consent for their actions. Why? I don't 100% know why, but I feel maybe they think that spiritually absolves them of guilt? Karma? I don't know but you have to admit

They are constantly trying to maneufactur consent. They want to kill us, but they want us to give them the OK to kill us..

If you think this isn't true, you need to try to understand power better. Look at the power these people have. Do you think they couldn't literally enslave us if they wanted to?

I don't know the significance of this, and I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist. I just look at the nature of power, but in looking at it, I've realized that they have the power to enslave us, yet they don't. But what they DO do is slowly slave us, with our own majority approval

>CTRL F DNS
>0 Found
Someone please explain to me how controlling the system which matches urls to IP addresses somehow gives the UN evil magic internet powers. Worst case scenario, you can't type in Sup Forums.org and instead have to learn Sup Forums's IP because the UN won't match it for you.

>yet they don't
I made 55k last year and have 10k in taxes to pay with 2k in the bank.

I'm pretty much enslaved, senpai.

My dad has been enslaved for the past 30 years. Votes democrat, errytime

Whatever. Just dont touch my online games.

Error 1003 Ray ID: 2db1c44537265029 • 2016-08-31 16:12:53 UTC
Direct IP access not allowed


>whatdo

Just as a flavour of what these people want:

"The UN Special Rapporteur: Advancing a Global Privacy Treaty?"
>papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2672549

The UN privacy rapproteur's thoughts on dividing up the internet
>mappingtheinternet.eu/node/41
>mappingtheinternet.eu/node/42

"The Use of Internet for Terrorist Purposes"
>unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf


-----

Mr Ruteere also submitted a report pursuant to General Assembly resolution 68/150, (A/HRC/26/50) which reviews the latest developments in the human rights and democratic challenges posed by neo-Nazis, skinhead groups and similar extremist political movements.
...
“The Internet serves as a formidable vehicle for the exercise of free speech, but it also provides a powerful platform for the rapid dissemination of racist ideas, ideologies and incitement to hatred,” the Special Rapporteur emphasized as he presented his annual report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/26/49).

“A comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach is necessary to effectively counter expressions of racism on the Internet and social media,” Mr Ruteere stressed.
>ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14790&

I'm sure if it came to DNS unsupporting Sup Forums they'd make an address available. I was more making the point that this is being blown way out of proportion by people who don't know how the internet works.Controlling DNS doesn't give you supreme power or some shit as was implied in the headline

there will always be irc and onion routing, but still.

How will normies be redpilled when they don't know how to use the internets.

It still boils down to censorship. Circumventing the U.S constitution for a globalist agenda to censor ideaas, information and speech under the guise of combating "hate"

its a huge crock of plague infested shit

Is this a fake quote? Was Washington that redpilled?

is this real? do they block Stormfront, or what?

You know they won't sadly. Next dat they'll be gleefully sucking the sack and furiously jacking their master with one hand while giving a nice prostate rub with the other.

also, if i was on said webpage and said "FUCK YOU NIGGER" i would be subjected to U.N law.

this is fucking ridiculous and you should shoot yourself in the face for thinking its not

>thinking any non-governmental organization actually has the means to restrict the internet in first world countries

You guys don't really understand how the internet works do you?

The best they can do is file injunctions to get certain servers shut down

Even that only works if
1) the person in control of the access points is law abiding
2) they actually know the who and where to target the injuction against
3) someone doesn't just tell them to fuck off and keep moving the servers/access points around so they can't get raided

It's a start

I fail to see how the UN running DNS means that you're subject to UN law when using the internet - my understanding is that they're just handing over DNS, but if you've got more info please share

I know, but by consent, right?

I don't know, I think the best option for my generation (millennial) is to buy land.

I've been looking at a private island. It's about $500,000 bucks, 150+ acres, covered in pine trees. Houses in my current area are all $700,000-$1,000,000 bucks, so it would be cheaper than a house

I would recommend looking for land that is fairly close to a growing town. Then, as you develop the land, your property value will skyrocket as the city gets closer and closer.

Also with land you can have kids, and if he cost of living is too astronomical for them, they can always just build another house on your land.

It's literally nothing.

This

Democracy removes accountability

All the elite have to do is rig elections and then we have a mostly jewish serving oligarchy

youtube.com/watch?v=_Wlsd9mljiU


PLUG ME IN Sup Forums

>just the dns

still you're talking about the address map for the entire internet. Imagine if you just gave the Chinese the power to name your streets. You would just wake up one morning and all the streets they didn't like would be bombed and the ones they needed to bring you your propoganda would all funnel you into the same fucking sweatshop.

also, there is no reason for this move by Obongo. No reason whatsoever.

Globalists are fucking cancer

t. Shlomo

If the trigger gets pulled too soon, humanity wins similar to the end of fight club.

Their power is illusory and manipulation. Our power is hard force and truth.

Unfortunately they hold the trigger and will never pull it on themselves at the wrong moment.

ICANN is considered by intelligence agencies to be a national asset. Allowing other nations to step in and have veto powers over it's board is absolutely insane.

>he thinks his servers wont be monitored and shut down for hosting hatespeech

Elected officials can still commit treason though.

