Save Net Neutrality: Why Net Neutrality Is Necessary for White Advocacy

Since the recent announcement that Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is almost certainly going to do away with net neutrality when they vote on the issue on December 14, pundits on every side of the issue have been weighing in with their opinions. This contributes to the confusion of what is no doubt a very difficult, even slippery, topic. Pro-White activists haven’t been remiss in sharing their view and some circles have been inflamed by the debate, with a growing consensus that net neutrality is not good for our movement and we will be better off when the FCC gets rid of it. I will try to explain why they are dead wrong.

What is the Internet?

Judging from much of the befuddled commentary, it appears that we might benefit from a brief (and somewhat simplified) primer on exactly what the Internet is. The Internet is an actual physical thing; it isn’t some abstraction of software or websites or users, per se. At its simplest, it is machines (servers, routers, etc.) connected by wires (technically speaking, networks — hence the term Internet). These machines run protocols like the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), email, gopher, etc. One protocol, the HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP) is king of the Internet. The websites that we connect to via this protocol, constitute the World Wide Web (WWW). Many conflate the WWW with the Internet — it’s important to remember, for the purposes of this discussion, that they are not the same thing.

What is Net Neutrality?

The Wikipedia article on net neutrality gives a surprisingly useful definition:

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

Put succinctly, net neutrality means that all Internet traffic must be treated the same.

Keep the above definitions in mind as we explore the arguments against net neutrality and demonstrate why they’re false.

Unpacking the Arguments against Net Neutrality

After reading articles and listening to the podcasts of a handful of alt-right pundits who are in favor of allowing the FCC to eliminate it, I was able to boil-down their commentary to six essential arguments against net neutrality.

Argument 1: Our enemies, large Silicon Valley-type mega corporations (particularly social media Web sites like Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc.), are in favor of net neutrality, so it must be wrong.

First, it should be obvious that, whilst our enemies are extremely powerful, they are not infallible. Just because they think something is good for them, doesn’t mean it is and even if it is, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad for us.

Second, and more importantly, it is more likely that these mega-corporations are merely virtue signaling to their Social Justice Warrior (SJW) supporters and are secretly working behind the scenes to promote the end of net neutrality. That said, there is one compelling reason why these large content sites might want to maintain net neutrality: without it, ISPs will be able to charge them more money to send data down their wires (more on that below).

As a side note, it might be edifying to understand that SJWs are in favor of keeping the net neutral for all the wrong reasons. They, like those of us on the pro-White right, seek to maintain freedom of speech because they see themselves as discriminated against dissidents whose voices won’t be heard without freedom of speech. Of course, they’re wrong; they aren’t victims of discrimination. They are the empowered — useful idiot pawns of the regime who are favored, not discriminated against. The similarities between the cultural Marxist left and the White right go even further when we understand that the foundational belief of both groups is that there is a conspiracy of elites to dominate the globe. The only difference is that SJWs believe in the conspiracy theory that those elites are “rich White men” (ignoring the role of Jews as a moving force in this elite), while we believe in the fact that this opposes the true interests of Whites. The difference means everything.

Argument 2: Net neutrality is about ensuring that large-bandwidth sites (like Netflix) can keep costs down on someone else’s network and therefore it will never effect small operations like the Web sites of White Nationalists.

While the first part of this is true, the second part is patently absurd. Once net neutrality is eliminated, there will be nothing to stop Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from expanding their newfound powers to regulate access to our sites. And of course, they will if for no other reason than that they will be pressured into doing so by the left—in the same way that they pressure advertisers for programs they don’t like.

I can foresee the web-blocking/bandwidth throttling of our Web sites developing much the way “hate speech” laws did in Canada. “Hate speech” laws were passed in Canada decades ago, but they never charged anyone with violating them until just the last decade or so. This allowed them to dissipate consternation when people became alarmed, simply by saying “oh, this law isn’t new; it’s been on the books for years”. As with the Canadian “hate speech” scenario, at first not much will happen. Our sites will hum merrily along. But then, as they start to grow, they will be hit with ever increasing bills to pay for the bandwidth or they will be throttled way back or blocked all together. Because it will happen slowly and years after the FCC policy change and because Whites, particularly White men, have a fundamental instinct to believe that we should pay for what we get and that if our data is going to be transported over another’s network, it is only fair that we pay our share, it will become extremely difficult for the average person to put two-and-two together and understand that this change represents a deliberate attempt to silence the voice of White America.

Argument 3: Net neutrality didn’t exist until the Obama’s FCC implemented it February 26, 2015. Since then, social media companies have increasingly been exiling us from the Web, so how could a change in policy, eliminating net neutrality, possibly harm us.

Because there are so many flaws in this argument it’s a fun one to unpack.

To begin with, net neutrality is not new — it is as old as the Internet itself. It was one of the founding principles of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) which was the original internetwork that eventually grew into what we know as the Internet. The February 2015 FCC Title II ruling made net neutrality the law, but it was already the de facto state of things for the almost half-century of existence of the ‘Net before that time. The ruling came about because the big ISPs were going to move away from the open Internet promised by net neutrality and implement a pay-to-play scheme. Public outcry triggered the Obama administration into action, resulting in the ruling.

The idea that because large Silicon Valley social media sites are suspending, blocking, and/or shadow banning our accounts so therefore we ought to allow ISPs to discriminate against us is hard to fathom. It’s akin to saying that because someone has forced you into a cage match to the death and armed your opponent with a knife then it couldn’t possibly harm you if they allowed the referee to join in the fight against you and gave him a gun.

One reason an alt-right pundit gave for supporting the end of net neutrality was that he believed the end of it would harm the social media giants’ bottom lines. It will of course, but the impact will be minor, representing nothing more than a small speed-bump on the information autobahn. On the other hand, it will be a dead end for White advocates if, e.g., people have to pay extra to go to pro-White sites. Currently, because of the FCC’s Title II ruling, we have legal remedy if ISPs try to discriminate against us; if they eliminate net neutrality with their upcoming December 14 vote, we will lose that remedy.

Also, it’s important to note that presently, we do have legal remedy against the large social media sites that are discriminating against us. Much has been said about the fact that these corporations are able to deny our free speech rights because as private entities they are not bound by the First Amendment. What everyone seems to have forgotten is that they are bound by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids enforcing corporate policies in a manner that negatively impacts any member of any of the groups that constitute the four protected classes. One of those classes is race (the others being religion, sex, and national origin). The fact that they allow non-Whites to say all of the things that they claim are violations of their user policies and are therefore cause for punishing us (via suspending or deleting our accounts) but don’t punish them, is grounds for a massive class action lawsuit. We just need to find a lawyer with the courage to take it on.

Argument 4: ISPs won’t block us, etc. because we are their customers and they wouldn’t want to harm their customers.

The fundamental problem with this is that while, on one level, we are customers buying Internet access from them, on another level we are also competitors offering consumer content that flows down their network “piping.” It should be easy to understand why they might want to harm their competitors.

A good analogy is the roadway system. Imagine, if a small handful of large trucking concerns were given a license to regulate the country’s road networks and they could apply different payment rates, speed limits, and/or block their smaller competitors’ access to the roads altogether. How long do you think their competitors would be in business? This is exactly the situation White advocates will find themselves in with the end of net neutrality.

Argument 5: Net neutrality represents government regulation which is mucking up the free and open Internet.

Spotting the obvious flaw in this classic Trotskyite/Socialist/Corporatist/Neocon argument is easy for most seasoned Nationalists, but it’s worth pointing-out that we are going to be regulated one way or another. The only thing we need to decide is whether we want to be regulated by the state or the corporations. History teaches that when it comes to infrastructural networks (what used to be called “natural monopolies”; things like roadways, public water systems, communications networks, etc.) it is always best to let the public sphere regulate them.

