Stormfront.org Domain Bites the Dust.

[Huginn ok Muninn]

Stormfront was hosted by Web.com, a company whose terms of service prohibited "to display bigotry, racism, discrimination, or hatred in any manner whatsoever". Skadi is hosted by Dreamhost, a company whose mission supports free speech (which includes, in their own words "hate speech that makes your skin crawl"). They say they will host any site that is legal under US and California law. Apart from Skadi, they also host other nationalist sites like the National Vanguard or NorthwestFront. I'm not sure why Stormfront chose that particular company, apparently, they had some advantageous protection system.

Stormfront and the Daily Stormer were probably targeted because of the Charlottesville incident, as they helped organize it and some of their members attended. Skadi was not involved and is more of an international site than American, there are also European, Australian, South African, etc. members.

Another reason that was cited was that both communities had members who committed racially motivated murders so they linked the murders to being inspired by them. This isn't the case on Skadi, Skadi is also a much smaller community and doesn't promote white nationalism but Germanic preservation, it doesn't use taboo imagery like swastikas or the white cross and isn't really frequented by white power skinheads and the like. So I think we should be ok.

The best thing we can do is not to be impulsive and fall into the trap of condoning any illegal activity or violence out of anger. We should keep out head cool and rational. Leftists have it in their favor that they're organized and unified when it comes to combating "hate sites". They report websites, contact their hosts, "social justice" groups, etc. Nationalists could also organize themselves and do something similar:

• write to Web.com and Network Solutions to let them know what we think of their decision. If they get a high number of complaints, they might rethink their attitude towards free speech, at least for the future.
• review the companies on Facebook and other review sites
• write in their public guest books
• sign or create petitions etc.

Again, you think that if you're a good little girl and are not a "racist" the commies won't come for you. I assure you, you totally misunderstand the situation. Something for you from someone familiar with communism:


“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”


― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

[Sigurd]

The target audiences are much different in that Stormfront catered to White Nationalists, whilst Skadi directs itself at Germanic preservation and frowns upon the Hollywood-Nazi audience regularly present at Stormfront (that's not to say it doesn't have its merits, didn't have its intelligent members and wasn't the starting point for many on their journey within the wider spectrum).

However, and this both shows how long we have been around AND how symbolic an act the removal of Stormfront is: With the removal of Stormfront, Skadi Forum has just become the longest-standing pro-European/pro-White/pro-preservationist forum currently in operation (I don't count The Phora as such).

[Hauke Haien]

Why Study Philosophical Marranos with Agata Bielik-Robson

James Burnham predicted in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution that power in social life would be shifting from money power toward technical management, to people who may or may not be rich, but who control in any case the vital tasks associated with running the world. We can observe the same tendency with plucky entrepreneurs like the old lesbian Bill Gates (in coordination with Warren Buffett and a pride of other billionaires) and the Jew Mark Zuckerberg, who are shifting most of their attention toward self-owned charity rackets that give them direct control over events in small African countries and many other parts of the "developing" world.

They are also regular guests of state officials and heads of state, of international conferences where political bureaucracy and commercial bureaucracy intersect, and they speak at TEDutainment events about their vision for a humanity under their leadership. An early pioneer of this style of investment was the crook James D. Rockefeller, who, like Bill Gates, not only used his money to buy himself a better reputation but also promoted Negroes and the pharmaceutical industry.

Bill and Melinda Gates | Code Conference 2016
Gates Foundation accused of exploiting its leverage in Africa
Bill and Melinda Gates Urge Teens to 'Get Involved'
Bill Gates: US 'should take more' refugees - BBC News

The Jew Mark Zuckerberg, for his part, has been approached by Angela Merkel to help suppress dissent on Facebook, where Germans like to agitate politically. The practical suppression has been carried out in cooperation with NGOs like the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, led by the ex-Stasi Jewess Anetta Kahane. NGOs are an important interface for the super rich crooks, the government bureaucracy, unpaid volunteer world-improvers and professional Jewish criminals. The Jew George Soros, for example, has turned this kind of fraud into an art form, with numerous kickbacks for his financial businesses.

