Nigel Farage Rages At Conservative Censorship: "This Isn't Capitalism, It's Corporatism & Autocracy"

Authored by Nigel Farage, op-ed via,

The big tech giants are moving fast against the political right, the libertarian radicals, and those walking away from the Democrat Party in the United States. The same applies in my country, the United Kingdom, too.

Over the weekend we saw Candace Owens, a strong, young, black woman suspended from Twitter for daring to point out the allegedly algorithmic hypocrisy of Twitter by replacing the word “white” with “Jewish” in a series of tweets modeled on those by New York Times editor Sarah Jeong.

While the social media giant quickly backtracked, the same cannot be said for its treatment of right-wingers or globalist opponents in other regards.

Recently we discovered that activists, politicians, and even political party leaders were being shadow banned by Twitter -- meaning that their accounts or their tweets were not immediately searchable, unlike those of their left-wing counterparts.

Twitter’s response to the allegation was the bizarre statement: "People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not…” followed by: “You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile)."

If that’s not shadow banning, I don’t know what is.

Are we going to stand idly by as friends, allies, or even political enemies have their speech curtailed or their lives threatened by these modern publishers? Or are we going to demand that they can only have it one way or another?

And while many on the libertarian right and within the conservative movement have their issues with Alex Jones and InfoWars, this week’s announcement by YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify represents a concerted effort of proscription and censorship that could just as soon see any of us confined to the dustbin of social media history.

These platforms that claim to be “open” and in favor of “free speech” are now routinely targeting -- whether by human intervention or not -- the views and expressions of conservatives and anti-globalists.

This is why they no longer even fit the bill of “platforms.” They are publishers in the same way we regard news outlets as publishers. They may use more machine learning and automation, but their systems clearly take editorial positions. We need to hold them to account in the same way we do any other publisher. 

Just as you cannot libel someone on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, if the Silicon Valley cartel wants to act like a publisher, they should have to assume the same burden.

If someone -- anyone -- publicly defames me on Twitter, why isn’t Twitter accountable for publishing damaging untruths?

If the glorification of terrorism, or calls to violence are spread on Facebook or YouTube -- perhaps we need to ensure they, as any book publisher would be for instance, are liable for such content? 

After all, in banning people like Jones, or even more farcically, Candace Owens, aren’t these new media publishers trying to tell us that they can, do, and will take firm action against this sort of thing? Unless they’re admitting it is mercurial, or that there may be double standards at play, then we should expect no less of Antifa-linked accounts, or ISIS-linked accounts, or even accounts belonging to left-wing activists (who often masquerade as journalists) who routinely libel public figures on the right, or worse, cause them to be harassed and attacked. 

The conversation surrounding whether or not these utilities are “private companies who can make their own decisions” is becoming irrelevant as they tighten their stranglehold on public discourse.

The most avowed First Amendment, free speech defenders must surely be on the side of those -- like me -- who believe it is not within the gift of corporations to decide what is acceptable speech or not, especially when they harvest and sell data about all of us en masse as the underlying business model.

This is no longer up to them. It is up to us. Are we going to stand idly by as friends, allies, or even political enemies have their speech curtailed or their lives threatened by these modern publishers? Or are we going to demand that they can only have it one way or another?

That they cannot profess to be neutral, open platforms while being illiberal, dictatorial, and hiding behind the visage of a private corporation (which are more often than not in bed with governments around the world at the very highest levels). 

This isn’t capitalism. It’s corporatism.

This isn’t “liberal democracy” as they keep pretending.

It’s autocracy. 

That’s why I believe we urgently need to prosecute this issue in the public square and campaign for a social media bill of rights in our respective countries. And for those that don’t take issue with the latest censorship of right-wingers by big social media -- unless we take a stand now, who knows where it could end.


Bank_sters Mendax Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:13 Permalink

The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 17) is the foundational federal statute in the development of United States antitrust law (or "competition law"), passed by Congress in 1890 under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison.

The Sherman Act broadly prohibits (1) anticompetitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The Act authorizes the Department of Justice to bring suits to enjoin (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating the Act to bring suits for treble damages (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them).

