Back in November 2019 when our Facebook pages were purged—along with Red Ice's—there was little comment or support in the Dissident Right. Red Ice got a few mentions, but not many, while Affirmative Right and our "news n' satire" site Trad News got almost no mentions or support.
Yeh, boo fucking hoo, I know!
That's just the way the Dissident Right operates, plus Aff-Right gets a lot of additional hatred from the Nazitard elements of the Dissident Right, which is fine because we hate them too, and for good reason. But even sites like VDare and the Unz Review—heavy hitters in terms of hits—had little to say about Red Ice, Affirmative Right, and Trad News being kicked off Facebook. Maybe because this sort of thing has happened so many times before.
Now, guess what? It's happened to them. Here's Peter Brimelow of VDare writing to the Facebook bots that "deal" with complaints:
To give you a taste of what I mean, their front page right now includes articles like this:
And this:
The two writers of these pieces—Eric Striker and Andrew Anglin, no less—have said some pretty colourful things about what should happen to the Jews, which it is probably unwise to quote here.
Interestingly Ron Unz, who publishes their work, is himself Jewish. He is clearly one of those Jews who loves the "Jews are the root of all evil" narrative, both because it's good for traffic in the dissident niche that he finds himself in, and because it melodramatically places Jews like himself at the center of attention. (((Mike Enoch))), (((Weev))), and possibly Andrew Anglin are clearly cut from the same cloth.
The reason why all these sites—along with innocent goofballs like Alex Jones and David Icke—are getting kicked off social media is because certain Jewish groups came to the conclusion that social media was leading to the rise of certain metapolitical trends they did not approve of. Their analysis also told them that there was some kind of "network effect" with respectable anti-immigration sites like VDare leading to midbrained Jew-critical sites like Radix and Counter Currents, and then onto conspiritard sites like Red Ice and more purely (((Hollywood Nazi))) content like TRS and the Daily Stormer.
The strategy adopted was a kind of back-handed compliment to Pastor Martin Niemöller's "First They Came..." poem. Y'know, the one that goes:
The first two high profile victims of this strategy were both interesting—Anglin in 2015 and Milo in 2016, both from Twitter. While Milo was internally indefensible, Anglin was externally so.
Milo was an indefensible outlier not so much for his views and content, which was essentially gamergate liberatarianism and low-hanging fruit mockery of blue-haired SJWs, but because the rest of the Dissident Right had no wish to defend a flagrant homosexual who continually boasted about sucking cock of a certain ethnicity.
Anglin was different, he was indefensible not because people wouldn't defend him—many in the then Alt-Right did, as I found out to my cost—but because his expressed views and methods were so toxic that any normie or Big Tech exec would instantly think "Why can't we ban this person?"
This was compounded by Anglin setting his twitter mobs on prominent people like Luciana Berger in countries that had rather robust anti-free speech laws, like the UK, causing serious corporate headaches for Big Tech. Overturning their loose, Hippie-Left commitment to "muh free speech, maaaan" became the path of least resistance. Indeed, the absolute convenience of this to certain nefarious interests is the main reason why I suspect Anglin is a shill and agent provocateur. But even if he is a sincere troll or genuine moron, he may as well have been a disruption agent.
Now, once the process had been "blooded" in this way, it became a case of "rinse and repeat" with more Big Tech "knocks on the door in the middle night," and more "I did not speak out because I was not...X"
Our own site, the actual founding and then defounding site of the Alt-Right (2010-2018), has been greatly deplatformed, even though we have never done anything besides discuss serious issues in a serious way (OK, we sometimes took a break with a funny story). But even our most notorious articles "Holocaust Amnesia Day" and something with the phrase "Black Genocide" in the title were—stylistics aside—completely defensible pieces in moral terms. The first of these articles criticised the weaponisation of highly selective historical tragedy, while the second was actually about White Genocide and how the Left promotes it.
Early on I realised the danger that the Dissident Right was drifting into and attempted to warn others in "the movement." It was this that led to my break with the likes of Mike Enoch, Greg Johnson, and Richard Spencer. The truth was they all liked the view from the cliff they were cheerfully riding over—the Nazier the better—and didn't like anyone calling them idiots as they hurtled towards the jaggy rocks below.
At this site, meanwhile, we were becoming increasingly aware of how our enemies would seek to destroy us using these childish errors. In fact, we were even further ahead of the curve than that. Check here (2011), here (2013), here (2014), and here (2016) for some insight into this progression.
Now, thanks to the stupidity of the Dissident Right in not creating an effective firewall against the Nazifying tendencies of morons and shills, even milquetoast anti-immingration sites like VDare and intellectually diverse big tents like the Unz Review can be kicked off social media with barely a murmur of protest.
Also, this is an election year. There is absolutely no reason why any site supportive of Trump won't face similar treatment—Taki's Mag, Breitbart, who knows what. They can all fall victims to the true internet Naziism of the SPLC and the ADL and their "First They Came..." approach.
