"Net Neutrality"--It is More
Enslavism, and It Focuses
on Killing the Freedom of Speech
by
Victor Edward Swanson,
publisher
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
The United States of America
copyright c. 2015
March 14, 2015
(Version 3)
(Draft version)
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015, I finally got around to writing a document about "Net Neutrality," a topic that some people, like me, have been hearing about for several years, and the topic focuses on regulating the Internet, which touches Internet sites, television, telephone, et cetera, and this is the document. I finally got around to writing a document about "Net Neutrality" because I finally had time to write one, though it is small, as you shall see, and because on February 24, 2015, Mr. Rush Limbaugh was talking about "Net Neutrality" during his nationally syndicated radio show (known as The Rush Limbaugh Program), and that inspired me to pass along a little information about "Net Neutrality" at the website for The Hologlobe Press. Before I would hear Rush Limbaugh talking about "Net Neutrality" on February 24, 2015, I already knew the Barack Obama administration was rotten and anything that the Barack Obama administration would create as law about the Internet would be rotten--Barack Obama and his associates are enslavists, who, for one, are against freedom of speech, especially if the speech is critical of them and their rotten policies; in addition, on February 24, 2015, I was already aware Barack Obama had violated The United States Constitution numerous times, supported Sharia and Islamic Law (which is a highly rotten political system), was a perpetual liar, was associated with rotten people (such as lovers of Mao, the killer of millions of Chinese), et cetera, and Barack Obama was important in getting such really rotten laws as "Dodd-Frank" and "Obamacare" pushed on the American society. Everything about Barack Obama is rotten, and rotten men create rotten laws. Also on February 24, 2015, I determined for myself that, whatever a "Net Neutrality" law would ultimately be, it would probably require people who put information on the Internet to be licensed and people who put materials on the Internet would probably have to meet qualifications for offering materials related to political matters, such as a university degree in communications. [On February 24, 2015, I was aware the name "Net Neutrality" had to be a fake description about what "Net Neutrality" was going to be about, since, for one, I was aware the "Patient Protection and Affordable Act of 2010" (the full title or formal title for "Obamacare") was a lie about what the law was really about, based on my knowing, for one, that health-care costs were on the way up for most people and the law was designed ultimately to have the government determine the life and death of a person).] On February 24, 2015, Rush Limbaugh passed along information that he had been exposed to some many months previously, and he noted that a person well versed in Internet matters had reported to him some months previously that the desire of those working to pass a "Net Neutrality" law is a law in which, for one, the federal government can make the Internet more fair, and the idea about fairness would focus having the federal government get and keep information on different types of websites and how much traffic that the websites get, and if some websites get more traffic than others, the federal government will then restrict access by people (web surfers) to the websites that get more traffic than others--since at this time liberal-type websites and television networks do badly in the ratings, a smart person can see that the federal government could then restrict access by people to non-liberal (non-communistic, non-socialistic, et cetera) websites, and that is a form of censorship, which would push down thoughts and ideas that are against "enslavists" (like Barack Obama). On February 24, 2015, when I heard Rush Limbaugh tell about what the person had told him, I was not surprised that plans were in the works to limit speech on the Internet, especially by Barack Obama. If you think "Net Neutral" is about making your access to the Internet more fair or less expensive, you are an idiot and are just what Barack Obama wants you to be. When I actually learn more about what the rules are in relation to "Net Neutrality"--when the rules are actually issued and made active--then I will have more to say in this document, but, for now, I stop hear and urge you to find out what "Net Neutrality" is really about. By the way, if I were you, I would expect a lot of the information that you come across will be defective, written by those not knowing what the rules are actually going to be and discounting the rottenness of Barack Obama and his associates.
