The anonymous shitposter known as Ricky Vaughn has been doxed.

He was involved in some various “movement drama” as of late, which I don’t personally have any desire to get into, and some shitbags who will go unnamed decided it was okay to go ahead and dox him because they didn’t agree with what he was saying.

As it turns out, Ricky is the embodiment of the worst nightmares of the Jews.

His normie name is Douglass Mackey.

And he is a completely normal, successful white male urbanite.

Becoming Infamous

Ricky Vaughn became active on Twitter in the early part of the Trump campaign. Back in the primaries.

I remember hearing him once on a podcast say that he had had a few accounts on Twitter and just chose “Ricky Vaughn” – Charlie Sheen’s character from the 1989 movie “Major League” (one of the best movies of all time, definitely the single best sports movie ever) – randomly.

In a short period, Ricky Vaughn, with his iconic Charlie Sheen avatar, became one of the single most popular pro-Trump accounts on Twitter, successfully mixing anti-Semitic and racist content with mainstream GOP type material in a way that brought normie Trump people over to our side, through a kind of osmosis.

Although the goofy Huffington Post, which was the first mainstream publication to cover this doxing, is saying bizarrely arguing that he was more influential in the election than Matt Drudge (????), he was indeed very influential in the Twittersphere.

Wow, pretty serious reporting there, guys. HEAVY.

Now, obviously, Drudge gets 1.5 billion unique page views a month, so he’s a pretty tough guy to out-influence.

What the HuffPo did was misinterpret an MIT study on the influence of Twitter accounts, where Ricky Vaughn did indeed rank higher than the official Drudge Report account. (Remember, Huffington Post bloggers are unpaid, so you can’t expect them to be real top tier.)

Ricky Vaughn was #107, ahead of NBC News (#114) , The Drudge Report (#116) and CNN (#111).

The amount of influence his account wielded scared the hell out of the mainstream Jew system, because he was doing exactly what they do not want to happen: their worst nightmare is mainstream conservative-leaning people adopting white identity politics as their default mode of operation.

.@DonaldJTrumpJr just liked a tweet by a fairly prominent alt-right twitter account pic.twitter.com/b9Qz83VP6r

— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) July 5, 2016

He was retweeting mainstream conservative and Alt-Lite accounts right along Daily Stormer articles in such a way as to very efficiently blur the line between the spheres of the right-wing.

He was eventually banned from Twitter, shortly after the election in October of 2016.

He created a new account and several after that, but was never able to build-up the hundreds of thousands his initial account had during the election.

Post-Twitter Actions

Following the loss of his main Twitter account, Ricky became active on the Twitter clone site “Gab,” where he was often a critic of the current state of the Alt-Right movement, particularly after the events of Charlottesville last August.

He behaved in a way that I did not approve of, getting very aggressive with a lot of people in the Alt-Right, while also not offering a whole lot of positive input. It was definitely not “constructive criticism” – and I say that as someone who agreed with much of what he was saying.

He also said a lot of things that I did not agree with (or at least said a lot of things in a way that I did not agree with), such as “white identity does not exist.” After hearing his explanation of that, I think he was saying something different than what that sounds like – as in “whites currently do not feel a sense of racial identity,” rather than “white people have no natural identity.”

He also started his own podcast which I think was enlightening, whatever your position, given that it was genuinely, legitimate criticism of the Alt-Right in a way that sometimes stung and which I often disagreed with, but which was nonetheless food for thought. As a non-irate person, that is how I looked at the stuff I disagreed – food for thought.

Nonetheless, he was definitely doing something wrong, because he was pissing off a lot of good people and causing them to hate him. I had never associated with him, ever, and I was being accused of somehow being part of a conspiracy involving him by the group that doxed him. To be honest, given all the people he had pissed off, I was actually purposefully trying NOT to be linked to him over the last couple months. His take on things is nuanced and I’m not sure I fully understand myself, but his rude behavior was definitely unnecessary.

Anyway, suffice to say, he made some enemies with his recent “critic” route, and this eventually led to those enemies doxing him, based on private information that had been entrusted to a once-reputable character who turned out to be a dirty dealer.

The Nightmare of the Jew

The fact of reality is that most of us who are prominent, public white nationalists are weird people. I am probably the least weird of all, to be honest, and I’m on video partying with Thai skanks, I lived in a jungle with a primitive tribe for a year of my life, was once a conspiracy theorist, have been into a lot of different kinds of fringe politics.

Pink face (drunk, possibly on shrooms), 70s mustache, heavily tattooed dye-job teenage Slav gf, total whackjob

I have not ever really been hooked into modern Western society, and have spent most of my adult life in Asia and weird parts of Europe. As well as a bunch of other places. I have basically lived as a drifter, having very little connection to any place, due to having felt alienated by the modern Western system – not normal.

Mike Enoch is probably the weirdest of all, having been a literal libertarian ancap nutjob very, very recently. He also had allergies as a kid.

Russia gang-coat, smug face, definitely on shrooms, thinks children are “property,” unhinged

In between me and Enoch are various levels of weirdness. Richard Spencer for example believes in ghosts (and believes they send him messages) and is deathly afraid of jet skis.

Abnormal haircut, gets secret messages from ghosts, worships Hitler as the incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, not well

But just generally, when you get into this fringe stuff – and though white identity is 100% natural, it is also fringe, because our society is controlled by Jews – the people who are willing to go full-on in the early days are all going to be a bit out of the ordinary. It takes a whole lot of balls, a whole lot of stupidity or some combination of the two to get into this scene with your real name and face.

And so what the Jews desperately want to believe is that all of the anons are reflective of the public faces of this movement – slightly strange people who are somehow maladjusted (drifter) or deranged in some way (ancap), rather than people who have been well-integrated into the system and simply hate it and want to see it destroyed and replaced with a new order.

But Ricky completely breaks that mold.

As Douglass Mackey, he is as integrated as it gets.

Sharp dresser, into nature scenes, high-paying respected job, normal guy

He is a young, intelligent, handsome guy who has been very successful in the real world of the Jew.

