Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Except if you read the article carefully, it is clear he was never actually a member of ‘the alt-right’. He was always a leftist who just used to watch alt-light youtube videos and who fancied Lauren Southern.

* No one has ever been a “member” of “the alt-right.”

* Imagine having the high ground in every single cultural institution and this is the best psyop you can do.

* The problem is you can’t just copy youtube. You need a payment processor, and financial institutions fold like a cheap suit when the SJWs get on them. So either you don’t allow “far right” material on your youtube clone, giving nobody a reason to use your site, or you have to use a porn payment processor, meaning the playing field is tilted toward youtube before you even get started.

* The idea of analyzing a data dump of his YouTube history is pretty interesting.

These are the four things that Roose lists as beliefs that Cain accepted after watching “far-right decentralized cult YouTube personalities”:

— Western civilization is under threat from Muslim immigrants
— Western civilization is under threat from cultural Marxists
— Innate I.Q. differences explain racial disparities
— Feminism is a dangerous ideology

Cain did not buy into the following ideas:

— Holocaust denial
— The need for a white ethnostate

His far-right binge led Cain to:

— Identify as a traditional conservative committed to old-fashioned gender norms
— Date an evangelical Christian woman
— Debate liberal friends (which implies he had and retained liberal friends)

Rejecting his far-right beliefs led Cain to:

— Buy a gun
— Start his own YouTube channel with left-wing edgy humor and memes

Props to Roose for being specific about the beliefs of his subject and not exaggerating things. The four beliefs that Cain had seem pretty reasonable to me (depending on a couple of definitions). His resulting behavior seems positive, a girlfriend, doubts about World War T, and a viewpoint-diverse social circle. The things he rejected show that he balanced the evidence and made his own decisions. Not bad for “an aimless young man interested in video games.”

On the other hand, becoming a left-wing YouTuber and buying a Glock seem like unfortunate developments. I wish him the best. I don’t think the YouTube gig is going to pay enough to support marriage to his girlfriend (if she is still around).

* Caleb Cain had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

* All the talk about how YouTube’s algorithms “played into the hands” of far-right creators seems to boil down to “their videos were popular! Damn them!”

* Voxday has started unauthorized tv. It is not exactly like youtube, but it does have some great stuff on it. Owen Benjamin is putting his stuff there, David the Good, and medievalist professor Rachel Fulton Brown is creating a medieval history class that will be on there. It is the ground floor beginning for this option so I am looking forward to see how it grows. unauthorized.tv is the website.

* Have you guys ever wondered if one could ever become un-redpilled?

I mean, once you’ve read about and understood the proofs for race realism and IQ differences etc., is it possible to just go back to believing normie things? How does that work?

I’d think that some of these “former alt-right” guys are consciously lying (i.e. they want to get their jobs/social lives/etc. back), while the rest might never have fully understood the thing at all. I don’t know what the proportions are, but I’d guess the majority is in the consciously lying category.

* A ‘radical’ is of course a leftist, the equivalent on the right being ‘reactionary.’

So the title of the piece, ‘The Making of a Youtube Radical,’ is accurate, if unintentionally so.

There’s room to move in denazification, Caleb! Keep up the good work, comrade.

* Here, to my mind, is the money quote from this garbage NYT article:

“But critics and independent researchers say YouTube has inadvertently created a dangerous on-ramp to extremism by combining two things: a business model that rewards provocative videos with exposure and advertising dollars, and an algorithm that guides users down personalized paths meant to keep them glued to their screens.”

The problem, you see, is that YouTube is giving people what they want and allowing them to follow their own “personalized path.” We can’t have that!

As usual, the NYT is all-in for a revanchist program that puts people like them back in control of the information people are allowed to see.

* This is analogous to how academia shut down race research. You had to get funded by Pioneer and present your paper at American Reconnaissance’s conference and get published by Mankind Quarterly. No one else would touch you. You had to associate with outfits that were easy for the other side to slime, which meant that nobody ever read your research.

