While on its surface, it appears that the proliferation of Pepe and its appropriation of racist rhetoric by online trolls is a means to promote a racist agenda, this is not likely to be the case. Self-evidently, when a hate group makes hate speech, they are doing so to promote the agenda of the hate itself. The speech intends, as its objective, to result in proliferating hate, stereotypes or the marginalization of an ethnic group. However, with the Pepe memes, this is not the goal of such speech, even when combined with white nationalist or racist themes. Its goals are stated by the movement itself as follows: to “reclaim” the meme from mainstream culture by marginalizing the meme itself. It is reasonable to conclude that the primary agenda of the appropriation of white nationalist rhetoric with the Pepe meme is related to speech itself, not to promote racism or anti-semitism. In fact, despite being identified as an “anonymous white nationalist” by Hillary Clinton and other media sources, notable Pepe enthusiast and Twitter user @JaredTSwift has indicated that he is of Jewish heritage and that his “white supremacism” is openly a parody.

How the Pepe meme relates to speech itself through racist symbolism is multifaceted and complicated. And I can not begin to try to cover all aspects in this short article. However, I will attempt a brief overview. There are several primary arguments as to what the goal of such speech might be. One possibility is to shock the reader. Another is to lull the reader into a culture of hate. Another is to marginalize the speech itself as to lose mainstream appeal. And another may be to make a stand about free speech and anonymity on the internet.

I will certainly admit that there are opportunists in white supremacist movements who are taking advantage of the Pepe meme for their own racist agenda; they lull others into subscribing to their agenda. This includes former KKK grand wizard David Duke and many anonymous meme makers and self-proclaimed white nationalists. However, I believe that this is better characterized as of a symbiosis of speech, rather than an adoption of a white nationalist agenda or a full appropriation of the meme by white nationalists. And that the white nationalists have been lampooned by the Pepe meme just as much as the left has been. It is more appropriate to say that the meme has appropriated white nationalism for the purpose of satire rather than the white nationalists appropriating the meme for the purpose of a racist agenda. This is a significant distinction and its confusion is at the heart of the irony of the use of racist rhetoric in the meme.

“It is more appropriate to say that the meme has appropriated white nationalism for the purpose of satire rather than the white nationalists appropriating the meme for the purpose of a racist agenda.”

However, now that the left has created mainstream sentiment for the use of Pepe as a symbol of hatred, and its adoption into the ADL database of hate symbols, we might now expect that white nationalist and racist groups may in fact, un-ironically adopt Pepe as a symbol of hate which represents their ideals. This of course, should be the opposite intention of the left. But in fact, the left is empowered by marginalizing hate groups just has hate groups are empowered by marginalizing minorities. The left, especially Hillary Clinton, should not be tempted to re-categorize free speech issues as race issues, as it specifically points out their very faults regarding the arena of public discourse and the rights associated with the first amendment of the constitution.

The agenda of appropriating racist rhetoric into the meme is, in the long term, to marginalize the Pepe meme itself, to “reclaim it from the normies”. Furthermore, in the short term, one might say that each individual Pepe meme that incorporates hate symbolism, is meant to shock, to troll, it is meant to counteract the “safe space” mentality of the left, and it is meant as a vestige of discourse on taboo or depraved topics. The motivation being that no matter how heinous an ideology, there should be a platform for discussion of any and all ideologies or we lose the very essence of what it means to participate in a democracy as free speech erodes around us. That even though espousing “deplorable” ideologies might not be the most popular ideology to espouse, the real ideology behind the rhetoric is the right to espouse any ideology one wishes without legal repercussions. And furthermore, it is the left’s refusal to recognize the difference between hate speech and rhetorical devices such as satire and irony that concedes the fact that regulating speech is the problem, not the speech itself.