Pirate Bay As a Pedagogic Opportunity for Pseudo-Libertarians

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 19 December 2010 04:35.

A founder of The Pirate Bay has proposed establishing a new root Domain Name Service.  His proposal has met with something of an uproar of support.

Since there seems to be quite an overlap between pseudo-libertarianism and netizens this may represent an opportunity to provide the pseudo-libertarians a gentle introduction to the fundamental flaw of their charismatic rabbi’s dogma.

It focuses on a problem that every netizen recognizes in the allocation of domain names and proposes a solution that, while it does not quite rub the noses of this rabbi’s disciples in their own economic excrement—it does introduce a “dangerous idea” which leads them down the slippery slope to truth.

Continued below the fold…


Dealing With Domain Squatting In the New Root DNS

It turns out that domain squatting is but one example of a pathology in property rights that gives rise to phenomena like Microsoft’s OS as de facto standard and the US Federal Reserve’s dollars as the global reserve currency.

Economists have called it the “network externality”.  Domain squatting is one of the most obvious examples.

The network externality occurs when enough people participate in a networking platform that the value of the platform becomes a de facto monopoly from which the owner may tax the community’s value with virtual impunity. 

In establishing a new DNS root, designed not to be overrun by the same sorts of property rights parasites that drain value from networks — contributing nothing — it pays to think through the details of how the system will prevent such economic exploits.

The domain squatting parasite’s game is pretty simple: 

  1. Establish a favored status with the root authority so that domains may be acquired at virtually no cost.
  2. Grab domain names consisting of virtually any word or phrase short enough to be a domain name, and sit on them.
  3. When someone actually wants a domain, it costs the domain squatter nothing to withhold the resource so the potential buyer is in a disadvantaged position and must pay the squatter the value of the domain to the buyer — not some intermediate price.

An obvious solution to this problem is for the DNS root authority to charge a fee for squatting on the domain so that there is an incentive for the squatter to actually place the domain name in service. 

The question for the DNS root authority is how much of a fee to charge domain owners to prevent not only domain squatting per se, but poor utilization of domain names?  After all, exceptional names embodying their own network externalities such as “google”, “yahoo”, etc. notwithstanding, the rest of us do benefit from meaningful domain names.

An obvious first step would be to allow potential buyers to place bids in escrow with the root DNS authority, and require the current owner of the domain name to pay the interest on the highest bid in escrow for that domain name.  The current owner can choose to:

  1. Pay the interest on an ongoing basis and retain ownership.
  2. Accept the bid and transfer ownership to the bidder in exchange for the escrowed money.
  3. Refuse to pay either the interest or to accept the bid until such time as the interest owed matches the amount bid, at which point the ownership transfers to the high bidder and the prior owner receives no compensation.

This can be entirely automated with the only parameter subject to human authority being the interest rate which can be pre-specified to be some standard such as the gold leasing rate.

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by Andrew on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:12 | #

This is really good idea.  Journals in the field microeconomic theory would publish this sort of thing.  From an economics perspective you are trying to create a mechanism that (A) results in the domain name ending up with the ‘right’ person (the one who values it most) and (B) minimizes the rent that the person who initially holds the domain name can extract (hopefully this is zero).

In a certain theoretical sense, your mechanism doesn’t do this better than bilateral bargaining: A `tough’ seller could force the buyer to pay whatever the buyer values the domain name at (provided the seller knows how much this is).

However, in practice there is a huge difference because in bilateral bargaining, ‘tough’ means willing to walk away with nothing, while in your mechanism ‘tough’ means willing to accept infinite losses.  Therefore in practice, with your mechanism the initial owner should extract a lot less rent than in bilateral bargaining.

The idea here can also be applied to any trade where bargaining power is important.  What you are proposing is essentially a mechanism that reduces the bargaining power of the seller in favor of the buyer.


