Journalist doxes popular Twitter account @neontaster, white nationalists rejoice
On January 11th, popular anonymous Twitter user @neontaster was doxed by former Young Turks reporter Michael Tracey.
Addressing his followers, @neontaster explained that Tracey’s threat to reveal his identity first began last February, with Tracey sending him an email stating, “I believe I have ascertained your identity … I believe it would be journalistically valid to reveal it given the platform you have accrued.”
The doxing comes after @neontaster asked Tracey to stop following him on Twitter—a reaction prompted by Tracey openly insulting him. Tracey began to leak details about @neontaster’s identity immediately, and within an hour of their interaction, the former TYT reporter published a thread revealing the identity of the then-anonymous user.
The recent spat between Tracey and @neontaster stems in-part from a disagreement over Tracey’s outspoken support for the Iranian regime. In the wake of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq by Iranian-backed militia in December, Tracey took it upon himself to become an ardent defender of the Iranian regime, which only a day ago admitted to shooting down a civilian airliner amidst its brief bombing campaign of U.S. bases in Iraq following President Trump’s removal of its top general, Qasem Soleimani, from the battlefield.
@neontaster took a contrasting position, not advocating for war or regime change, but speaking in favour of punitive action against the Iranian regime for its repeated attacks on American military personnel stationed in the Middle East.
The disagreement came to a head as Tracey first threatened to unmask @neontaster, followed up by a tweet purportedly revealing the pseudonymous commentator’s personal identity and that of his uncle.
Following Tracey’s doxing of @neontaster, the former TYT contributor remained unapologetic in the face of widespread condemnation. He wrote: “I will always feel great about seeking to identify the influence of prominent neoconservatives in DC and media power structure. If you are offended by that, I am glad. Cry about it.”
In subsequent responses, @neontaster highlighted what he felt was an anti-Semitic current below the surface of Tracey’s actions. The term “neocon” has been weaponized by white nationalists to refer to Jewish people engaged in politics. White supremacist academic Kevin MacDonald published a thesis outlining “Neoconservatism as a Jewish movement.” As a result, the use of the term, especially when directed at Jewish people, remains sensitive.
Disturbingly, white nationalists on Twitter have taken to celebrate Tracey’s exposé and labelling of @neontaster as supposed “neocon.”
Among the first to signal his support for Tracey’s doxing efforts of @neontaster was alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer, who notably added an Iranian flag to his Twitter profile and publicly “regretted” supporting Donald Trump in 2016.
Other anti-Semitic and white nationalist Twitter users chimed in, even those who admitted to never having heard of @neontaster’s account before the doxing.
Efforts to unmask @neontaster’s private identity are not new. White nationalists belonging to the “Groyper” movement—allies and followers of self-described “paleoconservative” Nicholas J. Fuentes, notable for his anti-Semitic views, were previously responsible for outing @neontaster’s identity following his outspoken criticism of their involuntarily celibate messiah.
When reached for comment about his efforts to chill @neontaster’s presence and speech on social media by outing him publicly, Tracey denied that his actions were inappropriate, claiming “journalistic validity” because of the other user’s familial ties. Tracey’s comments in full are provided here, with redaction of @neontaster’s personal information:
When asked for his comments on the ordeal, @neontaster encouraged people read the interactions that lead to the doxing before forming an opinion.
“I think the facts speak for themselves, and people are welcome to go read his tweets and decide whether he was acting in good faith or not.”
Trudeau purchased some doughnuts recently at a local doughnut shop in Winnipeg. You’d think that wouldn’t make the news with all the more prescient issues at hand but it seems the pettier the better in our clickbait world. Critics wasted no time chastizing the prime minister for his decision to buy doughnuts on taxpayer dollars.
I want to be clear that I don’t like Justin Trudeau. I didn’t vote for him the first time around. I didn’t like that he ran on his father’s legacy. I don’t like his pious cadence. I don’t like his inability to answer basic questions. He is at worst corrupt and at best, a plug.
One thing I do like, however, is consistency. I want people to hold one another to the same standards as they would anybody else. The political polarization that is often discussed in regards to the United States has undeniably seeped into our home and native land as well. People get in their camps, left or right, and they stay there. Wilful blindness, logic twisting and “whataboutisms” plague the public discourse and there is no better platform to sling mud than Twitter.
