Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

Racial Limitations of the Libyan Experiment in Socialist Nationalism

A growing minority of young and educated people living in the European diaspora views one or another form of socialism favorably as an alternative to the dystopian hybrid form of capitalism prevailing at present. Nationally oriented socialist models, in particular, appear to be increasingly attractive – particularly to the adherents of the Alt-Right and Alt-Left. National Socialism as implemented in Hitler’s Germany is the most famous example, of course; but other countries, as with the Bolivarian revolutions recently gone into eclipse in Latin America, have also undertaken reforms designed to redistribute national resource wealth for the benefit of the citizenry.

nasser

Gamel Abdel Nasser

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, taking his cue from Arab nationalist titan Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, was similarly inspired to revolutionize the Libyan economy for its people. Building on the modernizations begun by Italian colonizers and British administrators, Gaddafi was remarkably successful in raising his country’s rate of literacy and general standard of living, with socialized health care, education, and utilities far removed from anything experienced by the Bedouin as they existed mere decades previously. Just how far is indicated by the backward state of the country well into the twentieth century:

With eighty percent of the population either nomadic or seminomadic, and only six percent of the total population able to read or write, Libya was a country almost totally bereft of skills. Commentators disagreed on one statistic; some said two Libyans had been to college; others thought the figure should have been four. Whoever was right, Libya was a land forced to rely upon others to run its most basic services. Even justice was dispensed by foreigners. Long after independence, the Libyan Supreme Court comprised two Egyptians, one Briton, and one American.1

Libya’s short-lived Sanusi monarchy, furthermore, was dependent upon the presence of British and American military bases and little interested in fostering the ostensibly independent Libyan people’s autonomy – not that autonomy would have been possible given the country’s rudimentary educational infrastructure:

At its apex sat the King, who held power through the gift of foreign governments. Beneath him were ministers, appointed on the basis of family relationship or tribal affiliation, presiding over ministries staffed by foreigners because there were not enough educated Libyans to operate telephones, man desks, or keep the cashbooks. The schools were largely run by Egyptians, teaching Egyptian history from Egyptian textbooks. The army, navy, and air force – all piddling little outfits presenting no real threat to anyone – wore British uniforms, carried British weapons, and were led by British officers. Farms and businesses were still run by the Italian settlers.

Wherever one looked, the future seemed bleak.2

multiracial-libya-2

Straight-up intergalactic pimpin’

The country’s advances under Gaddafi, who took power in a 1969 coup, were nothing short of astounding. If the Libyan example illustrates anything, however, it is that not all socialist nationalisms are created equal, and that the indigenous human resources of a country are crucial. The Jamahiriya’s policy of border enforcement was less than stringent, and as Patrick Cockburn noted in 2011, “Racism against black Africans and Libyans with dark skin has long simmered in Libya. Before the war there were estimated to be a million illegal immigrants in the country, which has a population of six million and a workforce of 1.7 million.”3 In addition to the inherent limitations of Arabs, then, the country also had to cope with swelling numbers of sub-Saharans, toward whom Gaddafi – a man of Pan-Arabist sympathies who was also, however, something of a Pan-Africanist – was famously indulgent. The average Libyan IQ as estimated by Lynn and Vanhanen is 84 – putting the country behind such bastions of brain power as Mexico, Bolivia, Tonga, Cuba, Uzbekistan, and the Philippines4. Given such unenviable genetic infrastructure, it is unlikely that Libya’s rapid progress could have been made without the wealth of the country’s energy resources – nor did the Libyans ever manage to remedy their dependence upon imported intellect.

British writer and politician George Tremlett, who visited Libya and wrote a reasonably sympathetic 1993 book about the country’s national life under Colonel Gaddafi, can hardly be dismissed as a western propagandist when he presents the following pitiful picture of Libyan progress at that time, quoting his conversations with foreign workers on the scene:

“The Libyans are lovely people,” I was told, “but they haven’t a clue … Without foreign workers, their whole economy would fall apart. They can’t master modern technology, which comes unnaturally to them. … They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars importing the finest industrial machinery that you will find anywhere in the world; the range of their equipment is astonishing, but a lot of it is either never used or left in packing cases because they don’t know how to handle it. … They’ve got half-a-million Egyptians in there, working for them – and another seven hundred thousand Arabs from the Sudan, who are given all the dirty, shitty jobs that the Libyans don’t want to touch. … The Libyans are wealthy, but they’re in a mess. No one has ever taught them how to dispose of rubbish, so wherever you go there’s dirt and filth and abandoned cars. … These guys are no threat to anyone, but they’re too proud to admit it. … The truth is they need our help.”5

multiracial-libya

Gaddafi and rainbow entourage with Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko

“These were eyewitnesses talking,” Tremlett emphasizes.

People who had gone where no foreign journalist is allowed, into the oil and gas fields, and the shining new factories built by German, Japanese, and South Korean contractors to enable Libya to manufacture consumer goods. In theory, Libya should be producing its own rather than buying abroad … but, in fact, these factories are at low levels of efficiency, either because the machines are not working; have broken down and cannot be repaired, or lack trained personnel … factories where the future lies in a packing case, just as Libya’s new planes, tanks, and missiles often stand idle in storage sheds because the country cannot produce enough trained technicians to operate their electronics.

