The technical term for this type of behavior is “chimp out.” In this case, assuming the background information in the tweet is accurate, it’s a good example of what I’ve been saying for years: Blacks are trained from an early age to assume racism is the reason for life’s inconveniences.
Of course, the corporate media won’t report this story, except maybe local news. Hence, the masses remain ignorant… but there was a recent incident where a White police officer was forced off a crime scene by a racist black mob. MSN included it on its page – but made sure to have it embedded several minutes into a video by a black conservative. Here’s the incident:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1605279555912187906
Here’s another “non-story” that’s hard to watch. Not “news” according to the corporate media:
Laura Loomer has repeatedly claimed that her natural right to own a gun has been violated by the Federal Government due to her politics. She writes:
What I haven’t shared with you is that last year, I found out my 2nd Amendment rights have also been stripped without warning or explanation.
That’s right, I – a young woman who faces constant death threats – cannot own or possess a firearm for my own personal protection. My 2nd Amendment right has been BANNED.
While I have NEVER been convicted of a felony, domestic violence, and I’ve never been adjudicated mentally unfit by a judge, my name was placed in the Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and I have been prohibited from ever owning or even touching a firearm.
It’s called “Red Flagging”.
The only people who have the ability to put you in the NICS database is the FBI.
I learned during my campaign for Congress that despite the fact that I have never been charged or convicted of any crime whatsoever, my name had been placed on a secret Federal “no buy” list maintained by the FBI, which prohibited me from my legal right to buy a firearm.
My name landed on this secret “no buy” list shortly after I questioned the former FBI director James Comey at his first book signing event about a number of lies in his published memoir. I was acting entirely legally in my role as an investigative journalist and as an attendee of the event.
As a result, I’ve lost my rights to protect myself and my home.
But, with your help I WILL be getting my rights restored.
I’ve been sitting on this news for months while others helped me investigate and find out why I’ve been Red Flagged.
I’ve had the deepest background checks run against me . . . and I don’t even have a speeding ticket.
We’ve concluded the obvious . . . I had my 2nd Amendment Rights stripped due to my political views and activism.
Given that the FBI is the only organization that can put you in the NICS database, I have reason to believe that I’ve been targeted by the FBI.
Naturally, leftists dispute this. A Google search for “Was Laura Loomer denied gun ownership for politics” features a “fact-checking” site called “Misbar” at the very top.
Note that Google results are not random; they’re manipulated by Google to promote its “progressive” agenda. In this case, Duckduckgo yields similar results, as it also has a leftist agenda.
Misbar is primarily an Arabic-language website/blog, and it’s sympathetic to Islam. This might provide some insight, as Muslims are not fond of Laura Loomer; she keeps exposing their misdeeds – making her an “Islamophobe.”
Laura Loomer Was Not Denied Gun Ownership Due to Politics
Misbar’s Analysis
Misbar’s analysis finds Loomer’s claim that her political beliefs are the reason why she has been banned from owning a gun to be false…
She goes on to claim she has never been convicted of a felony or of domestic violence, and has never been deemed mentally unfit. Nonetheless, her name appears on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as not cleared to purchase a firearm. The FBI’s website lists several ways a person’s name can wind up on the list including misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, being under indictment, and the vaguely titled category of “state prohibitor.” A state prohibitor is a specific state’s reason for adding a person to the NICS.
At the end of her blog post, Loomer states her intention to sue over improper denial on the NICS and requests donations to help her do so. From an in-depth study of the NICS by the Federation of American Scientists, between 1998 and 2018, one-fifth of denials were appealed (which Loomer has already done), and one-tenth of those appeals were actually overturned. Most of the overturned cases were due to misidentifying the denied person. Also, according to the official NICS guidelines, Section 25.10, Loomer can obtain the reason for her denial.
Loomer has faced arrest and possible convictions in several cases. In 2017 she was arrested for public disturbance after storming on stage during a theater production of “Julius Caesar.” She is accused of jumping the fence to Nancy Pelosi’s California home, and climbing the fence to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s home while wearing a sombrero.
While Loomer posted proof that she had been denied, there is no proof that the denial has anything to do with her political beliefs.
Misbar’s Classification
Fake
Misbar’s “analysis” uses several slights of hand to make readers believe it’s legitimate.
Firstly, it includes narratives that have nothing to do with the claim at hand. How is it relevant that Loomer is a “self-proclaimed Islamophobe?” How would her being banned from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have any bearing on the voracity of her claim? If anything, it adds credence to Loomer’s claim – especially now that it’s become even more clear that government and Big Tech have been colluding. In essense, what Misbar is saying is:
Loomer is a bad person, because she was banned from social media, and because she doesn’t like Islam. Therefore, her claims of political persecution CAN’T be true!