* Most white people want hate speech censured, particularly on venues like YouTube, which is essentially an over the air TV network like ABC or NBC with no restrictions to access. Normal, rational white people don’t want their kids exposed to hateful alt-right dogma. They don’t want their kids to go down a rabbit hole of white nationalist indoctrination and radicalization, which has the potential to ruin their lives.

I own Alphabet stock as do many other people I know. As far as I know, none of these people want to own stock in a cesspool of racism and hate speech. There have been very serious campaigns launched by stockholders and advertisers to clean up YouTube. Beyond that, private companies have always been able to police the speech promulgated on their platforms. This is not even a First Amendment issue, as it isn’t the government that is abridging speech, although the First Amendment too has its limits.

Here is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The alt-righters that style themselves as strict First Amendment absolutists apparently have never read it. Or having read it, don’t understand it. Because all the clauses therein, with the exception of Establishment, are designed to empower the majority with all the tools it needs to destroy a fringe movement like the alt-right.

Freedom of speech works both ways. They can shout you down.

Freedom of the press is lethal to you. There has been a constant drumbeat of anti-alt-right articles, particularly since Charlottesville. Big tech takes notice.

Freedom of assembly means when you assemble, your opponents can assemble. And they tend to greatly outnumber you.

Freedom to petition the government. Well, I don’t have to tell you that governments at all levels are being petitioned and not in your favor.

So there you have it. The First Amendment you people say you are devoted to is actually your worst enemy.

* Don’t make it too complicated.

Alt Right figures are being deplatformed, blackballed from mainstream society, and driven to the financial ruin.

They’re scared and they want to go back to their old boring middle-class lives, pre-Alt Right.

So they feed all sorts of BS to the media about how they “changed.” Hopefully, after all that, their old employer will rehire them and they can go back to how things used to be.

I’d also say that many Alt Right figures (like Lauren Southern) are grifters. With the money drying up (due to pay services boycotting them), they want to move on to their next con. Roosh, for example, has transitioned from Alt Right PUA to Christian preacher.

It’s not about what they believe. It’s about making a living.

* It’s possible for the right to be radicalized and dangerous, but not possible for the left to become radicalized and dangerous: Marcuse would’ve made a great reporter for the NYT.

Conspiracy theories:
-The Rosenbergs were innocent.
-Rosenbergs persecuted because they were Jewish (tho’ prosecutor and judge were Jewish.)
-The King Alfred Plan
-AIDS was invented or propagated by whites to kill blacks.
-A cure for AIDS was avoided to kill gays.
-There was no infiltration of the US gov. by Soviet agents in the 40’s and 50’s
-McCarthy blacklisted Hollywood communists
-Trump colluded with the Russians
-The cult of Hitler reigns supreme, as the right today is a consumed with white supremacism or Nazism or Neo Nazi. The Hitler of the 1940’s never dreamed he would capture the hearts and minds of his arch enemy – the USA – to the extent that he has in 2019, almost 75 years after his death.
-And finally, the left has no conspiracy theories. They mostly happen on the right.

* My point was that he was an aimless, broke young man. He needs to pull himself together and get a job and a relationship.

YouTube is a time sinkhole that only is a living for a small minority, and even for them you’re a sharecropper on someone else’s platform. Google changes the rules on income all the time. The Panda algorithm update and various AdSense changes have put many websites out of business, and that is even before the censorship problems. YouTube is not a career.

As for guns, I have not problem with owning a Glock or 20. But he bought one based on fear of online death threats, which indicate a certain level of paranoia. When people threaten to kill you online, your odds of being killed have increased about 0.00001 percent, the odds of being hit by a meterorite, and mentally healthy people understand that. And there was nothing in the article about his having trained with the weapon. I want lots of people to own lots of guns, but not him. He sounds like a nut.

