Tag: alt-right

Censoring The Alt-Right Is About As Counter-Productive As We Can Get

By Colin Louis | United States

Over the last couple of weeks, new revelations have come forward about Facebook’s use of user data. This, along with bannings on various social media platforms, has raised several questions about social media censorship.

Many supporters of censorship claim that it will prevent giving the Alt-Right a platform on social media. They may sound good in theory, but they don’t work in practice. Extremists still spread extremism online.

There are two ways we can take on this problem of Alt-Right online extremism; we can debate or we can ban. Censorship is not the way to go.

Let’s see who’s not being censored.

Richard Spencer, a White Supremacist and founder of the Alt-Right still has a Twitter and Instagram account.

Matthew Heimbach, a Neo-Nazi and leader of the Traditionalist Workers Party still has a YouTube account that he posts his hateful videos.

Paul Nehlen, a White Nationalist and candidate for Wisconsin’s first congressional district still has an Instagram account.

AltRight.com, the literal website for the Alt-Right is fully functional.

BloodandSoil.org, the website for the white nationalist group ‘Patriot Front’ is actively recruiting members on their website. (“Blood and Soil” was a nazi chant yelled at Charlottesville.)

Nsm88.org, the official website for the National Socialist Movement, the new American Nazi Party is still fully functional. The “88” in the website name is code for “hail Hitler,” (The 8th letter of the alphabet is H. HH is short for “hail Hitler.”)

The point is that censorship by Google, Twitter, and YouTube doesn’t work against the Alt-Right. While it’s unfortunate, regardless of if we shut them up or not hate will continue to spread and we should take a better approach to it. The Alt-Right is an ideology of hate that can only be combated with free speech.

The only solution is to debate them and prove their ideology wrong (just as one would with any other dangerous ideology).

If you want to show the world that Nazism and White Supremacy aren’t the way to go, beat them in debate and prove to the internet they are wrong. Use facts and logic as your sword, not censorship.

Even if you take away their platform racists are still going to be racist.

If you beat them on their platform you will see what little influence they have. Take Richard Spencer’s speech in Florida: almost nobody would have showed up if the Governor hadn’t declared a state of emergency. By taking their platform away they can tell people “they want to censor us because we tell the truth!”

Censoring them makes it look like they are winning. It makes the other side look scared of their arguments. It is the weak thing to do.

So, don’t use censorship to attack the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is a force of hate and ignorance, but we need to use logic to prove them wrong. Removing a couple of twitter pages won’t do anything, we need to focus our force on destroying their core philosophy.

Featured image source.



GAB Goes Crypto: Free Speech Social Network Set To Launch ICO

By Spencer Kellogg | UNITED STATES

With the increased scrutiny that has been aimed at conservative and libertarian voices across all social networks, Twitter and Facebook alternative GAB has represented a safe haven for free speech advocates. The telecommunication and social networking site is often decried by major publications as “alt-right” but their mission, from the start, has been to offer an internet zone where people are judged on the merits of their ideas instead of the implicit bias of buzzwords often used to eliminate and denounce opinions that sit beyond the pale of polite, politically correct conversation. In its relative infancy, the site has become ground zero for right-wing voices that are blacklisted, whitelisted, and pitchforked into obscurity by an anti-open speech mob mentality present within all major social network outlets.

GAB’s mission from the start has been to create a peer to peer, ad-free, censorship proof social network. On their website – https://www.startengine.com/gab-select – interested users and investors can reserve participation in The Exodus Protocol which seeks to implement GAB’s open network ideas through the blockchain. “Our vision is to evolve beyond one application by empowering developers from around the world to build on top of an open peer-to-peer social media protocol. We are calling this the Exodus Protocol and will be building on top of existing open sourced peer-to-peer technology to create a new peer-to-peer social media protocol of our own.”

According to an SEC filing obtained on Thursday, GAB has decided to throw their hat into the crypto ring. Sold at a value of $5 per coin, the $10 million dollar SEC regulated ICO is set to launch in August and will represent a little more than 16% of the company’s equity (SEC Application). With a hard cap of only $10 million dollars, GAB is standing strong against the ICO gold rush that has burned many investors. They are valuing their company at a fair rate and are taking the proper steps to ensure that their investors are protected and treated fairly. GAB has long stood in opposition to the wild west mentality of ICO’s that has seen some investors become millionaires overnight while others have lost substantial value after buying into unregulated and massively overbought and overhyped projects in their infancy. Oddly enough, the free speech platform has been one of the only advocates for performing a sanitary ICO that is completely above board and regulated within the current standards of SEC compliance.

