Chicago Tribune: Activists Want Nick Fuentes Kicked Off The Internet. It Might Be Impossible

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.

Chicago Tribune:

“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.

About Hunter Wallace 12149 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

11 Comments

  1. Speaking of blurres lines, I’ve noticed that increasingly what passes for “news” is a media outlet reporting (often just copying and pasting) insults that liberal activists fling at conservatives. For example, a “news” article headline from Salon today reads ‘Sen. Lindsey Graham dragged on Twitter after boasting that he owned an AR-15 to fight “gangs”.’ How is what liberal activists tweet “news”?

  2. This desire of the alliance of the Corporate Neo Liberals with The Woke Left to decide who speaks and who does not, and the habit of Western Governments to harness the technology which platforms that megalomania, to bend nations to their will, is precisely why Russia essentially left The Internet in the last 2 years.

    How interesting it would be, from an historical standpoint, if The American Right, and, indeed, the entire Western Right, wind up in Russian cyberspace on a longterm basis.

    Perhaps The Digital World would be a foreshadowing of the reshaping of the physical…

  3. (((……))) are waging a scorched earth take-no-prisoners against OUT PEOPLE……WHITE GENOCIDE IN ACTION……

    White Evangelical Christians(SEC FANS) are (((their))) enablers…..

    Unfortunately, it will take several orders of magnitude of inflicted pain to wake up the Historic Native Born White American Majority……There will be no morphine for this pain…….If a White Revolt does occur it will be preceeded by a great silence, a great shock to the White Soul processing the revelation that WHITE GENOCIDE IS VERY REAL………

    Very soon, the hints of White Chattel Slavery will be dropped in the MSM…Will they still be watching SEC Football when this happens? Surely it’s a coming…it’s coming….

    • Agree. There are just TOO many naive, stupid people out there. Churches bussing people into the US. These people are destroying the US and their own children’s futures. They pretend they care about the US, but they really don’t. They have some superiority complex about “doing good”. They don’t believe in White Genocide, because they think God “is in charge”.

    • For way too LONG,”White-bread-America” has been,in the INFAMOUS words of our 37th Chief Executive,”…the great,silent,Majority”; and!,unless,they,”snap to attention”,SOON!,it may be “over” before it EVEN,”begins”: and!,do,please leave “young man in a hurry”,Nick Fuentes!,alone: I think he does much more GOOD,then HARM–any day of the week!

  4. “Toxic and harmful” ideas are any ideas opposed to White Genocide.

    Freedom of speech is the alternative to violence.

  5. If your message is in opposition to the leftist government rhetoric, they silence you. So many were kicked off of YouTube. Other sites picked them up, but later compromised. Nick Fuentes was kicked off of YouTube and other sites. Random channels post his stuff, they get kicked off, and reappear. Same with Vincent James. You know who is legit by their message. I noticed you have “American Renaissance” in your Blogroll. They promote nonwhite interests and accept tribal donations. Anyone who even questions this, is banned from their site, and your posts are deleted. This went around on the internet awhile back, because people thought they were the only one, until it came out. They are pretty much like the MAGA or Tea Party thing of being against Muslim countries and blacks. But that’s it. They promote Asians and Jews as smarter than Whites, when history doesn’t even favor that view at all. Science, alone, shows Whites as the smartest. “Racial Realist” means nothing, when you’re not pro-White. This is not meant to be flaming, but it seems inconsistent with the overall messages on here. Do they do any good? Probably, but how can one be in bed with the enemy?

    So there is all of this controversy, but I find that one has to find the noise that is on their side.

  6. The tech oligarchs are functioning as a quasi-government in many areas of life. The real government, i.e. the scumbags in Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch act as tech’s lapdog, particularly the loathsome Congress. Money talks and Congress is bought off by the tech oligarchs to ensure they will be nothing more than little lapdogs; all bark and no bite.

    The fundamental problem is the system of government in the U.S. is thoroughly corrupt, it is based upon bribery and extortion. Attempts to introduce limits on money have been unsuccessful such as Citizens United >/i>with the result that there are no practical limits on campaign spending especially “contributions” (i.e. bribes) for individual candidates. No businessman gives money to scumbag politicians because they are interested in “good government”.

Comments are closed.