* I’m really interested in how Cain did a 180 on the belief “that innate I.Q. differences explained racial disparities.” This is usually a one-way ratchet: One you see the light, you never go back.

In the case of William Saletan, I think he is a combination of trying ot walk-back a case of potential career suicide, socially and culturally not wanting to hang with “race realists,” and obfuscation about what he believes on the factual stuff with a touchie feelie layer.

Maybe Cain just walked back the “innate” part, feeling like Turkheimer and company that the gap is wholely or predominantly environmental. Maybe he thinks that a big part of disproportionate representation in high level jobs is a combination of a cognitive gap and discrimination, not solely the former.

Most people who do not believe “that innate I.Q. differences explained racial disparities” won’t even discuss it and don’t want to hear any facts. That state can only survive in the absence of understanding. Once you learn about it, you cannot unsee it. If Cain is engaging with people online on YouTube, I’d be interested in hearing him on this subject.

* Due to some quirk or some unique circumstances, he might have absorbed the “alt-right” point of view without really understanding what it’s based on, and then kept regurgitating it, until, due to some change in personal circumstances (like a new girlfriend) he started to absorb another point of view (again, without much thinking), and started regurgitating it.

I think this is a big part of it: most people just aren’t very deep thinkers and will eventually absorb what they just happen to stumble across. I myself am unfortunately in this category, and that’s something I’m going to try and change.

But I also think it is more subtle than outright social intimidation. There are a lot of guys on the alt-right that don’t have friends, career prospects, lovers, much of a future life in general to go back to, no matter how ardently they “redeem” themselves, and they know it. Social stigma has little meaningful impact for somebody with no social capital and little concrete prospect of gaining any. I don’t think this guy is quite that bad off, but his life doesn’t seem like a particularly happy, successful one in which he stands to lose a lot. Obviously, if we were talking about some L5 dude at Google on the down-low, it’d be another story.

(Perhaps because they largely consist of the types of people who’ve never struggled to attain social connections, the MSM is comically bad at understanding this dynamic, hence their belief that yelling “SHAME” at ever higher decibels is going to eventually do the trick.)

I believe that it is more whether he genuinely feels like he’s a good person. This can be especially important if you are a guy with not a lot going for you in life and you want to turn it all around, as I suspect this guy might be: if you think you are genuinely scum on top of that, you are going to have a really tough time focusing on improving yourself. It messes with your brain processes. There’s a lot of people out there all too willing to conflate favoring restriction immigration numbers with actually *hating* immigrants, or a willingness to be open to the idea that IQ has a biological component with *hating* different races, or a belief that women are deeply different from men with *hating* women, or whatever. I think the more perspective/intelligent people who comment here (Twinkie, PhysicistDave, LTC, among others) show that this is utter nonsense. But there’s no question that the “real” white supremacist contingent on the alt-right, among other undesirables (incels, Holocaust deniers, that kind of thing), definitely helps confirm that in the eyes of the masses, and as I alluded to, most people aren’t particularly deep thinkers, much of our ruling classes included. As an analogy, most humans aren’t wired to be Origen or Avicenna, bent to justify the faith, most are oriented to accept the faith and not question the details too much, while their day-to-day practice is rather hit or miss depending on the circumstances.

The desire to genuinely believe you are a decent person can be very powerful. More powerful than the desire to actually be one, for that matter. To wax Joachim Fest for a bit, lot of the absolute worst movements in history had, at their core, that very dangerous kind of person with a strong but directionless craving for morality.

* I can easily imagine someone believing that blacks have the same innate abilities as whites – I more or less used to believe it myself. But how can you unlearn it, after having read all the contrary evidence? That’s just incomprehensible to me.

One explanation might be that these “ex-alt-right” people never really understood the evidence, so they held those opinions without much evidence. Due to some quirk or some unique circumstances, he might have absorbed the “alt-right” point of view without really understanding what it’s based on, and then kept regurgitating it, until, due to some change in personal circumstances (like a new girlfriend) he started to absorb another point of view (again, without much thinking), and started regurgitating it.