He graduated from Middlebury College in his native state of Vermont before moving to Brooklyn, New York in 2012 and got a job at Brooklyn Heights-based consulting firm John Dunham & Associates.

Leaving the firm in 2016, he moved to an apartment on Lexington Avenue in the Carnegie Hill, Manhattan, where he must have been doing something that made some serious money to pay that rent.

He is a successful individual, who was already making six-figures in his late twenties and was headed towards being a rich Manhattanite with all of the pussy and other luxuries that go along with that – and still he was willing to risk that to fight for America.

How Many More Just Like Him?

How many thousands of people are there exactly like this?

How many New York firms are filled with young white guys who are plotting revolution?

The Jews don’t know. I don’t even know. But I certainly have a better idea than the Jews.

Six million Jews would die of heart attacks if they knew of half of the people I’ve had contact with who support these views.

Let me just tell you, Jews: the Daily Stormer has millions of readers. And those millions are more likely to be a member of a New York consulting firm, or Wall Street firm, or a Silicon Valley start-up than they are to be construction workers or gas station attendants.

Any single young white male you see on the street, anywhere in America, could be a reader of the Daily Stormer. You could be working right next to one, who shakes your hand and smiles while thinking “I can’t wait til we shove this kike in an oven.”

That is the new reality that the Alt-Right created by hijacking the culture of the internet. And this is only spreading.

The fact is, I have the same daily views I had before Charlottesville on dailystormer.com as I have right now on dailystormer.name – and that is with zero search traffic. About half of our traffic before Charlottesville was search traffic. Meaning that I have double the readers I had before you stole my domain. And that is without counting the Tor traffic, which is in the tens of thousands of daily readers.

Every single day, thousands of people are finding the Alt-Right and agreeing with our ideas.

This is the new reality.

Doxing is Inexcusable. Period. The End. No Further Fucking Discussion.

As I have said, I’m not going to name the individuals involved in Ricky’s doxing. You can find out who it was if you care to know, but their names aren’t ever going to appear on my website again.

His name was released and then the Huffington Post wrote the story up after part of the doxing group sent them information.

These are people I once respected, and it is very, very disappointing to see them sink to this kind of sickening, traitorous behavior.

I’m not going to dwell on this other than to say: as far as I’m concerned, the people involved in this are now persona non grata, and nothing they do can ever make-up for having done this.

Doxing is the ultimate breach of trust. And it is not just breaching the trust of an individual, but of the entire movement – all of the trust that we have built between each other, as a collective movement of political dissidents fighting against the most evil system which has ever existed.

There has to be solidarity there. There has to be a sense that no matter how badly you hate someone, no matter how angry you are at them, no matter how poisonous you think their ideas are, you never, ever, under any circumstances, reveal their identity or personal information which could identify them.

And the other side of that is that any single person who does that has to be excommunicated from the movement, in the fullest sense.

I am not only dissociating entirely from the people directly involved with this, but from anyone who continues to associate with them. Period. If you approve of this, even tacitly, I want nothing to do with you. Because you are a danger to me and my people, the people I care about, the people who trust me.

Of course, the doxers have formulated a twisted narrative where “Ricky wasn’t really pro-white, so this is okay.” But that narrative could be constructed about literally anyone. I have had entire groups of people say that I’m not really pro-white because I’m against feminism. With any person, you can find someone you disagree with, and construct a narrative about how they are somehow exempt from this rule, and because of that, the rule has to be hard.

No doxing of anyone on the right. Not even someone in the Alt-Lite. Never, ever, ever. Ever, ever. No matter what.

If you don’t like their ideas, then attack their ideas. Call them names. Do whatever the hell you want on the internet, but do not reveal their identity.

Because this creates a chilling effect. People become scared to get involved in the movement in real life if they believe it is possible that they could be doxed. That trust is so, so sacred, it is a bond that we have to have between each other, and you have to view it as though if you are doxing one person, you are threatening to dox the entire movement.

Because when you dox one person, everyone with something to lose pauses and says “that could be me.” And that can and will cause people to withdraw.

We are a brotherhood, and even if you hate an individual in this movement and don’t view them as a brother, you are betraying all the people you do view as brothers by engaging in doxing.

Just one more time: it is not about one guy and it cannot ever be about one guy because every person on the planet you could potentially disagree with and get really mad at at some point. Doxing should be the equivalent of first degree murder in this movement. You don’t murder people over a disagreement, because if you do, you go to prison for life or get the death penalty.

In point of fact, I would have had more respect for the doxers if they had actually hunted down Ricky Vaughn and murdered him. That would have been a lot less cowardly, and it would have had less of a negative effect on the movement.

Doxing should be movement death penalty, in that you are never again allowed to have any influence, ever.

Because this has to be based on TRUST. If we are going to do anything, we have to have that TRUST.

I fully understand that many of you hate Ricky Vaughn, and at least in part I understand why, and this is certainly not about defending him as a person, which I would not do (like I say, I was upset that the guy was confusing the Alt-Right version of American Nationalism in a lot of people’s minds, and was trying to not have people think I was somehow associated with him). It is about defending the entire movement, which has to have basic standards to protect the people who risk everything to take part in this thing.

Moving Forward

This is sad for Ricky.

It is even sadder for the movement, given that it is absolutely going to cause people with something to lose who were warming up to us, and considering getting involved in real life or at least online, to reconsider and back off.

But I guess something like this had to happen, at some point.

No one is going to do it again. I hope. Because they are going to see what happens to the people who did it this time, who are going to be excised from any involvement in anything moving forward.

And of course, the upshot is that Ricky’s real life persona is exactly the type of person they do not want associated with white nationalism. So the media coverage is going to be very limited. His name was released 3 days ago, and it took the Huffington Post two days to come out with an article.

The other good thing is that he’s too smart to try to cuck out and apologize, so the movement won’t suffer that humiliation.

So of course the Jews are going to harass him for the rest of his life, but he won’t be blown-up all over the media.

So there’s that.