2

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:42 | #

There are, of course, macroeconomic implications for liquidity and monetary policy if this assessment system is used for taxation purposes.  The total amount of money in escrow represents a liquid-asset backed monetary regime.  (That the “libertarians” aren’t all over this as a way of bringing market discipline to monetary policy in preference to the Federal Reserve system, is yet more evidence of their lack of intellectual integrity.)

PS: I should have chosen something other than the gold-leasing rate as an example.  The short term gold leasing rate has seen negative territory recently.


3

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:49 | #

Ahahahaha!

Or, should that be,

Yaaaaaaar! ?

Belated Merry Christmas, MRniks.  An early Happy New Year!

I love reading about stuff like this.  All the gloom and doomers really should look harder at hacker culture.  Does anyone really think that, going forward, the MotU aren’t going to have huge problems keeping info and technology under lock and key with the hackers around?

Oh, and I love “pseudo-libertarian,” describes most “libertarians” perfectly.

Does anyone here know how to write regular expressions, and have any interest in recovering the comments to the “modern definition of anti-semitism” thread that Roissy the Beta Pussy deleted?


4

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:22 | #

I re-post:

Economically speaking, there is no more efficient allocative mechanism (nor certainly, ethically, any fairer system) than the free market. There are, however, extra-market criticisms of free markets, but they have to do with ecological concerns, on one side, and national defense (or racial defense, if you prefer), on the other. In other words, economically, the free market is perfect. Metaeconomically, absolute freedom needs to be sometimes sacrificed. But those sacrifices must be built on a base of free market understanding. Thus, if we pursue protectionism or environmental regulation, we are doing so for political and social goals (which can ramify economically), but we should recognize that we will be somewhat materially poorer, at least short term, for doing so.

These assertions need to be very substantially elaborated theoretically, as well as demonstrated with relevant empirical data, but they are the correct path. Racialists do not need to construct their entire paradigm ‘whole-cloth’, so to speak. We need to recognize what is valuable in other traditions, and appropriate it for our own agenda. The economic insights of the free market schools are among the treasures of human civilization, and should be so recognized, even if libertarians make unwarranted leaps from economic facts to racially dangerous ideological prescriptions.


5

Posted by pug on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:11 | #

Leon Haller,

Who taught you that nonsense?


6

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:42 | #

Pug,

What don’t you understand?


7

Posted by pug on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:07 | #

I understand all. Lord Keynes, himself arguably one, once wrote, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” and he spoke the truth. The main problem we now have is, in a great majority of the cases, that “defunct economist” is a jew! Thus you.


8

Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:14 | #

Of course, Lord Keynes spent a significant amount of time sodomizing small boys…


9

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:57 | #

I did not know, danielj, that Keynes doubled as a Christian clergyman. Obviously a lay preacher.


10

Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:05 | #

Ah ah ah…

Catholic!

However, let us not forget how overrepresented the Rabbinate is amongst pedophiles.


11

Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:07 | #

On second thought, maybe it isn’t Catholicism, but Anglicanism that is the problem.

Or perhaps it is just the simple fact that the English themselves are boyfuckers, faggots, trannies and whatnot? Let us pray this genetic defect didn’t worm its way into my son!


12

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:32 | #

Ah, Catholics do not fall under the rubric of Christian, then?

Here’s an indigenous American group:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

  Don’t worry about your kids, danielj, they may have the faith gene which will allow them to answer the question : “If, as a Christian, you are supposed to love everybody, what value does that place on love?”


13

Posted by kylie on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:48 | #

Or perhaps it is just the simple fact that the English themselves are boyfuckers, faggots, trannies and whatnot? Let us pray this genetic defect didn’t worm its way into my son!

No it’s probably more likely that it has nigger blood.


14

Posted by kylie on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:54 | #

Here is the intended “nigger blood” link for my previous comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqccyUpnZwA&t=6m0s


15

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:57 | #

Here’s a twist, and an acid test:

If, as a Christian, you are supposed to love everybody, what value does that place on anybody?

And, how would it affect renneR?


16

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:59 | #

I understand all. Lord Keynes, himself arguably one, once wrote, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” and he spoke the truth. The main problem we now have is, in a great majority of the cases, that “defunct economist” is a jew! Thus you. (pug)

First, I’m not Jewish. I’m a German plus mixed white ethnicities Catholic.