I still don’t understand it much. If you don’t think much about these things, then wouldn’t just absorbing the socially accepted normal point of view make the most sense? How could someone become “alt-right” without thinking a lot about it? Are there pockets in our society where the “alt-right” is the default position, which unthinking people just absorb?

Anatoly Karlin has a long thoughtful post on the latest Youtube crackdown:

It’s worth pointing out that demonetization is nearly as bad as an outright ban, as it demoralizes creators, and in some cases, cuts off their main source of income. Relying on Patreon or Subscribestars (a recent and less PC Russian alternative) is a bandaid – while we greatly appreciate the exceptions, anonymous readers are rarely very generous, and you need to be really big to make even a decent living off public donations. And they can always shut you down as well. Patreon is more than happy to kick controversial people off by itself, while Subscribestars had to cease operations for a period of time after PayPal cut them off…

I have a blog post ready to go about how the vlogosphere has superseded the old blogosphere over the past few years. Obviously, it will now have to be substantially rewritten.

But the main point to take from here is that YouTube is not going to become the center of anti-Establishment dissidence that we thought it might be, just as similar delusions about the power of Twitter and other social media were dispelled from around 2017*.

YouTube will become a repository for cat and unpacking videos.

…Yes, alternatives exist, but by and large, people are not going to bother going to Bitchute or RuTube. Three reasons why.

First, they are much smaller than YouTube, which is a de facto monopolist in this sphere, and so derives vast benefits from network effects.

Second, YouTube operates on an annual loss of a billion dollars. It is something that Alphabet subsidizes for presumably political reasons. No other site can afford to be a YouTube. Videos take up a lot of storage space, and HDD’s don’t come free!

Third, let’s be honest, many of the people driven off are not so much dissidents as assorted freaks and weirdos. Their presence will deter “normies” from migrating over. We already have a perfect example of that with Gab (Twitter alternative) and Voat (Reddit alternative)…

As reiner Tor points out, this was also probably a sign from God not to engage in vlogging. Since it now seems there is no way to be famous, edgy, and uncensored on YouTube, I am probably going to deprioritize these plans going forwards. I suppose it is good that it happened now, before I invested any significant time or energy into this enterprise (apart from ordering a mini-tripod for my smartphone). As for using Russian alternatives, apart from the aforementioned problem of all the significant Russians being on YouTube as well, I am certainly not going to be talking about Dagestani IQs on Russian platforms (i.e. for the same reason that German nationalists use VK over Facebook).

Comments section:

* No matter how big it seems to us, politics is minuscule part of youtube content. Of top YT videos, none is political.

* Bitchute uses p2p which scales pretty well without requiring youtube-like infrastructure. I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.

For example, when Soph’s “Be not afraid” video was zapped by YT, the Bitchute version picked up 150k views (and counting). That is a decent chunk (maybe 20%) of what it would have got on YT.

And if a whole bunch of people like Crowder and Sargon etc get booted from YT, bitchute would see a major uptick, and a network effect would kick in.

* What are YouTube’s network effects?

Recommendations. You get vast numbers of new people getting funneled onto your channel e.g. you watch Molyneux –> JF Gariepy.

Viewership is systemically higher than for similar profile blogs by up to an order of magnitude. For instance, the typical video by the psychometrist Edward Dutton – probably the most high profile HBD vlogger – gets around 10,000-20,000 views. I am reasonably sure that this is well above what the typical article by James Thompson here gets. My most popular “HBD” article ever – The Idiocy of the Average – got something like 40,000 views if I remember correctly. The Golden One, a Swedish alt right pagan bodybuilder, has 100,000 subscribers, and most of his videos – rather low effort productions with minimal editing or effects – get at least 20,000 views.

