658 words
For years, I have argued that our mostly online and anonymous movement is more likely to develop into a large and formidable real world community if we follow two basic rules. First, everyone gets to choose his own level of explicitness and involvement. Second, everybody else has to respect those decisions, including people’s decisions to keep their identities secret.
Doxing refers to publishing private information about an individual — his real name, his home address, his school, his employer, etc. — in order to cause him harm. Doxing is a favored tool used by the Left to expose White Nationalists to persecution from the system and criminal antifa elements.
In recent months, however, doxing has been used by movement people to settle scores with movement rivals. To give two recent examples: Iron March members were trying to dox American Vanguard members, and Twitter’s Baked Alaska recently doxed Twitter’s Bunker Smith (who is a Trumpian civic nationalist, not a White Nationalist). Simply sharing people’s pen names among fellow movement people can cause huge problems. But doxing is far worse, because it makes such private information available to the public at large.
This has to stop. The White Nationalist movement has grown tremendously in the internet age because the web allows our people to conceal our identities from those who would persecute us for our beliefs. But our movement cannot continue growing online, much less transition to real world meetups, without a commitment to protecting people’s identities from doxing. The recent doxings indicate that we need to make this principle more explicit and back it up with punishments for those who violate it.
Doxing fellow movement people strikes at the anonymity and trust that are the foundations of our movement. Therefore, I want to propose the following rules for dealing with doxers.
- Any movement person who doxes another movement person must suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence: they must be completely shunned. They must be expelled from all movement organizations, barred from all movement gatherings, and blocked on all social media.
- Their friends must be forced to choose sides. It is no deterrent if doxers are shunned by strangers. They must be disavowed and shunned by their friends. And if their friends stick with them, they must be shunned in the same way.
- These principles do not apply to the retaliatory doxing of doxers, whether they come from the system or the movement. On the one hand, retaliatory doxing is both just punishment and an excellent deterrent. On the other hand, it could initiate an escalating cycle of retaliation that could be harmful to the movement overall. So, although I cannot condone retaliatory doxing, I understand it, and I cannot treat it as an offense on the same level as initiating doxing.
- One of the virtues of instituting a policy of shunning doxers is to give victims both justice and solidarity and prevent such cycles of retribution.
But what if you personally like a doxer? What if he is presently an ally in the ever-shifting net wars? Simple: you should choose better friends and allies. Sure, so-and-so might only dox the people he is mad at. But what makes you think he will never fall out with you? What makes you think he will never attack your friends, your wife, or your employment?
No cause is more serious or sacred than White Nationalism. So we need to act like it. We think of ourselves as the legitimate leadership of our race. So we need to act like it. We should start thinking of ourselves as a government in exile. So we need to act like it. Today, that means establishing some basic rules and enforcing them with real consequences to the extent possible in our movement.
If you agree with this statement, I invite you to sign your name below. (Just post it in a comment.) If you have criticisms and suggestions, post them below as well.
Greg Johnson
34 comments
Amen.
Agreed.
Agreed and appreciated.
It’s fair to assume most CC readers are with you. Have any other movement leaders expressed similar sentiment, either publicly or privately to you, Greg? Unity from movement leaders, however you define such people, would be preferred, but that coordination and clout is beyond the means of a random reader. Is it within yours?
I ask because while affirmations in the CC readership are good, the rules above, correct me if I’m wrong, call for the ostracizing of Baked Alaska on social media, ideally reducing his subscriber count to zero, plus any of his 35k subscribers who refuse to follow suit. I coincidentally checked that box before reading this article, but as for the larger movement, clearly there must be greater agreement on such rules to give the rules teeth, which would require visible and unified endorsement from other leaders. How can this be done?
Other movement leaders include doxer Daniel Friberg and his business partner Richard Spencer, who knows that Friberg is a doxer (and worse) and does not care, and who happily associates with doxer Baked Alaska.
So there’s no real way of enforcing these sorts of standards, but if enough people start shunning these people — ignoring them, snubbing them, boycotting them, defunding them — things might change.
I agree with Greg as a matter of movement policy. We win on ideas. Doxxing someone is an admission of being unable to refute that person’s ideas, while also significantly endangering them and their families and showing a degree of maliciousness which bespeaks bad character on the part of the doxxer.
As Stefan Molyneux might say: “Doxxing: Not an argument.”
