Video: Black Lives Matter Leader Who Called For Riots In Pennsylvania Sends Goons To Intimidate Journalists

Rioters Harass And Threaten Independent Journalists In Pennsylvania

The riots in Lancaster, Pennsylvania have grown increasingly tense throughout the night. Earlier this evening, Nationalist Review reported that two Black Lives Matter leaders demanded that parents with children present go home indicating that the gathering was going to be turning intentionally violent. Now, she’s been caught on tape leading a mob to harass and chase off an independent journalist. We’ve provided a clear picture of her face and a video of the incident below.

“If you don’t want no f***ing Trouble, get the f***ing camera out of here…”

A black male patrolling the area issued demands to all riot attendees. “Keep it on lock and turn that s*** off,”he said, using his preferred street slang about keeping the situation under the control of the rioters by limiting the amount of evidence they document about their misdeeds. Only approved journalists are allowed to film without being harassed. One of them can be seen snapping pictures in the video below.

While on his censorship patrol, he passes an independent journalist who is filming the mob. “You live bro?” the riot leader asks.


The Black Lives Matter enforcer turns his megaphone back on so that everyone in the crowd can hear. “Turn that s*** off. They’re monitoring your phone, turn that s*** off.” The excuse is weak, plenty of people can be seen on their phones in the background. It’s not about monitoring cellphone communications, the rioters want to avoid having their crimes recorded.

“I’m documenting,” the journalist responds. “Mind your business, man. I’m not filming you.”

“It doesn’t matter. We don’t want them knowing our f***ing movements and monitoring your f***ing Facebook, bro.”

“I don’t want any trouble, man.”

At this point the riot enforcer grows irate: “if you don’t want no f***ing trouble get the f***ing camera out of here.”

The more aggressive change in tone startles the filmmaker. “Will somebody help me please? This guy is coming after me.” No one moves to intervene as the man grows increasingly desperate for support. Eventually, another Black Lives Matter organizer calls the dog off, but the respite is temporary.

Woman Who Seems To Be Leader Of The Riot

Soon, a woman who seems to be the highest ranking rioter, approached. Earlier that evening she had ordered all parents with children and underage attendees to vacate the area. The implication was clear: things were going to grow violent and that violence was the premeditated plan.

She and her cronies—about 6 or 7 men—surround the man and continue to chase him from the area. Then she demands that he “take a walk” with her and shut off his camera. It’s unclear what happened next. The journalist, probably fearing for his safety, complied.

Video: Internet Censors Purge Posts Shared By President Trump Detailing African American Crime Statistics

The President Shared A Video From Another User Who Uploaded An Explanation Given By A Black Man About Crime From His Own Demographic…Twitter Promptly Deleted The Account

Earlier today, President Trump shared a number of videos from Twitter user “Always Actions” that discussed crime in the United States.

Among those videos was a description of crime perpetrated by the black community in which a black man explains to an anti-Trump white woman, that black people are responsible for over 50% of all violent gun crime despite only constituting roughly 13% of the population. This data is taken directly from the FBI’s own findings on crime in the United States.

The video was originally posted in July and had only received modest attention until Trump gave it a bump earlier this morning. Within three hours of his retweet, the account had been banned by Twitter ostensibly for violating some undisclosed community standards provision.

Here’s the video they deleted:

Thankfully, the video was screen recorded and reuploaded by another user. Nationalist Review has downloaded a copy of this copy and, should the account that reposted it be banned, we will upload it.

“African Americans make up 13% of the population, yet commit over 50% of the violent gun crime. No—no, no, that’s true. 55%,” the man begins. “So, 95% of that is to other blacks. So me, as an African American, I have a 2,000 times more likelihood to be shot and killed by another black man leaving this event, than I do by a white person, a police officer, or a neo-Nazi.”

“Us African Americans, we’re killing each other. I’m being honest with you, that’s what the problem is. I’m being honest. If Obama would’ve stood up and said look, ‘we’re killing each other, we’ve got a problem within the African American community,” he would have been phenomenal.”

“I’m 2,000 times more likely to be shot and killed by another black man, leaving this event today—tonight—than I am any other race, color, creed or police officer. That’s where the f***ing pain comes, man. That’s sad. I can’t hang out in black neighborhoods. I can’t do that. Because its a risk to me. That’s sad.”

