The Danger of Censoring the Grassroots Right

One of the largest problems in the West today is media censorship. Instead of following journalists of decades past who pursued the truth wherever it led them, modern media companies hire university graduates who - instead of studying more Enlightenment-inspired ideas like objective truth, reason, science, and empiricism - are more likely to have been studying postmodern-inspired topics such as critical race theory, women's studies, and queer studies. These subjective-focused studies emphasize one's own personal experience at the expense of the focus on an objective reality that exists outside of oneself, and the postmodern emphasis on everything subjective is a major reason why the universities have sacrificed the traditional mission of the university system in favor of something more closely resembling cultural revolution. An appropriate university education would help students foster a healthy relationship with their culture and fill specialized roles in the workforce that require intense study. Given this cultural transformation, it should alarm the public that their news is likely being fed to them by people who are less concerned with facts than they are pushing a particular narrative. In this case, that narrative tends to be something like this: "Western civilization is a corrupt patriarchy designed by white men to oppress women and minorities. Because this oppression is systemic, we must resist it and build something better in its place - by any means necessary." When people indoctrinated with this narrative become the individuals running the institutions - including media companies - is it any wonder that these people would seek to smear, slander, and censor others (largely white men) who see themselves as the last defenders of Western civilization? The left wing's strategy here is predictable, yet also incredibly dangerous.

The progressive left - and those who simply go along to get along - control the most influential cultural institutions in Western society today, including most of the mainstream corporate media such as CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and their local affiliates, as well as the largest social media companies. This effectively produces a severe limit on the information that reaches the public, and in the context of political matters, this becomes a huge problem. Twitter, Facebook, and Google get to use their definition of "hate" to produce a progressive-left filter on the information reaching the average consumer.

It seems that none of the progressives wielding these powers - arguably larger than the influence of the leviathan government itself - are concerned about what might result when millions of people are being silenced because the establishment view of what's acceptable (what historian and author Tom Woods calls "the 3x5 card of allowable opinion") is so incredibly narrow.

Is it "hate" when white people - the only group that is allowed and institutionally encouraged to be collectively blamed for past injustices - point out in their own defense that black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in Western countries?

Tommy Robinson used his social media platforms to alert the British public (and people around the world) that thousands of young white English girls have been systematically sexually abused by gangs of overwhelmingly Pakistani-descended migrants, and that the UK police departments have covered up this fact because they were afraid of being called "racist". No government official has been held accountable for this sickening corruption. Is it "hate" for Tommy Robinson to point this out?

Is it "hate" when white people - facing what they perceive to be institutional opposition to their very existence - assert their collective interests when every other race on the planet is assumed to have legitimate collective interests? For quick reference, below is a short list of prominent right-wing figures who've been censored from social media platforms for one reason or another: Alex Jones Lauren Southern James Allsup

Nick Fuentes

Tommy Robinson Gavin McInnes Laura Loomer

Have there been left-wing activists also censored from social media? Yes, of course. But remember that there is no shortage of people in the universities, in HR departments, in corporations, and in government who speak very loudly for the anti-Western progressive left on a regular basis and do so with virtually no repercussions. This double standard treatment of right-wing thought is the key issue, and it must be addressed. A Problem Bigger than "Woke" Progressivism Censorship doled out by the left-wing dominated institutions is exacerbated by mainstream conservatives, who - it is frequently argued - aren't really conserving anything. The individualist and libertarian approach has merit because it is true that people are individuals who ought to be treated based on their personal behavior alone, instead of being strictly relegated to their group's stereotype. This individualist treatment of others is indeed a key innovation in Western thinking. However, what is frequently ignored by individualists is the relevance of collectives when analyzing larger patterns such as group behavioral tendencies that can be measured empirically, and these patterns are critical in an any accurate analysis of the big picture. In addition, as Thomas Sowell points out in his book "Discrimination and Disparities", not all types of discrimination are the same, and not all discrimination can be judged as a character flaw on the part of the discriminator or as a moral evil that must be removed from society by any means necessary. Naturally, group behavior has important implications for public policy that the grassroots right is eager to frequently point out - such as average IQ of different populations, for instance - and these concerns are overwhelmingly ignored or even dismissed with the usual slander tactics ("racist", "sexist", etc.). Mainstream conservative figures like Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, and Ben Shapiro generally don't have trouble finding themselves a platform and getting their message out, but even these figures don't talk about key issues the grassroots right is concerned about, such as rapid demographic change and displacement of white people in their homelands, Israeli and Jewish influence in media, finance, academia, government, and Hollywood, the culture of degeneracy - including the proliferation of pornography, sexual "liberation", LGBTQ culture - as well as concerns that individualism is perhaps a noble, yet fatally flawed strategy given current events and trends. Mainstream (or "normiecon") influencers like Charlie Kirk and Dan Crenshaw have routinely dismissed and mocked genuine attempts by the grassroots right to get these issues out into the public space for open discussion (see Charlie Kirk's fall 2019 appearance at OSU for a prime example). There's evidence that this may be changing rapidly in 2020, but as it stands, "Conservative, Inc." (a term coined by Michelle Malkin) and their representatives in the Republican Party are not addressing the root causes of many of the biggest problems that are leading the West into a rapid decline. Is this due to malice? Cowardice? Laziness? People debate whether this phenomenon is intentional, but for the purposes of this discussion, it's beside the point. The voice of the grassroots right, or far right (depending on how "far" is defined), is being silenced and drowned out, and despite left-wing insistence that this is a good thing and that all grassroots rightwingers are Nazis, fascists, or anti-semites unworthy of being heard in polite society - the reality is that these are precisely the kinds of people who it is most dangerous to leave out of the conversation.

