In this piece, Carolina Contrarian interviews a young Southerner, known online as “Electric Dinosaur” (old ideas, new technology) about his new graphic novel series entitled “Rebel Yell” featuring a Confederate superhero.
C: Can you give us some background on who you are and tell us a little about yourself?
ED: Sure. I’m from the rural Deep South. I enjoy the countryside, drawing, and telling stories. I’m in my twenties. I think that storytelling is a craft which is often underappreciated, and is generally something at which Southerners excel.
CC: How did you become interested in Southern history and identity?
ED: It was definitely my rearing. At an early age, I recognised there was something different about the South, even if the particulars weren’t worked out until later. Of course, family is the greatest influence, and my parents and grandparents helped form me. Like any proper culture, you’re in it before you realise just exactly what it is, it being so natural.
In later years, I was a member of the SCV along with my father and grandfather. There was a website called Southern Nationalist Network which was also really good (I remember Lewis Liberman did some graphics for it), but then it fell off the map, sadly. Then I found the Abbeville Institute and, more recently, Reckonin’, both of which are greatly needed. We need fellowship of like-minded people.
CC: What gave you the idea to create a graphic novel?
ED: Ideas are always floating around, but this one didn’t come concretely until 2015, after the terrible Charleston Church shooting. I was so disaffected by the various State governments’ spinelessness that I wanted to do something. Most Southerners, it seems, weren’t standing up for their flag, so I wanted to show in a simple way that it is a symbol for good. Superheros seemed an accessible way of telling stories, especially given their popularity both at that time and presently.
CC: I assume you're a fan of the genre. Are there other characters or series that you especially like?
ED: I was raised reading comics - all manner, mind you, not just superheros. But the superhero comics we did read were really good. Primarily, these were from the Silver Age (c. 1955-1970), during the heyday of the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Batman, Green Lantern, etc. Even then, especially during the late 60s, comics began to get kinda depressing. DC especially turned to more mature themes, like the drug problem. One Green Lantern/Green Arrow special in 1971 even had Green Arrow’s kid-sidekick do drugs (a vice which he ultimately kicks, but the inclusion was just strange). And then of course politics took a heavy hand in many. So when Obama makes an appearance in Spiderman, it doesn't really surprise me.
One enjoyable character was Cannonball, a Southerner from Kentucky who appeared in The New Mutants (an X-men spin off). Speaking with a drawl, he at one point remarks that he’s used to outnumbered fights, as his ancestor had served in the Confederate army (which I believe may be where his particular moniker came from - he could turn himself into a human cannonball). The early issues especially were well-written and with a good cast of characters.
Some contemporary superhero comics which are pretty good are those published by Arkhaven Comics. One of their characters is called Rebel, a girl from Alabama with superpowers. They’re really taking the initiative in trying to offer some alternatives to the mainstream comic book industry. I have a soft spot for them because they’ve been publishing the works of PG Wodehouse as comics - a really stellar job.
Of course, there’s a great site in the Digital Comic Museum, where you can read slews of old comics that are now in the public domain. There’s some really good stuff out there, often overlooked or ignored because it isn’t Batman.
CC: There are several other contributors named in the first book. How did you find artists and others to partner with for the finished product?
ED: There’s an online artist forum called DeviantArt where people can exchange ideas, post their own work, or hire others to help them. It’s all very freelance and flexible. Overall, the site is surprisingly Southern-tolerant, so far as symbols go (no purge yet). I had seen one artist advertising way back in 2014, I believe, and reached out to him the following year. I would have drawn the first few issues myself, but other duties impeded. Finding the colourist was much the same. I really wish we could found a forum of Southern artists, though there are online groups.
CC: How long did the development process take?
ED: The first issue, because I wasn’t tackling it seriously and sat on it for so long, actually went from 2015-2018. When the thought finally struck me to crowdfund the printing, everything was done but lettering and editing. The actual development process (say for issue 3) takes maybe two or three months, from writing the script, turning in the pages of the script and references, and waiting around for the page roughs. Colouring is a quick return. Formatting can be tricky and causes the most headache. But, with the experience gained from issues 1-3, the time span keeps getting less and less. I’d say three months tops for new work.
CC: I like how you name the dystopian setting "Vandal City." It really illustrates the destructiveness of the enemies of the Rebel. How do you plan to flesh out the "villains" of the series?
ED: Thank you, the name was fun to create. I was surprised no one had taken it yet.
Superheroes themselves are neat (and obviously the main attraction), but the good guys have good standards. They have to act in a way that, while maybe not predictable, is probable. They have to be good, and the reader should like them.
Villains, on the other hand, have a destructive freedom. They can be bad guys who are hated or bad guys who are loved. You can make them off-puttingly bizarre or as commonplace as you want. Not only this, but they serve as illustrations of ailments facing modern man, whether it be greed, ambition, or other errors. Take the diabolical distortions of tech-guru “Synicon" from a future issue:
Of course, at the end of the day, bad guys are bad no matter how much we enjoy writing them, and the writing itself should reflect that. If there are shades of gray, these should be rare.
CC: The nods to 1980s pop songs were a neat touch, that I, as a Gen-Xer, particularly appreciate. What gave you the idea for that?
ED: Glad they pleased! I’m a millennial myself, though I do enjoy earlier music. The whole first issue - especially the villain - was a little observance on culture. We have some outlandish punk-pop baddie attempting to take revenge on his former girl, who herself can’t find her place. The whole city is sort of a throw-away culture, cheap and artificial (like superhero comics generally, really). The Rebel enters in opposition to the noise with his own voice.
