We Can’t Let Cuckservatives Determine the Fate of the Internet

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
August 31, 2018


After pinning a tweet about Google political manipulation, Trump was asked by a journalist if he wanted the company subject to “government regulation.”

Trump initially said “we’ll see” and then added “we don’t want regulation, we want fairness.”

Obviously, there is no way we are going to get any form of fairness without regulation. Trump knows this.

However, the word “regulation” has become bait for cuckservatives, who use libertarian arguments to defeat their own stated agendas because it is “values” and “principles” to lose while smugly saying you’re the real winner because you protected your values and principles.

Meanwhile, in reality, the only values of any value are: “losing is just losing” and “winning is just winning.”

The J-left obviously understands this. When dozens of corporations which together control 99.999999999999% of the internet colluded to attempt to make it impossible for me to even use the internet, the left argued that it was okay because they are private corporations and can thus do whatever they want.

That is, the selfsame people who forced small family-owned Christian bakeries out of business for refusing to bake homosexual wedding cakes were using a libertarian argument in defense of the most powerful corporations that ever existed on earth.

This is not because they don’t have “values” and “principles” – clearly, that is one thing that leftists do have. It is simply that they measure them by how much they win, how far they are able to push their agenda, not by ideological abstractions.

Part of their agenda is silencing the opposition, because they know that they are incapable of arguing their agenda successfully in an open market of ideas. It is a part of their value system that the opposition should be silenced, and they do not care if they have to engage in contradictory reasoning in order to push that value system.

“Never Regulate Anything” is Not a “Conservative Value”

If you ask an average conservative what “conservative values” are, they will probably say:

  • Christianity
  • Traditional families
  • No abortion
  • Freedoms

Attaching “the ability of multinational corporations to abuse the population” onto this value system was a Jewish trick, in the same way it was a Jewish trick to attach support for Israel and Israel’s wars onto Christianity.

Yes, “massive government” is objectively negative. However, so is “no government.” There have to be rules protecting the public from abuse, and these rules need to be enforced most aggressively against the biggest companies. Having a lot of legislation is not the answer – in fact, the more legislation you have, the easier it is for Jew lawyers to figure out a way around it. A simple rule that natural tech monopolies must respect free speech, as they are the de facto public square, is not communism. It is not communism anymore than outlawing child molestation and heroin dealing is communism.

And by the way, libertarians support abolishing the age of consent and legalizing all drugs. That is where the contradiction lies in mixing libertarianism with conservatism – no conservative would support legalizing sex with children or heroin dealing, yet it is the ultimate end of the logic the cuckservatives are employing when they say that all government regulation is planned economy communism.

Trump succeeded in tearing away “free trade” from conservatism because the people had seen that this alleged “free” trade led to them not having jobs and being poor. When cuckservatives like Paul Ryan and the cuckservative publications like The National Review that support him came out and said it was against conservative values to regulate international trade, they were able to hear what was actually being said: “you have to be poor because of an ideological abstraction that has nothing to do with your life or reality in general.”

People outright rejected the cuckservative attempt to keep them in poverty for the benefit of multinational corporations, both because they did not want to be poor AND because they for the first time took a hard look at the concept of “free trade” and realized they have no particular reason to be devoted to it.

It was like Morrissey said: “burn down the disco, hang the DJ, because the music they constantly play says nothing to me about my life.”

We need to do the same thing with internet regulation. And I don’t think it is going to be very hard, because like with trade, people have seen the real world effects of losing freedoms on the internet.

Clearly, what Trump is doing right now is attempting to get the issue discussed widely, to wait for the cuckservative response, and allow for it to be crushed by the appropriate pundits, at which point he can act. The left knows that they themselves cannot directly oppose regulation on the grounds that it is wrong to regulate private companies – this is the “bake the cake, bigot” crowd.

With the tech companies, the Democrats have made this huge scandal out of alleged Russian memes on Facebook, which means that they too should be supporting regulation. To be sure, I am not bothered by the idea of the regulations including a section which says that people paying for advertisement as foreign citizens and/or agents of a foreign government must disclose this. In fact, that is probably sensible. And a lot more ads are going to be forced to read “paid for by a citizen of Israel” than “paid for by a citizen of Russia.”

So the Jews are going to rely on a “right-wing” defense of the tech companies. Thus far, no one on the left has come out with an argument against tech regulation, while the National Review and Wall Street Journal, both traditional cuckservative platforms, have sent out a barrage of autistic screeching about how any form of regulation would amount to a planned economy.

This is something we can easily fight.

And the time to fight it is now. Trump is getting the ball rolling. We just have to kick it.

And the way to kick it is by forcing the point that they are using libertarian arguments, and that libertarians ultimately believe that there shouldn’t be any government at all. Ask them if they are also against regulating sex with children and heroin distribution. If they say “no,” tell them they are meddling in the economy by regulating the ability of entrepreneurial pimps to sell sex with children and innovative drug dealers to distribute heroin, that this is communism, that they shouldn’t be supporting a planned economy.

Just keep pressing those points, and tell them that they appear to not believe in the rule of law. Because at the same time as the cucks have pushed deregulation on people with an authoritarian personality, they have not tried to dismantle the “I believe in the rule of law” meme. And the rule of law either exists or it doesn’t, and for it to exist, you have to have a government. The reach of the government has to be based on common sense, not an abstract principle.

It is common sense that:

  • It should be illegal to have sex with children
  • It should be illegal to distribute dangerous, addictive drugs
  • It should be illegal for monopolistic tech companies to decide what people are allowed to say and think

That is what we mean when we say “the rule of law.”