Posted on July 16, 2020

Heidi Beirich Cancels Generation Identity

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, July 16, 2020

Around the country, violent crime and vandalism are on the rise, and the Black Lives Matter movement incites violence. However, Twitter and YouTube are not censoring BLM; they promote it. Instead, Twitter recently banned more than 50 accounts associated with Generation Identity (GI) in Europe, both of organizations and of individuals, especially in Germany and Austria. One of the primary targets was the Austrian Identitarian activist Martin Sellner, whose YouTube channel was also deleted soon after the Twitter purge. This probably happened at the bidding of two former SPLC employees.

Heidi Beirich, formerly of the Southern Poverty Law Center, recently started the “Global Project Against Hate and Extremism” (GPAHE). She and GPAHE co-founder Wendy Via recently wrote a report called “Generation Identity: International Nationalist Movement Spreading On Twitter And YouTube.” It is weak, even for agitprop. It directly — and ridiculously — compares Generation Identity to ISIS. It wants the identitarian movement to be recognized “as a driver of terrorism at the same level as Islamic terrorism.” This means tech companies must take “immediate steps to deplatform all Identitarian material.” That is exactly what happened.

The notion that white advocacy is terrorism is widely circulated nonsense. The Anti-Defamation League’s “Extremist Terrorism” report, for example, is laughable. GPAHE’s report says there have been “six mass attacks since October 2018” worldwide that it blames in the identitarian movement. This is absurd.

One was an October 2019 attack in Halle, Germany, by a man who tried to shoot up a synagogue. When he could not get through the door, he shot two Germans passing by. He had no links of any kind to GI or the German New Right, nor did he refer to them anywhere in his brief manifesto. In February 2020, a man in Hanau attacked two hookah bars and killed nine people; then he killed his mother and himself. He wrote a non-political manifesto that was clearly the work of a madman. In Germany, both shootings were used to blame the populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) for spreading “hate.” GI was only a secondary target.

Even one right-wing attack is too many, but it’s silly to compare a few shootings around the world over a two-year period to ISIS, which established de facto sovereignty over a vast territory — but that’s what the report does: “It would be inconceivable for social media platforms to allow ISIS propaganda to spread and grow unchecked, but that is exactly what is happening with Identitarianism.” So, where’s the terrorism? GPAHE relies heavily on Christchurch shooter Brenton Tarrant’s opposition to “The Great Replacement” — the dispossession of whites in their homelands. The report calls it a “racist conspiracy theory,” even though countless articles and books have noted the rapid and unprecedented demographic change in the Western world. Leftists, including Joy Reid, Zerlina Maxwell, and Stacey Abrams openly celebrate it. Even if we never mentioned it again, the GPAHE’s progressive allies would continue to crow about our steady dispossession.

The authors seem to think the Christchuch shooter would never have learned about The Great Replacement and would never have killed anyone but for the wicked machinations of Martin Sellner and other identitarians. GPAHE even claims Brenton Tarrant learned about the United Nations’ Migration Compact — which promotes Third-World immigration into white countries — from Generation Identity. The Compact, just like population change in the West, was no secret and was widely debated. Why not blame the New York Times? But somehow, GI inspires “white supremacist killers” and is building “a movement whose ideas are linked directly to terrorism and the building of an international white supremacist network.”

The report cannot find a single act of terrorism or even violence committed or encouraged by any leader or member of an identitarian group. The closest GPAHE gets is a donation the Christchurch shooter made to Martin Sellner a year before his attack. Is Mr. Sellner expected to read the mind of everyone who supports him and predict his future actions? We might as well hold Bernie Sanders responsible for a supporter who shot at Republican congressmen. Let’s ban the Democratic Socialists of America as a terrorist group. It is absurd to hold Mr. Sellner responsible for the actions of people in other countries.

Astonishingly, GPAHE uses examples of state repression against Martin Sellner and Generation Identity as an argument for further repression. It cites the American, British, and German governments’ actions against Mr. Sellner and Generation Identity. The authors note approvingly that the Trump Administration even denied Mr. Sellner a visa to come marry his now-wife, Brittany Pettibone, on American soil.

Martin Sellner (Credit Image: © Michael Gruber/APA Picturedesk via ZUMA Press)

There is plenty of name-dropping in the report. David Duke, Richard Spencer, Alain de Benoist, Jared Taylor, and Patrick Casey all make appearances. They and others are lumped together as Identitarians and thus linked to terrorism. The report concludes by praising tech company repression of ISIS propaganda, and frets about the “double standard” of failing to muzzle Generation Identity.

