Dallas Humber, American terrorist

Another vile human being has been dragged into the light. This woman has been promoting terrorism and encouraging mass murderers for decades, while hiding behind online anonymity. Left Coast Right Watch has done an amazingly thorough job of tracking her down — online anonymity isn’t as safe as she thought.

Over the past few years, she was simply known as “the narrator”—the disembodied voice that reads mass murderer manifestos, how-to guides on attacking critical infrastructure and collections of short essays written by an anonymous collective of white supremacists and accelerationists—the people hell-bent on causing the collapse of society.

Her name is Dallas Erin Humber, and she’s deeply involved with the online network of violent, militant bigots known as Terrorgram.

Here she is with her Nazi pedophile (why do those two words go together so often?) boyfriend, Jason Gant.

This is a doxxing I fully support. She’s the voice behind this thing called the Terrorgram Collective, an online group for the cheering fans of terrorism, murder, and mass destruction which has inspired at least one mass killing. Humber is a cheerleader for the worst, most contemptible people on the planet. I won’t quote her screeds — they make me sick, and probably would nauseate you, too — but if you must, the link above includes many excerpts from her sordid history, and there’s more here.

It’s not clear what more can be done about her, though. She’s a 33 year old woman living a normal public life in Sacramento, California, while inciting international violence under a cowardly pseudonym. Will exposing her have any discouraging effect at all? It’s not at all clear what it will do, other than give CPAC an opportunity to invite her to next year’s conference, and it looks like the law isn’t rushing forward to shut her down.

It’s also unclear whether Humber — now that her role in Terrorgram has been exposed — could or would be prosecuted. In the landmark Supreme Court ruling Brandenberg vs. Ohio, the court ruled that advocacy of violence could be punished only “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Arusha Gordon — associate director of the James Byrd Jr. Center to Stop Hate at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law — told HuffPost that it can be a high hurdle for prosecutors to jump to prove that certain incitements are “likely” to produce “imminent” violence.

It might be tough, for example, to demonstrate that Humber encouraging her followers to commit acts of terror amounts to an “imminent” threat in court. The Terrorgram Collective’s propaganda doesn’t always declare a specific, upcoming date for its followers to do terror.

So far, we’ll just have to settle for the fact that the world knows her name, where she lives, and what she looks like, and that her hatred will be scrutinized.


  1. StevoR says

    Can she not be jaield for domestic terrorism? Inciting violence? Really?

    Even in the US of A aren’t there applicable laws that would get her arrested & jailed here?

  2. kevinv says

    In the US speech inciting violence is protected unless it is inciting “imminent lawless action” and the imminent is important. Saying “we should beat people up tomorrow, next week, in 2 hours” isn’t imminent enough. The US sees it as: If people have time to consider their decisions then the act of violence is their own fault and not the speakers.

    The closest actual case we’re seeing to not being protected on imminent violence is probably Trump’s Jan 6 speech which effectively said “March to the capital right now and make me president” and that hasn’t been decided yet.


  3. silvrhalide says

    I see from the first photo that they are both using the same bottle of bleach for hair purposes. If only they would both drink it.

    Serious question: any chance that Humber could be arrested as an accessory to her pedophile Nazi boyfriend’s active pedophilia? Asking because Humber isn’t his legal wife; spousal protections in the US only apply to actual spouses.

    Jerry Sandusky’s wife Dottie escaped prosecution because American law says a spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other spouse.
    Given that Humber shares a home and possibly a computer with her Nazi pedophile boyfriend, can she be charged as an accessory, since under those circumstances, she would almost certainly know about the CSAM?

  4. rietpluim says

    Please don’t confuse pedophilia and child abuse. If Gant is a child abuser, then call him that. Otherwise his sexual orientation is irrelevant.

  5. silvrhalide says

    @4 I’m not confusing them. Jerry Sandusky is both a pedophile and a violent rapist of children. Therefore, he is both.

    From the link:
    “Gant has racked up multiple arrests and charges over the years, the most serious of which was for possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM, commonly referred to as “child pornography”) depicting children under the age of 14. According to a February 2010 article in the Elk Grove Citizen, Jason Gant was arrested when the contents of his laptop were discovered to contain roughly 100 different video files, five of which clearly depicted CSAM when previewed by the investigators who were serving a search warrant at his residence. When Gant was arrested, he and Humber were living with her mother and he was on probation for felony charges stemming from the couple’s 2008 arrests. ”

    If Gant only had fantasized about creepy child porn and did nothing else, he’d be in the clear.
    Instead, he was an active user/viewer of CSAM. That, in the eyes of the law, effectively makes him a participant, no different than the people who took videos of the Steubenville rape and shared them. It doesn’t matter that the people who took the videos weren’t actually raping the victim. They were still, in the eyes of the law, participants in a crime. If other people viewed those videos and didn’t report them immediately, they are criminals also. Whether Gant is a participant in the videos or only a viewer–the link doesn’t say or otherwise clarify–what he did is still considered participatory. Therefore, he is both a child abuser and a pedophile. And his sexual orientation is certainly not irrelevant to the crime, it’s the reason for it. Finding out that Gant had a coprophagic fetish (just as an example) would be irrelevant.