Superficially, Libya appears a highly efficient modern state; the most prosperous in Africa. The oil and gas flowing through its desert pipelines have brought the country great wealth. […]

Inside Libya, new towns, schools, and hospitals have been built for its people. Every Libyan has access to education and modern health care, as of right. Housing standards are high … and where once camels trekked for days between oases, Libyan Arab Airways shuttles its passengers by airbus between Ghat, Sebha, Houn, Kufra, and Ghedames and the main cities, Tripoli and Benghazi. Modern telecommunications systems installed by Plessey and Marconi bring together remoter areas in a way that was impossible thirty years ago.6

If the efforts of a few thousand European engineers and skilled workers could do so much to elevate the standard of living of a backward and until-recently nomadic people like the Libyans, imagine what an entire country of Europeans, relieved of its demographic burdens, could do to elevate the lives of its own.

Rainer Chlodwig von K.

Endnotes

  1. Tremlett, George. Gadaffi: The Desert Mystic. New York, NY: Carroll and Graf, 1993, p. 76.
  2. Ibid., p. 83.
  3. Cockburn, Patrick. “‘Libyans Don’t Like People with Dark Skin, But Some Are Innocent’”. The Independent (August 29, 2011): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libyans-dont-like-people-with-dark-skin-but-some-are-innocent-2345859.html
  4. Lynn, Richard; and Tatu Vanhanen. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002, p. 77.
  5. Tremlett, George. Gadaffi: The Desert Mystic. New York, NY: Carroll and Graf, 1993, pp. 23-24.
  6. Ibid., pp. 24-25.
Advertisements

About icareviews

Propaganda Minister of #AryanSkynet

53 comments on “Racial Limitations of the Libyan Experiment in Socialist Nationalism

  1. icareviews
    January 27, 2017

    Reblogged this on icareviews.

    Like

  2. Hipster Racist
    January 27, 2017

    not all socialist nationalisms are created equal, and that the indigenous human resources of a country are crucial. … Given such unenviable genetic infrastructure, it is unlikely that Libya’s rapid progress could have been made without the wealth of the country’s energy resources – nor did the Libyans ever manage to remedy their dependence upon imported intellect.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 27, 2017

      Keep those goyim thinking the wars are for American oil companies.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 27, 2017

        This argument goes around and around based on how you see Jewish power.

        It depends on whether you see Zionist Jew influence as a distortion of US imperial policy, or the origin of US imperial policy.

        Similarly whether you see Jew influence as distorting progressive, egalitarian Northern European impulses or the cause of them.

        Was US opposition to Chavez’ Venezuelan Bolivar Revolution due to Jewish influence or Venezuela’s oil industry?

        Were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush literally taking orders from the Elders of Zion or were their pre-existing interests co-opted by Zionist interests?

        It depends on how powerful you believe Jews to be in their interpersonal relationships with Europeans and how you understand expressions of Jewish power. Did Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush not know that Israelis wanted to invade Iraq? Were Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush tricked by Jews, convinced into believing it was in their interests and American imperial interests to invade Iraq? Where Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush psychologically overpowered by Jews, in a sense “converted” to shabbos goyim, willing to sacrifice their own personal and business interests, and the personal and business interests of their political partners, for narrow Israeli interests?

        When the infamous meeting with the oil executives was held in January of 2001, widely considered to be a planning session for the eventual invasions of the Middle East, did Cheney tell the oil executives, “we’re going to invade Iraq for Israel, whether you like it or not, so deal with it?” Did Cheney attempt to trick the oil executives into believing that it was in the interests of the oil industry to occupy Iraq, knowing full well it was not in their interests but instead simply what Israel wanted?

        the [Jewish, Israel] Lobby doesn’t like it when their opponents openly exchange ideas. After all, Jewish power it the power to silence criticism of Jewish power.

        http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/7/30/jewish-power-in-decline

        That doesn’t necessarily mean that Jewish power is the only power, but the fact that other powers can be criticized, but not Jewish power, often makes it appear that Jewish power is the “ultimate power” and leads to the “single cause theory.” But is that the case?

        http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-cosmopolitan-and-european.html

        Perhaps it will be noticed that the view of Cosmopolitans outlined here bears a resemblance to the nationalist critique of the Jewish elite in the West. In case it is less than obvious, “Cosmopolitan” and “Jew” do not refer to the same thing. Many Cosmopolitans are, biologically speaking, no less European than any of us, and the purest expression of their world-vision admits no more tolerance for Zionism than for any other form of nationalism (although this view is muted at present, due to Jewish political power and the continued preoccupation with suppressing European nationalism).

        The relation of Cosmopolitans to the Jewish elite is somewhat complicated: there are, as the Israelis are wont to complain, many diaspora Jews who are to all intents and purposes Cosmopolitans; concurrently, the establishment view of the Jews as an intelligent and blameless diaspora living among nationalist bigots is a spiritual precedent for the self-image of Cosmopolitans, which is why their denunciations of nationalism from the grave-mounds of Holocaust victims cannot be taken as proof of their subservience to Jewish interests. …

        As James Petras points out, the United States would be a far more effective vehicle of globalist imperialism were it not swayed this way and that by the parochialism of the Israel Lobby, and a “Cosmopolitanism without Jews” would be no friend of European nationalism and self-determination.