The Swings of the Political Pendulum in History The double standards being used against the grassroots right wing in the Western world are not sustainable. According to the mainstream World War 2 narrative, ultra right-wing totalitarian governments were the biggest threat to world peace. Yet it seems that the progressive institutions are hell-bent on backing white men into a corner and encouraging them to consider authoritarian solutions as a last resort in self-defense. Of course, the average person doesn't know much about the outer reaches of right-wing thought - mainly because such talk has been effectively banned from polite society. The post-World War Two era has been characterized by a strictly controlled narrative of what happened in the early 20th century leading up to the rise of Nazi Germany, and simply questioning this narrative is another extreme taboo that very few people are willing to question. Any attempt to understand Adolf Hitler outside of the mainstream narrative pushed by the Allied Powers after the war, including his motivations, the treatment of Germany as a whole compared to the treatment of other nations involved in the war, how Hitler's Germany compared to Stalin's Soviet Union, what war crimes the Allies themselves may have been responsible for, or what the role the Jews themselves played before, during, and after the war - is met with extreme suspicion that the person asking the question might be a closet "anti-Semite". This term in particular is one of the most egregious examples of pervasive thought control used by often unwitting and unthinking people who otherwise have good intentions, but are simply relying on the indoctrination they received in government schools and can't see outside their own head enough to question the official narrative. The results of World War One decimated Germany, and the years between the two world wars saw Germany in steep financial and cultural decline. Weimar culture had a reputation for being degenerate in various ways, including the proliferation of prostitution and brothels, which had otherwise been opposed by respectable Germans but became characteristic of Berlin specifically due to the decline foisted upon Germany by the Allies as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler captivated the Germans for a number of reasons: his opposition to Communism and Jewish control of banks and finance, his opposition to the degeneracy characteristic of the time, and his passion for uniting the German people toward what he believed to be their destiny of resurgence in Europe. Put simply, Hitler believed his mission was to restore order at all costs. In the end, the war was a disaster - not only for Germany, but ultimately for the world, as the Western alliance with the Soviet Union fostered many millions of deaths on its own, as well as the legitimization and global spread of an ideology that ultimately cost the world tens of millions of lives in the 20th century (and may yet have even more blood on its hands in the years to come). This is all relevant for modern Western readers, because as we look back upon what characterized Germany before World War Two, we can see some striking parallels with our situation today: our culture has become extremely sexually degenerate, many of our institutions are controlled by Bolshevik-style and frequently Jewish cultural revolutionaries, our finances are a disaster at the individual, corporate, and governmental levels, and we have the beginning stages of open ethnic conflict in our largest cities. A Warning for all of Us

So what does this have to do with censorship? Regardless of where the reader sits on the political spectrum, we must recognize that a refusal to listen to the concerns of the grassroots right means not only risking repeating disasters of history, but also giving moral justification for acts of violence that can reasonably be perceived of as a last resort of defense of one's culture, race, and inheritance. The left complains non-stop about the boogeyman of allegedly ever-present white supremacy (which I debunked in my previous post), but ironically, as white people are constantly under attack by their own institutions, they will more and more search frantically for solutions to what can reasonably be perceived of as an existential threat. Broadly speaking, the concerns of the grassroots right in America go something like this: white people are declining as a percentage of the population throughout the Western world, we're being disincentivized from having families, foreign peoples and cultures are being brought in to replace us (intentionally or otherwise), and soon we'll be a minority in our own homelands with nowhere else to run (after all, white flight only works if there's a place to flee to). Along with these concerns is a perception among whites that Western civilization will cease to exist without Western (white) peoples, and when one examines the voting patterns of different racial groups, it becomes clear that this concern is justified. Given all of this, what happens when a group feels existentially threatened, is constantly beaten over the head with collective guilt and double standards, and is also armed to the teeth and very angry? We may soon find out whether we want to or not. In what is likely the best freely available in-depth technical analysis of a potential second American civil war, John Mark lays out in great detail why the American grassroots right is very likely to emerge from this hypothetical conflict victorious. It would behoove every American to understand what may play out in this scenario, and while it appears that the left and the globalist elites are overplaying their hand out of sheer desperation, a warning for the right wing is also in order. Many men on the grassroots right are absolutely fed up, and in my estimation - understandably so. But we must also avoid making hasty decisions when millions (and potentially billions) of lives hang in the balance and when we men frankly have our own lives to get in order first, which is why it is more important than ever that peaceful negotiations be arrived at, posthaste. Open discussions among mainstream conservatives who have a massive amount of influence and responsibility are an absolutely necessary part of this process, and to the degree that mainstream and influential personalities ignore the grassroots right because of cowardice or personal gain, they are part of the problem. Centrists, libertarians, and anyone generally who isn't far left - needs to come to the table so we can all talk. Specifically, public discussions between the relatively-young-but-well-organized Propertarian movement and influential personalities like Stefan Molyneux need to be arranged (if you're a personality with influence interested in discussion, please reach out to John Mark , Curt Doolittle, or Brandon Hayes on Facebook). Our culture is rapidly reaching a point where the only options for the massive cultural divide between the left and the right are separation or war. We all must heed the warnings of history and our own moral responsibility to advocate for peace, because there are two sides to the metaphorical fence we're all sitting on right now: on one side lay peace, negotiations, arguments, debates, compromise, and eventual resolution. On the other side? Hell.


©2019 by Western Revival. Proudly created with