On the other hand, some Title II provisions represent an improper extension and usurpation by the FCC and should be curtailed. Enforcing net neutrality is good, but giving the FCC broad veto power regarding innovative startups is not. Let’s modify Title II, not throw-out the baby with the bathwater.

Argument 6: The negative impact of the end of net neutrality will alarm people and force a discussion about free speech on the Internet.

Highly unlikely. As I described above, our enemies are very experienced at implementing draconian rules. The harsher aspects of corporate rule over Internet traffic won’t be implemented right away. They will take their time and do it slowly. Our interlocutors know all too well how to boil a frog. They won’t throw us right into the boiling water, because they know we’ll try to jump out. They’ll maintain a nice comfy temperature and slowly turn up the heat until it’s too late.

Conclusion

If the FCC votes to eliminate net neutrality, pro-White voices will be prevented from reaching and/or maintaining an audience. It won’t happen quickly. They’ll go slow in order to prevent alarming people. But within a decade we’ll be right back to the bad old days of a small handful of mega-media corporations controlling the flow of information, quite possibly with Jewish ownership.

Addenda

Silver Linings

There might be a couple of silver linings in the coming cloud of net censorship.

  1. Increased costs might make it easier for White advocates to raise funds because the increased costs would make it more obvious as to why our audience should donate. In the past, we’ve had trouble getting our audience to understand how expensive it is to start and maintain high quality media. I’ve found that people are very generous in donating to help pay for overhead like domain name registrations, web-hosting fees, etc. but, generally, they’re not willing to contribute to labor costs because they underestimate them. They far too often just see the end result and don’t recognize all the effort it took to get to that result. For example, they listen to a half-hour podcast and think, well it only takes you a half-hour a week to produce the podcast, not understanding all the effort it might take to book guests, research topics, fact-check, etc.
  2. There might be an opportunity for White advocates to start a competitive ISP that guarantees net neutrality to its customers.

While these suggestions represent my attempt to put a positive spin on what is undoubtedly a very negative development, it would be better by far, if we could simply prevent the FCC from ending net neutrality on December 14.

What you can do to stop the FCC

Contact your congressmen and urge them to stop the FCC. A simple way to do that is via this website: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

55 replies
  1. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    The author has made a persuasive case for “net neutrality.” However, I have no doubt that the Democrats in the FCC will do everything in their power to suppress ideas and information competing with the socio-fascist ideology of the Democrat Party. Let us not forget Lois Lerner and her activities to suppress Tea Party type organizations and what happened to her. Nothing happened to her. She is as free as a bird. The Democrats are growing in desperation. They will take advantage of any sliver of power they can put their hands on.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Are you an employee of the Republican Party, George? If not, why?

      Your insistence, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that the Democratic Party—not Jews, not Muslims, not Masons, not Hollywood actors, soccer moms, or Civil War reenactors—is the ultimate enemy and string-puller ought to embarrass you for the sheer brass of its inversion of reality.

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        I am not an employee of the GOP. However, I did serve as a precinct committeeman, a voluntary, unpaid position. Ballots rarely or never are listed with ‘Jews,’ ‘Muslims,’ ‘Masons,’ ‘Liberals,’ ‘Leftists’ and so on as party affiliations. But ‘Democrat’ almost always appears on a ballot. Voters have to understand that ‘Democrat’ stands for an ideology which is incompatible with the laws and traditions of our Christian and European constitutional system. Unfortunately, even Republican intellectuals do not seem to understand this. No moral equivalency exists between Democrat and Republican ideology.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          No moral equivalency exists between Democrat and Republican ideology.

          That’s what Charles Krauthammer says, too. Thanks for providing your latitude and longitude, which places you squarely in Neoconland.

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            Except for some exceptions, no moral equivalency exists between Republicans and Democrats. Krauthammer and I have this in common: the conclusion regarding moral equivalency comes from observation both of the ideologies involved and the behavior of prominent Democrats like the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, John Conyers, Gary Studds, Mel Reynolds, Dan Rostenkowski, Jesse Jackson Jr., Rod Blagojevich, Harvey Weinstein and so on. We do diverge on other issues among them the status of the modern state of Israel.

  2. m
    m says:

    The entire Net Neutral argument misses the point. The Internet should be nationalized, and then conscripted into the definition of the First Amendment. It is the only way.

    Right now we have a situation where a handful of “private” (mostly Jewish controlled) Internet “providers” (ask yourself what they are providing) and infrastructure owners effectively commit censorship by propagating Terms of Service rules–rules they interpret in a political manner. But, so the argument goes, it can’t be called “true” censorship, because these are private corporations, and only “the government” cannot censor due to the First Amendment.

    As long as “the Internet” remains in private hands, all bets for meaningful change are gone. And it’s not as if “government” is our friend. But the First Amendment has been a pretty strong feature, over the years. It’s the only thing we’ve got going for us. That, and the Second.

    It is why you can openly find vile pornography on the Net, but right wing speech is typically suppressed.

    • Ger Tzedek
      Ger Tzedek says:

      I like this argument. I agree that Jews have not always done the best for themselves, or have not always have the intended results, thanks God. That said, I am more in favor of what Trump is doing. It is always possible to present badass arguments for any point of view and its contrary.

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      @M I agree with your general assessment, but the net is truly world wide so “nationalizing” in the traditional sense is not really possible. The analogy to natural monopolies is right on the mark.

      Another way to look at it is that we should treat cyberspace the same way we treat international waters on the open ocean. The US has, since its founding, always defended the right to freedom of navigation on the worlds oceans on the principle that the oceans belong to us all. What makes the internet any different?

    • Hammerheart
      Hammerheart says:

      M, i essentially agree with your point, but for precisely the reason you give (‘all bets are off’) the govt is not/never going to do that; I’m puzzled why you think they would. I was making these warnings several years ago, & so far as i am aware, i was completely ignored.

      • m
        m says:

        To Bob: By “nationalizing” I was speaking loosely. The Internet is not a “thing” like coal or steel production. But it can be conscripted similarly, nevertheless. Obviously we cannot directly influence what is happening outside our borders, either. But that is not much of an issue for Americans. That is an issue for folks living in those other countries.

        They key, I think, would be to mandate, by law, open access to the Web, for Americans. It has to be considered a “right” which cannot be abridged by private companies, and private companies that control the Web must allow the speech, as long as what is said is not illegal. Thus, domains could not be revoked for political reasons, etc.

        To Hammerheart: There is no good argument that would conclusively prove how the US government would “allow” free speech to happen on the Net. However, for their part, Jews have broadened the First Amendment so much (so they can sell, among other things, porn) that it is difficult for them to walk it back, now. They are able to get away with it, using TOS “hate speech” rules. They can do that because the TOS are promulgated by “privately” owned companies. But if political speech on the Web was protected under the First Amendment, these companies would not be able to conveniently restrict what they don’t like.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      I agree. I read that the internet was somewhat regulated as to fees they could charge. So the internet companies told Congress that we needed fiber optics to every house in the nation and to do that would mean they would need regulations dropped. So Congress did and years later and $800 billion dollars in higher fees later do we have fiber to every house? Hell no. This is just another rip off. We could make it public and even if it wasn’t run perfectly it would be cheaper than we have now and we’d have an up to date fiber system. I’ve heard a few communities used the Congressional ruling to make community public run fiber optic companies and they have super fast low cost service.