Mark Zuckerberg: Declaration of Connectivity & refugees
Zuckerberg's Zion-Illuminati Jacket
Soros hacked, thousands of Open Society Foundations files released online
The George Soros Video (1998)

The "Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law" that shut down Stormfront was founded at the request of President John F. Kennedy by the Jew Bernard Segal and the lawyer Harrison Tweed in order to more effectively expose the Germanic and Euro-American populace to Negro rape by means of desegregation. The Jew Segal had already placed himself into a position to filter all federal judicial nominees (including to the Supreme Court) by rating their "qualification" and carried out this task for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

Tweed was a partner of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, whose most important client was the Rockefeller family. McCloy was Assistant Secretary of War during the Second World War. After the war he served as president of the World Bank, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, and chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has been referred to as the "Chairman of the American Establishment". That's who is trying to shut down Stormfront, thereby creating a teachable moment to intimidate the rest of the herd.

Joe Biden "Whites will be a Minority in US by 2017 and that's a good thing"
President Obama gives Joe Biden the Medal of Freedom
Joe Biden: "I Am A Zionist. You Don't Have To Be A Jew To Be A Zionist"

They naturally tend to identify the welfare of mankind as a whole with their own interests and the salvation of mankind with their assuming control of society. Society can be run, they think, in more or less the same way that they know they, when they are allowed, can run, efficiently and productively, a mass-production factory. It is out of such a vision of life, which is that undoubtedly held by very many managers and would-be managers - above all, managers functioning in the governmental apparatus - that the managerial concepts and managerial ideologies arise.

It is not the managers themselves who make the ideologies explicit, draw out their implications, systematize them. That is the task of intellectuals. So long as capitalism is providing the managers with large incomes, so long as the social structure doesn’t seem to be cracking to pieces, the managers may accompany these feelings I have sketched with much of the traditional ideology of capitalism. But capitalist ideology is hollow in their living experience. They readily adapt themselves to the new ideologies because the new ideologies correspond much better to their experience, to their way of looking at the world and themselves. Indeed, the intellectuals, without usually being aware of it, elaborate the new ideologies from the point of view of the position of the managers.

That an ideology should be a managerial ideology, it is not necessary that managers should be its inventors or the first to adopt it. Capitalists did not invent capitalist ideologies; and intellectuals were elaborating them when the ambition of nearly every capitalist was still to be a feudal lord. It is the social effects that count.

The reason why classical liberalism or new libertarianism will never again dominate public discourse is that it has already achieved the task it was invented for: destroying feudal society and breaking down all social barriers against plucky entrepreneurs and Jews. And that is also the reason why freedom of speech is no longer a real concern other than as a device working in concert with democratic elections, media, academia, and the security forces to help convince the masses of what has been decided.

Corruption is Legal in America

(People power is not real, so let's use people power to change the world!)

During the High Middle Ages, at the tail end of the population boom that led into the Great Plague, there was a great rise in commercial activity throughout Europe and a rapid urbanisation of the northern parts of Europe. This new mass of burghers often clashed with Jewish crooks over the finer details of their operations, but ultimately occupied the same niche and had many of the same grievances against wider society. With the subsequent ascent of money power, which put pressure on the military aristocracy to compete financially and thereby caused and aggravated peasant rebellions, we can observe (trivially) a concurrent rise in Jewish power, favoured by their familiarity with this natural habitat of crookery, and expanding from there into all sectors of society.

Economics is never a powerless exchange of goods and services, but always interlocked with the totality of human life and the Jews have succeeded by reshaping society and relocating economic life to the social positions familiar to them. The replacement of social bonds with commercial and bureaucratic relationships is therefore an ongoing and intensifying process, hand in hand with the rapidly increasing Judaisation of the power elite. Internally, the Jews are by contrast quite keen to maintain and strengthen their group identity and social institutions.