In October, GAB posted an outline of their reasons behind performing an above-board ICO (The World’s First Reg A+ ICO): “In light of these dumpster fires of risk and problems, Gab has been exploring the road less traveled with ICO’s: regulation and SEC compliance. Gab seeks to build for the long-term future, not pump and dump on a get-rich-quick scheme or provide some sort of liquidity for Venture Capitalists and their LP’s. Our goal is to empower people and defend free speech and expression on the internet at all costs.”

In April of 2017, GAB was denied inclusion on the Google Play Store, a move that they saw as a violation of federal anti-trust laws and indicative of what we have come to see as the common practice of anti-speech throughout all major social networking platforms.   With the increasing centralization of internet applications and forums, the decision to outlaw GAB on the Google Play Store poses serious ramifications to the free speech startup as many everyday internet users are kept from accessing the site. From Gab’s website:  “While Gab’s fight against BigTech’s control on speech may not immediately topple the giants, it is a critical first step in showing that these companies cannot arbitrarily use their market power to stamp out pro-free speech competitors. As mainstream social networks continue to censor certain views and crack down on what they choose to be ‘objectionable content,’ consumers’ hunger for alternative platforms will only continue to rise.  In addition, the trend of ‘cutting the cord’ will also continue as the popularity of streaming content over the internet increases. ”




On Thursday morning, Coindesk got wind of the news and published an incendiary title of “Alt-Right ICO?” This led to an avalanche of debate on Twitter and other social media outlets with GAB pointing out that their CTO is a Turkish Muslim and that the characterization by the leading cryptocurrency website was harsh, unfair and bred with all of the contempt and mistruths we see daily in the left orientated media. Oddly enough, cryptocurrency is a theoretically right-wing economic venture yet much of the media that covers the space is happy to retain the same left-wing social goggles that consistently seek to destroy the relevance of any outsider free speech. GAB posted screenshots of their discussion with Coindesk as the writer of the essay defended their clickbait title by suggesting GAB does include “alt-right” voices in their forum.

Here we can see the implicit bias of the academic elite who scorn and misrepresent any voices outside their ivory tower mentality. By this very standard, we could easily call Twitter a ‘communist playground’, or Facebook a leading ‘socialist forum’ given the content posted by users of the site. Furthermore, how can we see the actual true user base of a free speech platform when the platform itself is attacked incessantly and literally hidden by Google from the majority of internet users?

In the SEC filing, GAB outlined their core principles: “We empower creators, support free speech and defend the free flow of information online. We stand for bringing folks together of all races, religions, and creeds who share in the common ideals of Western values, individual liberty and the free exchange and flow of information. Our mission is to provide people with the tools they need to create and shape their own experience.”

Doesn’t sound very “alt-right” to me…

Image from The Verge.

The Washington Post is Wrong; Libertarians are NOT Similar to the Alt-Right

By Mason Mohon | USA

The mainstream media has continued its seemingly eternal attack on the political philosophy of freedom and individualism, and this time, it is almost laughable.

On Tuesday, the Washington Post published an article by John Ganz titled “Libertarians have more in common with the alt-right than they want you to think”. John Ganz himself is an executive editor at Genius.com, a website that is solely based around music. With his background in music behind him, he seems to think he is ready to tie the defense of liberty to the hateful ideologies of the far right.

But enough on the author, let us look what he actually has said in an attack on the good kind of liberalism.

Ron Paul and Racism?

The first thing a reader of the article sees is an image of Ron Paul, captioned with an accusation of racist rhetoric. After a summary of the events in Charlottesville, Ganz goes in on this, connecting Murray Rothbard to Lew Rockwell, who he claims wrote ” a series of virulently racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic newsletters on behalf of Ron Paul.”

This part of the article seemed to be attempting to link Ron Paul to racism and homophobia. Dr. Paul has been linked to a controversy regarding these letters for decades, yet assailants of him have always been ignorant of the truth.

First, they are commonly taken out of context, such as the quote used in the Washington Post article which was as follows:

I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,

This may seem like a blatant show of libertarian racism, but that is because the full quote was not expressed.

Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

It takes very little thought to recognize that what he meant was that the laughable D.C. criminal justice system had been criminalizing black people by their own standards, not that the black community was inherently criminal.

Furthermore, Dr. Paul is not responsible for these newsletters. No doubt, Ganz blamed Rockwell for their writing, but he is still making the attempt to smear the libertarian icon as a bigot when he is clearly not, as shown by the article’s own photo caption. A full story of Paul’s responses to the newsletter controversy can be found here.

The strategy of racial signaling practiced by Lew Rockwell was a bad and ineffective practice that has not been used to a serious extent ever since, and the actions of Rockwell provide no ground to accuse Dr. Paul or libertarianism as a whole of any kind of racism.