  6. silvrhalide says

    @4 Child abuse takes many forms–criminal neglect, imprisonment, physical abuse, sexual abuse. Not all child abuse is sexual. Having pedophile fantasies isn’t a crime. Acting on those fantasies IS. Active vs. passive.

  7. michaelcrichton says

    Why is it that neo-nazis are_always_ the sort of people that their idols would have purged for ‘personal degeneracy’? As a wise man once said “In a real Fourth Reich you’ll be the first to go”.

  8. says

    Why is it that neo-nazis are_always_ the sort of people that their idols would have purged for ‘personal degeneracy’?

    None of the original Nazi leaders even came close to measuring up to the Aryan ideal. Hitler was a small man with dark hair, Goering was an overweight drug addict, Goebbels had a clubfoot, Himmler was a meek little chicken farmer with bad eyesight…
    There were some degenerates in the hierarchy as well.
    The people who become enthralled with this kind of bullshit can overlook a lot of “flaws” in their heroes. They seem to see them with something akin to beer goggles. I can’t help but wonder if there are paintings depicting Hitler as a giant, muscular he-man waving a machine gun, stomping on his enemies’ throats.

  9. birgerjohansson says

    Our Swedish neo-nazis are a pathetic lot.
    (And our extreme islamist wankers are often recruited from among petty criminals, with a history of drinking and drug use)

    In the Third Reich they would at most have been fit as undifferentiated cannon fodder, not the elite units they read about.

  10. says

    feralboy: There were paintings of Hitler, standing tall in a a sharp-looking uniform, looking strong and resolute though not muscular. He wasn’t shown waving a gun or stomping on anyone, because he was the man in charge, leading from above the fray.

  11. birgerjohansson says

    Anyone who makes manga fan art of Mengele standing outside the entrance of Auschwitz has opted out of mainstream society.
    There should be warning signs around the place where she lives.

    BTW a Florida sheriff recently made it clear that the nazi group that has been making a nuisance of themselves will not be welcome in his patch, in the strongest possible terms.
    I don’t care if he votes Republican, Florida needs more people like him, in contrast to EvilSantis.

  12. robro says

    silvrhalide @ #3 — Of course she can be charged with crimes this guy is involved with, if there’s evidence that she’s participating in them. She could be charged even if they were married, and there are circumstances where a person can be forced to testify against their spouse.

  13. DanDare says

    The US needs to change its laws. Inciting violence should not be ok if people “have time to consider their actions”. Inciting violence plays to people who act regardless of having time to or not. Inciting violence can be expected to lead to violence.

  14. silvrhalide says

    @13 Thanks for answering but I was asking if anyone knew if she could be charged if she knew about Gant’s pedophilia/CSAM. Sure, she can be charged if she participates, that’s kind of a given. But in the US, even knowing about someone’s active pedophiliac actions is a crime. You don’t have to participate in pedophilia to be charged with a crime, you just have to know about it and say nothing/take no action. Dottie Sandusky knew, or at the very least, should have known/could reasonably be expected to know beyond a reasonable doubt. (One of Jerry Sandusky’s victims thought–wrongly–that the Sandusky basement was soundproofed, because there was no way that Dottie Sandusky could not have heard his screams. So yeah, should have known.) But Dottie Sandusky invoked spousal privilege, which meant that she could not be forced to testify against her husband and there were no actual charges against her, just her husband. Spousal privilege doesn’t apply to Humber, because she’s not actually a spouse. So my question is, for anyone with better knowledge of the particulars, how much “know or should have known” is required to charge (and ideally) convict HER.

  15. StevoR says

    @8. feralboy12 : “The people who become enthralled with this kind of bullshit can overlook a lot of “flaws” in their heroes. They seem to see them with something akin to beer goggles. I can’t help but wonder if there are paintings depicting Hitler as a giant, muscular he-man waving a machine gun, stomping on his enemies’ throats.”

    Do you really want that answered? Probly. I’m sure there are neo-nazis out there who would want to have and create such artwork or get an AI to do it. Not sure if AI’s would have programming against that? Yeah, not googling that to see myself. It’s bad enough seeing the fictional MAGA art of Trump.

  16. StevoR says

    @ rietpluim : “Please don’t confuse pedophilia and child abuse. If Gant is a child abuser, then call him that. Otherwise his sexual orientation is irrelevant.”

    As others here have already noted pedophilia is a form of child abuse – at least if acted on – and is NOT an orientation.

    @ DanDare :

    The US needs to change its laws. Inciting violence should not be ok if people “have time to consider their actions”. Inciting violence plays to people who act regardless of having time to or not. Inciting violence can be expected to lead to violence.

    YES! Quoted for truth.

  17. silvrhalide says

    “The American Psychological Association maintains that pedophilia is a mental disorder; that sex between adults and children is always wrong; and that acting on pedophilic impulses is and should be a criminal act. The American Psychological Association has worked for many years to prevent child sexual abuse and will continue to do so.”