Leaving movement issues aside, as a matter of corporate policy for social media, it is a tougher question. Andrew Torba has put together some thoughtful considerations in the following post:
https://gab.ai/a/posts/23017007
Here is the full text of Torba’s take on this. It sounds like Gab will lean against stepping in, but may do so upon prompting by the person who has been doxxed. Again, I think it is fair to say that the considerations for a social media platform are not the same as those of the identity movement.
“Open Community Discussion re: anons and specualtive hearsay
First of all: this is not an easy topic for many reasons. It’s a deeply philosophical one and crucially important for free speech online. We wholeheartedly respect everyone’s need for privacy and anonymity on the internet. In order to truely speak freely, many people have no choice but to remain anonymous.
That being said: anons are responsible for their own OPSEC. We as a platform can not possibly police speculation, hearsay, satire, or random claims about who someone is or is not. Secondly: taking action against claims like this only proves those claims to be true, which will encourage more people to post about it and discuss it.
If an anon also does not approach us about their “real name” being exposed, how are we supposed to take action on a random claim?
Exposing someone’s identity with malicious intent in order to silence them or scare them can certainly be a form of censorship. I personally think it is reprehensible, but as our guidelines stand today we do not prohibit hearsay and I don’t think that we should.
There has to be a middle ground or better solution, which is why I’m opening up the discussion to the community. I think the solution has to involve the victim of the dox in some way reporting that their identity has been exposed. Beyond that, we are certainly open to feedback from the community on the issue and on how to prevent it going forward and keep anons protected. Ultimately anons need to be responsible for their own OPSEC because once information is out, there is no making it private again. Such is the reality of the internet.”
https://gab.ai/a/posts/23017007
I agree!
Signature.
I absolutely agree, and I agree further that this movement should seek to create a high-trust environment. Any genuine White Nationalists should not accuse movement people of being agents and plants without hard evidence. Can’t do much about anonymous commenters but anyone of influence that does it should be condemned. If the behavior is consistent it should arouse suspicion. I found the suggestion to not promote “epistemic nihilism” elsewhere by Mr. Johnson very pertinent. There is some really paranoid, retarded, autistic assholes in this movement.
Very little privacy is left these days. It is only a matter of time before we are all doxed. Do right fear no one.
Do right, fear no one, and be prepared. The amount of information that is revealed and the level of disruption to your operations can be mitigated. Often there’s just a single connection between large clusters of your personal data, and you can reduce your exposure, sometimes up to 90 percent, just by severing that single connection.
There is no protection against government agencies and professional profilers (who are usually government subcontractors and have access to governmental/proprietary databases), but damage from movement doxing and low tier journalistic sniffing can usually be contained. Fatalism is just as problematic as a false sense of security. Especially when a single doxed person can drag his entire network of contacts with himself into the bog. Anglin published this seemingly sensible piece against keeping lists – the problem is, the way he describes the issue gives the impression that keeping data in Excel files is the problem. But that’s a very limited view of what a “list” can be. A Gmail/Android contact list is a list. The IP column in the ‘comments’ table in the DS database is a list. A person’s Google search history is a list. And so on. I’m not saying that character doesn’t matter, but when things get serious, good character alone won’t protect members of the movement from doxing and persecution.
But don’t LARP either. If I ever get doxxed I will refuse to apologise because I believe in what I say and can justify it to friends and family. What I write online isn’t that different to what I say in real life. Don’t become fodder for ‘how I was brainwashed into a Nazi white supremacist’ stories on BuzzFeed cos the gap between what you write and what I ate willing to put it name on is too wide
In strictly practical terms doxing doesn’t matter, as long as people roam about the internet and leave digital footprints like Titanosaurs. It usually takes just a few intelligently crafted search queries and < 10 minutes of browsing to find someone, and their family, IRL. The internet is our battlefield, start educating yourself on digital security now.
Spend 15 minutes a day on this. Make it a habit.
Doxxing someone for criticizing you is like being in an old-fashioned fight where your friends and his friends form a circle around you, and the two of you are expected to box it out, but all of the sudden he pulls out a knife and stabs you. An escalation of attack beyond the agreed upon means of the contest is exactly what doxxing is. It is low and treacherous. It’s fundamentally not the white way.
Agreed
Ricky Vaughn doxxed no-one. The reason for his information being revealed was manifestly ideological, and thus wrong. If this is the ‘vanguardist’ attempt at purging the movement of undesirables, I predict it will be as impotent in overall effect as the previous doxxing dramas we’ve had. This kind of behaviour only serves to further divide white interests and weaken the overall scope of our influence.