Despite the enormous personal inconvenience and added labour this creates for those of us on the Dissident Right who are committed to critiquing our decaying civilisation in a sincere and morally defensible way, I remain ambivalent about all this oppression. Did oppression stamp out Christianity? Did it crush the anti-Communist forces in the Soviet Bloc? No, it did it not. Will it stamp out the need for an honest and uncompromising analysis of the dying West? Of course not.
The Dissident Right's critique of the dysgenic, dysfunctional, multicultural mess that is the modern West cannot die unless those disasters themselves fade and die. It's as simple as that!
Censorship can only rearrange the deckchairs on the sinking Titanic of the multicultural West, and by helping to cull the most toxic and troublesome elements of the Dissident Right it may even be clearing a way to the lifeboats.
But that said, the Dissident Right has to learn from this ten year period (2010-2020) and avoid making similar mistakes. What we need is a new awareness that stops us all being tarred by the same brush of Neo-Nazi self-ghettoisation again and again. This doesn't mean that the JQ is off limits. Asking questions about the role that certain European ethnicities play in the story and fate of our broader civilisation is legitimate. But how and why this is done is everything.
It must come from a place of respect and acknowledgement of the Jewish role in European civilisation. It must not be driven by hatred and a laziness for easy answers. No scapegoat that distracts us from the much deeper problems that bedevil our civilisation can ever be convenient.
I could go into great depth at how retarded and simply wrong this "Grand Semitic Panotheory" is, but this essay is not the place for that. Suffice to say the shortcut towards rebalancing the Dissident Right in a way that finally makes it potent and transformative is a simple and complete rejection of Hitlerism. That is also my vision for the Affirmative Right, because the Dissident Right is, when all is said and done, a thing with no centre—and metapolitics with no centre can only ever become political detritus.
Yeh, boo fucking hoo, I know!
That's just the way the Dissident Right operates, plus Aff-Right gets a lot of additional hatred from the Nazitard elements of the Dissident Right, which is fine because we hate them too, and for good reason. But even sites like VDare and the Unz Review—heavy hitters in terms of hits—had little to say about Red Ice, Affirmative Right, and Trad News being kicked off Facebook. Maybe because this sort of thing has happened so many times before.
Now, guess what? It's happened to them. Here's Peter Brimelow of VDare writing to the Facebook bots that "deal" with complaints:
Dear Facebook...Regarding the termination of our account, we are completely baffled. We were, of course, dismayed to discover the termination and have awaited explanation for four long days. You gave us no warning. We have to date not received any communications at all regarding any strikes, decisions or justifications for this unwarranted termination. The first we hear is from a public statement defaming our business and implicating us in some wild scheme of which we had no part.And here's Ron Unz kvetching:
Just over a month ago I was riding high and celebrating the steady upward progress of our alternative media webzine. I proudly noted that our traffic had now far surpassed that of the venerable New Republic, a century old publication that had spent decades as America’s most influential opinion magazine.Yes, totally innocent. But then again maybe not. Unz Review sucks up pretty hard to the Nazitard element in the Dissident Right, and has little liking for content like mine that questions this, although I have been published there as well, wouldn't ya know it!
But pride goeth before the fall. At the end of April we were suddenly purged and banned by Facebook, the world’s leading social network. Not only was our rudimentary Facebook page removed, but every last item of our website content was declared illegal, with all past and future links eliminated. Any attempt to post our material on Facebook now produces an error message reporting that the content is “abusive” and a violation of “community standards.”
Although I personally don’t use Facebook or other social networks, billions of people do, and totally excluding all of our content from that important distribution channel eventually produced a 20% drop in our regular daily traffic, a serious blow that set us back many months.
At first I was rather surprised by this unexpected development. After all, we had already spent years publishing articles and posts of an extremely controversial nature, notably including my own American Pravda series. As far back as 2018, my writings had been attacked by the ADL, though that notoriously ferocious organization seemed rather perfunctory and milquetoast in its denunciation. During all this time, we had not incurred any Facebook penalties, but now we had suddenly been totally banned.
To give you a taste of what I mean, their front page right now includes articles like this:
And this:
The two writers of these pieces—Eric Striker and Andrew Anglin, no less—have said some pretty colourful things about what should happen to the Jews, which it is probably unwise to quote here.
Interestingly Ron Unz, who publishes their work, is himself Jewish. He is clearly one of those Jews who loves the "Jews are the root of all evil" narrative, both because it's good for traffic in the dissident niche that he finds himself in, and because it melodramatically places Jews like himself at the center of attention. (((Mike Enoch))), (((Weev))), and possibly Andrew Anglin are clearly cut from the same cloth.
The reason why all these sites—along with innocent goofballs like Alex Jones and David Icke—are getting kicked off social media is because certain Jewish groups came to the conclusion that social media was leading to the rise of certain metapolitical trends they did not approve of. Their analysis also told them that there was some kind of "network effect" with respectable anti-immigration sites like VDare leading to midbrained Jew-critical sites like Radix and Counter Currents, and then onto conspiritard sites like Red Ice and more purely (((Hollywood Nazi))) content like TRS and the Daily Stormer.