      You know if the cable company is for it it’s a rip off. They are one big massive rip off. We should make them account for the $800 billion on excess fees. They can refund them or we’ll take it out of their asking price for their system.

      Public systems have gotten a bad name because some of them have been run by idiots but a lot of them are run fairly well. Pacific power before it was privatized was the best run power company in the US. The Tennessee Valley Authority has done well. Of course some public run Dindu run services have fallen apart but…well we know why that is.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        I don’t even need fibre [except the dietary variety] since both TV and Internet come in via satellite dishes; rarely interrupted by atmospheric conditions; and then very briefly.

        Your financial rip-off remarks are on target. In the mid-80s I rented my front house to a ” satellite controller ” of Telesat Canada, which established a regular park of multiple, immense dishes here in Allen Park, Ontario, due to minimal local frequencies interference. Allen Park still is Telesat’s main re-transmission point for all of western Canada, including all satellite-traffic for Bell Canada.

        Jacques was trained at the RCAF base in Cold Lake , Alberta, a component of the US DEW or Distant Early Warning line, as well as by Bell’s telecommunications training centre. When the suits at Telesat in Toronto had an unsolvable problem, J would speed down to solve it. [ I always reminded him not to forget a supply of bathroom tissue ].

        This real expert told me, that the frequent interruptions of this property’s telephone service was due to an aged Bell cable on our county road, which, whenever it rained, would jump to ground. Well, that was still last week’s experience again, for 2 1/2 days.

        Bell’s ever-increasing fees and profits, went, among other such things, towards the acquisition of the electronics-stores-chain The Source, instead of maintaining their aged infrastructure: notably un-differentiable from countless other enterprises beholden to the dividend.

        [ I have a much larger concern, which I can’t broach now, as intended, because I have to plow the snow before darkness ].
        Later !

  3. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    I believe Pres. Trump wants to regulate the internet like a utility. He recognizes that Silicon Valley behemoths have begun denying Americans their 1st Amendment rights, and have been wielding their influence as a weapon against conservatives and patriots. If net neutrality continues as-is, I don’t see how it will be any better than what the author predicts here:

    […] pro-White voices will be prevented from reaching and/or maintaining an audience. It won’t happen quickly. They’ll go slow in order to prevent alarming people. But within a decade we’ll be right back to the bad old days of a small handful of mega-media corporations controlling the flow of information, quite possibly with Jewish ownership.

    We’re already at that point now. Don’t forget, these companies manipulated search results & trending news, and censored tens of thousands of conservatives during the recent election on sites like Reddit and Twitter. Since then, websites like Daily Stormer have been denied hosting. Jewish-owned megacorporations Google (YouTube) and Facebook have begun working with the ADL (recently announcing plans to hire tens of thousands of censors), and use machine-learned algorithms to automatically detect and censor so-called “extremist” pro-White content.

    If Pres. Trump is indeed taking Ann Coulter’s advice, he needs to get these extremely powerful groups to play ball. The mere threat of upsetting the current status quo, which would allow the cable companies to mess with Silicon Valley’s daily operations, should be more than enough to get them and their drones on Reddit to BEG for the internet to be regulated as a public utility. Allowing unpopular opinions to be expressed and heard, which has until very recently been the de facto standard since the internet’s inception, would be a small price to pay for their continued monopolies.

    Until I see otherwise, this is all part of the art of the deal.

    • RoyAlbrecht
      RoyAlbrecht says:

      Being more of a hardware understanding type, I have only a moderate understanding of software development and network solutions.
      To gain sufficient knowledge of the latter before the vote is impractical.
      Therefore it would be helpful if the author of the above article would respond to the comment above.

      To me, the basic issue is whether Pres. Trump is;

      1) Trustworthy
      2) Is indeed moving towards “…utilitarizing…” (as in a Public Utility as implied by Rob Bottom) the Net and thereby moving toward strengthening 1st Amendment Rights for White Nationalists/Separatists/Advocates (WN/S/As) or anyone who goes up against the Jews.

      The way I see it is that as long as Jews control the money printing presses and flow of money through their Racial Network of Global Money Lenders, Media Brainwashers and other Resource Bottlenecks, it is only a matter of time before WN/S/As are totally silenced.
      Therefore, any step that slows down or impedes this process is good.

  4. Unknown
    Unknown says:

    I saw it coming for many years. you can’t stop it.

    We need to advance a Virtual Private Intranet (a combination of a VPN and a Private Intranet – {Modernized BBS encrypted system}) over the Internet fully encrypted.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      We have various portions of this, right now and much more functionality is coming. One of the best uses of your dollars and time might be to give money to these to push them forward. Not necessarily in any order.

      I2P Invisible Internet Project

      https://geti2p.net/en/

      Very cool and it has very good security. Useful now. Messages passed will be almost impossible to find who sent them. You can put your own site online on your computer and serve it and it would very difficult to find where it was and who’s site. It has a GREAT BitTorrent system that while slow,(it doesn’t have near as many people as a normal torrent), it is great for TV, music, books, Movies and etc. That’s what I use it for. It has a permanent storage system kind of sorta like zeronet but it really a pain in the ass and I personally don’t like it. There’s talk of using zeronet and IPFS in I2P. That would be a huge winner I think. You could have an anonymous site totally encrypted. I wouldn’t say no one could ever find where it was but it would be extremely difficult and would take big resources.

      So even if they try to stop us…it’s not going to work. The internet is routing around them. It”s going to take a while before these things are really easy to use. Most have a few steps to set up but as they come online they will get better and better.

      https://zeronet.io/

      It spreads a website, file or whatever you upload across several computers like torrents in BitTorrent. It works now. I’ve looked at it a little and most seems to work ok but I haven’t figured it out completely. It has (TOR) a anonymous layer that you can add on so that you have a good deal of anonymity. I wouldn’t plan a military action on it but it fine for discussing things we do. The good thing is each person using a site can “pin” it. This means it saves the site to their drive and you will become a server to many others. With a lot of people saving the site it can be SUPER FAST. Far faster than a normal good server. We can’t then be turned off unless they kill the internet altogether. Our servers will be faster than the big companies because they want control in one spot. This applies to most all the services I’m listing.

      Inter Planetary File System

      https://ipfs.io/

      Very much like zeronet. Not as far along as zeronet

      Freenet

      https://freenetproject.org/

      The first. Slow, very slow, (gets faster over time), but you can anonymously put up a web site and if people like it it will be continuously saved. Hard to find who put what up or whose reading what. Not impossible but very difficult.

  5. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    I see it as the way Jews used labor unions to force out competition. I live in a very Jewish strangled city in the Midwest in which Jews control everything down to the local city councils and including the entire business sector. Jews DO NOT tolerate competition from Goy and regard the Business of Business to be Jewish ONLY. This allows them to complete the cycle and eliminate Goyish small competition.

  6. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    This is a vital issue. Become involved, as the freedom of the internet is at stake.
    The Orwellian deep state is attempting smother and/or hobble our ability to freely communicate.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      …or to kill it, with circumscribed exceptions for themselves, altogether; when, not if, things boil over. With a single, inaudible CLICK.

  7. Mike R.
    Mike R. says:

    False dichotomy. Censorship of right wing views occurs in either case. Google and Soros, on the side of NN, do not invest in freedom. The right should not take a side in NN except perhaps to frustrate their opponents. The only means of affording better distribution of Internet connectivity is through advancing wireless technology, rendering line and pole monopoly issues moot.

    Much like universal healthcare, this should be filed under “things to do after whites regain control over their own destiny.” Until that time, they are simply altruistic gifts to one’s enemies.