As for the name “Rebel Yell,” both it and the first villain, Gunther Glitz, were inspired by a particular artist, so it only seemed fitting to fill the pages with song references from that era.
CC: What do you hope readers get from Rebel Yell?
ED: I foremostly want them to enjoy it. Then I hope they can see our symbols as something good. Let them know they have a voice and are themselves something unique.
CC: I see that the second issue is in development. Can you give us any hints about what to expect in this next installment?
ED: The second issue was actually supposed to be launched after four or five other issues, but I decided to step up the date because of the continued destruction of our monuments. The issue centres on such vandalism. It’s not as heavy on story as the other issues, but rather spotlights a big brawl between our hero and some modern urban redecorators. Expect some high energy.
CC: What are your long-term plans for the series?
ED: I have a dozen issues of Rebel Yell scripted, three or four of which I hope to launch a year (all total, over a hundred pages annually). I hope to get enough of a base that we can expand into some other minor areas as well. I have a pop-culture magazine, reminiscent of the old gem Nintendo Power, that I’ve been working on. It’s about halfway through. I don’t know if there’d be much interest in that, but it’s fun nonetheless.
You can find out more about Electric Dinosaur and purchase Rebel Yell on his website here. You can help fund the next issue here.
By now everyone has heard about the discovery of VA Gov Ralph Northam's medical school yearbook page which includes a picture of two men, one in a KKK robe and one in blackface, one of which may or may not be Northam himself. (The timing of the release of the decades-old photo, almost instantly after Northam found himself in the center of a media firestorm for comments seeming to endorse infanticide, is curious, but that is another matter).
Despite many calls for his resignation, from members of the public, leaders in his own party, various talking heads and celebrities, Northam has so far refused to step down. However, he has apologized for the errors of his past, and has acquiesced to doing penance in order to redeem himself. Northam's advisers have given him reading assignments, such as Roots, and “The Case for Reparations,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Among other things, Northam has also pledged to take a harder line on the removal of Confederate monuments, stating “if there are statues, if there are monuments out there that provoke this type of hatred and bigotry, they need to be in museums.”
This pledge is contemptible for many reasons. First, Northam readily concedes the Confederate monuments are symbols of "hate." Though Southerners are used to being accused of "hate" for celebrating their honorable ancestors and heroes, seeing an unprincipled and gutless fellow Southerner concede the point without dispute, for the sake of naked self-interest, is repugnant.
Second, what on earth do the monuments have to do with Northam's classless behaviour in his school years? Is he claiming that the supposed sins of his forefathers compelled him to wear unseemly costumes in college? Are the statues of great Confederate generals the proximate cause of his poor judgement? Furthermore, why should those who cherish and wish to preserve these monuments be expected to sacrifice to atone for the personal behaviour of Northam?
Of course, the assumption of the political class is that Virginia has yet to be cleansed of its historic sins. There is more work to do to fully eradicate the legacy of slavery and the poison of racism from the state. Purging reminders of its shameful past is an important step. The priestly class has so proclaimed, and to save his career, Northam is gladly genuflecting before them.
The the connection between Northam and the Confederacy is assumed by many to exist, however, those who honor the likes of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson bear no claim to Northam. If not for its growing population of Northerners and spillover from the DC swamp, the Democratic party would be irrelevant in the once lovely state. And I shudder to think how our devoutly religious forefathers would have dealt with anyone arguing the merits of late-term abortion. It is unfair to attribute the Northam fiasco to Southern history and culture, but it is being done nonetheless.
The photo of Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic School standing face to face with a leftist activist near the Lincoln Memorial was on every news and social media site last week. The pictures from the incident reminded me of another viral photo from not long ago - that of Allen Armentrout standing by the Charlottesville statue of General Lee with a hostile protester making an obscene gesture in his face. (Contributor Dissident Mama's three-part series based on her interview with Armentrout begins here).
The Sandmann and Armentrout situations aren't exactly the same. Armentrout chose to walk into what he knew could be a volatile situation because he felt compelled to take a stand for something in which he believed. Sandmann did not think of himself as an activist making a statement, and wound up in a volatile situation unexpectedly. Armentrout had gained experience dealing with hostile protesters during the course of his pro-South activism, whereas the young Sandmann was inexperienced in dealing with such situations.
Still, there are parallels to be drawn between the two situations. Both young men were behaving in a peaceful manner when accosted. In the case of Armentrout, his Confederate flag and uniform were perceived as threatening and offensive by observers who attributed their own meanings to those symbols - racism, hate, slavery, treason. The fact that the bearer of the symbols did not mean anything of the kind was irrelevant. Likewise, Sandmann was defined by his "MAGA" hat as privileged, racist, and a white supremacist. I don't know anything about Sandmann's political beliefs, but I think it is much likelier that he simply wore the hat to show support for his country and President rather than because of a belief in some nefarious ideology. Whatever the real reason, it was irrelevant to his many attackers. THEY interpreted the MAGA hat as a symbol of something evil, and reacted accordingly.
Another similarity is that both young men relied on their Christian faith in the midst of the tension. Armentrout stated that "restraint from the Holy Spirit" helped him remain composed when confronted by the vulgar, hostile crowd. Sandmann said that he silently prayed, when confronted by drum-banging Native American Nathan Phillips, that the situation would not escalate further.
Both young men also experienced tribulation at the hands of the national mainstream media. After his Charlottesville confrontation, Armentrout was subjected to a series of predictably nasty and biased hit pieces from "reporters" who had no interest in understanding or sharing his side of the story. Sandmann was similarly defamed by national media outlets and personalities, though his ordeal was even more cruel because of his youth, the fact that he did nothing that he expected would invite attention, and that many of the accusations against him were blatant lies.