Attorneys General In 20 States Tell Social Media Giants To Censor More Free Speech, Keith Ellison Among Signers

Twenty Democrat State Attorneys General Sent A Letter To Facebook Pressuring The Tech Giant To Censor More Legal Speech In A Thinly Veiled Attack On Conservatives

Democrat state attorneys general are using their government offices to pressure the social media giant to censor conservative voices using thinly coded language in a recently released letter. Among the undersigned is a familiar name: former DNC Chair Keith Ellison.

The alarming letter was addressed to Facebook chairman Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook chief operating officer Sherly Sandberg and requests that the network work harder to remove “disinformation,” “bias,” and “discrimination.” To make this point clearer, these attorneys general are not asking Facebook to help combat crime, but rather to stop lawful speech from being posted on their network. In other words, due to the protections offered to Americans by the 1st Amendment, their offices are calling on private corporations to restrict speech.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the letter is that it also targets unnamed elected “public officials” who they believe need to be silenced on social media: “Private parties, organized groups, and public officials continue to use Facebook to spread misinformation and project messages of hate against different groups of Americans.”

Misinformation. They use that word throughout the letter, because that’s what this is really about. It’s not about so-called hate speech (which is really just distasteful, yet legally protected, free speech). This is about censoring wrong-think. It’s about censoring stories they don’t want you to read.

The 20 State AGs Support Black Lives Matter:

But that’s not the only concern that needs to be addressed here. The letter begins with an implicit acknowledgement of support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Our nation is in the midst of a reckoning on issues of racial justice and civil rights,” the letter reads. “As State Attorneys General, we have witnessed firsthand how the country’s longstanding undercurrent of discrimination has burst open…And while recent events have further highlighted the systemic injustice that persists in our society, the last few months also have seen millions of Americans join together to call for action against bias and racism.”

“Private parties, organized groups, and public officials continue to use Facebook to spread misinformation and project messages of hate against different groups of Americans.”

These AGs Believe Free Speech Is Limited

Also implied by the letter is another concerning element: the belief that free speech is constrained by protections for certain classes. The first amendment does not prohibit criticism or vulgarity directed specific genders, races, or creeds. In fact, despite the unsavory nature of some statements of this kind, it is the controversial speech that needs protecting most. Yet the attorneys generals disagree:

“Much of that harassment is focused on characteristics protected by the civil right laws that many of us are charged with enforcing, including race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender and gender identity, and disability.”

Misinformation, Misinformation, And Misinformation

So how do they want social media giants to address their grievances? With algorithmic manipulation that curtails the spread of conservative opinion:

“By funneling users toward particular types of content, Facebook’s content population scheme, including its algorithms, can push users into extremist online communities that feature divisive and inflammatory messages, often directed at particular groups…Facebook should commit to an ongoing, independent analysis of its content population scheme, including its algorithms, and also continuously implement mandatory protocols as best practices are identified to curb bias and prevent recommendations of hate content and groups.”

The letter is undersigned by the following state attorneys general:

Keith Ellison, former DNC Chair, also signed the letter.

NJ AG Gurbir S. Grewal
DC AG Karl A. Racine
IL AG Kwame Raoul
CA AG Xavier Becerra
CT AG William Tong
DE AG Kathleen Jennings
HI AG Clare E. Connors
IA AG Tom Miller
ME AG Aaron M. Frey
MD AG Brian E. Frosh
MA AG Maura T. Healy
MN AG Keith Ellison
NM AG Hector Balderas
NY AG Letitia James
NC AG Josh Stein
PA AG Josh Shapiro
RI AG Peter Neronha
VT AG Thomas J. Donovan Jr.
VA AG Mark R. Herring
WI AG Joshua L. Kaul

Second Twitter Employee Makes Violent Statement About Trump: “He must be culled from the herd. ASAP!”

A second employee, this time their lawyer, has made a statement easily interpreted as the glorification of violence, calling for Donald Trump to be “culled”

Jeff Rich, Twitter’s legal counsel and senior legal director, tweeted in February that the president must be “culled from the herd“. Earlier today, Nationalist Review reported that a Twitter employee, Erik Froese, tweeted a call for President Donald Trump to “die in a fire”.

Rich’s profile prominently displays his role working for the tech company: “I work @Twitter, but I don’t make content or verification decisions. Tweets – and politics – here are mine alone. Sr. Legal Director & AGC (Associate General Counsel).”