The strategy adopted was a kind of back-handed compliment to Pastor Martin Niemöller's "First They Came..." poem. Y'know, the one that goes:
First they came for the CommunistsIn other words, they decided to go for the indefensible outlier, relying on the "I did not speak out because I was not...X" factor, and then moving on up the food chain.
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
The first two high profile victims of this strategy were both interesting—Anglin in 2015 and Milo in 2016, both from Twitter. While Milo was internally indefensible, Anglin was externally so.
Milo was an indefensible outlier not so much for his views and content, which was essentially gamergate liberatarianism and low-hanging fruit mockery of blue-haired SJWs, but because the rest of the Dissident Right had no wish to defend a flagrant homosexual who continually boasted about sucking cock of a certain ethnicity.
Anglin was different, he was indefensible not because people wouldn't defend him—many in the then Alt-Right did, as I found out to my cost—but because his expressed views and methods were so toxic that any normie or Big Tech exec would instantly think "Why can't we ban this person?"
This was compounded by Anglin setting his twitter mobs on prominent people like Luciana Berger in countries that had rather robust anti-free speech laws, like the UK, causing serious corporate headaches for Big Tech. Overturning their loose, Hippie-Left commitment to "muh free speech, maaaan" became the path of least resistance. Indeed, the absolute convenience of this to certain nefarious interests is the main reason why I suspect Anglin is a shill and agent provocateur. But even if he is a sincere troll or genuine moron, he may as well have been a disruption agent.
Now, once the process had been "blooded" in this way, it became a case of "rinse and repeat" with more Big Tech "knocks on the door in the middle night," and more "I did not speak out because I was not...X"
Our own site, the actual founding and then defounding site of the Alt-Right (2010-2018), has been greatly deplatformed, even though we have never done anything besides discuss serious issues in a serious way (OK, we sometimes took a break with a funny story). But even our most notorious articles "Holocaust Amnesia Day" and something with the phrase "Black Genocide" in the title were—stylistics aside—completely defensible pieces in moral terms. The first of these articles criticised the weaponisation of highly selective historical tragedy, while the second was actually about White Genocide and how the Left promotes it.
Early on I realised the danger that the Dissident Right was drifting into and attempted to warn others in "the movement." It was this that led to my break with the likes of Mike Enoch, Greg Johnson, and Richard Spencer. The truth was they all liked the view from the cliff they were cheerfully riding over—the Nazier the better—and didn't like anyone calling them idiots as they hurtled towards the jaggy rocks below.
 |
| Did not realise their Fuhrer was just an edgy boi. |
Now, thanks to the stupidity of the Dissident Right in not creating an effective firewall against the Nazifying tendencies of morons and shills, even milquetoast anti-immingration sites like VDare and intellectually diverse big tents like the Unz Review can be kicked off social media with barely a murmur of protest.
Also, this is an election year. There is absolutely no reason why any site supportive of Trump won't face similar treatment—Taki's Mag, Breitbart, who knows what. They can all fall victims to the true internet Naziism of the SPLC and the ADL and their "First They Came..." approach.
Despite the enormous personal inconvenience and added labour this creates for those of us on the Dissident Right who are committed to critiquing our decaying civilisation in a sincere and morally defensible way, I remain ambivalent about all this oppression. Did oppression stamp out Christianity? Did it crush the anti-Communist forces in the Soviet Bloc? No, it did it not. Will it stamp out the need for an honest and uncompromising analysis of the dying West? Of course not.
The Dissident Right's critique of the dysgenic, dysfunctional, multicultural mess that is the modern West cannot die unless those disasters themselves fade and die. It's as simple as that!
Censorship can only rearrange the deckchairs on the sinking Titanic of the multicultural West, and by helping to cull the most toxic and troublesome elements of the Dissident Right it may even be clearing a way to the lifeboats.
But that said, the Dissident Right has to learn from this ten year period (2010-2020) and avoid making similar mistakes. What we need is a new awareness that stops us all being tarred by the same brush of Neo-Nazi self-ghettoisation again and again. This doesn't mean that the JQ is off limits. Asking questions about the role that certain European ethnicities play in the story and fate of our broader civilisation is legitimate. But how and why this is done is everything.
It must come from a place of respect and acknowledgement of the Jewish role in European civilisation. It must not be driven by hatred and a laziness for easy answers. No scapegoat that distracts us from the much deeper problems that bedevil our civilisation can ever be convenient.
I could go into great depth at how retarded and simply wrong this "Grand Semitic Panotheory" is, but this essay is not the place for that. Suffice to say the shortcut towards rebalancing the Dissident Right in a way that finally makes it potent and transformative is a simple and complete rejection of Hitlerism. That is also my vision for the Affirmative Right, because the Dissident Right is, when all is said and done, a thing with no centre—and metapolitics with no centre can only ever become political detritus.