It has become increasingly clear that in today’s political climate you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The Liberals are having a cabinet retreat in Winnipeg and Trudeau stepped out to grab some doughnuts and no doubt a much-needed photoshoot. He and the shop in question, Oh Doughnuts posted about the transaction and lo and behold people on the internet got upset about it.
I don’t wish to advertise for bitter Twitter users in this article but if you happen to be a fan of faux outrage, the hashtag is #doughnutgate. In this thread, you’ll find people whining away, primarily about the cost of the doughnuts which came in at a whopping $47 a dozen. That is what we are squabbling about, the difference of thirty some odd dollars it would have cost if he’d bought the doughnuts at Tim Hortons.
Tim Hortons, the famously Brazilian-owned coffee and doughnut chain was surely open and operating just as close by many complained, so why didn’t he go there and save his compatriots the pocket money? Because he’s an elitist, that’s why. It could also be that Tim Horton’s employees in Winnipeg are currently on strike or the franchisee refusing to raise their wages. It could be because the Prime Minister wanted to photo-op of him shopping locally.
I don’t understand why or how, any Canadian could criticize a politician for shopping locally, I can’t even play devil’s advocate momentarily on that one.
Sure the guy likes to spend our money, there are plenty of vacation receipts to prove that, but it’s important to separate the wheat from the chaff.
One Twitter critic complained about the fact that Trudeau was out shopping himself, claiming he could have got one of his assistants to run the errand. The tweet also opened with “Elitist Trudeau.” It’s hard wrap your head around some of this stuff. How can a politician be elitist for not sending his assistant to run an errand but instead opting for a chance to connect with his fellow citizen? It’s absurd.
Again, I’m no fan of Trudeau or of politicians in general for that matter but my disdain for hypocrisy far outweighs any political leanings. I wonder how positively effective social media could be as a forum for communication if the majority of users weren’t operating through an us vs. them scope. The truth of the matter is that we all have more things in common than we do things uncommon.
The next time a politician, or anybody for that matter that you don’t like is doing something just ask yourself, “how would I feel if it was my politician or my friend in this exact scenario?” I’d be willing to bet it would change your perception of it a great deal.
I think we’d all be a step closer to harmony if we seek truth and fairness over a momentary ‘victory.’
I was never a gun person. I didn’t want them in my house because I have curious kids, but I was fine with others having firearms. Until recently, I was content with my Louisville Slugger next to my nightstand.
Crime in Seattle has gotten so bad that we brought armed guards to Jewish cemeteries to protect children and veterans placing flags for the fallen on Memorial Day. Drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, substance abusers and others, have been desecrating the grounds on a nightly basis.
Armed guards are nothing new to Jews. They are present at synagogues, schools and community events. Unfortunately, because of our religious beliefs, we are always a target. The observant Jewish community enjoys a close connection with law enforcement. At the beginning of the year, 90,000 Jews attended an event called Siyum Hashas at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey celebrating the completion of the 7.5 year cycle of learning the Talmud. The police captain in charge of security called Rabbi Yosef Chaim Golding, CEO of the event, confirming that there were zero incidents at the event, but also that “…his ‘troopers have worked millions of events, but they NEVER felt so appreciated as they felt yesterday”.
This event coincided with a string of anti Semitic attacks in New York and New Jersey. The suspects, who had priors on their records, were arrested, some quickly released and subsequently re-arrested for committing new crimes, thanks to New York’s new bail reform.
According to the New York Post: “The legislation requires arraignment judges to set free suspects in any non-sexual assault that doesn’t actually cause a physical injury, even in cases of hate crime attacks. The no-injury loophole will mean a quick get-out-of-jail-free card for all but one of the accused attackers in the eight Hanukkah-timed, anti-Semitic bias crimes that have terrified the city’s Orthodox communities.”
These kind of “reforms” have been in action in Seattle for several years under a program called Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD): While I would love to use their own words to tell you what they do, their King County Website says: “The Seattle-King County LEAD website is currently being revamped and will be shortly updated and relaunched.”
What LEAD claims it does is divert people who don’t belong in jail, to other programs to transition them back into society. This program has won awards and been cited as something to expand and replicate across the country.
When LEAD asked to meet with me last year to explain their operations, the director could not answer my basic questions about the program. How many people are in the program? How many people were back as contributing members of society? How many people returned to crime? No answers were given or available for these very simple questions. I have run several non profits and I knew every stat about each organization backwards and forwards.