Lastly, on the subject of Ron Paul’s leanings on the idea of race, I would strongly suggest reading his manifesto The Revolution, which makes abundantly clear that Paul views racism as a form of collectivism and on the antithesis of libertarian values of individualism. Seeing as that it is merely six dollars on Amazon, I am amazed that John Ganz did not take the liberty of purchasing it for himself so he would at least be somewhat educated on the people he was trying to attack.

Murray Rothbard, David Duke, and Populism

Let us not forget that Murray Rothbard’s parents were Jewish immigrants to the United States that came from Poland and Russia. With this knowledge, shouting that Rothbard was a Nazi or fascist sympathizer in any light can only be seen as ignorant and a result of not looking deep into the background of the Austrian economist.

Ganz’s biggest attack on Rothbard himself seemed to be about his essay, Right-Wing Populism, which was published in January of 1992, that most notably provides reflections on the presidential run of David Duke and advocates for the abolition of race-based laws, along with an “America First” idea.

On David Duke, Rothbard himself was a descendant of two Jews and by no means a white supremacist. Rather, he praised the ideas of racial equality for all that Duke actually advocated for, along with David Duke’s more libertarian-leaning economic policies.

Rothbard goes on to critique affirmative action and race-based quotas, along with the remnants of the civil rights movement’s legal impact. Affirmative action is essentially telling people of certain races that they aren’t as good as their white peers so they need a boost. Affirmative action is engaging in its own racism while attempting to pursue nobility by meeting ‘race quotas’ which judge people based on the color of skin, rather than the content of heart and mind. No doubt Rothbard was against these things, as would be the case of any other sensible person.

The legal results of the civil rights movement have been the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, which should not exist. Owner of private property should be able to choose who has access to that private property, however bigoted their reasons may be.

Moreover, Ganz attempts to give Murray Rothbard a Trumpian tie, merely because they both use the series of words “America First.” The writer claims Rothbard was advocating for “economic nationalism,” something President Trump has been notorious for, while Trump’s form of nationalism is collectivism, which is in stark contrast to Rothbard’s criticism of providing foreign aid to other countries. Why wouldn’t he oppose this foreign aid, when it amounts to nothing more than creating dependent countries while problems still arise here in the United States.

Ganz’s criticisms of Murray Rothbard are poorly founded and barely backed and should be disregarded.

Hoppe, Segregation, Private Property and White Nationalism

The article continues by discussing the Property and Freedom Society founded by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and how various white nationalists have been invited to speak there. Hans-Hermann Hoppe himself is not a supporter of racism and has been against the growing issue of right-wing authoritarianism and fascism in the U.S. since before it was a major issue, and he does not represent the liberty movement as a whole.

The article brings up three people who have spoken at the Property and Freedom Society: Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and Peter Brimelow. Richard Spencer himself is by no means a libertarian, stating that he is against most right wingers and a supporter of socialism in this youtube video. People do not like Spencer, especially libertarians. He was accused of being brain dead in an article by popular Anarcho-Capitalist site Liberty Hangout.

Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow are not libertarians either. They are both white nationalists, and this sort of ethnic identity is a cancerous form of collectivism that should be put down and shunned by libertarians. Consider this that shunning. They are not libertarian and should not be used to represent libertarians in any capacity.

After the attempt to connect libertarians to white nationalists, Ganz now brings up how Hoppe is in support of segregation by owners of private property, as he should be. Nobody is obligated to let anyone on their property, and the state shouldn’t force them to. if a neighborhood does not want to provide housing for a particular race for whatever reason, they reserve every right to do so. Market forces provide the disadvantage of a competing neighborhood offering to house without bigotry that would result in monetary loss for the racist one. The state should not be in the business of making sure we aren’t racist, as I mentioned before when mentioning the Civil Rights movement.

Hoppe’s statement from his book “Democracy: The God that Failed” is also criticized. It portrays people that do not understand very basic human action as barely human or not human at all, but Ganz takes the quote out of context and eliminates the reasoning. It is found on page 173 of the book and can be read here.

The Meaning of Libertarianism

John Ganz’s final criticism is supported by a confusion between mainstream libertarianism and Randian objectivism. He accuses libertarians of basing their ideology off of self-interest that ultimately leads to collectivist racism, but this is wrong. Libertarianism is the belief that everyone has nature (or God) given rights, and nobody has rights that infringe on anyone else’s. These rights are life, body, and property.

I would like to conclude first by saying that John Ganz has no idea what he is talking about when he discusses what it means to be libertarian, and second with a Murray Rothbard quote.

My own basic perspective on the history of man…is to place central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power… I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life.