        What about those who suggest that Israeli and Jewish interests are sometimes thwarted? What about those who think that Israeli and Jewish interests often simply piggy-back on other interests? Are those people always just dupes of the Jews? Are they willing and knowing agents of ZOG merely attempting to trick people? Are they secret Jews themselves, merely attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the goyims?

        Is there even any room for reasonable disagreement on the issue of just how powerful Jews are?

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 27, 2017

        “It depends on whether you see Zionist Jew influence as a distortion of US imperial policy, or the origin of US imperial policy.
        Similarly whether you see Jew influence as distorting progressive, egalitarian Northern European impulses or the cause of them.”

        Distortion of already-existing tendencies in both cases. My point is that the neocon wars are not waged at the behest of American oil companies, which want open trade with countries like Iraq and Iran and have for decades opposed military interventions as destabilizing factors vis-a-vis their profit margins. You can point to different situations like the toppling of Mossadegh, which was definitely for oil; but that was a different time and place. Bush I’ s Gulf War was a joint oil-Zionist venture since Hussein’s action was perceived as a threat to peaceful supply; but the Bush II Iraq War was the long-term project of the Israeli/Jewish lobby alone. The oil lobby opposed sanctions and military intervention, so this is a clear case of Big Jew and their mutual enablers the military contractors trumping Big Oil. This is not to say that Big Jew always wins. Obviously, it doesn’t, as we can see with Obama’s Iran deal. The personal motivations of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush II are open to debate; but none of these men were the ones to initiate the decades-long drive for regime change in Iraq. They just jumped on the bandwagon for whatever reason and under the influence of whatever inducement prevailed.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 27, 2017

        In any case, the speech by the Arab suggests that he wants to use his oil wealth to modernize his country but is thwarted by foreign interests. The fact that the “bad guy” in the film is the oil industry, not the Israel lobby, doesn’t really affect the comparison to Libya. Gaddafi wanted to use the oil wealth to modernize his country, and did a reasonable job despite working with some relatively low quality human capital. In the end, he died an ignoble death due to foreign aggression. How much of that foreign aggression was due to Zionism, Saudi interests, or American imperialism can be debated by reasonable people. But the analogy holds.

        Like

      • icareviews
        January 27, 2017

        I don’t know how reliable Wesley Clark’s story is, but I think I’ve seen you reference this anecdote before. Libya is one of the countries Clark mentions being slotted for take-down back in the days immediately after 9/11. Clark, right or wrong, claims it’s the oil; but he conveniently leaves out the names of most of the specific figures in the Pentagon who were calling for war against Hussein and the rest. I’ve read enough to know that they weren’t Texas oil men.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        “…Is there even any room for reasonable disagreement on the issue of just how powerful Jews are?…”

        The Jews aren’t all powerful but they have several huge levers they use to move events in their preferred direction.
        1. Money. They own the large part of the institutions that create and control the money supply of the US and most of the developed world.
        2. Media. Propaganda.
        3. Black mail. Here’s a link not from a crazy source but US News and World Report on the Finders. A group that had a lot of children in a compound being taught…something weird as the police found pictures of children with “their genitals displayed” and children with what appeared to be sacrificed animals. Yet the whole thing was dropped as being an internal CIA matter.

        There’s also freedom of information act acquired reports from customs agents who investigated this before it was shut down who verified this information in their report on the investigation. I’m not going to go too deep into this but there’s a huge amount of information about this and there’s strong links to Mossad. The Jeffery Epstein case is the same, where does this guy get his money???

        We need someone in office that is not a crook and can’t be blackmailed. When I say not blackmailed I don’t mean cheating on his wife as the society has been so corrupted I think people would just ignore that. I mean someone who hasn’t stole lots of money or screwed underage kids. If we had such a person they have made so may errors in false flags that with the minimum of old fashioned police work a large majority of them could be rounded up and prosecuted. We need someone like Trump. Maybe he is this person but as has been noted here over and over it’s not likely that he’ll act.
        4. You won’t like this one but I think it makes a huge difference. A lot of the top Jews are psychopaths. A good psychopath seems to be able to convince people of the wildest things. They are the best actors on the planet. I don’t know why this is but I believe it’s because norms have unconscious physical ques that we emote when we talk. Body language. Psychopaths have very little of this so if they use a little body language along with VERY sincere speech patterns, all lies, we become convinced that they are telling the truth. I know my links have been lacking but I’ll link this again because it’s a quick showing of just how persuasive psychopaths can be. It’s from a psychologist who studied psychopaths and it’s about a psychopath maned Stanley.

        http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley.pdf

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 27, 2017

        I’m familiar with the Finders case but I don’t recall any Jewish or Israeli connection.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        “… I don’t recall any Jewish or Israeli connection…”

        There’s not directly, that I can prove, just that they seem to be lurking in many, many of these in the background. The Finders link was to show, this stuff does go on. To show the links to Jews would…take a lot of links and would take too long. No one would read it.