The Alt Right child prodigy “soph” – recently profiled by Mr. Bernstein – is currently just shy of a million subscribers on YouTube. She has had 17 million views since she started her (rather irregular) vlogging career in August 2015. That’s approximately what the Unz Review currently generates in half a year, and we have far, far more visitors now than even just a couple of years ago.

* With the rise of women in the workforce and especially in secondary and university education, there has been a concomitant war on the manly virtues of valor and gallantry.

Use to be, poets immortalized their civilization’s heroes by singing tales of their gallantry and sacrifice. Men fighting to the end when death was all but certain were commemorated and thus granted immortality–as much anyway as can be achieved by mere mortal men.

Today, with the tearing down of statues and the feminine war on martial virtue, all that is lost. Bravery is no longer considered worthy. Instead, women teachers–and internet censors–promote a sedated, docile keypuncher as the ideal male.

This goes against the grain of the Universe and won’t end well.

My Youtube channel was demonetized yesterday and eight of my videos were removed for violating their community guidelines (no specifics were provided, I appealed all of them).

Michael Tracey writes: “Online journalists and their activist friends lack any awareness that their culturally liberal sensibilities are 100% in sync with Silicon Valley, and they therefore possess hegemonic power. They constantly act like they’re victims, but they’re actually the ones calling the shots.”

A new protected class by @YouTube: those now immune from criticism due to their “immigration status.” In other words, @YouTube is banning speech critical of illegal immigration. pic.twitter.com/9bersTWNNa

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) June 5, 2019

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* YouTube is simply being “jumped into” the Bilderberg gang. YouTube has been made to — or been made to want to — live in harmony with the preexisting powers-that-be. The people who inherited the Megaphone don’t want 2016 to ever happen again. Getting YouTube to shape up is critically important to them.

* On the contrary, it turns out that oligarchic rentier-state economics and the globalist-oriented modern Left go quite nicely together. Both naturally enhance the goals of the other, neither contradicts the priorities of the other.

This explains why we seem to have such fierce debates about hot-button issues in Washington, but little actually changes on fundamental policy. The two parties are getting what they really want from each other. Everything else is for show.

* This is SO dumb on YouTube’s part. Do they really think it’s a good idea to do this right as they’re coming under scrutiny from the FTC? Are they so convinced that the basic terms of being a business don’t apply to one side of the political spectrum?

And I really hope YouTube’s hypocrisy comes to the full attention of the public. It’s bad enough to demonatize channels you don’t like arbitrarily, but it’s quite another to do it when your suggestion algorithms have built the platform by pushing a lot of *highly* questionable content.

* I watched a couple of streams about the fallout. A lot of fairly large dissident-right channels that you would think would get the ax (Red Ice, AmRen) are still up. In fact, almost all of them are. But a lot of relatively mainstream conservative channels like Steven Crowder and Jesse Lee Peterson got demonetized. This seems to have been more of a mass-demonetization than a mass-banning, at least so far.

It’s possible that this was aimed more at conservative/non-narrative-compliant content creators in general and they’re just selling it as a crackdown on extremism.

* OT NYU have cancelled (due to lack of interest) a course on “Reporting the far right”, by Talla Lavin, the former New Yorker fact-checker who falsely accused an ICE agent of having a nazi tattoo.

She also recently harassed the family of 14 year old youtuber “Soph”, going as far as phoning her (Hillary-voting) dad at work to accuse him of raising a nazi.

* Ashkenazi Jews have European origins but are genetically distinct from other European populations, for the same reason that African-Americans have African origins but are genetically distinct from other African populations. Hundreds or thousands of years of geographic separation, admixture and different selection pressures cause separate evolution. That’s where “race” comes from.

Ashkenazi genes are probably European mixed in with some Mediterranean, which explains the higher-than-Euro gluten tolerance and lower-than-Euro lactose tolerance.

* The Establishment want to dial things back to 2006 or even 1998. They want to narrow the Overton window so that the folks in flyover country get no say in the future.
They want a time when 90% of media is under their thumb, and no competing narratives get daylight. If the Democrats get back total control, hate speech laws will be implemented to tightly police the entire internet. The time for political solutions to defy “invade the world-invite the world” is running out.