The “analysis” blurs the line between having been arrested/possible convictions with actual convictions. It looks like this obfuscation is intentional. I’m not an attorney, but my research on why people can have their gun-ownership rights rescinded shows that it’s only CONVICTIONS (or ongoing investigations) that count, and even then, only certain ones. Loomer (correctly) points out that she’s never been convicted of such a serious crime. The “fact-check” neglects to make this distinction, even though it does quote Loomer.
Thirdly, the “fact-check,” AT BEST, makes a case that Loomer’s claim isn’t proven. It doesn’t even remotely establish that it’s false. The casual reader, having read the header and the “Misbar Classification” would conclude that Loomer’s claim was proven to be false.
The Misbar article links to The Trace, where the 12 most likely reasons for FBI denial of firearm purchases. None of those reasons apply to Loomer – except perhaps number 10, which reads:
10. Federally Denied Persons File: 6,367
This is a catch-all category that includes various people whom the FBI deems ineligible to possess a firearm even though the relevant state records may not be entered into NICS or the National Crime Information Center. Also included in the Federally Denied Persons File are people who may not possess guns as a result of a deferred judgement.
If this is the category that Loomer falls under, then it begs the question: Yes, we know that the FBI deemed Loomer ineligible to purchase a firearm. We want to know WHY. Given the FBI’s recent history of bias, we wouldn’t be out of line to suspect dishonorable motives.
In my opinion, Loomer’s claim is plausible. Hopefully, time will tell if it’s actually true. I strongly suspect that it is. I’d like to know how many leftist agitators have had their gun rights stripped from them for similar “offenses.” Probably none.
NOTE TO READERS: My blog might be down for a while on December 20th. This is due to server maintenance. There is nothing to be alarmed about.
Elon Musk has been facing a lot of criticism lately over how he’s been running Twitter. Just today, I got an email from Gab:
Elon Musk is in over his head when it comes to free speech.
Musk is quickly learning that in order to run a free speech platform you need two things: thick skin and a fanatical commitment to free speech, even when being pro free speech is bad for business, and even when being pro free speech means tolerating the most excoriating criticism of yourself.
Elon’s “free speech” saga at Twitter is really nothing of the sort. He’s treating the product, and his users, as his playthings. Flailing, hyper-feminine emotional outbursts are a substitute for a “leadership style.” All told, he has revealed that he has no interest whatsoever in bringing actual free speech to Twitter.
Twitter was, ironically, more measured and free when there were thousands of mentally ill blue-haired Communists with their fingers on the ban hammer. At least the Communists tried to come up with an objective and consistent rationale for their actions. Contrast with Elon, who waved the flag of free speech as soon as he took over but immediately began compromising on that promise for the sake of business expediency.
When it came to Alex Jones being reinstated, Elon had an emotional reaction and invoked the loss of his child. When it came to Kathy Griffin impersonating him, Elon had an emotional reaction and swung the ban hammer on anyone in his way. When it came to Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, posting a symbol of a French UFO cult which combined a swastika and a Star of David, Elon had an emotional reaction and banned him so as to be hip with all of the other California types who were throwing Ye to the wolves.
Now with the ElonJet and journalist ban situation, where constitutionally protected information which is publicly available is being removed from the site (despite being massively available practically everywhere else on the Internet) Elon is once again “leading” with his emotions and treating Twitter not as a product, not as an essential and vital publication utility for the entire world, but as a toy, and one controlled by a petulant child at that.
Men who lead do not make decisions and dictate on the whims of their emotions. Weak, hyper-effete men “leading” with emotions instead of reason and logic is a big reason Western society is crumbling. Given Elon’s Reddit-tier political takes and patchy soy beard, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that he is low on the testosterone side. But I digress…
Conservatives and White-advocates have been criticizing Musk for failing to re-instate Jared Taylor or even Alex Jones. He’s been criticized for banning Kanye West (Ye). Leftists are, all of a sudden, concerned about “freedom of speech,” and they don’t like it when their precious “journalists” are held accountable for enabling the stalking of Musk or his son. CNN is threatening to pull out of Twitter.
It’s easy to bash Musk for his decisions when we’re not the ones who have to live with those decisions. Musk paid a lot of money for Twitter, and it’s clear to me that if he were to reinstate too many controversial figures in a short period of time, Twitter would shrivel and die. Though I don’t agree with the (apparent) decision to keep Jared Taylor banned, I fully understand it. Similarly, I understand why he banned Kanye West. It’s easy to be a free-speech absolutist in theory. In practice, the real world tends to get in the way. One must make practical decisions, and consider the long-term consequences.
