So Much for “If You Don’t Like the Censorship Policies of Twitter, Start Your Own Twitter”

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
October 29, 2018

At time of writing, Gab is down.

The current Jewish line against the platform, which supported free speech, is that it is “morally bankrupt” to allow free speech.


Robert Bowers killed 11 people in a synagogue Saturday because they were Jewish. According to his social media activity, he had been harboring his hatred for Jewish people for months, and just hours before Bowers entered the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and opened fire, he announced on the anything-goes social media site Gab that he can no longer “sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics. I’m going in.” That post followed dozens of other anti-Semitic missives from Bowers, who had apparently found in Gab a safe place to express and nurture his hatred for Jewish people.

It makes sense that Bowers would feel safe to be as hateful as he wants on Gab. That’s the whole point of the social network. It’s supposed to be a place where users won’t get booted off for hate speech, built in response to platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which have become more active in ousting hate from their sites in recent years. When Bowers’ Gab profile and final declaration were unearthed, the company swiftly archived and deleted his account, issuing a statement that they have a clear “zero tolerance” policy against violence and are cooperating with law enforcement.

Nevertheless, fingers are being pointed at Gab, and the future of the website is in peril.

Gab may well be able to survive this spate of deplatforming. The site’s creator, Andrew Torba, may be able to find a hosting provider in another country that doesn’t care about hate speech, and he may find another way to accept payment from users who want to invest to keep the site afloat.

In another country. 

Other than America. 

He may be allowed to have free speech on the internet.

But if Gab continues to allow hate speech only until it ends in violence, chances are slim at best that the company will be able to ever stop chasing its tail.

The bankruptcy of Gab’s premise, valuing freedom of speech over community safety, becomes all too clear once violence erupts. Would the shooter have felt as confident in his decision to murder Jewish worshippers on Saturday morning if he didn’t have a community online where he could socialize with others who shared his hate? On Gab, Bowers enjoyed sharing anti-Semitic memes and posts from other users fixated on hatred and violence toward Jewish people. It’s hard to draw clear lines between what happens online and what happens offline. But politics are inherently social.

So there’s that.

A lack of extreme censorship is now “moral bankruptcy,” because the internet is real life and politics are social.

Remember when I called bullshit when they kicked us all off social media in 2016-17 and said that “if we wanted free speech, we could start our own social media”? When the same people forcing Christians to bake anal sex cakes told us that “Facebook and Twitter can ban anyone they want because they’re a private company”?

Well, it seems that they simply used that line as a justification for the bannings, because they have now disregarded it completely.

Shutting down Gab proves, definitively, that internet censorship is not about private companies having a right to blah blah blah. It is about “shut up, goyim.”

(At 7:00 the odious, shifty-eyed ogre Greenblatt says literally “shut it down” – I don’t know if he’s self-aware enough to be purposefully mocking us, or if Jews sit around in rooms actually saying “shut it down, the goyim know.”)

You could have known that it was about that, because it was all communist Jews defending libertarian policies.

It’s interesting that this is gone now, this line of reasoning, and they are now just openly saying it is evil to not censor protected political speech.

It theoretically puts us in a slightly better position. Probably. I think the “private company” argument resonated a little bit with dense boomer conservatives. But they certainly do not like the idea of silencing speech based on politics.

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no “hate speech” exemption in the Constitution, so when Greenblatt says, “I support the First Amendment but not hate speech,” he is simply lying.

The battle for free speech is the number one battle. It is the most important. If we can speak freely, we can win. If not… I don’t know what happens. Presumably, more of this type of thing.

If You’re Going to Blame Something Other Than the Guy Who Did It, Blame Censorship

Gab became a ghetto for banned people not because it wanted to be that, but because the mainstream social media sites kicked all of these people off. That did obviously create a type of echo chamber for already disenfranchised people, and allowed them to be targeted with psy-ops.

I guarantee you that the feds are going to come out with a DM log on Gab of people cheering this guy on when he was in his car outside the synagogue. They are going to indict some of the people in the DM, but they won’t indict all of them. Because some of them are feds, handling this Bowers guy, provoking him to do this.

I obviously don’t think anyone other than the guy who did it should be held responsible for the act. But if you’re going to hold something else responsible, you should blame the censorship.

A social media ghetto is a very specific type of environment that was only made possible by the censorship campaign of the Jews. When you are completely disenfranchised from being able to state your opinions, and locked in a cage with a bunch of other people who are in the same situation, you start to feel like you don’t have any options, that there is no route to create change. And when everyone in that environment feels that way, they are going to be very easily manipulated into real world violence.

The Jews are trying to retcon this as “see this is what happens when you don’t censor enough” – but the fact of the matter is, this Bowers chap had reached the maximum level of censorship. He and all of the people he was interacting with with were disenfranchised to the nth degree.

And we can certainly note that before this massive censorship campaign that began in 2016, there were no synagogue shootings.

When you silence people and exclude them from the public discourse, you create the conditions for violence. That is the fact. Jews understand this and they are doing it on purpose, because they believe that they can use the violence to push for more censorship and political repression, and just have the thing feed itself.