The Alt-Right and censorship

From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Numerous kinds of Censorship against the Alt-Right.

Censorship by Antifa

See the Antifa article.

See also Hate crime: Lenient treatment of politically correct terrorism in the media, academia, and the justice system.

Social media companies have been criticized for banning non-violent pro-White individuals and groups, while at the same time not banning antifa groups openly supporting and committing criminality and violence.[1]

Censorship by private companies and foundations


Many companies and advertising intermediates refuse to place ads on Alt-Right websites.

Not politically correct ads by Alt-Right organizations in non-Alt-Right media are often refused.

Discussion services

Discussion services such as Disqus and Discord have increasingly banned the Alt-Right.

Internet domain name registrars

Internet domain name registrars have seized internet domain names or prevented new registrations. This in effect shuts down the affected website.

Internet security

Internet security companies have excluded Alt-Right websites.


Airbnb has banned Alt-Right activists.

Payment and crowdfunding

Payment and crowdfunding have increasingly banned the Alt-Right. Hatreon and Goyfundme are examples of alternatives.


Search engines such as Google have changed their search result ranking systems in order to be biased against politically incorrect websites. This has dramatically reduced the visibility of such websites in Google's search results.

Social media

Social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are increasingly censored. Various alternatives have been created, such as BitChute, Gab, and Voat.


Lyft and Uber have banned Alt-Right activists.


Alt-Right organizations are often denied the use of venues, such as for conferences.


See Wikipedia.

Censorship by governments

Government ordered censorship by private companies and foundations

Various governments are ordering private companies and foundations to censor the Alt-Right. Examples include ordering search engines to censor certain Alt-Right websites and ordering social media companies to censor Alt-Right views.

"Hate speech" laws

See the Hate speech article. Note that the situation in the United States regarding protection of free speech is exceptional. Other Western countries typically have extensive restrictions on what can be said due to "hate speech" and other laws.

Use of such laws may be large scale and increasing. In 2017, British police were arresting nine people per day for claimed hate speech on the internet.[2]

"Holocaust denial" laws

Holocaust revisionism is prohibited by law in most Western countries. See the Holocaustianity article on quasi-religious and blasphemy/heresy comparisons. More generally, see Anti-Holocaust revisionism.


Public libraries often censor Alt-Right books. Even only somewhat politically incorrect books are often censored, such as books criticizing the mass immigration without mentioning racial aspects.

Lists of censored materials

Notably, Germany has an "Index of Harmful Materials", which may not be outright banned, but that are severely restricted in their marketing, sale, and distribution.

Organization bans

Some organizations and parties have been prohibited.

Tax-exempt status

Governments often refuse to grant tax-exempt status to pro-White organizations despite granting it to numerous organizations supporting the interests of non-White groups.

Travel bans

Alt-Right leaders have been banned from travelling to various countries due to their political views.[3][4]


"Whiteness studies" and similar "academic" movements are variants of Cultural Marxism focusing on race (as a supposed social construct) and vehemently criticizing Whites (including their history, culture, identity, achievements, "privilege", supposed negative effects on non-Whites such as due to White colonialism, and so on). The Alt-Right is similarly criticized. Anything similar regarding non-Whites is non-existing. Phenomena such as the large Jewish influence is not examined.

Organizations, such as for students, supporting the interests of various non-White groups are encouraged and supported, while pro-White organizations are discouraged and censored.

Argued censored research include research that could definitely decide if genetic factors influence measured average racial IQ differences. See Race and intelligence: The genetics or not debate: Direct genetic evidence.

Censorship due to the risk of being fired and/or expelled

Generally, Alt-Right activists risk being fired from employment and/or being expelled from various organizations if expressing less politically correct views. Non-Whites expressing similar views in support of their own group have much less risk of this and may on the contrary even be encouraged and rewarded for doing so.

Censorship and Alt-Right satire

The Alt-Right has extensively satirized various aspects of political correctness. This may involve methods such as parody, caricature, and exaggeration of politically correct views. However, such methods may in some cases be vulnerable to censorship and "hate speech" laws, if the censor chooses to ignore the obvious satire, and instead insists on a literal interpretation of what is stated.

Covert censorship

Some forms of censorship are covert by not outright banning Alt-Right views/sites/individuals, but instead use tactics such as bias in search rankings, demonetizing, and "shadow banning".