* The right is unwilling to use boycotts, both due to the corrupted nature of leadership, and the anti-collectivist strain of its followers.

* It’s unreal that we can’t organize any significant boycotts. We have a tremendous amount of economic potential that is just going to waste because our side is unwilling to use boycotts.

* I look back only 10 years ago when internet was much freer in amazement. A lot of very young kids will grow up in a fundamentally unfree environment.

There are a lot of paralells here to the early days of radio. The big monopolies – mostly run by jews – shut down Father Coughlin too when he got too popular. We’ll see if internet is as easily controlled. One thing is for sure: all the “liberals” and leftist claiming to care about free speech, and human rights (of which free speech is a fundamental value) are exposed as frauds as they are either silent or cheering this on.

The West is no different from the regulated internet of China and now soon Russia. It only differs in the content it censors/controls.

* I think this pretty much ends the debate going on in “conservatism” at the moment and the David French side has definitively lost. As his critics have charged, the Left are indeed dangerous authoritarians who cannot be negotiated with; the guy who started this campaign has a long history of demanding his political enemies be deplatformed, harassed, and doxxed*, so his motives are clear. Unless these people are stopped using their own tactics, we’ll end up in a Soviet Union 2.0 by mid-century (probably much sooner)**. What they want: their political enemies destroyed and freedom of speech revoked for all but themselves and their propaganda officially supported on major platforms (already happening as YouTube gives preferential treatment to democrat-voting mainstream media and late night propaganda which nearly always has “Trump lies” in the video description); this includes possible legal sanction for problematic speech as many figures on the Left have publicly embraced European-style speech crimes laws.

Why aren’t conservative legislatures working with Chinese companies to publicly fund alternatives to Google and YouTube and perhaps even physical aspects of the internet such as fiber optic cables and ISPs? Those same governments can’t then do to the left what they are doing to everyone else – ban them on grounds of promoting hate speech while simultaneously promoting material advertising our side? Why don’t conservative state legislatures enact policies purging Microsoft, Google, Twitter, and Facebook products off government computers, eschewing them for open source software when possible and Japanese alternatives when that’s not an option? Why not simply ignore the US government’s ban on Huawei phones and import them to provide healthy competition to Apple, a company whose CEO donated tens of millions of dollars to the SPLC? We can’t hurt Apple’s bottom line by passing right to repair laws that will be copied by others in short order? We can’t copy Chinese payment apps that cut out the banks – perhaps directly managed by conservative state legislatures to prevent deplatforming? That would immediately strike back against banks who deny service based on political belief. And what about a UBI that gives normal people a measure of financial protection against left-wing harassment?

All it would take is a single guy to introduce the bill. The publicity alone would ensure copycats and eventual successful adoption elsewhere. Again, there are plenty of options for those with both the inclination and the imagination to do something.

Further, why don’t we have groups dedicated to deplatforming left-wing hate and harassment websites? Or at least pressure their advertisers and reveal their funding? Leftists have been doing this for years, so fair is fair. We can’t accelerate anti-masking laws and mandatory minimum sentences to get antifa off the streets? If the FBI won’t prosecute their proxy thugs, what stops local republican DAs from stepping in and adding state charges or legislatures from enacting lengthy mandatory minimums? We can’t demand YouTube censor videos from Leftist creators who promote racist conspiracy theories such as “white privilege?” or put derogatory words like “loser” in the title of their videos when connected to our elected officials? How is it okay for TYT to harass DT with “loser” but I can’t call out some Vox POS with negative language? The point is that there are definitely lots of things that can be done if you have both the will and the imagination.