Jerry Muller: Capitalism and the Jews

Milton Friedman: Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews

In keeping with the general ideology of individualism was the stress placed by capitalist society on the notion of "private initiative." Private initiative, supposed, in the chief instance, to provide the mainspring of the economic process, was discovered also at the root of psychological motivation and moral activity.

The status of the capitalist individual was further defined with the help of doctrines of "natural rights" ("free contract," the standard civil rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," etc.) which are held to belong in some necessary and eternal sense to each individual. There is no complete agreement on just what these rights are, but lists of them are given in such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the preamble and Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Finally, in capitalist society, the theological and supernatural interpretation of the meaning of world history was replaced by the idea of progress, first appearing in the writers of the Renaissance and being given definite formulation during the eighteenth century. There were two factors in the idea of progress: first, that mankind was advancing steadily and inevitably to better and better things; and, second, the definition of the goal toward which the advance is taking place in naturalistic terms, in terms we might say of an earthly instead of a heavenly paradise.

It should not be supposed that there was any systematically worked out ideology which can be considered the ideology of capitalism. Many variants are possible. Dozens of differing ideologies were elaborated by philosophers, political theorists, and other intellectuals. Their concepts, slogans, and phrases, filtered down, became the commonplaces of mass thinking. But all, or almost all, the ideologies, and the mass thinking, were, we might say, variations on related themes. They had a common focus in a commonly held set of words and ideas and assumptions, among which were prominently to be found those that I have listed.

Oddly enough, the belief that capitalist society will continue is seldom put in theoretical form. It is rather left implicit in what people say and do, and in the writings and sayings of most historians, sociologists, and politicians. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the majority of people in the United States hold this belief, though it has been somewhat shaken in recent years. When examined, this belief is seen to be based not on any evidence in its favor but primarily on two assumptions. Both of these assumptions are flatly and entirely false.

The first is the assumption that society has always been capitalist in structure - and, therefore, presumably always will be. In actual fact, society has been capitalist for a minute fragment of total human history. Any exact date chosen as the beginning of capitalism would be arbitrary. But the start of capitalist social organization on any wide scale can scarcely be put earlier than the fourteenth century, A.D.; and capitalist domination must be placed much later than that.

The second assumption is that capitalism has some necessary kind of correlation with "human nature:" This, as a matter of fact, is the same assumption as the first but expressed differently. To see that it is false, it is not required to be sure just what "human nature" may be. It is enough to observe that human nature has been able to adapt itself to dozens of types of society, many of which have been studied by anthropologists and historians and a number of which have lasted far longer than capitalism.

With these assumptions dropped, the positive case for the view that capitalism will continue doesn’t amount to much, in fact has hardly even been stated coherently by anyone.

An ideology, of course, does not gain great attractive power merely because of the words that are in it or the skill of those who propagate it. These factors cannot be disregarded, but an ideology is not able to make a widespread way among the masses unless, in however distorted and deceptive a form, it expresses actual needs and interests and hopes of the masses, and corresponds, at least in some measure, with the actual state of social conditions and possible directions of their development. The weakening of the attractive force of both capitalist and socialist ideologies is a result primarily of the fact that they no longer express convincingly those needs and interests and hopes, no longer correspond at all adequately to actual social conditions and the actual direction of social development.

Two factors were of decisive importance in transforming society to a bourgeois structure: a great deal of fighting and wars to break the physical power of the feudal lords, and the propagation on a mass scale of new ideologies suited to break the moral power of feudalism and to establish social attitudes favorable to the bourgeois structure of society. Now, the capitalists did not, in any considerable measure, do the actual fighting in the wars, nor themselves elaborate the new ideologies; but the capitalists financed those who did the fighting and the thinking. The actual fighting was done in the early centuries for the most part by armies of mercenary soldiers who, after the introduction of gunpowder, were more than a match for the feudal knights and their retainers; and, later on, especially in the great revolution, by the non-bourgeois masses, the workers and poor peasants. The ideologies were for the most part worked out by intellectuals - writers and political theorists and philosophers - and by lawyers.

Let us note: the hundreds of wars and civil wars fought from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century (by which time the social dominance of the bourgeoisie was assured in the major nations) were extremely various in character and motivation; from the point of view of the participants they were fought for religious, dynastic, territorial, commercial, imperial, and any number of other purposes. It is a gross perversion of history to hold that in them the bourgeoisie lined up on one side to fight feudal armies on the other. Indeed, even so far as more or less open class conflicts were concerned, the capitalists from the beginning were fighting each other as well as fighting against the feudal lords.

But two facts about these wars are of special significance for us. First, that the net result in terms of alterations of the structure of society was to benefit, above all, the bourgeoisie, as against all other sections of society, and to leave the bourgeoisie ever more securely the ruling class in society. Second, the bulk of the actual fighters were not themselves capitalists. Presumably, at least where it was not a matter of direct compulsion, most of those who fought believed that they did so for ends which were beneficial to themselves; but, at least so far as economic and social benefit went, this turned out, for the non-bourgeois bulk of the fighters, either not to be the case at all or at least far secondary to the benefit resulting to the capitalists.

Similar remarks apply to the development of the new ideologies. From the time of the Renaissance a number of more or less related new ideologies - religions, philosophies, moralities, theories of law and politics and society - were developed, and some of them became widely believed. None of these ideologies spoke openly in the name of the bourgeoisie; none of them said that the best kind of society and politics and morality and religion and universe was one in which the capitalists were the ruling class; they spoke, as all important ideologies do, in the name of "truth" and for the ostensible welfare of all mankind.

It must be stressed that the building of bourgeois dominance began and was carried far within feudalism, while the structure of society was predominantly feudal in character, while, in particular, the political, religious, and educational institutions were still controlled in the primary interests of the feudal lords. This was possible because society accorded the capitalists, at least to a sufficient extent, those "rights" necessary for carrying on capitalist enterprise - of contract, of taking interest, hiring free workers for wages, etc. - in spite of the fact that most of these rights were directly forbidden by feudal law, custom, and philosophy (often, as in the case of taking interest, pious formulas were used to get around the prohibitions), and in spite of the fact that the wide extension of capitalist relations meant necessarily the destruction of the social dominance of the feudal lords. By the time the feudal lords, or some of them, woke up to what was happening and the threat to themselves, and tried to fight back, the battle was already just about over: for the bourgeoisie already controlled effectively the key bastions of society. If feudal society had refused from the beginning to recognize the bourgeois rights, the outcome might have been very different; but this is a useless speculation, since, in practice and in fact, these rights were, sufficiently, recognized. The fact that the bourgeoisie did build up their social dominance, did reduce ever-widening sectors of the economy to their control, within the still-persisting framework of feudal society was, it would seem, a necessary condition for their appearing as the ruling class of the succeeding type of society. This point, in reverse, can reveal to us a decisive but neglected reason why socialism is not going to come. We have granted that, if socialism were going to come, the proletariat would have to be the social class chiefly concerned in its arrival. But the position of the proletariat in capitalist society is not at all the same as that of the bourgeoisie in late feudal society.

To return, however, to the bourgeoisie. I have spoken of this gradual extension of bourgeois control as the general phase of the development of bourgeois dominance. This was not enough to revolutionize the structure of society and to consolidate the position of the capitalists as the ruling class. So long as important institutions of society were dominated by the feudal lords and feudal ideas, the position of the capitalists was insecure, and the possibilities of capitalist expansion were severely restricted. In particular was this true in the case of the political institutions of society, of the state, since the state comprises the coercive instrumentalities of society, charged with enforcing rights and obligations. A feudal state, to take obvious examples, might at any time, and often did, back the cancellation of debts with an appeal to the violated Church doctrines against taking interest, might prevent serfs from leaving the land to seek work as free laborers, might permit the exaction of feudal dues on capitalist enterprise and so on. Capitalism and the capitalists confronted the problem of state power. To assure their dominance and advance, the bourgeoisie had to "take over state power." Here again we deal in a metaphor. What was needed for the development of capitalism and the dominance of the capitalists, and what in time, in fact, resulted, was a transformation in state institutions such that, instead of enforcing the rights and obligations of feudal society adjusted to the dominance of the feudal lords, they enforced the rights and obligations of capitalist society, adjusted to the dominance of the capitalists. In saying that the bourgeoisie took over state power and held it in England, France, the United States, or wherever it may have been, we do not necessarily mean that capitalists walked in physically or even that many government officials were drawn from the ranks of the capitalists. A bourgeois state, a state "controlled" by the bourgeoisie, means fundamentally a state which, by and large, most of the time and on the most important occasions, upholds those rights, those ways of acting and thinking, which are such as to permit the continued social dominance of the bourgeoisie.

As a matter of fact, the transformation of the state institutions into integral parts of a capitalist society was a lengthy and complicated process, sometimes, but not always, including bitter civil wars as decisive steps. In the fifteenth and sixteenth and even the seventeenth centuries, the early capitalists, we know from the records of those times, worked closely with the princes or kings. The king in feudal society had been relatively unimportant, one feudal lord among others, often with less actual power than his chief vassals. When the kings began to strengthen their central authority and to try to build nations in the modern sense, their most obvious enemies were the feudal lords, including feudal lords who were supposed to be their own vassals. The kings sought support from the capitalists. The capitalists gave support to the kings because they, too, wanted stronger nations with national armies and navies to protect trade routes, and uniform laws, currencies, and taxes, so that trade could be carried on without constant interruption from a hundred feudal barons who considered themselves independent lords; because they made huge sums of money from dealings with the princes; and because they exacted protection and privileges in return for the aid they gave. In the wars and peace treaties, the elections of popes or emperors, the voyages of explorers and conquering armies during the sixteenth century, we always find a most prominent part played by the money of the Fugger or Medici or Welser or the other great merchant-bankers of Augsburg or Antwerp or Lyons or Genoa.

Many of the feudal lords were killed off in the various wars; the family lines of many others died out or sank into impoverished obscurity. But some of them turned themselves into capitalists: by driving the serfs off their land and engaging in agriculture as capitalist landlords; by undertaking the capitalist exploitation of mines on their land; or by using for capitalist ventures gold or jewels or money that they had acquired. We must remember, for the future also, that for a ruling class to be eliminated from society in favor of another ruling class does not mean that all of its individual members and their families disappear. Some of them may be found, perhaps prominently found, economically and socially metamorphosed, in the ranks of the new ruling class.

Werner Sombart also wrote a whole series of books on this subject, notably Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben (The Jews and Modern Capitalism), Der Bourgeois and, my favourite, Händler und Helden, which is mainly written in defence of heroic virtues in opposition to the aforementioned commercial frame of mind.

Our most pressing concern at this moment is that we do not possess a power elite of our own. The Jews will always safeguard and take care of their own, but none of the non-Jewish elites in Judeo-Western civilisation have vertical solidarity with the ethnic groups they are nominally drawn from. Some of them, like the House of Hohenzollern and the Prussian Army used to follow a doctrine of German nationalism, but they were either beaten and destroyed or turned into allies of the Judeo-American menace. If they still exist, they are now minor players working within the framework of our destruction.

The power to shape privately held opinions through internet communication has been one of the few areas where we had mostly unregulated access and therefore could potentially grow into a challenge. We should keep in mind that we cannot hope to overturn the existing order where it is well entrenched and dominant, but we have to excel and dominate where they are weak and use this unexpected strength to ultimately erase their social positions. To my mind, the purpose of online agitation is therefore not to force a democratic consensus, but to get people to change their whole lives in a way that will make us stand strong. I believe that Vilfredo Pareto's The Mind and Society (Volume I - Volume II - Volume III - Volume IV) has a lot to teach us on that subject and I will one day follow up with a thread on what he has to say.

The Aristocrats: The Rothschilds

Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity - A Pentagon Video

[North Vinlander]

Indeed...with the Dailystormer and Stormfront going down, I am having to dig up some dusty old accounts out of the attic, and am thankful to see Skadi has kept online over the years.

In any event, with VNN likely being next, and even the darknet Tor version of Dailystormer being targeted at a node level by (((them))), Skadi may become something of a last bastion before too long.

Hopefully I am wrong, but recent developments seem to suggest otherwise.

It was down for 4 years, 2012-2016.

[Huginn ok Muninn]

Taking down these sites may be a canary in the coal mine.

Forget rolling your eyes at Alex Jones. Listen to the guy he's interviewing.

Communists Planning Revolution

[Fire Sprite]

Shocking and pertinent.

Looks like they really are ramping up to assassinate Trump very soon.

There must be a whole nest of moles in the CIA wanking themselves over the next presidential killing.

CNN the toilet news network are portraying him as the 'divisive' leader and everything will be great when he's dead.

The massive blackout occurring around the internet is the news isolation. To make sure only 'positive messages' appear about his 'death'.

Add that to the isolation of his political cabinet.

Looks like it'll go down very shortly.

I think his only chance is to declare Antifa a terrorist organisation, hunt and arrest their funding groups, setup anti-anti-free speech laws to make sure right-wing & realist (news) websites stay online. + New laws, death penalty/life jail for extortionists(that's how the communists spread lies and control unimpeded).

I saw another video 2 days ago, from an ex CIA mentioning the whole hoopla surrounding Trump is identical to JFK's assassination. Unfortunately the video has been scrubbed from the net, (tried everything to find it.)


American's get your guns ready. Organise with your friends and neighbours.

[Norman Pride]

Again, you think that if you're a good little girl and are not a "racist" the commies won't come for you. I assure you, you totally misunderstand the situation. Something for you from someone familiar with communism:


“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”


― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

There are no "commies" coming after anybody. Political correctness =/= communism. A white nationalist board was dropped by its domain provider due to public pressure. There was no government shutdown, no prosecutions, nobody sent to gulags. Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront is a former KKK wizard who had ties to all kinds of white nationalist key figures. Under a communist regime, his site wouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.

It's actually a disproportional to compare someone who had been the victim of a communist regime to someone who had their service denied by a company. It's a totally different level and form of discrimination, and what I said makes sense if you really think about it. At the moment and possibly also in future, fewer and fewer companies want to be associated with white nationalists, especially after Charlottesville. Why? Because a crime was committed by someone identifying as a white nationalist, someone died and it is all over the media. You have similar reactions after Islamic attacks, Muslims are more likely to face discrimination and associated with terrorism. If they are violent or promote force, then all the more.

It's much easier to get "profiled" if you use racial slurs/epithets or support some form of aggressiveness. Those seem to be key issues that influenced the decisions of those providers. This is the image presented about white nationalists:

A typical murderer drawn to the racist forum Stormfront.org is a frustrated, unemployed, white adult male living with his mother or an estranged spouse or girlfriend. She is the sole provider in the household. Forensic psychologists call him a “wound collector.” Instead of building his resume, seeking employment or further education, he projects his grievances on society and searches the Internet for an excuse or an explanation unrelated to his behavior or the choices he has made in life.

His escalation follows a predictable trajectory. From right-wing antigovernment websites and conspiracy hatcheries, he migrates to militant hate sites that blame society’s ills on ethnicity and shifting demographics. He soon learns his race is endangered — a target of “white genocide.” After reading and lurking for a while, he needs to talk to someone about it, signing up as a registered user on a racist forum where he commiserates in an echo chamber of angry fellow failures where Jews, gays, minorities and multiculturalism are blamed for everything.

