Crime & Federalism

Most of your favorite pundits are owned by the same big donors who control elections. These relationships are never disclosed.

You can, however, help me expose the corrupt.

Go to Guidestar.org

It's free to register.

Search for the name of the publication you want to look into.

For example, I looked into Commentary Magazine, which is incorporated as Commentary, Inc.

Look on the right hand side. The green box will give you access to their Form 990s.

Download the Form 990. The Form 990 is the tax return that non-profit corporations are required to file each year.

Scroll down to Schedule J. This will give you the salary information for the five highest paid employees.

I found out that the publisher of the "non-profit" is earning over $450,000 a year once you factor in salary, benefits, and pension.

How does anti-Trump @jpodhoretz "earn" $424,000 a year running a "non-profit" magazine? Who funds that? pic.twitter.com/Rdp0YtawER

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 28, 2016

Brent Bozewell earns $400,000 a year as well.

You forgot to disclose that Bozo makes $400,000 a year running anti-Trump
"non-profit."@BreitbartNews @BrentBozell pic.twitter.com/l4sYF1eqP0

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 26, 2016

Pick your favorite magazine, website, or "non-profit corporation." 

Your eyes will be opened. I promise you that.

Clifford Durand is a student at St. John's University who recently threatened to "smash" a "bitch" in his class because she had a Donald Trump sticker on her computer.

(You can find an archive of the Tweet here.)

None of the people who speak out about "harassment" against women will have anything to say about Clifford Durand's Tweet, which now has over 14,000 RTs.

It's OK to "smash a bitch" when she holds ideas you disagree with.

Jack Dorsey and the rest of the Twitter team will not stop this act of violence. They play favorites and do not truly care about the welfare of women or any of their users.

You won't hear anything from Jezebel. No one cares.

It's OK to threaten a woman if she supports someone running for President whom you don't like.

How do we know the man who takes pictures of women before talking about "smashing" them is Clifford Durand?

Friends on Twitter referred to him as "Cliff" and "Clifford."

I found his Facebook page.

An archive of the Facebook page is here.

As you can see, the person making threats is Clifford Durand.

UPDATE: After Durand's classmate asked him to take the post down, he attacked her. 

Marc Randazza is a lawyer's lawyer. When someone threatened you with a lawsuit or some up drama came up, Randazza was the man you called. He was more generous with his time than any lawyer I'd ever known. As one of his many lawyer-clients, I'd practically have to scream at him to send me a bill.

Randazza fought hard for free speech and even led the fight against revenge porn. (Read: Who really killed revenge porn?)

When a case went south for Randazza, you'd wonder if he ever helped anyone at all - as most of these lawyers he helped were silent or secretly shared hating on him.

Is Marc Randazza a fraud? To the shock of many like myself, who would trust Randazza with our lives, that's the question many haters are asking.

Randazza had something happen to him that could happen to any of us. He was sued by a former client, the client offered $200,000 to settle the case, and Randazza kept fighting. Randazza thought he would win the case.

After drawing a arbitrator whose decision strikes me as the product of corruption rather than legal analysis, Randazza's reputation was in tatters. (Read: Randazza wrestled with a pig, and this time the pig won.)

Most people have no idea how corrupt our arbitration system is.

Unlike in a court of law, you're not allowed to cross-examine witnesses before an arbitrator. You're also not allowed to appeal the arbitrator's judgment against you.

A arbitrator - honestly or corruptly - can lie about you, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Where are the hundreds of lawyers Randazza has helped? Are they standing up for him?

Mostly they are silent, as most lawyers are gutless cowards and manipulators.

Is there a "big lesson" from Randazza's current struggles?

I find an angle we can all look at, though perhaps I'm too close to the subject to see much here.

The truth is that most people you help are going to turn their back on you. In a time of crisis, you'll learn this.

The truth is also that some people will come out to support you in ways you'd never have imagined.

Until you face an attack on your reputation and career, you won't know, although there are some signs to look for.

If you don't see people raising help and kicking ass for others today, they will not have your back tomorrow.

I'm friends with a lot of misfits.

But they all share one thing in common. They are raising hell. They don't hide from conflict. They may fight for causes I don't agree with, but they do fight.

If you're not a fighter, I don't want you in my life. You'll turn your back on me just as many have turned their backs on Randazza.

But there are a few fighters left, and they will fight for their friends.

Seek them out. Set aside political disagreements and other dramatic nonsense. Focus on what matters. In a fight, they'll have your back. 

Randazza is still my lawyer and friend, and yes I'd trust him with my life. One dishonest arbitration award will not undo a lifetime of strong work.

I got to talk to Randazza about the Gregory Allen Elliot case and more. Watch it here.

Devin McCahey is a student at Iowa State University. Yesterday on Twitter he told me:

straight white people literally like ur an abomination and don't deserve the same rights as others. Be grateful we aren't just killing you.

Mr. McCahey also tagged me in this Tweet and then protected his Twitter account to avoid exposure.

Although I do not read that Tweet as a death threat, it is striking to me in its anger and hate and perhaps mental instability.

"Be grateful we aren't just killing you."

No, I won't be grateful you aren't killing me and other straight people, Mr. McCahey.

I hope Iowa State University police officials look into this matter immediately, as this is the type of stuff a school shooter would say.

For years people who warned that the normalization of pedophilia would be the next major "civil rights battle" were dismissed as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Yet the push for pedophile acceptance has begun. To the surprise of many, pedophile acceptance has some surprising allies.

Everyone from Salon to Twitter to National Review are defending pedophiles.

Salon published a lengthy article from an admitted pedophile. In this article the pedophile, who has worked around children and admitted in chat rooms to hugging children closely, shared his tale of woe. 

I’ve been stuck with the most unfortunate of sexual orientations, a preference for a group of people who are legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires. It’s a curse of the first order, a completely unworkable sexuality, and it’s mine. Who am I? Nice to meet you. My name is Todd Nickerson, and I’m a pedophile.

Read, "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster." 

Rather than treat pedophilia as a grave moral wrong, pedophilia is treated as an innate sexual identity. Pedophiles are no different from gays, the author of the Salon article wrote, and thus deserve civil rights.

National Review supports pedophiles.

Astoundingly, Charles C.W. Cooke of the "right wing" National Review wrote an article defending Salon's piece. Read, "On Salon’s Much-Maligned Pedophilia Piece."

While Cooke did not give child rapists a full throttled defense, his article gave moral authority and cover to Salon. Pedophiles, Cooke argued, should not be forced to remain in the closet.

Salon again supports pedophiles. 

After receiving support from National Review, Salon next published a piece decrying pedophile-phobia, a problem existing on the right. Liberals, it seems, find pedophilia acceptable. Fortunately the right (excluding National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke) took a stand:

With regard to angry respondents to my article, the greatest amount of flak has come from the far right, who smeared Salon for daring to allow me to speak, as if silencing pedophiles somehow equates to fighting sexual abuse.

Read, "I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine."

Notice the use of the language. Silencing. 

Anyone who speaks out against pedophiles is bigot spreading hate speech in an effort to silence those who would have sex with children - if only the laws were changed legalizing the practice.

Twitter supports pedophiles.

Sarah Nyberg (formerly known as Nicolas) is a prominent social justice warrior and Twitter user. Leaked chat logs revealed Nyberg was something else - she/he was a confessed pedophile.

LEOPirate, the user who exposed pedophile Sarah/Nicholas Nyberg, was suspended from Twitter.

Twitter allows an admitted pedophile to use its service while suspending the account of the person who exposed the pedophile.

Twitter suspended @theLEOPirate for exposing a pedophile. #IStandWithLeo pic.twitter.com/xMNI8DLx01

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) September 18, 2015

Social Justice Warriors support pedophiles. 

After Sarah Nyberg was exposed as a pedophile, dozens of social justice warriors rallied to her cause. Jef Rouner, a writer for the Houston Press and Cracked.com, sent a picture of his child to Nyberg to "cheer her up."

Yahoo! makes the move to normalize pedophilia. 

Today Yahoo! has published an article from a mother who intends to dress her 9-year-old child up like a sexual object to be put on display:

It’s Halloween season again. So far, my nine-year-old daughter with heavy tween tendencies has wanted to be a broken porcelain doll, a Cheshire Cat girl, and a Galaxy Cat. I’m rooting for the Cheshire Cat girl, personally. All of these costumes will likely involve either a short skirt or dress-over leggings, or just leggings and a shirt (that’s the Galaxy Cat).

Will the National Review staff swap pictures of the little girl in her costume?

Or will the right grow some balls and take a stand against pedophilia?

As someone who has written about free speech for a decade or so, I've seen people come and go. I've seen the quality of writing decline. Men are afraid of writing about free speech candidly as currently it's women who are making the push for censorship. If you criticize a woman, you will be called a misogynist. 

How can you maintain your intellectual integrity without being called mean names? It's hard, and these rules won't last forever. But there's a way to thread the needle. For now, anyway.

Rule 1. Virtue signal hard. Yes, you know that boys drool and girls rule!

Let people know that harassment against women is a huge issue, and you totally oppose it. You just also believe in free speech. Wring your hands for several paragraphs, explaining how much you love and adore women.

Make sure you write harassment against women is a problem.

Do not talk about harassment generally. Do not point out that men are harassed online by men and women. No, that is doing it wrong.

Women also never harass other women. Only men harass women. Strike that. Only straight white men and conservative gay men (like Milo Yiannopoulos) harass women.

Do not mention that I was doxed by Zoe Quinn (she's a victim of harassment!). And that the LAPD was called on me. Pretend I was never reported to the California State Bar for conduct you know damned well is protected free speech. Oh, also do not mention a woman falsely accused of making rape threats.

Calling the cops and trying to get me disbarred for my speech? That's not an issue. The issue is mean Tweets! They might call you a GamerGate person, and then what?

Men are never harassed online. Harassment against women is the problem.

Rule 2. Hold women to a lower standard than you'd hold men to.
(Rationalize this by saying you only punch up.)

If Anita Sarkessian says that calling her a liar is harassment, then by golly that's harassment. Forget that she said on video that she did not enjoy playing video games, and thus she lied when she said, "I'm a lifelong gamer." 

Do not make fun of Anita. She is the Queen Bee. You will feel her sting.

"Harassment is ... the day-to-day grind of 'You're a liar," and 'You suck.'" 
[This did not happen. You did not see it.]

If a man says such nonsense, you can puff your chest and be an alpha male. Grrr!

Rule 3. Feel unease whenever you write.

If you're a white straight man, your day is coming. Sooner or later you'll use the wrong terminology. This is especially true as you get older. Who can keep up with all the made-up words like TERF and transmisogyny?

You won't be able to defend free speech much longer, as attacks against free speech are being redefined as a means of protecting women.

You have another one to three years. Maybe.

When you do slip up, hopefully you still have some friends left.

Good luck!

In the meantime, I hope you found this guide useful. Feel free to share it at the next CLE.

A recent book entitled "John Scalzi is a Rapist" was pulled from Amazon's ebook store after John Scalzi used his considerable connections as a best-selling author to have it removed. Scalzi has previously threatened legal action, but wisely backed down after being advised he did not have a case for defamation.

Thus, here is what we currently know about the John Scalzi rape accusation.

1. He wanted to sue, but was unable to.

2. He used his connections to have the book removed.

3. He is a woman hater. 

Doth the (alleged) rapist protest too much?

While guilt by association tactics are used primarily by the left, it's worth nothing that Scalzi is good friends with Jian Ghomeshi, a man who has raped around a dozen women. Jian Ghomeshi is currently awaiting trial on several counts of rape.

John Scalzi is also close friends with Chris Kluwe, who signed a gag order forbidding him from talking about "underage girls" found in "compromising situations." See, "Chris Kluwe can't be a moral crusader after his cruel Twitter rant."

Chris Kluwe never spoke truth to power, instead accepting money to cover up what appears to have been statutory rape.

Chris Kluwe  takes money to remain silent about rape or rape culture, and Scalzi counts him as a friend.

The Sarah Nyberg/Chris Kluwe/John Scalzi connection.

Again, guilt by association tactics are wrong, but they are what people like Scalzi rely upon. Thus Scalzi concedes they have a place in discussing rape accusations.

Sarah Nyberg is an admitted pedophile who John Scalzi and Chris Kluwe have vigorously defended and stood behind. In chat logs exposed by a whistler blower, Nyberg expressed her admiration for her 8-year old cousin named Dana.

With friends like these, one must ask: Is John Scalzi a rapist?

You can see all of the chat logs in this video. Warning: This is disturbing content.

At this time I cannot determine whether Scalzi is a rapist.

My hunch is that he's hiding something, and I would not be surprised if women later come forward against him, as it often takes rape victims years to come forward against celebrities like Bill Cosby and Jian Ghomeshi.

Is John Scalzi a rapist? We might never know.

I'm not a political junkie who sits around watching CNN or FoxNews. I don't know who the big names or personalities are, and I don't care. For the most part politics are reality TV for men - part wish fulfillment, part distraction from a life of quiet desperation.

Yet unfortunately my own freedom and survival have required me to seek change. This is annoying to me, but unless the cuckservative (members of the right who enjoy watching people like me get screwed over by the radical left) take a stand, they may as well get used to having me around.

Cuckservatives haven't left me many options. Here are my choices:

• Sit by silently while no one has our backs.
• Play nicely, as I have done for years, hoping I will get through to these people.
• Put them on blast, attacking them more ruthlessly than I do SJWs.

Sitting back silently is never going to work. I'll always have something to say, which means I could play nice.

Playing nicely hasn't worked. Not a single member of a Republican-controlled Congress spoke out in favor of due process during a hearing discussing the college campus rape "crisis." College men are about to see their rights curtailed. What have Republicans done? Watched.

When Gawker attacked me, Reason.com joined in the dog pile. Without contacting me or reaching out, a Reason blogger put me on blast for my "mean Tweets." Reason, a "libertarian" publication, is part of the same call-out culture and plays by the same rules of social justice "journalism" as Gawker. No, I won't play nicely with such people.

This leaves option three, which is to to put cuckservatives on blast.

I almost feel bad for the cuckservative who have recently discovered me, they aren't aware of what they have gotten themselves into.

As a lawyer who has been sued for defamation (and won), lawsuit threats make me LOL. I know where the line between free speech and defamation lies, and yes I know all about anti-SLAPP laws. Your legal threats mean nothing.

I also have more energy than the cuckservative, as I live a healthy lifestyle, go to the gym, and understand the power of mindset. Your personal attacks or attempts at manipulation mean nothing.

You deserve no mercy. You would watch as men go to prison on false rape convictions. Do you think I won't reveal your affairs and other indiscretions out a sense of kindness or decency?

I don't merely write about policy issues. I write about individual people. If you're living a lie, it will be exposed.

If you fancy yourself a celebrity or personality, my advice would be to start having our backs. At the very least, be careful when running your mouths. If you ask for my attention by calling everyone who uses the #cuckservative hashtag a racist or anti-Semite, don't complain when you get my full attention.

You can keep attacking us or calling us racists. You can keep reaching out to the same protesters who disrupted a Bernie Sanders political rally, because hey - you surely have more credibility with the #BlackLivesMatter crowd than Bernie, and your outreach will be highly successful.

What are my demands?

• America should have a wall on its border just like Israel has.
• Call out "rape culture" for what it is - another form of Satanic Panic.
• Stop buying into the left's frame on race. You should never use the word "racist" non-ironically.

Maybe others need more, but that's all I need.

I know you won't listen, as you're fat and bloated like all members of the establishment.

Just don't say you weren't warned. Don't cry when I reveal embarrassing facts about you.

The stakes are too high for me to say anything other than, "Cry more."

Ever since I started making fun of cuckservatives (conservatives who enjoy watching their friends get screwed over by the left), the attacks have come. The attacks are not from social justice warriors (my usual adversaries). No, I've been attacked by people on the right!

The attacks from various cuckservatives are meta-commentary on the nature of the cuck. Never once has Nick Searcy or Kurt Schlichter (had to Google him) reached out to me in friendship. Instead they attack me on Twitter, in public, to status signal they are good boys who "didn't do nuffin." 

Their arguments are trite and easily defeated.

When cucks attack you, always reframe the issue.

"You are a white nationalist!"

I believe in America. I'm an American. If this makes me a nationalist, then yes I'm a nationalist. I also happen to be white.

Why don't you believe in America?

"Your allies are racist!"

My "racist" friends troll the Internet. The left's racist friends demand an audience with presidential candidates. 

Moreover, Bill Ayers is a terrorist.

Tell me again why we need to talk about my "raciss" friends.

"You support white identity politics!"

Please tell me more about La Raza, the Congressional Black Caucus, and American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

You care more about whites who vote as a bloc than you do about the left's use of racial identity politics. This is why you lose elections.

Cucks have no argument other than shame. They have no intellectual framework.

Never get sucked into their frame by defending your position. Cucks are not intellectuals. They are timid girly-men who live in fear of being shamed by the radical left. 

Salon, a far-left website, recently joined in the dog pile, calling people like me who use the work cuckservative raciss.

Do not engage in serious discussions with them about the issues.

Yes, we have intellectual arguments. We could tell them a country is not based on lines on a map. A country is the people who live on the soil.

America is great because the Americans who build America are great. If we want to make America great again, we need to screen who we allow into the country our grandparents built.

We could ask them why they support nationalism for Israel but not for the United States. Israel has a border, and Israel is even an enthno-state, based primarily around the identity of the people. Israel has a right to exist as a nation. America, too, has the right to exist as a sovereign state.

We could explain that every race and ethnicity except whites engage in identity politics. Claiming whites cannot form voting blocs based on race is itself racist.

We could painstakingly explain that Republicans win elections when whites - as every other race and ethnic group does - vote as a bloc. See, "The Case of the Missing White Voter."

We could ask them why it's worth risking alienating millions of white voters to skim off a few hundred thousand black voters. We could ask them to show us their data and projections explaining their position. Do conservatives want to win elections or get nice articles written about them in Salon?

But they do not have any response, as they live in fear of being shamed by the radical left, and they assume you too are driven by a fear of shame.

Always change the frame. If they attack a misfit on your side, ask them why they care more about your friends than about their supposed enemies on the left.

Quite frankly, there's no one using the #cuckservative hashtag who is a worse person than Al Sharpton or Bill Ayers. 

As someone on Twitter put it, "Our 'racists' are on Twitter. The left's racists are in the halls of Congress and on television."

Why then are conservatives more worried about a few trolls on Twitter than issues that matter?

That, my friends, is a question that answers itself. #cuckservative 

For years I read a blog by Vox Day, but to be honest, I had my concerns about the man. I thought it was weird that he pretended to have an attractive wife. Why do this? 

John Scalzi, one of Vox Day's haters, had convinced me and others that Vox's wife did not exist. 

As Vox did not post pictures of his wife, I took Scalzi at his word that @spacebunnyday was a sock puppet.

I learned a valuable lesson about John Scalzi. He's a con man.

After seeing John Scalzi joke about being a rapist on his blog, I decided to stop taking him at his word. I investigated the facts for myself. Vox Day's wife is real, and she's real cool.

What's it like meeting the wife of an Internet misogynist?

Surely she is kept under lock and key and a singular look from her oppressor quiets her.

Hah!

Vox and his wife had a comfortable relationship one settles into after years of sharing a life with a person, yet there was none of the contempt often shown in the faces of long-term couples.

Each had their own separate lives while sharing their family life. Vox plays soccer, Spacebunny is a bit of a "gym rat."

While Vox was more interested in the quality of the wine, Spacebunny was highly concerned with the protein content of our meal.

While this should only come to the surprise of "real misogynists" like Scalzi, Spacebunny also had her own views of the world. She even dared to disagree with me - a white man! - about some socio-political issues.

Who is the real misogynist?

"Misogynist" has become a meaningless term, and I won't legitimize it by using it non-ironically. 

That said, denying a woman even exists because she disagrees with you, while perhaps not rising to the level of misogyny, does make you a pretty terrible person.

Ultimately, however, Scalzi is filled with self-loathing and envy. A healthy full family life with an attractive women is beyond his reach.

Rather than accept that Vox Day did better in the wife department, the Hugo-winning, New York Times best selling author refuses to believe Spacebunny exists.

Some men simply can't say, "Life is a mixed bag. I got this whole author thing down, but my marriage is a bit of a mess. Oh well, that's life." They instead seek to attack and tear down others who have what they covet.

Does that make Scalzi a misogynist deserving moral condemnation or a truly pitiable man deserving scorn and laughter?

Yes, Vox Day's wife is real. SJWs like John Scalzi always lie.

There's a riot in the right, and rather than ask people what's wrong, conservatives are throwing around lies and labels. Conservatives (the cuckservative) who obviously knew of our existence and yet never reached out to support us when Gawker attacked suddenly care about what we have to say.

Why reach out to us now? To understand the answer, you must understand the cuck mindset.

There are two aspects to the cuckservative meme - gender and national.

I use cuckservative in the gender-war sense.

There's currently a War Against Men. False rape accusations are on the rise. Rape hoaxes like the Rolling Stone Rape Hoax and Mattress Girl are the norm. For decades the right has ignored my issues, as a man.

Cuckservatives control the right-wing airwaves. Have any of them reached out to me - someone who objectively speaking has a far greater reach and sells more books than the usual talking heads - to discuss men's issues? No.

The right has ignored me and other men - even more palatable men like those in the A Voice for Men camp - for years. They choose to ignore our concerns and refused to give us a platform.

Now we are going to take over the cuckservative platforms.

When Gawker and MSNBC attacked me, where were these so-called "allies" on the right? Make no mistake, they knew of me. Indeed they care about me a lot since I've started putting them on blast.

But when the right could sit back and watch while I was attacked, all was well. They pretended not to know me.

These cowards on the right were either silent or they joined in the dog pile against me - with Reason magazine spreading lies and innuendo.

Indeed, the right's treatment of its friends is where the "cuck" term arises from. The right loves watching their would-be allies get screwed by the left.

The right even purges people like Steve Sailer and The Derb for writing articles far less offensive than you'd find in Salon or the New Republic.

Why then would I care about your precious political party? You don't care us or our issues. Why would we care about you, cucks?

We are going to smash your party by uniting all of those you have rejected.

Look at the data and the trends. There are many of us with far more influence and reach than your precious talking heads.

We also grew up on the Internet. We understand social media. Indeed, we are currently using social media to trigger you into crying over Tweets.

There's a national identity aspect to cuckoldry.

There are many people - myself included - who believe America has a right to exist as a nation, and that a nation is not the soil, but the people who live on the soil.

We would like America to have a border, much like Israel has. We would like to control who comes into the country our grandfathers built.

When the right calls us racist for wanting a border like Israel's - and then calls us anti-Semitic for mentioning Israel at all - they are joining in the left's would-be cucking of us.

Why does calling conservative men cuckservatives trigger them into PTSD?

Much like SJWs are triggered by words on Twitter, conservative men also suffer from PTSD when we call them cucks. Why?

For whatever reason, conservative men talk of the pussification society. They've appointed themselves as spokespersons for masculinity.

Meanwhile they don't even lift, they don't advocate for men's issues, and they are gutless hypocrites who turn on their "friends."

They lack any sense of loyalty or honor, betraying their friends to impress the radical left.

Cuckservative is a label that emasculates conservatives.

It's a reminder that we know they are not men.

"No enemies to the right."

I can't be shamed for being friendly with the "wrong people."

When the left rejects Al Sharpton, come talk to me about the "wrong people" on the right. 

Call me racist, sexist, homophobic, and keep telling lies about me.

This will only speed up the demise of the cuckolded right.

We're here, and we're not going away.

A cuckservative is a Republican who enjoys watching his friends on the right (and indeed his entire country) get screwed by the radical left. 

A cuckservative will never have the back of his "friends" or "allies," and instead often joins in the rapes of right-wing allies.

A cuckservative will purge "wrong thinkers" like Steve Sailer, The Derb, and RamZPaul from the right even though the left gives Al Sharpton  (an actual murderer and racist) and Bill Ayers (an actual terrorist) media platforms.

A cuckservative wants to be part of the establishment. They take their rules from Gawker and other social justice warrior run media sites.

A cuckservative spends massive amounts of time status signalling (also called "virtue signalling") to the left.

A cuckservative sells out his allies by calling them racist as part of their effort to signal their virtue and "good thinking" to the left.

A cuckservative cares more about attacking Donald Trump (see virtue signalling, above) than in understanding why Trump has grown a huge audience. (Hint: Trump's rise is not due to his policy positions. Instead Trump's success is due to America's fatigue with supplicating cuckservatives bowing down to the media establishment.)

A cuckservative believes Israel's border must be protected at all costs, but that even suggesting America has a border is racist.

A cuckservative wants to be part of the establishment. Being a "New York Times best-selling author" matters more to a cuckservative than making America great again.

A cuckservative lives in terror of being labelled a racist.

A cuckservative calls people who use the term "cuckservative" racist.

A cuckservative is so far up the SJW establishment's ass that they think we care.

Today life is complicated. If you make one wrong move on social media you'll lose your job. You may receive death threats or have a Swatting attempt made on you. An internet hate mob will form around you to publicly shame you.

If you are a rational, thinking person life may seem overwhelming. Nothing makes sense. I have a guide for you.

These are rules you MUST follow. Do not question them unless you want to be attacked and labelled a "dudebro" (if you're a man) or a woman suffering from internalized misogyny. 

Women never lie. Asking a woman for proof of her claims (that she was harassed on the Internet or received a death threat) is harassment. 

When a woman claims to be a rape victim, asking for evidence is part of rape culture and makes you an apologist for rapists on par with Holocaust deniers.

When a woman commits a hate crime hoax, you cannot call her out. Even suggesting the woman was lying to create fame and fortune for herself would be harassment.

Gender is a social construct lacking any basis in reality.

When a man claims to be a woman, you must believe him. Otherwise you are a transphobe.

When a woman claims to be a man, you must believe her. Otherwise you are a transphobe.

Race is a social construct lacking any basis in biology.

When a white woman claims to be black, you may claim the person is not really black and demand the person submit to DNA testing.

Questions you are not allowed to ask, as asking these questions makes you a racist transphobe dudebro or woman suffering from internalized misogyny:

Is race a social construct or does it have biological origins? If race is a social construct, then why can't a person transcend his or her race?

If a person cannot transcend race, how may he transcend gender?

How does a woman prove she is a man or a man prove she is a woman?

How does a person prove he is black or white?

What does it mean to be black or white? Is there something other than skin color inherent about "being black," and if so, what is that?

May we ask Leigh Alexander, a social justice warrior and critic of GamerGate who has made racist jokes in the past, to submit to DNA testing? Is Leigh Alexander really black, or is she a white woman like Rachel Dolezal who is faking her membership in an oppressed race as a way to profit from gullible people?

Do we have paperwork or DNA tests proving Leigh Alexander is half-black? #RachelDolezal pic.twitter.com/RuM64PEnei

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 12, 2015

On college campuses and Twitter accounts everywhere, "threat" has taken on an overbroad definition. Merely disagreeing with someone is harassing and threatening conduct. Calling someone a bad name or hurting their feelings is a threat.

But what is an actual, get-you-thrown-into-jail threat made online online? 

The Supreme Court was supposed to answer that question in Elonis v. United States, which involved a real piece of crap who posted stuff online that in my view seems quite clearly as threatening. The Elonis opinion answered one question while leaving another open.

Quick background: A "true threat" is not protected by the First Amendment. Criminal threats made online are a federal offense under 18 U. S. C. §875(c), which makes it a crime to “transmit in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another."

What is a "true threat"?

Now that we know true threats are a crime, we have to find out what a true threat is. At Elonis' trial for making threats online, the jury was told (emphasis added):

“A statement is a true threat when a defendant intentionally makes a statement in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury or take the life of an individual.” 

The Supreme Court held in Elonis it is not enough for a statement to make a "reasonable person" perceive the defendant's statements as an expression of an intent to inflict bodily injury to cause death.

The Court wrote:

In light of the foregoing, Elonis’s conviction cannot stand. The jury was instructed that the Government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard Elonis’s communications as threats, and that was error. Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant’s mental state.

Great, what is the standard? How can you show something is a true threat?

In an opinion only lawyers will grok, which is something I dislike about the law as it has become outside the understanding of even highly intelligent people, the Court set up some goal posts. Sort of:

There is no dispute that the mental state requirement in Section 875(c) is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat.

In other words, if government shows someone had the intent to make a threat, then it's a true threat. (How does the government prove what you intended? That's a question for another day!)

Also, if the government can show you intended the communication to be viewed as a threat, then it's a true threat.

But it's not enough to merely show that a reasonable person would have interpreted a person's words as a threat.

Does that make sense? (Yes. No. Sort of. We shall see.) 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito points out the Elonis ruling is, as the cool kids say, problematic.

Justice Alito correctly observed the confusion caused by today's Elonis opinion. In his concurring opinion, he wrote:

Did the jury need to find that Elonis had the purpose of conveying a true threat? Was it enough if he knew that his words conveyed such a threat? Would recklessness suffice? The Court declines to say. Attorneys and judges are left to guess.

Exactly.

What's my take on Elonis on online threats?

Don't wish death upon anyone. Don't tell people you want to see them personally die.

Even though Elonis suggests merely wishing death on others would quite clearly not be a true threat, why do it?

There are enough ways to make your point without wishing death or bodily harm on another.

If you don't want to address the arguments others make: Call people fat, call them ugly, call them stupid.

But there is no reason to wish them dead. 

If you personally know someone, this is especially true.

And never ever say you are going to personally harm someone, especially if you know that person or have a prior relationship making those words appear like an expression of your intent to cause bodily harm on or to kill someone.

P.S., Elonis clearly eviscerates social justice warriors.

After Elonis, any intimation that disagreement or insults are online threats is the sign of mental instability.

The Supreme Court is not ready to gut the First Amendment to appease hateful radicals who attempt to silence and censor us all.

Title IX hearings, bogus restraining orders, and campus speech codes remain a threat to robust speech. Fortunately, criminal prosecution does not.

Read next: How Zoe Quinn Conned a Judge into Violating the First Amendment. 

Most of you have never heard of Josh McIntosh, the male ghost writer behind media powerhouse Feminist Frequency. Yet most of you, especially those familiar with GamerGate, are familiar with the smiling face of Fem Freq - Anita Sarkeesian.

Would Josh McIntosh, a straight white man, exert such influence if he did not ghost write Anita Sarkeesian Tweets, script her cultural critiques of vidoe games, and produce her YouTube videos?

If male privilege is real, why does Josh McIntosh have to put words into Anita Sarkeesian's mouth in order to have any relevance?

Click below for a better resolution image.

No doubts femfreq is just a puppet for radicalbytes to pass off his propaganda as coming from a woman. #GamerGate pic.twitter.com/NbH3LBdF73

— Doctor Ethics (@ItalyGG) May 31, 2015

Robert "Bobby" Oliveira, who posts online as Bobby O., is a convicted criminal who has made multiple threats against women. Bobby O. attempted to rise to infamy by opposing GamerGate, a consumer revolt against unethical journalist styled by journalists who hate ethical scrutiny as a campaign against women in gaming.

Like his friends Anil Dash and Chris Kluwe, Bobby O. supports doxing people he disagrees with. Yet Mr. Oliveira is not content to dox or SWAT others. He wants to kill them.

Mr. Oliveira has threatened and harasses countless people online, including women and the disabled. Yet there hasn't been a peep from his allies on the anti-GamerGate side of the debate.

Why is Bobby O. allowed to threaten women on Twitter?

please report @/bobbyo1967 for harassment. #GamerGate pic.twitter.com/HXuLLW6w0x

— Chloe Price (@Dekashoko) March 2, 2015

These threats are not empty, as Bobby O. has been arrested for beating women.

Bobby O. is now threatening Fredrick Brennan, a web developer who suffers from brittle bone disease.

Digg produced a day-in-the-life video on Mr. Brennan, who is affectionately referred to by his friends - among who I count myself - as "Hotwheels." Upon learning Mr. Brennan has a serious disability, Bobby O. got brave. 

"Time to call the travel agent. A few of us need to visit you in person to redress this offense." -

Bobby O., social justice warrior who opposes GamerGate.

 Bobby O. is exactly the type of person who opposes GamerGate.

Why is Anil Dash protecting a woman beater?

Bobby O is close friends with social activist Anil Dash.

Anil Dash has told people to renounce me for posting a few off-color Tweets and Dash has also led online rape mobs against Justine Sacco and Pax Dickinson.

"Bobby O. beats women, threatens the disabled. But Cernovich is evil because he posts some mean Tweets." - Anil Dash

Yet Dash has said nothing about Bobby O. 

What's up with that?!

Where is John Scalzi, Chris Kluwe, and the other social justice warriors?

SciFi writer and Twitter activist John Scalzi and former NFL player Chris Kluwe have all had something to say about my "mean Tweets."

Yet when someone on their team makes threats against women and a disabled man, they say nothing.

SJWs are gutless hypocrites without any principles at all, it seems, as there is simply no reason to tolerate Bobby O's behavior.

UPDATE: Mr. Scalzi has seen this article and now knows of the abuse. I eagerly await his comments.

P.S. Bobby O., I will fly you to the Phillipines to meet Mr. Brennan.

Frederick is my client and personal friend. I will be happy to listen to any concerns and complaints you may have against him. 

I will purchase your plane ticket. If you want to bring friends, go right ahead. The more the merrier!

Let's have a meet-up.

Your move, Bobby.

Read next:

9 Terrible People Who Oppose GamerGate

Critics of GamerGate,  a consumer revolt against unethical journalism, claim people who support GamerGate support harassment and doxing. What is the truth? The truth is  those who oppose GamerGate are the ones who support doxing.

For the record, I not support doxing. I used to think it was no big deal, but the web has changed and doxing can lead to Swatting, which Zoe Quinn admitted she attempted to have done to me.

Five terrible people who oppose GamerGate have come out on the record in support of doxing.

1. Daily Kos intern Margaret Pless supports doxing.

Maggie Pless is a graduate student who gave up her promising medical career to harass me online and write a diary at the Daily Kos blog.

Maggie, along with Zoe Quinn, posted pictures of my home as well as my home address online. Maggie finally admitted she doxed me, although she has yet to apologize.

2. Rebecca Watson supports doxing.

Rebecca Watson hangs out with PZ Myers, who a student accused of rape, and writes at some blog about skepticism. I only knew of her after she did a video about me. She has a crush on me, which is endearing and understandable.

Ms. Watson  wrote an article entitled, "Why I'm Okay with Doxing," which is where that screen cap comes from.

3. Anil Dash supports doxing.

What "doxxing up" means isn't certain, although one familiar with his previous online campaigns - which included inciting an online hate mob into threatening Justice Sacco with rape and murder - would infer "doxxing up" has some racial component.

Since Dash has 400,000 Twitter followers and a verified Twitter account, "doxxing up" would certainly have to include doxing him.

4. Zoe Quinn supports doxing.

We know this because she doxed me. (The article she linked to contained pictures of my home as well as my home address.)

5. Chris Kluwe, a misogynist who has yet to call the police to report what he knows about "underage girls" in "compromising situations" has gone on the record in support of doxing.

Kluwe does not define who "powerful" is, although as a multi-millionaire white man with a verified Twitter account any definition would include him. 

Five people who oppose GamerGate, in their own words, support doxing.

Tell me again how GamerGate is a harassment campaign in the comments below.

Read next: A Journalist's Guide to Ethical Reporting.

Thought leader Anita Sarkessian was asked a question about segregation. Namely: "'Study Shows Single Sex Schools Negative' I'm not sure how I feel about this. What are your thoughts on this study?"

Ms. Sarkeesian responded: "Gender segregated classrooms improve learning (same with race)."

@AdiosBarbie I've actually read many studies that state the opposite, that gender segregated classrooms improve learning (same with race).

— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) September 29, 2011

What do you think? Should classrooms be segregated by race and gender, as Ms. Sarkeesian suggests?

(In the even the Tweet is deleted, the Archived version is here; a screen cap is below.)

Recently a woman named Brianna Wu, who made $13,000 a month on Patreon for doing nothing, wrote an article claiming #GamerGate made death threats against her.

She claimed no prosecutor cared about her story, because misogyny.

Several bloggers, including some who claim to be journalists, ran with Wu's story. A fellow by the name of Cory Doctorow entitled his breathless article, "Brianna Wu uploads Gamergate death threat to shame Ohio prosecutor."

There was, of course, a major problem with the story. As kids on the Internet say, "Y'all  posting in a troll thread."

Yes, that's right. Wu lied. She never called the police to report the "death threats."

When the prosecutor whose hatred of women caused him to ignore Wu was contacted - not by journalists who wrote about the story, but by concerned citizens - they learned Wu never actually called the prosecutor she lied about to tens of thousands of people.

(As Wu has been caught making threats against herself, it's likely she never reported the threat as that would be a felony. You can blog about death threats you made against yourself all day. But once you call that hoax into a prosecutor, watch out.)

It appears to me Mr. Doctorow never took journalism classes. I'm going to explain to Mr. Doctorow and other journalists how they can perform some basic fact checks.

Step 1.When someone claims a prosecutor has ignored her complaints, do this first:

Contact the prosecutor.

This cannot be overstated. Before destroying someone's reputation, you reach out to them. You know? This is just basic human decency.

Surely Mr. Doctorow has some human decency. He simply did not know how to contact the prosecutor who he falsely accused of ignoring complaints a woman reported to him.

Step 2. Google the name of the prosecutor.

Google is a website that allows you to type in stuff you want to learn about. For example, in her article Wu wrote, "The death threat you can hear in this tape comes from Columbus, Ohio. The prosecuting attorney in that district is Ron O’Brien. If he wished, he could bring criminal charges against this man by the end of the day."

When you go to this website called Google and type  "Columbus Ohio Ron O'Brien prosecuting attorney," you receive what's called a "search result."

As you can see, the search result displays Ron O'Brien's web page. It has his contact information and everything!

Step 3. Click on this "search result."

This is important. You must click on the search result in order to obtain the contact information required to contact the prosecutor.

When you click on this search result, you are able to see the prosecuting attorney's contact information.

Step 4. Send an email to the prosecutor. (Or call him or her.)

Prosecutors are usually called State's Attorneys, Prosecuting Attorneys, or District Attorneys. It varies based on state.

Don't let the formalities slip you up. You can use "Mr." or "Ms."

Here is a sample e-mail to send off:

Dear [put the prosecutor's name here]:

Hello. I'm a reporter for [insert the publication's name].

It recently came to our attention that your office had not been giving any attention to death threats received by [Brianna Wu/Anita Sarkeesian/Zoe Quinn].

On what date did [insert name of professional victim] contact your office?

Why has your office not responded to the complaint?

Thank you,

Games Pro Journalist.

Step 5. Write your article.

Include the prosecutor's comment or non-response.

If the prosecutor gives you a comment, provide that comment.

If the prosecutor blows you off, include that in your story. Write something like, "As of press time, the prosecutor's office has not issued a comment."

As you can see, this website called Google is a big help. 

I encourage Cory Doctorow to reach out to me if he would like to learn more about how Google works.

People constantly try pinning down my views on race, much to their frustration. I have spent more time representing black men pro bono than any of my social justice warrior critics. Blacks are treated differently by police, and this is such a duh point that it's not even worth arguing.

Yet I don't toe the party line. I don't join every hash tag campaign or eagerly signal to liberals that I'm a proper self-hating white man.

I don't hate myself for being white. I don't "check my privilege." I rather like myself, actually. 

My views on race have evolved over the years. Well, my views haven't changed, but my approach has.

For example, I still recognize the criminal justice system is racist.

Yet why should I care about black issues when blacks do not care about my issues?

I've noticed blacks do not care about, for example, black-on-white hate crimes. When groups of blacks jump or "wolf pack" white or Asian men, there is no outcry from the black community. The media doesn't declare it a hate crime.

In fact, no one really cares much about what happens to white male crime victims. (No one cares about men generally, white or black.)

Yes, the criminal justice system is racist. Black kids will get the hammer laid down on them in a way that white men will not.

On the other hand, white are several times more likely to be victimized by a black assailant than a black man is to be victimized by a white.

It'd be great if whites and blacks could get together, saying, "Yes, it's wrong that the criminal justice system is racist, and it's also wrong that whites are several more times to be the victims of inter-racial crimes than black are."

But that's not happening.

When blacks care about my issues, I'll care about theirs.

Until then, they can fight their own battles.

I didn't get involved in GamerGate due to a love or drama or because some girl was caught cheating on her boyfriend with five men in order to obtain free publicity for her video game. Whatever. Nor do I care about the video games industry. What caught my attention in GamerGate was an unconstitutional restraining order Zoe Quinn obtained against her ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni.

The restraining order was unconstitutional, as my legal analysis shows. I won't re-hash that here. What I want to focus on is how unfair the restraining order proceeding against Eron Gjoni was.

Zoe Quinn sought to obtain an order of protection against Eron Gjoni. To obtain an order of protection (called a 209a order), a judge had to issue it. Moreover, the judge held a hearing to determine whether or not to extend the date of the protection order.

I was able to obtain the transcript from the restraining order hearing. The transcript reveals two startling facts:

1. Gjoni wasn't allowed to even make a free speech argument to the court.
2. Gjoni was not allowed to cross-examine Zoe Quinn, in violation of the law.

Eron Gjoni was not allowed to present a First Amendment defense.

You read that correctly. When issuing a restraining order preventing a man from speaking out about the abuse he suffered, the trial court did not even allow Gjoni's lawyer to raise the issue.

The official court transcript provides:

"[Gjoni's lawyer]: Judge, may I be heard on the First Amendment issues and the restrictions placed upon the defendant, within the scope of the original order?

"The Court: Counsel, I'll leave that to your appellate rights. I've made my decision."

The judge made his decision without even allowing Gjoni's lawyer to argue the law.

Eron Gjoni was not allowed to cross-examine Zoe Quinn.

Under the law, Gjoni had certain rights. For example, he had the right to cross-examine Ms. Quinn.

Indeed, there is a manual judges are supposed to follow when conducting restraining order proceedings.  Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (PDF here), the manual issued to judges, provides:

At the hearing, the defendant has the right to counsel, to testify, to present witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses who appear, and to present information.

Id. at p. 161.

Both parties have a general right to cross-examine witnesses, but the judge should not permit cross-examination to be used for harassment or intimidation or for discovery purposes. Each side must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge the other’s evidence. 

Id. at 96. Did the judge recognize Gjoni's right to cross-examine witnesses before him? No.

Again, we look to the hearing transcript:

"The Court: There's going to be no cross-examination of the plaintiff." 

You read that correctly. In the United States of America, in a courtroom where free speech principles are at stake, a sitting judge denied a man the most fundamental rights.

During the hearing, Gjoni was not given the opportunity to challenge Quinn's evidence at all. Nor was he allowed to cross-examine Quinn.

The Abuse Proceedings Manual cautions judges:

As recognition that its scope and nature has increased, the issue of domestic violence has become the focus of legitimate and increasing public concern. However, that concern must not be permitted to affect or diminish the court’s responsibility to remain neutral, to protect the rights of the parties in each case, and to address each case individually on its own merits. “Whether a defendant’s constitutional rights have been violated [in a c. 209A proceeding] will depend on the fairness of a particular proceeding.” Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 598 (1995). See also, C.O. v. M.M., 442 Mass. 648, 656-659 (2004) (court found that defendant’s right to due process had been denied where defendant was not given the opportunity to present or cross-examine witnesses during a hearing on the question of continuing a temporary order). See Guideline 3:00, Ex Parte Hearings: General

After the transcript of the hearing surfanced, Quinn  admitted she lied in court to the judge. She claimed her memory was bad, due to trauma.

Given that Quinn has been exposed for lying during a Congressional briefing, one finds it unlikely she merely "forgot" to tell the truth.

Yet it's undeniable Quinn lied in order to obtain and then extend an unconstitutional restraining order.

We now see why rights matters. Cross-examination allows liars to be exposed.

Zoe Quinn has committed fraud on the court, at Eron Gjoni's great personal expense.

Read next: Zoe Quinn, Cyber victim or Cyber bully?

After Zoe Quinn posted my home address and pictures of my home to members of a doxing and SWATTing forum, I hired a private investigator to conduct a risk assessment.

My investigation extended to Alex Lifschitz, after he solicited death threats against me.

I'm a "loose end" and "disbarment" is not enough. Is that why you hoped for a SWAT team? https://t.co/Abh7Qc6Dz1 pic.twitter.com/E4vwGW1ZBd

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) December 20, 2014

Trying to get Lifschitz into the professional victim hustle, Ms. Quinn claims Mr. Lifschitz cannot find a job. 

(Poor little rich kid!)

Supposedly Lifschitz was some sort of go-getter trying to make his way in the world rather than a Sometime Awful troll.

This is a lie.

Alex has a trust fund. In addition to that, Lifschitz has never lived in an apartment under his own name.

Quinn, when lying before Congress about me, admitted she and Lifschitz lived together in Seattle. 

While I won't give out Lifschitz's prior address, I will tell you two things about it:

• It's in Beverly Hills.
• It's in daddy's and step mommy's name.

You read that correctly. Mr. Lifschitz did not ask daddy or mommy to co-sign for a rental property that he paid rent on. He lived in style, in the most exclusive zip code in Southern California, for free.

Before living in that Beverly Hills home, Lifschitz lived in the following property:

• It's in Beverly Hills.
• It's in mommy's name.

As with the above property, Lifschitz lived rent free.

I will gladly make my investigations into Quinn and Lifschitz available to verified journalists to confirm what I say here is true.

Long before GamerGate, Alex Lifschitz was a pathetic loser living off of mommy and daddy.

GamerGate didn't ruin his life. He had no life. He's a former Internet troll turned scammer, just like his lover Zoe Quinn.

GamerGate is a consumer revolt against unethical journalism with many allies, especially pro-free speech and anti-censorship allies like myself.

Some have accused me of "joining" GamerGate to get e-famous. That's sort of silly for a couple of reasons. 

First, I have an established track record of hating censorship. Go reach my archives back from 2004 and ask yourself what my opinion is on censorship. It hasn't changed. I oppose it and will spend my own money to fight it.

Second, I was already e-famous. Crime & Federalism, back when it was a seriously legal blog, was widely read. I've been cited in federal court opinions and law reviews. Haters gonna hate, but yeah, people know me.

I've been recognized in cafes worldwide and can hold a meet-up in any city in the world and have people show up. No one says, "Are you Mike from GamerGate?!" They have all said, "Are you Mike from Danger & Play?"

I didn't need GamerGate to get e-famous, and if anything it has a poor ROI for my primary businesses. I teach mindset techniques, have a mindset book coming out, and sell juicing books. I don't see a massive intersection between gamers and mindset training and green juicing, but if sales data proves me wrong, I'll gladly eat my words.

GamerGate is massive. Some data analysis shows 250,000 people have posted to the hashtag.

I don't have the Big Data on GamerGate, but I do have my own data. And I'm happy to share it.

Let's look at my growth in Twitter followers. Keep in mind I'm highly controversial. I even post deliberately shocking and outrageous tweets, because that's sort of fun.

Actually, I post the shocking tweets because my book is called Gorilla Mindset. If a few tweets make you cry, you're not going to read or apply my mindset techniques. So...Good riddance. 

Thus, I'm a niche "name" in GamerGate. People who are into self-improvement and dark humor enjoy me. The rest...not so much.

Most people in GamerGate find my humor to be a bit too gallows-based, and that's cool. Celebrate diversity!

On net I've gained around 10,000 followers via my pro-#GamerGate position. I consistently gained 500 new followers a month before GamerGate, so it's hard to say for sure how many of my new Twitter followers are from GamerGate. But I'm comfortable with saying it's 10,000 or so.

I currently have around 24,000 Twitter followers. Many of those are fake, as SJWs bought me fake followers in an effort to get me in trouble with Twitter. 

My best guess is 15,000 of my Twitter followers are real.

Here's my GamerGate data. 

In September, I thought GamerGate was sort of stupid, as I didn't understand it. I didn't start posting earnestly to the GamerGate hashtag until October. I stopped posting to the hashtag often in December or so, although I do still post about GamerGate.

I've included my Analytics page from Twitter. The analytics will give you a sense of how many people are in GamerGate.

September 2014: 752 tweets, 2.25 million impressions 48,300 profile visits, 400 new followers

October 2014: 1,569 tweets, 17,600,000 million impressions 550,000 profile visits, 4,800 new followers

November, 2014: 2,248 tweets, 14,500,000 million impressions 355,000 profile visits 2,730 new followers.

December, 2014: 2,846 tweets, 13,600,000 million impressions 560,000 profile visits 16,400 new followers (many of those were fake).

Anyhow, the data doesn't lie.

GamerGate is a massive consumer revolt. GamerGamer is too big to ignore and too diverse to pigeon hole.

Some people like me are a bit off the reservation. Others are serious and temperate.

We are legion, and we are not going away.

Read next: What is GamerGate?

Last year when adult film actress Mercedes Carrera threw in her voice for #GamerGate, I groaned a little. I viewed her with suspicion. Did she really believe in free speech, or was she another nit-wit trying to get Internet famous?

As the months passed, I observed her conduct, watched her interviews, and even got to talk to her a few times. She is everything women who oppose #GamerGate are not. She is thoughtful, intelligent, and fiercely independent. I have never been so happy to admit I was wrong about a person.

While involved in #GamerGate, someone named Chris Kluwe, who I'm told is a former pro NFL player, started bullying gamers. He developed a creepy obsession with me, and to this day constantly references my genitals.

Kluwe was everything I am not. He's a dumb jock, and after he realized how many people read my articles and listen to my podcast, he tried getting Internet famous by attacking me.

Enter the Kluwe-Cernovich "Debate."

Chris Kluwe and I agreed to a debate. I knew Kluwe had intended to troll me, as he refused to have a moderator like the GamerGate neutral David Pakman moderate the debate.

Going in my strategy was simple, "Do not play a game of 'Who can be the bigger asshole?'" I would let Chris be an asshole, so that those who watched the video could see with their own eyes people who oppose GamerGate are terrible people.

In our "debate," Kluwe was smug, dismissive, and rather insufferable. By design. My guys were really pissed at me, as they believed I looked beta.

Yet it was part of a broader plan. After the debate I posted how I let Kluwe look like a huge asshole. Even his die-hard supporters were left saying, "Cernovich is an idiot, but Kluwe did our side no favors."

Kluwe didn't sleep for 36 hour after the debate, as the name-searched himself endlessly for validation. Meanwhile, I slept like a baby, knowing Kluwe was going to destroyed soon enough.

Kluwe walks into the trap.

The claim has been made that GamerGate is a woman-hating movement. How could we prove it's actually people who oppose GamerGate who hate women?

My plan was to taunt Kluwe to his breaking point, get him to loudly challenge me to a debate, and then bring in my ringer.

"Mike Cernovich hides behind Mercedes Carrera."

When Kluwe challenged me to a debate, David Pakman was quick to offer to moderate it.

Such a debate is against the spirt of GamerGate, which is inclusive. Yeah, let's have three white men in their 30s talk about whether GamerGate is a misogynistic hate movement. Hello irony!

I have enough media platforms to mouth off on. I'd much rather hear from pro-GamerGate voices like Ms. Carrera. 

Mercedes is highly intelligent and extroverted. Once Kluwe ran his mouth off again, I'd offer to have Mercedes step in.

I knew three things would happen.

First, Kluwe would make some sexist bullshit remark about me “hiding behind a woman.” Kluwe did not disappoint.

He did indeed make a sexist remark about Mercedes.

Kluwe also refused to debate Mercedes, believing women should have men speak for them rather than speak for themselves.

I pushed the issue, as it's wrong for me to purport to speak for women like Mercedes. She is strong and smart enough to stand her own ground and speak her own mind.

Sorry @dpakman but @ChrisWarcraft does not respect women like @TheMercedesXXX enough to debate them. :( #GamerGate pic.twitter.com/EFNc20hNQQ

— Mike Cernovich (@PlayDangerously) May 1, 2015

Second, I knew Kluwe would treat Mercedes with utter disdain in a debate. He did not disappoint. 

Chris didn't wash his clothes, comb his hair, or even listen to Mercedes. The debate was a debacle for Kluwe.

He attempted to bully her, like the pig he is.

Rather than address her with respect, which should be done regardless of the gender of your opponent, he threw tantrums, lied, and mocked Mercedes.

Third, I knew Mercedes would destroy Kluwe, which she did.

I've spoken with her enough to know how smart she is. Underestimate Mercedes at your own risk.

Chris looked terrible. Watch this video to see a sexist pig get spit roasted.

Thanks for playing - or should I say being played - Chris.

UPDATE: Exceeding even my expectations, Chris Kluwe has  resorted to making racist "jokes" about Mercedes Carerra. 

Mercedes is Latina. So...nachos....Get it?

 Ms. Carerra responded to Chris Kluwe's racist with typical poise and strength of character.

Zoe Quinn is being heralded as a helpless victim of the Internet's hate machine. Indeed, Katherine Clark, a Congressional representative for 5th District of Massachusetts, helped Ms. Quinn lie in front of Congress. Yet there's an untold story about Ms. Quinn.

I'm a biased story teller, as I'm the person Zoe Quinn doxed, harassed, and tried having Swatted. Ms. Quinn also lied about me to Congress.

But I'm also a lawyer who understands you, the reader, want evidence for every assertion I make. Thus, I'll share the evidence so you may decide for yourself sort of person Zoe Quinn is:

• She was a member of helldump, a doxing and Swatting board on Something Awful.
• She was caught lying about her involvement with helldump.
• She doxed and attempted to Swat me.
• She posted online threats against herself on 4Chan.
• She lied in a Congressional briefing.

What is the truth about Zoe Quinn?

Zoe Quinn was a member of helldump, a doxing and Swatting message board on Something Awful.

Zoe Quinn was an active participant at helldump, a doxing and Swatting board on Something Awful. At helldump people with a mean streak would  form online hate mobs to terrorize and harass their targets. They took pride in having a confirmed kill.

Helldump members bullied a teenage "furry" into committing suicide. (A "furry" is a member of a subculture who dresses up in animal costumes. It's a little weird, but nothing criminal and certainly not conduct worthy of being bullied to suicide.)

Quinn called her participation in helldump a "crippling addiction," and pondered how she missed it.

"I miss helldump a little." - Zoe Quinn (Archive link.)

I had a "crippling helldump addiction." - Zoe Quinn (Archive link).

Perhaps Ms. Quinn regrets her former online conduct. If so, she should own up and admit to it.

Rather than address criticisms against her, Ms. Quinn has chosen to lie about her considerable history as an online harasser. 

Zoe Quinn now falsely claims she was never a member of helldump.

After being heralded in the media as a victim of online harassment rather than a troll who has harassed people online for years, Ms. Quinn claims she was never a member of helldump. 

As you can see, above, Zoe Quinn was a helldump member. No one has made anything up. She is lying. End of story.

Zoe Quinn continues to harass people online.

Zoe Quinn personally doxed and attempted to SWAT me. As with her proven involvement with helldump, Ms. Quinn claims she never doxed me or attempted to have me Swatted. 

The evidence against Ms. Quinn is overwhelming, indeed the evidence against Ms. Quinn comes from her own Twitter account.

1. Margaret Pless published an article listing my home address and containing a picture that was taken outside of my home. (I've since moved.)

2. Ms. Pless shared the article with Zoe Quinn before she published it.

3. Zoe Quinn Tweeted out a link to her over 30,000 Twitter followers immediately after the article was published (Archive link).

That's as open-and-shut example of a doxing case as it gets, isn't it?

Now it's true I'm a licensed attorney in California. As such I will always have to post my address online.

One might therefore claim my "dox" is fair game.

If all publicly available information can be posted online, then it doesn't make much sense to call out doxing. Who cares, right?

In my view, doxing in itself isn't bad. Who cares if people know where I live, right?

However, Zoe Quinn posted my information online in an attempt to incite her Twitter followers, who she had known from Something Awful and helldump, to SWAT me.

We know Ms. Quinn wanted to SWAT me as she and her friend Margaret Pless later wrote, and Zoe Quinn disseminated, an article encouraging people to call the police on me.

(After doxing me, Zoe Quinn and Margaret Pless tried Swatting me.)

Zoe Quinn continues to lie about her online past. 

Ms. Quinn now claims she was never part of helldump. Quinn's own Twitter acount, as seen in detail above, proves she was part of helldump.

Zoe Quinn's Something Awful chat logs have surfaced. Unsurprisingly, these chat logs provide even more evidence of her involvement in helldump.

Zoe doing damage control over @PlayDangerously's new blog post. BTW Mike here's more Zoe/helldump evidence #GamerGate pic.twitter.com/H9LPffcWx4

— 8 Bit Jerk (@mylittlepwnies3) April 30, 2015

Considering Ms. Quinn widely disseminated an article containing my home address as well as pictures on my home to her over 30,000 Twitter followers, one needn't be a rocket science to conclude helldump is exactly the sort of place Quinn would call home. 

Has Zoe Quinn been threatened or are the threats against her hoaxes?

Since we know Ms. Quinn has a history of trolling and threatening others online, it's not a stretch to wonder if any of the death threats that have allegedly been made against Quinn were made by herself.

It appears Ms. Quinn was once caught red-handed (or in this case middle-fingered) threatening herself. Unfortunately there is no Archive link.

On 4Chan, a board Ms. Quinn has admittedly posted to, this threat was made against her.

"Is she on Pax. I might snuk in to greet her from behind. the only way." (Archive.)

In this image you see something fascinating. Whoever made that threat against Ms. Quinn was also logged into Quinn's Twitter account.

(A higher-resolution image is available here.)

As Quinn never claimed to be hacked, it's clear she was trolling for attention on 4Chan.

That said, some may claim the image was photoshopped. Unfortunately the image was removed from 4Chan, although the post it referenced is available via Archive. (If an Archive link of the picture is made available, I will link to it.)

Given Quinn's considerable history as a troll, it's not hard to imagine her making death threat hoaxes for attention.

Moreover, Ms. Quinn earns her living as a professional victim. She has a Patreon account, which she links to whenever a "death threat" against her is made.

Ms. Quinn is a professional troll rather than professional victim, as it appears she earns money by posting threats against herself.

Zoe Quinn takes her lies to Congress.

As a guest of Congresswoman Katherine Clark, Zoe Quinn appeared for a Congressional briefing. (A briefing can be set up by paying $3,000 a corporation like RAND.)

During this hearing, Ms. Quinn testified (presumably under oath):

"There's actually a cottage industry of people who contribute nothing but hatred of marginalized people who make their living off of being its figureheads and telling them all where to go next. One of them decided it was wise to hire a [private investigator] to stalk my physical location and report back to them, thus making sure I would never go home again."

Quinn later revealed I (Mike Cernovich) was this lawyer who hired a PI to stalk her. I never revealed Quinn's address or "stalked her." 

However, as you can see, I hired a private investigator to figure out who Quinn was after she doxed and attempted to Swat me.

It appears hiring a PI was a prudent move, as Quinn is a sociopath.

Is Zoe Quinn a victim of online bullying or is she the bully?

Zoe Quinn is a con artist and sociopath. Her victims include the judge she lied to in order to obtain an unconstitutional restraining order, the lawyer she conned into helping her get that restraining order, and Congresswoman Katherine Clark.

I have now proven Ms. Quinn doxed me, lied about doxing me, was a member of a doxing and Swatting board helldump, and has lied about her membership of said board.

I have also proven Ms. Quinn lied in front of Congress.

If Representative Katherine Clark wants to continue letting Zoe Quinn lie to Congress, that's an issue for her political opponents to point out.

If the media wants to present Zoe Quinn as the face of online harassment, as a victim rather than perpetrator, then you now know to distrust the media.

The truth is clear.

Zoe Quinn is a troll, liar, con artist, and sociopath.

Who will be her next victim?

If you're ever going to write about free speech on the Internet, expect a lot of bizarre behavior. Be prepared for lies. People will lie about you and then lie about ever having lied about you after they are exposed.

You might even have the police called on you for exercising your First Amendment rights.

For example, a bunch of people including Daily Kos intern Margaret Pless and her friend Zoe Quinn called the Los Angeles Police Department on me and encouraged others to do the same.

They encouraged their followers, who included fellow Something Awful goons and Helldump members to call the police after they had posted my home address as well as pictures of my home online.

What crime had I committed? No crime. Ms. Pless and others took issue with my Tweets.

In fact I have never been contacted by the LAPD, as the complaints were frivolous.

Margaret Pless of Daily Kos now claims she never reported me to the Los Angeles Police Department. As I'm a lawyer, I archive everything to preserve evidence.

Margaret Pless wrote an article that was widely disseminated by others, including Zoe Quinn, entitled: How to Report Mike Cernovich to the LAPD w/o a Single Deadlift.

In this article, Ms. Pless gives her readers detailed instructions on the proper way to file a police report. She even included my eye color and a high resolution photograph of my baby blues:

You can file a police report over the web with the anonymous tip tool I found on the LAPD’s website. It’s quite detailed, so if you’re not sure what color Cernovich’s eyes are you’re welcome to look at my answers or this high-resolution photo of him

Ms. Pless called the cops on me because of my free speech. She concedes this point as her article notes, 

P.S. You can add an image to each complaint you file. I recommend any of these Mike Cernovich tweets.

Ms. Pless' article concludes: 

To report Cernovich’s threats to his local police department, please click here or go to http://lacrimestoppers.com/ and click the “Give a Tip” link on the left. You do not have to give your name to submit a tip.

In what world is writing an article entitled, "How to Report Mike Cernovich to the LAPD w/o a Single Deadlift," which instructs readers how to "report Cernovich to his local police department" not calling the police on someone?

You can read Margaret Pless's full article, in its original form, here.

In a predictable pattern, those who oppose free speech and ethics in journalism have resorted to more unethical tactics. Because I support free speech and GamerGate, I've endured several months of harassment.

In their latest move, anti-#GamerGate advocate Chris Kluwe became a cyber-squatter. 

Why will no media outlet will discuss the harassment I've received?

At this point I can't even keep track of the harassment I've faced. Yet the harassment I've received is different from what others claim to receive. My attackers are not anonymous. They flout the law and common decency in public.

After I expressed my free speech rights under the Constitution, violating no laws, the following has occurred:

• Zoe Quinn posted my home address as well as pictures of my home to members of a Something Awful board called Helldump. Helldump was a SWATting and doxing board on Something Awful, and Quinn was a member.
• Zoe Quinn lied about me in front of Congress and attempted to get me SWATted.
• Margaret Pless, a Daily Kos intern, called the Los Angeles Police Department on me.
• Chris Kluwe encouraged his followers to file frivolous ethics complaints against me with the California State Bar.
• A convicted criminal and friend of social activist Anil Dash threatened to harm me.
• Chris Kluwe also threatened to file a frivolous lawsuit against me.
• Randi Harper falsely accused me of making rape threats.
• A bunch of anti-#GamerGate activists used pictures of me at my lowest point in life in an effort to shame me.

I'm sure there will be more harassment, and I'm sure the gutless hypocrites will refuse to call any of this stuff out.

I'm not a professional victim. I'm not crying or asking for donations.

Yet no ethical or honest person can deny I've been harassed, under any definition of the word currently used.

I'll keep doing me, and you keep being gutless hypocrites pushing a false narrative.

We will see who is left standing.

David Pakman runs a broadcast radio and TV show, and also hosts a YouTube news and commentary site. Known for being hard-hitting, Pakman  thoroughly researches his guests. Before a guest appears on his program, Pakman solicits Twitter for feedback, essentially crowdsourcing his research. Pakman is so thorough that he recently had a guest on to talk about #GamerGate. Pakman confronted this guest with blog posts from over 10 years ago!

Yet it appears Pakman has different rules for different guests. 

Recently Pakman had Chris Kluwe, a former NFL player, on his show. Kluwe is one of those moralists we all know and love. They attempt to throwing lighting bolts down on sinners, when a closer examination reveals they themselves are the biggest sinners.

What did Chris Kluwe know about "underage girls" in "compromising situations"?

For example, Chris Kluwe posted on Twitter that "underage girls" were caught in a "compromising situation" with two Vikings players. Kluwe contined, "Bet you didn't hear about that one in the news. We can do this all day, Vikings. Special teams hears *everything*." Read more, "Chris Kluwe Can't Be Moral Crusader After Cruel Twitter Rant."

Why didn't we "hear about that one in the news"? That would have been a great question to ask Kluwe!

Did Chris Kluwe joke about child rape victims, and if so, why?

According to news reports, "Kluwe used the Sandusky horror in Penn State as the set-up to his joke, which was to walk around the locker room with a hole ripped out of his pants -- in the back, near his rectum -- and said he was a 'Penn State victim.'"

