Since the recent announcement that Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is almost certainly going to do away with net neutrality when they vote on the issue on December 14, pundits on every side of the issue have been weighing in with their opinions. This contributes to the confusion of what is no doubt a very difficult, even slippery, topic. Pro-White activists haven’t been remiss in sharing their view and some circles have been inflamed by the debate, with a growing consensus that net neutrality is not good for our movement and we will be better off when the FCC gets rid of it. I will try to explain why they are dead wrong.

What is the Internet?

Judging from much of the befuddled commentary, it appears that we might benefit from a brief (and somewhat simplified) primer on exactly what the Internet is. The Internet is an actual physical thing; it isn’t some abstraction of software or websites or users, per se. At its simplest, it is machines (servers, routers, etc.) connected by wires (technically speaking, networks — hence the term Internet). These machines run protocols like the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), email, gopher, etc. One protocol, the HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP) is king of the Internet. The websites that we connect to via this protocol, constitute the World Wide Web (WWW). Many conflate the WWW with the Internet — it’s important to remember, for the purposes of this discussion, that they are not the same thing.

What is Net Neutrality?

The Wikipedia article on net neutrality gives a surprisingly useful definition:

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

Put succinctly, net neutrality means that all Internet traffic must be treated the same. (This site gives state-by-state data on support for net neutrality.)

Keep the above definitions in mind as we explore the arguments against net neutrality and demonstrate why they’re false.

Unpacking the Arguments against Net Neutrality

After reading articles and listening to the podcasts of a handful of alt-right pundits who are in favor of allowing the FCC to eliminate it, I was able to boil-down their commentary to six essential arguments against net neutrality.

Argument 1: Our enemies, large Silicon Valley-type mega corporations (particularly social media Web sites like Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc.), are in favor of net neutrality, so it must be wrong.

First, it should be obvious that, whilst our enemies are extremely powerful, they are not infallible. Just because they think something is good for them, doesn’t mean it is and even if it is, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad for us.

Second, and more importantly, it is more likely that these mega-corporations are merely virtue signaling to their Social Justice Warrior (SJW) supporters and are secretly working behind the scenes to promote the end of net neutrality. That said, there is one compelling reason why these large content sites might want to maintain net neutrality: without it, ISPs will be able to charge them more money to send data down their wires (more on that below).

As a side note, it might be edifying to understand that SJWs are in favor of keeping the net neutral for all the wrong reasons. They, like those of us on the pro-White right, seek to maintain freedom of speech because they see themselves as discriminated against dissidents whose voices won’t be heard without freedom of speech. Of course, they’re wrong; they aren’t victims of discrimination. They are the empowered — useful idiot pawns of the regime who are favored, not discriminated against. The similarities between the cultural Marxist left and the White right go even further when we understand that the foundational belief of both groups is that there is a conspiracy of elites to dominate the globe. The only difference is that SJWs believe in the conspiracy theory that those elites are “rich White men” (ignoring the role of Jews as a moving force in this elite), while we believe in the fact that this opposes the true interests of Whites. The difference means everything.

Argument 2: Net neutrality is about ensuring that large-bandwidth sites (like Netflix) can keep costs down on someone else’s network and therefore it will never effect small operations like the Web sites of White Nationalists.

While the first part of this is true, the second part is patently absurd. Once net neutrality is eliminated, there will be nothing to stop Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from expanding their newfound powers to regulate access to our sites. And of course, they will if for no other reason than that they will be pressured into doing so by the left—in the same way that they pressure advertisers for programs they don’t like.

I can foresee the web-blocking/bandwidth throttling of our Web sites developing much the way “hate speech” laws did in Canada. “Hate speech” laws were passed in Canada decades ago, but they never charged anyone with violating them until just the last decade or so. This allowed them to dissipate consternation when people became alarmed, simply by saying “oh, this law isn’t new; it’s been on the books for years”. As with the Canadian “hate speech” scenario, at first not much will happen. Our sites will hum merrily along. But then, as they start to grow, they will be hit with ever increasing bills to pay for the bandwidth or they will be throttled way back or blocked all together. Because it will happen slowly and years after the FCC policy change and because Whites, particularly White men, have a fundamental instinct to believe that we should pay for what we get and that if our data is going to be transported over another’s network, it is only fair that we pay our share, it will become extremely difficult for the average person to put two-and-two together and understand that this change represents a deliberate attempt to silence the voice of White America.

Argument 3: Net neutrality didn’t exist until the Obama’s FCC implemented it February 26, 2015. Since then, social media companies have increasingly been exiling us from the Web, so how could a change in policy, eliminating net neutrality, possibly harm us.

Because there are so many flaws in this argument it’s a fun one to unpack.

To begin with, net neutrality is not new — it is as old as the Internet itself. It was one of the founding principles of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) which was the original internetwork that eventually grew into what we know as the Internet. The February 2015 FCC Title II ruling made net neutrality the law, but it was already the de facto state of things for the almost half-century of existence of the ‘Net before that time. The ruling came about because the big ISPs were going to move away from the open Internet promised by net neutrality and implement a pay-to-play scheme. Public outcry triggered the Obama administration into action, resulting in the ruling.