        Like

  3. guest
    January 27, 2017

    And then George Bush promised Libya’s “good faith will be returned”…

    Like

  4. icareviews
    January 27, 2017

    I’m aware of the compelling case for the Libya intervention as a Franco-American financial crime precipitated by Gaddafi’s monetary machinations, but it’s also interesting to note the behavior of Netanyahu in 2011. He publicly equated Gaddafi with Ahmadinejad, calling for the U.S. to intervene robustly against both governments.

    http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/03/breaking-netanyahu-calls-out-worlds.html?m=0

    Curiously – and in such a way that his gesture can be interpreted in a couple of different ways – Gaddafi implored the Israelis to help him. Was this because he knew they were behind the intervention, or because he thought the muscle of organized Jewish opinion might be mobilized on his behalf? Gaddafi was opposed to Israel’s existence from childhood, and looked to Nasser as a personal hero; but Libya also sold a lot of oil to Israel, so his relationship with them was complicated.

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/04/13/report-former-libyan-dictator-gaddafi-asked-for-israels-help-during-uprising-against-him/

    Like

  5. Hipster Racist
    January 27, 2017

    neocon wars are not waged at the behest of American oil companies

    I don’t even think that is the argument from anyone but the most naive of the Bernibros. The more sophisticated version of “the wars are about oil” is not that the US is literally going to fill barrels with Iraqi oil and ship them to Texas – like Trump suggests and his fans seem to believe. Nor is it about cheap gas. The Republicans loved to mock the liberals back in the Bush era, asking, “if the wars were about oil, why is gas $4 a gallon?”

    The more sophisticated argument that “the wars are about oil” is that the wars were about controlling the areas that produce oil.

    In the famous interview with Robin Trivers, (((Noam Chomsky))) quotes Dick Cheney saying when Russia or China controls an oil or gas pipeline, it allows them to pressure other countries. Left unsaid is that when the US controls oil and gas pipelines, that allows the US to pressure other countries.

    I suppose if the Zionist entity were located in, say, Papua New Guinea, surrounded by hostile neighbors, it is possible that the Lobby would be pressuring the US to invade Australia and Indonesia. But it seems unlikely to me that without aligned interests like the world’s largest supply of oil in the region they would have had much success.

    Similarly, it seems likely to me that the petrodollar is a major aspect of US financial power. Having the oil producing regions under direct US control, or control by US proxies such as Saudi Arabia, would be in the interests of the US regardless of whether or not the oil companies needed or even wanted direct control of the oil production. There is likely some truth to the idea that Saddam Hussein wanted to “sell his oil for Euros instead of dollars” (which may be a simplistic explanation but roughly accurate) and that would have hurt US interests. French interest in keeping various African currencies based on their own – and Gaddafi’s supply of sovereign monetary gold – likely had something to do with his ouster as well.

    If Zionist interests distort US policy but do not drive them, perhaps the US could have simply incorporated Hussein and Gaddafi as proxies similar to the Saudis – certainly, Susan Lindauer suggests that Hussein and Gaddafi were more than willing to play the role of client dictators for the US.

    As for the “seven countries in five years” plan that Clark exposed, I think anyone clued into the power of the Israel Lobby understands that as, at least to some degree, based on the Israeli “Clean Break” strategy, that was then repacked as the Project for a New American Century for the US, to be implemented after the “New Pearl Harbor.”

    https://infogalactic.com/info/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

    But it seems virtually impossible for the Jew lobby to have forced the US into implementing their plan without there being a very broad overlap with US imperial interests.

    It does seem almost impossible to overstate Zionist Jew influence on US foreign policy. The long-standing international studies doctrine that claims states act in their own interests has been seriously questioned by very mainstream academics precisely because of US policy being steered in the interests of the Zionist entity – which gives some serious academic and diplomatic support to the “Zionist Occupied Government” theory that White Nationalists have been complaining about since the 1970s.

    The question isn’t whether Jews/Zionists have significant control of the US, it’s a question of degree and especially the mechanics of that control.

    It’s not really an academic question here, it goes to the heart of the “ZOG theory.”

    What are the mechanics of this Jewish power? Are Jews just so much smarter and well organized than Whites that White elites virtually always bend to their will? Is it simply control of the media? Are Whites so befuddled by Christian Zionism they simply see Jews as their gods? Is it control of the Federal Reserve?

    Do they really have all the White elites on video diddling kids in Satanic Freemason sex parties held on Jeffrey Epstein’s Orgy Island?

    I don’t know, I’m open to suggestions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • icareviews
      January 27, 2017

      “The more sophisticated argument that ‘the wars are about oil’ is that the wars were about controlling the areas that produce oil.”

      I don’t think it’s so much about control over those areas, necessarily, so much as ensuring that the resources of those areas aren’t wielded by even competent or even remotely threatening secular regimes like the Ba’ath regimes in Iraq or Syria. After the Iraq War, remember, the oil contracts were granted to the Russians and Chinese. I don’t think Israel necessarily gave a shit who got Iraq’s oil as long as the spoils didn’t go toward the cementing of a geopolitical counterbalance that challenged their regional hegemony. Iraq had been an Israeli bogeyman since the time of the Nakba, when it participated in the united Arab campaign against the occupation forces in Palestine.

      “But it seems virtually impossible for the Jew lobby to have forced the US into implementing their plan without there being a very broad overlap with US imperial interests.”

