I count myself among the most censored people on the Internet. Only the Daily Stormer rivals my infamy in this regard. I have been permanently and personally banned from Facebook, Twitter, Google+, UStream, YouTube, LinkedIn, OKCupid, Plenty Of Fish, Tinder, and Match, to name just a few social media sites off the top of my head. This does not include domain registrars, ad networks, hosting companies, financial institutions, and other online services. In addition to the controversial content I produce, I was framed for a crime last August in the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and the Internet’s gatekeepers were no more interested in the truth or fiction of the matter than the people who framed me. My income and reach were dramatically diminished. A business which I had worked very hard, and incurred significant debt, to build, was nearly destroyed. To make matters worse, my newfound infamy had greatly diminished any prospects I might have for “normal” employment.
This was a coordinated effort to destroy me, and it damn near succeeded. So I know a thing or two about Internet censorship and its consequences.
I’ve long prided myself on my willingness to take an unpopular stance, and challenge the limits of anything I endeavor to do. So I am not complaining about all of this so much as stating my credentials, as I go forth with what I hope you will find to be a thoughtful critique about censorship by the self, and by others, and how people respond to each.
The State of Political Language
Today’s political discourse is tragically flawed. Race has become the subject of so much focus in American and European politics, that you cannot discuss so much as the tax code without somebody being accused of racism. Anyone with their eyes on a career in politics automatically accepts genetic equality of all two legged animals as scientific fact. They thusly go on assigning non-genetic causes to all forms of outcome inequality, and base all policy discussions on this article of faith.
Anyone who challenges this notion is deemed a “Nazi” and subjected to every form of social, economic, and legal pressure that can possibly be applied. Many others are subjected to criminal violence, which the government and media conveniently choose to ignore.
I used to think this accusation of Nazism or even racism was absurd. Just a few short years ago, I thought racism was defined by its sheer irrationality. “Hating a person for the color of their skin” seemed then, as it does today, completely ridiculous. Like most seemingly reasonable people, I thought Nazism was defined as marching a religious group into gas chambers just because you don’t like their religion. This too, seemed absurd.
What became obvious to me as I was increasingly subjected to these once seemingly ridiculous accusations, is that different groups mean entirely different things when they use these words.
Racism and Nazism are synonymous in the minds of Leftists. There is no disconnect between these two things. A conservative or libertarian’s belief in free markets thus grants them no reprieve from the accusation of being a National Socialist. In fact, that is enough to earn themselves the label, and for good reason.
Free markets result in inequality of outcome along racial and ethnic lines. This is because the aforementioned belief in perfect genetic equality is based on what might charitably be described as complete and utter horseshit. Blacks on average have lower IQs than do whites, as the brain is a bodily organ, and its qualities are thus passed down through heredity like any other trait. They are also more prone to criminality and other destructive behaviors, owing to the heredity of hormone levels and other genetic characteristics which influence behavior. This is far from the only genetic difference between ethnic groups, but it draws the best contrast to make our point.
These biological differences far better explain black crime statistics and income inequality than white racism, but to say so would exhibit a “biological worldview” which is heresy to Leftists, and the definition, in their minds, of Nazism.
Indeed, though I am loathed to admit it, they are correct. This biological worldview is the defining characteristic of National Socialism. If you believe, as is factually accurate, that human beings are animals like any other, who are not all genetic equals, and pass genetic traits in socially valued categories such as intelligence and athletic prowess, down through their DNA, you are just one book away from becoming a Nazi. If you believe that breeding practices in humans can create more or less desirable breeds of humans, as is the case with dogs and horses and all other creatures, then you are indeed, a racist.
You don’t have to hate anyone, wish anyone harm, or even propose any particular policy based on this information. If you know it, you will become the target of the egalitarian Left. Moreover, you do not even need to know it, if your policy proposals favor merit over equality, you will be similarly labeled, because the outcome is identical.
You simply cannot understand modern political discourse without understanding, at a minimum, this use of language.
The Political Impact
The savvy reader already sees the problem here. Political decisions are being made based on falsehood. Anyone who dares to even brush up against the truth is forbidden from so much as dining in peace, and is certainly not going to win a popularity contest. The egalitarian Left is steering the world to genetic catastrophe by using all the forces of the State to undermine the selective pressures which made mankind the undisputed ruling species of this planet.
In order to effectively challenge Leftist narratives, this information must be part of our political discussions. Leftists, unsurprisingly, do not want their narratives effectively challenged. The thought police say that they are trying to scrub the internet for material which people may find “offensive” when in reality they are more concerned with material which people may find convincing. So they direct all of their efforts toward labeling this information “hate speech” and seeing it vanquished from the collective consciousness of the society. Literally every “anti-racist” group in existence stands entirely for this purpose. That is why the SPLC and similar groups have become the thought police of social media, and also explains why no Leftist group is ever made to suffer consequences for any seemingly racist thing they say.
Anti-racism is thus rightly seen as a Leftist value, and imputing this value into Right wing ideology is in fact the destruction thereof. A desirable goal for Leftists, as one can easily imagine.
As It Plays Out
As Leftists riot in the streets over black criminals and illegal immigrants, the absurdity and danger of all this becomes clearer to an ever increasing number of people. They look for solutions, but thanks to the thought police, they only exist in seemingly disreputable corners of the Internet.
Some attempt to bridge the gap. These figures are what might be described as “Alt Lite” or “Civic Nationalists”. Instead of race they discuss culture. Instead of biology, geography. They still get branded Nazis by the communists, and this surely costs them some in terms of audience reach and monetary reward, but they can generally hang onto a YouTube or PayPal account.