Although it's harder to charge them in today's world as we saw with Hillary. FBI Director Comey straight up said she gave classified emails to those without clearance, which is treason and espionage against the United States, but still nothing happened.

On the contrary
Democracy is basically the ONLY political system where your leaders are accountable. Not perfectly so, but more than any other historical system of power

>(((Tribe of Black Gentry)))
>International Clique of Evil Elite
It's 100% real

The founding fathers knew of the usurer, the banker and the eternal jew.

I'm looking forward to this tbph. I can't wait to be free of the Internet. It truly is THE ONE TRUE degenerate timesink of our era.

go walk along a beach and step in a poisonous sea urchin and a die a slow, horrendously painful death

>You would just wake up one morning and all the streets they didn't like would be bombed
You do realise that ICANN not allowing certain websites domain names (which would cause an outcry if it ever happened) doesn't stop you from being able to access the website, right? Your analogy should be something more along the lines of "if you just gave the Chinese the power to authorise your maps" - it's still some power, but if they ever tried to censor maps they'd lose that power

GLOBALIST FUCK OFF REEEEEEEE

but it does.

It matters for your audience to find your content. It matters for search engines, it matters for most people when they're looking for something.

despite your level of shilling, This move is designed to censor ideas, information and speech without having to deal with the U.S constitution and free speech

By your own admission, the problem isn't democracy, but people for shifting blame on the system for allowing them to make bad choices and not correcting those choices

You give humans way too much credit. At the end of the day, regardless of your title or position, a bullet to the head will end your life. These people in charge aren't gods, they're regular people and they are outnumbered by literally billions of other people

This. But for this reason monarchies are doomed to fail because people blame them for everything

>how dare you discredit the holy cow of modernism!

The Internet is shit and the vast majority of people would be better off without it.

I agree that the DNS and ICANN should remain under US jurisdiction, of course - you guys have the best freedom of speech laws. I'm just looking at these headlines (the UN will gain control of the internet) and seeing technologically illiterate people panicking over something which is worse for the precedent it sets of the US handing over stewardship rather than the power it imparts to censor-happy beurecrats

>worse for the precedent it sets of the US handing over stewardship

reason enough to start panicking.

its like when bill Clinton A-bombed Detroit and every other black communities with NAFTA and subprime-mortgage lending and so naturally, everyone attacks white conservatives and calls trump a racist for trying to give black, white , yellow and brown, AMERICANS their manufacturing jobs back

>UN
>Not a joke
Really now

>its like when bill Clinton A-bombed Detroit and every other black communities with NAFTA and subprime-mortgage lending and so naturally, everyone attacks white conservatives and calls trump a racist for trying to give black, white , yellow and brown, AMERICANS their manufacturing jobs back
wut, Detroit was deindustrialized long before the 90s

Fair enough. Trouble is, normies see the UN as a force for good and won't understand the problem with handing over to them. There needs to be some way of arguing against this without sounding like a conspiracy theorist

>I would be subjected to U.N. law

The UN has trouble enough enforcing international law against serious crimes, where the fuck do you think they're going to get the manpower to enforce laws against people saying mean things on the internet?

There used to be a balance.

The Jews used to control the money, but the white humans controlled the reigns of force.

We are losing that power and we need to fucking save ourselves before its all gone.

We built the weapons that we are giving away to the jews

Yea.

Treason is not treason if everyone believes that they chose it. The constitution is only a piece of paper of the vast majority of people don't care about it.

Unconstitutional traitors should be deported

Lol he fell for the democracy meme.

Ever wonder why Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Machiavelli, etc, why ALL great philosophers view democracy as something that a society degenerated into?

Because Democracy is the lowest and shittiest form of government. It's just an illusion. Ever wonder why public education POUNDS IT INTO OUR FUCKING HEADS that we area democracy, when in reality we are a republic? Why do we topple governments and put democracies in?

You'd have to be a special kind of stupid if you think that an unelected aristocrat would be blamed for bad choices less than an elected one.

If we were an aristocracy, the aristocrats would already have been assassinated.

Take the American Revolution for example. What happened? We got mad at the king, and were able to rally around that anger and have a revolution.

Do you think people are willing to have a revolution in America? No. They'll just wait for the next election. Cause they blame the election; not the politician. They blame the electorate, the people, not the aristocrat.

>what is impeachment
>what is getting involved in your local political chapters to voice your opinion in the larger ones
>what is contacting your state representative
>what is the court system which empowers you to file lawsuits against the government
>what is the first amendment which allows you to form political protests/movements and organize people to do the above

It's not the jews fault most people are too lazy, indifferent, or inept to do the above

Think the voting system is rigged? Volunteer to be one of the people overseeing your local election center and organize others to do the same.

It IS democracy. Democracy is the system that enables the shift of blame. Pretty soon in America, democracy will simply be which ethnic group has the most people, and as a result, the society will descend into violence.

I know that. That's why democracy is bad. Because the people are less likely to assassinate the tyrants, because they don't see them as tyrants, they see them as someone they probably shouldn't have elected so they'll fix that with the next election.