  8. ATBOTL
    ATBOTL says:

    It’s very disturbing how so many alt right people have mindlessly adopted the Trump administration’s take on this without even understanding what net neutrality is. Unfortunately, some alt-right figures who do understand are using an overly Machiavellian, worse is better type rationale to justify opposing net neutrality.

    The influence between the Trump admin. and the alt-right goes both ways. In the future, we need to be more cognizant of this and get out in front of bad initiatives from Trump before a consensus in favor of the bad policy develops.

  9. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    This close to the twelfth hour, it’s high time to broach this existential issue. More than once did I try to initiate a dialogue on this issue, but it was always superseded by comments disputing whether Plato cut or filed his toe-nails with his right hand or his left. Not excluding those who preach action over words.

    Some allegedly informed and concerned sympathetic evaluations in this article, including recommendations on how to fix this problem, are so far on the other side of the absurd, as to richly deserve both the author’s and certain discerning commenters’ remarks.

    The idea to establish a net of our own, encrypted or otherwise is also fanciful. Please do recall Stuxnet which breached a number of firewalls erected by the not ignorant Iranians. This concerted attack on their centrifuges was successfully planned by unlimited co-operation and funding between America’s NSA and Israel’s renowned Unit 8200 of the IDF’s intelligence. [ Which won’t be news to any reader here ! ]

    These interdependent and variously Jewish-owned services, and manufacturers, comprising a whole, are private property and, as such, not amenable to public opinion, but, in the end, sacrificing marginal accounts aside, are led pursuant to Jewish interests alone.

    Even if these tactically strangling changes, proposed for that Dec. 14, FCC hearing, were to fail, they would be resurrected after 2020, if not by 2018; depending on those election outcomes. They will be pursued by their version of existential vengeance.

    As regrettably as realistically, there are several you tubes on the net demonstrating Israel’s absolute dominance in cyber matters. From conceptualization to design, manufacturing and world-wide distribution; including ‘ unfriendly ‘ states.

    Any belligerent goes for the jugular of the enemy’s communications capacity before he even fires his first shot. Who wants to lay odds as to the longevity of our very own encrypted system ?

    All of us, by priority, will have our phones cut off by our servers, through the very system they would employ, were we to fail to pay our monthly statements.

    Human electricity meter readers are a thing of the past. My main meter talks directly to Ontario Hydro [ Electric ] 120 miles away. Surely it could be programmed to shut me down, in reverse. This would render me deaf, dumb and blind; as it would anyone so chosen and in all likelihood already pre-programmed from ADL and other such interested parties’ lists.

    One video on the net features a promotion of the Israeli cyber-experts firm of Argos [?]; one of several. All employees are retirees/transferees from Unit 8200 or the Mossad’s cyber team. It has a clip showing their salesmen at a trade-fair in Germany pushing one of their cyber ” products ” on BMW engineers. This product will override all braking systems, radio, door-locks, lights, motor ignition, and not least, the bloody steering mechanism itself.

    Several years back the popular, promising rightist Austrian Joerg Haider died in a crash, in town, in his new state-provided, large, new VW Phaeton sedan. Perhaps he was part and parcel of {{{their}}} research and development. Non-existent, uninterrupted custody of his blood sample evidence aside.

    As I commented here months ago, we won’t even have a horse like that of Paul Revere; a rider for the Boston
    Correspondence Committee moments before that Revolution entered its realm of violence.

    Instead of studying Pericles’ bathroom habits next, might it not be more ” survivalist ” to inform us of Israel’s capacity, its complete infiltration of all US intelligence services and federal departments, and its ownership of the majority of these services and manufacturers in the US and Western Europe.

    Then, and only then, could we meaningfully contemplate and execute the few remaining alternate countermeasures.

  10. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “ISPs won’t block us, etc. because we are their customers and they wouldn’t want to harm their customers”
    Perhaps there was a time when money mattered more than the internal politics of the ‘rich white’ elites and rich jews, but these days there are more and more examples of wealthy whites and jews harming THEIR OWN businesses as they make their politics even higher in priority than their own wealth. Examples are: (1) Hollywood making their movies politically correct even though they know it looses them customers, eg giving key film roles to certain ethnic groups (2) wealthy whites voting for more socialism ie more taxes, and wanting mass immigration that in the end will make the West more third world – just see the path that S.Africa took for what awaits the rest of the West. The banks and mega corporations DO NOT benefit (as S.Africa demonstrates), so It is wrong to assume the motive for the big corporations wanting to make the West like the third world is greed and money – the wealthy elites such as banking elites know we will ALL be worse off including themselves, as they are now in S.Africa.
    (3) Film stars telling the people their far-left views. Eg many people will no longer see films with George Clooney in them, or directed by him.
    (4) Youtube closing down channels that are right wing – this is (a) against their own short term financial interest, but also, (b) it can cause users to have a negative view of them in terms of PR, and this might one day be the prompt for customers to switch to a competitor that does not censor. So Youtube are in fact prepared to damage their reputation and to allow themselves to be put in the category of ‘censor’ and ‘enemy of free speech’. So there is a price to pay in terms or PR and reputation. And they are willing to pay it. So their politics comes before self interest.

    It is a big mistake to assume the wealthy whites are on the side of civilisation or the West, or the system that made them so wealthy. Take the white elite in S.Africa for example. They bow down to the racist black tribes either in the belief that they can transfer out their wealth if they have to (unlike ruling elites of centuries past who ‘went down with the ship’), or, like Soros types, because they earnestly hate the civilised West and want to destroy it for the ‘crime’ of being better, which offends them due to their internal inner wiring that is programming them to think in this way, and NOTHING to do with greed or power or self-interest.

    This ties in with the other comment in the article about ‘useful idiots’. Many are fully aware that the end result of getting their way is not ‘more equality and fairness’ and in fact the end is for the West to become a place where bad people are in charge instead of civilised ones, ie the left in charge as in the Soviet Union, where the fairness and equality’ level will go right down to zero – or as it did in Zimbabwe for example once the whites were ousted (- by other whites eg international sanctions against S.Rhodesia). Most of the left know this and are not idiots – they are programmed to think like this and it has nothing to do with self-interest or greed or money or power or of being ‘useful idiots’. The left know there will be no equality or fairness (or much profits, even for the elite) in the end-game, just as the feminists never criticise Islam and they too can see the end game in which women are oppressed, and still have no problem with this – all they are interested in is that civilised white structures collapse, and they do not care how much women are oppressed in the replacement system, whether it is Islam or socialsim. (And the biggest supporters of oppression of women within Islam are WOMEN who, even when divorced and there is no man to boss them, still want their daughter to wear the headscarf at school, and still want sharia law – in which their own Western type divorce settlement in which they got half the money would not be allowed – showing once again that self-interest is NOT the motive for these people either – their motive is group loyalty ie animal behaviour wiring).

