CAPITALISTS PLAN TO RUIN THE INTERNET FOR EVERYBODY ELSE FOR MORE PROFIT IN MORE CONSOLIDATED HANDS: MONOPOLY


Title: "Electromagnetic Spectrum"

There's a story circulating among some "left-wing" and libertarian sites (mostly libertarian) that is based upon the following:

Jul 20, 2008
Death of Free Internet is Imminent- Canada Will Be Test Case
...
The plan is to convert the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and then pay to visit sites beyond a cutoff point.
...
...as is the case with cable television now, if you choose something that is not part of the package, you know what happens. You pay extra.

I took a look and found the comments more than suspicious.

I left a message, and there was reply to which I replied.

Hello All,

This post's [sites] comments are too loaded with comments against this post to not be the result of some paid commentators.

The free net doesn't mean the user isn't charged a flat access fee. The free net here means a level field once the user is logged in.

As for what is being suggested here as being technically impossible, the Chinese definitely control which sites the Chinese people may visit. It is very technically possible.

As for whether or not the capitalist/socialist corporations want to do this or something very similar, all one needs to do is become aware of the exact plan proposed by the Internet backbone providers in the U.S. and the challenge to that plan that has been driven by the grassroots lobbying the U.S. FCC (Federal Communications Commission). The major U.S. Internet backbone providers asked for a tiered system in terms of bandwidth. Stepping to a tiered structure based on type of content would not be difficult.

The analogy with AOL is limited. AOL never blocked surfing outside AOL without paying extra. Yes, people don't want to be walled in. Tell it to the people living in Baghdad. What choice have they had? That is analogous here. If the coercive powers want to do something, how do you propose to stop them short of violence? Well, anticipating their plans and shooting down those plans in the public marketplace of ideas is a method. If that marketplace is closed though, which all the tiered plans do to one degree or another and in one form or another, then the alternative is more silenced, censored, suppressed, and actually non-existent to those not capable of original thought.

I'm not rendering an opinion on whether or not this post is based upon checked facts. I'm addressing the speciousness of many of the comments here so far.

"In the upcoming weeks watch for a report in Time Magazine that will attempt to smooth over the rough edges of a diabolical plot by Bell Canada and Telus, to begin charging per site fees on most Internet sites." If Time doesn't produce this or if such a plan is never floated publicly, then the commentators on this site that attacked the poster will be somewhat vindicated. However, if Time publishes as suggested or if the applicable internet companies do float this plan in public, all of the commentators (many of them untraceable from an honest Internet visitor's perspective) will have to eat their words.

As for Jim Johannsson, TELUS Director Media Relations, corporations and governments have certainly been known to lie and they have certainly been known to lie to their spokespeople. Look at what former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has had to say about being mislead from the inside.

As for the Net beginning as a walled system and changing from that to a more open, level field, that doesn't account for broadcast TV once being ad driven only so that once upon a time all a party had to do was have a TV set, a pair of rabbit ears, and plug it in and warm it up. Sure, cable has more channels, but it's tiered. Also, the cable companies are constantly lobbying so as to not have to provide any local content.

Furthermore, the fact that the military has its Internet 2 doesn't negate that it can unplug Internet 1.

I'm no Libertarian capitalist, far from it. However, the idea that the socialist-capitalist corporatists aren't a tyranny already is unsupportable. There most certainly is a global plutocracy. Grassroots democracy is constantly being thwarted.

Do you really not know that the last two U.S. presidential elections were stolen? Who doesn't know it? There are people running around denying that it was theft, but everyone knows they know better and are just promoting the Big Lie.

You and your reaction have been subjected to analysis. The results are in the database. The supercomputer network will offer up the next moves. It is an artificial intelligence program that is self-teaching, self-learning. Do I have to provide sources, or do you just know this is the truth? It's true.

God bless everyone with the truth,

Tom Usher

"As for what is being suggested here as being technically impossible, the Chinese definitely control which sites the Chinese people may visit. It is very technically possible."

You have obviously never visited China. While many people are restricted, those that know what they are doing get around the technical hurdles with ease. It's possible to get around any system, and if they try this in North America you can bet that there will be a quick and efficient effort to bring it down.
Posted by:What the?

Hello What the?,

You wrote that it's obvious that I've never visited China. Are you really saying that everyone who has been to China concurs with your view? It is not obvious that I've never visited China.

Regardless, you're missing the point here. Just because there are hackers who do actually hack into places does not mean that the U.S. government does not ultimately have the power to control all the packets. They do.

Just because there are Chinese people who managed to get around or through the government's firewalls does not mean that the general population is thereby enabled. They aren't. The same fact applies in the U.S. and Canada.

What we're talking about here is general information for the masses, not just an underground network of hackers who have frankly never been subjected to an all-out cyber attack by the U.S. Pentagon.

Look, information about Main Core has been leaked to Salon.com. Salon is way understating the actual breadth of the system though. It isn't handling eight million Americans. It's handling all Americans and Canadians. What do you think they do with the missing trillions of dollars? That's trillions. There aren't enough mansions in the world to be spending the funds on hedonistic pursuits. They have installations that you haven't the faintest notion about. You don't have to be a mind reader to know that.