Shortly after the now-famous confrontation, Sandmann agreed to a nationally televised interview with Savannah Guthrie, in which she implied that he had invited the hostility that was directed towards him. ("Do you think if you weren’t wearing that hat, this might not have happened?") She also said "...there’s something aggressive about standing there, standing your ground..."
Sandmann replied, "I would say Mr. Phillips had his right to come up to me. I had my right to stay there." This is an obviously true statement, but it is still remarkable that he said it. Sandmann is a high-schooler who one week before had been an unknown private citizen, when he was thrust into a spotlight as the MSM villian du jour, subjected to heinous threats, insulted by public figures, and thrown under the bus by cowardly adults who should have defended him, like those of his diocese. This young man displayed more bravery and strength of character than the many far more powerful and seasoned public figures who obediently self-flagellate at the slightest criticism from the left.
"I had my right to stay there."
Armentrout said that when he stood still amidst the jeering crowd, attempting to emulate Christ by refusing to retaliate against those attempting to provoke him, it "made those people yelling at me even madder."
The young men both became the objects of hate mobs even though there was nothing blameworthy in their behaviour. Because of the fact that they did nothing wrong, we know that they were the objects of acrimony only because of who they were, or maybe more precisely who they were perceived to be. This is instructive for observers who may not have fully appreciated the amount of hatred that is directed towards young, White, Christian, Southern men, even when they are guilty of nothing, simply because of WHO THEY ARE.
Armentrout and Sandmann were both "triggering" and dangerous to the psyche of the leftist media because they chose not to bow, run away, or apologize, but to STAND, in effect to say, "This is who I am, and I have a right to be here." That is all it took to cause alarm. This simple, silent statement, made by otherwise unimposing young men, was all it took to shake leftists across the nation.
How powerful would it be if we were all to stand?
Militant Normals: How Regular Americans are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim our Democracy by Kurt Schlicter, 2018 Hachette Book Group Inc.
Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution by Tucker Carlson, 2018 Simon & Schuster
I first became familiar with lawyer and former Army Colonel Kurt Schlicter through his Twitter feed, which he uses to cheerfully humiliate gun-grabbers, neocons, and other nuisances, and through his pull-no-punches and often hilarious TownHall column. Occasional Fox News guest Schlicter is a prolific author of both fiction and non-fiction. The book Militant Normals falls (mostly) in the second category.
Schlicter begins by describing his experience of the 2016 campaign season during which he gradually changed from a Trump skeptic to a Trump supporter. He also explains the process by which "Normals," defined as regular, patriotic Americans who would prefer not to think about politics too much, were pushed to supporting Trump by the failures and malfeasance of the elite class as those elites have become more and more openly antagonistic towards everyone else.
Normals, Schlicter explains, are willing to let the elites have the perks of being the elites, as long as they hold up their end of the bargain by honoring their nobless oblige and allowing Normals to have a modicum of safety, opportunity, and respect. As elites have become increasingly disconnected from the rest of the country, they have ceased making even symbolic shows of respect towards the values and contributions of the Normals. Instead, they have begun to display open contempt and to expose their desire to completely dominate their supposed inferiors.
One point that Schlicter makes is that "elite" does not necessarily indicate wealth or high class. Many powerless and unaccomplished people can instantly be, or at least feel, "elite" by adopting the preferred views and pet issues of the powerful. Conversely, wealthy and powerful individuals such as Donald Trump, who champion the values and causes of the common man, may be considered Normals.
In one chapter, a fictional vignette takes you through the life of a "Normal" from a small town who serves in the military after leaving high school, then returns to the United States to find job opportunities gone and his hometown less safe because of illegal immigration. The frustration of this Normal who just wanted to live his life in peace grows as his country inexplicably changes around him. Another fictional vignette helps the reader understand the mindset of the elite in a parallel story told through the eyes of a young man from a wealthy Los Angeles suburb.
Schlicter expounds on the many channels which the elite have used to do injury to Normals: unaccountable "experts," the judiciary, the military, and Hollywood, among others. He reserves a particularly thorough and vicious routing for the pompous shills of "Conservative Inc," which alone is worth the price of the book. The phenomenal and unlikely Trump campaign of 2016 is recounted, quite enjoyably, and explained as the comeuppance of the elites from the once complacent, but now militant, Normals.
Relatable and humorous, Schlicter's book is best suited for an audience of Normals. It would be most enjoyable and informative for moderates and mainstream conservatives who are not usually immersed in politics, but would like to better understand the changes in the country over the past few years that led to the ascendancy of Trump and MAGA.
Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools takes a different tack on a similar theme. Most people are familiar with Carlson from his highly-rated Fox News show which he uses to dole out as much truth as is allowed on network television - so much truth that he has been the target of left-wing boycott campaigns and even an Antifa mob attack on his home. The book touches on many themes he addresses in his show, but with more breadth and depth than would be allowed in that format.
Carlson grew up surrounded by hippies in California, and though he didn't like them, he explains how today's leftists are much worse. In decades past, their ideas may have been wrong, but they at least cared about others. Now more wealthy and powerful, and with an exaggerated sense of their own virtue and abilities, they lack empathy with the middle class. Chelsea Clinton, for example, is showered with money, praise, and attention despite being wholly unremarkable other than her pedigree. Big businesses, once the nemesis of liberals, now nod to liberal causes in ways that cost them nothing of significance while raking in profits at the expense of exploited workers.
