By Karl Radl
In last few days, we have seen right-wing sites that do not conform to the classic politics of perpetual principled failure of the Republican Party- failure that has been the status quo since the advent of the Buckley era in the 1960s- attacked in ways that many of us could barely have imagined just a week ago.
We knew that the globalist establishment would do something to get even with us after we triggered them to the moon in Charlottesville, but little could have prepared us for the sheer… well… audacious illegality of their response.
What we have seen is websites as innocuous as VDare being booted from Paypal with no warning, while the Daily Stormer, on the more radical populist end of the spectrum, was (illegally) scrubbed from the internet by Google and had their contract unilaterally terminated by web hosting giant GoDaddy. YouTube and Twitter have also instituted a fresh round of purges of accounts that didn’t advocate violence, but rather argued for the acceptance of views that the liberal globalist elite don’t like. The stated reason for this was that said groups and sites ‘breached’ their terms of service. However, their content hadn’t changed: What changed all at once was the attitude of all the big digital infrastructure corporations.
Think of it this way: How many Marxist-Leninist sites have been or are being actively taken down for advocating violent communist revolution - which is the core of their ideology - against the government of the United States?
Has Slavoj Zizek – the ‘superstar’ Slovenian Marxist philosopher – been deplatformed and banned by YouTube for suggesting in an interview – for a BBC documentary on the French Revolution – that the physical extermination of the enemies of the left is both moral and justified?
Yet, if you dare say that Islam is not the religion of peace on YouTube, you get banned with extreme prejudice in double quick time.
The globalist cabal hasn’t stopped there either, with attempts to migrate hosting services being met with brazen denials of service on explicitly political grounds. If that isn’t a direct corporate conspiracy to deny right-wingers with a spine the ability to take part in internet’s great debate – which, incidentally, the political left and the superstitious liberals who pretend they are ‘limited government principled conservatives’ have coincidentally been so badly losing as of late – then I don’t know what is.
Not only is this likely in violation of federal antitrust laws, but it also potentially falls under federal legislation targeting organised crime for the simple reason that this globalist corporate conspiracy is actually trying to use its monopoly position to facilitate left-wing political violence against right-wingers. Their goal is to beat the right until they are black and blue and can be put in their little circle jerk of perpetual failure once more, having learnt their lesson at the end of a baseball bat.
It is also, interestingly, the same strategy that counter-terrorist experts and US intelligence community carried out against Islamic State, using the same companies.
This is explained by J.M. Berger and Jessica Stern in their 2015 book ‘ISIS: The State of Terror’ where they argue against the conventional wisdom of engaging in a strategy analogous to ‘whack-a-mole’. This analogy holds simply that if you ban one member of the group you don’t like on social media, they will simply pop up again. The authors held that there was little point in banning individuals, as it would not stop those concerned. They proposed instead that passive weapons such as doxing, peer pressure and smart mobs were the preferred methods of limiting the discussion.
What Berger and Stern perceived was that if the accounts of the group(s) concerned were banned consistently and quickly, the groups became demotivated after a period of time due to the amount of time and energy they were expending for so little reward. Eventually, the mole did indeed stay whacked.
They argued this strategy could and should be coupled with the systematic targeted denial of the internet’s infrastructure to the group(s) concerned. This wouldn’t stop them from operating, but would ‘create obstacles’ to recruiting, fundraising and networking.
In other words, Berger and Stern’s account of how Islamic State’s internet-based support base could be (and was) effectively neutered in 2014/2015 is now being deployed against right-wingers. The strategies Berger and Stern suggested are now being employed by the same corporations who were schooled in their use by the US intelligence services and are being egged on by hilariously out-of-touch media corporations.
What is different about this application of the deplatforming strategy used against Islamic State when compared to that currently underway against the right-wingers in the United States is simply a matter of scale. In the former instance, it was a unified strategy against a relatively small number of unpopular activists with a limited real following and even less persuasive power. Now, it is being used on a mass movement which has developed a media reach which parallels that of the mainstream media itself and has as a level of brand recognition that would make Walmart jealous.
This means that deplatforming a large number of right-wing organisations, websites and accounts hits a very broad swathe of opinion. It isn’t just targeting ‘Nazis,’ or even race realists, but anti-immigration conservatives and those who just want an America First, not an Israel First, foreign policy for the United States as well.
By thus impacting the moderates on the right, as well as the radicals, the globalists are forced into the rather awkward strategic position of looking distinctly like the Stasi to hundreds of thousands of people – people they supposedly want to ‘educate’ and ‘de-radicalize’ - who subscribe to these channels and visit these sites, not just the few hundred people who read Richard Spencer’s latest article or the thousands who watch Millennial Woes’ videos.
Striking in this way also brings the moderates and radicals on the right into common cause and exposes the large moderate audience to the ideas of the radicals by virtue of having to defend the radicals in order to both be consistent and maintain their own political credibility. This leads to an increasing shift over time towards the more radical position within the moderate audience; this situation is also facilitated by the increased status accorded to the radicals as those targeted with the most drastic measures.
This will only benefit the more radical elements of the right, which will in turn lead to the further normalisation of race realism and counter-Semitism in the right more broadly. It will also lead to the radicals being increasingly more credible than the moderates, in part because moderates by their very nature do not tend to have strong principles and focus less on what is right, but rather on what pays.
The famous Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser pointed out to Maria Antonietta Macciocchi in ‘Letters from Inside the Communist Party to Louis Althusser,’ the people will only come to an understanding of the political reality when they perceive the current situation is both unsustainable and actively preventing them from living their lives in relative comfort. By deplatforming right-wingers across a broad spectrum of thought, the globalist liberal elite has actively made the situation unsustainable for the average politically aware, vaguely conservative individual. They have banned right-wing political expression, and made trying to consume such material have economic and social consequences, directly inhibiting the ability of the individual to live a life of relative comfort and creating a fertile soil for the growth of resentment towards the globalist liberal elite and the Marxist radicals that are its most prominent enforcers.
Combating this deplatforming strategy is in reality fairly simple.
- You must stand your ground and not get discouraged, no matter how many times you are banned and/or deplatformed. However, do get smarter in how you register and share the truth. Remember: This isn’t about you, but rather about the future of your children, loved ones and nation. They will thank and honour you some day.
- Keep producing and spreading high quality articles, cartoons, infographics, live streams, memes, podcasts and videos. This is what keeps us moving forward and frightens our enemies so much that they have to resort to brazen illegality to shut us down.
- Keep using the techniques of bullying moderates and leftists, trolling comments sections and journalists and dropping information and links into threads where people will see the content. Get that message out there and have fun doing it, because you never know when you might discover the next Trigglypuff.
- Keep doxing and exposing our enemies who break the law. If our ‘ideas have consequences,’ as they say, then so must theirs.
In short: we must act like nothing has changed and instead of panicking and wondering about ‘what if they come for me next’ – which is part of what makes Berger and Stern’s strategy so effective – we simply up the tempo and produce the opposite result to that which the deplatforming strategy was designed to.
Up and at ‘em boys and girls.
Up and at ‘em.