I’ll use this to segway to another topic I’ve been wanting to write about:
The Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definition of “woman” to include anyone who “identifies as female” regardless of their sex at birth.
Though I disagree with this new definition, I do understand why they did it; a large enough portion of the English-speaking population now uses the word in this way. Ideally, dictionaries would be politically neutral – but this is impossible. I doubt that dictionaries ever WERE politically neutral. The editors must take practical trends into consideration. The real world doesn’t stop at the editor’s office.
My answer to the Cambridge Dictionary is a measured return to Free English, where spellings and definitions are valid as long as they’re in common usage. In other words, there is no such thing as “correct” or “incorrect,” at least on the basis of dictionaries. The people decide, through their usage, what is correct and incorrect.
This is how it was for most of English history. There was no standardized spelling, and people simply wrote things phonetically as they spoke them in that particular time and place. This is how we know the pronunciation of earlier forms of English; we assume that the “misspellings” were based upon actual pronunciation.
When I say “a MEASURED return to Free English,” what I mean is that we can still use what is perceived as correct spelling and grammar in order to project professionalism or education. Indeed, we should always do so when writing pro-white/pro-liberty articles. Aside from that, I don’t think we should give dictionaries as much weight as we used to. If they’re telling us that a man can be a woman, then we shouldn’t take them too seriously.
The ancient Jewish sages once said, “He who receives a greeting from a passerby, and does not return it is a thief.”
I’m a slow learner sometimes, so I’ve made an effort, over the past several years, to be kind and civil to my leftist foes online. I’ve gone out of my way to be nice…
… but over and over again, they respond to my kindness with disdain and rudeness. My kindness was wasted on them, and I felt like the person who greets passersby, but gets no greeting in return.
Sure, one in a million might be open-minded enough to actually READ our arguments and try to understand them. Hence forth, I’m not going to waste my kindness on the off chance that my opponent is that one in a million.
Furthermore, I’m done showing any form of humility with them. Even if they catch me in an error, correct my facts, point out a typo etc. acknowledging this will only be seen as a sign of weakness. I’m sick and tired of their arrogance; there’s no need for me to inflate it even more.
I’ve been naive that way. When I see somebody who looks human, or writes like a human online, I assume that they’re human. Now I understand that leftists are, in a very real sense, less than human. They lack what we used to call “common decency.” They feel no shame for their own political misdeeds, and they’ll do everything they can to excuse their fellow leftists of crimes.
I would go so far as to describe them as a race of psychopaths. “Right” and “wrong” are alien concepts to them – unless it’s to advance their sick Communist ideology. Then it’s “By any means necessary.” This is how Communists of the past were able to slaughter so many innocent people, including women and children. “By any means necessary” includes mass executions. It includes election tampering, physical assaults, vandalism and theft. They’d sell their own mothers if it helped The Cause. This is the behavior of those who lack souls. The spiritual void is filled with whatever propaganda the powers-that-be elect to pump into their heads.
Enough ranting for now. I just had to get it off my chest.
Two years ago, BitChute became the target of an activist group that attempted to shut us down by pressuring our suppliers. As a result, we lost some server hosting, our office space, and other suppliers. We also lost our bank account with HSBC. A bank account we had held in good standing and without any issues since we launched in 2017.
We initially tried to open a new account with a different bank and transfer our money. However, the new bank rejected us just as the funds had reached them. Our money was returned to HSBC, but we could no longer access it, and even today, we still have not retrieved our money from HSBC.
In August 2021, after failing to get a resolution through the HSBC complaints process, we requested arbitration through the UK’s banking Ombudsman. We were informed of a long wait due to Covid, which had resulted in many bank-related problems for businesses. It wouldn’t be until November 2022 that our case would be assigned.
Since arbitration started we have provided many details including the bank account where HSBC could send our money. Within a week of handing over that information, that new bank account was suspended without notice. We informed the Ombudsman that we do not want to give HSBC additional bank accounts and prefer any transfer from HSBC use a third party such as escrow, even a bag of cash would do. A necessary action that will likely lengthen the process.
It’s happening again…
That happened 19 days ago, and we still have not been able to get our money from that bank even though we have informed them that we need it urgently to pay bills. It’s not clear for what reason they are keeping it.
Big government and big corporate have formed an alliance to deprive us of our liberties. It’s a stealth Communist coup. They can skirt the Constitution by having corporations, including banks, do their dirty work. Meanwhile, government goons whittle away at the Constitution at every opportunity. Their main targets are, of course, the First and Second Amendments.