In reply to by Mendax

Cryptopithicus Homme Bank_sters Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:19 Permalink

I previously said that Fakebook, Twatter, etc were private libtarded platforms that can choose who they serve.  And that conservatives can take their business elsewhere in the free marketplace of ideas.  But I'm kind of questioning that now...  These "private" companies seem to have their share prices magically levitated by the Fed... using money publicly stolen from your children's future.  They also seem to enjoy lots of sleep-over parties with the publicly funded alphabet soup agencies.

Okay I change my mind... break these mo'fos up!

In reply to by Bank_sters

French Bloke monk27 Wed, 08/08/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

Surely, in the face of such obvious censorship, it would be easy for somebody to set up a social network based on actual free speech and opinions from all angles. Just think of the opportunities to take business away from these snowflake.orgs....

They're painting themselves into a corner and opening up space for competition. Nobody with half a brain likes them anyway.

In reply to by monk27

Crawdaddy Cryptopithicus Homme Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:32 Permalink

Welcome aboard - there is no free market otherwise the "market leaders" would have gone broke years ago and the quacks that entertain us as "opinion leaders" would be back to washing cars.

In a true free market, a WalMart, Amazon, Netflix etc would never survive to dominate because existing players would adapt. But thanks to govt/bankster collusion,  the debt system is used to bankrupt old companies so the new NWO freindly outfits can move in.

The whole market is a pile of caca. Da Fed and Da Media pop the charade up and most ppl are too busy to notice it is all bullshit.

In reply to by Cryptopithicus Homme

thetruthhurts sarcrilege Tue, 08/07/2018 - 20:29 Permalink


Twitter has government contracts.

Google has governmemt contracts.

Facebook has government contracts.


Yet their contract allows them to disregard the US Constitution and freedom of speech?



Seems like a quick fix. No first amendment rights/no money.

Oh wait, could it be this  (censorship)  is what all the government money is funding?



In reply to by sarcrilege

Skip Cryptopithicus Homme Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:40 Permalink

It is a GRIM situation, sadly the average White American has no idea, they get their news from the (((MAINSTREAM MEDIA)))

Jewish Intellectual Activism for Internet Control
July 24, 2018 Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. Dr Joyce is a retired professor from England.

After Protests, EU Decides to Reconsider Law Banning Memes
Andrew Anglin July 5, 2018

"The internet is making very powerful people very powerfully angry.

All throughout human history, the ruling class had the ability to control the dissemination of information. Now it is all everywhere. Not only are people able to access all information, they are able to freely spread their own thoughts.

This is very bad for a society that is entirely based on a very strict set of lies."

UN Passes Resolution Declaring Free Expression on the Internet a Human Right
Andrew Anglin July 10, 2018

"I just want to make something perfectly clear: my personal rights to freedom of expression and legitimate dissent have been viciously abused by the United States government.

My website,, was taken down from the internet by GoDaddy, and then stolen from me by Google. The backbone infrastructure service, Cloudflare, refused to serve my content. Tucows, a major backbone service, denied me service.

As I documented fully at the time, all of these major companies serve Islamic terrorist and pro-pedophilia content.

Following this, I was subjected to an organized campaign of disenfranchisement by virtually every single company capable of providing me with service. I have been denied service by more companies than I can even count. This has been ongoing for nearly a year.

I have done nothing illegal. I have not been accused of, let alone charged with, a single crime.

And yet the US government has allowed for an organized conspiracy of completely unregulated oligopolistic corporations to deny me access to the internet."

In reply to by Cryptopithicus Homme

Reichstag Fire Dept. Skip Wed, 08/08/2018 - 10:31 Permalink

Dude. What your site had to say about that girl that got killed...??🤔

I'm the biggest advocate for Freedom of Speech...BUT... Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences!😯

If you want to be a White Supremacist, be my guest, I won't support you. Post your website, I won't be logging on...

But seriously...saying you're "glad she's dead because she's a filthy Leftist whore"...or something to that effect.

That level of bad taste is not necessary.

If you are elated by her death, there are ways to introduce that's called, "having a talent for writing".

Learn how to write. Clean up your presentation. Keep writing the same bullshit, I won't read, but, seriously, even White Supremacists can grow some fucken manners.