"In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like. [...] “One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.” [...] more left-leaning content would go through their selection process with less political scrutiny [...] thiis selection process wasn’t exactly Twitter policy, but rather they were following unwritten rules from the top: “A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.” [...] details how the shadow-banning algorithms targeting right-leaning are engineered: "Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.” When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”"[5]

Anti-censorship legal actions

In 2018, Jared Taylor and American Renaissance sued Twitter for permanently suspending their accounts. "The suit, filed in Superior Court of California—San Francisco District, argues that Twitter took this action only because it disagreed with the content of their tweets, not because Taylor or American Renaissance violated the company’s terms of service. [...] It notes that the California Constitution guarantees that “every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects.” The California Supreme Court has ruled that this guarantee applies to participants in privately owned public forums, of which Twitter is clearly an example. [...] finally suspended the accounts on the newly-invented pretext that they were “affiliated with a violent extremist group.” Not even the harshest critics of Taylor and American Renaissance have ever alleged any affiliation with violence. [...] This suit is also about property rights. Taylor and American Renaissance spent countless hours building up tens of thousands of followers, which, according to Twitter’s own internal valuations, were worth as much as $250,000. By suspending the accounts, Twitter destroyed those assets without compensation."[6]

Ad hominem and guilt by association tactics

A frequent tactic is to simply not answer factual arguments by the Alt-Right but to instead apply ad hominem labels such as "White supremacy" and make guilt by association accusations with, for example, the Holocaust and slavery. This can be seen as a form of censorship shutting down factual discussions by making emotional appeals.

Another popular ad hominem/guilt by association label is the conspiracy theory label. It is without factual arguments used to dismiss phenomena such as Cultural Marxism, Jewish influence, and changing White demographics ("White genocide conspiracy theory").

Another form of ad hominem/guilt by association is by making associations with skinheads or with religious anti-Semites. Such groups are implied to have so low credibility that their arguments can be summarily dismissed without further discussion.

A similar method is by making associations with mental illness, such as by applying the "-phobia" label or by applying pseudoscientific psychoanalysis. It is popular to try to "analyze" Alt-Right personalities in order to "find" mental problems, implying that this then means that their arguments can be summarily dismissed without further discussion.

Another method is "collective guilt" accusations where everyone associated with the Alt-Right is implied to be responsible for any criticized action or view by anyone associated with the Alt-Right (or even for actions actually done by opponents, such as antifa attacking peaceful Alt-Right events). See for example the article on the 2017 Unite the Right event.

See also Hate crime: SPLC allegations and Hate crime: Wikipedia allegations alleged associations between violence and the Alt-Right, as alleged by the Southern Poverty Law Center‎ and the leftist Wikipedia.

Non-censorship and support of individuals and groups supporting non-White groups

Individuals and groups supporting the interests of most non-White groups are not similarly censored. On the contrary, they are often encouraged and supported in various ways, and criticisms of such individuals and groups are often dismissed as "hate speech", "racism", and so on.

One of the few non-White groups that is censored is Palestinians, with social media companies having been criticized for working with the Israeli government to censor such Palestinian views, despite not censoring even large scale calls for violence by Israelis against Palestinians.[7]


The rapid increase of censorship can be seen as a response to the rapid increase of the Alt-Right.

In 2018, censorship and de-platforming methods started to be applied to the National Rifle Association, traditionally seen as a mainstream conservative organization, but often seen as an implicit pro-White organization.[8] See also Gun control.

Despite such censorship, a continued increase of various pro-White views and movements may be expected to occur due to the continued mass immigration and increasing ethnic heterogeneity and associated negative effects.

A possibility is that the censorship will somewhat delay the increase, but that this will be followed by compensatory explosive growth once some kind of tipping point is reached.

An alternative system of various not censored services is being created.

See also


  1. The Great Twitter Purge Is Here
  2. British police accused of ‘wasting time’ as hate speech arrests up almost 900% in some areas
  3. Richard Spencer banned from 26 countries in Europe
  4. Banned in America — A Sequel
  5. Undercover Video: Twitter Engineers to “Ban a Way of Talking” Through “Shadow Banning,” Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions
  6. Taylor v. Twitter Press Release
  7. Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments
  8. Welcome to the Party, NRA!