Double standard? Antifa and blacks attack whites, shoot police, flout pandemic safety measures, riot and loot — often explicitly under the banner of Black Lives Matter. BLM doesn’t just enjoy a platform; it gets corporate sponsorship.

Martin Sellner has written a brilliant response to this “report.” He points out that he has never inspired or advocated violence. Instead, he writes, “Our ‘crime’ is that we name and criticize current population policies.” He also warns that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other big tech companies “have achieved a monopoly,” and bans make it impossible to reach large audiences. He notes that once a dissident figure has built up a channel with a considerable following, he will invariably be shut down on preposterous pretexts. Taking legal action against this is almost completely fruitless. Mr. Sellner reminds us of the power wielded by these companies:

Being deplatformed has a similar effect on your own media reach as a ban on the use of motorways, trains, and airplanes has on your travel range. Those who are banned from using the crucial means of transportation will not get very far. These platforms are important, and anyone who denies this is lying to himself. Any dissident has only a precarious existence on them. When the globalist apparatus targets a movement, person, or publisher, its digital existence turns to dust.

The censorship is even more insidious because activists can build a base on mainstream platforms before it is suddenly snatched away, creating “censorship shock.” The brief moment of mainstream toleration also prevents formation of “strong alternative platforms for dissidents that could create their own network effect.“ Even if a dissident network could be formed, payment processors would try to shut it down.

Mr. Sellner predicts future repression:

If the attack is strong, bank accounts disappear, web hosts give you the boot, and Google stops indexing your site. I am convinced that if the pressure against Generation Identity and me were to continue, we would lose all current digital alternatives.

The opponent’s rule is total. There is no real independent space within it, only different degrees of repression and tolerance. Everyone on the Right is aware of the power of this hostile public sphere. They hope that a protected niche will survive as long as possible, but any dissident who still has a PayPal account or bank account, is sold on Amazon, or is on Twitter and YouTube is only tolerated. He has no right to be there.

What is the solution? While Mr. Sellner holds out hope for blockchain-built alternative platforms, he suggests a medium-term “guerilla” strategy:

What does this “guerrilla state” mean? The dissident cannot keep a bank account permanently. He always needs 3-4 bank accounts as a “reserve.” With an eye to alternative technologies, he must constantly integrate the latest developments and test their suitability in the information war. He has to be prepared to lose his platform regularly along with the followers he has built up. He has to get used to this fact and accept that there is no place where he can settle down permanently.

Any alternative, from Telegram to BitChute, can be considered only temporary. You cannot be bound to them. You use something as long as you can. When it is no longer possible and you are “discovered,” you move on. Life as a digital guerrilla is necessarily uncomfortable. A tent is not an apartment.

This also means greater demands on followers. It will be harder to reach ordinary people. Instead of hoping to convert the masses, Mr. Sellner suggests creating a “critical mass” through “organized and political resistance work.” He compares our situation to that of anti-Communists in East Germany, who always had to be on the move, working politically, but still outside the system. Mr. Sellner also warns that as more dissidents see every means of expression closed to them, their frustration could lead to dangerous outbursts. He wonders if this is not something our opponents secretly hope for — even as they piously declare themselves horrified by political violence.

We have more legal freedom in the United States, but not much more real freedom. Barring a last-minute, desperate reversal, President Trump and the GOP will not force Big Tech to allow free speech. They might fail even if they tried. And Twitter showed yesterday that it can’t even protect the accounts of its most prominent users. Someone hacked several accounts, including those of Bill Gates, Joe Biden, and even Barack Obama. World leaders use Twitter to announce and promote policies. As Mike Cernovich said, hacks like this could start a war. This is far more dangerous than someone tweeting statistics about population change.

Why should tech oligarchs control access to information? Why does Heidi Beirich get to decide who can and cannot use the platform? It’s because our rulers are anti-white. The double standards are obvious, the arguments weak, the tactics crude. The mask is off. There is no “free world.” And censorship is the crudest way of admitting that our opponents cannot refute our arguments.

Those who incite violence direct it against us. Our opponents are not playing fair or living up to supposed democratic ideals. We must follow Mr. Sellner’s example and understand that we are struggling against an entire System. The struggle will be hard, but whites everywhere will find joy in it. We have a duty and a mission. We are part of a global struggle for our freedom and self-determination.