Unfortunately, much of what people consider the right these days is merely controlled opposition – guys who advocate losing gracefully while ignoring policies that might hurt the financial interests of their donors or the federal government. The Washington Generals right still wants to be respected and still wants to be invited to cocktail parties while reveling in the self-esteem conferred by thinking they are socially influential. They have little or no faith in their values and merely want the social cache that comes with being famous (and the money, too). Conservatism is a class association, a lifestyle or maybe a hobby to guys like David French and George Will. In contrast, Leftism is a religion that determines who is worthy of continued existence to the radical Left.

The genesis of any counteroffensive against these extremists starts with abandoning the David French / William Buckley ideology of the past. It’s a recipe not only for loss, but for oppression. That means embracing government power and employing the same unscrupulous tactics they use against us. The government has a place in this effort because it is the only area of life where we have even a modicum of influence. A salient, and recent, example of this comes from Texas. Leftist-wing fascists in Austin harassed Chick-fil-a because they didn’t like the personal opinion of someone connected to the company and the state legislature slapped them down in response. Why can’t we repeat that example elsewhere?

How was it ever smart to allow the Left to base all our big media in just three democrat-voting cities – NYC, LA, and DC? How was it smart not to ensure conservatives have representation in the below-the-line positions at CNN, the NYT, and the WaPo? We can’t fund journalism scholarships for our people? How was it smart to allow big tech companies to amass effective monopolies over the public square without opposition or regulation? This action by YouTube and Vox proves the David French “muh private company” ideology wrong; no one person can fund an alternative internet infrastructure and the Left has already proved they will deplatform anyone who tries (Gab). Letting your enemy take the high ground was really dumb, but I’m sure it paid The National Review well.

It also means abandoning civic nationalism / loyalty to the national government because that government is definitely not on your side. I wouldn’t be surprised if the intelligence services/secret police had something to do with this and merely used Vox as a front. The FBI, for instance, has had a long history of undermining the government’s political enemies: anti-war protestors, conspiracy theorists (who sometimes turn out to be right: TWA Flight 800 & Iraqi WMD), white racial groups, black racial groups (on the occasion the democrats need it to win elections), socialists … The government has also been caught paying journalists in the past to spread misinformation and they continue to fund social media disinformation efforts now: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-suspends-funding-for-twitter-account-on-iran-that-trolled-critics/

*He advocated those things for his enemies publicly but then complained when someone did it back to him. Funny how that works. It’s almost as if these people are all hypocrites who lack principles. How exactly does the right (normal people) fight back against that kind of thing while also having one hand tied behind its back with the doctrine of “muh private corporashuns”?

**Consider what we already have seen: (1) the US government requires political commissars at nearly all large companies and sources of finance that could be used to oppose them through HR and diversity requirements; China does something very similar (2) selective social media censorship of the government’s political enemies (no censorship of MTV and their “Dear White People” hate speech content on YouTube) (3) under Obama, whites were chased off the campus of Evergreen State with the threat violence at the hands of Leftist students and his FBI did nothing in response (4) under Obama, we saw a dramatic decline in willingness to enforce standards of behavior, leading to a massive 23% increase in the murder rate in some big cities (5) BLM, antifa and other street thugs are routinely used as proxies by the US government to attack their enemies while the FBI offers sweetheart deals to perps and prosecutes targets of violence (6) political commissars now review newly authored manuscripts to make sure they don’t contain “problematic” content (7) an endless purity spiral results in a nearly continuous stream of “get whitey” (8) a mass invasion of the United States is under way while the military does nothing while Leftist judges and media do everything they can to facilitate the arrival of these future ballot box busting voter scabs (9) selective censorship of government critics (10) the US denies entry to people based on political beliefs …

The list goes on. Either fight back using tactics that work or get yourself a new country.

