Trump Ponders Idea Of Nationalizing 5G Wireless Networks, Cucks Turn Rabid

Let’s just keep things real here – in terms of technological advancement, America has fallen into stagnation when compared to some parts of Europe and East Asia.

Where once we dominated, we now either lag, or are forced to shell out ridiculous amounts of shekels to upgrade to levels needed for 21st Century communications and networking.

With a bit of thought and understanding, it becomes obvious that one of the only true fixes would be a direct and complete nationalization of the entire network/telecommunications industry.

Seriously, think about it for a moment – minus miles of regulations, could you think of a better way to stifle the poor service, insane fees, and monopoly creation that is so much an integral part of “muh free market?”


A Trump administration trial balloon on creating a nationalized 5G wireless network landed with a resounding thud in Washington on Monday as Republicans and Democrats as well as the country’s telecom giants rushed to condemn it as unworkable.

Reports emerged Sunday night that the administration is weighing a plan to have the government build and run the country’s next-generation 5G network, rather than leaving the job to wireless companies, due to fears of Chinese cyberespionage. Axios, which first reported the proposal, said it came from a National Security Council official who said the government could advance 5G just as it built a national highway system in the 1950s.

But the concept ran into immediate opposition from Republicans alarmed about the talk of government elbowing aside business. President Donald Trump’s own FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, who has spent his tenure rolling back regulation of the telecom industry, called the idea of a nationalized 5G network “a costly and counterproductive distraction.” Fellow FCC Republican Mike O’Rielly called it “nonsensical” while another GOP Commissioner Brendan Carr said the idea is a “nonstarter.”

GOP lawmakers were just as brutal, with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, saying, “We’re not Venezuela, we don’t need to have the government run everything as the only choice.”

This is the same argument cuckservatives use whenever programs come about that could possibly benefit Whites in poor areas of Flyover Country.

But yet the Colorfuls manage to pull off entire lifetimes with social benefits and gibs – one example would be the GOP railing venomously against socialized single-payer healthcare, while non-Whites already essentially enjoy this exact benefit.

The public rift over the future of the U.S. wireless infrastructure marks another example of the roiling tensions in the Republican Party, between those who want the private sector to operate without government interference and others focused on the national security and economic threats posed by China.

Amid the blowback, the White House on Monday sought to downplay the possibility of nationalization, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying discussions on the future of 5G are preliminary.

“There are a lot of things on the table,” Sanders told reporters. “Again, these are the very earliest stages of the discussion period, and there’s been absolutely no decision made other than … the need for a secure network.”

Very little if any tenacity or strength in the face of resistance – this seems to be the model for the Trump Administration in its second year.

Now we even see him walking back his tweets and pet projects once a little push-back occurs – this is how the populist nationalist movement dies.

But unlike traditional wireless networks, which rely on large towers that carry signals over long distances, 5G service requires a dense network of smaller cellular infrastructure, because the airwaves don’t travel as far. The wireless industry expects to invest billions in the buildout, and has been pushing for policies to ease local rules on permitting and constructing in cities.

These companies invest billions, and will then subsequently jack up contract plans to where $1000 a month for a family plan may not be all that out of the ordinary.

U.S. officials have long been concerned about the potential for Chinese spying on U.S. networks, particularly by Chinese telecom giant Huawei, a supplier of network equipment. Huawei’s “threat to the supply chain constitutes a rising national security concern of the highest priority,” the House Intelligence Committee warned in October 2012. The proposal floated by the NSC official envisions a U.S. government-operated wireless network as more difficult for foreign intelligence services to access.

Now I’m not claiming to be anything remotely resembling an expert on this subject material, but I suppose my greatest fear with any sort of Nationalized communications network in this country would be the censorship danger.

Would this program grant ZOG the ability to shut off access to our content in a way that circumvents ordinary channels like domains?

I would think such a plan would require an intranet-style system like North Korea to be totally foolproof, but the last thing we need in this day and age are more complications on top of everything else.

Still, I suppose this proposal is grounds for some interesting and stimulating discussion – note that if I were in charge, this would be a key component of my infrastructure agenda.


  1. Yes, governments do so well at the DMV, and other parasitic offices. Even the US government financed early aircraft failed miserably while the private enterprise of the Wright brothers succeeded masterfully.

    Government’s interference in the firearms industry has caused it to stagnate; John M. Browning, the most prolific firearms designer in history would not have been able to design his most useful firearms after 1934, and after 1986 he would have been arrested for his early experiments.