Assured of the supremacy of his race and frustrated by the inferiority of his achievements, he binges online for hours every day, self-medicating, slowly sipping a cocktail of rage. He gradually gains acceptance in this online birthing den of self-described “lone wolves,” but he gets no relief, no practical remedies, no suggestions to improve his circumstances. He just gets angrier.

And then he gets a gun.

It is a myth that racist killers hide in the shadows. Investigators find that most offenders openly advocated their ideology online, often obsessively posting on racist forums and blogs for hours every day. Over the past two decades, the largest hate site in the world, Stormfront.org, has been a magnet and breeding ground for the deadly and the deranged.

[...] For domestic Islamic terrorists, the breeding ground for violence is often the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire and its affiliated websites. For the racist, it is Stormfront.

With nearly 100 bias-related homicides attributable to registered members of his site since 2009, a great many “normal lives” are no longer being led.

There is a whole article where the murders committed by Stormfront members are listed: https://www.splcenter.org/20140401/w...cide-worldwide

Basically what they're saying is they are uneducated, unemployed, unsophisticated, disgruntled people prone to violence who take refuge online, and become even more radicalized as a result of their usage. This image is then propagated to domain owners, along with a few examples of posts picked to "back up" the theory, and those companies decide on the spot: they want nothing to do with it. We blame them because "political correctness" but let's be honest: how many people on Stormfront or even Skadi would publicly endorse or associate with radical views at their work, on campus, etc? So, it's nothing new, except that now it happens on a larger scale.

I am endorsing nothing unrealistic or unreasonable - I am saying that nationalists and Germanic preservationists, in particular, should present a different image than the one in the media. Germanic preservation is as much about being proud of your heritage and wanting to preserve it, not about 14/88!, Jews and being a violent skinhead. So we need to instill a positive image - it's no wonder that even people who frequent such websites don't associate with the concepts openly in public. But nationalists have the ability to try to remove that stigma and make themselves more presentable.

After Charlottesville, half of the country is in a state of alert and it's quite likely that more providers will choose the "better safe than sorry option" if confronted with radical patterns. What probably contributed to Stormfront being removed was the lack of an enforcement of their site rules by their moderation team. For example, some posters lauded Breivik as a “hero” and a “P.O.W.” Even Don Black himself thought that his site attracted too many sociopaths. So, the sites who don't want to suffer the same fate as Stormfront have to learn from the situation and use the setback to their advantage at least.

[The Aesthete]

The SPLC is not a reliable source

[Theunissen]

The target audiences are much different in that Stormfront catered to White Nationalists, whilst Skadi directs itself at Germanic preservation and frowns upon the Hollywood-Nazi audience regularly present at Stormfront (that's not to say it doesn't have its merits, didn't have its intelligent members and wasn't the starting point for many on their journey within the wider spectrum).
....

While I'm sure some of the guys there fit the profile, I didn't have the impression that Hollywood-Nazis were a dominant force there. True, there were some explicit National Socialist present, but the usual skinhead paraphernalia were mostly missing. Oh yeah, even some KKK-supporters went in and out there. But mostly people present there were folks that didn't want their respective nations to be turned turd-world-shit-holes.

On the other hand a lot of them didn't understand the need to have an intellectual movement first, before the boots hit the streets. Although some definitely did.

[Norman Pride]

The SPLC is not a reliable source

I did not say or imply that it was. It is the source or format that many media outlets propagate and which is distributed to domain providers. The job of nationalists is to prove they are not what the media portrays them. There will be hardly any articles in the media exculpating them, so they themselves are the only ones who can change this perception. Rambling about racial holy wars, as some people on Stormfront did, is certainly not going to help with that. Of course, Stormfront had a vast and diverse audience, and not everyone from there deserves to be thrown in the same pot. The problem was that not all detrimental comments were moderated in a timely fashion, so their domain provider decided they won't host people who agree with the actions of James Fields or Anders Breivik.