I don’t think it’s by chance that these to embattled amendments are the very first two. Once they fall, the others will follow. It’s only a matter of time. If we can’t speak up about government/corporate (“Mediagov”) abuses, and we can’t defend ourselves, then nothing stands between us and tyranny.
Purists might object that as long as government itself is not violating our rights, then it’s not an issue. Obviously, it IS an issue – and the sooner we recognize the power of big corporations over our lives, and rein them in accordingly, the better.
When the Constitution was written, there were no non-governmental organizations so powerful that they could rob us of our liberty in any systemic way. Now that this has changed, we need to hold our legislators accountable to do what needs to be done: Consider large banks, large corporations, large tech companies and NGOs as if they’re arms of the government – because they really ARE. The recently released Twitter files, and public admissions by the Biden administration, that it works with social media companies to “fight disinformation” are evidence enough of this.
It may cost the city of Boise $500,000 to investigate whether a former police captain’s views impacted the Boise Police Department
The Boise City Council will take up the contract with Steptoe & Johnson at its next meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 6. Last week, Mayor Lauren McLean announced Steptoe & Johnson would conduct an independent investigation into the matter with senior counsel Michael Bromwich.
{snip} Key lawyers involved will be paid $825 per hour – up to but not to exceed the cumulative total amount of $500,000.
{snip}
Bromwich “will investigate whether Matt Bryngelson’s stated racist beliefs impacted his policing during his employment, his on-duty interactions with the community, officers or BPD staff and whether any city resources were used to create or distribute racist materials or content,” according to Mayor McLean.
Captain Matt Bryngelson had been scheduled to speak at a white nationalist conference in November. The organization, American Renaissance, is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. {snip}
Matt Bryngelson conducted an interview with Jared Taylor, and then spoke at this year’s American Renaissance conference under the name Daniel Vinyard. His speech has not yet been published, but the bulk of it was stories about how blacks tend to commit certain types of crimes, and that those crimes tend to be more depraved. Anybody who pays attention to the news would reach the same conclusion. Having come face to face with this reality, over the course of decades, obviously shaped the way Officer Bryngelson views the world. This would be true of any of us.
It’s criminal that the City of Boise is spending taxpayer money on such an investigation. If Officer Bryngelson’s mind was poisoned, it was through his own first-hand experiences with black criminals. In contrast, an entire generation of government officials is growing up with CRT, an ideology that poisons the mind against White people. If anything is to be investigated, it should be CRT.
This decision illustrates what many of us have been saying for years: It’s de-facto ILLEGAL to be a white-advocate in today’s America, at least if you have any government/corporate aspirations. The City of Boise has no right to waste money on such investigations; Officer Bryngelson committed no crime.
Mark my words, the City of Boise will overturn some convictions of black criminals as a result of this investigation; leftists will use ANY EXCUSE to free black criminals.
I also wanted to point out that the Establishment Left will use this incident as “evidence” that white-supremacy is pervasive in our police forces, and that this is why blacks are treated unfairly.
Of course, this is a circular argument. The likely reason Officer Bryngelson came to American Renaissance is that it’s the most well-known pro-white organization/publication in the US that isn’t hateful. If Officer Bryngelson were a hateful person, or a neo-Nazi, he would have approached any number of neo-Nazi organizations. His choice of venue demonstrates that he is not a hateful person.
The only reason American Renaissance is branded as a “white-supremacist” organization is that anti-white hate groups, such as the SPLC, have so determined.
How convenient! Label American Renaissance as “white-supremacist,” and then (by extension) they can label Officer Bryngelson as “white-supremacist.” Once that is done, they can claim that police departments are infiltrated by “white-supremacists.” Voila! Justification for more Diversity spending has now been manufactured.
Any conversation about this topic should start with the question, “What is the definition of white-supremacist?” I don’t think Jared Taylor would fit any reasonable definition of this term, which is why he doesn’t describe himself as a “white-supremacist.” Hence, the “problem” doesn’t even start; it’s rooted in a fallacy.
Kanye West (AKA “Ye”) has gone off the deep end, after having fallen under the spell of Nick Fuentes. Maybe he’s mentally ill. I don’t know, but it escapes me what purpose he thought it would serve to troll Twitter the way he did.
Do I believe that people have the right to post Jewish symbols mixed with swastikas, to promote pedophilia and to praise Hitler? Yes, of course – BUT, I think Elon Musk did the right thing in banning Mr. West.