On Thursday, February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (or FCC) took a vote on whether or not to implement a new era in the ways of the Internet, or it voted on what was informally called "Net Neutrality," and, in essence, a three-hundred-or-so page document was made valid (at least according to the FCC). I state that it was nonsense that is going to set up more nonsense; for example, it was going to lead to the federal government's deciding on when things and things were not equal and to the federal government's deciding what the Internet will be or should be. I state that, when politicians--who are not good general-knowledge people and are actually stupid people, whose lives are only concern with government and rules--get involved in telling what something will and will not be, especially something they know nothing about, things go to crap, and, also, I state that, given that the federal government today is mostly controlled by communists and socialists--who are enslavists and rotten people and truly rotten thinkers, who like to do harm to others, as history shows--the federal government will indeed by involved in suppressing speech in some way in the long run. By the way, Jessica Rosenworcel (a Democrat), who is on the FCC board and voted for the new era, stated--"...We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privilege and leave the rest of us lagging around...." ["FCC votes to implement strong net neutrality rules." Detroit Free Press, 27 February 2015, p. 2A.]. Jessica Rosenworcel's statement is idiocy. Before the vote would be taken, there was no two-tiered Internet in the way that Jessica Rosenworcel suggested. An old rule in life, which as been around for decades, is--You get what you pay for. Now, Jessica Rosenworcel thinks that all will be equal, but I note, for one, that to make speeds equal for everyone, prices will have to rise for the people who currently cannot afford the highest speeds (and who probably do not need the higher speeds). In addition, Jessica Rosenworcel said--"...We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online...." ["FCC votes to implement strong net neutrality rules." Detroit Free Press, 27 February 2015, p. 2A.]. The previous sentence has more is idiocy from Jessica Rosenworcel, since before the vote would be made, "gatekeepers" were not deciding "where" a person could and could not go on the Internet really. A government--especially a corrupt government, such as that like China--can be an entity that can decide where a person can and cannot go on the Internet through coercion and fines, because a government has the power of laws and can punish people; in China, for instance, some things on the Internet are blocked by the Chinese government from the citizens of the country--to keep people from learning truth and the rottenness of the Chinese leaders (by the way, the government of the Soviet Union for decades in the 1900s worked to block radio transmissions from Europe and the United States of America from entering the Soviet Union to keep the citizens of the Soviet Union from learning truth and the rottenness of the government of the Soviet Union). On Thursday, February 26, 2015, the federal government--particularly the FCC, which is a part of the Legislative Branch of the federal government, which is controlled by Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be a communist and a man who does not follow the real laws of the country--nationalized the Internet and took strict control of it, as history will show (though now most people cannot see that coming, being stupid of the ways of the world and the ways of rotten people like Barack Obama). I also noted that the vote of February 25, 2015, is going to lead to more rules and more rules in the near future, because that is the way of rotten governments, and the United States of America has a rotten government filled with thousands and thousands of rotten politicians (all the Democrats are rotten, based on their government beliefs, and many Republicans are rotten today, being like Democrats).
On March 12, 2015, the FCC finally released the new set of rules for the public to see. The rules were contained within a document entitled "Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order." It was all done "In the matter of protecting and promoting the open Internet." The document was about 314-pages long. By March 14, 2015, I could state that, without having read the document fully, that the document was rotten through and through, and some of the reasons that I could state that was I had some general idea about what the document had in it, such as the words that were "...just and reasonable regulate content....", which pointed to the idea of censorship on the Internet, which, today, involves radio, telephone, television, and the computer.
One way in which to look at the goal of the document from the FCC is to look at those who were instrumental in making it official.
Here, I have to give some background information. Good people are people who do not lie (especially perpetually), do not steal, do not cheat on taxes, et cetera, and good people are people who do not like to enslave others, and, in contrast, for instance, bad people lie regularly and like to enslave others, and bad people can even like--if not love--to hurt others (as history of nations show). In addition, a bad person is any person who promotes as good and supports "enslavism" forms of government, such as communism and socialism and Sharia (Islamic law), in which a few people--so-called special people or elite people, like those supposedly chosen by "Allah"--get to rule over most others without limits. I have a rule--Bad people or bad politicians make bad laws, usually purposely! Proof of that can be found easily; for example, Barack Obama, who is a perpetual liar and supports communism and socialism and Sharia has signed very bad bills, which have been very big bad bills (amounting to more than one-thousand each), into law, one of the worst of which is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Incidentally, around March 2015, Barack Obama was showing more of his support for the rulers of Iran or, really, showing support of the rulers of Iran (who are pushing Sharia for the world) over the people of Israel (which up till Barack Obama became the U.S. president was a big ally of the United States of America).
When the "Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order" was finally released, I heard information about one entity that was involved in getting the rules made, and that inspired me to look more at the entity and the people who were involved in the entity [Note: I learned about the entity from Erick Erickson, a radio talk-show host]. The entity was and is called "Free Speech." I soon proved for myself that "Free Speech" was not about free speech, and it was an entity that was very unlikely to help create something that would not be good for good people.
Take a closer look at "Free Speech." On Friday, March 13, 2015, I went to the the website for "Free Speech." One page at the website for the entity was--"What We Do". It was noted--"Free Press fights for your rights to connect and communicate. We're working to create a world where people have the information and opportunities they need to tell their own stories, hold leaders accountable, and participate in policymaking. We fight to save the free and open Internet, curb runaway media consolidation, protect press freedom, and ensure diverse voices are represented in our media....." That statement is all bullshit. In the United States of America--a non-communist country at the time the rules from the FCC were released--citizens had freedom of speech and free access to the Internet, while in China and North Korea and other communistic countries, the citizens had no real free speech and free access to the Internet, and, yet, "Free Speech" was not working to help citizens in communistic countries (and there are many reasons for that). "Free Speech" was set up and is run by communists and socialists. One of the founders is Robert W. McChesney, who has been at least a "socialist" for several decades, as he tells it. Remember--Socialists and the like want an all-power government, though they say that they want a world in which "workers" are in control, such as control of production (which never happens because it always comes down to the bosses of the workers who get the control and make the workers nothing more than pawns in a game to protect the bosses). In 2009, Robert W. McChesney wrote--"...In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles....". Keep in mind--"Captalism" is not a "political system," as is "socialism." "Capitalism" is nothing more than business, making things, selling things, buying things, and a "free" capitalistic" system (for "free-market capitalistic" system) comes about when government not control or has limited control of what gets made and what gets sold and who has to buy what, et cetera. "Socialism" and "communism" are government systems, in which politicians determine what should be done with everything, and the people really have no say-so in what gets done, and they are not "democratic" systems in anyway (they are really one-party government systems with fake election systems). The United States of America was not set up as a "capitalistic" system--it was set up with a government system for the "people" and with a government system in which politicians are limited in what they could do to the "people" through laws and rules, and because the country was founded as it was, "capitalism" was allow to grow, leading to the creation of a complex society in which all sorts of things were able to be made, from typewriters to computers, created out of free-thinking minds (not blocked by government rules and by bad politicians, who could be highly self-serving and jealous of the rise of others and what others gained, especially money). Robert W. McChesney ties to socialism are clear, such as through the creation of a publication in Seattle around 1977 known as In These Times. Yet, today, Robert W. McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Campaign. By the way, the general Chicago area of Illinois is a big communistic stronghold in the country, where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent a lot of time, and, in fact, Barack Obama has Chicago as his current hometown. Oh, in 2007, Robert W. McChesney cites Hugo Chavez (who took over Venezuela and killed the country through communistic principles) as a "free press" champion. Of course, that is all crap. Robert W. McChesney is only one of the board members for Free Press. Some other board members are (1) Olga M. Davidson (associate professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Wellesley College), who had at one time been chair of the concentration in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Brandeis University and had taught "women's studies," (2) Kim Gandy (the CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence), who had been the general counsel at the Feminist Majority and the Feminist Majority Foundation and has been in prominent positions in the National Organization for Women, and (3) Liza Pike, who put together the California office of "Resource Media," which [as Free Press notes in a biography of her] "is a national environmental communications nonprofit." Really, none of the members of the board of ":Free Press" have been involved in business---in creating a service or product, even a media-based product. "Activism" for the sake of socialism and communism is what "Free Press" is about--making like better for elites (as they see it in their minds). Everything about "Free Press" has nothing to do with making people "free" and making a world of a "free press," in which people can speak about and against rotten people, especially politicians. Another member of the board of "Free Press" is John Nichols who as co-authored books--with socialistic-themes--with Robert W. McChesney, and those books will not go mentioned here, since this section is really just to give an indication of the rotten people who helped put the new rules from the FCC together, and the main focus is on Robert W. McChesney, who noted in his 2014 book entitled Blowing the Roof Off the Twenty-First Century (particularly in chapter one)--"...I have considered myself a socialist since I was eighteen or nineteen years old, as I still do...." That statement shows Robert W. McChesney wants the government--a few people really--to determine for all, and in such governments, the people have no real say-so, and it really comes down to a world of elitism with coercion and violence again and for the many. By the way, I state again that people who push for communism and socialism and Sharia are really people who like--if not love--to hurt other people, as can be seen in the leaders of communistic countries like Cuba and North Korea and China and Iran. I could spend hours and hours showing up the idiot thought of the writing in Blowing the Roof Off the Twenty-First Century by Robert W. McChesney, who can use a lot of big words in his pieces but whose logic is defective and who ignores real facts about the world and the ways of life. The opening paragraph to the book is--"THESE ARE PERILOUS TIMES for capitalism, the reigning political economic system of the United States and the world. The economy is stagnating, and Mother Earth is gravely ill. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, we face widening economic inequality, plutocratic governance, endless militarism and mounting planetary ecological degradation...." See all the big words. Yet, is it all nonsense. For one, economic stagnation is happening because of communism and socialism and the recent adoption of communism and socialism in places, where, for one, politicians have spent government into poverty for idiot reasons. That is all that I will say about the first paragraph. Look at a later paragraph in his book--" Matters are, if anything, worse when it comes to our environment. The scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report in 2014 that ought to terrify any sentient being. Its conclusion: continuing on the present economic path of 'business as usual' will lead to certain catastrophe for the human society...." It is more nonsense. I state that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been discredited and shown to be an untrustworthy entity, it pushing a hoax about climate change (based on falsified data by scientists tied to the entity, even at NOAA), and that is what "Climategate" was and is all about [Note: You are urged to see my document entitled "CAP AND TRADE and Carbon Dioxide Facts and Nonsense, which can be reached through this Carbon link]. In addition, Robert W. McChesney put forth the argument that there is economic stagnation, as noted in his first paragraph of his book, which shows a logic problem, since he pushes the idea that, if we continue on the present course (which is stagnation"), the world is doomed. By the way, scientists can barely get the weather right a week in advance, so how can scientists determine the death of the earth in relation to weather way out in the future? I note--The only opposite of "capitalism" is a economic system run or controlled by the government. Robert W. McChesney pushes for the idea of having the United States of America have a "post-capitalist democracy." Robert W. McChesney sort of explains what that is, but it comes off as nonsense to me. I state that Robert W. McClesney's "post-capitalist democracy" is nothing more than that opposite of "capitalism." There is nothing else. Robert W. McChesney puts forth this paragraph in his 2014 book--"...In short, I propose post-capitalist democracy as a big tent to cover everyone who wants democracy and leaves out only those who put their blind faith in the wealthy, giant corporations, and to profit motive regardless of the evidence of social costs....". I note--If you do not have corporations or business, you can only have government-run things--a single entity controlling all. That is bad. Remember--Government can fine people, jail people, and kill people if the people do not follow laws, which can be rotten when the politicians are rotten, and businesses cannot fine people and jail people to make them do something. Since businesses are not government, they can be avoided, which can cause businesses to lose customers and die. You should be able to see the jealousy in Robert W. McChesney, who is against those who have more money than he has, putting him in a lower stature in society than others and making his world unfair--for him. Robert W. McClesney is a rotten, who cannot be relied upon to be involved in making rules that would be good for good people--people who wish not be be slaves in a communistic and socialistic society run by cheaters and liars and other defectives.
Based on some information about those to put "Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order" together, such as Barack Obama and Robert W. McChesney, people in the future will surely see how rotten it is.
[Note: I was at one time going to do more research on others in Free Press, but I killed the idea aware of that idea that "Like minds get together," which you can learn more about in my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", which can be reached through this Crud link, and, anyway, you can hunt information down about them for yourself.]Oh, the FCC rules about "net neutrality" were to take effect two months after they had been published in the Federal Register.
Bibliography:
"Robert McChesney." discoverthnetworks.org.
"Robert W. McChesney." Wikipedia.com, 13 March 2015.
Asman, David. "Save the Internet: FCC New Neutrality rules worst example of government intervention...ever." FoxNews.com, 26 February 2015.
Beamon, Todd. "FCC Releases New Net Neutrality Rules." Newsmax, 12 March 2015, 05:08 p.m.
Macri, Giuseppe. "The FCC Has FINALLY Released Its New Neutrality Internet Regulations." The Daily Caller, 13 March 2015, 1:19 p.m.
McCarter, Joan. "FCC releases net neutrality rules, with a very special shout-out to Daily Kos. Daily Kos, 12 March 2015, 12:53 p.m. EDT.
Ross, Chuck. "A Leading Net Neutrality Activist's Neo-Marxist Views." The Daily Caller, 26 February 2015, 11:08 a.m.
Ruiz, Rebecca R. "F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules." The New York Times, 12 March 2015.
Rushe, Dominic. "Critics attack FCC as it releases new rules to protect net neutrality." The Guardian.com (the United Kingdom), 21 March 2015, 13.56 EDT.
###
Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on February 24, 2015.
Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/neutral.htm.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatism for
Children and What Conservatism Means,
which can be reached by using this link:
Conservatism.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatives and
The United States Constitution Versus
Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism,
Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can
be reached by using this link: Enslavism.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The "Enslavers" Want
Your Retirement Plan or Pension Plan,
which can be reached by using this link:
Pension.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a President
and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
which can be reached by using this link:
Madness.
For further reading, you should see my
document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-
Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and
Barack Obama, which can be reached by
using this link: Sharia.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Never Forget These
Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
Individual in the United States of
America, which can be reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled A Little History of
Barack Obama Events: A Show of
Deconstruction, which can be reached by
using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Lessons for Children
about Politics and Dangerous People,
which can be reached by using this
link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The Next Elections:
What Has to be Done to Protect the
United States of America, which can
be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled World Tyranny:
Warnings about the Insane Who are
Trying to Create a Communist World
Country, which can be reached by
using this link: World.Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may click on this link now:
www.hologlobepress.com.###