Aleksandr Dugin -- dangerous alert

Watch the special report about this Aleksandr Dugin. No one knows him but he might be the most influence guy in the future. It is essential for us to study about him. 

Watch out Fascism in Europe today, Aleksandr Dugin is actually the cantor of all this trend. 

Related report about Aleksandr Dugin...

http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/01/13/the-root-of-the-problem-russia-part-1-2/

Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian philosopher and a professor of Moscow State University (MSU), should be heeded by two reasons: for his prominent role in the Kremlin and for his notorious fascist ideology . Relatively unknown to the public in the west, his evidently zeal on Russian Nationalism has become a driven force that lies behind Vladimir Putin’s belligerent militant action and aggressive foreign policy. 

For example, Mr. Dugin’s strong rhetoric on “defend ethnic Russians” has been served as the base on Putin’s invasion toward Georgia and Ukraine. He publicly revealed his close tie with the Ukraine insurgent group, which affirms his role beyond being a geopolitical advisor for Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, he is not only serving as an advisor in the Kremlin but also conducting a philosophical political program in the MSU. Because of his extreme fascist view, a few political pundits express their concern on whether Mr. Dugin would inject his diabolical doctrine into those intellectual elites and young minds. These grave combinations of his significant attribution to the Kremlin and his extreme fascist belief make him dangerous and horrendous.

Consequences of Net Neutrality

Before reading the essay, I would suggest watching interview of Mark Cuban, a billionaire and owner of Dallas Maverick, by Glenn Beck. He explains net neutrality very very well and help me to wrote this essay. This is a practice of my writing. Not original from myself.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/24/watch-mark-cubans-surgical-takedown-of-net-neutrality-and-why-he-says-everyone-should-hack-themselves/

    Net neutrality, by literal definition, is the internet guiding principle that ensures the right of free and open communication online. According to Wikipedia, more specific definition concerning the subject is a precept that each datum on the internet should be perceived equal and indiscriminate by all means, and thus is the idea that the internet provider and governments have to regard and uphold. Proponents of net neutrality are in the process to procure a bill of legislation in the United States so that they can “secure” the right of freedom on the virtual network. Even though the idea to legislate net neutrality is well intended, little is known to perceive the consequence of legislation of the bill. Possible consequences can be argued in two perspectives: technology and libertarianism.

    From the perspective of technology, this can be grounded from the nature of data. Equally and neutrally treating the flow of each bit of datum on the internet, which advocators of net neutrality have argued, is an oxymoron. Today, the data that is received by the terminal end users can be classified into several type of data, such as pixel data, text data or high definition data. For example, user requests data of high definition TV/Video that will occupy six megabits more times of a bandwidth than any other pixel data during transmission. One way to ensure a smooth flow of circulated data on the internet is prioritization of data transmission. The ultimate decision to prioritizing data receiving is the internet users. Therefore, if internet neutrality sets in, then one very possible scenario would result in fracturing every bit of data from various different sources. Disregarding the needs of the demander from the user end, one effect of fracturing everything on the internet is buffering, which is a common phenomenon of data transmitting during early development of internet. From this very perspective, implementation of net neutrality is very impractical. Furthermore, net neutrality may even cause a backward progress on internet technology.

    The claims of net neutrality about indiscriminate treatment of data contradict the nature of data flow mechanism, and furthermore drag the process of internet technology development. The Free Press, which is a major lobby of net neutrality, claims without it internet service providers “could crave the internet into fast and slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with…This would destroy the open internet” (save) that seems problematic as well.

    From the perspective of free speech, the internet is a virtually indefinite space that is already free and open; therefore, imposing regulation on the internet seems unnecessary, and even violates the principle of libertarianism. Proponent claims that net neutrality preserves and protects free speech, but on the contrary it might cause a halt of freedom of speech. Since imposing regulation on open space is already an act of anti-neutrality, it could foster bias regulations toward any party that is subject to suspicious discriminating online activity. After all, imposing regulation equates involvement of government authority which is highly vulnerable under influence of bureaucracy. As a result, favoritism from the authority could jeopardize and stifle a truly free internet. This aspect could not be found from the party of net neutrality proponent.