The visuals on the streets of Seattle do not match LEAD’s claims of success. Almost every day there is another story of an attack, including on tourists and businesses. Business groups were so fed up that they commissioned System Failure: Report on Prolific Offenders in Seattle’s Criminal Justice System. The report showcases 100 Prolific offenders with multiple arrests, one as many as 74, who are continuously released. These offenders account for a large portion of the crime in downtown Seattle. Since the report was published, the majority of the “Prolific Offenders” have continued to cycle through Seattle’s “revolving door” justice system. LEAD funding has been put on hold by the Mayor pending a review by an outside consultant on the effectiveness of the program.
The report reminded me of the “Squeegee Men” who terrorized New York during the 1980s. These people were your first impression of New York when coming off the highway, as they started cleaning your windshield and would get violent if you told them “no”. It seemed as if there were thousands of them, but when NYPD started cracking down, it was discovered that there were only a few hundred Squeegee Men, who usually had criminal records. Under the Giuliani and Bloomberg mayoral administrations, the Squeegee Men were taken off the streets. Now under the DeBlasio Administration, they have made a comeback. Just like Seattle has seen a major spike in crime and boasts a property crime rate two-and-a-half times Los Angeles and four Times New York. “Progressive” politicians are making the problem worse and our cities more dangerous.
Peter Weyand, broke into a girls dorm at Yeshiva University in Manhattan and began setting fires in the building. According to the New York Post “he was released without bail following his arrest—only to be sprung again when he was allegedly caught trespassing on Staten Island hours later. He was also busted and let go after allegedly menacing a Brooklyn housemate on Dec. 5—sharpening a knife outside their door while calling out, ‘Here, piggy, piggy, piggy!’ according to police.”
When there is a failure of government to protect its own citizens, citizens will take their safety into their own hands. According to the Washington Examiner, Gun permit applications surged nearly 1,000 percent in New York’s Jewish community since the 13 anti-Semitic attacks in December.
When I ran for Seattle City Council, my family received multiple death threats. Strange phone calls. Doxxing of my home and office. As far as I know, I was the only candidate for Seattle City Council out of 57, who needed security guards. Ring doorbells and baseball bats were not going to cut it. My 12-year-old son asked if he could have a knife to protect his family from the people that were trying to kill us.
Ironically, the threats against my family came from believers of an ideology that is against gun ownership. I continue to receive threats, especially from Antifa who claim to be anti-fascist and are anything but, even though the campaign had been over for months. My family and I were being targeted because we are Jewish not because of my politics. Extremist actions like these, against an individual who does not have strong feelings on an issue, will cause a person to be more supportive of an ideology they don’t identify with because that is who is advocating for them.
When I hear about attacks with a body count on a religious institution, I always assume there were no members “carrying”. This is the new normal for Jewish life in America. I am troubled by the new legislation targeting legal gun owners in Washington and Virginia. None of the legislation they are proposing will do anything to make Jews or Non Jews safer. New York and New Jersey have some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, and that did not stop determined attackers. Meanwhile, Jews who want to protect themselves, have a very difficult time applying for firearms permits because of these laws. As long as people are intent on killing us, and “progressive” politicians continue to put us at risk, we need the ability to protect ourselves.
The New York Times endorsement of both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president has been lauded and critiqued, but no take is quite as inane and Lauren Duca’s. Writing for The Independent, Duca takes an essential tack linking womanhood with virtuosity, love, nurturing, and maternal values. These are what Duca believes we need in the highest office, and apparently qualities which are the purview of women at large.
Duca believes that women will bring “unconditional love” to the conference table. She thinks women have less greed and avarice, and that while “the divine feminine is beyond that binary, best understood as the force of nurturing,” gender is a social construct.
It’s surprising that both of these views can exist concurrently within one cohesive ethos. Gender isn’t real, apparently, because it’s made up by society to sell us prescribed notions for what men and women are, but femininity brings with it a form of divinity that is localized within women and those who believe they are women, even though womanhood isn’t really anything specific. Are we all clear? No?
Duca opines: “America, as it stands, is not even pretending to be a free country. We are living in an oligarchy structured by the hierarchy of the white, supremacist patriarchy, and this is where toxic masculinity has led us.”
How can a person of such privilege, who gets to write for fancy platforms, teach adjunct classes, and traipse around the world on tour for a book that doesn’t even sell any copies, claim that America is not a free country? How can a person who has benefited so greatly precisely because of her status as an identitarian grievance monger make the assertion that we live in a white supramacist oligarchy? Isn’t this all getting a little old?