Some people I respect think otherwise. Ann Coulter tweeted:
I disagree with Ann from a practical perspective, but I won’t attack her for her opinion; it’s still a valid opinion. Defenders of free speech fall into two camps: Absolutists and Pragmatists. It appears that most people on the Right, having seen/experienced the slippery slope of Leftist censorship, would rather allow everything. They know if anything legal is banned, then it’s only a matter of time before they’ll also be banned (again).
I agree with them in principle, but in practice, Twitter is in a very precarious position right now. Apple has threatened to remove the Twitter app from the Apple Store, and the E.U. has threatened to shut it down in Europe if it doesn’t follow their censorship guidelines. Musk is in a tough situation. It’s better for ALL of us if Twitter survives, even if it doesn’t provide the full free-speech environment that we crave.
Bitter a pill as it is to swallow, we must recognize that almost all power structures oppose us, and would do away with free-speech entirely if they could. Musk has given us an opening to speak our minds, and we should appreciate that and utilize it even though it has limits.
Perhaps, some day, the situation will improve, and we’ll be able to demand absolute freedom of speech on popular forums. We’re not yet there, and we’d do well to recognize our limits, lest the whole thing come tumbling down.
Back to Ann Coulter. She’s right that even the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march – but that was on a PUBLIC STREET. Under no circumstances should the government limit such speech. As for Twitter, it now belongs to Mr. Musk, and he must take practicality into account to both protect his investment, and to best serve his adopted country in the long run. That being said, Musk should have been honest about WHY he banned West; it wasn’t incitement. I’ll quote Jason Kessler:
I’ve been reading Laura Loomer’s book Loomered, which I’d purchased from her at the Amren conference. I highly recommend it.
In the chapter “What Happened in Vegas,” Miss Loomer makes a solid case that the shooter, Stephen Paddock, was acting on behalf of ISIS. He had recently converted to Islam, ISIS had specifically taken credit for the shooting, which it rarely does if it’s not the case, and several witnesses point to a specifically terroristic motive behind the shooting – the worst mass shooting in modern US history. The FBI has staged a coverup from the very beginning, when it presented a false timeline to the American public, and ignored important testimony.
To this day, the Las Vegas shooting remains an official non-entity, where the perpetrator’s official motive is “no motive at all.”
At the end of the chapter, Miss Loomer points out that the Las Vegas shooting served as justification to further infringe the gun -rights of Americans, by making bump stocks effectively illegal. Even the NRA went along with the ban.
While I applaud Miss Loomer for her tireless work in this case, I think her analysis of the motivations behind the coverup is anemic.
I’ll point out some issues that she could have/should have mentioned:
The less lethal Orlando nightclub shooting, which Miss. Loomer mentions several times in the same chapter, targeted a largely non-white and homosexual demographic. It’s considered an act of terror. Meanwhile, the Las Vegas shooting, which targeted mostly straight white people, is all but relegated to the memory-hole. I don’t think this is coincidence, since the lives of straight white people are, at best, of low-priority in the eyes of the FBI.
Secondly, a glance at the ADL’s “heat map” for 2017, the year that the attack took place, yields these results for Las Vegas:
According to the ADL, there were no extremist murders in Las Vegas in 2017. Conveniently, the 60 mostly white victims of (probable) Islamic terrorism are not even acknowledged.
The ADL narrative, that white people present the greatest threat to “our democracy,” is bolstered by FBI corruption, coverups and lying. Including the sixty fatalities of Las Vegas would present an inconvenience to the ADL’s “statistics.” Can’t have that!
In case you weren’t already aware, the FBI uses the ADL’s “hate-crime” reports for its official policies – and, accordingly, it has placed great emphasis on combating “right-wing extremism,” even going so far as to pressure its employees to find such threats.
The FBI generates false information to the American public, which the ADL then shapes into misleading “reports” – which get fed right back to the FBI, so that it can continue its jihad against America’s founding stock, with the full blessing of the Biden administration.
Funny how Diversity goes out the window when it’s suicide, or birth-control, being discussed. Then, all of a sudden, it’s mostly whites that are depicted.
birth-control, being discussed. Then, all of a sudden, it’s mostly whites that are depicted.
Here’s another example, from a white back:
Billboard in London Encourages White People to Sterilize Themselves
A billboard has appeared in London encouraging white people to sterilize themselves to solve overpopulation.
The sign, which was put up on Holloway Road, says “Imagine a city less crowded… do your part–get sterilised! Yay!”
Spotted in London (Holloway Road)…
Funny, this sign doesn’t meet the usual ‘diversity’ requirements of all the others around London. pic.twitter.com/dHmH6E6hgJ