For further libertarian offense against the alt-right, I suggest the following article by Jeffrey Tucker:


Berkeley Braces for a Battle that Will Hopefully Never Come

Thanks to free speech, Berkeley has braced for war.
Thursday, Ben Shapiro descended on UC-Berkeley to give a speech covering a multitude of topics. While speaking, he addressed matters ranging from personal responsibility to identity politics. He also took the time to denounce the Alt-Right and have an open Q&A session.

Sounds dangerous, doesn’t it?

Yes, that is a ridiculous question, but hours before Ben Shapiro’s speech, concrete barriers had been erected, campus buildings were shut down, and a secure perimeter was erected. The City Council even voted to allow police to use pepper spray in case another riot erupted during the course of the speech.

On the other side of the battle line, Antifa was also preparing for the event. The group hung signs around UC-Berkeley which insisted that the ironically named anti-fascists needed to “fight for what’s true and what we must do.” Refuse Fascism also insisted that fascism “will not stop if militant resistance stops.” Insistent on silencing everyone who disagrees with them, the anti-fascists and their counterparts were gearing up for protest against a string of right-wing speakers slated to speak at Berkeley

Ben Shapiro was just the beginning.

Later on, there will be speeches given by individuals like Milo Yannopoulos, Steve Bannon, and Ann Coulter. Given the track record of protests, riots, and terror attacks by Antifa in response to speeches given by conservatives and other right-wingers, it is perhaps appropriate that the police were better armed and more physical obstacles put in place.

At the same time, it is also heartening to know that, in the wake of Ben Shapiro’s speech, there were only nine people arrested, and there were no injuries. In spite of the violence encouraged by left-wing terror organizations, all of the protests against Mr. Shapiro seemed to be peaceful and respectful. It is refreshing to see some humanity and decency considering the violence that seems to besiege individuals who attempt to exercise their right to free speech.

Even though UC-Berkeley has turned into a garrison for the time being, it is inspiring. Perhaps this is a turning point. I would be remiss to ignore the peaceful protestors and everyone who makes their voice heard without the use of political violence. I cautiously hope that this is a turning point for the nation: I hope that people are becoming more willing to listen and talk peacefully. At this point, only time will tell if my hopes, and indeed the hopes of a civil and prosperous nation, are in vain.


Editorial: Antifa Is Political Extremism and Needs To Be Treated As Such

by Joe Lehmann | U.S.

In politics, disagreement is natural. Emotion and passionate argument is to be expected. However, those emotions have recently spilled over into the realm of political violence. Thanks to echo chambers and provocations from both sides, individuals on the left and right have become radicalized, polarized, and violent. Having been subject to both violence and insults from radicalized individuals, I am acutely aware of how disheartening and dangerous those things are.
After multiple outbursts of violence, however, governments are finally beginning to take notice. After forcing the American public to suffer through attacks by Antifa at Berkeley, Sacramento, Orange County, and Charlottesville, there are individuals and agencies taking a stand.

(Before I’m inevitably attacked for ignoring the violence from the white supremacists, I would like to concede that there was violence and barbarity from everyone involved. I am neither rationalizing nor forgiving the violence of one side).

The first agencies to recognize the terrorist tendencies of Antifa were the FBI and DHS. In a report entitled Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements from 2016, the agencies report that the Antifa spends weeks planning for violence at right-wing events. The New Jersey Department of Homeland Security also warned about the organizations and describes its actions as “INCITING VIOLENCE TOWARD FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS.” Former New York City police officer and expert on domestic militants Brian Levin testifies that “…both the racists and a segment of violent Antifa counter-protestors are amped for battle in an escalating arms race, where police departments are outmaneuvered, resulting in increasingly violent dangerous confrontations.”

With upcoming demonstrations by right wing groups in Texas, Oregon, Missouri and Florida, the danger of violent conflict and indeed death is very real. Before I conclude this piece, I would like to make a direct request to anyone who might be attending a rally or protest: please be smart, be safe, and be intelligent. The way to beat the side you do not like is with debate and discussion, not killing, destruction, and dehumanization.

It’s time for the rest of the nation to heed the warnings of individual experts, the FBI, and the state and federal DHS. Antifa is a dangerous organization. They commit violent acts in order to terrify the government and society into alignment with their ideas. It’s time we take a stand against hate from Antifa, the KKK, and any other group that espouses hate and violence. These groups exist to feed their own power and ignorance and divide the nation. Radicals on the left and right hate what America stands for: they hate equality and freedom and natural rights. If we cherish American values, then all domestic terror networks need to be dismantled by intelligent dialogue and passionate debate. Together we can save America before it gets torn apart by selfish and ignorant children.