The dox is also a warning to the Jews (for the mentioned reasons), which is going to send them into further panic.

The ultimate lesson is that we have to honor principles, and people who will not honor those principles have no place being a part of our thing.

It’s just us against the world.

Remember that.

Hail Victory. 

This is absolutely brilliant.

The Nehlen campaign is shaping up to be the greatest educational event of the 21st century.

Talking Points Memo:

A controversial Republican candidate challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced Friday that his campaign hired Kevin MacDonald as its spokesperson, a former professor at California State University, Long Beach who is widely recognized as an anti-Semite.

Paul Nehlen said in a statement that he reached out to MacDonald “after reading some of Dr. MacDonald’s work.”

“We hit it off, and well, here we are,” Nehlen said. “When I broached the subject of Dr. MacDonald’s interest in joining the campaign with my current spokesman, Josh Smith, Josh’s reaction was, ‘The man is a legend. If he wants to help you, tell him yes immediately.’”

According to the Anti-Defamation League, MacDonald was first recognized for his anti-Semitic views when he wrote a series of books arguing that Jews are “a hostile elite” in the U.S. whose goal is to undermine America’s European ties and “destroy Europeans.” He is also the leader of the American Freedom Party, a white supremacist group whose goal is to “to restore and preserve the legitimacy of White identity, White heritage, and expressions of White interests,” according to the ADL.

MacDonald has claimed that Jews are trying to change the “racial hierarchy” in the U.S. by promoting immigration from non-European countries, and he has said that Jewish people lack the “moral idealism” that he claims white people possess. MacDonald has written, appeared on and edited for several openly racist media outlets like the Occidental Observer and The Political Cesspool.

In April 2013 he wrote in the Occidental Observer: “Given the prospect that Jews will continue as an elite hostile toward White America and given the ethnic/racial transformation of the country resulting from importing millions of people who do not identify with the traditional people and culture of the country (presumably the Boston bombers) and often have historical grudges of their own to grind, the future of Whites in America is grim indeed.”

In January 2013, he told the David Duke Show that Jewish people “don’t really have moral principles,” but rather “a set of interests.” In December 2012, he claimed that Jewish people are “opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America.”

“I realize that many good people shy away from saying it, but the reality is that Jews have very aggressively pursued policies that benefit them and are opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America and the West,” he wrote. “And because Jews attained status as an intellectual and media elite, they have been able to have a very large effect on public policy and even on the attitudes of non-Jews.”

MacDonald’s new role with Nehlen’s campaign began Friday, according to a statement from Nehlen’s campaign.

They quote all these statements to say “wow just wow I can’t even,” but at this point people are reading that and thinking “I wonder what he means by that…?”

It’s a retarded strategy to just keep coming out and giving these statements from anti-Semites and racists and saying “CAN YOU BELIEVE THEY SAID THAT??? ISN’T IT EVIL???”

Especially in this case.

My whole thing was always that when the media quotes me talking about rounding up Jews and turning them into lampshades and soap, it’s supposed to sound so absurd that it makes someone giggle and wonder if I’m actually serious. They of course imply that I’m pure comic book evil, but having a sense of humor takes the edge off.

But when you’re quoting Dr. MacDonald making these statements about sociology and evolutionary biology, what exactly are you trying to imply there? It doesn’t imply comic book evil. Are they trying to imply insanity?

The Jews absolutely are a “hostile elite.” They are the single most wealthy and powerful group in America, and they use that wealth and power to abuse the native population of this country in absurd, extreme ways. They absolutely are the sole driving force behind the mass immigration agenda.

They are also the sole driving force behind:

• Racial integration
• The homosexual agenda
• The feminist agenda
• The pornography agenda
• Removing prayer from schools
• The abortion agenda
• Gun control
• The censorship of political speech
• The tranny agenda
• The anti-Trump agenda

And the list goes on and on and on.

They use their power in the financial industry, the news media, academia and Hollywood to shove all of this stuff down our throats.

They don’t even deny doing it. In fact, they brag about it regularly.

But we’re supposed to believe it is pure evil to notice it in the context of “hey you know, I don’t really like this stuff.”

Well, the jig is up.

In response to the overwhelmingly partisan censorship on major social media platforms against conservatives, I drafted a proposal to ensure American’s lawful speech would be protected by an exceptionally light-touch Federal statute.  One would think that, after having called for something to be done for years, at least one major conservative media outlet would have contacted me to do a story on my proposal.  You would be wrong (although The Gateway Pundit did publish the original media release, to its credit—Conservative Paul Nehlen Proposes Free Speech Legislation for Social Media Giants, by Jim Hoft, December 17, 2017.] The only outlet to contact me with questions was VICE.com,which provided surprisingly good questions for me to answer.  However, when the reporter wouldn’t guarantee that VICE.com would run the full answers or even any of the responses or the questions, I turned to VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow to see what he would do.

If you are reading this on VDARE.com now, you have your answer.

To familiarize you with the proposal that I sent to over 800 “American journalists” on December 14, 2017, here it is in its entirety.  Directly following it is the questions sent over by VICE.

Delavan, WI — Republican U.S. House candidate Paul Nehlen is the first candidate or elected official willing to stand up and propose a legislative solution to the problem of censorship of Americans’ lawful speech on social media.

“We need a federal law prohibiting censorship of lawful speech on major social media platforms,” Nehlen asserts. “It is well-known that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube discriminate against the right-wing, as evidenced by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s recent comments. While widely heralded for those comments, they rang hollow with no suggested solution. This law is that solution. It will extend Americans’ First Amendment free speech protections onto major social media platforms.”

“We are not extensively regulating or ‘trust-busting,’” Nehlen explains, “because people generally like how the platforms perform in terms of functionality. This law will not interfere with features or functionality, so market forces will remain in play. The problem is their censorship of lawful speech. Hypocritically, the same companies that support net neutrality also want to censor your speech. We say no.”