A frequent topic on Carlson's show, immigration, is also discussed in depth. While old-school Democrats might have taken the side of American workers against cheap labor-seeking big business, today their never-ending quest for more "diversity" causes them to ally with big business against the American public in their desire to import a serf class of immigrants. For the insulated wealthy, there is no downside. In fact, because of the moral framing of the issue, the elites even get to pat themselves on the back for being enlightened and compassionate. The once peace-loving hippies abandoned their anti-war stance when they realized force could be used for the "good" of social engineering. Carlson gives a good drubbing to the pundit class who is constantly agitating for others' blood to be spilled in their overseas wars. Liberal institutions like Berkeley and the ACLU that once lauded the principle of free speech have begun to oppose "hate speech," and many leftists now feel justified in using violence to suppress it. Journalists that were meant to hold those in power accountable have now become the gatekeepers of information that protect the ruling class.
Unlike Schlicter, Carlson tackles the issues of race and diversity. He points out that a ruling class that cared about the welfare of the country would work to de-emphasize racial conflicts. Our elite institutions are instead emphasizing them to the point where they are the center of our public conversation. A tsunami of anti-white activism and press has been the result, with the ascension of white identity politics as the predictable response. Elites gain power from identity politics, while the public endures the resulting tensions and conflict. Numerous other examples of the elites' failures and hypocrisy are examined by Carlson.
Both books could serve as a word of caution to the ruling class. As long as you continue to disregard the needs of the population, expect revolt.
Earlier this year ABC resurrected one of the most popular sitcoms of the 90s, Roseanne, after a decades-long hiatus. The era of Trump populism seemed like the perfect time to re-introduce the sitcom about the flawed but loving family of working-class Whites. The premiere opened with a bang, boldly addressing the ideological rift in America (and within some families). Roseanne's sister Jackie showed up at the door in an "I'm with Her" T-shirt and pussy hat, after having had a year-long rift with Roseanne over political differences. The show finessed the stresses of current American political conflicts with realism and humor. In a way, it was an affirmation to many Deplorables that our voice was heard, that we had a representation on the national entertainment stage, and that our views would be treated respectfully even if not fully embraced.
The rebooted Roseanne was not exactly a fanatical right wing polemic. Aside from the Hillary-loving Jackie character, the show introduced new Conner grandchildren including a black child and a boy who liked to wear girls' clothes. Even so, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth as the Usual Suspects complained that the show portrayed Trump supporters as something other than hateful racists. I even saw one blue check-bearing neurotic expressing horror that the show was "humanizing" Trump supporters. However, the show that dared to treat the disfavored half of the country with empathy quickly became a record-breaking ratings juggernaut. What a dilemma for our Hollywood elites!
I have mixed feelings about Rosanne, myself. She can be crass and inappropriate and she says plenty of things with which I don't agree. However, unlike most people in Hollywood, she is genuine. With her, what you see is what you get. For how many inhabitants of the Golden Swamp is that true? I don't think that she could accurately be described as conservative, but she is a vocal critic of the Clinton-Obama cabal and supporter of Donald Trump. In fact it was a supposedly racist tweet about Obama-ite Valerie Jarrett which gave rise her latest woes: her moment on the public whipping block for politically incorrect behaviour, and the substantial professional setback of being gracelessly dismissed from her own show. Roseanne's behaviour can sometimes be tasteless, but she has never been known as a racist, and I don't believe her attack on Jarrett was racially driven. No matter. Despite multiple public apologies and pleas to ABC to keep her job, she was fired from the wildly successful show she had created.
Roseanne agreed to sell her rights to the show so that a spin off featuring the remainder of the cast, The Conners, could be created. In the first episode of The Conners, it was explained that Roseanne's character, who had been taking pills for knee pain during the previous season, had died from an opioid overdose. Perhaps this choice of story line was a ham-fisted attempt to show sympathy with those suffering from the scourge of opioid abuse among middle and lower-class Whites, but knowing how Hollywood feels about normal Americans, it seems just as likely that the working class heroine's overdose death was meant as an insult to the audience.
Shortly before the premiere of The Conners, there were some news stories saying that the network was worried they had made a mistake by firing Roseanne, and they were concerned that spinoff would lose many viewers who were loyal to her. (Everyone in America who is not a Hollywood executive replied in unison, "Well, DUH!") The premiere drew about half the viewers of the premiere of last year's reboot, and some of those people probably tuned in for the curiosity factor. It doesn't matter that the show features solid comic actors John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf playing relatable characters, or that the writing is probably just as funny. When the PC police rejected the woman who was one of the few Hollywood proxies for the Deplorables, they rejected the rest of us, and the show became just another sitcom.
This whole incident is just another indication that Hollywood continues to disdain regular Americans. Hollywood continues to churn out material that is a stick in the eye of anyone in America with traditional values. Celebrities reveal their animosity towards their audience at every opportunity. The enthusiasm for the revitalized Roseanne show should have been a lesson for the entertainment industry about who Americans are and what they want for their entertainment. Unsurprisingly, they have still not learned.