    In other words, the true left (as oppose to the sheeple or the naive) are programmed to behave as they do in their wiring, and this wiring is what controls them, not greed or power or money or even self-interest or the interests of their children. In the same way a pampered domestic cat is programmed to fight with its neighbour. If the cat and its neighbour were acting in their own interests they could live peacefully with each other, and suffer less stress and injury. But the cats do not do this – their wiring makes them fight with each other over territory in a way that causes themselves stress and injury, ie against self interest. In the same way the left seek to make civilised counties uncivilised even though this is against their own interests and everyone else’s. As with the cats, there might in prehistoric times have been excellent selective advantage for the left having these genes, but today they are bad genes that are causing of the downfall of the West. It is the same with the way some Jews seem programmed to be hostile to ‘other tribes’ even when all their wealth and security comes from these ‘other tribes’. They are following their animal behaviour wiring, NOT self interest, so there is no need to search for motives that involve greed or power, or self-interest strategies. The strategies they follow, like the pampered cat’s are ones that are AGAINST self interest. They have inherited them from past times.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      pterodactyl> The Knee at foolsball games’ the National Anthem is a good example, unified as it in the NFL hierarchy, all owned, operated, and controlled by Chews. Likewise, the Sports Fans Networks. Huge losses; don’t care as long as the long term, STRATEGIC goals are undertaken. These losses are viewed as temporary by the Pan Genocidal Project. All such losses to be recouped exponentially in the long term when (((Emissaries of The Devil))) control and own everything.

      And by the way, have any commu-tators or commutators, or commentators said anything about Disney (all Chewish) buying out Fox News??? The only independent media will be small and suppressed. Correction: more so than now.

      More and more “Whites”, actually Western Indo-Europeans, are responding assiduously against the constant advancement on all fronts against the non-Chew by consuming more and raising their credit card debt. Millennially, the stupidest of the West’s generation for 500 years, now slightly favor socialism/Communism by a small minority.

      The goal of socialism is communism.
      – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps.
      -Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
      ― Frédéric Bastiat

      Years ago, in my high school in Japan on the Fort Drake military base, a traveling group called Up With People came to and sang songs. The overarching message was one of uplifting and concentrating on human needs and improving the human condition. At an auspicious moment a diminutive girl took one step forward, and in soaring soprano emitted, “FOR I WILL STAND ALONE”. I felt as if a an electric current passed through my body. For this, summarizes the totality of human history’s Force de Frappe. Will individuals, regardless and in spite of the consequences stand against One Thousand Years of Darkness. Certainly martyrs of the past did so unhesitatingly. The Orthodox Churches venerate them, and Name Days are paramount. Buddhist monks have stepped up and offered their lives as a rejection of inhumanity, vice, and usurption.

      Here’s a question for the Readership here: what was the most profound statement Janis Joplin made in her tormented life?

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Poupon Marx – the football industry following politics in a way that directly and obviously leads to falling profits – and as a free choice that they do not need to make – seems the best example of all, as it would be easy for them so say that sport should have nothing to do with politics.

        Another example is TV adverts showing white men in humiliating roles – of all groups surely the advertisers should be the one group that focuses on profits not politics, but it seems to not be the case. They are even prepared for their own ad agency to churn out adverts that sell 1 million tins when they could make an ad that sells 2 million tins.

        Perhaps this sentence is the key to the explanation:
        “Millennially, the stupidest of the West’s generation for 500 years, now slightly favor socialism/Communism by a small minority.”

        For the first time in the 500 years or thousands of years we have a situation in the West that has never happened before in the history of mankind – ie excessive wealth and plenty – (and so therefore our animal behaviour is not ‘designed’ for such a situation, as the ‘designing’ process took place in times when life was harder).

        For the first time, ever, we have:

        1) The young in the West (millennials) are very wealthy and pampered – they all have phones and expensive trainers and no-one is starving or has to wear clothes with holes in even.

        2) They have been raised by the state and the MSM more than the family – they spend far more hours listening to the message of the TV than to their family. And this is reinforced by the far-left anti-western narrative now taught in all state schools and universities in all the Western nations.

        Therefore the West has raised a generation that is wealthy, spoiled, selfish and shallow (due to only mixing with their own age group rather than family groups of different generations) and who do not know what hardship is, and have been bombarded all their lives with a political message of the left. So when they join the ad agency, there are enough of them who are keen supporters of the anti-white-male anti-western narrative that they are able to make the ad agency behave in a way that everyone in the agency knows is bad policy, but because there are enough of them, they can dictate the policy. In the meeting anyone who complains of the political correctness in the ads will be ignored or dismissed. In other words, the politically correct types outnumber the others these days when millennials are in charge of an organisation.

        They can only get away with it because the country is so rich that they can indulge their politics and STILL they are rich and pampered and have well-paid jobs. In other words, the place is overflowing with milk and honey and can tolerate the millennials ‘doing silly things’ as in the end, they do not actually suffer very much from doing so (profits might fall – they might even lose their jobs as the company shrinks, but still there are other jobs for them). Especially in California where the lefties are thriving and very wealthy – obviously being far-left and hating the West does not in any way hinder then from becoming millionaires.

        But when all this hatred of the white-West from the millennials in the end will cause the West to become third world. When this happens, the next generation will NOT be wealthy and pampered, and hardship will return. Then the new generation of young people will think differently. And another factor – for now the wealthy whites both the lefty ones and those who are just apolitical and selfish (ie who never give a few million to alt-right causes) can still, for the present, always find places to live where the policies of the left have not yet taken hold, eg lefty whites and wealthy whites can still always find a white neigbourhood to live in, (and Zuckeburg and Gates live in very secure houses) but one day their havens will become fewer. This might cause some of the wealthy elite (although never those as committed to the cause as zuckerberg or soros types) to begin to object to the self-destruction going on, which at present they do not object to as they personally are not affected.

        “These losses are viewed as temporary by the Pan Genocidal Project. ”
        I think you are being too generous and kind to them. Maybe they are so full of malice that their malice is even higher than their desire for profits, so their malice beats their desire for profits, and so they act on their malice even though it damages profits.

    • Forever Guilty
      Forever Guilty says:

      “is wrong to assume the motive for the big corporations wanting to make the West like the third world is greed and money “

      Absolutely, but its even more true for the banks. And we know who own the banks. (((Hereditary usurers))) . They do not need money. They can “produce” as much money as they want. In difference from everybody else. What they need is a control. Acceptance of “free market”, “free trading” So everything could be bought for money. They need control of host country government as first priority and population control as second priority. They could finance most unprofitable business indefinitely if that suit their agenda.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Forever Guilty – I am not disputing that what you say is what is actually happening re the banks, but even though yes, it is happening, it does not follow that they are following a good strategy or plan in terms of what in the end will work out well for them in the long term. In the end, banks in S.Africa now make far fewer profits than they did before the black tribes took over after being put in power by whites both internally and externally who made it the top priority in their lives to oust whites and replace them with blacks.

        The banks are following a bad LONG term strategy just as the football industry is following a bad SHORT term strategy as described by Poupon Marx above. Just because a strategy is followed, it does not follow it is a good one.

        In the same way, the hostility of the Jews to the West, and plain for all to see via the output of Hollywood – this too is a strategy that we can see being enacted, but it does not follow that it is a good one for the Jews in the long term.

        In the same way a two year old child has a strategy of trying to get themselves run over in traffic. They are programmed/wired to behave like this and as soon as they get their own way they will harm themselves. If the Jews manage to bring down hated tribes, they too will be bringing harm on themselves, as these hated tribes provide them with all their wealth and security. Hate/hostility type group behaviour control some populations. The downfall of the West is because, being individualistic as K MacDonald describes, we do not join in this particular game of group behaviour (ie favouring owns own race, hostile to others), and although it led to our success in the past when life was hard, now that life is easy it is leading to our downfall.

    • T
      T says:

      From pterodactyl’s post:

      In other words, the true left (as oppose to the sheeple or the naive) are programmed to behave as they do in their wiring, and this wiring is what controls them, not greed or power or money or even self-interest or the interests of their children.