For purposes of this legislation, “censorship” includes:

• Denial of platform access and normal use thereof (e.g., lockouts, suspensions, bans)
• “Shadowbanning”
• Issuance of “verified” status based on any factor(s) unrelated to identity authentication
• “Throttling” accounts and/or content without disclosure
• Embargoing content (i.e., no “memory-holing” content without the consent of the creator)
• Manipulating “trending” algorithms without disclosure
• Demonetization

“Lawful speech” is based upon the standards enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, with the following limitations:

• No child pornography
• No explicit, credible threats of physical violence
• No publishing any individual’s nonpublic residential address, telephone number, or email address without their consent
• Platforms may choose to prohibit otherwise-lawful pornographic video (i.e., video containing explicit sexual acts)
• Restrictions on copyrighted content are already addressed by the DMCA

“Major social media platforms” means social media platforms that enjoy a market share above a minimum threshold level. At present, it would include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit. (Smaller platforms and message boards will not be affected.)

The legislation would impose company fines of $500,000 per instance of wrongful censorship, and would be enforced by the FCC. Judicial remedies (both monetary and non-monetary) may also be available to aggrieved parties.

“The bedrock of American society is freedom of speech. Social media companies have usurped this freedom, and we intend to give it back to the American people,” says Nehlen.

“This is just one more instance where Paul Ryan has shown he isn’t getting the job done in Washington. The GOP’s voters are being systematically censored off of the primary channels of public communication by left-wing tech giants, and Ryan — indeed, the entire GOP Congress — has sat utterly mute for years and allowed it to happen. In the absence of leadership, I willingly step into the breach.”

And now for the Q&A on the proposal that VICE could have published:

[Links added by VDARE.com]

VICE:  Can you define lawful speech?

Lawful speech is speech that is protected by the United States Constitution. As a general matter, if you can be arrested for it, it’s not lawful speech. If you cannot be arrested for it, it’s lawful speech.

Some speech is lawful until such time as a court of law issues an order declaring it otherwise. One such example is defamation (libel and slander). If X makes a defamatory statement about Y, that speech is treated as lawful until such time as Y obtains a court order declaring the speech defamatory (and thus unlawful).

VICE: Do you see your proposed legislation as a federal law or an amendment to the US Constitution?

A federal law. We already have the First Amendment, though private companies are not required to follow it. They are, however, bound by federal statutes. This legislation will require major social media platformsto respect Americans’ First Amendment protections.

VICE: These are private organizations. Are you suggesting the government regulate how private organizations function?

This is a bizarre question, in that government already regulates how private organizations function all the time, in myriad ways. For example, when OSHA says to private construction companies “all construction workers must wear a hardhat on site,” is that not government regulating how private organizations function? Of course it is. Entire industries have copious laws and regulations detailing what all private businesses within that industry must (and must not) do. Publicly-traded corporations must comply with mind-boggling numbers of laws and regulations relating to virtually every aspect of their internal and external operations. So government regulation of private entities is hardly some kind of newfangled concept.

VICE: Isn’t censorship, by its very definition, something the government does?

Not exactly. Censorship is the suppression of communication, and can occur in a wide variety of contexts. Censorship is indeed something the government does, but it is not something that only the government does.

VICE: Why do you believe that a private organization choosing what content it wants to publish on its platform is censorship?

Because, as I mentioned, private organizations can engage in censorship in the same way the government can, a company selecting what content it wants to publish is, technically, suppressing the content it does not want to publish. But we don’t generally have a problem with that, because people understand that such curations are made in order to present the most impressive of the lot, or the most topical, the funniest, the very worst, or whatever the criteria for selection happen to be. There may also be physical restrictions that necessitate such curation (e.g., limited space).

But that process (curation by the company) is not actually what is occurring on social media platforms at all. The companies are not choosing what content to publish. I’ll explain:

Unlike, say, the op-ed section of a newspaper — in which people send in letters and the newspaper reads them and then decides what to publish — on social media platforms the content is not pre-screened, so the company exercises no editorial control. Rather, anyone can post (i.e., self-publish) their speech simply by clicking the “Post” button, at which point the speech has been uttered, without any pre-screening by the company.

One might then ask whether requiring a company to keep lawful user-published content on the platform is equivalent to forcing the company to speak a message it does not wish to speak. The answer is no, it is not forcing the company to speak, and the reason is because the company is not the one speaking.

Nobody reasonably believes, for example, that a user’s post on Twitter is Twitter’s own speech. If a user, Fred Jones, tweets “I want to assassinate Trump,” nobody goes around pointing to it and saying, “Oh my God, Twitter wants to assassinate Trump!” The speech is quite obviously Fred Jones’ speech, not Twitter’s. It does not, by virtue of being posted by Fred Jones, magically become Twitter’s speech in addition to Fred Jones’ speech.

So, to return to your question, but with the proper framing for the social media platform context, you are asking whether, for instance, a company’s deletion of already-posted user content would be considered censorship. The answer is, once again, yes. But because the user content is not the company’s own speech, there is no compelled speech issue, and Congress is free to pass legislation placing limitations on a company’s ability to censor user content on its platform.

Note that nothing about this legislation imposes any new limitation on any of these companies from speaking, as a company, about anything they wish, or through any medium they wish; thus, the company’s own freedom of speech remains fully protected.

VICE: Do you believe your proposed legislation limits the ability of private organizations to operate independently of government control and regulation?

Again, this is a rather bizarre question, in that every law and every regulation that applies to a private organization “limits [their] ability…to operate independently of government control and regulation” to some degree. In some cases, that limitation is very minimal. In other cases, it is much more substantial. Different industries have varying amounts of laws and regulations they must follow. The social media industry, perhaps surprisingly (because of its importance in the day-to-day lives of so many Americans), has very few industry-specific laws or regulations. This has allowed a great deal of innovation, but it has also allowed these companies to treat their users quite poorly, arbitrarily, and capriciously, disrupting their access to the platforms with no explanation and no meaningful recourse.

So, to answer your question as to whether this legislation limits the ability of major social media platforms to operate independently of government control and regulation, I think the answer has to be no — unless you believe that functional monopolies that control the primary channels of public communication ought to be in the censorship business.