You may have missed the testimony of Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey last week in Washington, as it was overshadowed by the Brett Kavanaugh appointment hearings and its accompanying parade of deranged protesters. Though it got less attention, there was a bit of commotion surrounding the tech CEO hearings, too. My personal favorite part was watching Marco Rubio attempt to look tough while being browbeaten by Alex Jones. While at the capital, Jones also confronted CNN reporter Oliver Darcy, who had lobbied successfully to get Jones removed from several major social media platforms. During their exchange, Jones called Darcy, correctly in my opinion, "anti-American" and a "coward." In less than a day, Twitter, which has given itself the right to consider real-world behaviour when evaluating who may use their platform, announced that Jones was to be permanently banned from using their service, and also that all other accounts associated with InfoWars would be reviewed for possible terms of service violations. Shortly thereafter, the InfoWars smart phone app was removed from the iTunes app store. In all probability, Jones' enemies, intoxicated with the taste of blood, will continue their campaign to destroy his media empire by putting pressure on the domain registrars for InfoWars' website and the financial service providers which process money from their merchandise sales and donations.
I am not particularly a fan of Jones, but what is happening to him is alarming to me and should be to anyone who is paying attention. "De-platforming" has been a problem for individuals and small outlets for several years. But Jones reigns over a media empire, with millions of viewers and substantial merchandise sales, and even he has not been able to stop the virtual assasination. A small group of global Tech Titans have been able to cut him off from almost every possible avenue available to participate in public life, and, in a sense, make him a non-entity in the public realm, with no way to appeal the death sentence. It is terrifying to contemplate the extent of potential damage the Silicon Valley elites could do to other conservatives. What's to prevent Breitbart, Drudge, or Fox News being silenced in the same manner?
The problem is not limited to social networking sites. Payment providers like PayPal and fundraising sites like GoFundMe and Patreon have a history of removing promoters of conservative causes from their services. Just this week, Amazon removed nine books by "pick-up artist" Roosh from their online store. Livelihoods can be destroyed arbitrarily and without warning when pages are banned from Facebook, YouTube, or Google search. Often, these life-changing decisions are made with no meaningful explanation or means of appeal. The problem is common and growing.
A few people are standing up to the giants and fighting back. One of the pioneers of an alt-tech social network is Andrew Torba, CEO and founder of Gab, which was introduced as a free-speech alternative to Twitter. Since its inception, Gab has been in a continuous struggle against the Tech Titans. Just last month, Gab was forced to find a new hosting service when it was dropped by Microsoft Azure because of a complaint about "hate speech." The company has also developed smart phone apps, but neither the iOS App Store nor Google Play Store, who hold a virtual duopoly, will carry them. (Last week, Gab submitted an app for Google Play which attempted to adhere to their "hate speech" policy by blocking posts with objectionable speech with a message stating that the post did not meet Google standards. The app was seemingly accepted by Google play, but removed again within hours.)
Big Tech defends their de-platforming decisions with mealy-mouthed excuses about "hate speech" and "healthy public conversations." This is false claim is absolutely staggering in its brazenness. Check the archive at VerifiedHate.com to view a massive collection of threats and hatred directed at Whites, Christians, and Trump supporters that is spouted on Twitter, much of it by *verified* users who are affiliated with corporate media outlets. Twitter not only fails to restrict this kind of "hate speech" in any way, but grants it a modicum of legitimacy by giving "verified" status to the tweeters. Inarguably, the Tech Titans do not object to "hate speech" as long as it is directed towards the right people or ideas.
Predictably, Gab was (and still is) smeared as a site for "white supremacists." It is true that Gab built some of its early popularity by providing a haven for popular alt-right personalities that were among the first banned from Twitter. While early Twitter refugees did include some unsavory characters, many others were guilty only of using facts, humor, or charisma to effectively smack down leftist talking points, or of "getting the goat" of a random squeaky-wheel leftist user. But Gab is not an "alt-right" site. In fact, in the past few months, Gab has had thousands of new accounts created by people in Brazil and Kenya after political dissidents in those countries were de-platformed or found their communications stifled by Big Tech.
The influx of users from other parts of the world to Gab also illustrates an important point: Tech Titan's chokehold on the of the flow of information is a global problem. A handful of people can shift power in almost any part of the world by choosing which voices to stifle or amplify, and they are working against conservative and populists movements all over he world. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fight of alt-tech against Big Tech is a fight for the future of freedom in the world, and for some peoples, a fight for survival.
The odds against anyone fighting the Titans of Tech are daunting. In fact, almost impossible. But intelligent, determined and brave people have done the impossible before. With the help of God, we can do it again.
Memes and art by Gab fans.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Left, rally attendee after being attacked by Harris, Right, Harris and companion in the Charlottesville crowd with weapons.
Nonetheless, the damning photo was taken and publicized in the following days, and self-proclaimed victim Harris raised $100,000 in online donations.
My point is, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW YET. Please pray that the entire truth will be brought to light, and that real justice will be achieved, whatever that may mean in this case.
Look at the photo closely. The fact that the flag appears to be newly unpackaged is a bit suspicious. More importantly, the man is holding a Nazi flag and wearing a shirt with a Confederate flag. Does this make sense? Southern Nationalists, Southern history preservationists, and the like, are mostly libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, American traditionalists. Nazis are authoritarian socialists - in many ways the polar opposite. To those of us on the right end of the spectrum, this juxtaposition makes no sense. It may, however, make sense to leftists, who view the Nazi and Confederate flags only as "things racist people like."
The most compelling reason to me for believing that this "Nazi" is a leftist poser is simply that YOU DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. In the days following the Charlottesville rally, leftist message boards were swarming with people examining crowd photos and targeting anyone they could identify with unwanted publicity and threats to their employment. But somehow, the fellow pictured on every news site in America for weeks escaped identification! How can this be? Why haven't Antifa surrounded his house and place of employment, demanding his head on a platter? Why haven't the Usual Suspects in the media interviewed his neighbors and cousins and third grade teacher? These are the people who did a week of in-depth reporting on Ken Bone, the red sweater-vest wearing man who asked Hillary Clinton an impudent question during a town hall appearance. Why do you suppose they have not said a word about the most brazen "Nazi" at the Charlottesville rally? My guess as to the reason for the lack of interest in exposing him? He's one of them.