The idea that because large Silicon Valley social media sites are suspending, blocking, and/or shadow banning our accounts so therefore we ought to allow ISPs to discriminate against us is hard to fathom. It’s akin to saying that because someone has forced you into a cage match to the death and armed your opponent with a knife then it couldn’t possibly harm you if they allowed the referee to join in the fight against you and gave him a gun.

One reason an alt-right pundit gave for supporting the end of net neutrality was that he believed the end of it would harm the social media giants’ bottom lines. It will of course, but the impact will be minor, representing nothing more than a small speed-bump on the information autobahn. On the other hand, it will be a dead end for White advocates if, e.g., people have to pay extra to go to pro-White sites. Currently, because of the FCC’s Title II ruling, we have legal remedy if ISPs try to discriminate against us; if they eliminate net neutrality with their upcoming December 14 vote, we will lose that remedy.

Also, it’s important to note that presently, we do have legal remedy against the large social media sites that are discriminating against us. Much has been said about the fact that these corporations are able to deny our free speech rights because as private entities they are not bound by the First Amendment. What everyone seems to have forgotten is that they are bound by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids enforcing corporate policies in a manner that negatively impacts any member of any of the groups that constitute the four protected classes. One of those classes is race (the others being religion, sex, and national origin). The fact that they allow non-Whites to say all of the things that they claim are violations of their user policies and are therefore cause for punishing us (via suspending or deleting our accounts) but don’t punish them, is grounds for a massive class action lawsuit. We just need to find a lawyer with the courage to take it on.

Argument 4: ISPs won’t block us, etc. because we are their customers and they wouldn’t want to harm their customers.

The fundamental problem with this is that while, on one level, we are customers buying Internet access from them, on another level we are also competitors offering consumer content that flows down their network “piping.” It should be easy to understand why they might want to harm their competitors.

A good analogy is the roadway system. Imagine, if a small handful of large trucking concerns were given a license to regulate the country’s road networks and they could apply different payment rates, speed limits, and/or block their smaller competitors’ access to the roads altogether. How long do you think their competitors would be in business? This is exactly the situation White advocates will find themselves in with the end of net neutrality.

Argument 5: Net neutrality represents government regulation which is mucking up the free and open Internet.

Spotting the obvious flaw in this classic Trotskyite/Socialist/Corporatist/Neocon argument is easy for most seasoned Nationalists, but it’s worth pointing-out that we are going to be regulated one way or another. The only thing we need to decide is whether we want to be regulated by the state or the corporations. History teaches that when it comes to infrastructural networks (what used to be called “natural monopolies”; things like roadways, public water systems, communications networks, etc.) it is always best to let the public sphere regulate them.

On the other hand, some Title II provisions represent an improper extension and usurpation by the FCC and should be curtailed. Enforcing net neutrality is good, but giving the FCC broad veto power regarding innovative startups is not. Let’s modify Title II, not throw-out the baby with the bathwater.

Argument 6: The negative impact of the end of net neutrality will alarm people and force a discussion about free speech on the Internet.

Highly unlikely. As I described above, our enemies are very experienced at implementing draconian rules. The harsher aspects of corporate rule over Internet traffic won’t be implemented right away. They will take their time and do it slowly. Our interlocutors know all too well how to boil a frog. They won’t throw us right into the boiling water, because they know we’ll try to jump out. They’ll maintain a nice comfy temperature and slowly turn up the heat until it’s too late.

Conclusion

If the FCC votes to eliminate net neutrality, pro-White voices will be prevented from reaching and/or maintaining an audience. It won’t happen quickly. They’ll go slow in order to prevent alarming people. But within a decade we’ll be right back to the bad old days of a small handful of mega-media corporations controlling the flow of information, quite possibly with Jewish ownership.

Addenda

Silver Linings

There might be a couple of silver linings in the coming cloud of net censorship.

1. Increased costs might make it easier for White advocates to raise funds because the increased costs would make it more obvious as to why our audience should donate. In the past, we’ve had trouble getting our audience to understand how expensive it is to start and maintain high quality media. I’ve found that people are very generous in donating to help pay for overhead like domain name registrations, web-hosting fees, etc. but, generally, they’re not willing to contribute to labor costs because they underestimate them. They far too often just see the end result and don’t recognize all the effort it took to get to that result. For example, they listen to a half-hour podcast and think, well it only takes you a half-hour a week to produce the podcast, not understanding all the effort it might take to book guests, research topics, fact-check, etc.
2. There might be an opportunity for White advocates to start a competitive ISP that guarantees net neutrality to its customers.

While these suggestions represent my attempt to put a positive spin on what is undoubtedly a very negative development, it would be better by far, if we could simply prevent the FCC from ending net neutrality on December 14.

What you can do to stop the FCC

Contact your congressmen and urge them to stop the FCC. A simple way to do that is via this website: https://www.battleforthenet.com/