There are some 700 "known" U.S. military bases outside the U.S. Now consider those that aren't known by you. Remember the CIA Black Sites that you didn't know about. I was writing that they have secret dungeons when people thought I was crazy to think so. I didn't think so. I knew they had them. I told people that they had people hanging from the walls by their wrists. It wasn't possible though. Americans would never do that. Well they were doing it long before 9/11. All the torture stories came out when the infamous Ronald Reagan was president, only the people have terminal amnesia. They were peeling people alive in Central America. What do you think happened to all those "disappeared"? Have you never heard the real confessions of old soldiers? Don't you know what they did over in Vietnam to the "gooks" as John McCain still calls them? I was also saying that they were lying to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

Are you one of those guys who say 9/11 was exactly the way George W. Bush claims people are to think about it? Who believes George W. Bush? Everybody with an above average I.Q. who says he or she believes George W. Bush is lying for compensation (direct or indirect) or out of fear.

Do you remember when the undersea Internet cable kept being "broken"? That was a demonstration of power. It was also to see and record and analyze the reaction using super computers that make the one that beat Garry Kasparov in chess look like a toy. Can you beat Garry in Chess?

If you think the way to beat them is by claiming you'll do it technologically using their own weapons, you're dreaming. You can't win by sniping from behind cyber rocks and trees when they can see and trace every packet.

The plan has been full-spectrum dominance for a long time. It doesn't mean just the spectrum of the old land, sea, and air. They're talking about the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just over copper wires and fiber optics but everywhere, including inside your whole body and brain from space and miles deep into the earth. That means nowhere to hide, absolutely nowhere. Have you been keeping abreast of microwave weapons development? Decades ago they were making people hear voices in their heads. The kids from poverty stricken families and orphanages who were literally taken by the federal government for the experiments were called the product of conspiracy nuts. Only the proof leaked out. Now people are just talking about such microwave weapons as if this is a new thing.

They have two generations of weapons out of view.

I'm not saying that the situation is lost or futile. I'm saying that what you're saying misleads people into thinking that speaking out against all the tiered plans now is not necessary. You'll just fire your magic cyber silver bullets at the NSA and finish them all off. When was the last time you went nosing around at the root level at the NSA? Never is the answer, not unless you once worked there with the highest clearance,

Anyway, this kind of reverse psychology stuff is typical of the CIA and DIA. They do it, and others lap it up and regurgitate it for them for free.

It's for national security, and the plutocrats own the nation, they think. I say they think, because God actually owns everything, as the unrepentant of them will one day find out to their sorrow.

Truth.

Tom Usher

More thoughts, more clarifications:

"...the Chinese definitely control which sites the Chinese people [some of them] may visit [without hacking]. It is very technically possible."

The Chinese government is not throwing everything it has at this either. They could certainly just shutdown the Internet in China. They are doing a technological tradeoff in their minds.

"I'm not rendering an opinion on whether or not this post is based upon checked facts." There is no doubt that tiered content is a profit model that the telecoms would like to control. Others, such as Google, fight this. Google and the like don't want the telecoms having that kind of bargaining power. Who will win? Will the grassroots win? Will the huge capitalist/socialist corporatists slug it out with the victor's position benefiting the grassroots whereas the telecoms would make life for the grassroots more difficult? This is not an endorsement of Google here. Remember, Google helped the Chinese Communist Party. Also, the Net was vastly better for searching obscure sites before capitalist-keyword and other capitalist-driven algorithms. It was better to find sites not based upon how many big sites linked to them. Fortunately, little sites linking to each other does manage to trickle up. It's not easy though. Of course, that's the capitalist plan — to make it hard for the competition, including the non-profit, voluntary communist, Christian competition that isn't competitive in the end but cooperative.

"If Time doesn't produce this or if such a plan is never floated publicly, then the commentators on this site that attacked the poster will be somewhat vindicated." "Somewhat" is the operative word here. They will not be completely vindicated. Time could pull the story directly as a consequence of this type of post. The telecoms could postpone their plans until the dust settles and memories fade in the general public or until that general public is simply worn down further by those who seek to gain at the negative expense of that general public.

"...cable has more channels, but it's tiered. Also, the cable companies are constantly lobbying so as to not have to provide any local content." In addition, the channel selection is not very diverse. There are many choices from a narrow worldview made to fit in with consumerism and consumption that the capitalists promote endlessly. Where's the real communist channel? Don't tell me it's not there simply because there's no market for it. It's not there because it's been driven off at the end of bayonets. All communists were lumped together as Marxists. Jesus was bayoneted too with the Stalinists, as if he's one of them in spirit.

"Just because there are Chinese people who managed to get around or through the government's firewalls does not mean that the general population is thereby enabled. They aren't. The same fact applies in the U.S. and Canada." All the common people don't find out about the hacks. Also, the Chinese government infiltrates and adapts too. It is a back and forth, but ultimately, the government can pull the plug.

"What do you think they do with the missing trillions of dollars? That's trillions." If your hackers are so great, why haven't they found the people's money that the neocons, who stole the election, misappropriated and misallocated? You know, it's not mundanely illegal for citizens to investigate crimes against the citizenry. Where are the legislators who have an arm doing undercover, investigative work? The legislature has its executive aspects you know.

None of this would be happening if the people's hearts were all calling each other to rise out of this cesspool that the spirit of greed, violence, and sexual depravity causes.

"I was writing that they have secret dungeons when people thought I was crazy to think so." I was not disseminating it though to the public. It was before my conversion.

"I told people that they had people hanging from the walls by their wrists." The same applies here. Also, I'm not going to drag people into this who don't want to come out and stand in the gap with me. It's not my choice to make for them. Making such choices for others is not Christian.

"Everybody with an above average I.Q. who says he or she believes George W. Bush is lying for compensation (direct or indirect) or out of fear." I'm using the term "everybody" here as a figure of speech. There truly are exceptions that make the rule.

"You can't win by sniping from behind cyber rocks and trees when they can see and trace every packet." That's their plan — to see and trace every packet — Total Information Awareness and not for righteousness' sake.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.