They stand to the Right of Mitch McConnell, but well to the Left of any Radical Agenda listener.
It is anybody’s guess how much these people actually know. Those of us who proved willing to sacrifice the advantages of self censorship, suspect they are doing little more than taking our words, filtering them through a lens of political correctness, and publishing them as their own at a profit. Still others would suggest they are the true defenders of Western values, entirely blind to Race and dedicated to the ideas they purport to defend. They attack Leftists and racists alike, attempting to walk a delicate line fraught with glaring contradictions.
Briefly, they tested the limits of YouTube censorship by hosting what were called “Internet Bloodsports”. These were debates hosted by ostensibly neutral moderators between Jews and anti-Semites, civic nationalists and ethnonationalists, libertarians and National Socialists, and other such combinations.
These streams became, in some cases, the number one trends on YouTube. They saw thousands of live viewers, and hundreds of thousands of views on replay. The popularity of the format, combined with the lucrative Super Chats, spawned spinoff channels and brought new producers into the enterprise.
Quickly, they made obvious the true reason for internet censorship, as the racists easily bested their opponents both factually and rhetorically. As quickly as this began, it rapidly began to decline. Producers with large audiences received “Strikes” against their YouTube channels, which prevented them from streaming or monetizing and spelt disaster for their businesses. Try as they might to contort to the rules of the platform, the purposeful vaguery and ever expanding definition of “hate speech” made this impossible.
It was not good enough to avoid using racial epithets or, “Hard R’s” as they are sometimes referred to. It was not good enough to refrain from advocacy of extreme political solutions or other forms of violence. Mentioning Jewish influence, black crime, and other clearly ethnic problems, was set upon by the thought police no matter how politely or discreetly mentioned. Before long the streams resembled little more than profanity laden AM talk radio.
For those of us who would not back down, it is difficult not to see these self censorious producers as traitors and intellectual cowards. After all, the thought police could not possibly endeavor to censor the whole lot of us, and if enough of us all stood for the truth, then surely the truth would prevail. Right? Why do these timid souls refuse to join our righteous struggle for truth?
We get censored, we suffer socially and economically, we are assaulted, framed for crimes, and frivolously sued, all for telling the truths which they distort for profit. They bow to the whims of the most destructive forces on Earth, lie for a living, and gain the rewards which are rightfully ours. Resentment barely begins to describe the feeling this instills in us.
One is left to imagine what would happen if these producers took the popularity they had gained and turned it to our purposes. Perhaps the thought police would be defeated in a day. Perhaps a revolution, be it martial or intellectual in nature.
Dwelling on this injustice, and contemplating the alternatives, drives a great deal of Right wing infighting. To them, we are “Nazi Larpers” and to us they are “cucks”. To us they are sellouts, and to them we are ineffective purity spiralers. Together we are perpetually at one another’s throats, while the enemy celebrates a divided foe.
I have struggled to come to terms with all of this in my own life. At the risk of seeming immodest, I am far from the only person who says I am extraordinarily talented and intelligent. At each step along the way in my media career, I have been met with difficult choices about what to say, and I have seemingly always chosen the one least likely to help me achieve my full professional potential. I am certain, that if I had chosen to moderate my message, I would be a top YouTube personality to say the least. I used to be on broadcast radio, and could easily have continued to prominence in that arena, or perhaps satellite.
Sitting here, hundreds of miles from my home, watching money go out faster than it comes in, listening to threatening voicemails, and facing trial on false charges which could easily see me die in prison for a lie, I would be insane not to consider whether I’d have been better off following the course of the people I spend so much time and effort resenting. In contemplating this, I would be just as insane not to conclude that I in fact would be better off, personally.
The question then becomes one of something greater than myself. Am I suffering for a higher purpose than my own success or satisfaction? Or am I just sacrificing myself for the same martyrdom complex of the Leftists I hope to defeat?
Could I have done a better job of spreading my message, and helping my Nation, if I had “played the game” and expanded my reach? Should I have played just a little bit longer to grow that reach, and then take the Radical path later?
I will never know because my expulsion from these platforms is permanent. I cannot make a new account and try to play, because my very identity is now hate speech.
With that in mind, I try to temper my resentment. One who self censors and plays along with the enemy always has the option of taking a hard right turn, and dragging a portion of his audience along with him. One who makes the decision prematurely never gets the chance to build the type of following he otherwise might have built.
My ideological progression began with libertarianism. I stumbled across “Men’s Rights” because I found feminism annoying, and began writing at A Voice For Men. I began questioning my anti-authoritarianism when a couple of cops saved me from having to shoot somebody. I discovered race realism from a Stefan Molyneux video on Race & IQ. I became aware of the Jewish Question thanks to callers on the Radical Agenda.
It was a decidedly gradual process, which might never have ensued if not for a spectrum of moderately Right wing viewpoints being available for my consumption and participation.
Political and social change, like any economic arrangement, involves a division of labor. Different people specialize in different things. While the J-Woke Rightist might find a critique of feminism quite futile without mention of Jewish involvement, some normal person who was simply fed up with women bitching at work would likely be repelled by that depth of analysis. Plenty of people are capable of seeing the problems with mass immigration, but would be repelled by any suggestion that this reflects in any way on their non-White fellow Americans. In the racial hierarchy of political correctness, Jews are without rival the most untouchable figures, and uninitiated people understandably think us crazy for tying them to so much of society’s ills.
So while I accept that my position is at the vanguard, I also recognize that the front lines are called the front lines specifically because there are people behind us. As we blaze the trail, overcome the barriers, and suffer the slings and arrows of our foes, we pave the way for those more timid souls follow.
In that sense, we are indispensable to one another, and the fighting serves little purpose.