      Your post pterodactyl is remindful of something I’ve seen others in addition to myself observe regarding a logic defying almost religious like fanaticism among radical left types…as manifested by the sjw’s, pc, progressives, radical liberals, Marxists, etc. They have a vision of a collectivists orientated future ‘perfect world’, a heaven on earth, they are working towards…if only all those billions of unbelievers and reactionarys across the world that stand in the way of this vision could be gotten out of the way or made to ‘disappear’ somehow…ie as was attempted in the Soviet Union or Red China.

      In that they are in a certain sense a possible unconscious reaction, the anti-thesis, of the 17th century individualist orientated commerce friendly as well as slave holding/dealing Puritans of New England and England proper. They also, like the modern progressives, were fanatical as well as practically living out of the Old Testament. Though, capital friendly Puritan and Marxist friendly liberal progressive are a seeming thesis and anti-thesis, they also have some close parallels…a love of money being one in addition to their belief in absolute rightness of cause fanaticism.

      In the US immigration tended to go straight west ward from ones initial settlement in North America. One wonders just how many self described ‘progressives’ and ‘liberals’ in Washington state and Oregon grasp that their direct political and spiritual forebears were the slave holding/dealing very commercial orientated Puritans of New England whom they closely parallel to this day. One of these close parallels in addition to the aforementioned fanaticism and over fondness for money is the progressives heavy involvement today in what is simply chattel slavery and its trade monetized…ie the mass immigration to acquire wage slaves (‘cheap labor’ so called) which they promote. Just as the New England puritan would cynically and at times ostentatiously ‘dote’ on their chattel slave with the occasional small gift as they felt ‘badly’ for them, but not truly badly enough for them to release and repatriot their slave, so too does the modern progressive ‘dote’ upon their wage slave immigrant, now using others money to do so, ie welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc, but not care enough to stop the practice. In neither case did Puritan or progressive actually truly care about those whom they prey upon and exploit nor did they truly care about their own whom are grievously effected by these practices.

      The convergence of this senior Capitalism with a junior Marxism is what forms the ideology of Multiculturalism.

      • T
        T says:

        There’s another aspect that helps explain the fanaticism pterodactyl. The ideology of multiculturalism and its adherants have all the earmarks of being a gigantic cult which is a subject explored in an article I posted at another site linked below.

        What is Mind Control?

        Mind control (also known as “brainwashing,” “coercive persuasion,” and “thought reform”) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s).

        https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_cult_of_multi_culturalism

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          T – interesting article about cults and similarities to the way the populations in the West (especially the young) now subscribe to multiculturalism (as depicted in Hollywood eg film ‘Avatar’), eg: “This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual,” – this is what is happening now as the left are trying to control the narrative in the way Russell James describes above in his article.

          This ties in with what K MacDonald says – that individualistic populations are loyal not to tribe or race, but to cultural ideas, whether this was Christianity in the past (which led to the West attaching importance to honesty and behaving honourably, and his helped in our success, regardless of the origins of the religion that readers here in particular are uncomfortable with) or whether the culture is no longer Christianity but now multiculturalism, globalism, or whatever word we use for what is basically anti-white.

          We can see why people are like this. Consider two tribes in the prehistoric past in conflict over land. In one tribe they are reasonable and logical and all ponder the rights and wrongs of who owns what land, and decide there have been faults on both sides, and they themselves are partly in the wrong. In the other tribe they all unite and all decide that they are all totally right and justified and the other side are all totally wrong – every last one of them.

          Which tribe wins? The united one. ie the one where they all accept the message without thinking.
          This means the populations that had unthinking loyalty were more successful. And cults are a type of extreme culture. The left in the West today are defining the culture and the people are accepting and following it. There is no logic process involved, ie is it in our interest?

          We can see this process in the last war where, for the Allies, ‘all Germans were villains including everyone in Dresden’ and ‘all Allies were Saints’ with temporary sainthood bestowed on Stalin too as the Allies were on his side. If we (the Allies) had been on the side of Germany in the War, the people would readily have accepted the notion that ‘All Germans were saints’ and ‘all Soviets were villains’. And now in Germany the left has achieved such triumph that even the Germans now believe that ‘Germans were/are villains’ which is why they have submitted to the notion that they therefore need to be punished by inviting Africa and the arabs over to share their wealth and houses and women – in fact to submit to the third world and invite the third world to trample all over them. This is what Merkel offers them and they accept it – they tick the voting box to show that they have accepted this anti-German culture. The good news is that once the people reject this culture given to them by their own left (with the help of guest populations who are also hostile to Westerners) , and once they follow a new culture of self-interest, they can quickly and easily reverse the damage, because they are a competent people and can get things done, unlike the newcomers.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        T – “They have a vision of a collectivists orientated future ‘perfect world’,”
        Maybe you are being too generous and kind to them in giving then fine motives. Maybe they (the true left, the fanatical ones) just TALK about this ‘perfect’ world but the true left themselves do not really believe it. After all, they include lecturers at university who are educated and know full well what socialism is like in practice, and who know it brings misery and poverty.

        All the white politicians devoted to the cause of ousting whites from power in S.Africa (internal within S.Africa included) KNEW that the blacks would be worse off when they took over – showing that the welfare of the blacks was not the motive of the politicians, ie once again, a fine motive claimed my the left (of wanting to help blacks) but in reality knowing that what blacks would have once whites were ousted would be disease, poverty, tribalism, and collapse of healthcare, education and law and order. This is relevant as it is an example of the left claiming fine motives that are not their real ones.

        It is the same with the left in the West, claiming they want a better society, just as they claimed they wanted a better one for blacks in S.Africa. Re S.Africa their true motive was to oust whites from power, and in their own country the true motive is exactly the same, except this time they will participate in the misery that results (unless they are extra wealthy) – which they are quite willing to do, because, as you say below, they are FANATICS and their politics are, as you say, like A CULT, and this means their political urges are so strong that they still follow them even knowing THEY TOO and their children will be worse off. Their wiring controls the way they think, and awareness that it is leading to a bad place for them and their children – this awareness does not cause them to stop following their urges. In the same way that people who eat too much are unable to abandon their urges even though they know they are harmful. The difference is, when such a person is fat they feel depressed, whereas when the left see the chaos and disorder around them, they feel happy.

        So the left do not believe their own narrative, but the other hand, I am sure that young people at school and university listening to this narrative from their teachers (ad TV) accept and believe it, just as they believe the whole world could live in harmony except for white racism. In fact this was the theme of the Hollywood film ‘Avatar’ (more new ones in the series coming soon) in which the ethnics were peace loving and living in harmony with nature, whilst whites are villains and bad for the planet.

        So the true left are using this language of ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ in order to sell their message to the naive. But I do not think their motive is to make a perfect world. The motive of those who listen to them and then vote for the far-left might well be. Whatever the motive of the true left is, in my view it arises from their wiring. Perhaps it is simply hostility to better people/countries/societies. This explains everything they do, including the way they do not seem to mind whether Islam or socialism triumphs in the West.

        We can see how this way of thinking that we see in the left (hostility to the better) could have been selected for in the past (I do not say ‘evolved’ as no new genes are involved, just changes of frequencies of existing ones). Kevin MacDonald mentions how Scandinavian countries in particular have the mentality of hostility to anyone getting too rich/big/better than anyone else.

        • T
          T says:

          Pterodactyl, you make valid points. As you allude, ulterior motives, namely the acquisition of wealth and power, despite what at best are sincerely believed self deceptions as to a coming ‘perfect world’, very often tell the story. The individualism, particularly as to regarding the Anglosphere at present, has been much taken advantage of by various forces.

  11. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    Charles Frey, pterodactyl,

    Excellent posts, but there are two questions that must be answered (1) why have we allowed the Abrahamic religions to control European genetics and (2) will we continue to do so?

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Michael: Thanks; neither post was brief, which may suggest, that length still matters.

      01 To your [1]: Lenin cared more for intelligent, committed activists, tightly controlled, than for numbers in his Party. We only [dis]allowed {{{ their }}} ‘ control ‘ once: at the total cost of ca. 110 million dead worldwide. And we know who was the deciding factor.

      02 Your [2]: Inertia, in the physics sense, exists in the social realm as well. Therefore, yes, I think we will continue to do so; unless, as also in physics, a major EXTERNAL FORCE overcomes the standing still or regular motion.

      And we all know what that means as well; the partial but essential preparation for which was the point of my post.

      Today is the 7th of December, the day of Roosevelt’s infamy, more so than that of Japan. I once counted 38 proven indicators of his foreknowledge; all known and accepted with empirically-based consensus.

      Deliberately less-known are the legally traitorous, naturally unprosecuted actions by Morgenthau’s subaltern Harry Dexter White [ {{{ Weiss }}} ]. Guardedly better, or exclusively known as the architect of the Bretton Woods Conference.

      This criminal, in concert with the remainder of the many {{{ advisors }}} of FDR, drafted a purposefully unacceptable Washington ultimatum to Tokyo; unacceptable even to T’s peace faction: during purported talks to avoid war.

      His main concern was that Japan not attack ” northward “, ie the SU via its beachhead in Manchuria, thus obliging Moscow to prepare for a two front war. His actions drew Japan
      ” southward “; with Pearl Harbour and its Fleet in the way: obliged to overcome, or die, by the Anglo-American oil and steel embargo.

      Commonly known history: however, nowhere in the official history books have I come across the fact that Dexter Weiss was a Communist agent, personally handled by GRU HQ in Moscow. One can not begrudge them their little joke of giving this their operation the code-name of ” Operation Snow “: as in ‘White’ Snow. [ I sometimes wonder why they didn’t dub it Operation Snow White, since their ideology favoured co-habitation ].

      I never came across information that would suggest, that Weiss worked in tandem with Richard Sorge, a long-time Communist, enthusiastic womanizer and alcoholic.

      Sorge, in spite of his long record of working for the Communists, landed the job of Japanese correspondent for the Frankfurter Zeitung. Posted to T, he soon developed very significant relationships and friendships with people in the know. Both in the T government and the German Embassy, partnered by the Anti-Comintern pact.

      With the help of Claussen, also a German Communist, and cipher-clerk for Sorge, [ using the identical method as that of my ” friend ” and thwarted employer Rudi Hermann ], he informed Stalin, that Japan would not attack ” northward ” but ” southward ” instead, AND, FAR MORE CONSEQUENTIALLY, THAT GERMANY WOULD ATTACK ON JUNE 15. [ Close enough ].

      Of course, Stalin, doubly motivated, relocated ca 15 divisions to the German lines in the west, along with 1,500 planes, and an untold number of artillery pieces and tanks.

      Two, almost unknown men, had such an entirely disproportionate affect: reaching consequentially even into our present era and predicament.

      No one, considering themselves savvy on WW II, could possibly omit reading of Richard Sorge and Operation White on the net.

      I always, but particularly today, remember the Fallen at Pearl Harbour and their families: expendable victims of FDR and his {{{ advisors }}}.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Michael Adkins – regarding (1) – a hard question to address as it is hard for many people to stand back and think about this as they personally have loyalty to their own Abrahamic religion.
      K MacDonald himself said he is still pondering this one (although not because of loyalty to religion). On the one had Christianity helped the West to be successful as it assigns importance to values that made us successful. On the other hand, Christianity says the OT is the word of God and all the Jewish heroes such as Moses are to be revered by Christians also.

      Regarding (2) – It is all in the hands of the next generation after ours to decide how to react when their safety and wealth is no more. Do they wish to continue accepting the self-hate narrative or do they wish to adopt a different narrative of self-interest? It is up to them. But for now they are the generation most keen on their own destruction. So they will have to experience what they wish for before they learn the lesson and see the error of their ways.

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        You should ask Christians whether they are Judostans or Christians. Here’s what Jesus said about the Jews.

        JESUS CHRIST, speaking to the Jews in the Gospel of St. John, 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. – then answered the Jews — ” (which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.)

        We need to throw out the old testament altogether.

  12. Hammerheart
    Hammerheart says:

    Matt Parrott states the solution is simply to move operations to the dark web, use bitcoin & other block chain technology, and the problem is you people are ageing baby Boomers who just aren’t tech-savvy enough to keep up (Net Neutrality article, TradWorkersParty website). His Right Wing Tech Squads have the situation under control. Parrott et al do not seem to consider (as per previous comment by pterodactyl) the/any possibility that the dark web etc could ever be compromised or taken down, unforeseen/able developments in programming, tech etc that could affect any of the things on his list, etc.

  13. Hans
    Hans says:

    Articles like this show how far too many white nationalists are not much better than the stupidest black person when it comes to understanding economics. “Socialism can work if only the right people (us) are in charge of it.” I won’t waste the time, but here’s Weev (who no one on here can question in terms of his technical acumen and commitment to white nationalism) blowing the crap out of the arguments for net neutrality.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

    And yes, like government health care, if Google and Marc Zuckerberg and Barack Obama are for it, you ought to be suspicious of it. Wake up!

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Hans, not only Google, Marc Sugarpile and Obama were in favour of government health care. As you should know with a name like yours, also the large land-owning = ” Junker “, Prussian, right-wing conservative Iron Chancellor Bismarck, the founder of the Second Reich favoured and institutionalized it, in 1893 [?]

      His ” Bismarck Model ” is still referred to by name, internationally, by those involved in that sphere.

      My partiality is born of being a rare survivor of an apparently successful five hour operation for stage-four colon cancer. The monetization of every last shoe-lace I own, wouldn’t have covered even a fraction of the cost: besides rendering me homeless. That was paid by Ontario’s version of the federally-mandated, single-payer health-system; to which we all contribute.

      I assume, by your remarks, that were it possible, you would prefer to drive without mandated car-insurance. Well, let me tell you, my own physician was successfully sued for 16 million dollars, for an understandable misdiagnosis of a drunk 23 year-old woman, late on a Friday night; while he was ‘ on call ‘ at our local hospital. That award’s income had to take care of a lifelong care-giver, while the 23 year-old was irreversibly confined to a wheel-chair.

      Your first name appears to be Hans. Let’s hope your surname is Krupp.

      I am bemused by those stalwarts opposing government health care, when they succumb to uncontrolled sobbing once they are personally hit with misfortune, that could not be remedied, even if they liquidated every hammer and wheel-barrow of their own fortune; insufficient to cover even a week’s stay in any hospital; never mind extended or permanent ensuing expenses.

      What part of our beliefs in our concomitant Christianity allows injured people to be thrown in the gutter, as of yore in Merry Old England ?

      [ Individual abuse and well-known, organized administrative, including doctors’ graft aside ].

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        “The monetization of every last shoe-lace I own, wouldn’t have covered even a fraction of the cost: besides rendering me homeless.”
        Let us say 5 hours and a team of 4 highly skilled, plus aftercare equivalent to another 2 hours for the same team
        = 28 hours worth of highly skilled labour.
        What should we pay such skilled persons?
        Let us say $200 per hour.
        in a 30 hour week they would earn $6000, 30 week year = 180,000
        your total bill would be $5,600

        if we let them earn 360,000 a year your bill would be $11,200
        There is no reason the rental of premises and purchase of equipment should make that much difference.

