I’ve shared my thoughts on Nick Fuentes plenty of times.
This article in the Chicago Tribune though is a reminder that we don’t have to personally like each other to have the same enemies and interests. We lost sight of that in the Trump era.
“For someone who has been deplatformed as thoroughly as anyone this side of Donald Trump, Nick Fuentes is still easy to find online.
The FBI has called the far-right streamer from Chicago’s western suburbs a white supremacist in a court document, and nearly every major social media platform has banished him for hate speech violations. Many technical service providers and consumer apps won’t work with him, either. …
Fuentes’ continuing visibility shows the difficulty of erasing someone from the internet, no matter how scorned. Social media platforms have varying standards about impermissible speech, banned content is easily recirculated and plenty of tech companies are willing to support intolerant websites. …
Republican legislators around the country have drafted bills meant to limit social media companies’ ability to evict users. Meanwhile, some Democrats want to establish a federal agency that would address hate speech, disinformation and other social media issues. …
Jared Holt, who studies extremism for the Digital Forensic Research Lab, said that reasoning is backward. People like Fuentes get deplatformed, he said, because “their ideas are toxic and harmful. … Pushing them to the fringes destroys their ability to build massive political power.” …”
If you asked Nick Fuentes a simple question like “what are your top five political issues in ranked order,” I am sure that his answers would likely be similar to mine. My top five issues are immigration, political correctness or cancel culture, Big Tech censorship, globalization and campaign finance.
This article quotes a bunch of people who are so well known to us that we could be on a first name basis: Comrade Megan Squire of Elon University, Jared Holt of the Atlantic Council’s “Digital Forensic Research Lab,” Devin Burghart of IREHR and Michael Hayden of the SPLC. Pretty much the only group that wasn’t consulted for their views on Fuentes was the ADL. They all share the same view that Fuentes should be banned from the internet for “hate speech” and have succeeded in getting Big Tech to adopt their views and impose a progressive orthodoxy on social media platforms and payment processors.
What is an “extremist” though? It depends on who you ask. The country is equally concerned about leftwing extremism. Are progressive activists who represent 8% of Americans and the most leftwing swath of the American electorate in a position to determine what can and cannot be said on the internet? Should social media platforms and payment processors defer to their views on that subject or to the 25% of the electorate which can be described as those in the Populist Right space? What will be the long term consequences of banning the president of the United States from the internet and hundreds of thousands of his followers and trying to suppress such a large swath of domestic political opinion?
It looks like we are about to find out. The lines between the “mainstream media” and progressive activist groups and Antifa and Black Lives Matter and Big Tech and the Democratic Party have been blurred. They no longer speak to the rest of the country. Back in 2017, we became acutely aware of this. The violence and censorship and the willingness of Democratic politicians to look the other way when Antifa and Black Lives Matter came to town to break the law was something new. It wasn’t until the aftermath of the George Floyd riots and the purge of Trump in January that public opinion really began catching up with us.
Now, our view on this subject has become the conventional wisdom on the Right: Big Tech has allowed progressive activist groups to rig the internet and suppress their domestic political opposition, social media mobs of woke brats engaging in cancel culture are a menace, Democratic politicians tolerate violent groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, “journalists” are liars who push social justice narratives now instead of doing their jobs and reporting the news. They are also all servants of oligarchs like Jeff Bezos. Everything that I have said here would command near unanimous consent now. This isn’t an “extreme” or “fringe” perception of the Left. This is how they are perceived now on the Right.
In 2021, we all have the same interest now which is being ungagged on the internet. This is true of Nick Fuentes. It is true of Alex Jones. It is true of Millennial Woes or Red Ice. It is true of Donald Trump. It is true of us too. If we can focus more on our interest and less on personalities, we would all be better off politically and financially.
Note: I’ve been banned myself from Twitter, Facebook, Google/YouTube, PayPal, Stripe, Google Pay and lots of other services. I have been banned from platforms that I have never really used. In that sense, I suppose I can relate to Trump who was banned from Pinterest.