      Muhammad Idrees Ahmad discusses this argument in The Road to Iraq and finds that traditional proponents of global U.S. hegemony like Brzezinski and figures from the Bush I administration were opposed to the Iraq War as something opposed to U.S. interests.

      “Are Jews just so much smarter and well organized than Whites that White elites virtually always bend to their will?”

      Ahmad makes the case that organization and synchronization of messaging were crucial. Proponents of the 2003 Iraq intervention were united in a way that opponents and skeptics both within and outside the administration were not – partly because the neocon talking points and strategies had been in deployment in some cases long before 9/11 happened, the players across think tanks, government offices, and media outlets very much coordinated from the beginning. Ahmad stresses that this was accomplished with the involvement of comparatively few key players in key positions of influence.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sam J.
      January 27, 2017

      “…The more sophisticated argument that “the wars are about oil” is that the wars were about controlling the areas that produce oil…”

      I think this is what Cheney and Rumsfeld were sold on. This was the pitch. After the deed was done, 9-11, they lost control and had no way to get it back as events had spun out of their control. They couldn’t complain as they were accomplices. Very much like a pump and dump stock swindle. They were out smarted by the Jews. It’s their failure as their goals were very large and they refused to factor in the risk/return of the operation. What they wanted was a peaceful Iraq, with our oil companies doing business there as partners and they modernizing Iraq with our companies help. The Israeli goals were much simpler and therefore necessarily easier to implement. Create disorder and havoc in Iraq and break the society into smaller pieces. They won.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sam J.
      January 31, 2017

      “…But it seems virtually impossible for the Jew lobby to have forced the US into implementing their plan without there being a very broad overlap with US imperial interests….”

      I wonder if they have Rumsfeld and Cheney on tape somewhere.

      The FBI Turkish language analyst Sibel Edmonds said another FBI agent told her that when judges were looked at for appointment their records were gone through and if they were perfect they were NOT appointed. There had to be something there that had a hold on them or they didn’t get the job. I think it likely that the whole system has been corrupted over decades. The corrupt move to the top.

      Here’s a link where she talks about the Turks bribing our officials.

      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-sibel-edmonds/

      Like

  6. Hipster Racist
    January 27, 2017

    Nationally oriented socialist models, in particular, appear to be increasingly attractive

    For whatever reason, American White Nationalists, rightists, and the “Alt Right” seem to default to a type of libertarianism. However, since this form of libertarianism seems to promote, rather than discourage, race replacement through mass immigration, globalism, and a breakdown of nationality, some have suggested other models such as National Socialism.

    Trotsky claimed that fascism was caused by a crisis of capitalism; when the workers discovered their class interests and began to organize to take power away from the capitalists, the elites and the middle class bourgeoisie teamed up to prevent a communist revolution by giving the proletariat a better deal and scapegoating various outgroups.

    I propose libertarian orthodoxies about property and free markets have to punt on certain issues.

    1. The network effect. Forget the labor theory of value – who owns the network? Who actually creates the value in a network?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Network_effect

    In economics and business, a network effect (also called network externality or demand-side economies of scale) is the effect that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to other people. When a network effect is present, the value of a product or service is dependent on the number of others using it.

    The classic example is the telephone. The more people who own telephones, the more valuable the telephone is to each owner. This creates a positive externality because a user may purchase a telephone without intending to create value for other users, but does so in any case. Online social networks work in the same way, with sites like Twitter and Facebook becoming more attractive as more users join.

    Since the value is being created by the users of the network, why should all of the profit of the network accrue to the owners or operators of the network? Facebook is only useful because people use Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg merely had the first mover advantage – should Zuckerberg have a claim on all of the value created by Facebook users from now to eternity merely because his company was the first to achieve critical mass? How long until Facebook Inc. is just another example of …

    2. Economic rent

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Economic_rent

    In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. In classical economics, economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land) and for assets formed by creating official privilege over natural opportunities (e.g., patents). In neoclassical economics, economic rent also includes income gained by beneficiaries of other contrived exclusivity, such as labor guilds and unofficial corruption.

    Economic rent should not be confused with producer surplus, or normal profit, both of which involve productive human action. Economic rent is also independent of opportunity cost, unlike economic profit, where opportunity cost is an essential component. Economic rent should be viewed as unearned revenue, whereas economic profit is a narrower term describing surplus income greater than the next best risk-adjusted alternative. Unlike economic profit, economic rent cannot be eliminated by competition, since all value from natural resources and locations yields economic rent.

    Speaking of which, why is it that the same technology companies and fans that advocate libertarianism are also so strongly against …

    3. Net neutrality

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Net_neutrality

    Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication

    Why should the owners of fiber optic cable NOT be allowed to charge different rates and make exclusive deals with content providers? For content providers with no physical network structure of their own, and without exclusive deals with network providers that do have physical infrastucture, net neutrality amounts to a government subsidy that restricts the network providers from extracting economic rent from their network effect – thus taking the profits away from the beneficiaries of other network effects – like the profits realized by the network effects of established social media companies like Facebook and Google.

    All of these violations of strict libertarianism are brushed aside by virtually all proponents of strict libertarians – who virtually always only appeal to libertarian orthodoxy when it is in their own economic interests to do so.