Under the guise of elevating women, Duca puts them right back in their place. Probably she thinks she’s lifting women up by saying that they can achieve world peace and stop World War 3 before it’s begun in a way that men, with their penchant toward toxicity, haven’t been able to do. If men aren’t better suited to office on the basis of their sex, then neither are women. Sex isn’t a characteristic upon which votes should be based.
If a woman were elected on the basis of her sex, and she didn’t magically fix all the social ills with one SCOTUS nom and a few passes of her magical bill signing pen under the light of the full moon in the Rose Garden, how could the US ever justify electing another? Women are fallible, not magical. Y’know, just like other people.
Women are people, with aspirations, faults, wishes, wills, and a drive to succeed. To count them as anything other does their humanity a disservice. Duca writes: “I think it makes a difference if the person at the helm of this transformation is a woman, because of the lessons learned by anyone who has a female perspective on our crisis of toxic masculinity.”
But that doesn’t actually mean anything.
Duca, of course, has been a longtime culture warrior on the woke side—a true believer who has offered up hot take after hot take espousing the most incoherent of woke talking points like “Sean Spicer’s Emmys Cameo Wasn’t a Joke—It’s Dangerous,” or “Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America.”
Duca then had her own turn in the barrel, when her entire NYU class revolted because she was not woke enough. Apparently she hasn’t learned the lessons that you can never be woke enough, and that the woke will devour themselves in the end.
The word “woke” has been bandied around in progressive circles since the early 2010s. Ironically, “woke” has become a pejorative term used to denigrate those who signal their virtue without doing much to advance any progressive cause. Woke individuals are, as the rule (that I just invented) goes, more concerned with making themselves look good and using their platform (or building a platform) to abuse others under the guise of combating social injustice.
None of this has, of course, gone unnoticed by the woke progressives who use the term without any sense of irony whatsoever. In an op-ed for the Guardian, writer Steve Rose opines that the word “woke” has been “weaponized by the right.” But whose fault is that, exactly? It’s certainly not the fault of those tired of being moralized and lectured to that they might repurpose the term to mock those who engage in cancel campaigns against any celebrity or public figure guilty of perceived unwokeness.
Citing the Merriam-Webster, Rose says that the term “woke” refers to anyone “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” And much like the term “political correctness,” the term has come to mean the opposite of what it means—or so he claims.
But is that truly the case? Those who elevate themselves through wokeness have little interest in combating social injustices and simply use it as a shield for their own bigotry, and to shut down dissenting opinions. Their wokeness, if it exists at all, is performative.
This isn’t to say that one can simply go about spouting racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise bigoted remarks without pushback from any decent and reasonable person. Decent and reasonable people don’t care about being “woke.” “Woke” individuals, as it were, cultivate their entire personalities around the fight for social justice without much to show for it besides preening at everyone else on Twitter.
Wokeness has become a social status symbol more than anything else, and the “Right,” or the “unwoke,” or whatever you want to call us continue to be reasonable people while rubbing our lack of wokeness in the face of those who rally around the hollow symbol.
Case in point: Guardian writer, Steve Rose, attacks actor Laurence Fox for—you guessed it, unwokeness. He writes:
“Laurence Fox nailed his colours to the latter mast this weekend, doubling down on his defence of the privileged white male on last week’s Question Time to a Sunday Times article under the banner ‘Why I won’t date ‘woke’ women’. Toby Young piled in, applauding how Fox was ‘terrorising the Wokerati’, while the Sun last weekend branded Harry and Meghan ‘the oppressive King and Queen of Woke’.”
Rose argues that rather than simply rejecting the concept of wokeness, detractors of the term, like Fox, only criticize wokeness as “way of claiming victim status for yourself rather than acknowledging that more deserving others hold that status. It has gone from a virtue signal to dog whistle.”
On the contrary, any individual who makes claims to wokeness isn’t so much of a victim as they are a participant in the race for social status. Being unwoke doesn’t give you an entry pass into a separate league of oppression.
Laurence Fox has been outspoken in his lack of wokeness, simply speaking his mind and saying it like it is with no regard for how supposedly offensive it is to not be mindful to those who hold wokeness up as a virtue in and of itself. He isn’t claiming to be a victim—like any decent and reasonable person, he’s rejecting victimhood entirely. And it’s working.