Second, I am familiar with the Keynes quote, and agree with it (though ironically, the very worst and most influential “dead economist” is the idiot Keynes himself, and he was not Jewish). But it is irrelevant to what I wrote.

Third, you have not refuted any of my assertions.

I’m beginning to see a much deeper problem with racialists. My experience has been that most American racialists (along with many of the Eurorightists I’ve met, esp from the French National Front, Vlaams Belang, and Southern Africa) are basically political conservatives, who happen to be honest about race, and who understand that any real conservatism rests on a biological (racial) foundation. These conservatives love Western, Christian, bourgeois capitalist civilization (as do I), and recognize that nonwhites don’t belong to it, and thus threaten it (in many different ways) by their presences in its historic territories.

I tend to forget that there does exist a radical/revolutionary racist tradition of thought and politics (beyond just the Nazis) which is often hostile to both capitalism and Christianity, as well as deeply anti-Semitic, of course, and only deserves to be classified as rightist at all due to its anti-universalism. I think this tradition is morally flawed, and that its political appeal will always be too limited to do much good (outside of prisons, perhaps) towards actually achieving something positive for whites.

If the white race is to endure, it is apparent to me that this second tradition must be as thoroughly marginalized as non-racialist ‘conservatives’ (Republicans, Tories, Gaullists, Christian Democrats). The West needs a true Hard Right, not a Soft Right or Racial Left.


17

Posted by alex zeka on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:14 | #

Keynes, LOL. Was that the man the application of whose theories gave us stagflation? Really, libertarians might get some things wrong, but Keynes got as beaten by reality as any economist has ever been. What was it, 30 years of demand management (1945-1970s in the UK; obviously it started earlier in the US in the 30s)?

I’ll happily talk theory or evidence. I’m not taking lessons about “dead economists” from the quickest dating economist ever.


18

Posted by pug on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:11 | #

Sod off—I obviously meant “thus you, the slave aping the defucnct jew von Mises.”

An economic system that favours national integrity and the general welfare happens to also be the most economically beneficial, whereas the free trade and free market dogma is economically unsound. There is absolutely no compromise, theoretical or otherwise, to be made.

The pure socialist economy fails because of the impossibility of making economic calculations when government decides what will be produced and at what price. That is all there is to it. All the other arguments are just dust. You could have stopped there—you didn’t. That’s your prerogative and your slave issue.

The most egregious is your knowledge deficit on free trade. The U.S. rose from a wilderness to the richest country on the planet under protectionist trade policies. Capitalists under honest capitalism, which is based on REAL capital from savings, have always been national and protectionist in the main. On the other hand, capitalists under jewed finance capitalism, which is based on debt, are, in all cases, internationalist free-traders, even after free trade lost all theoretical pre-eminence. The result of that treason has been absolutely catastrophic for the White race, both economically and otherwise, and may end in starvation.

I’ll expand in 2011 if I feel there is any point. You suggest otherwise.


19

Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:49 | #

Here is the intended “nigger blood” link for my previous comment

I’ve seen True Romance a million times and think it is fantastic. Tarentino’s best film! I always find it funny though, when dirty, filthy, disgusting, backwards, Catholic Irish folk are used by the English to make Italians feel bad. It doesn’t quite have the intended effect. It actually makes me ashamed of the Irish in me since there was no “Irish renaissance” or “Irish enlightenment” and really no Irish achievement to speak of except immigration and Edmund Burke. Your potato eating cousins are the niggers of the Northwest!

Anyway, I’d really rather be a nigger than a kike-loving Anglian. From Oliver Cromwell on down to Disraeli you fuckheads have been leveraged up to your eyeballs in Rothschild script. Fantastic job fucking up the entire world for all the rest of us whites.

GW, how is it that you are so polite where all your mates seem to lack even common decency?

Sod off—I obviously meant “thus you, the slave aping the defucnct jew von Mises.”

It was obvious to me.

The U.S. rose from a wilderness to the richest country on the planet under protectionist trade policies.

I second that notion. Please feel free to elaborate in 2011!

Don’t worry about your kids, danielj, they may have the faith gene which will allow them to answer the question : “If, as a Christian, you are supposed to love everybody, what value does that place on love?”

You know how this riddle is resolved…

Defining ‘neighbor’ and ‘love’ makes quick work of the conundrum.

One question Al. Did you settle somewhere on the Spanish coast? Are you making the eyes at coal-haired bartenders? Must be nice to just flee when the going gets rough. Don’t worry, the Poles will clean up your mess!


20

Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:54 | #

Ah, Catholics do not fall under the rubric of Christian, then?

Your people determined that long ago!

Hitler was said to have come up with his “scorched earth” policy by inspiration of General Sherman’s razing of Georgia and Sherman must have got his idea from ol’ Crummy!

Conquest of Ireland


21

Posted by Wallaby on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 02:02 | #

Anyway, I’d really rather be a nigger than a kike-loving Anglian. From Oliver Cromwell on down to Disraeli you fuckheads have been leveraged up to your eyeballs in Rothschild script. Fantastic job fucking up the entire world for all the rest of us whites.

It was the Romans that let them into Europe in the first place and the Italians and their church that protected them thereafter.


22

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:15 | #

It was the Romans that let them into Europe in the first place and the Italians and their church that protected them thereafter.

It was the English that enabled them to flourish!

There was no way the Romans (who curiously aren’t Italians when the Nords want to claim them as there own!) or the Italians could have known. The English should know better by now.

Down with Yankee-Judea!


23

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:17 | #

claim them as their own


24

Posted by Wallaby on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:58 | #

There was no way the Romans (who curiously aren’t Italians when the Nords want to claim them as there own!) or the Italians could have known.

They did know.  MacDonald shows this quite clearly in a chapter in Separation and Its Discontents.

The fact of the matter is that the Romans allowed them to disperse into Europe and then the Italians and their church protected them.


25

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:04 | #

The fact of the matter is that the Romans allowed them to disperse into Europe and then the Italians and their church protected them.

Which Romans?

The Nordic, Northwest European Romans?

Nobody has protected and furthered the interests of the Jews like the English. In fact, the English are the sine qua non of Judea. No English, No Jews. Thankfully, the Poles will slowly take over and they don’t take anywhere near as kindly to Kikes as you Anglos.

Berlusconi tells Jokes about money grubbing Jews while it is illegal to even question the numbers in England.

GW, your faggot friends pushed me to this.


26

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:06 | #

MacDonald shows this quite clearly in a chapter in Separation and Its Discontents.

Gee.

A Scot talking shit, taking a piss and placing blame on Italians? What are the odds?!

It is the world-ruling, empire building Anglos at fault! Never! Always the victims you Nords! Kvetch must be old Pict.


27

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:47 | #

The fact of the matter is that the Romans allowed them to disperse into Europe and then the Italians and their church protected them.

By the time the Roman Empire became heavily Semitic, the Romans were already a minority in their empire.  Romans hardly “allowed them to disperse” - they did so on their own because they were far more numerous.  The Romans had been reduced in numbers by endless warfare, both foreign and internal, and lost their empire to usurpers from the Levant and North Africa.

What’s more, the Italians of today are, mostly, not of Roman origin.  Many southern Italians descend from Punic or other Afro-Asiatic peoples who settled the region in antiquity.  Northern Italians are of Germanic ancestry thanks to the settlement of the region by Ostrogoths and Lombards in the early Middle Ages.

Neither Romans nor the Catholic Church were particularly philosemitic.  The Church slew large numbers of Jews over the centuries, in fact.  The Jews only gained serious political and economic traction in the West starting in the latter half of the 18th century.


28

Posted by Wallaby on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:51 | #

You claimed that the Romans and Italians didn’t know about the Jews, and I simply pointed out that MacDonald shows that they were well aware of Jews and their behavior.  I never suggested that MacDonald was “talking shit, taking a piss and placing blame on Italians.”


29

Posted by Wallaby on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 06:20 | #

The point is that if we’re going to blame the English, why don’t we go back to when the problem started and blame the people around then?

They didn’t teleport from the Levant.  The Romans didn’t have to let them leave the Levant following the Jewish-Roman Wars.  And establishing a multicultural empire deep into the heart of Europe was certainly instrumental in allowing their dispersal.

The Church also slew large numbers of Europeans over the centuries.  In the final analysis, it protected the Jews. Unlike, say, the Cathars.


30

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 06:32 | #

The point is that if we’re going to blame the English, why don’t we go back to when the problem started and blame the people around then?

Were they swarthy, half-nigger Italians? Or, were they Nords?


31

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 06:33 | #

I never suggested that MacDonald was “talking shit, taking a piss and placing blame on Italians.”

No fucking shit!

I’m suggesting it.


32

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 06:35 | #

Never the master race at fault!

Always the Italians to blame!

GW I can’t abide this. You, your wife and your daughter are welcome in my home anytime but I can’t waste any more time here.


33

Posted by Wallaby on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 07:23 | #

I don’t understand what all the histrionics are for.  You started it by blaming the English for the Jewish problem.  So are the English to blame for the 1,600 years before Cromwell during which the Jews were allowed into Europe and protected and sponsored by the church?


34

Posted by Hamish on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:34 | #

“If, as a Christian, you are supposed to love everybody, what value does that place on love?”

Jesus didn’t tell people to love everyone equally.


35

Posted by Hamish on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:36 | #

All the same, though, but that Marilyn Manson sure knew how to rock out.


36

Posted by Hamish on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:41 | #

“If, as a Christian, you are supposed to have good will toward all, what value does that place on good will?”

Well, son, what you have to understand is that you don’t have to have good will toward everyone to the same extent.

Jesus never said, for example, that you should love your neighbor to the same extent you love your own child, etc.

Jesus never said, for example, that you should have as much good will toward your neighbor as toward your own child, etc.


37

Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:30 | #

So are the English to blame for the 1,600 years before Cromwell during which the Jews were allowed into Europe and protected and sponsored by the church?

All of Europe is to blame for that.


38

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:42 | #

More of my views on libertarians (for idiots like “pug”, who seems to think I’m one of them because I happen to understand how a free market economy works):

Nonwhites have ruined innumerable white cities, and whole societies (eg Rhodesia, South Africa, Belgium, The Netherlands, California, etc ad nauseam). We whites would be much better off living among ourselves alone, but neither our own treasonous governments, nor pushy and violent nonwhites themselves, will LEAVE US ALONE – in our own lands (see youtube video).

Libertarianism is another part of the white leftist refusal to face racial realities. For whites, libertarianism, like liberalism and socialism, is an enemy of our liberties (for proof look at nonwhite voting patterns – leftist all the way, from Muslim Obama on down).

Here’s an idea: Let the US secede from Hawaii. I’m all in favor of Polynesians having their country back – assuming you all leave MY country, the USA. Good fences make good neighbors – the essence of private property (something libertarians are supposed to advocate, but which they invariably relinquish when “race” and “civil rights” enter the discussion). (posted at mises.org)


39

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:29 | #

It’s worse than that danielj. At least in the Iberian peninsula I’d be retired. Still working I’m afraid and a continuing old Far East hand. Your are incorrect about the bartender stuff though. As my PhD - holding wife remarked, “This danielj guy at least suggested that you had a chance - is his notional Spanish bartender blind?”



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Nationalist axiality
Previous entry: The BNP after the judgement

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:30. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:36. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:14. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 17:30. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:04. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:12. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:02. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Nationalism's ownership of the Levellers' legacy' on Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:11. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Fri, 08 Nov 2024 23:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Wed, 06 Nov 2024 18:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 04 Nov 2024 23:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 04:15. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:57. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:40. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:27. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:37. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:54. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:23. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:59. (View)

affection-tone