As good as net neutrality might sound, this is inevitably dissonant with the idea of guarantee of liberty on the internet. Preventing favoritism by implementation of regulation on the internet is opening another avenue of conflicts that is against the mechanism of internet technology and principle of liberty. Quite a few arguments about supporting net neutrality can be reasoned because of monopoly of cable industry, which provides the hardware access of the internet. With the evolving development of high tech industry, what cable companies are controlling could be solved by Darwinism of free marketing and technology. Consequently, net neutrality is a redundant act that might cause more harm than benefit.

Let’s go and kill some cartoonists.

 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/07/report-video-shows-alleged-terrorists-shooting-victim-on-paris-streets-before-calmly-driving-away/

The terror attack happens yesterday implicitly imply --‘a religious had claimed there is a god asking them to kill cartoonists?’ If there is a god saying so, would you feel a little bit of skeptical?

Do you able to give an answer with absolute yes or no?

For the freedom of speech, I am actually willing to stand with these cartoonists whose reputation and taste is so bad that I would definitely make sure there is a distance between the cartoon and myself. They go full length on bashing the Islamic funder, their prophet Muhammad which incur death threat from radical Islamic group. And they eventually achieve the threat that resulted a death toll of 12. France claimed this is a terror attack, pace White House insist this is an violence incident. The whole Europe is under the shadow of terror attack because of their falling multiculturalism. I would assert this: Political correctness will be the death for all of us. All the terror attacks, including this one happened in Paris, yell one thing--They want you to shut up (about the prophet Muhammad.)

Before the end of the command, I would like to address my view on the other side of the ‘coin’ about this terror attack. Even though I stand with the newspaper (because of FREEDOM OF SPEECH), I would not join them in what are they doing/drawing. If you Google ‘Charlie Hebdo,’ you would know what I mean. Their cartoon is really offensive and sick. They make almost pornographic and ugly idiosyncrasy about the prophet Muhammad naked in various position. If you are a Muslim, you would be offended. HOWEVER, should the offensiveness worth of 12 lives? No, nothing should go to that length at all. HOWEVER, if they would have done this to Jesus, I would have felt offended as well. Another HOWEVER, I would not conduct the killing. This is just a blank truth. You would not see Jewish group and Christian group conduct such an attack. Somehow this kind of thing is always fall on the hand of those radical Muslims.

So maybe you are ready to ask yourself this question: How many Mormon attacks is there have been in the Broadway Theater performing “The Book of Mormon” every night? 11? Maybe 11 minus 11. This is not civilized. You cannot win any heart at all by conducting such a horror. Unless intimidation is their goal.

Somebody has to do something

Contents that ‘Charlie Hebdo’ has demonstrated part of the sick value today. This is what Hitler had done before: point out the ill of the society. They said the reason society is so sick is because these people are mocking religious, they are amoral, they are not following the precept of god. These legitimate their action to carry out an attack as a mean of ‘We will take care for you.’ At the same time, there is a group of people who does follow the religious but not necessarily agree to kill, but again, turns the blind eyes thinking ‘you know what? They are right. The society is really sick and somebody has to do something.’ And this is the reason terrorists get you every time!

Somebody has to do something. This is what our politician saying all the time: ‘we got do something!’ NO. WE HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. ‘Somebody has to do something’ is what terrorists are thinking. Therefore, they get in and shoot people.

What you do in a civilize society, you sould say:

This is wrong. This is outrange. This is hurtful to who actually follow the prophet Muhammad. And there is no place for society to doing that!

However, people weight in for Muslim with a very different standard. Do they have any right? Absolutely, they have a right to speak out against the cartoon, boycott against it, think of it is wrong in many ways, but to do so in a way with love and respect. There is a time you might have righteous indignation but that doesn’t grand you any right to kill and shoot people.

I hope I make myself clear and logical enough so you do not assert me in a position of a radical on the opposite side of radical Islam.