Yea, both Plato and Machiavelli talk about this, that the devolution of government from monarchy to democracy is inevitable. It's funny because he describes the US revolution exactly.

I thin, as they say in the republic, basically a fascist dictatorship headed by a benevolent dictator is the only thing that can reverse the devolution.

If you did that, the next person to be elected would be your enemy, because the people would see your side as tyrannical. Your enemy would do the same.

Is this not the United States political situation?

The older my father got the more often he would say how he was glad he got to live when he did. He saw the way the marxists were winning as far back as 1975 and made so many predictions about how our society would fall into degeneracy.

He would sometimes rant about how an ineffective commie group like the UN was going to win out over American values and strength. Many of his other predictions have already come to pass, and to think they used our own money and military to make it all happen for them
I get spooked when I get a glimpse of how accurate his predictions have been. I don't mean carnival gypsy fortune teller predictions, him just saying how things were going to go, the forced removal of religion from our lives and the demagnetization of a moralistic life.
Considering how much praise the most twisted in our society get now he was balls on right. FUCK

>Treason is not treason if everyone believes that they chose it. The constitution is only a piece of paper of the vast majority of people don't care about it.
M8, treason is actually defined. They can change the meaning but they'll have to actually change the legal definition. The law is objective (or should be, but we found out differently with Hillary as I said)

>Why do we topple governments and put democracies in?

Because of the notion of the democratic theory of peace and push by TNCs to liberalize the world's markets.

>When in reality we are a republic

A republic can be democratic, do you know what both of those words mean? The only way you can make this argument is if you assume that democracy implies "direct democracy", which is basically how you would organize an anarchic community. We live in a >democratic< republic, as opposed to say a >religious< republic. The republic part informs that power id granted by the rule of law (as opposed to say, inherited power) and the adjective (democracy) outlines the method under which the law is to be enforced. Specifically we are a representative democratic republic. A shorthand way of stating that we have representatives, chosen by a democratic process, that are granted authority by rule of law, in our case the constitution.

>Unelected aristocrats would reveive greater blame for bad choices than someone who is elected.

Sure, I agree. The issue is over accountability though. Blame and accountability are not equivalent. I can blame you for writing a barely intelligible paragraph I had to read twice to understand, but I have no means of holding you accountable for having written it.

>Etc.., assassinations and revolutions would have occured if we were under a different political organization and won't occur here because the blame the system

All you have succeeded in doing here is arguing that people, in this moment, fail to use democracy to hold their elected reps accountable, but failed to demonstrate that this is a necessary condition of democracy. By the same logic I could argue noone in the DPRK overthrowing the Kim's, proves you cant remove a dictator from power. Afterall, the people there believe themselves helpless and refuse to act despite their poor conditions, so it must be an essential trait of dictatorships that they cannot be removed from power.

>bad organization owns x
>bad organization is still under control of the United States Constitution and it's protections
>let's give it to worse organization y, who has no visible protections of any king
>organization y also has a long track record of horrid leftist policy
hmm, really makes you think

M8; laws mean nothing if no one will enforce them. You get that right?

and you don't know how the law works do you?

The united states would lose its inherent jurisdiction over disputes

Yes, that's my point by constantly bringing up Hillary. She committed treason, but no one enforced it. It doesn't mean it wasn't clearly defined treason. It just means no one will enforce it because
DA WHOLE DAYUM SYSTEM
IS GUILTY AS HELL!
Don't know why chanting niggers popped into my head, but they did and it kind of fits...

Americans, I want you all to know: My people have withstood too much to stand alone again, though we likely would try if we had to. What few of us are left remotely sane and decent have no greater hope than that you will be prepared to lend them a hand when the trigger has to be pulled. That pic related made me really fucking happy.

Lol don't be passive aggressive, what are you a woman?

Yes a republic can be democratic, but you know what I meant as you're arguing in bad faith with someone on the Internet. What does that tell you? It should tell you something.

You are again arguing from the point of view of logic within a vacuum. Kind of sad, but also understandable since nobody is outright taught how the logical trivium works. You can argue rationally anything. That does not mean it's correct. You can argue that elected officials SHOULD be held accountable, but the fact remains that in practice they are not held to the same standard of accountability as unelected public figures.

Again. Do you think that people would stand for this same tyranny that we currently have, if it was committed by a non democratically elected official?

The fact of government is this: even a monarch is in power democratically. Enough people have consented to basically give their force to him. If enough people don't consent, then he gets overthrown.

There is absolutely no difference, other than the strength of the illusion that the figure is accountable.

Much like a company, where there is no person who can be held accountable, democracy is just tyranny of many rather than one, where you have to overrhrow hundreds of people rather than one, who all have various levels of perceived accountability in terms of the tyranny in question, which dissipates the passion of the people revolting.

So it's not treason then.

Don't confuse the law with the force enforcing it. The enforcement is the only real part of it.

So what does this mean for websites like gelbooru?

No, man. You can break the law and not be charged. She broke the law that defines treason, yet no one enforced it.

She committed the act of treason, but no one enforced it. I'm not arguing that it means nothing now and the law has no bite unless you enforce it like you're saying, I'm just saying she did technically commit treason.