In reply to by Skip

rlm1966 Cryptopithicus Homme Tue, 08/07/2018 - 20:27 Permalink

I say let them ban whatever they want to ban, but if they fail to ban something that leads/encourages someone to do something stupid they should be legally responsible both financially and criminally for each and every infraction.  I have a feeling that would change their mind as the lawyers lined up.  Hell I could make the argument that they are responsible for people that shop to much just to make the lawsuit base even larger.

In reply to by Cryptopithicus Homme

waspwench Cryptopithicus Homme Tue, 08/07/2018 - 23:07 Permalink

The problem is, that while they may be private companies, they have such large market share that they are effectively monopolies.

If they have more than 30% of market share they ought to be regulated or broken up.   They have become public utilities.

To add to the problem they are dishonest and biased and they conceal what they do.   People using these "platforms" do not know whether their comments are being seen or not.

In reply to by Cryptopithicus Homme

kellys_eye Cryptopithicus Homme Wed, 08/08/2018 - 03:46 Permalink

The larger media platforms have DELIBERATELY created a monopoly position by repeatedly purchasing any startups that may have had an influence on their totality.  Many corporate mergers are limited by the actions of Committees set up to determine such monopolies but nothing seems to have been done a Faccefcuk, Twatter et al have inveigled their way to their current censorship positions.  Why?  (rhetorical question - we know why, which also explains just how these Momopoly and Merger Commissions REALLY work and who they work FOR).

In reply to by Cryptopithicus Homme

FreedomWriter Bank_sters Wed, 08/08/2018 - 06:24 Permalink

Aren't CNN headquarters in Atlanta ?

Sounds like it's time for another (legal) march to the sea.

Not sure if anti-trust legislation can stop all blatant censorship. However, if the Social media monopolies are broken up, we can at least make it more difficult for them to operate in the way they did against Alex Jones. So, I say go for it.

They are clearly violating the Sherman Act. They are also restricting commerce using mafia-like, racketeering tactics against independent content providers, hence RICO. 

In sum, they are acting like gangsters working hand in hand with corrupt politicians. It is time to clean out the stables.

When their companies are broken up on anti-competition grounds with a few execs and politicians doing hard time, we might get somewhere.

In reply to by Bank_sters

Offthebeach Mendax Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:29 Permalink

Joint stock company is a great idea.

But might be anti-republican by nature. ( republican=limited gov, and not the crony corporate WWF GOP ).

Large corporations , are expensive, and have scale and efficiency problems, in spite of ivory tower and hack economists singing for their dinner.  Anyone in a large corporation, the Army, GM, Post Office, Universities , probly Apple, know if they have eyes to see, what cluster/wong hole dis-organizations and wasteful they are.  Before corporate laws, smaller proprietor companies could, long, waste like these corporations( Sears ).   And more importantly few could be like the tied by the genital organs of a king like the Hudson Bay, South Sea, East India Trade.  But now we have these bloated, bailed out,  welfare parasites,  burried liike some monster SiFi tics into what was, once, the supposed peoples government. 

In reply to by Mendax

waspwench CJgipper Tue, 08/07/2018 - 23:16 Permalink

The Big Tech companies are an arm of the government.  

The government uses them for propaganda purposes and disseminates (or suppresses) information as it sees fit.   These companies are under the protection of the government because they an extension of the government, and by making them technically private companies, the government can circumvent the laws of free speech and censorship and can violate the First Amendment at will.

The only real and effective option is to establish alternative platforms and to ensure that the government does not infiltrate them.

In reply to by CJgipper

FreedomWriter waspwench Wed, 08/08/2018 - 07:16 Permalink

In the same way,  they use organisations like SPLC and others to do their dirty work and compartmentalise anti-constitutional, anti-free market behaviour. The end goals are the suppression of un-sanctioned free speech, non-crony free markets and the unleashing of an unfettered global corporatism run for and by a few oligarchs and their minions. The rest of us will be starved, cowed, poisoned, sickened or bombed into submission.

Always remember who the real globalist enemies are. They have amassed trillions and know "what is best for us". 

Facebook, et al are merely their tools.

But tools can be dulled, broken and smashed. This take-over will only happen if we, the people, allow it to happen.


Eurocratic authoritarianism must not become a model for the US.

Indoctrination passing itself off as education must not become a model for the US.

