Mainstream Conservatives are Supporting Tech Censorship in Order to Destroy Their Competition

Andrew Anglin May 4, 2019

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 4, 2019

This juicy little strumpet is from the National Review, now of the Washington Examiner.

She is a mouthpiece for the absolute worst ideas of all time. Ideas that literally destroyed an entire civilization.

Obviously, women do not have ideas and just repeat things. Her entire thing here is simply a by route recitation of the conservative/libertarian argument on why you shouldn’t have free speech on the Internet – the argument that liberals used against me when I became the first person ever to be banned from everything.

Nick Fuentes had a brilliant response to this thread, articulating a sentiment I think we all share.

There are a few things about this.

The first, most obvious and most important thing is that if she was under any threat of being banned, she would have a different position on this issue. She is simply choosing not to support the people being silenced because she knows she won’t ever be silenced. So she is either taking the opportunity to shill these idiotic liberal economic values, or she is purposefully trying to bully conservatives into being pro-censorship because she wants all of these people banned.

I will go through the rest of it point by point.

“But what if AOC is president and she’s making the rules???”

First, if the Democrats get into power, they are going to do whatever they want. They won’t need justification for any of it. They won’t only do things that Trump already did.

Second, the people making these decisions right now have the same value system as AOC. It couldn’t really get any worse.

Third, what we are asking for explicitly is an Internet Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech on the Internet. We’re not asking for a complex series of regulations, simply application of existing law regarding the public square to the Internet.

Fourth, it would be illegal for President AOC to use Internet regulation for censorship unless she abolished the First Amendment.

Fifth, it would be better if the government was openly censoring us, instead of using the Rube Goldberg censorship machine of refusing to pass basic speech protections on the Internet.

“The government doesn’t have the right!”

We do not live in Somalia. We live in a country with laws and a government that is tasked with enforcing the law, and our law says that people have a right to freedom of speech.

Taking this theory of “corporate monopolies can collude with each other to deny basic rights to individuals based on their political views or for any other reason and the government can’t stop them because of our values” to its ultimate conclusion, you could literally justify people being denied food, shelter and clothing and being forced to die in the streets.

What if all grocery stores colluded to decide not to sell you food because you’re a racist?

Would it be immoral for the government to pass a law saying that it is illegal for grocery stores to discriminate against their customers and that they have to sell people food?

If not, then how is this situation any different, at all?

Or would this bitch literally say “well, if all the grocery stores deny you service, you can hunt small birds with a pointed stick in a public park.”

What if hunting small birds in a public park is illegal? I assume it is illegal. Would her response be “well, the answer isn’t more regulation; if people are starving to death in the streets because they were blacklisted by grocery stores, we need to decriminalize hunting small birds in public parks with pointed sticks”?

Furthermore, this censorship situation is worse, in terms of this weird abstract theological libertarian economic view on government regulation, than the grocery analogy.

Because these are not simply “private companies” in the way that a grocery store is a “private company.”

The entire infrastructure of the Internet was designed and built using public funds. These companies are all benefiting from infrastructure that was paid for by the taxpayer. The taxpayer also foots the bill for the government to build new Internet infrastructure to speed up the delivery of YouTube videos.

The government not only has a right to defend free speech on the Internet, they have a duty to do so.

“The government doesn’t have the competence!”

This goes into a deep hole of libertarian mumbo-jumbo, but the fact is that no matter how many times they say this, you can look and see that everything the government wants accomplished gets accomplished. The idea that they are incompetent is simply a canard designed to explain away why they do things that seem counterintuitive to people who believe that the government is not run by bloodsucking psychopaths.

But you don’t have to go into all that. The government was competent enough to pass the Communications Act of 1934 which included a universal service provision that said every citizen would be given access to telecommunications.

This is incredibly simple.

“It is impossible for the government to solve a problem”

This is the point where everything just completely falls apart, and these people begin literally calling for the government to be abolished.

If the government were to be abolished, neon-Nazis would just lead an army of unhinged Iraq vets, MMA lunatics, weeb dorks, gamergaters, incels and Sandy Hook denialists and go murder all of the faggots and Jews that run Silicon Valley, then run it ourselves.

But “just abolish the government” is not a reasonable, adult position to take. The government exists and is going to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, so claiming that we should never try to change laws and make them work for people, or that we should never protect people’s rights because the government actually shouldn’t even exist in the first place, is just malicious nihilism.

Making theoretical political arguments about a universe in which there is no government and applying it to a universe in which there is a government is not acceptable.

“I refuse to grant the premise that the government exists” isn’t a moving debate strategy.

“The fact that Gab exists means that Twitter isn’t a monopoly”

This goes back to the grocery store argument.

Using Gab instead of Twitter is like hunting small birds in a public park instead of shopping at a grocery store.

But the Curious Case of the Daily Stormer proved that the entire structure of the Internet itself is a colluding oligopoly, which is the same thing as a monopoly. I was banned not only from all social media and all web hosting services, but also from domain registrars and DDoS mitigation services. Meaning I literally could not have any presence at all on the Internet if they had succeeded. And we only secured this .name by the skin of our teeth, and it isn’t going to last forever. Eventually, “private companies” will succeed in ensuring that this website is no longer available on the public internet and is only accessible through Tor AKA the Pedoweb.

Gab has already lost multiple domain registrars and hosting services, and it will eventually be shut down, because they are currently dependent on private companies which have already shown a willingness to shut people down for legal speech deemed offensive by the media.

“Removing CDA 230 protections would be okay because it is SCALING BACK A LAW instead of CREATING A LAW”

This is just more gibberish. There is no fundamental difference between the government creating or abolishing law in order to enact a positive change. There is only some theoretical, theological difference.

And you cannot follow this to any conclusion. If laws that protect people and their rights are bad, and the only morally justifiable thing to do ever is remove laws, then where exactly does that end?

Murder investigations and trials are complicated and require people to appear in court to give statements even if they didn’t personally commit a murder. Sometimes people are wrongly accused of murder and have to defend themselves. Sometimes people are even wrongly convicted of murder and executed for it.

Murder law involves a lot of regulations.

Would people be more free if laws against murder were abolished? Arguably yes (???), if they were strong or otherwise good with weapons, but it would result in massive changes to society which would include a huge bloodbath.

None of these “values and principles” are meaningful methods of examining how reality actually works. It is all just a gigantic scam, purposefully designed to justify the abuse of the population.

Conclusion

I don’t think anyone believes what they are saying when they claim that it would be an unconscionable violation of the free market for the government to pass laws banning political censorship on the Internet. They have to have some kind of agenda, because literally no one is that stupid.

Two years ago, I was banned by every major provider of Internet services on the planet, then banned by a bunch of different countries, in a global collusion conspiracy to keep me from being able to access the public Internet in any form. They were literally saying “so build your own Internet, this is capitalism.”

But the people saying it were all liberals, using a kind of tactical libertarianism. 

When alleged conservatives come out with this, it is obvious that they want to themselves collude with the tech companies to prune the right-wing of individuals that they view either as competition or as threats to their own ideological space. By refusing to defend freedom of speech and justifying mass censorship with nonsensical ideological gibberish, conservative libertarians like the ones who tell the juicy little strumpet Tiana Lowe what to say are complicit in the systematic silencing of anyone who questions the mainstream narrative.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2023, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.