    Like

    • icareviews
      January 27, 2017

      I think some people were afraid that net neutrality, by increasing government regulation of the internet in the interests of the open society, was paradoxically going to provide some sort of backdoor for censorship of the web. I don’t remember exactly what he wrote, but I seem to remember some article in American Free Press, maybe one of Victor Thorn’s last pieces, expressing some sort of contrarian net neutrality skepticism.

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 27, 2017

        On that specific issue, it seems to depend on who is paying for the argument: content providers like Google and Facebook (pro-net neutrality), or network providers like AT&T and Verizon (anti-net neutrality.)

        Arguments based on libertarian orthodoxy are merely window dressing for the actual economic interests involved.

        The “censorship” arguments are completely bogus. Net neutrality is, in fact, increasing government regulation of the physical network – it’s typical how the pro-net neutrality advocates turned that on its head.

        It’s just one of those things that shows that orthodox libertarianism is usually nothing more than arguments of convenience.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        I’m FOR net neutrality. If we don’t have net neutrality you will have effective censorship as those that have the most money will have the best access to push information and any free information pulled through a non neutral network will be slower if not in the favored class.

        On a straight technical level if all networks have to test each stream of information to see if it’s one of the favored clients or not then it will bog down the whole internet. I can see them dropping certain feeds/sites all together and then saying that they were overloaded and using that as an excuse.

        Yes I know NOT having testing will mean that people streaming movies and file sharing will use a lot of the bandwidth but I would rather have that. The reasoning is any one asking for a web page will also have equal access and that takes much less time than a movie so it’s bits get sent fast as they are a small part of the overall network data rate.

        There’s also the idea that if they don’t have net neutrality it will lessen the trend for companies to install higher bandwidth all the while charging more for all their favored partners. With net neutrality they have one specific measurement they have as a service to sell. How fast are you. Without…they fuck us.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        January 27, 2017

        Net neutrality is good for ME – but I’m not going to make any disingenuous arguments that it’s somehow more “fair” or more “libertarian.” It’s not. It’s just better for ME personally and it’s in my interests, for various reasons.

        If I owned stock in AT&T or Verizon, I would be AGAINST net neutrality, because it would make more money for ME. If AT&T could make exclusive deals with content providers, I’d profit more.

        On a straight technical level if all networks have to test each stream of information to see if it’s one of the favored clients or not then it will bog down the whole internet. I can see them dropping certain feeds/sites all together and then saying that they were overloaded and using that as an excuse.

        If 90% of AT&T’s bandwidth is being used by Youtube – why shouldn’t Google have to pay AT&T? Why should a small site get pushed aside by giants like Google hogging all the bandwidith?

        There is no “fair” or “objective” arguments here – it’s strictly based on self-interest.

        If physical network providers have all their profits drained away from having to treat low profit traffic the same as high profit traffic – thus losing potential revenue – what incentive do they have to invest in better infrastructure – they’ll just have the extra profit drained by the big content providers.

        So the answer is to INCREASE regulation of AT&T and Verizon in order to subsidize Google’s Youtube profits?

        Why should AT&T and Verizon be forced into “common carrier” status? That’s anti-free market – that is increased government regulation.

        It’s anti-libertarian. But you’ll rarely see libertarians making that argument.

        Like

      • Sam J.
        January 27, 2017

        “…If 90% of AT&T’s bandwidth is being used by Youtube – why shouldn’t Google have to pay AT&T?…”

        I believe they already do. I think that whoever is using the backbone is charged per use. The trick here is they want to change the SPEED or ACCESS determined on if you are a group that pays them or not.

        I think companies are subtly lying by making it a use per byte issue when that’s not the case at all.

        Look at the definition on wikipedia,”…Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication…”.

        Says nothing about number of bytes.

        Look at one of the examples they cite of abuse or non-neutral network,”…A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was when the Internet service provider Comcast was secretly slowing (colloquially called “throttling”) uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets…”.

        You for that? Throttling sites as determined by…who…the Jews? The government? Forging packets? What if every time your site went over the net it had bytes corrupted? They’re playing us by pretending it’s about “number” of bytes. It’s not.

        Like

    • guest
      January 27, 2017

      It seems like Net neutrality stands only because it has the word neutrality in it, because you are not against neutrality are you? Like with the patriot act, more freedom is certain, it’s right there in the name!

      Seeing Net Neutrality Through A Glass Darkly

      Liked by 1 person

    • guest
      January 30, 2017

      To quote Deplorable Karl from the market-ticker:

      “If you have Internet access on a flat level basis for everybody, regardless of the amount they consume, which is what the FCC trying to do on the behalf of certain companies such as NETFLIX, then what you are going to end up is metered connections, because if I’m a company that consumes 200 GB of bandwidth and somebody else consumes 10 GB, the company that consumes 100 or 200 GB should be paying more, and proportionally so, the problem is that if you say everybody has to be treated equally, well, if i charge everybody by the gigabyte, that’s equal.”

      Which is what i fear most, data caps, most US isps already have them, it’s called “usage-based billing”. Here is Denningers post on this, and he would know, he actually ran an ISP back in the nineties:

      Net Neutrality Vote In The FCC: You Lose America

      “You get what you deserve America.
      You will get it. Long, hard, and dry.