Kluwe seemed to confirm the reports were true, posting on his Twitter, "Over half the team did it for over a month, including asking him if he 'raped any little boys lately,' repeatedly, in front of coaches."

I guess that makes it OK?

Why didn't David Pakman ask Chris Kluwe about the alleged child rape jokes?

It appears that certain questions were off-limits, as Pakman refused to ask Kluwe about two highly controversial and interesting issues. 

How can we know Pakman agreed to not ask certain questions of Chris Kluwe? 

The big reason we know Pakman agreed to refrain from asking certain subjects is because Kluwe signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Vikings. Under this agreement, Kluwe is not allowed to answer these questions. 

Kluwe could not have done the interview unless Pakman agreed to treat these questions as being off limits.

Chris Kluwe threatened to sue me.

Unlike David Pakman, I did not agree to refuse to ask Kluwe hard questions. When I asked him about his failure to report what I interpreted as a rape, he threatened to sue me.

I laughed pretty hard. As Kluwe lives in California, the lawsuit would be struck down under California's very protective anti-SLAPP law.

Kluwe would pay my legal fees while giving me millions in free publicity, as the lawsuit would be international news.

Why didn't David Pakman ask Chris Kluwe about lawsuit threats made against me?

Again, he couldn't.

David Pakman's white lies add up.

After I confronted Pakman with my allegations, he claimed to not know who I am.

That's sort of silly, since Pakman has covered #GamerGate extensively and I have been accused of being a central figure in #GamerGate. Although this is incorrect, my involvement in #GamerGate has been mentioned on MSNBC, Gawker, Newsweek, Boing Boing too many other sites to keep track of

However, Pakman had invited me to be on a guest on his show.

So @dpakman asked me to be on his show before, now claims to not know who I am. Ethical? https://t.co/W4lOAUTpT6 pic.twitter.com/fy3Pc6hyhr

— Mike Cernovich (@PlayDangerously) May 1, 2015

Is David Pakman a journalistic fraud?

Having on a guest and refusing to ask certain hard questions, without disclosing this to viewers, would strike me as highly unethical.

Lying about agreeing to keep certain topics off limits would also be unethical, and in my view fraud.

Pretending not to know who someone you invited on your show as a guest could be faulty memory.

We all make mistakes, and I hope David Pakman owns up to his mistakes, apologizes to his viewers, and moves on stronger than ever.

Heed Warren Buffett, who observed, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."

Another day, another drama. Zoe Quinn recently appeared before some staffers in Congress to lie about me. Luckily for me I am not under an unconstitutional gag order and thus can respond to these lies and misrepresentations.

This is what Ms. Quinn testified to under oath:

"There's actually a cottage industry of people who contribute nothing but hatred of marginalized people who make their living off of being its figureheads and telling them all where to go next. One of them decided it was wise to hire a [private investigator] to stalk my physical location and report back to them, thus making sure I would never go home again."

Ms. Quinn's lover, Alex Lifschitz, revealed I was the lawyer Ms. Quinn was referencing. Let's tell this story once more.

1. Zoe Quinn posted my home address as well as pictures taken outside of my home to her more than 30,000 Twitter followers. The "best GG journalism" article Quinn references was a full dox of me provided by Daily Kos intern and Something Awful "goon" Margaret Pless.

Here is an Archive link of Zoe Quinn's dox of me as well as a screen cap.

2. Zoe Quinn previously belonged to a forum on Something Awful called Helldump. Helldump was a cyber bullying board that had a "confirmed kill," that is, they were able to bully a teenager into suicide.

Here is an Archive link regarding Ms. Quinn's Helldump activities as well as a screen cap of the same.

I was not worried about being "bullied" or anything, but I was concerned with SWATting. SWATting is when goons from Something Awful call in a 9-1-1 emergency to get a laugh or to silence and intimidate their political opponents.

SWATting is attempted murder, as their aim was to get me shot by a SWAT team.

After Quinn posted my address as well as pictures that were taken outside of my home to her more than 30,000 Twitter followers, which included her friends from Something Awful's Helldump board, I left my apartment for a hotel.

3. I posted on Twitter that Ms. Quinn had a chance to explain herself. I asked for an apology. 

4. Instead Quinn gloated at being able to drive me from my home.

5. I hired a private investigator to conduct a risk assessment of Ms. Quinn, her lover Alex Lifschitz, and Daily Kos intern Margaret Pless.

6. Ms. Quinn's assertion that I've stalked her Boston home is a lie. I in fact know her current address in Seattle, and I have no interest in conducting a follow-up investigation, as Ms. Quinn has been relatively well-behaved after it was reported a hacker had obtained a copy of her hard drive. 

7. If you believe anything Zoe Quinn says, you're a gullible fool. If you share her testimony, you are spreading perjury.

In fact, Quinn is such a pathological liar that she now claims she was never a member of Helldump.

You can read more about Zoe Quinn's campaign of harassment.

By the way, harassment does not mean hurting my feelings. Harassment means doxing and attempting to SWAT me.

I can talk trash online with the best of them, and would never complain about fair criticism.

Trying to have me SWATted, as Ms. Quinn sought to do, crosses the line. That seems like such a dull point to make, and yet no media outlet has reported about Zoe Quinn's dox of me.

Lying under oath, which Ms. Quinn has done, also deserves more attention. That also seems very duh, but it appears we live in a world of gullible fools - or worse, outright liars and gutless hypocrites.

When people in #GamerGate throw around the world censorship, lawyers tend to lose their marbles. "Censorship is something only the government can do!"

I don't get why lawyers (I happen to be one, too) get all pissy when non-lawyers use the wrong terms. Law is complicated. Hell, while I'm well-versed on the First Amendment, I even have a First Amendment lawyer to represent me. Who can keep track of it all?

I would be curious, though, to know whether the Charlie Hebdo murders were an example of censorship. Those murders weren't state-sponsored, after all...

Incidentally, the same lawyers who froth at the mouth over the vernacular abuse of the poor word censorship will say, "I plead the Fifth." No one says, "You dummies! You can only plead the fifth when you're in an official proceeding where the government seeks to compel you to incriminate yourself!"

We get it. There's "censorship" and censorship.

There's the sort of "censorship" we all do. I don't post everything that pops in my head. I have some discretion, believe it or not. I self-censor.

There has been a lot of "censorship" surrounding #GamerGate. Forums that were previously open to vigorous debate and discussed deleted tens-of-thousands of posts on a single subject.

Reddit (which has message boards like "Chimp Out" that shock even me) banned discussion of #GamerGate.

Yes, that's "censorship." It's well within the rights of Reddit to "censor," but it is "censorship."

And I don't care.

I don't care about "censorship."

A lot of pro-#GamerGate people tell me about the latest "censorship" going on. They are nice people, and I feel a bit rude saying it, but my general response is, "I don't care. Private parties may do what they please."

Twitter may ban me any day, as is their prerogative. It'd be a stupid move, as playing political favorites would only inspire competitors to create alternatives, but it'd be a stupid move well within Twitter's rights.

I don't even have any problems with the block bots. Wait, you don't know what blockbots are?

Some people decided to create a program that would allow users to automatically block anyone who followed me on Twitter. If you're a lawyer who has never heard of #GamerGate and you follow me on Twitter, your account will be blocked by thousands of people.

It's guilt-by-association. You're a bad person because you may find what I post interesting. (Half of the people who follow me on Twitter don't agree with me; they simply enjoy a compelling spectacle.)

There's even a blockbot based on Richard Dawkins, the preeminent scientist who has managed to offend the same young people who "fucking love science." I know, the cognitive dissonance astounds.

The blockbot is "censorship," in that it prevents thousands of people from being heard. And it's "censorship" I don't give a fuck about.

The only censorship I care about is the kind the government engages in.

(Well I would classify violent acts by private parties as real censorship, too.)

I have been reported to the California State Bar for my free speech. Is trying to get the government to punish me for my speech censorship?

I have had the Los Angeles Police Department called on me for my speech. Is trying to get me SWATted censorship? Hell, is having the police politely knock on my door for my speech still not an example of censorship?

I have been falsely accused of crimes based on my speech. Are false accusations of criminal wrongdoing examples of censorship?

Where are my white knights? Why aren't the white knights who call me out also calling out the people who have attempted to have police sent to my home based on my speech?

Funny how life works, isn't it?

In #GamerGate you have real, actual, big time censorship.

But since it's happened to a straight white man, no one cares.

Yet you expect me to care about your issues.

Or to think you have any intellectual integrity.

You're not fooling anyone - not even yourselves.

Censorship has made us stronger.

If I showed you my analytics, you'd feel a little jealous. 

I've had single Tweets receive over 200,000 impressions, and I am but one pro-#GamerGate man. I'm not even a "big deal" in #GamerGate. Lord knows how many page views the big names are getting.

(This lone Tweet about the SWATting attempt made on my life received 218,000 page views.)

The more you censor us, the more we will speak out. 

Cops called on me? I don't care. I'm still speaking.

State Bar called on me? I don't care. I'm still here and I'm not going anywhere.

Gawker articles written about what a bad person I am? I LOL'ed all the way to increased readership.

Thank you for censoring Reddit, 4Chan, and other sides.

Because of your efforts, I've met thousands of really good people.

And we have all agreed to set aside our political differences (I'm libertarian, most pro-#GamerGate people are left-leaning) to fight for free speech.

Funny how life works, isn't it?

P.S. If you care about real censorship, you can fight censorship by fighting Nevada's anti-SLAPP law.