It's easy to be paranoid about this when seeing what is happening in London with their mayor and his desire for censorship. It's an undeniable trend. These developments are not coincidental. Looking at the last sentence in the first article - that says it all. If you can control domain names, you can effectively control who does what. This is an interesting development. 





The US has confirmed it is finally ready to cede power of the internet’s naming system, ending the almost 20-year process to hand over a crucial part of the internet's governance.
The Domain Naming System, DNS, is one of the internet’s most important components. 
It pairs the easy-to-remember web addresses - like bbc.com - with their relevant servers. Without DNS, you’d only be able to access websites by typing in its IP address, a series of numbers such as "194.66.82.10".
More by circumstance than intention, the US has always had ultimate say over how the DNS is controlled - but not for much longer. 
It will give up its power fully to Icann - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - a non-profit organisation. 
The terms of the change were agreed upon in 2014, but it wasn’t until now that the US said it was finally satisfied that Icann was ready to make the change. 
Icann will get the “keys to the kingdom”, as one expert put it, on 1 October 2016. From that date, the US will lose its dominant voice - although Icann will remain in Los Angeles. 

But it’s a move that has been fiercely criticised by some US politicians as opening the door to the likes of China and Russia to meddle with a system that has always been “protected” by the US. 
"The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators, including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz. 
Whether you think those fears are justified depends on your confidence in the ability of Icann to do its job.

From October, the “new” Icann will become an organisation that answers to multiple stakeholders who want a say over the internet. Those stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technical expertise.

“It's a big change,” remarked Prof Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey. 
"It marks a transition from an internet effectively governed by one nation to a multi-stakeholder governed internet: a properly global solution for what has become a global asset."

Technically, the US is doing this voluntarily - if it wanted to keep power of DNS, it could. But the country has long acknowledged that relinquishing its control was a vital act of international diplomacy. 
Other countries, particularly China and Russia, had put pressure on the UN to call for the DNS to be controlled by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union.

"This is more about who officially controls the foundations of the Internet/web addresses and domain names, without which the network wouldn't function."




Will Martial Law Be Implemented on October 1st?


The strangest thing has happened at Facebook in the past four weeks. Facebook, known for their extreme censorship and promotion of totally inappropriate political messages (e.g. Assassinate Donald Trump page), has taken a dramatic shift in censorship policy.
Previously, any post, from any Independent Media site would be limited to 10 groups. If 11 groups received an 11th post, from the same Independent Media site, the organization would be banned for 30 days. If someone posted an article which was critical of Hillary Clinton, the work was censored and the author could find themselves banned for 30 days. However, Facebook has largely stopped censoring and banning posts that does not fit into to its Marxist New World Order agenda. This is shocking and very surprising. However, to enforce this brand of censorship is very expensive and takes elaborately programmed “robots”, along with 20 year old human analysts, to surf Facebook and impose its leftist propaganda agenda.
Why would face Facebook suddenly relax its censorship policies? The simple answer is to save money. it is very expensive to enforce the previous censorhip policies of Facebook. However, if Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg were in possession of information that the Internet would soon be controlled by Russian and Chinese government officials through ICANN, then why waste the money? Well that is exactly what is happening on October 1, 2016. The Internet will be controlled by a faceless international organization in which bureaucrats from places like Russia and China will soon decide what you can print and read on the Internet. CNN is jumping for joy as this may be their las chancee to survive their incredibly low ratings.
On October 1st, Obama, through the Commerce Department, is handing off control of the Internet to ICANN. For anyone who enjoys getting their news from sources like Stevequayle.com, this is a very disturbing development. This short video ecapsulates the issues related to this unconstitutional action being perpetrated by Obama.

Some are highly critical of this move including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.Cruz (R) who has  argued that ICANN could be used by dictatorships to shut down the Web around the globe, either in whole or in part.
Can there be any doubt that at some future date, the unbiased media services brought to be the likes of Steve Quayle, Doug and Joe Hagmann, and Alex Jones will be censored into oblivion? This is why Facebook is not censoring as they once were. Very soon, they won’t need too because ICANN will be doing it for them.

Conclusion

It is estmated that six corporations controls approximately 98% of everything that one can read, see and hear. After Obama completes this giveaway of the Internet, that number could climb to 100% control of all media. This will be the end of all truth-telling and all meaningful investigative journalism.On one hand this is an excellent strategy to control people’s access to information. On the other hand this could be the beginning of an extreme crackdown in American society and control of the Internet is just the beginning.
Finally, will October 1st be a date that will live in infamy? I have received multiple reports that martial law will be implemented on this date. Specifically, I am hearing that troops will be on street, mostly foreign troops, and that the phones will be shut down as well as the ability to travel between cities. When I first heard this, I thought it was hyteria being perpetrated by the rumors that there will be no election. Now, I am not so sure. The rumors are too pervasive and come from too many sources for there not be something to this.
The barometer for the validty of these rumors lies at Camp Grayling, a well-known FEMA camp that reportedly houses many types of UN vehicles. The reports of foreign troops training there and practicing mass arrests and large scale detainments are omnipresent in my daily emails. On October 1st, will we see death squads running through America who will be targeting key Red List members?
The Clinton campaign is on life support, as Clinton, herself, will soon be. The Trump movement must be stopped and we are witnessing the globalist reponse to America’s populist uprising.






London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” 

“Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force -- and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caughtclassifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.


“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. 


A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”
And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.
What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?
Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.