      Reed Hastings’ Netflix has largely driven the hysteria about Net Neutrality through one of the most-common means of misleading the public that the government itself is known to use all the time: Create a crisis, then screw you in “solving” it.

      Netflix relies on very low-latency, high-speed data delivery over long periods of time to deliver its content to you. This is an entirely different business model than what has powered the Internet thus far. It is not an impossible business model, but it is a far more-expensive one to provide than the model used to date.

      When you surf a web page the load is taken when the page loads, then there is little or no load while you read it. You click something, the process repeats.

      But both video delivery “on-demand” and unsolicited advertising delivery, particularly video ads, don’t work under that model. The build requirements for that sort of operating model are far more expensive because instead of building for average load plus a margin you now must build for peak bitrate and be able to deliver that with predictable and small degrees of latency — a peak bitrate which may well be 2, 3, 5 or even 10x higher than average!

      Note that unsolicited video ads are effectively spam — those that play on load, rather than on click, are particularly annoying in that they interrupt whatever you’re actually trying to do — and this is even worse when these ads involve soundtracks that autoplay along with them.

      Netflix could have built out the infrastructure to deliver all those bits in a low-latency, high-speed form on their own. But that would have been extremely expensive, and in turn that would have made their $8/month “all you can eat” model impossible. So they didn’t — they shoved it off on other people.

      They’re not the only ones. Facebook plays video content on-load, rather than on-demand, as well — particularly if it’s in the viewport. And again, that takes Facebook’s data requirement for “good” delivery upward. Someone has to pay for that and the entire point of this campaign is to make sure it’s you, and not Facebook, that pays.

      Note again that Facebook charges advertisers for these ads, and now you will get saddled with the cost of delivering them, whether you want them or not.

      It is manifestly unjust, and indeed outrageous, to allow this sort of cost-shifting to go on. It may be legal but it should be considered fraud. This is the false narrative being sold to you to support “Net Neutrality”, and it’s going to ram you right up the chute in the form of higher costs for your Internet connections whether you want to use Netflix and Facebook or not.

      When, not if, you get rammed by this in your wallet I don’t want to hear the complaints. You are entitled in this country to be stupid and buy into the false narratives used by people who simply want to spam you and shift their costs onto you, but if you do and not only allow but pressure the government to “act” to confirm and cement these sorts of outrageous practices you had better not complain about the outcome later on because you begged for and in fact demanded the reaming you’re going to get.”

      Like

      • Sam J.
        January 30, 2017

        “… I’m a company that consumes 200 GB of bandwidth and somebody else consumes 10 GB, the company that consumes 100 or 200 GB should be paying more…”

        I don’t think this is true at all. Backbones and ISP’s charge by the byte. Now consumers want unlimited. That’s why they have unlimited packages is because that’s what people want. They sometimes use a lot of bandwidth and sometimes a little and they’ve been burned by the ISPs for going over.

        Your point about NetFlix wanting to screw us all so they can have less latency is correct.

        Like

  7. Sam J.
    January 28, 2017

    “…The “censorship” arguments are completely bogus…”

    I’ve personally had sites censored. I was told the sites couldn’t be reached then I used a proxy and they popped right up. So I checked again straight to them and got,”can’t be reached”. You end net neutrality and you’re site will be censored over time. So will things like Occidental Dissent and others. Facebook and Twitter are already doing this. You think if they get control of the backbone they won’t do the same on a larger scale? Please….what makes you think they have any of our interest at heart?

    Like

    • Sam J.
      January 28, 2017

      Notice that they never talk about JUST censoring or throttling back “commercial” spam. That could be done without influencing all the other free speech sites. They use span as a cause to censor everything else. I bet the spam will stay no matter what.

      Commercial speech and the public’s speech are two different things. We’re being sold a bill of goods.

      Like

    • Hipster Racist
      January 28, 2017

      Google censors sites. But no one is suggesting “neutrality” being forced on Google by government regulation.

      If AT&T is regulated as a “common carrier” – why not Google? More than one person suggested that Twitter be regulated as a public utility.

      Besides, no one is suggesting “regulating the Internet.”

      It’s about letting AT&T using their own property the way they see fit. It’s a for-profit company, and we’re using government regulation to FORCE them to use their network a certain way.

      It’s completely anti-libertarian, it’s completely anti-capitalism, it’s completely anti-free market.

      But no one cares because it is better for US – as internet users – that there be net neutrality.

      So – why not “health care neutrality?” Like, say, single payer health care.

      Why not “income neutrality” – like, say, a guaranteed income.

      I’m not arguing for or against net neutrality – I like net neutrality – it’s good for ME.

      But no one will be honest – net neutrality is about using the power of the state to benefit consumers – and Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. It’s pure government interference in the private market.

      But we’re fine with it – and we have big money from Google and Facebook on our side.

      So if internet socialism is ok – why not socialism in other economic sectors?

      If Internet Socialism (Net Neutrality) is ok – why not, say, in banking or insurance or health care?