The rally protesters I observed included young adults holding colorful signs about love and tolerance, a group of clergy persons singing songs, and an assortment of local people who were observing or protesting peacefully.
There were also Antifa. I have never in my life experienced anything like what they wrought that day.
There were more than a few people like this at the rally - busloads of them, in fact. Many black-clad, masked protesters were wielding pipes, bats, and a variety of other makeshift weapons. People like these are among the group that the media wants you to believe are righteous anti-racists and above reproach.
Thank the Lord in Heaven that we have the White House a President that tells the truth when it matters. Undoubtedly, there were good and bad people on both sides.
Is Jones really any worse than his critics?
In addition to the routine claims of "hate speech," one of the criticisms often cited about Jones is that his speculation about the Sandy Hook massacre being a staged, false-flag event, caused anguish to the families of the victims. One family in particular claims to have had their lives turned upside down due to harassment and threats by Jones' followers.
"Get this charlatan off the internet!" his detractors cry. "Facebook and YouTube have a responsibility to protect the public from being misled by harmful fake news!"
It's a farce. Even if all the bad things people say about Alex Jones are true, and I believe some of them are, HE IS STILL NO WORSE THAN THE REST OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
Look at the events that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. "Real" news stations repeated incessantly the uncorroborated claim of a felon who witnessed the shooting that Michael Brown had his hands up and was begging "Don't shoot!" as Officer Darren Wilson gunned him down. The phrase "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" became a rallying cry for black people across the nation who felt that they were potential targets of murderous police officers.
That is the quantifiable damage. After the riots, there was also a nationwide spike in the murder rate in Democratic-run cities, which crime expert Heather McDonald has attributed the "Ferguson effect." She believes that the constant demonization of cops both emboldened criminals and made police reluctant to aggressively police black neighborhoods. And God only knows what the long-term ripple effects the "real" media's unbridled race-baiting had on the rest of the nation.
Officer Darren Wilson described himself as "unemployable" after being villianized in the media, and withdrew to a life of seclusion.
The people whose irresponsible (or dishonest) reporting created this devastation are the ones demanding that Alex Jones be silenced because of things like his Sandy Hook speculation.
"But Jones is a crazy conspiracy theorist!" It is indeed true that Jones entertains some far-fetched ideas and interviews some guests with beliefs that the average person finds outlandish.
But so what? Is his reporting really more far-fetched that many other things we routinely see in the left-wing media? Think about it.
Who is crazier? Someone who thinks Obama is a secret Muslim, or someone who thinks Trump is a secret Russian puppet?
Who is crazier? Someone who thinks the government wants to enslave the public for the enrichment of the global elite, or someone who thinks that the government wants to enslave women to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality?
Who is crazier? The survivalist who perceives oppressive plots in everything done by the government, or the Oberlin professor who sees oppressive microagressions in everything done by cis-het white males?
Who is crazier? Someone who thinks alien visitations are real, or someone who thinks identifying as an alien is a valid lifestyle choice?
The answer to all of these question will vary widely depending on who you ask. "Crazy" is subjective, and honest observers will admit that there are crazy people all along the political spectrum.
So, Jones isn't unique in positing theories that may cause harm to the innocent. He isn't unique in hosting people with, shall we say, unconventional ideas. What, then, is the issue?
An article for Wired about the free speech implications of Jones' case discusses a precedent from a somewhat similar case in 1964, but then states that today's case is different because the law was written before the advent of social media. They explain that the "context of the internet starts to matter" because the law does not assume "a world where a YouTube channel's following can rival a media company's..."
Well, now we may be onto something. Why might it be a problem for a YouTube channel to rival a media company? If millions of people find an information source valuable, what difference does the format make?
Jones does indeed interview some unconventional guests and posit some eccentric theories. But that is only a portion of what he does. He also provides the opportunity to speak to a very large audience to many people the Old Guard media would rather ignore. He shares his platform of new right reporter Paul Joseph Watson, who reports extensively about the problems with mass Muslim immigration in the UK. He gave airtime to the Bernie Sanders supporters who filed the lawsuit claiming the DNC rigged the election against him, in which they stated they feared for their lives because of the lawsuit. Jones has given long-form interviews to many former associates of the Clintons who have unflattering things to say about them. How often have you seen a "respectable" media company do that?
The internet has provided a way for alternatives to the Old Guard Media to speak directly to the public. Some view the rise of non-corporate-approved news as a danger that must be stopped. Others view it as way to get to truths that the self-appointed gatekeepers find inconvenient. But for the fear-mongering spin-meisters of corporate news to point fingers at anyone else for being dangerously deceitful and irresponsible is laughable. These disingenuous claims about "fake news" are to meant to obscure this fact: The problem isn't that Jones provides a lesser form of journalism than they do, it's that HE DOES THE EXACT SAME THING, BUT FOR PEOPLE THEY DON'T LIKE.
So who is more fake, Alex Jones or the MSM? Let us have complete free speech, and let us decide for ourselves.
Nobody knows that I went to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. Well, my immediate family knows, and one or two close friends, but nobody else. Most of the country thinks that the rally was a gathering of belligerent male White supremacists, a modern-day Nazi uprising. I am a quiet middle aged woman, mother of small children, church-goer, and I don't know whether or not you would consider me a "fine person," but I am most definitely not a Nazi. I am here to share my story. It does not conform to what most of the media wants you to believe.