I mean, Paul Nehlen is running for the House of Representatives for goodness sake. And he partook in the doxxing of a civic nationalist for no other reason than his expressed opinions?
Nehlen’s career in mainstream American politics will be over before it starts, assuming his ideological sincerity, of course.
Utterly puerile.
1. Any movement person who doxes another movement person must suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence: they must be completely shunned. They must be expelled from all movement organizations, barred from all movement gatherings, and blocked on all social media.
2. Their friends must be forced to choose sides. It is no deterrent if doxers are shunned by strangers. They must be disavowed and shunned by their friends. And if their friends stick with them, they must be shunned in the same way.
3. These principles do not apply to the retaliatory doxing of doxers, whether they come from the system or the movement. On the one hand, retaliatory doxing is both just punishment and an excellent deterrent. On the other hand, it could initiate an escalating cycle of retaliation that could be harmful to the movement overall. So, although I cannot condone retaliatory doxing, I understand it, and I cannot treat it as an offense on the same level as initiating doxing.
4. One of the virtues of instituting a policy of shunning doxers is to give victims both justice and solidarity and prevent such cycles of retribution.
In regard to the above, I propose a 5th rule:
5. No one in the white nationalist movement who aspires to a leadership role, either on or off the Internet, can both aspire to leadership and/or influence and ALSO remain anonymous. Such individuals must choose to be either an anonymous member of the “rank & file” or to identify upfront who they are so that later, if they betray their WN base, they cannot slink away into the shadows.
That said, all reputable leaders (and some not so reputable) have authentic identities known to us, and WERE known to us, right from the beginning. Some examples: Jared Taylor, David Duke, Don Black, Thomas Robb, Jeff Schoep, Matt Heimbach, and so on. Others, like “Millennial Woes”, hid behind a false identity, and yet simultaneously aspired to having a large influence on our Movement. Later, he was doxxed.
On the other hand, had MW wanted his true identity kept secret, he should have remained a member of the “rank & file”, without any of the perks and privileges of a leader or “influencer”. For with power and influence must come transparency and responsibility. And that transparency and responsibility means the greater body of the WN movement has a right to know who you are from the beginning, as insurance that you cannot slip away into obscurity when the going gets rough. And it’s a very fair policy: You want power and influence? Okay. Then you must be upfront with your true identity. You want anonymity? That’s fine too. Then remain a foot soldier in our Cause.
You can’t make that rule stick. If people have important things to say, people will listen to them and be influenced by them no matter what name they use.
I mostly agree with this. I wrote something nearly identical to this in a Facebook group but at the same time I value the views of Jazzhands Mcfeels greatly. I don’t agree with the doxing because I think it harmed the movement but anyone who puts himself out there as a leader should be prepared for the possibility of being doxed. Ricky Vaughn poked too many bears one time too many and Paul Nehlen lost his shit.
Nobody should ever meet up in real life unless it is productive. What everyone should be concerned about is what they can do for the movement, and simply do it.
Sounds good to me.
(Wish I could find the essay by Wilmot Robertson on how the Anglo-Saxons formed a secret society. It began with them posting an announcement on the bulletin board for where and when the first meeting was to be held.) Its a long and winding road to knee capping and “six packs.”
You know, I agree in spirit, but people will be doxxed. In such an ill defined “movement” of overlapping and shifting loyalties, ideologies, and goals, with infiltrators and trolls of every stripe, it’s unrealistic for a figure of any stature not to expect to be doxxed. (If you’ve ever read Man Who Was Thursday by Chesterton, that captures the spirit of these venues for me!) As your importance grows to the top, your likelihood of being doxxed approaches 100%. For example, it was impossible that Greg Johnson exert his level of leadership and to expect that his image remain unpublished. And I think Greg admitted to having vouched for the guy who filmed certain figures, including himself. Could this be considered proxy dox under the right circumstances? Not accusing, but hostile elements could claim that. My point being that clever individuals can find ways.
As such, excessive measures against those who may have doxxed seem counterproductive and divisive. There should be social controls, but also pathways to redemption. We should always focus our energies on combatting the Enemy and not one another. Lead by example.
To Greg or anyone else who wants to reply, can you come out and tell us what Daniel Friberg has done that is so terrible?
Vague allegations about his character aren’t enough for me to take the steps you advise. Is there a specific claim about something he has done?