      Let’s stop pretending anyone actually cares about “free markets” and “capitalism” or the sanctity of “private property” – those are all social constructs that we abandon the second it is no longer in our own personal interests to pretend to believe in them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sam J.
        January 28, 2017

        “…It’s completely anti-libertarian, it’s completely anti-capitalism, it’s completely anti-free market…”

        Ok. Fuck Libertarians, fuck capitalism, fuck the free market. I’m interested in what benefits my people, Whites. Fuck everyone else, within boundaries. I don’t want to fuck them so bad they decide to gang up on me but fuck them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        January 28, 2017

        Okay. As long as we’re not being literal about all that fucking.

        Like

  8. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    Libertarians have nothing to offer but atomization and division. Everyone has guns but no organization. Killing your neighbors doesn’t help.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. NoddingHead
    January 29, 2017

    Just Mammon worshipers.

    Like

  10. Pingback: Racial Limitations of the Libyan Experiment in Socialist Nationalism | Hipster Racist

  11. icareviews
    January 31, 2017

    Further down in this article, Brandon Martinez discusses the Zionist origins of the plot for regime change in Libya:

    http://nonalignedmedia.com/2017/01/quebec-mosque-shooting-and-the-problem-of-kosher-conservatism/

    Like

  12. bob saffron
    February 1, 2017

    it’s like déjà vu all over again.

    Like

    • icareviews
      February 1, 2017

      Interesting.

      Like

      • bob saffron
        February 1, 2017

        No cartoon planes this time around. Iran TV must have baulked at that one.

        Like

    • Sam J.
      February 2, 2017

      The spoofers are already trying to tie it to building #7. Interesting to see what happens.

      Like

  13. bob saffron
    February 1, 2017

    Needs a good soundtrack.

    Like

    • Sam J.
      February 2, 2017

      “Good and Bad”…”Right and Wrong”…”A new World order”.

      Like

  14. Sam J.
    February 2, 2017

    You know we talk about psychology of races every so often. I say that other races don’t think like we do and Whites don’t get this(a lot anyways). Listen to what Tommy Sotomayor says about the mentality of Blacks as compared to Whites. He sees a huge difference and shows an example based on a car jacking. If you wonder Tommy makes his living making fun of Blacks, I think. I don’t believe he likes Blacks much and he really doesn’t like Black Women. He moved to an all White neighborhood in Arizona.

    Got this linked from

    http://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=6454

    Think about the “White Man want to be immortalized”. Maybe we can work this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bob saffron
      February 2, 2017

      I like LaFond and have read several of his books at your suggestion, so thanks. It seems he’s not critical of Jews or their role in the modern world.

      Like

      • Sam J.
        February 3, 2017

        He is not a racist or anti-semite, like myself, but doesn’t at ALL hide the various deficiencies of all humans. I think he kind of thinks everybody sucks and is not willing to give anybody credit. Myself I agree, everybody sucks, except I think there are various degrees of suckyiness of humans that are primarily based on race if you’re talking about a whole population. I have no doubt that within various groups of people are good and bad.

        I think deep down he’s probably a nice guy but he comes off as being quite vicious.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        February 3, 2017

        Well, his contributors, otherwise misanthropic, certainly seem indulgent towards one (((victim-class))), ha ha.
        https://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=5560
        For that reason I read only his urban warfare articles.

        Like

    • bob saffron
      February 5, 2017

      Some pretty good advice here.

      http://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=6501

      Like

  15. NoddingHead
    February 8, 2017

    I am starting to agree, “democracy” isn’t really doing any good now. Dumbed-down populace easily manipulated by the monopoly media. Starting to think maybe the framers of the Constitution had a good point when they said “white male property owners”.

    Like

  16. NoddingHead
    February 8, 2017

    Ironic that the monopoly media insinuates that Trump voters are “dumb”. Black people and Hispanics voted en masse for Hillary. Happy to see an IQ test. Totally agree with you guys though that Trump is a tool. Not even sure anymore that he is any better than Hillary.

    Like

    • icareviews
      February 8, 2017

      My liberal Trump-hating friend sent me a lame video with some smug guy interviewing two women who were opposed to Obamacare. The idea was that their poor preparation for answering the questions was supposed to be indicative that anybody criticizing Obama is just a yokel. I replied with a couple of Mark Dice videos with him interviewing random liberals on the street who were being tricked into advocating a white people tax, the abolition of women’s suffrage, etc.; but my friend just denied that the people being interviewed were actual liberals. Only college-educated intellectuals are permitted to join the ranks of the Democratic party in his warped mind. He really thinks Republicans are primitives or something.

      Like

  17. NoddingHead
    February 8, 2017

    More belligerence toward Iran, but maybe a smidge less belligerance toward Russia. Plenty of belligerence anyway. Now the monopoly media argues only about which specific countries we have to bomb. And the WN people who look to Trump as some kind of hero-messiah….pathetic

    Liked by 1 person

  18. NoddingHead
    February 10, 2017

    Lol, more mind games. Media scornfully says Trump is working a “deal” with Russia to get the big prize controlled-opposition figure Snowden. Will be fun to see how this works out.

    Like

  19. Pingback: Racial Limitations of the Libyan Experiment in Socialist Nationalism

  20. Pingback: Racial Limitations of the Libyan Experiment in Socialist Nationalism | News For The Blind

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: