censorship, empire watch, featured, free speech, latest

gab.com & the Great Purge on the Horizon

Kit Knightly

gab.com is an alternative social network, set up and launched in 2016. It’s founder, Andrew Torba, stated he wanted to create a home for free speech, and counter what he perceived as “liberal bias” on other platforms, such as twitter and facebook.

Two days ago, their website was taken down. This was in response to being blocked by PayPal, and then having their server space taken away by their hosting service. gab’s founder posted this statement on their stripped-down website.

Why did this happen?

Because Robert Bowers, the alleged gunman at the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, had a gab account and posted some things about “the jews” on it.

Is it right, or sensible to punish a platform for the (alleged) actions of ONE user out of 100,000s? And is that really what’s going on?

Robert Bowers also had a Twitter account. And a Facebook page. Neither of these platforms has faced punishment, or censure, from any quarter.

Cesar Sayoc – the alleged MAGABomber – also had a twitter account and allegedly sent threatening messages to some public figures on it. Again, Twitter has not been blocked by PayPal.

In fact, Twitter and Facebook – though occasionally criticised for “not doing enough to combat hate”, have never been blocked, or threatened in any way. Even though twitter hosted countless pro-ISIS accounts, regularly cited in the media.

So clearly, it can be reasoned, PayPal et al are not only responding to the alleged statements of Robert Bowers. There is a deeper agenda at work.

In fact, this isn’t the first time larger internet companies have tried to stymie gab’s existence. When they were first launched, in 2016, Apple denied them a place in their app store because they allegedly allowed pornography to be posted. When gab installed a filter to block people posting pornography, Apple again denied them access to the app store, this time for breaching their “hate speech” regulations. Google Play did the same in 2017 (reminder – Google allowed ISIS to release their own app on their marketplace).

Early this year a cross-university study conducted on gab (and other “alt-right” sites) found that gab.com used “free speech as shield to protect their “alt-right” views”. (I’m not sure what, if anything, that sentence really means. Surely free speech is a shield protecting all speech? Isn’t that the point?)

In April this year VICE magazine ran an article headlined “Gab Is the Alt-Right Social Network Racists Are Moving to”. It was resoundingly negative about the site, painting it as nothing but a home for racism and “conspiracy theorists”, despite the owner’s protestations that gab is all about free speech, and that anyone is free to join.

Logically, the emergence of networks like gab was inevitable. The internet has always been that way, you shut down one hallway and four more are forced open. Look at Piratebay, notionally banned, yet available through a million different proxies that spring up faster than governments can shut them down.

Social media has undergone unprecedented purges this year. Alex Jones was banned across virtually every mainstream platform. Hundreds of facebook pages and twitter accounts were shut down on spurious grounds – allegations of being “Kremlin backed” or “Iran bots” fly around, without any supporting evidence ever being released to the public. This summer, twitter blocked millions of “fake accounts” (we covered that here).

These actions aren’t independent, either. Alex Jones was banned from multiple platforms, all within 24 hours. Just earlier this month, Facebook unpublished over 800 pages, whilst twitter blocked the accounts of the same pages…all on the same day. Clearly, the companies are either co-ordinating with each other (possibly in breach of anti-trust laws), or are receiving directions from the same source – almost certainly the government.

In that climate, new platforms were always going to emerge. It’s the classic “Well then I’m gonna build my own theme park, with blackjack and hookers” situation.

YouTube is increasingly corporate, controlled and fake. Demonetising user videos and adding more and more advertisements…so dtube and bitchute open. Twitter censors your free-speech, so we’ll start up a platform where you can say what you want.

Twitter and Facebook both saw their stock-prices tumble as a result of their respective “purges”. So, is the anti-gab movement simply a case of mega-corporations protecting their monopoly by shutting down a budding rival? Is this all just about control of the market and money?

Unfortunately, it seems not. Like the vast majority of media roll-outs, it seems this is a convergence of interests – financial on the one hand, and political on the other.

The push to ban the “alt-right” – or, the even broader term – “hate speech” has been on-going for several years now. It will inevitably pick up in the wake of the events of this week.

Within hours, predictable voices were discussing the “necessary limitations on free speech”:

Today, CNN ran this piece: “Big Tech made the social media mess. It has to fix it”.

Paul Mason, writing in the New Statesman, argued that YouTube needs to censor all the “alt-right” on their platform.

It’s a two-step process – having first established the need to “limit” hate speech, we can then move on to defining what “hate speech” really means.

They’ve started on that already. Criticising George Soros is “anti-semitic” now. As is the term “neocons”:

What else will be deemed hate speech? What does “hate speech” really mean? The simple answer to that is: Whatever they want it to mean.

It seems like there’s a purge coming, you can feel it in the wind. A purge motivated by the greed of multinational companies wielding power that rivals nations, and fuelled by the fascistic need of the “powers-that-shouldn’t-be” to limit and control our existence…just because they can.

It is both authoritarian power grab, and a manifestation of corporate greed. It’s amazing how often those two things come together.

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.


  1. Mark Gobell says

    There has been another shooting event in Florida, this time at a yoga studio in Tallahassee.

    ELECTION PSYOP: A ‘False Flag’ Mass Shooting in Tallahassee just before Election Day, How Convenient for Candidate Gillum


    BROWARD COUNTY: Operational Headquarters for Israeli Intelligence-Directed False Flag Operations and Mass Casualty Events in America


    2018 Tallahassee shooting

    Scott Beierle: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know


    On the 101st anniversary of the Balfour Declaration …

    The same day of the last funeral for the eldest reported victim of the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting, Rose Mallinger.



  2. Mark Gobell says

    All operations are at least, “two birds with one stone” or the US phrase, “twofers”. The Tree of Life event is no different. GAB was clearly designed in, as was the “racist white men” meme.

    My research shows that the Tree of Life synagogue event carries very clear signatures of an internecine conflict, projected onto a typical, caricature persona, in order to demonise Trump & condition frail minds before the mid-terms, with many of the usual suspects referenced.

    Israel’s Law of Return has been used, for the event itself and to the formation of the Pittsburgh Pirates, which has, once again, been used as an allegory in this narrative vis reported victims, Irving Younger and Melvin Wax.


    The same “Pittsburgh Pirates” allegory also featured in the 9/11 script, vis reported Flight UA93 victim and the alleged “Lets Roll” crew member, Lou Nacke’s reported baseball hero, Roberto Clemente.

    Also, the Pittsburgh River Hounds featured in the Paris Bataclan script, vis reported victim, Francois-Xavier Prevost. Recall Netanyahu’s uninvited presence on the Charlie Hebdo march and his calls for diaspora Jews to emigrate to Israel, repeated again after the February 2015 Copenhagen shootings. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/leaders-criticise-netanyahu-calls-jewish-mass-migration-israel

    The Squirrel Hill, Tree of Life shooting narrative also includes the Pittsburgh Steelers vis reported victims, brothers David and Cecil Rosenthal. The Steelers allegory is used because it references, among many others, the intellectual progenitor of Conservative Judaism, Zecharias Frankel.



    As if to confirm these findings, I noticed yesterday that the NYT had this on Monday :

    Pittsburgh Killing Aftermath Bares Jewish Rifts in Israel and America

    But Saturday’s massacre also brought to the surface painful political and theological disagreements tearing at the fabric of Israeli society and driving a wedge between Israelis and American Jews.

    Israel’s Ashkenazi chief rabbi took pains to avoid the word “synagogue” to describe the scene of the crime — because it is not Orthodox, but Conservative, one of the liberal branches of Judaism that, despite their numerous adherents in the United States, are rejected by the religious authorities who determine the Jewish state’s definitions of Jewishness.


    The usual list of real targets for all US shootings is of course, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights ( 2nd Amendment ). The Tree of Life synagogue event also carries clear and obvious signatures from the adoption on the first 10 Amendments including the 2nd, the right to bear arms.

    The 2nd Amendment signature together with an almost identical signature from Nathan Meyer Rothschild, are both evident for the all of the “pipe bombs” and the alleged shooting from 23 to 27 October, except the first pipe bomb sent to George Soros.

    The criteria for the selection of Robert Bowers as the “Jew hating” perp was probably predicated on much that is unknown to us, but what is known is that, among others, his reported birth date carries exemplar signatures from the death of Adolf HItler.

    Quell surprise …


      • Mark Gobell says


        Free speech also means tolerating puerile comments from ill-informed folk who feel compelled to ridicule something they know nothing about, while hiding their timorous souls behind internet anonymity.

        Perhaps you can share with the world, exactly what it is that you find “cranky” about my work ?

        So far, all you have offered is an

        Appeal to ridicule


        Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent’s argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

        Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent’s argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument’s foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. .


  3. It’s clear that freedom of speech is under threat – it always has been. However what is so insidious about the recent escalation of it is that it is being done to protect and defend the status quo of the ruling elites in an increasingly desperate way. Which by itself has exposed their venal and corrupt agendas. They are fearful of their antics coming under the scrutiny of the public. It’s easy to condemn the general population as stupid or sheep, but this is not the case otherwise the establishment and its foot soldiers would not be too worried about control of the narrative.

    Clearly they are and this is manifesting itself increasingly as labelling independent thinkers as cranks and conspiracy theorists etc. Fortunately true wing-nuts and crazy stories never gain much traction with the public, unless it is rammed down their throats by the MSM as can happen from time to time. But as we saw with the Skripal affair despite blanket coverage of the British government line the general public didn’t believe it – unlike the media paid for shills who definitely did!

    So hate speech is OK at the Guardian et al as long as it falls within certain parameters. Supporting Nazis is fine if you are writing about Ukraine condemning Russia. If you write supporting Russia you are condemned as being a fascist troll for example. Being an anti-Semite is now synonymous with supporting the leader of the Labour party.

    So when the establishment says they are after the right-wing hate-mongers and need to limit free speech, they are really after those who challenge their world view and traditionally it has always been the socialist who are their real threat.

    • frank says

      It’s gotten bad, really really bad. It’s already at the point where any channel still operating on YouTube is suspect, either propaganda or controlled opposition. There are exceptions of course, but notably their viewership tends to be very low, compared with the propaganda channels.

      What’s the term, full-spectrum dominance? That’s what they’re after. And that’s what they’re getting.

  4. Anybody who had had the opportunity to read posts on Gab would have seen that there were anti-Zionist as well as anti-Islam posts amongst the many, many posts which were neither. Some posts were offensive, some almost as offensive as Hillary Clinton joking that all black people look the same.

    What this is about is herding everybody into the same corral and then denying a voice to anybody who refuses to comply with the Overton window – although given the death threats which are permitted to some people and the one-way acceptance of racism, it looks as if the Overton window is double-glazed.

  5. frank says

    “It seems like there’s a purge coming”

    What do you mean “coming”? It’s been underway for more than a year now.

    Maybe you meant to say something even bigger is coming? Yeah sure, seems reasonable. What’s really worrying is that now hosting companies are getting in on the act. No more independent websites? That would truly be the end.

  6. gab.com used “free speech as shield to protect their “alt-right” views”. (I’m not sure what, if anything, that sentence really means.)

    I think it was meant that the GAB allegedly defended its views (“alt-right” views”), using as a “justification” the need to respect freedom of speech.

    Sometimes, doing the most terrible things, you can get away from punishment, using the good old technique called “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”.
    For example, in Russia fascist processions and fascist symbolism are prohibited. But in the United States it is permitted, under the pretext that “the fascists also have the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. By the way, this is one of the reasons why the United States and Ukraine every year are in a disgraceful minority, in fact being the only ones voting against the UN resolution on the inadmissibility of the glorification of Nazism (they say, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression”).

    I don’t say all that GAB was doing is something terrible or bad. Most likely the opposite.
    I just explain the logic of those people who say that ‘gab.com used free speech as shield to protect their “alt-right” views’.
    Probably, these people think that GAB “was doing something bad”, and used “free speech as shield to protect their [“alt-right”] views”.

    Is it right, or sensible to punish a platform for the (alleged) actions of ONE user out of 100,000s?

    Oh, welcome to “justice”, Western-style. Just want to remind what happened with the Russian athletes during the so-called “doping scandal”. In fact, the principle of collective responsibility was applied for the first time (of course, there was no discrimination based on nationality. Sure). As a result, dozens and hundreds of innocent & clear athletes did not get the opportunity to compete and realize themselves. Careers of many athletes were destroyed.

    This is what happens when instead of punishing a few really guilty ones (if there are any at all), you apply punitive measures to everyone. By the way, if you think about it, the reasons to close the entire GAB platform (not the account of one guilty) and remove the entire Russian team (not some really guilty ones) from the competition are very similar.

    In general, I don’t get tired of repeating that it is fundamentally wrong to perceive platforms like Tweeter or Facebook (Google, Apple, Youtube etc) as “independent”, possessing some “fair principles” that are equal and accessible to all. All of these platforms are just instruments of influence of the relevant financial/political elites.

    If you use these platforms, then you accept the rules of the game. And these rules are not established by you. As long as you behave modestly, you are allowed to act. When you start to allow yourself too much, they cut off your wings.

    I see the solution in creating truly alternative platforms that are not related to financial/political elites and corporations like YouTube, Google, Facebook, and so on.
    Maybe it could be something based on civic initiatives and public open-source projects.
    It is necessary to establish your own rules of the game, and not to obey the rules of others (Google, Youtube, Facebook etc).

    Though, I don’t know whether it is possible to remain truly & fully independent. After all, who controls the Internet? Yes, the United States. So…

    • frank says

      “If you use these platforms, then you accept the rules of the game.”

      In general I agree with this sentiment. There are some problems though:

      -Sites like Fakebook etc are breaking their own user agreements banning most of these accounts. (Not always, but almost always.)
      -They don’t apply their rules to everybody but selectively.

      Anybody else have more counter arguments to the “Facebook is a private company, they can do what they want” reasoning?

    • Yarkob says

      Gab is not “alt right”!. Gab is a social media platform that allows free speech. You know, the free speech that allows “free speech” or “all speech” because disallowing certain words is no longer “free speech”. Gab do not have to defend the views of people who post on their free speech platform, any more than Google have to defend the actions of software and music pirates who find and distribute their illegally obtained software and music via their platform. This is a crucial distinction.,

      And can everybody just stop sucking up the establishment line that Gab was “alt-right”! It wasn’t. It had a huge spectrum of views on there, some of which were/are “alt right”. The reason I put this in quotes so much is because nobody can actually define what “alt-right” means. It’s a bit like “fascist” whereby everyone that disagrees with some people are fascists. It’s intellectually lazy and facile, much like regurgitating the prevailing views on sites like this because “I read it on the Guardian” (I’m not suggesting this is you!)

  7. Robbobbobin says

    “Robert Bowers, the alleged gunman at the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, had a gab account and posted some things about “the jews” on it.”

    There were “Jews” in that synagogue? Makes a change.


    Proud to be anti-FAsCemitic

    • Antonym says

      This Gab censoring is not done by “the all powerful Zionists”. Ex-comedian Pat Condell, very pro Israel was first blocked on Youtube, then frequently on Twitter and moved to Gab. Now he is in the same spot as all other Gab users, except that he keeps on promoting Gab: https://twitter.com/patcondell

      • frank says

        The fact that there are Jews that criticize Israel does not mean Jewish interests are not involved in this purge. Google who is behind the censorship on Facebook etc.

        • Admin says

          ‘Jewish interests’ is a racist nonsense term.

          • frank says

            Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, among others, are joining with the ADL to form a Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab, the companies and the civil rights group said Tuesday.


            The Anti-Defamation League (ADL; formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) is an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States. The ADL states that it “fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals, and protects civil rights for all”, doing so through “information, education, legislation, and advocacy”.[1][2]


            • frank says

              Again I agree with what you are saying. (Also see my response to ‘mohandeer’ below.)

              The ADL is (according to Wikipedia): “an international Jewish non-governmental organization”

              So what “word” or “words” am I supposed to use when referring to them or what they are doing? Please elucidate me. No but seriously, you see what I mean?

              • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                An ‘Anti-Defamation League’ that specialises in defamation and vilification-pure chutzpah.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            Perhaps ‘Jewish elite interests’, would be better.

            • Admin says

              Or better still ‘elite interests.’ It’s their elite status that signifies, not their race/religion

              • rilme says

                Or better still “Jews”. That’s how they describe themselves.

                Are Jewish people behind the censorship on facebook?

        • @Frank. Do not conflate the “zionist interests” with those of Jews. That is playing right into the hands of those who would negate any criticism of Israel by using the term “antisemitism” to silence views on Israel’s treatment of the Christians and Moslems who also people it’s occupation of Palestine. Israel does not serve the interests of the majority of Jews.

          • frank says

            Fair enough and I agree. It becomes extremely hard navigating this language minefield though, trying to avoid stepping on a “mine” using the wrong “word”. I hope you understand I’m not anti-Semitic or whatever the usual response is when criticizing anything even remotely Jewish related. (There, I did it again! Damn.)

            • @Frank. Some neighbours announced they “hate the Jews” and I simply told them “no you don’t, you hate the Zionist fanatical extremists who hate ordinary decent Jews for not supporting Israel” and gave them some fine examples. They now hate the Zionist fanatical extremists. It’s a bit of a mouthful but easy to remember and it does not equate to any kind of bigotry anymore than the loathing the world held for apartheid South Africa.
              Does that help?

              • frank says

                It’s not so simple.

                Feeling the Hate in Tel Aviv — The Sequel to the Video YouTube Censored

                Feeling the Hate in New York

                Are all these people “Zionist fanatical extremists”?

                Also look for the video: “‘Feeling the hate in Jerusalem’ – An Interview with Max Blumenthal – 19.8.11”. He talks about zionism and its effect on jewish people.

                It’s a sad state of affairs when the word “jew” cannot be used in a sentence anymore without being called names.

                • Frank. It is a bit of a hornets nest the mention of the word Jew stirs up and as you have correctly pointed out, it can, no matter what moniker used, be applied out of context and intent. The fact remains, though, that anyone who supports Israel, is by default, condemning the Palestinians of their right to their freedoms and liberties and condoning Israel’s ruling regime’s genocide by stealth and abhorrent abuse of all those rights and freedoms of it’s minority peoples. In essence then, the descriptor I used, is, within Israel’s own lexacon, correct – they set the rules(no matter how they move their goalposts)so Pro Israeli and Anti Human Rights Extremist Fanatics is still applicable. The fact that these Israeli Jews hate Muslims(Obama) and Iranians(who have their own Iranian Jews who would not be bought off by Net the Nut) shows that many Jewish Israelis are bigots of an extremist and fanatical predeliction, one of those on the video you referred me to actually claimed that MLK was a Moslem(as far as many Israeli Jews are concerned they lump Christians and Moslems rogether as Goyim irrespective of their faith.) Jewish Israeli Bigots And Human Rights Detractors is probably more accurate.
                  From the videos I would say that they (the Jewish element of the rogue state of Israel) are indeed,(brainwashed)Zionist Fanatical Extremists, as we understand the terms to mean. They believe in their absolute entitlement to dismiss the rights of those indigenous peoples right to exist, they are monstrous bigots(nigger haters, moslem haters)their fanaticism and extremism very much on display and so yes, their language, attitude and strength of conviction makes the label I gave them applicable.
                  I see your point though in not qualifying the moniker with Jewish, because to not do so would be to not acknowledge the existence of the other non Jewish peoples of Isreal, but given time. the Ethiopian Jews, Christians and Moslems (any Jews who demand Palestinian Rights also) will be gotten rid of. Then we can apply the term unilaterally without fear or favour using the Zealots own lexacon – as I pointed out, they hate Iran and therefore Iranian Jews also!
                  There is no winning this war of words unless people from countries all over the world are willing to speak out and condemn all forms of bigotry and abuse of peoples rights by Israel’s liberal (Herzog) and far right (Net the Nut) government representatives.

            • Robbobbobin says

              ‘It becomes extremely hard navigating this language minefield though, trying to avoid stepping on a “mine” using the wrong “word”. ‘

              As intended.

              If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. –Confucius (trans. Legge, emphasis added)

              Proud to be anti-FAsCemitic

        • Yarkob says


          I hate to agree with Antonym, or appear like I’m giving a free pass to the Zionist settler state, but go and look up what a gabai is. Andrew Torba is Jewish. Not all jewish people are a slave to “jewish interests” whatever that means. Not all jewish people support AIPAC nor the ADL.

          Gab is not being shut down by “jewish interests” it’s being shut down because lots of money-making rubes are moving away from FakeBook. Simple, yet bent, economics. “Competition is a sin”, remember…

          Re Gab itself: I have (had?!) a gab account. I like gab as you can read all sorts of free-speechy stuff that you can’t read anywhere else, and I don’t just mean racist stuff, though some of it is quite eye-watering… I mean stuff similar to that which we get to read (and comment on) at Off-G. We have the occasional nutter here, too, should off-G be shut down?GAb is just another free-speech social networking site, where you know, yoiu can CHOOSE who you follow, like minds.com

          I am jewish. I am not offended by what I read on Gab nor on Zerohedge (another “alt-right” site according to the graun Why? Because it’s just words and I don’t have to bloody read it! I can just not foillow the people whose ideas I find disagreeable. Offence is taken, not given.

          Oh,m and the ADL does not speak for anyone but themselves and the ,asters they serve..The ADL is a neocon AIPAC organisation..They would shut FakeBook and Twatter down if it suited their agenda, and it may yet..

          • frank says

            Again I agree with what you are saying. (Also see my response to ‘mohandeer’ below.)

            The ADL is (according to Wikipedia): “an international Jewish non-governmental organization”

            So what “word” or “words” am I supposed to use when referring to them or what they are doing? Please elucidate me. No but seriously, you see what I mean?

            (PS: for some reason this comment was put in the wrong place at first. Comment system is a bit wonky no offense.)

            • Yarkob says

              You had me at “according to wikipedia” 🙂

              I see your distinction, but I tend to disagree. the ADL doesn’t have the back of your average jewish person, it has the back of the neocons who want a Greater Israel, the Atlantic Council and the CFR, and the racists who run Israel. It’s run as a front organisation for the criminal syndicate who have been in control of Israel for the last 40 years. It uses the fake cry of antisemitism to bash anyone whose message inhibits the prevailing groupthink regarding Israel and the Palestinian massacres. Many,many jewish people are appalled at what is being done “in their name” and don’t have time for either the ADL nor Nutanyahoo

              And you can use whatever words you like. Doesn’t bother me. I can disagree with you. That’s the magic thing about free speech! The meanings of those words are all open to interpretation by anyone. It’s the sentiment that’s important. Context is everything, surely?

  8. legionfrontier says

    Just a freindly reminder that any reader here and the off-guardian staff and/or journalist are welcome to my site too share your news and such

  9. Martin Usher says

    I’m one of those people who believe that while I might be strongly opposed to what you’re saying I will defend your right to say it. I don’t think there’s anything on Gab I’d agree with but I regard censoring it as wrong for two reasons, one being the free speech argument (who decides what’s ‘acceptable speech’?) and the other being that I like to have these people out in the open where we can keep an eye on them. Denying them a platform isn’t going to make them go away — the only successful way to counter them is by counter-argument.

    The only kind of on-line censorship I’d agree to is having blatantly offensive posts put in a sub-thread where they can be read or ignored at the will of the reader. It should be up to the original poster to edit or delete posts. I’m also strongly in favor of identifying posts — I’m not ashamed of the things I post and I’d expect most others to be the same.

    • milosevic says

      who decides what’s ‘acceptable speech’?

      I’d agree to having blatantly offensive posts put in a sub-thread where they can be read or ignored

      Who decides what’s “blatantly offensive”?

      • Yarkob says

        You can already “mute” the feeds of people you follow whose ideas you don’t like in most social sites..Though why you’d follow them in the first place escapes me…

      • Jim Scott says

        To my understanding free speech has already been defined by John Stuart Mill and others. The term free speech has been accepted in acadeemia as having defined boundaries such as not inciting violence.
        I guess that all those journalists politicians and military officers who have and are advocatIng violence against Iranians, Syrians, Libyans, are not using free speech.

    • Yarkob says

      “I don’t think there’s anything on Gab I’d agree with ”

      I’m curious, do you know what Gab is? Have you ever actually scrolled through a few of the really interesting posts? You can choose what you see and read. There are thousands of absolutely not racist, anti-semtic posters on Gab. Same as everywhere else. The difference is that Gab allows total free speech.

      And as you say, it is the speech you disagree with that needs protecting, remember?

  10. Gezzah Potts says

    3 days ago my Facebook account was suspended for 24 hrs, yet again, for the 3rd time for ‘breaching community standards’ etc etc. I was dobbed in too FB by a Zionist zealot on a leftish Australian online news service who took great offence that I dared point out the truth about the brutal occupation of Palestine, and pointing out Israeli war crimes. Another commenter on that site has repeatedly labelled me as Anti semitic, because I offend the moron by speaking the truth. This is the new tactic of the zealots; smear and censor anyone who opposes the mass murder and war crimes in Palestine. I regularly go on Worldwide Socialist Web and The Greanville Post, among others, who strongly point out the increasing crackdown and censoring of alternative voices and those who are opposed to the crimes of Empire and Imperialism. As someone mentioned above; look at the ‘campaign’ against Jeremy Corbyn.

  11. harry stotle says

    I may be over-reaching here but it is beginning to feel like the policing of cultural discourse (through censorship) is connected to a wider process of clawing back relatively recent social and economic gains?

    The neoliberal project to impoverish large swathes of the population through things like assest stripping or off-shore financial streams is well underway, so perhaps it follows that there is a greater need to control intellectual discourse not least because disaffection is a direct consequences of deteriorating living standards, and sufficient levels of disaffection might finally alert the electorate to the fact that they are being systematically shafted.

    To my mind Chomsky nails it when he points out that we should always be wary of those advocating freedom of expression so long as such expression does not deviate too radically from approved narratives.
    Needless to say the Guardian, aided and abetted by its ever growing memory-hole, is a prime example of why managed consent ultimately leads to the kind of fear, ignorance and plain old prejudice that prevents us from seeing things as they really are.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The very plain fact is that ‘antisemitism’ is being forcefully defined as ANYTHING that concerns any Jew, anywhere, anywhen, that is not grovelingly obsequious and boot-licking. In accord with Talmudic belief, the Jews are to be made an elite, NO member of which collective EVER commits a bad act, either deliberately or even by accident or inadvertence. The continued demonisation of the BDS campaign (in which many decent Jews have joined)as ‘antisemitic’, the filthy and psychopathically vicious campaign against Corbyn, based on ENTIRELY fraudulent accusations of ‘antisemitism’, and the defence of the great meddler Soros, are all sign-posts to a world where Freedom of Speech and Opinion is being destroyed to suit the likes of the Western world’s de facto Fuhrer, Bibi Netanyahoo. And the fact that this vicious campaign of bullying thuggery and intimidation will surely fuel feelings of antipathy towards Jews is, of course, actually welcomed by the Zionazis, because hatred, at base their Talmudic and xenophobic hatred of non-Jews, and the resultant hatred of some goyim for the Jews themselves, is the existential fuel for their trade-mark aggression and rage.

      • Robbobbobin says

        “In accord with Talmudic belief, the Jews are to be made an elite…”

        For heaven’s sake, Mumble, give the Talmud a rest. With few exceptions, its sole operational function is to induce brain rot and it’s not going to go away until Armageddon, so live with it. If needs must, the Torah, shared by (Judeo-)Christians in the first five books of their Bible, contain more than enough Jewish exceptionalism to be getting on with.

        I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, “Science and Health” and the Book of Mormon.

        — H.L. Mencken, Minority Report, Chapter 205; Knopf, New York, 1956

        Incidentally, the first letter of the Hebrew word for “Sabbath” (שבת), can be pronounced as “S” or “Sh” , depending on where a differentiating dot (omitted in the recently invented Zionist language of “Modern Hebrew”) is placed. In all three major languages/variants that use the Hebrew alphabet, the ש is always pronounced as “Sh”, not “S” and, except in Ashkenazi Hebrew, where the final syllable is pronounced “os”, the “t” is generally heard by native English speakers as a plain hard “T”–“Shab’bat”–though a trailing “h” is optional as, depending on the linguistic variant, some speakers slightly soften all or most hard “T”s. So: Shabbat(h) or Shabbos, but not how you keep spelling the word, which I keep trying to forget whenever I see it again, shudder, (and have succeeded). Finally, I know you will be thrilled to learn (if you don’t already know) that there is a lively, ongoing, internecine Talmudic war about just which pronunciation of what is acceptable to God in prayer, particularly when it comes to the pronunciation of his name, oy vey.

        Executive summary: don’t play their game: desist from obscurantizing your mumble with their mumbo-, Jumbo.

        Proud to be anti-FAsCemitic

        • milosevic says

          quite indistinguishable from rubbish

          In order to understand zionism, it’s important to be familiar with the intellectual culture that produced and sustains it. To that end, selections of ancient Talmudic wisdom can be found here:


          for example:

          How should one remove a snake which sexually desires a woman and enters her sexual organ?

          If a woman encounters a snake and fears that it is drawn to her sexually, she should heed the sages’ advice about how to check if the snake is indeed drawn to her. She should strip off her clothing and throw it at the snake; if the snake wraps itself around the clothing it shows that the snake does indeed wish to have sex with her, and if it does not wrap itself around the clothing, she has nothing to fear.

          If the snake wraps itself around her clothing, meaning it wishes to have sex with her, what should she do to be saved from the snake’s desires?

          Answer: She should have sexual relations with her husband in front of the snake; the snake will see that she is already in a sexual relationship with a man, will lose its ardor for her, and leave her alone. A different sage disagreed and said that this course would only make the snake’s desire stronger; it will see the object of his desire having sex and will want her even more. Therefore this sage suggested a different way to be saved from the snake’s desire: the woman should cut her nails and her hair and thrown them at the snake, saying “I am menstruating and am subject to niddah impurity.” Thus the snake will lose its ardor for her and will go away.

          The sages also said: If the woman did not manage to save herself from the snake’s lusts and he fulfilled his desire and entered her sexual organ — how shall she remove him? The woman should stand on two barrels, her legs spread. Beneath her spread legs, opposite her sexual organ, they should grill meat on coals, along with a bowl of gardencress pepperweed mixed with boiling wine. The snake will smell the delicacies and exit; when he exists they should catch him with tongs and throw him onto the fire until he burns. If the snake is not burned it will return to that same woman to fill its sexual desires.

          (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 110a)

          • Robbobbobin says

            What if she’s an insatiable, don’t-take my-Kodachrome-away nymphomaniac?

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          I believe your rejection of the significance of the Talmud is misguided. And then there are the centuries of exegeses and commentaries, and they are overwhelmingly antipathetic towards non-Jews. I think you need to read Israel Shahak, for a start, and open your eyes to the openly expressed opinions of Talmudists like the politically powerful Rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, of the highly influential Shas (Talmud) Party, in Israel, who declared, in a sermon, that ‘The goyim only exist to serve the Jews’. He was not kidding.

          • Robbobbobin says

            Don’t tell me. I have read Israel Shahak and numerous other “public intellectuals” of similar persuasion, but–more importantly–had lots of conversations with ordinary Israelis at home and abroad who don’t similarly proselytize their alarm at the originally-ignored viciousness of rabbinic Judaism towards “others”, always present in the context of any exceptionalism (c.f. Deuteronomy 7), which exceeds even that of Shahak’s “classical” smoting period, as well as observing it in action in Israel for myself (although, at first and regrettably, to my retrospective shame, not even comprendingly, so effective was the Hasbara Kool-Aid I had imbibed before I arrived).

            Are you trying to tell me that vicious Talmudic exceptionalism, amplified far beyond the simple “chosen of God” variety in the Torah, is an uncommon trait in the pantheon of nations, each with their own metaphysically twisted variant? The only thing uncommon about it was its almost total, eventually world-wide dispersal as a entitled-rendered-servile diaspora rather than a successful military force: there it became devious and insidious.

            I have some advice for you. Substitute for the Talmud, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. Total fake, but like the best satire, almost indistinguishable from its inspiration. All the most eminently quotable Goy-alarming content with absolutely no diversionary mention of such pressing theological problems as snake-infested cunt.

            The most valuable thing about the Talmudic compendium referenced by milosevic’s link is that it is based not on a panicked-Goy response to the same old same old theocratic mind-grab propoganda replicated in scores of organised cults and religions world wide, but an irritated sabra’s response to the waste of his tax shekels.

            Do you imagine that Netanyahu gives a shit about what the Talmud says? Of course not, he cares about the votes that can be marshalled by the propaganda of whoever, rabbi or not, can rabid up some baying Zionist nationalism. Do you believe that Hitler and Goebbels gave a damn about the Talmud (except, possibly to crib some tricks)? Of course not, they rustled up Thor and Wõden, threw in a bit rabid Christianity and Wagner and called their Zionism “Lebensraum”.

            Executive summary: Wise up. Stop playing butthole ideologues at their own game. Wherever they are and whatever their ugly little ideology, they’ll win, courtesy their politico-economic facilitators, and you’ll lose.

            • Mulga Mumblebrain says

              It really gives things away when you compare the Talmud, the very basis of Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism, (and Orthodox Judaism was the only type of Judaism for millennia until relatively recently), to ‘The Protocols’. Of course Judaic chauvinism and xenophobic hatred of the Other is not unique, but it is the root of the Abrahamic religions and their hatreds of the Other, of women, of gays etc. And I do very much believe that Nutty-yahoo is influenced by Talmudic Exceptionalism in his racist hatred of the Palestinians and other Arabs and Moslems, and his open contempt for International Law, much condemned by the Orthodox as mere ‘Christian morality’.

              • Robbobbobin says

                Gives away what? That I might be threatening the basis of one of your expertises? I wasn’t comparing the Talmud to the Protocols, I said that the Protocols provides a far, far higher proportion of Goy-panicking content to total word count than the Talmud, and does it in a style that would be (has been and probably still is) highly convincing to panickable Goyim (who, by implication, had never read the Talmud. Can’t you read? Talking of reading the Talmud (or trying to), have you? I mean read it (or significant parts of it) in itself, rather than as extracts quoted by authors confirming your world view? Here’s an “infographic” that showed up when I tried Googling for a pre-existing description might save me typing a very long paragraph about it:


                Now multiply that page by thousands.. I don’t know how far Mencken got, but having read the entirety of most of the other major world religious texts by the time I was 20, I then spent several decades ploughing through less than 10% of the Talmud before finally admitting defeat and looking for something else to do. Like having a life.

                Finally, I admire (or something) your touching faith (“Ah believe…) in Netanyahu’s religiosity’s independence of his perception of where the vote lies and its value in maintaining his inherited landgrab-driven national gerrymander. How, in the uttermost sincerity stakes, would you stack that up against Trump’s deeply held patriotic concern for the welfare of the average American John Doe and his concomitant proposal to executive order the American citizenship birthright out of existence?

  12. Many thanks for this Kit – a real wakeup call. After reading recently in Off-G about the concern that it too might be purged and noting alternate sites like gab.com I signed up to check it out. Definitely alt-right (I muted a couple of posters) but upon joining a rural group I soon found a couple of conservative voices against neocon thinking (e.g. let´s bring our military back home) to which I could relate. In a nice chat with a potato farmer and recalling a recent Off-G posting I learned of some possible solutions to saving family farms. Thus a free speech environment can lead as it did in my case to meet some of those “on the other side” who often have similar concerns but are separated by the political-economic powers. And thankyou Off-G for providing this truly important free-speech platform.

    • frank says

      Whenever a new platform springs up in reaction to some purge or another, the first people to populate tend to be on the extreme side. (Those that are purged the first, it’s low hanging fruit.) Good example of this is bitchute. It takes a while for these alternatives to gather enough users to make it more balanced. This balance might never happen as youtube, twitter and facebook have such enormous market share.

      • Sounds logical. Yarkob makes an important distinction between the gab.com platform of “free speech” and the users. My limited sample indicated that most users were on the right (after all, Torba set it up to counter a liberal bias as Kit points out) and some of those were alt-right if we mean, for example, the poster who responded to my post (I muted him) about Khashoggi and was basically pleased that another Muslim had bitten the dust. My comment about gab.com being “definitely alt-right” was sloppy writing.

  13. Seamus Padraig says

    Robert Bowers also had a Twitter account. And a Facebook page. Neither of these platforms has faced punishment, or censure, from any quarter.

    That’s because, as you later noted, these platforms willingly do their own censoring. They don’t need to be cajoled as much by the government or the MSM (though they occasionally are).

    They’ve started on that already. Criticising George Soros is “anti-semitic” now. As is the term “neocons” …

    Same now goes for criticizing Zionism–ask Jeremy Corbyn–or the big banks.

  14. mark says

    It is clear that the established elites, Deep State, and the co opted MSM have decided to close down all dissent and the alternative media, using an assortment of pretexts – hate speech, anti Semitism, terrorism, Russian/ Chinese/ Iranian/ Whatever Bots. The limits of acceptable debate will be set by the Soros/ NATO funded Atlantic Council and new shadowy gatekeepers like Propornot. The MSM and internet companies like Google, Facebook, Youtube will be rewarded by being allowed to preserve their monopoly, and in some cases allowed to get away with their tax evasion.

  15. Coram Deo says

    The political warfare being waged by the Marxist and Islamic Counter-States is culminating one week before elections in the U.S. just as the enemy planned.
    Here is what we have thus far:
    1. Marxist/democrat operatives created and executed a plan using FBI leadership, foreign intelligence assets, and others to put forth an overtly false FISA application to obtain technical surveillance on the man who is now President of the United States in order to seditiously and treasonously remove him from office.
    2. Elements from the Marxist & Islamic Counter-States, primarily George Soros funded and Muslim Brotherhood groups, counter all efforts by the President to protect America’s borders, sovereignty, and national security. Example given: the Muslim Association of Hawaii, a Muslim Brotherhood organization, directly opposed the President’s plan to limit immigration from hostile nations.
    3. Without any evidence or corroboration, Soros funded Marxist organizations and others make false accusations against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh, physically disrupt the hearings, and publicly act to destroy his reputation.
    4. Antifa and other violent left-wing organizations, in league with the Islamic Movement in the United States, threaten violence against anyone speaking truthfully about the threat of Islam. This includes threats made by Antifa to hotels hosting presentations by Understanding the Threat (UTT) this past spring.
    5. A week before the elections, people speaking truth about these matters, like UTT President John Guandolo and investigative journalist Laura Loomer have been banned from Twitter.
    6. Meanwhile, a Marxist-funded mob is moving from Central America to the U.S. Southern border to invade America, and this is timed to happen on election day or thereabouts.
    7. Fake bombs were sent last week to key Marxist leaders and activists including former President Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan, and others using methods that ensured the devices would be detected and discovered, revealing this was an information operation in support of the larger Marxist/democrat agenda.
    8. Key leaders of the Marxist counter-state in the U.S., to include former President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder, openly call for violence just as their Marxist (Alinsky) training instructs them to do.
    9. In June of 2017, Congressman Steve Scalise was shot on a baseball field by a democrat and supporter of President Obama.
    10. The attack over the weekend at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill – a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – in which 11 Jewish people were killed, was perpetrated by an overt nazi-supporter who also supports Barack Obama and hates President Trump. Robert Bowers, the assailant, stated, “They’re committing genocide to my people. I just want to kill Jews.” Who are his “people?” The “Palestinians”/Hamas is the only group claiming Jews (ie Israel) are committing genocide against them. Was Bowers claiming solidarity with Hamas and the Islamic Movement?
    11. Evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – the US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Northern District of Texas (Dallas), 2008 – reveals the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) is a Muslim Brotherhood organization which provides money directly to Hamas leaders and Hamas organizations overseas. Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).
    12. Declassified FBI documents reveal NAIT is a funding arm for the jihad inside the United States in league with many other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.
    13. The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) By-Laws state the objective of the MB is to establish an Islamic State under sharia. Sharia mandates that Jews must be holocausted so muslim can go to paradise.
    14. The Islamic Center of Pittsburgh, which has “raised” over $100,000 for the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which means it is a Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Center/mosque which seeks the destructions of Jews.

    • Makropulos says

      understandingthethreat.com is the brainchild of one John Guandolo, an obvious foaming wingnut. I’ll let him explain (emphasis in original):

      “When hostile forces come against these ideals, principles, and laws, it is our duty to FIGHT AGAINST OUR ENEMIES and maintain our nation for the sake of the liberty for future generations. No effort can be exerted which goes too far in defending what America represents. Even if it fails, at any time in history, to meet the ideals of the Declaration, America must remain a beacon of liberty and life for all the world to see, to give hope to all mankind.”

      Oh I can’t go on. My lips are trembling, my eyes are moistening, I feel an irresistable urge to raise a salute to that glowing stars and stripes.

      Quick! Everyone! Don’t just stand there, kill something!

        • Gezzah Potts says

          Makropulos: I’m still trying to work out how any sane person could think arch Neoliberalist Obama, and all the other Wall Street puppets; the Democrats, are meant to be Marxists? And Antifa is in cahoots with Islamic State!? What…..?

          • Makropulos says

            GP – I think it may be a peculiarly American matter in that there are many Americans who think that government in itself is “Marxist” or “socialist” etc. The basic assumption is that capitalism could somehow work all by itself with no government “interference” – as if all that legal system backed up by its preferential laws and its armed support always waiting in the wings did not exist.

          • Jim Scott says

            Yes that post by Coram Deo was the longest stretch of my imagination ever. It reminded me of a guy Imet in a bar who had pages of symbols and scrawls of unrelated unintelligable words which apparently meant the world wad being taken over by goblins.
            Now we have Bankster politicians like the avaricious Clinton and Obama being exposed as wealthy Marxist and the CIA are Russian hating Marxist too.
            Oops the credibility cord just snapped. Can anyone really be that deluded and fantasmagoric.
            Oh yeah Trump. Donald is that you?

    • Starac says

      You are either confused, ignorant or…. worse.

    • Paul Harvey says

      After reading Coram Deo’s ‘John Birch Redux’ rant, it reminded me of the late Robert Anton Wilson’s advice to seek out ideologies that are diametrically opposed to your own and temporarily ‘adopt’ those belief systems, primarily as a method of reminding yourself that we all inhabit our own ‘reality tunnels’.

      Well, after adopting Mr Deo’s deranged reality tunnel for five minutes and seeing a Marxist conspiracy in everything that moves, I must say, I’m relieved to reoccupy my own, biases and delusions included.

  16. Theo says

    Thanks for the article.Free speech is on the decline everywhere in the western democracies.Censorship on the rise.

  17. I wonder when they will decide calling socialists “Trotsky Trash” and “Leftist Scum” will be acknowledged as hate speech. As Kit astutely points out, “hate speech” is whatever TPTB choose, as long as it fits the neocon and alt. right perception. Gorge Orwell’s 1984 Big Brother scenario has been with us for some time now, it’s time people acknowledged it and demanded reparation.
    Thanks for the article.

    • frank says

      “as long as it fits the neocon and alt. right perception”

      Google is decidedly left leaning. It’s the alt right that is being silenced the hardest. (But really anything anti-establishment, forget about left vs right, it’s a fake divide.)

      Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber:
      James Damore’s Lawsuit Exposes Google’s Culture of Ignorant Intolerance:

      • @Frank. Agreed, the lines between left and right are blurred, yet Google etc have targetted WSWS(and therefore the SEP)and do not relent in silencing those who support, as they do, the anti Imperialist and Capitalist war and resource thieving advocates. Thanks for the links will follow them up when I have some time later today.

        • frank says

          Oh yeah, socialism is definitely under attack. The purge is aimed at anything that counters the establishment or the “Imperialist and Capitalist” forces as you mentioned. Just wanted to mention that “alt-right” is censored also. Dunno, anything that is not under their control I suppose.

  18. Thank you for writing/publishing this. Censorship is a crucial issue, and we must fight it any way we can.

    • Gezzah Potts says

      Hope K, Theo & Mark: regards your comments on censorship, just went to post a comment on another site using Facebook, and had a notice come up just now that this time, have been suspended for 3 days! With a further warning that repeated ‘breaches’ will see my FB account terminated. The same Zionist zealot who repeatedly has smeared me as anti semitic, because I’ve spoken the truth about Palestine, has complained to FB again, using a different post of mine each time. Wow….. At least I can still post comments here. Dissenting voices are be squashed.

Comments are closed.