VICE: Can you define “explicit, credible threat of physical violence” and how it might differ from other violent threats?

“Explicit”: The threat must be clear and unambiguous on the face of the content itself. If a stranger were to look at the post out of context, would he/she conclude its text includes a threat to commit physical violence against another person(s)? (As a rule of thumb, if you have to ask “is that a threat?” then no, it is not an explicit threat.)

“Credible”: Whether a reasonable person would believe the threat to be genuine. If you’re not thinking you need to call the police over it, it’s not credible. If it’s just some anonymous account saying “I’m going to rape you,” or “die f—-r” with nothing more, use block or mute and learn to ignore it; it obviously isn’t credible. Generally, whether a threat is credible can be determined from the face of the post and any preceding posts in the interaction.

If it is explicit and credible, then it’s also illegal, so report it to the platform and they can look into it, and contact law enforcement if needed. (Since the social media companies won’t have nearly as many frivolous reports to sift through thanks to the legislation, they’ll have ample human resources to review these more occasional credible threats and give them close attention.)

VICE: Does telling someone to “eat a bullet” rise to the level of a credible physical threat?

Obviously not (if only because that phrase means they ought to commit suicide).

One of the many reasons that censorship has gotten out of control is that people have developed a tendency to intentionally engage in bad-faith “interpretations” of what is said—often in contravention of all logic and common sense—in order to pretend that they’ve just been the victim of an explicit threat.

Again, as a rule of thumb: If you find yourself replying to someone, “Is that a threat?” then it wasn’t actually a threat. If you’re on the receiving end of an explicit, credible threat of physical violence, it would be obvious to anyone, not just you and/or your friends and followers, and you might even want to call the police about it before you report it to the platform. Short of that, handle your interpersonal conflicts on social media by controlling your own experience with the block and mute features available, instead of seeking to control someone else’s experience on the platform by attempting to get them censored.

VICE:  What’s the market cap at which point you see a private industry becoming a public one, subject to these regulations?

Most likely, slightly under where Twitter currently is. Other than the “big three” (Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter), the others aren’t even close to rivaling Twitter’s share. There appears to be very little chance of any companies currently below the threshold growing big enough to trigger it for the foreseeable future.

VICE: You said Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook “discriminate against the right wing.” Can you provide specific examples?

There are so many examples, I’d probably have to express the number in scientific notation.

It is widely known that censorship on major social media platformsdisproportionately affects the right-wing, and it would take real cheek for anyone who has been around these platforms for a while not to stipulate to such an obvious fact. But regardless, I think that misses the more important point, which is that censorship of lawful speech should not be occurring at all, to any side, in the new de facto public square. It is just as disruptive, just as upsetting, and just as abusive when it happens to someone on the left-wing — and make no mistake, it happens plenty. These are megacorporate monopolies that benefit from anticompetitive forces such as “network effects” (which are at their apex in the social media context) to give them an absolute lock over the primary channels of public communication. This has led to widespread abuses of power, the arbitrary and capricious silencing of millions of Americans, and an unprecedented chilling of expression and infantilization of the public that is dangerously incompatible with American free speech values.

It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.

Twitter has purposefully decided to start using the word “suspension” to refer to both suspensions and permabans, so it is never clear which they are talking about when they use the word “suspension.”

I don’t really understand how they can permanently ban a congressional candidate. But it appears that this is what has happened.

Forward:

Twitter suspended the account of congressional candidate Paul Nehlen, the “alt-right” congressional candidate who has associated himself with white supremacists.

The reason for the suspension is currently unclear, and Nehlen has not yet spoken out about it on Facebook, his other primary means of communication. But Wisconsin news site Channel 3000 speculated that it may have had to do with a Photoshopped tweet superimposing the head of “Cheddar Man,” a dark-skinned 9,000-year-old Mesolithic man “rebuilt” from the DNA of a skeleton in southwest England, on the body of Meghan Markle, the fiancee of Great Britain’s Prince Harry.

Twitter has in the past few months done “sweeps” of racist and abusive Twitter accounts as part of its bid to make the website more user-friendly.

The tweet engendered controversy in the U.S. and U.K., to which Nehlen responded on Sunday morning.

“Publishing an article disappearing whites or dispossessing whites of their homelands is wrong; made worse when claiming ‘science’ to ‘prove’ whites never existed,” he wrote. “I made a joke of it. It’s not a laughing matter, so I chose to laugh about it.”

Nehlen, who is running in a Republican primary to unseat Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, was previously suspended from Twitter for a week after the social media network said he made anti-Semitic posts.

If he’s suspended for saying that a Negress looks like Cheddar Man that this is confusing.

As I had understood it, the Negroes are proud to be compared to Cheddar Man.

In fact, it appears as though the entire reason they made the Cheddar Man mock-up with black skin (something they had no ability to determine through science, given that neither the genes for whiteness nor those for blackness were present in the DNA sample) was to provide comfort to Negroes.

So how then can it possibly be an offense to compare the woman who is about to become the single most prominent black British person ever with this new revolutionary symbol of blackness?

I would think that most black people would look at the Cheddar Man/Markle photoshop and say “das rite.”

Suck on that Richard Spencer https://t.co/zomnyKYjkT

— Gary Younge (@garyyounge) February 7, 2018

Point being: Nehlen wasn’t actually banned/”suspended” for offending black people, he was banned for talking about Jews.

The ADL is the company in charge of banning people on Twitter when it comes to Jewish offense. They have been doing that since last year.

Excited to further our partnership with @ADL_National today. Together, we will help make the internet safer for everyone. 🤝 https://t.co/jOzPqQkBFI

— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) October 10, 2017

But the ADL is a 501(c)(3), and they’re not technically allowed to involve themselves in politics, i.e. they’re not allowed to have a politician banned for talking about Jews. So, they waited for him to do something that allegedly offended black people, and allowed him to be banned for that by whoever is on black people watch on the Twitter censorship board – which historically has been @jack himself, who doesn’t care about people talking about Jews but does care about blacks having their feelings hurt.