* We can’t use boycotts because, unlike the left, we don’t have cover to do so from the government and the media. Also, much of the right is infected with National Reviewesqe grift; they took money from Google, IIRC, to oppose government regulatory actions. The right is also infected with libertarian individualism, which is a losing strategy in the long-run. In contrast, the left has the media and the government to shield them from boycott blow back and they have no such equivalent ideology to prevent them from acting in their group’s best interests. Conservatives of all stripes (left authoritarian, social conservatives, libertarians, economic populists, religious people) are also generally decent folks, so that additionally handicaps them. Extreme Leftists are dangerous because they have no moral restraints on their religious beliefs, leading them to ever greater acts of depravity.

There is one way the right could effectively strike back, however. I would suggest we use our state and local legislative bodies to begin the effort to boycott and deplatform the left. That will set a copycat precedent among the general population while giving ordinary people cover for their own boycott efforts. We could start by nationalizing ISPs on the local level, and then following up by forming partnerships with Chinese tech companies to build state-funded alternative internet structures. Once we have a competing platform for Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube, we can deplatform them under the guise of stopping leftist hatespeech or whatever.

Here’s the rough draft of a plan conservative-controlled state legislatures could enact if not for libertarianism:

1) Immediately nationalize internet ISPs on the state level.

2) Work with Chinese tech companies to build additional internet architecture, including state-run and funded platforms to counter outfits such as YouTube and Facebook.

3) Once those platforms are up and running, deplatform their competition. Also, deplatform the left in general using the guise of hatespeech – Huff Post, TYT, The Guardian and a slew of others can say bye bye on our internet.

4) State governments should also announce they will no longer respect the Huawei import ban, nor will they cooperate with federal authorities in prosecuting companies and persons who – somehow – import the company’s technology and are able to use it. It’s not very practical, but this will at least serve as a morale blow to the deepstate while ingratiating ourselves with the Chinese.

5) State governments should announce all government computers will dump Microsoft products for open-sourced alternatives such as Linux and Open Office. Additionally, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube will be blocked on these computers using any number of excuses (worker productivity). Duckduckgo will then be the default search engine. This will serve as an important morale booster similar to Doolittle’s Raid on Tokyo after Pearl Harbor: little actual damage but a confidence booster and a trendsetter for future bold action nonetheless.

6) States can copy Chinese payment apps – run by the government – to cut out the ability of banks to deplatform the right. This would also damage opposition bank finances and at least some sources of left-wing funding along with them. It will likely also be popular among economic populists and racial minorities who can’t afford bank fees.

7) States can pass right to repair laws which will greatly damage Apple’s bottom line while infusing local areas with jobs and wealth.

8) Using the Israel boycott example, legislatures could make it a crime for any company to boycott our states over politics or doxx or fire our people. Even the worst case scenario of them not doing business with us could be mitigated by working with the Chinese to create local alternatives that keep jobs and money in the area.

Why would the Chinese do any of this? Well, we’re paying them, obviously (and they get access to our market). But there is also the return on investment angle: it would be worth it to spend a relatively small amount of money and effort only to get lots of positive feeling and political capital on your enemy’s home turf in return (and perhaps a hedge against Washington belligerence in the future). Unfortunately, we’ll have to reach out first because the Chinese have a very limited, superficial understanding of the United States at the moment.

* People are being ‘investigated’ for saying what some might consider to be mean, uncouthful or even hateful stuff. What effect does that have when you yell at a black driver in the grocery store parking lot for taking up two spaces? You probably shouldn’t (as a matter of civility) yell, but when the cops knock on your door and ask you questions?

Already seeing this with the (mostly liberal) white women being called out on social media for reporting black misbehavior, or at least non-normative behavior, i.e. selling water bottles on the street, or a student sleeping in the dorm common room.

Deplatforming works, and lefties know this. They know that although they aren’t as powerful as they once were, they’ve got every major newspaper (NYT, WaPo, are givens, but Hearst and McClatchly, and AP are lib as hell), and every national TV outlet except Fox.

I’m sure a bunch of you have told friends, fam, etc. (people you trust) ‘hey check out this Steve guy,’ and if they do, they then treat you like you wear a sheet on weekends. Long ways to go, still.