    The way to curb problems in the communications industry is to prohibit monopolies on service, perhaps to require up and down load speeds to be the same instead of intentional throttling of upload speeds that we see today.

    Government ownership of any industry is a disaster, we’ve seen that over and over again.

    • I actually agree with a good chunk of what you’re saying, although I’m skeptical as to how much impact any sort of regulations could have on these bloated companies.

      They’ve learned over the past century, and minus draconian measures, can wheel, deal, and stall any break-up plans in court for years.

  2. Nationalizing telecommunication would essentially nullify the 4th admendment. It is not illegal to search something that is in your possession. If the government controls the internet/telecommunications, it is in possession of your communication.

    • But just to be fair – since the Patriot Act went through, they’re already technically in possession of everything anyway. They just have to do some word obstacles and claim “muh national security” to slide into home plate.

    • It’s all splitting hairs anyway, i.e. private corporations have already proven they’re ahead of the curve (yes, even the government) in terms of pushing an ultra Globalist Cultural Marxist agenda – ergo the cries of those on the right vis-à-vis “government = evil, private = good” no longer has any relevance in this world dominated by mega corporations in which the biggest companies have proven themselves massively anti-white.

      Government or private, i.e. when we’re talking about their management of important infrastructure & services they’re both equal to the same nowadays; c’est-à-dire equally crap.

  3. You people are nuts, the GOV already owns the internet. Don’t believe me? Go cut off power to a main hub and watch the FBI swarm you. The companies on (((payroll))) are just middlemen.

    • If true it doesn’t prove your point. Since the government depends on the Internet, like everybody else, naturally it’s going to jump in if its net functions are disrupted.

      • @andrew Jackson

        Who do you think owns it then? Since it was created by the GOV (DARPA to be specific) to serve as a communication network for national security…..I don’t think they “sold” away that much power to private industry, especially when they can take in the money and spy.

    • On that topic, apparently there have been major west coast internet outages due to somewhat sophisticated sabotage that is getting the Vegas shooter treatment by media and police. We are already in a Talmudic slave state, most people are just are not completely aware of it yet.

  4. Events in the last year suggest that private companies are ready to censor more aggressively than the government could get away with, thanks to the First Amendment. As to privacy, I don’t see that transporting your email makes it the government’s property any more than letters you send by snail mail. The best solution would be a mixed system where the government, like the USPS, offers a plain vanilla service that competes with private offerings. But why does no provider offer software and hardware products designed to protect privacy? Is it the belief that the government would outlaw them if it couldn’t hack them?

  5. Free high-speed internet would allow us Trump voters in flyover states to get connected. That’s an important plus. Right now, the denizens of Sin City have the advantage in all such things. Another idea is free online college education backed by a nationally standardized suite of competency examinations. That would knock the expensive lefty colleges off their pedestals.

  6. I get the peoples point that Nationalization can cause stagnation. There are other measures that have worked reasonably well. Regulated electric companies worked fairly well. Their profits were regulated and the companies had regulators looking into where they put their money. If they were massively paying off the executives far outside the industry averages then the regulators could reduce their profits. One side effect of this is like all managers they want to run as much as possible so they put a great, great deal into capacity, backups and service.

    A few examples of this are Alabama Power which is regulated. I don’t think they are as regulated as they were in the past. Pacific Power which used to be one of the best power companies on the planet was privatized which lead to bill increases, outright power outages and a fragile over extended infrastructure.

    Some failures are the present telecom system. They were regulated but pressured congress for rate hikes to “build out the fiber network”. They’ve done next to nothing about this and their service sucks ass. They have made, I read, over $800 billion in excess profits and built next to nothing in fiber infrastructure which is the whole reason they were able to raise rates and deregulate. I mean I really hate my ISP and phone company. They were hacked recently and charged me 3,000 dollars and it took weeks and weeks and weeks and probably 50 hours of my time to get it straight. Not only that after the bill passed that they could throttle services they killed the bandwidth on I2P and anonymous internet service with anonymous torrents and websites. It’s maybe 1/3 the speed.

    Some functions are just monopolies. Power, water, communications, sewer, etc. They just are and if you don’t regulate them in some way they will keep raising rates and killing service until you choke. Big business wants to rape you. Capitalism only works in a free market. Where they are not free markets with huge cost to enter the market there is NO Capitalism is pure Monopolism and has nothing at all to do with free markets.

  7. What monopoly creation?
    If you think monopolies are bad then why would you even suggest nationalizing an industry? That would be the ultimate monopoly.

Comments are closed.