This is similar to what happened when the Daily Stormer was kicked off of the internet, with all services collectively organizing against us.

Hopefully this is just another temporary suspension.

Or perhaps that isn’t hopeful.

Paul Nehlen is pushing for legislation that blocks Twitter and Facebook from censoring people – it is called “Shall Not Censor.” I think it should technically be “Shalt Not Censor,” but I support it nonetheless.

He being banned from the platform over a joke certainly goes a long way towards proving the necessity of this legislation.

Paul Nehlen made a recent appearance on John Cardillo’s show. This is a show produced by Rebel Media, an operation run by the Jew Ezra Levant. It was an interesting appearance to say the least.

Cardillo challenged Nehlen on several things that he has previously tweeted about Jews. Specifically, Cardillo tried to claim that there is no racial difference between Jews and Whites. This is obviously false as it is a known fact that Jews and Whites have different DNA types and represent separate racial groups.

The Jerusalem Post late last year did an article talking about how Israel is determining if someone is a Jew through genetic testing. This is just one of many articles written in the Jewish press discussing how Jews are a completely separate racial group from Whites.

And remember that Jew teen who did a slam poem ranting about how she’s Jewish and not White?

The Jews themselves admit that they are a separate racial group. This is not a debatable fact.

Cardillo was abrasive throughout the whole interview. He frequently interrupted Nehlen when he tried to make his points. Despite Cardillo’s ridiculous tactics throughout the interview, Nehlen made him look silly. Cardillo was performing all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and refute Nehlen’s point about how Jews and Whites are racially different.

Cardillo also went on a deranged cuckservative “muh principles” rant against Nehlen’s plan to stop political censorship by internet monopolies, and ended up looking like a lunatic out to destroy human freedom.

Nehlen was so effective that Rebel Media declined to post the interview publicly. It’s apparently sitting behind a pay wall. The only copy that is publicly available is the one Nehlen recorded himself for insurance purposes.

How exactly are my actions cowardly and unethical when you can see my video is clearly uncut and continuous.

You never disclosed you were going to put it behind a ****** pay wall you dirtbag.

Go ahead. Release "your version" free and prove me wrong you gutless boot licker. https://t.co/guYLMUbwbT

— Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) February 3, 2018

Shortly after the interview, Cardillo complained that Twitter was deleting his followers. They are in fact deleting everyone’s followers in their ongoing censorship campaign.

This is the exact issue Nehlen was talking about, which he claimed was something related to private companies.

Twitter has deleted 7k of my followers in three days.

Never once bought followers.

— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) February 3, 2018

There has been some debate over if Nehlen made the right decision by revealing his power level on the Jewish problem. In the short term it probably limits his ability to win public office, but it has been very positive in many other respects. He’s clearly causing major problems for the Jews with his tweets and interviews. He’s normalizing debate about the Jews in mainstream politics and there’s no denying that this is a good thing.

14/ I’ve compiled a list of "verified" Twitter users who have attacked me *in just the last month alone* for my #AmericaFirst positions. Of those 81 people, 74 are Jews, while only 7 are non-Jews. Here is the list: pic.twitter.com/2pQlEp0RjU

— Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) January 30, 2018

A list, you say?

And it’s basically all Jews?

This is the most anti-Semitic thing imaginable.

Only the Jews are allowed to make lists of their ethnic enemies. They are given that right because of the Holocaust of the six million.

Someone has to tell the police about this.

This is getting to the point where law enforcement should probably be notified of Paul Nehlen's behavior.

Compiling a list of people who criticize you on Twitter and identifying them based on whether they are Jewish?

This guy is a ticking time bomb. https://t.co/DQuHxU59zy

— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) January 30, 2018

And take his blue checkmark away – because we don’t even know who he is anymore.

It's time for this fucking asshole to lose his verification "blue check".

Report this incredible waste of space to @Twitter for directing hate toward Jews.

Paul Nehlen, add me to your fucking list under "non-Jew and not a fucking moron like the troglodytes who think like this". https://t.co/H2mywcsKku

— Holly Figueroa O'Reilly (@AynRandPaulRyan) January 30, 2018

Even Trve Conservatives realize he must be silenced.

I’m surprised Twitter hasn’t banned Paul Nehlen yet.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 30, 2018

We have to stop people from seeing the list!

Here's how you share info about Paul Nehlen. Don't give him the glory of RTs and don't subject your Jewish followers to being forced to see his hate lists. Share news stories about his hate and let people decide for themselves if they want to see it. https://t.co/TVYZzwv88U

— Erin Biba (@erinbiba) January 30, 2018

And what about his teeth???

Hi Paul,

Non Jew here. I noticed this tooth is way longer than your others. Is this your jew hating tooth? That could be the reason you hate Jews. Or just the fact you are a terrible person. pic.twitter.com/gh6WUCL8vm

— Danny Deraney (@DannyDeraney) January 30, 2018

Someone has to shut this goy down.

Because if things keep going in this direction, he’s going to be a viable presidential candidate in 2024.

We’ve been saying for years that the Alt-Lite (InfoWars, Breitbart, MILO, etc) is nothing more than a long con to drag increasingly radical young white men back to the (((conservative plantation))).

But mounting evidence shows that we are the ones dragging the revolution forward. The alt-lite is nothing more than a set of reactionary fingernail scratches on the wall.

In light of the purging of Paul Nehlen, Baked Alaska has come forward to reveal that Breitbart tried to pressure him into lying about Jews. BA could’ve gotten far in the conservative movement if he simply played ball, but he chose to follow his conscience. Whatever people have to say about him otherwise, he deserves respect for his integrity.

At this point, it seems that the Alt-Lite is starting to give up in competing for our demographic and reverting back to the cuckservative mean. Being Alt-Lite puts you in a weird spot where Jews refuse to throw money behind you, but you’re also constantly hemorrhaging supporters and fans to the Alt-Right.

In the case of Breitbart, whenever they start veering too far off-course, Jews fire warning shots at their ad-revenue and sponsors. If Breitbart were to draw the full ire of the ruling class and government (deplatforming, political persecution, censorship) like us real nationalists, it would be the end of their business.

What comes next in 2018 is anybody’s guess. The only thing we know for sure is that the momentum is with the radicals.

As for the tired reactionaries, they will either go back to business as usual or drop out completely.

This Bannon situation is a real kick straight in the balls.

He has literally lost his mind.

And don’t get me wrong – I understand it. He put everything on Trump and Trump didn’t pan out as the populist revolutionary he was planning on, instead siding too much with his Jewish son-in-law.

“I’ll just do it myself then” is an obvious thought for a person to entertain. But it isn’t a logical thing to act on. Putting out the idea into the public realm that he is considering running against Trump in 2020 is a move which comes across as completely insane – especially when it is coupled with attacking Trump over Russia. It would still be a little bit wacky if he was basing the attacks on Trump on real things – immigration and foreign policy – but it would be a lot better.

The fact that he made his major attack on Trump based on the Russia stuff just demonstrates that he has become unhinged.

I did not want this to happen. No one wanted this to happen. Even after the Roy Moore debacle, Bannon had the potential to do good work, though on a smaller scale. Now… I think he’s pretty well rekt himself.

The Hill:

Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon has reportedly lost the support of billionaire backer Rebekah Mercer after he suggested he might run for president himself.

A person close to Mercer told The Washington Post that she no longer supports Bannon. According to the report, Mercer was frustrated with Bannon’s strategy in the Alabama Senate special election and pulled her funding after he told other major conservative donors that Mercer would back Bannon in his own presidential bid.

Bannon, now head of Breitbart News, supported Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore, who was dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct, in his eventual defeat to now-Sen. Doug Jones (D) in December.

“The core constituency for Breitbart is what you would call the Trump Deplorables. That’s the audience. And if they’re asked to choose between Steve and Trump, they’re going to choose Trump. That’s clear,” a person familiar with Breitbart News’s operations told the Post.

Yeah, that’s the thing.

And Steve has to know this. He has to understand that Trump is a personality cult for most of the people involved. Yes, they agree with his positions, but it is basic human psychology for most people that when they commit themselves to a leader, they will stick with him pretty much whatever he does.

Obviously, the Alt-Right isn’t like that. We have no problems being critical of Trump when he is wrong. But we are a unique minority. And Bannon has effectively attacked us by withdrawing support for Paul Nehlen. So he isn’t going to launch some racial nationalist challenge to Trump, which wouldn’t win but would be a worthy endeavor (as long as it was only a primary challenge and not a third party challenge – there is no excuse for electing a Democrat right now).

If he ran on a race-based platform against Trump, that would at least interject ideas into the public discussion and force Trump to adopt some more hardline positions.

But honestly, after he’s thrown Nehlen under the bus, I don’t really even understand what Bannon’s positions are.

Henry Kissinger is quoted in the same book that Bannon made his statements in saying that the conflict between Bannon and Kushner represents a Jew vs. Goyim situation. But Bannon is definitely not rolling with that.

And even if he WAS going to go with that, attacking Trump over Russia wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever.

It was unclear from the report whether Mercer, who bought a stake of Breitbart News from her father in November, will continue to back the right-wing news site. The report said she is no longer backing any future Bannon projects.

Rumors of a possible Bannon run in 2020 are reportedly mentioned in Michael Wolff’s new book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.”

…

Bannon made headlines after he was quoted in the book criticizing Trump’s eldest son for a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who promised “dirt” on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately,” Bannon said, according to the book.

President Trump responded to Bannon’s remarks in a statement on Wednesday, accusing his former adviser of losing his mind.

It appears that Trump is correct.

I believe that he has indeed lost his mind.

That’s understandable. He’s under levels of pressure a normal person couldn’t possibly begin to understand.

The Jewish homosexual Matt Drudge is making headlines with some tweets, the first of which claimed that Bannon now has a Chinese backer.

Steve Bannon finding opportunity and happiness in the arms of a new billionaire benefactor, Miles Kwok, aka Guo Wen Gui. Mercer is yesterday's mashed potatoes… pic.twitter.com/m88VI09Leg

— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) January 4, 2018

That has not been independently confirmed.

Drudge is also calling for Bannon to be fired from Breitbart and replaced with editor Alex Marlow.

The terrific Larry Solov and Susie Breitbart will take Breitbart into the fresh future. Has it really been 10 yrs since Andrew told me on Santa Monica pier he was going to do it?! His first hire Alex Marlow [he was 21] became one of the best news editors in the world! MORE pic.twitter.com/7fhsVxlNty

— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) January 4, 2018

I don’t know the details of Breitbart’s relationship to Bannon. He is definitely the head of it. But if he can be fired, they now definitely have reason to do so.

There is just no excuse for what Bannon has done, other than full psychological collapse.

It is very interesting that this happened right after he threw Nehlen under the bus. Because if he had stood by Nehlen, I would presently be speculating that he was planning a full racial revolt.

pic.twitter.com/YcVXkv9sGM

— Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) January 3, 2018

I believe that Bannon must be a crypto-white nationalist. There is no other explanation for his passion about nonwhite immigration. But he is a baby boomer and thus he genuinely believes that you can never go full-on with a racist agenda, so you have to obfuscate it by working with Jews and by talking exclusively about immigration instead of race. Even while he has said he supports immigration from Europe, which gives the entire game away.

As the reader is aware, I have been very supportive of the Bannonist agenda to beat cuck candidates in primary races – and I have also been very pessimistic about the viability of that agenda following the defeat of Roy Moore.

It is hard to draw any major lesson from this situation, simply because at the core of it, it appears to be the result of a mental breakdown. Meaning that the only actual big lesson of the whole situation would be: don’t overwork yourself, don’t substitute alcohol for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and always think before any major decision that will change your entire life.

I don’t think the lesson is that using primary races to remove cuck candidates couldn’t ever work. I actually think it could have worked. Now, it can’t. Because Bannon was the head of it, and he has lost his mind.

All easy solutions to our problems are being systematically eliminated.

pic.twitter.com/YcVXkv9sGM

— Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) January 3, 2018

Paul Nehlen has denounced Bannon after having been denounced by him…

wew.

This is really a hard situation.

Bannon appears to have completely and totally lost his shit.

I was absolutely not counting on this guy crashing and burning like this.

But if we can get Nehlen in close to Trump, then we may have ourselves an old-fashioned rodeo.

Also, I mean… if Breitbart falls… that isn’t exactly bad for the Daily Stormer.

We need our .com back.

You probably noted that I hadn’t been writing about Paul Nehlen. I was trying to keep the Stormer name out of the discussion, but at this point it really doesn’t matter. Plus I’m not really going to say what the media would want me to say for a soundbyte anyway.

I have some things to add to this discussion that are much needed.

As you probably know even though we haven’t be writing about it here, Paul Nehlen, who is Paul Ryan’s challenger in the 1st district of Wisconsin, has had a very interesting Twitter feed as of late.

Just go ahead and scroll it a minute. I’ll wait.

Tweets by pnehlen

So, yes.

This is a mainstream politician that is full-on.

Steve Bannon, who had supported him in 2016 and planned to support him in 2018, has effectively disavowed – because anti-Semitism.

Right now, there are two separate arguments being made in the right about what happened here:

1. That Bannon was wrong to disavow and that what Nehlen did was good, and
2. That Nehlen should have hidden his power level until after the 2018 election and that Bannon had no choice but to disavow, given that Nehlen has become non-viable as a candidate

(There is also the Richard Spencer position, which is that both Nehlen and Bannon did the wrong thing, which I personally found slightly contradictory but am willing to concede I may have missed some bit of nuance there.)

I can see both sides of the argument, but the element that it hinges on almost entirely is whether or not Bannonism is still viable following the Roy Moore defeat.

(For those who don’t know the term, “Bannonism” is the plan to oust cuckservative GOP candidates and replace them with hard-right Trump-supporting candidates in the primaries.)

Bannon obviously believes that Bannonism is still viable, so I can’t personally see why he would not disavow. His goal is to run candidates that can win, and you cannot win an election in 2018 – especially in that particularly cucked district of Wisconsin – when you are openly talking about Jews in the way that Nehlen is.

Assuming Bannonism is no longer viable, then Nehlen made a great move by accelerating things, shifting the Overton Window like it has never been shifted before.

A Future for Bannonism?

It’s worth nothing that Nehlen did not go full-on until after the Roy Moore loss.

In all likelihood, Bannonism is no longer viable. At least not on the scale that we were hoping for. Despite the fact that the jailbait claims were clearly a hoax, despite the fact that the GOP itself caused the defeat by turning on him, despite the fact that it appears as though there was widespread voter fraud, the fact remains that a Bannon candidate lost an election to a Democrat in one of the most Republican states in the country.

And the bottom line of why he lost was bad strategy. He didn’t focus on the core Trump issues and most importantly, he dealt horribly with the accusations – he came across as a liar, where there was clearly no reason to do so, because of a strategic gamble that I assume was Bannon’s call.

As I have said, he could have simply admitted to dating teenage girls and denied impropriety. People would have accepted that. And I genuinely believe it would have been the God’s honest truth. Instead, he tried to say he didn’t remember dating any teenage girls, and it was very, very weak.

Mitch McConnell and all of these people are out there declaring victory, saying that their establishment candidate, Luther Strange, would have won and this is obviously true. He would have won because he wouldn’t have been accused of this jailbait stuff, and if he had been, the GOP would have continued to support him rather than cutting ties and condemning him. What Mitch McConnell proved is that he and his people can and will destroy populist/rightist candidates.

I want to make it clear that I will continue to support Bannon’s efforts, 100%. I have no idea what it would look like to “turn on” him – there is zero potential negative effect of anything he is doing. If what he is doing fails then it fails, but we have nothing to lose by rallying for his candidates in the GOP primaries.

A Nehlenist Alternative

Nehlen is a Bannonist candidate who went hard on the Jews, and this demonstrates that the line between Bannon’s “economic nationalism” and actual real racial nationalism is very thin. Pushing to blur that line, as Nehlen has, is very beneficial to the overall agenda.

My job here at the Daily Stormer has always been to push the hard line of truth as far as I can push it. Running candidates who may not be intending to necessarily win elections on an openly pro-white and counter-Semitic platform could serve to force-radicalize the post-boomer mainstream of the GOP voter-base.

Furthermore, if the Alt-Right is running candidates in elections on an openly Alt-Right platform (which I believe should simply be referred to as “American Nationalism” in the context of American politics), this would serve as an excellent rallying point for the movement. Certainly a much better rallying point than black-clad marches through the streets with shields, which is not in my humble opinion a valid path forward.

So

The Alt-Right is still in the formative stages of building mass support. We are playing a long game here, just like the Jews. Virtually my entire focus over the last 5 years has been on people who are not yet old enough to vote.

For the time-being, if it is possible to elect candidates to office that are further right than the current government, we most definitely should. And if we can run ourselves for various local offices on a Trump platform without mentioning the Jews, that is also a good idea. But ultimately we do want something that is much bigger than Bannonism. And the key to that is education of the masses. Paul Nehlen is educating the masses. He is making it okay to be openly suspicious of the Jews. If we had just 50 Paul Nehlens come out and say what he has said, we would be 75% of the way to the finish line.

Trumpism is not and never was a long-term solution to any single problem, it was intended as a stopgap and a step in the right direction. The only real solution is to have tens of millions of white Americans fully understanding that the core of this country’s problems come from the Jewish race.

Because I’ve told you before and I will tell you again: nothing is going to happen unless we deal with these fucking Jews. There is no path to any kind of even some kind of half-victory where we somehow maneuver around the Jewish problem. To get to where we want to be, we have to go through the Jews.

So.

Are there any objections to Paul Nehlen for king of American Nationalism?