Furthermore the idea of internet 2 has nothing to do with IPv6.
Internet2 is not based in the IPv4 protocol so, you are incorrect. You are on Ipv6 converted to IPv4 right now. Internet2 is when they remove the conversion currently being done.
That would be like saying people put tires on their cars because there are stop lights on the streets.
Illegitimate analogy based on misunderstanding.
IPv6 just increases the number of internet accessible addresses.
It increases the number of addresses, and there is no shortage of them. That is a peak-oil like scam, it is a psyop.
It does not negate the ability to use private addressing or any other common security practices that currently exist.
Correct. There is nothing wrong with the protocol in and of itself. It is what it enables for the NWO. Artificial intelligence based agile software requires the additional address space provided by IPv6 to implement extremely tyrannical credentialing and authentication to even get online (you will have to submit biometric data to gert authenticated, this is impossible to do without IPv6). If the NWO did not exist, a full IPv6 based Internet would not be an issue, because freedom loving people would not be building SOA (Service Oriented Architectures) and having entire backbone servers governed by real time AI scanning architectures to filter our own information that we want to have have completely unfettered.
Having more IP could be used for sinister purposes, but that is an illogical argument against it. That is the same argument people have against guns.
Wrong. IPv4 does not support RBAC, and IPv4 does not enable enterprise architectures to substantially filter the Internet the way the NWO wants to, that is why they moved to IPv6. There is no such thing as "could be used for sinister purposes". It WILL be used for sinister purposes, and is already. The NWO created this, they carried out 9/11 in part to thrust forward research into advancing the GIG, the framework of it. and all of the technologies that it will enable that were impossible with the IPv4 protocol, especially their mandate to replace ALL DoD IPv4 networks with IPv6 by 2008 (now completed) . The gun argument is completely off base because the general public has absolutely zero control over the architectures and filtering that IPv6 will force upon the entire world population. Guns benefit the public because you can have control over them, you can own them. You do not own, or control any aspect of Internet2. If you appear to for a time, it is an illusion that will not last long.
Internet 2 describes the hierarchical "user driven" web interface. For example my space, face book, youtube, internet driven television can be considered internet 2.
You are confusing Internet2 with Web 2.0. They are not even close to the same thing.
The problem is they want to eliminate independent web site hosting, or restrict the bandwidth to them so they are effectively useless to newcomers, so the like of you me and alex can be effectively censored.
Their control freak intentions, their tyranny, cannot be implemented to the degree that they want without IPv6. THEY created the technology to suit their needs to lock down free flow of information (via OTHER technology [Ptech] that capitalizes on the new functionality it has to interoperate with). Again the technology would only benefit humanity if the general public were the governing force ensuring that it was used to facilitate free flow of information. Since this is not going to happen, there is no valid argument to try to equate this with the 2nd amendment in a derogatory way.
If the NWO took ALL the guns on the Earth, would the solution be to implement gun control (somehow) for the NWO, so that they could not have guns (and thus no one have them)? No, the solution would be, to NOT let them take our guns in the 1st place--i.e. defending the 2nd amendment.
Same with Freedom of Speech. The solution preemptively is to NOT let them take it away, instead of trying to get it back once the mechanisms that enable free speech are removed by deadly force, and insane technological cockblocking. It is immeasurably harder to rescind full blown tyranny than preventing that tyranny from taking hold to begin with.
