Traitors Before Enemies


By now everybody's heard about Facebook's banning of Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Louis Farrakhan.

You may not have heard that simply posting links to Jones and Watson can get you a Facebook ban, as well.
Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Any account that shares Infowars content will see the content removed; if an account violates terms on multiple occasions it will be banned. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles, and Facebook will remove any Groups set up to share Infowars content and Events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Alex Jones and Infowars.)
But in their magnanimity, our tech oligarch overlords have thrown their serfs a bone.
Jones, Yiannopoulos, Watson, Loomer, Nehlen, and Farrakhan are all personally banned, as are any accounts set up in their likenesses. But users may still praise those figures on Instagram or share content related to them that doesn't violate other Instagram and Facebook terms of service.
You read that right. Not only are FB users forbidden to share links to Alex Jones, the social media giant will punish users for praising him.

Look, we've been over this before. The 2016 election humiliated our ruling class. They've issued strict orders to their Big Tech trigger men to make sure it never happens again.

The delplatforming of dissident influencers thought to have moved the needle for Trump started out relatively subtle. At least by Silicon Valley bugman standards.

Now they've dropped even the pretense of free speech and are imposing a Soviet style lock down across the board.

Why are the online gulag wardens so emboldened?

Because the very Republicans that Big Tech's muzzling campaign is directed against have made it clear they won't lift a finger to prevent their own defeat.


Anyone who wants you condemned to penniless, disenfranchised second-class citizenship is not your friend.

Cabot Phillips Daddy

The response to Conservative traitors mouthing "Muh free market!" bromides is to ask two questions.
  1. Who benefits from letting Big Tech have free rein to internally exile dissidents?
  2. Does allowing 1 help the people cultivate virtue?
Too powerful

Anyone who argues against regulating the Big Tech trusts at this point is either an establishment shill like Phillips or doesn't understand cause and effect.

Big Tech's censorship spree is intended to make sure that the increasingly socialist Democrat party secures permanent electoral victory. Government intervention is the only way to stop them. Failing to stop them, even in the name of capitalism, ensures capitalism's demise.

And let us hear no more of this, "Just be good, and the Big Tech commissars won't send you to the social media gulag!" claptrap. Alex Jones, PJW, and MILO are rather tame civic nationalists. Now just favorably mentioning the first two can get you banned.

The Left only tolerates dissent when they lack the power to enforce conformity.

Traitors like Phillips have floated the Christian bakery story in ill-advised defense of their principle of preemptive surrender.

The Colorado case more aptly illustrates the fact that the death cult will not leave you alone. Quiet, personal dissent is not allowed. They will chase you down and make you submit.

Unless the Republicans who theoretically control 2.5 branches of government find their dormant sense of self-preservation.


  1. Always kill a traitor before an enemy

  2. The money-changers and merchants in the temple were just practicing free market economics, man!

    1. Yeah, like, the early Church only shared everything in common because they hadn't read Adam Smith!

  3. Every time I read some cuck's words:

    "I'll sternly lecture my wife for screaming for my help during her rape. Screaming for help is against muh principles and she should really have bootstrapped herself away from her alleged rapist. The fact that he was 3X her size is no excuse!"

  4. What a supremely punchable face that greasy little cuckservative is sporting.

    1. "What a supremely punchable face"

      Isn't it just?

  5. Physiognomy is real. This wisdomless wizard needs to be sent to the ranch to do hard physical labor for a year to sweat the soy out.

    1. Sweat away the soy.

      I think you've got something there.

    2. Stockman,

      And get some skin in the game. The need some humility that comes from austerity and doing hard work.
      Sorta like a Benedictine bootcamp for neckbeards. The same goes for the thots.

  6. Now Snoop Dog has thrown down the gauntlet:
    Why Farrakan and not Alex Jones I leave others to speculate but get the popcorn ready when Facebook won't ban Snoop.


    1. I wasn't aware that Snoop was woke on the JQ.

  7. Brian, I'm seeing many try to argue for this under the grounds of free speech. I've been thinking about the phrase "error has no rights" or our version on this blog, "error has no place at the table." I find this wrong because truth is being silenced in favor of error. In a reverse scenario, would we be right in deplatforming and possibly even demonetizing Communists/Feminists/Socialists/Freemasons/Modernists/SexRev because what they teach is not just wrong, but is harmful? I want to say yes.

    I'm also disappointed in all the hand wringing of how if exchange of ideas ends, then the fighting begins. While I don't long for civil war, prolonging the inevitable fight will just increase the casualty rate and destruction. This war should have been fought in the 1950's or 1960's.

    1. "In a reverse scenario, would we be right in deplatforming and possibly even demonetizing Communists/Feminists/Socialists/Freemasons/Modernists/SexRev because what they teach is not just wrong, but is harmful?"

      Does allowing those murderously vicious groups to pollute the public square with their errors help the people cultivate virtue?

      Of course not.

      It was the Modernists who set up freedom as the sole criterion of public policy. This is the chief fatal error that must be rejected if we are to salvage something of Western civilization.

    2. "I'm also disappointed in all the hand wringing of how if exchange of ideas ends, then the fighting begins."

      A fight that's becoming inevitable because we let civilization-wreckers preach error in the first place.

      Vox was right. Free speech was a con designed to trick up into unilaterally disarming.

    3. Here here. Since I respect your thoughts on the matter, I wanted to compare my thinking with yours.

      It's not just the elevation of license, falsely called freedom, being raised to the position of sole criterion of deciding the ethical position of a policy, but it's also falsely believing in Acton's notion of Power, at least for those who claim to be on the Right or Libertarian. Acton was wrong. Power does not corrupt, it attracts the corrupt and amplifies what is present in the wielder. License-Freedom is the cry of the sinner annoyed at the virtuous for trying to correct them, just as free speech is the cry of heretic, annoyed at the virtuous for trying to stop them from corrupting the sheep.

    4. Being a literary disciple of Frank Herbert, I must concur.

    5. The 'exchange of ideas' meme contains two mistakes. First, it presupposes the moral equivalency of institutionalized theft - socialism, communism, and softer flavors of the command economy - and the pursuit of justice. Second, it overlooks the fact that violence is in itself a form of communication, which sometimes means 'Leave me alone or I'll hurt you until you go away.'

    6. The Left has never really been interested in talking.

      Asking for their rights when they're weak and denying our rights when they're strong is their principle.