        The scandal is clearly that the medical profession/hospital organisations are ripping us off (as do the legal profession).

        This is what happens when we have monopolies.

        Basically, the government is saying is is impossible to select and train people to do skillful medical procedures and then after this pay them 360,000 a year. For some reason, this is just not possible. Of course it is possible if we had competent people in charge, but we do not. This merely shows the government is incompetent if it cannot arrange this.

        If the government were in charge of running MacDonalds, and everyone was forced to buy one burger and fries a week, the cost of one burger would be about $100.

        Supply and demand and market forces do not work when the government controls the supply of doctors. I refuse to believe that it takes 5 or 7 years to train someone to be good at a certain kind of operation. In fact – take such a person and you will find that after all this training they are less skillful at taking blood from the arm than someone who does this every day.

        And in Britain, to make it worse, they deliberately do not train enough doctors. Then they recruit from India where there is a higher level of corruption regarding qualifications.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          P, your monetary estimates are a wonderment to me. As is your concept of aftercare. Also the 30 hour week and the 30 week year.

          Fortunately, none of these people consulted their watches to conclude that their 30 hour week was up, when they diagnosed me around 13:30 on Friday and got me out of bed at 06:00 the very next morning; a Saturday, to prepare me.

          Neither Ottawa nor Toronto decides how many med-students are admitted. Perhaps in England; to push for immigration.

          Fully qualified doctors from Russia, with their far superior pre-college education, have to undergo local re-certification to assure the public and to mitigate the huge, insured mal-practice awards.

          As to the rest of it, the Sacklers [ {{{ sack makers }}} ] have been discussed here at length, as have been the three Brooklyn brothers: in five Parts. Even that rapacious little
          {{{ swine }}} , the sole proprietor and patent-holder of the Epipen and his 700 % unwarranted increase.

          And don’t even get me started on that second-oldest profession [ after the un-camouflaged prostitutes ]: lawyers and their derivative Judiciary.

          The benefits of single-payer insurance was my topic, not governments’ obvious unfailing mismanagement in most of its endeavours.

          • pterodactyl
            pterodactyl says:

            Charles Frey – I am saying that health, like the legal profession, has turned into a monster, one that charges not just double a reasonable amount, but more than 10 times a reasonable sum. The primary aim is to make money by overcharging, not to provide health/justice. There is nothing the government can do as these industries are too powerful to take on. But there is no way your operation would cost more than the figures I gave if the system was run properly. ( A local hospital is charging me £1000/$2000 for a small procedure that will take 15 mins. )
            In the end the government can only correct things if (a) the government cares about it (b) enough of the people do. If neither applies, nothing can be done.

            In the same way, if no-one cares about the way Youtube has decided to behave as described in ‘1984’ regarding censorship, if not enough people are bothered, nothing can be done to stop them.

            I cannot see the people objecting to more and more control of the internet by the left, as most do not seem to mind the way the left runs the TV stations and film industry. And if they do not mind about mass immigration from the third world (half or more do not mind enough for it to make them stop voting for pro-immigration representatives) they are hardly going to mind about the far left taking over the internet as they have taken over the MSM.

            The only thing Orwell did not predict is that it would not be oppressive government leading us on the path to a ‘1984’ scenario by force, it would be BIG BUSINESS in a capitalist free market, and it would be a free media leading us there, and, due to the way they vote, it would be the people themselves choosing this path.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            Pterodactyl, whether the bill reflects the cost or not is immaterial. The bill, with my name on it, is what I would have owed, were it not for our Provincial, single-payer insurance. 100 % was covered, being over 65.

            If your simple 15 minute procedure costs you $ 2,000, it is not difficult to arrive at $ 40,000 for my five hours operation, having my entire guts spread on top of my stomach area, and having Dr. D. search for every real and potential cancerous millimeter of intestine. Excising them, then reconnecting the intestine, before exceedingly carefully repackaging it in my stomach cavity.

            After-care, consisted of physician-supervised 8 months’ chemo-therapy, among my many other procedures, including sending 15 samples [ three more than usual ] of my lymph-nodes to a specialty lab to look for metastasis.

            I entirely agree with you in regard to all of your other listed shortcomings of all jurisdictions. None of which would have diminished my bill, had I had to have paid it personally.

            Last time I checked, I didn’t rediscover 80,000 under my mattress. I thought I made myself more than clear on the issue of the net and the legal profession; but thanks for your lecture.

            Were you still to entertain doubts, then please google Charles U. Frey and read both anonymously-placed posts.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      … if Google and Marc Zuckerberg and Barack Obama are for it, you ought to be suspicious of it.

      Damn right, Hans!

      Your comment draws much-needed attention to the dilemmic nature of this situation. If one is for Net neutrality, he is lining up alongside the three forces you mention. If one is against it, he may think he is aligning himself forthrightly with moral and intellectual freedom of association, but does that principle any longer have more than a phantom presence in the USA and the rest of the West?

      Your comment, Hammerheart’s just above, and the first from Charles Frey—the one wherein he rightly grumbles about the calculated indifference to the (((800-pound gorilla))) in the Internet’s living room—represent the gold standard in this thread.

  14. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    When a diplomat uses the word ” vital ” it always means that his state is prepared to go to war on a given issue.

    Communications in our already ongoing, but momentarily still cold war, is such a ‘ vital ‘ issue.

    Despite its very recent posting, why has this article not already garnered a hundred replies ???

  15. Hans
    Hans says:

    Here’s impeccable Internet whiz and White nationalist Andrew Auernheimer. The crux of his argument is at 10:40 if you want to skip to it. What already limits competition is regulation. Comcast will approach a municipality and secure an exclusive right to lay fiber and copper for a number of years. They have no competition because of government regulation.

    No one (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Redit, Netflix) is arguing for these monopolies to be dissolved and they are the primary obstacle to market choice in this arena. They are not arguing for you to have more choice in ISPs, they’re definitely not arguing for more free speech (they’re currently attacking it). They simply want to pay less money for bandwidth and willing to sacrifice your greater choice in the market for a very long time. Effing criminal. You should oppose net neutrality. It’s a scam. It’s a lie. It’s not about the free and open Internet, it never was, it never will be.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      Indeed, regulatory agencies are often [nearly always] created by the regulatees, in order to secretly use state coercive power for naked self interest.

      Business hates free market as much as socialists/statists hate it. Both sides want governmental monopolies/cartels to access monies of others, and to block competition, and to get their own way.

      If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it once: MONOPOLY IS OUR BASIC PROBLEM. Evil works through governmentally enforced monopolies. It is as bad as jewry, although a jew-run government monopoly is, by far, the worst of all worlds.

      See The Triumph of Conservatism by (((Gabriel Kolko))):
      https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-American-1900-1916/dp/0029166500

  16. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    I have to laugh somewhat at all the pseudo-intellectual posts throwing out BIG words that some of the posters may not even fully know the meaning of but they believe it makes them seem smart. There is one and only one truth:

    With Jews – You Lose

  17. Colin Hodge
    Colin Hodge says:

    My problem is that the same tools you talk about us to keep content providers from blocking free speech can also be used against the ISPs if net neutrality were ended. So net neutrality is unnecessary because we have laws on the books already.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Space and the patience of commenters, prohibits listing all of the laws being currently broken, by the law-makers themselves. Both in the US and more so in the Middle East: again/still; since Basle 1897.

      I am the last person wishing to diminish anyone’s optimism: but I recommend three soup-spoons’ full of critical analysis, and the necessarily resulting skepticism, before morning coffee.

Comments are closed.