Jewamongyou

Not that we needed any more evidence, but YouTube’s “Terms of Service” mean absolutely nothing; if they don’t like your point of view, they’ll ban you – regardless of whether you abide by their rules or not. It doesn’t matter.

In October of last year, YouTube banned Red Ice, even though there were no actual violations of YouTube’s rules. White Advocacy is reason enough to be banned. Red Ice videos can now be viewed on BitChute.

Now, with the Floydquisition upon us, channels that are far more tame than Red Ice have been banned. Stefan Molyneux has been banned. Though controversial at times, not by the furthest stretch of the imagination is Molyneux “hateful.” Molyneux can still be found on BitChute.

As for American Renaissance, it too has been expelled from YouTube for the crime of White Advocacy. From Amren.com:

Today, without warning, YouTube banned our video and podcast channels. We had 135,000 video subscribers and close to 20,000 podcast subscribers. YouTube also banned other channels, including that of Stefan Molyneux. This was all no doubt in honor of George Floyd.

During the Iron Curtain era, who would have suspected that 30 years later Americans would be muzzling each other? It’s trite to say this, but shouldn’t people try to debate those with whom they disagree rather than silence them? There is no more graceless way of admitting you have lost the argument than to gag your opponent.

Amren videos can still be found on BitChute. Radio Renaissance can be found here.

I encourage all my readers to sign up for BitChute, and to subscribe to the above channels.

However, we should not rely too much on BitChute; it’s based in the UK – not a country known for its support of freedom of speech.

According to Wikipedia, BitChute…

… is a video hosting service founded in 2017. It was created to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforced on YouTube. The platform accommodates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists. The Southern Poverty Law Center says the site hosts “hate-fueled material”. Some creators who have been banned or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue (“demonetized”) on YouTube have migrated to BitChute.

In reality, as we have seen, BitChute is NOT so much a place to escape “content rules” as a place to avoid political persecution. None of the above channels actually violated YouTube’s rules.

By banning controversial voices, large platforms are actually creating ideological ghettos, where real hatred is sure to flourish. As the above Wikipedia article points out, “hate-fueled material” proliferates on BitChute – and this was inevitable due to the policies of larger platforms such as YouTube, under pressure from hate-groups such as the SPLC.

Let’s imagine that YouTube, and other large platforms, adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward Islam. Even moderate Muslims would be banned from YouTube, and they would seek refuge in BitChute – which had already been hosting many extremist Muslim channels from before. Lacking any moderation, It would only be a matter of time until the extremists gained dominance. By definition, it’s extremists who are the most prolific, and the loudest. Moderate people have other things to do, such as raising families, earning a living, and visiting museums.

Sooner or later, a Dylan Roof is going to blow up a building, or perpetrate a mass shooting – and it will be discovered that the culprit gained inspiration from BitChute. This will provide an excuse for government agencies, or perhaps international organizations, to shut BitChute down. Clearly, this is the plan.

Therefore, we mustn’t be complacent. BitChute is not a long-term solution in my opinion. We need our own platform, and it must be moderated to keep out the crazies.