These things have been dealt with on this site already. Just put his name in the search box at the top right.
Wow.
I’ve been on the AltRight since 2011, but chose not to make a direct contribution because this movement has always been shot through with degeneracy, crackpots, and pathologically dysfunctional “leaders”. That is as true now as ever. I shouldn’t be surprised there are scam artists too.
I agree with this article.
Agreed
Like everyone else I also agree. This type of “punishment” is well within the bounds of European behavior. However I’d like to say, this is getting old.
We write and read and talk in generalities about what needs to be done, the historical perspectives and the morality needed to move this movement forward and yet there is no movement. In the past several months Alt leaders, from you Greg to MW and the Distributist have spoken about teaching the rhetorical arguments to us plebeians. I would love that and sincerely would appreciate it, but yet I’ve been waiting and nothing. You see I really don’t have the time to read books on philosophy and politics because I am a finite being who works 40-50 hours a week as well as volunteers in my community. We need leaders who can and will equip and train us in ways that will help us articulate our message and flesh out scenarios in which we use them. I find it gratifying that commentators such as Tucker Carlson seem to be embracing our ideas and so successfully. No, he’s not perfect but he is better than Richard Spencer. I find myself using some of Tucker’s perspectives when discussing issues of the day with others. Frequently Greg, I have managed to use your metaphor of the “shoes on the wrong feet” to describe multiculturalism and it has worked.
Do you get what I am trying to communicate here?
Another scenario of people who are moving forward and improving the lives of their community without breaking with their moral code is Chip and Joanna Gains of the Fixer Upper fame. They have demonstrated how to go about bringing a community together. Yes, yes I can hear the laughter now at my examples from those reading, but tell me where is our examples of those who are forming businesses and communities in real life? I would be the first one to support them. If there are such communities then they need to come out of the shadows. The more we stay hidden the easier it is to demonize us. Instead of rallies we should be renovating our communities.
Our values are out there but we are not the ones who are putting them into action.
Train, equip, guide, encourage these are the qualities we need in our leadership right now.
Addendum to my comment, BRAVO on the podcast about What is wrong with Diversity. I will listen to this and get the points down and use them. This is what we need. Thank you Greg!
UPDATE: Torba has come out against doxxing. And he has, accordingly, banned Paul Nehlen from the platform.
https://gab.ai/a/posts/23164401
Agree!
I must say I am stunned by the vitriol some people in the movement throw at eachother. We are being attacked from all sides, but some people spend far more energy in attacking their allies than their enemies. And this in a movement that demands the highest form of idealism. Many times it will be paid provocateurs from the government or from leftist organisation, but not allways. Doxxing is the worst attack of all, using all the power of our enemies to destroy an ally.
That Vaughn was an ally, whether Nehlen wants to recognize it or not, is confirmed by the fact that the left did attack Vaughn. Nehlen contacting ‘The Huffington Post’ is inexcusable.
A previous commenter proposed a 5th rule which strikes me as sensible and probably necessary.
How Ricky Vaughn thought that he could be openly antagonistic toward white identity while attempting to police the optics debate within a white identitarian movement and not expect heavy blowback from his scheming is beyond me. He should have relegated himself to the Cernovich-ProudBoys-AltLight sphere and refrained from punching right. Perhaps it was hubris that led him to believe that having a knack for campaign analytics as an anonymous pro-am twitterrer also meant that he possessed great insight regarding identitarian movement politics while not actually being an avowed identitarian himself? Cuck much?
Soo…yeah I just can’t seem to muster up any sympathy for poor Ricky Vaughn. Maybe the only takeaway here is that there are no good actors involved in this little dust-up.
I don’t have sympathy for Ricky Vaughn at all but it’s undeniable that this event hurt the movement. It can’t be justified after the fact. If Ricky deserved to be doxed that needed to be publicly debated beforehand, not done in retaliation for an online beef.
I never punch right.
NEVER.
We are so marginalized, our movement is far too fragile for any of us to do harm to one another.
The left allows (and encourages) the most vile, degenerate, and even violent behavior.
We have to fight fire with fire. This is why I defend Matt Heimbach, for instance. I don’t care who was fucking. He’s just a kid, first of all, and at least he has the balls to go public.
I can’t imagine doxing anybody. If I was pissed enough I’d just kick their ass.
An extremist argument devoid of nuance. You will have my response soon.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.