Mock trials and investigations must not become a model for the US.

Rampant, endemic, official corruption must not become a model for the US.

Muzzling of a free press and unpopular political opinions must not become a a model for the US

The criminalisation of free speech into "hate or "offensive" speech categories must not become a model for the US.

The elimination of national borders must not become a model for the US.

The perpetuation and growth of faceless, unaccountable mega corporations and institutions that respect no authority and fear no repercussions from electorates must not become a model for the US. 

A state of endless war that impoverishes citizens and slaughters millions of innocents must not become a model for the US.


Vote in 2018 as if your life and freedom depended on it my fellow Americans, because it does.

In reply to by waspwench

IvannaHumpalot Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:20 Permalink

Big tech are utilities  - you can't shut off the water to someone for views they don't like. Big Tech shouldn't be able to either.

Teaching critical thinking skills to children so they learn to evaluate argument and evidence, and to recognise statements of opinion vs statements of fact, is really all that is needed. They can navigate 'fake news' and social media for themselves then


But nobody is interested in that, they all want thought control of media censorship

Infowars: banned after talking about the Islamist invasion of europe

Tommy Robinson is the next target - just got kicked off instagram


It's the rich Gulf State Sunni Muslims who had the money to buy in to media platforms everywhere and push their views and censorship

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:23 Permalink

"These platforms that claim to be “open” and in favor of “free speech” are now routinely targeting -- whether by human intervention or not -- the views and expressions of conservatives and anti-globalists."

Ding ding ding! Nailed it, Nigel! Fuck the techno tyrants!

Ina Handbasket Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:27 Permalink

Doesn't matter, Winter is coming, and this year the price of food and lies of global warming will come to and end, when in fact massive cold and food shortages are coming - will cull the left. This is because normal people, right leaning, having buying guns and food, learning skills, or have skills will make it to next year. Those who can only play hackie sack and site leftist porn politicians will fade/rot away, clear the herd. Watch the volcanoes - when the big one goes year with no summer will take those who have ignored reality - good riddance.

Drop-Hammer Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:28 Permalink

In the U.K., the jews own/control all media and media forums and much of the higher government agencies/functions just as they do in the U.S.  The Christ-killers' censorship and control over their media is worse than ours.  The dumb U.K. kikes allowed/encouraged/enabled millions of African/Caribbean niggers and muslim towel-heads to invade the U.K. such that it is lost to history.  This is what the kikes want for us in America.  We must fight them and defeat them.  We need a solution to our Jew Problem.

SweetDoug Tue, 08/07/2018 - 19:39 Permalink




As long as Disqus bans me and won't reinstate me because I'm 'spamming'…

Introducing Shadow Banning and Timeouts

2 new tools to fight trolls, improve discussion quality, and save your team time!

We're excited to announce two new moderation features for publishers using Disqus Pro - Shadow Banning and Timeouts.

Shadow Banning: A discreet method of banning the most troublesome users such as trolls and spammers and stop them from coming back with new accounts.

A traditional ban is enough to stop most troublesome users. However, some communities struggle to deal with a small group of troublesome users who keep coming back with new accounts. When dealing with these users, a traditional ban is not sufficient to deter this behavior. Shadow Banning addresses the issue of persistent spamming and trolling by allowing moderators to discreetly banning users without their knowledge.

Shadow Banned users will be able to continue posting normally.

However, their posts will not be visible to other readers.



And just for spam's sake, anyone want to send me money...



waspwench Zorba's idea Tue, 08/07/2018 - 23:27 Permalink

Who cares what honours the traitorous UK government might dispense?

He is Sir Nigel as far as the people are concerned.


The one honour that remains within the gift of Her Majesty is the Garter.   I used to be a royalist (the thought of a President Blair, or May scares me silly) but HM is showing her true colours by not honouring Farage.   She is also showing her true colours by failing to uphold her oath as the Defender of the Faith.

It is now very clear that the entire British establishment is against the people.

In reply to by Zorba's idea

Downtoolong Tue, 08/07/2018 - 23:05 Permalink

“…this week’s announcement by YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify…”


The illusion of competition is an essential aspect of sustaining an illegal monopoly.


It’s not as much about market share or size as it is about one entity being able to dictate what all their so-called competitors do.