I made the drive from SC to VA the Friday before the Charlottesville rally. While taking in the rural mountain scenery, I was feeling incredibly thankful to have been born in such a beautiful and blessed part of the world. Looking at the old buildings along the way, I contemplated the hardships the settlers in the area had faced, including those of my own ancestors who had been in the Southeastern US since before the American Revolution. Considering what those who came before me had been willing to do to secure their freedoms and protect their way of life, wasn't it the very least I could do to attend a rally in support of a statue to one of the greatest men our country has ever produced?
There had been many, many stories in the previous months of statues and other symbols of the founding population being torn down or slated for removal - many, but not all, Confederate. The fights to secure these symbols had been defensive, apologetic, and largely ineffectual. When I heard Jason Kessler speak about defending the statue of General Lee in Charlottesville, he had been bold and unapologetic, fiercely defending our rights to honor our heritage while standing up to the authorities in one of the most far-left cities in the South. FINALLY, I thought, someone is REALLY fighting.
I was also interested in hearing the speakers. There were some with whom I was unfamiliar, and others with whom I expected to disagree. However, I am a firm believer in free speech. I am not afraid of ideas, and I think that if you believe someone's viewpoint to be erroneous, you should prove them wrong with debate, not suppression. And how can you do that if you don't even know or understand what they believe?
I was planning to meet a friend for the event, an attorney turned stay-at-home mother. We had bonded online over our grief at the loss of the America we had grown up in, and our desire to preserve Western values and history for our children. She had grown up in Upstate New York, and only a few decades before had learned in public school that Robert E Lee was an American hero, worthy of respect by all Americans. She, too, thought the trip to Virginia to fight for his statue was worthwhile.
When I arrived at my hotel late Friday afternoon, it was swarming with police officers who had apparently driven in from other parts of the state as reinforcements for the event and were being put up there overnight. In the morning, I met up with my friend to go to the rally. An online acquaintance had informed me that there was a staging area at MacIntyre Park about a mile away from Lee Park, with plenty of parking and free shuttles to the rally. We parked, got in the line for the shuttle, and made small talk with others in the line as we waited. We met a friendly man from my home state, a father of five, who was attending the rally alone. We talked about our children. Hundreds of people were milling around in the MacIntyre parking lot. There were a variety of groups gathered and I saw lot of different flags, many of which I did not recognize. I did not see any Nazi flags at all.
There were dozens of police officers walking about, and my friend and I made a point to wave, smile, and say "thank you!" to all of them. We wanted them to know that the attendees did not view law enforcement as our enemy.
Once we got off the shuttle, we followed the crowd towards Lee Park which was a block or two away. It was late morning, and as the sun climbed, the combination of the August heat and the thick crowd were making things feel very stifling and uncomfortable.
As we were propelled forward by the crowd, we saw that people up ahead were being funneled into a narrow pathway marked by portable, waist-high barriers. A black man who had been peacefully protesting approached my friend and me, both middle-aged women in everyday clothing, with a look of concern. He warned us that we would be passing through a gauntlet of people wielding mace and flinging feces before reaching the park, and asked the men in line with us to protect us. I was deeply touched by his kindness and concern. We thanked him profusely.
I did not observe any police officers as we made our way from the shuttle to the park.
Thanks to luck and a line of well-prepared rally attendees holding up shields along the pathway, we arrived in the park safely. Once inside barriers, however, I immediately witnessed 3 or 4 people lying on the ground in pain, red-faced with runny eyes, apparently having been maced. Others who had had the foresight to bring first aid supplies were tending to them. I also saw a number of people with stained clothing, and learned that they had been beset by Antifa flinging a mixture of paint, human waste, and other unknown noxious chemicals. There was a faint haze in the air from smoke bombs that protesters had thrown inside the park, an easy task since they were bridled only by a row of low, portable barriers.
I then spotted some police officers in riot gear on one side of the park. They were gathered together in a group, and did not seem to be interacting with rally attendees or protesters at all, despite the fact that there was plenty of chaos in the area.
While milling amongst the crowd in the relative safety of the inner park, I was excited to spot one of the scheduled speakers, Pax Dickinson. I had never met him, but I knew who he was from social media. Pax had once been the Chief Information Officer at Business Insider, until some of his enemies in the corporation dug up some old tweets which were deemed offensive. The result is that he was not only ousted from his job, but blacklisted from his entire industry. Because of the free speech issues raised by his plight, he had been interviewed by John Stossel and featured in Mike Cernovich's documentary about censorship, Silenced. My friend and I introduced ourselves to him and we made small talk for a few minutes.
While we were waiting inside the park for the events of the day to begin, a voice on a loudspeaker announced that our assembly had been declared unlawful, and that we must disperse or face arrest. I was baffled. I had been following Jason Kessler's court battle for the rally permit closely because I had to drive a long way to attend, and I knew he had secured the permit. The crowd was abuzz with confusion. My friend was quickly spiraling into a panic, since we were being forced into an armed, hostile mob of protesters, and we were a mile away from our car. She was frantically searching the crowd for a VIP who, we had noticed earlier, had private security in tow, in the hopes that we could escape safely by latching on to them. The police had been passively allowing the crowd to run amuck all day, and there was no reason to believe they would be of any help.