    DSM-5 provided a dimensional model of personality disorders which may be more clinically informative for the assessment and management of prisoners than a categorical one, as diagnoses of personality disorders alone cannot explain the type of violence. The role of DSM-5 personality facets is however understudied in child molesters, and no study compared these clinical features between individuals who have committed sex crime against children and those who have committed other types of crime. The present study compared DSM-5 personality trait facets between prisoners who had committed sex crime against children, prisoners who had committed property crime (i.e., robbery, fraud) and those who had committed crime against the person (i.e., homicide, assault or violence not implying a sexual element). A further aim was to explore which facets were associated with sex crime against children as compared with the other types of crime, controlling for socio-demographics (age, gender), psychiatric comorbidity (presence of any psychiatric diagnoses) and general psychopathy traits.

    According to DSM-IV-TR, for a diagnosis of pedophilia, there must be both a qualitative difference in sexual makeup (i.e., sexualized urges directed toward children) and a quantitative difference (i.e., the sexualized urges must be intense). However, just as a heterosexual man with low (i.e., nonintense) sexual urges is still heterosexual, DSM-5 should similarly allow that individuals with low sexual urges in response to children qualify for a diagnosis of pedophilia.

    Pedophilic Disorder: Causes, Symptoms, Treatment DSM-5 302.2 (F65.4)
    Pedophilic disorder pertains to both individuals who freely disclose this paraphilic interest and individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubescent children—or those 13 years and younger—despite substantial evidence of the attraction. For example, an individual who openly acknowledges that their sexual interest in children is real and greater than their sexual interest in older, mature individuals, is someone who discloses this paraphilia. If this same individual complains that this interest is causing psychosocial difficulties, only then may they be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. If they do not feel guilt, shame, or anxiety related to these interests and have never acted on these impulses, they can be characterized as having pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder. And an individual who denies their interest in children but clearly seeks them out and does foster this interest may still be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder.

  18. birgerjohansson says

    Turning anger to something condtructive: Anti-vaxxers that get children killed or disabled.

    In God Awful Movies Eli Bosnick’s suggestion to set up a GoFundMe to finance a reward for anyone who kills anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield was met without enthusiasm by the group’s lawyer.

    His other suggestion – making T shirts with the text “Kill Andrew Wakefield!” together with his address was no hit either.

  19. birgerjohansson says

    There are a lot of empty seats at CPAC.
    Maybe we should buy her and her husband tickets next time around to fill up the seats. They should fit right in.

  20. says


    You brought up the case of Jerry Sandusky. About five or six years ago PZ did a post about a review of a book claiming Sandusky was innocent published on Michael Shermer’s skeptic.com website. PZ was very dismissive of it. I was kind of surprised to find something that was 180 degrees away from the popular perception, so I did some looking into it and sort of became hooked on the story. I’ve found there is an incredible amount of very well documented material. Most of it comes from John Ziegler, but there’s lots of other serious people doing work on the case. I find the case to be an amazing, interesting, intricate and ongoing story. In fact, Sandusky has a long evidentiary hearing coming up. I like to call it the best miniseries on the internet and I’ve been trying to get fans of the recently ended Better Call Saul interested in it. There’s an epic 70 plus hour podcast series called With the Benefit of Hindsight. Bob Costas (who did the ill-fated phone interview with Sandusky) calls in on his own to be included.

    What most people remember about the case is that assistant coach Mike McQueary saw Sandusky sodomizing a boy in a Penn State shower as described in the illegally leaked grand jury presentment. We now know this was false! We have emails between McQueary and prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach with him saying he did not witness sodomy.


    What happened was that he heard slapping sounds that he suspected might’ve been sodomy. The actual boy in the shower came forward to Sandusky’s lawyer and made a sworn statement that the slapping sounds were towel snapping and slap boxing. He also wrote letters to local newspapers in support of Sandusky. But his mother worked for a lawyer who got him and a bunch of other accusers multi-million dollar settlements. He disappeared for the rest of the trial until he was subpoenaed to an appeal hearing.

    To sum up, the whole case is mass hysteria caused by the moral panic induced by that false grand jury presentment. All the documents relating to the $100 million in settlements were leaked (most likely by a disgusted Board of Trustees member) and show all the claims to be scams or discredited recovered memory therapy. That ‘locked in the basement’ claim is Sebastian Paden. When he made his claim for a settlement, he wrote on his Facebook page, “Shit I’m balling like a mother fuck man hell yea $”. He got $20 million.

  21. says


    I think you’ve taken a hasty ‘nerds vs jocks’ view of this case. A Federal Investigative Services Agent named John Snedden did an investigation on whether to renew Penn State president Graham Spanier’s top secret security clearance. He concluded that much of case involved a feud between Graham Spanier and republican governor Tom Corbett over education funding. He has since been an outspoken critic of the case and has said the prosecutors should be investigated for misconduct. He now does a podcast called Search Warrant devoted to court cases in Pennsylvania. He does a lot of episodes on the Penn State case. Here’s an example:


    Graham Spanier has just written a book and this review by emeritus professor Fred Crews makes a very good updated summary of the case: