Do Twitter’s Praetorian Guard Still Serve the Old Emperors?

I’ve lost the exact count of how many times I’ve been forcibly removed from the digital premises over on Twitter, but I do remember three specific reasons. My very first ban came because I said Dinesh D’Souza is retarded. I stand by that and I always will.

My most recent ban, and the one which preceded it two years before, resulted from similar circumstances. On both occasions, I got hit by the ban hammer because Jewish people demanded it. Two years ago, a proudly communist Jew who bragged about his relatives who had fought in the Red Army told me to kill myself. I responded by saying “you first,” and along with that retort I attached a GIF of a kitchen oven. I regret nothing.

Like a bully who picks on everyone at school but runs to the teacher the moment someone fights back and sticks a few knuckles in his jaw, this communist Jew ran to the Twitter moderators and reported my tweet, which resulted in my suspension for committing “hateful conduct.” Thus, I sat on the sidelines for two years until Elon’s romantic gesture on Valentine’s Day.

This latest ban can also be traced to a Jew. Ed Krassenstein is his name. I’d never heard of him until a matter of weeks ago. Upon doing a perfunctory Wikipedia search, I learned that there are in fact two of him, and they are both rather unsavory characters who have been involved in financial shenanigans and, ironically, were banned from Twitter in 2019 for operating fake accounts. For some reason, Twitter’s new “For You” feature kept showing Ed Krassenstein’s tweets on my feed. I didn’t follow him and I wasn’t too keen on reading his boring, bog-standard liberal progressive opinions. One day I responded to one of his ridiculous tweets, and evidently this convinced the algorithm that I wanted to see even more of his stuff.

So it was that as I was scrolling through Twitter one day, I came across yet another of Krassenstein’s ridiculous takes. On this particular occasion, his tweet was very long (he pays for the privilege of being able to tweet beyond the standard limit of characters), and he ended it by saying that Adolf Hitler was a terrible human being. I don’t even remember exactly why he said this, and I didn’t think for a second that my response would put my account at risk. This was Elon’s Twitter after all, wasn’t it? So I tweeted in the replies: “Not only was Hitler not a terrible human being, he was also not wrong.”

For me, this was such an anodyne comment that I don’t even recall the day I typed it. It could have been several days or even several weeks before the eventual ban hammer struck me. I have no idea, but for tweeting those 14 words, my account was summarily executed. Why? This time for committing “violent speech.” I can only suspect that Krassenstein, an influential Jew with a massive following on Twitter, reported my tweet, and either because he has connections to the relevant people or because his actions on Twitter carry more weight, he was able to ensure that little Pox Populi felt the full force of Twitter’s punishment. So yet again, I am unable to speak in what is nowadays unquestionably the modern public square because of a hypocritical, power-drunk, and paranoid Jew and his (also Jewish) friends at Twitter.

It is especially irksome to be booted from Twitter because of a throwaway comment regarding Hitler. Any word spoken about Hitler than doesn’t express utter hatred is taboo, and as I’ve said many times —  including on Twitter and also here — I’m not really a Hitler apologist, nor do I think that embracing 1930s German aesthetics or arguments is necessary. So why reply to a Jew that “Hitler was not a terrible human being”? Why did I add “he was not wrong”?

Well, on that second phrase, how is the angry Twitter moderator and the seething hall monitor who reported me to know what exactly I was suggesting Hitler was not wrong about? Maybe I meant he was right on economics! Is it really “violent speech’” to say that Hitler had a sound economic policy? A roster of historians, none very sympathetic to German National Socialism, have said as much. Why can’t I? Or perhaps I was referring to Hitler’s position on issues such as subversive sexual fads and propaganda in the mass media? He was not wrong about these, either. Is it “violent speech” to say so? The point is, without actually speaking to me and asking my intent, how is anyone to know? The assumption that a paranoid Jew would make is that I was saying that Hitler was not wrong to kill the sacred Six Million. That is not what I was implying, for what it’s worth. For reasons which I won’t get into here, I would never imply that Hitler ordered the killing of the sacred Six Million.

No, I responded with that tweet because, as I have also stated repeatedly, the essentials of the West’s current malaise are all a direct cause of the Allies’ victory over German and Italian nationalists in the Second World War This malaise can be traced back further — very further, indeed — but the culprit’s fingerprints are most clear around the 1930s and the following years.

Consider this: in recent times, influential public figures such as Tucker Carlson and the popular conservative rapper who goes by Zuby have both drawn comparisons between our time and the Weimar Republic. Why? Because during the Weimar Republic, German society was a chasm of wealth inequality, German currency was worthless, and sexual depravity the very likes of which we are witnessing today was rampant.

While I may not be a Hitler apologist out to redeem the 1930s Germans, I am concerned with the truth and with pushing down the pillars which uphold the temple of lies that is Western civilisation post-1945. I am therefore delighted to see that people are noticing the similarities between Weimar degeneracy and today’s global Western degeneracy. I am thrilled that when someone, particularly some disgruntled conservative type, says “The Nazis burned books!” there is an increasing number of courageous and informed people who respond, “Do you know what kind of books the Nazis burned?” and then go on to inform said disgruntled conservative that the Big Bad Nazis burned books on transgenderism and destroyed transgenderist “institutes.” You see, the Nazis were fighting against the same forces of filth and decadence and subversion that we are burdened with today. Which raises the question: if the transgenderists, the drag queen storytellers, the groomers who target children with these sexual delusions, the bankers reducing your currency to worthless paper, the activists promoting mass immigration and the annihilation of European nations — if they all say their worst enemy are Nazis, and the Nazis were indeed their worst enemy in the past . . . what does that tell us?

The problem is, folks such as Tucker Carlson and Zuby then do the unthinkable. In a dizzying display of ignorance and/or slavish devotion to the Steven Spielberg version of history, they not only fail to ask that question, they surmise that all those malefactors were themselves just like the Nazis!

Quite simply, there is no way this makes sense.

It is because of this utter stupidity that I occasionally engage in historical revisionism. I do seek to change the narrative, to get people making the same comparisons to Weimar Germany that Zuby made, but then to find the right answers. For this reason I will post about Hitler from time to time and the things he was absolutely right about. I will attempt to devilify the 1930s Germans and cast that spotlight of blame and defamation onto the true villains of that era. Also, to be quite honest, posting about Moustache Man and zee Germanz is funny. Nothing gets a rise out the Leftist schoolmarms and rabid anti-whites like a bit of Nazi posting. They have set up a new church — a new religion — in which they are saints, and even God he/himself. Hitler is Satan and zee Germanz are his demonic legions. I am but a humble iconoclast, an agent provocateur from the counterculture here to make a mockery of their “faith.”

In short, while it was a throwaway comment that I hardly thought would come with a cost, I believe it was still worth it. I would say it again, and I intend to in the future, until more and more people wake up, as I had to, to the uncomfortable truths and devilish lies about the Second World War.

Elon’s Twitter, same as the Old Twitter?

You can buy Jonathan Bowden’s Reactionary Modernism here.

So why does this umpteenth suspension from a site I never really cared for anyway bother me? Because it’s like the neighbors have shown up to shut down my party just as it was getting started. More importantly, it feels like a betrayal. Like a backstabbing.

It wasn’t just my account which they banned. Joking aside now, I am a nobody, especially compared with some of the people who were banned around the same time I was. In a purge recalling to mind the dark and drublie days, Twitter struck down users like Kevin MacDonald, a man who surely did not once fall afoul of the terms of service but instead was kicked off the platform for who he is. The same can be said of Varg Vikernes, who was also banned within this one-week period of purging. To my knowledge, the only things Varg had been posting to Twitter were lengthy tweets about his past, tweets which he implied were more like extracts from an autobiography he’s been working on — and of course the usual tantrums about Mediterranean Europeans.

The capricious banning of Twitter users for who they are or what they believe, rather than their adherence or lack thereof to the site’s rules, is what characterized the Old Twitter. Elon’s Twitter was supposed to be different. He had made that much clear, yet months prior to this latest purge, all of Patriotic Alternative’s accounts on Twitter had been scrubbed, along with the accounts of all the individuals most prominently associated with it. Gemma O’Doherty had been banned as well. Several banned accounts, such as those of Jared Taylor, Blair Cottrell, and Greg Johnson, still have not been reinstated. Putting all this together, can we really say that Elon’s Twitter is much different from the Twitter of old?

This latest purge was in full swing just before it got to me, and it seems to have remained in full swing in the days after. Along with publicly-known users such as MacDonald and Virkenes, several anonymous accounts were banned as well. The removal of the user who goes by Race and Consciousness is particularly telling. Elon Musk recently went on the HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher and repeated the old mantra that defending free speech is meaningless unless you are defending speech you don’t like — and this is key: said by people you don’t like.

Another reason why I am so put out by this latest ban is precisely because Elon has been relentlessly clear about defending freedom of expression after I and the others I mentioned were banned. Prior to his statements on Bill Maher’s show, and whilst another unexplained purge was raging on the platform he spent roughly $44 billion to acquire, Elon Musk tweeted “Censor not, lest ye be censored.” Given the context surrounding this tweet, it’s difficult to tell if Musk meant it as a warning to Twitter’s content moderators, or if it was a cheeky jibe at those of us who were helplessly watching our accounts — or the accounts of our comrades — get censored.

Then Musk went on to reply to Irish nationalist Keith Woods’ tweet condemning Ireland’s new legislation that is designed to stop so-called hate speech. “This is a massive attack against freedom of speech,” was Elon’s assessment of the Irish government’s plans.

Keith Woods is by no means safe on Twitter. He had already been banned in the past and only recently had his “official” account restored, presumably upon successful appeal. That Elon Musk replied to him is obviously significant in more than one way. That he replied to Woods in full-throated agreement is even more meaningful.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country here

Musk, one could reasonably deduce, must therefore be unaware that his team of content moderators are still removing users based on their political biases, in which case: do we have a clash of powers at Twitter? Is there a bitter old guard of non-binary Praetorians still doggedly banning whomever they can, despite the wishes of the new Emperor? If Elon Musk is unaware, then we must make him aware. Musk’s ignorance of these bans is certainly one possibility, but the fact that rules such as the one against “violent speech,” which did me in, even exist and weren’t immediately done away with is cause for concern.

I require some convincing that Elon really wants to put his skin in the game and take on the censorious “woke Left.” He pledged amnesty for all banned users (within reason), yet as I said earlier, several users have not been reinstated despite widespread demand for their accounts to be revived. Just before my suspension, I was able to get a glimpse of some new tool for censoring undesired content on Twitter: limited visibility. A tweet that steps over the still arbitrary and subjective boundaries can be placed in “limited visibility.” That means that no other users can reply to, retweet, or even like the offending post. Is this the behavior of a site run by a man who wants to defend that speech the “woke Left” doesn’t like, particularly when it’s said by someone they don’t like? Or is this evidence that Musk is trying to find ways to satisfy the censorious appetites and calm the paranoia of other men — men such as Jonathan Greenblatt of the the Anti-Defamation League and Senator Chuck Schumer, with whom Musk recently met?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that we place our faith in Elon Musk and see him as someone on “our side” simply because he said a few sensible — and indeed, liberal — things about free speech. He is comfortably ensconced in the upper echelon of society and those who comprise it, and we know that no one up there is looking out for our best interests.

If you observe the way many normies and conservatives have come to hold Musk in high regard, you will see the same sort of desperate love and hope they showered upon Donald Trump. There is something troubling in this. It shows that people feel, deep down, that perhaps the only way we have a chance is if some wealthy and powerful figure throws his weight behind us. They want a savior. They know that this task is too daunting for them to undertake on their own. In many ways, they are right. We do need wealthy and powerful benefactors. My warning, as ever, is to be on guard and not run willy-nilly into the arms of charlatans and pied pipers. Whatever Musk does with Twitter won’t change my mind about his businesses or his ventures into AI and robots and Neurolink, etc., and what Twitter is like despite or because of his takeover has done little to win me over anyway. However, I do believe there is truth in the Great Man Theory, and we do need someone like Musk to box for us. Therefore, regardless of whether you think he is sincere in his motives, it is vital that we hold him to his promises to guarantee freedom of speech. Without free speech, we cannot take on this oppressive and totalitarian regime.

Finally, the reason why I am embittered by this new suspension is that it comes on the heels of something which I tweeted just one day before getting whacked, which I will now paraphrase:

If we had a fraction of the resources that the globalist regime and its bootlickers have — such as Hollywood, the education system, mass media, and big business — in six days we could have the vast majority of the population in favor of sending migrant boats back where they came from and dismantling the Non-Governmental Organizations that try to help them. This is why they have to pass hate speech laws and are desperately trying to censor us and kick us off social media. This is why all over the West they are eagerly trying to criminalize dissenting speech both online and spoken out loud. When we engage in the culture war, and when people are made aware of what’s happening to their countries and their culture (thanks in part to our efforts), WE WIN.

Reprinted with permission from Pox Populi’s Substack.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
• Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments. 
• Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

• your payment
• the recipient’s name
• the recipient’s email address
• your name
• your email address

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.