Meanwhile, a gaggle of men wearing white polos and headsets, apparently involved with rally operations, were looking around and conferring with businesslike concern. They quickly disbanded and started giving directions to attendees in the crowd. They had fashioned a plan to evacuate as many people as possible in an orderly fashion through a corner of Lee Park, and back to the staging area at MacIntyre Park. We asked Pax Dickinson, who was still standing nearby, if he wanted to join us in leaving with the group. He indicated that he and a few of the other scheduled speakers were going to "stay and do the civil disobedience thing." [Note: His account of the events of that day, particularly his harrowing interaction with the police, is a must-read for anyone who wants to know the truth about what happened in Charlottesville.]
We joined the orderly, double-file line and nervously exited the park. The men in the line were shielding us from the crowd, and we got through the thick of it unscathed. The white Polo-wearing men stood alongside the line as we made our way on foot the entire mile back to MacIntyre, continuously reminding us to tighten up the line and move quickly. The line stretched as far as I could see in both directions – hundreds of people. There were protesters (and a few supporters) along the road for nearly the entirety of our trek.
Back at MacIntyre Park, people scattered. There was mass confusion. Many people who had been separated from the other members of their party, or were far away from their cars, were trying to figure out what to do next. Others were looking at their phones, sharing information and rumors, and trying to figure out WHAT IN THE HELL HAD JUST HAPPENED?? Luckily we were able to get into our car and back to the hotel without any trouble.
Thankful to be safely back at the hotel, I showered, settled into the bed, and turned on the TV. I was stunned and appalled by what I saw. The talking heads were breathlessly reporting about the events in Charlottesville, and they were presenting it as though a group of Nazis had laid siege to the city. They showed still photos of rally attendees who had (wisely, in retrospect) brought helmets, shields, and sticks for self-defense, and implied that they were on the attack. They had it all wrong! I wanted to scream, "NO! THEY ARE NOT NAZIS! AND THEY WERE FIGHTING THEIR WAY THROUGH A HOSTILE CROWD THAT THE AUTHORITIES FORCED THEM INTO!"
It would have been pointless. The politically inexperienced new right was outplayed by the treacherous old school. The damning photos were taken that could be used to create the desired narrative: that the new right were dangerous, Trump-inspired Nazis. The death of Heather Heyer later in the day further cemented that narrative.
Based on my experience, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE AUTHORITIES INTENDED TO CREATE AS MUCH MAYHEM AS POSSIBLE. Despite what is widely believed, it was the rally organizers who acted to minimize the violence. Their quick thinking and action saved lives. I am sure of it.
The next morning, my friend and I had breakfast in the hotel lobby before driving back to our respective hometowns. There were some uniformed police having breakfast, and others checking out at the front desk. Overnight, my feeling towards them had gone from appreciation to anger and disgust. How dare they wear that uniform if they are going to sit idly by as people are maimed and killed? I wondered why they had even bothered to come to Charlottesville.
It was an infuriating and helpless feeling, seeing the false narrative take on a life of its own over the next few days and weeks. It was also surreal knowing that I had been in the midst of something that had such a huge impact on the nation, when I had expected it would probably only make the local news. I had honestly expected that the most dangerous part of attending the rally would be the drive to Virginia.
Since August of last year, I given a great deal of thought to what I witnessed in Charlottesville, and the impact that the event, and the lies that have been told about it, have had on the nation. I have wondered what purpose my experience there could serve, and whether God drew me to this event, unlike anything I have ever done in my life, for a reason. Maybe that reason is so I can tell you the truth.
Yet another article has been published about the places in the US that people are migrating to and from. The main finding - I hope you're sitting down, because this is going to shock you - is that YANKEES ARE FLOODING SOUTHWARD.
The article notes in particular that Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are among the top cities which people are "leaving in droves."
Well, I'm just a simple girl from Carolina, but I find that a wee bit confusing. I am assured quite frequently by smart-looking people in the media that we live in the most backwards part of the country. People living in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago tell us frequently, and in not too polite a manner, that we need to change the way we do things to be more like them.
In fact, our country just recently elected a man from Chicago to our highest office, and it was so clear that his brilliance and goodness would bring salvation to humanity, that he received the Nobel Peace Prize before even having a chance to warm his chair in the Oval Office! And folks in Hollywood are always trying to teach us life lessons about how guns are bad, and Christianity is just an excuse for hating gay people. New Yorkers think health is so important, they won't let you buy sugary drinks that are too big. And - you may find this surprising given their repuation for rudeness - but politeness is so important up there, you can get fined for not addressing a gender non-confirming person by xir pronoun of choice.
It kinda makes you wonder. Why would people be "fleeing in droves" from places that are run by morally impeccable people with brilliant ideas?
In all seriousness, Southerners cringe when we hear about Yankees moving South because we know what that means. The biggest problem is not only that many of them are lacking in gentility, though that is indeed an issue. The problem is that they quickly insist on making changes that start us down the slippery slope to creating the kind of place they fled, and with COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF AWARENESS OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING!
We need to "improve" things, and raise taxes to pay for it. We need to diversify and modernize our institutions. You can't have so many activities unregulated, and let people go around making their own decisions! AND WHY AREN'T YOU THANKING ME FOR POINTING OUT ALL THE THINGS YOU HAVE BEEN DOING WRONG?
And so on, and so forth. We've seen it play out this way many times.
The real head scratcher is, how do we keep them from moving down here? I'm thinking of something incorporating the banjo music from Deliverance and hominy grits. I'll let you know when I get the details figured out.
The Carolina Contrarian is a soft-spoken Southern belle by day, opinionated blogger by night. She loves Jesus, her family, and her hometown. She enjoys floral dresses, acoustic guitar music, and blessing the heart of misguided leftists.