UPDATE: Twitter’s lawyer has locked his account. We preserved the tweet on the popular archiving site You can see that here. Below is a screenshot:

For those unfamiliar with the term, to cull from the herd, according to the Idiom Dictionary, means to “literally, to separate or remove (and usually kill) inferior animals out of a herd so as to reduce numbers or remove undesirable traits from the group as a whole.”

Twitter recently limited access to President Trump’s tweet about the riots in Minneapolis and the social media giant cited their policy against tweets that glorify violence. Yet multiple Twitter employees have been making statements far more egregious. You can check out the full list of what we’ve found in the link provided.

Twitter and the Trump Administration have been trading blows as of late, first with Twitter adding fact-checking bubbles to Trump’s tweets and then with the president responding by issuing an executive order to combat censorship on social media platforms. Things came to a head last night, when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made the unprecedented decision to completely censor one of Donald Trump’s tweets on the platform.

RELATEDGunshots Erupt As Louisville Rioters Turn Violent, BLM Falsely Accuses Police

SUPPORTING A RIOT: Ilhan Omar’s Daughter Retweets List Of “Supplies” Needed For Minneapolis Riot

TARGETING THE VULNERABLE: Video: Minneapolis Rioters Beat And Rob Disabled Woman, Then Frame Her As The Violent One

Twitter Employee Calls For President Trump’s Death “Die In A Fire”

Comments From Twitter Employee Erik Froese Calling For The President To “Die In A Fire” Resurface A Day After Twitter Wrongfully Censored The President For “Promoting Violence”

Twitter employee Erik Froese, who has been an engineering manager with the social media giant since 2013, tweeted at President Donald Trump calling for him to “die in a fire.”

UPDATE: We just caught a second Twitter employee, this time one of their lawyers, making an even more egregious statement!

Twitter and the Trump Administration have been trading blows as of late, first with Twitter adding fact-checking bubbles to Trump’s tweets and then with the president responding by issuing an executive order to combat censorship on social media platforms. Things came to a head last night, when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made the unprecedented decision to completely censor one of Donald Trump’s tweets on the platform.

But that wasn’t the only tweet that was discovered. Multiple twitter employees were caught leaving comments that displayed their shameful indifference towards keeping the platform neutral.

One of Twitter’s lawyers even suggested that Trump could not be allowed to win in 2020. For the complete list, please see this thread.

RELATED: Gunshots Erupt As Louisville Rioters Turn Violent, BLM Falsely Accuses Police

SUPPORTING A RIOT: Ilhan Omar’s Daughter Retweets List Of “Supplies” Needed For Minneapolis Riot

TARGETING THE VULNERABLE: Video: Minneapolis Rioters Beat And Rob Disabled Woman, Then Frame Her As The Violent One

Thursday evening, Twitter escalated the feud one more step, restricting President Trump’s ability to communicate with his followers on Twitter by censoring one of the president’s tweets and shutting off typical site functions such as the user’s ability to like, comment, and retweet. This morning, they did the same to the official White House account—an account controlled and operated by the Executive Branch and an official property of the Federal Government.

Breaking: For First Time Ever, Twitter CEO Has Directly Censored The President’s Tweet

Twitter has made the unprecedented move of censoring one of the president’s tweets claiming that it violated the site’s terms of service. Twitter users can no longer “like, retweet, or comment” on the post.

UPDATE: President Trump has responded to Twitter’s latest act of censorship

In what can only be direct retaliation for the president’s recently announced Executive Order wherein he promised to take action against tech censorship, Twitter has fired a major shot across the president’s bow by censoring one of his tweets, blocking comments on it, and disabling the ability of individuals to retweet it. Twitter has recently experimented with putting “fact-checking” bubbles under the President’s tweets, but actually cutting off users’ ability to retweet, like and comment on Trump’s tweet was previously completely unheard of.

In an address earlier today, President Trump promised to create an online environment where free speech and the diversity of ideas—the only diversity that matters—can prosper. For those interested, we put together a brief summary where you can read about the Executive Order and see a breakdown of its provisions.

Earlier today the president tweeted the following about the riots taking place in Minneapolis (and now across the country):

“These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

In order to access this tweet, users must go directly to Donald Trump’s Twitter profile and opt-in to view the contents.

“This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible. Learn more.”

This step, which Twitter has haphazardly taken, is perhaps the only thing that will guarantee that the president will not let up his crusade against tech censorship. Countless members of his base have seen their accounts banned, suspended, and isolated using algorithms built around Twitter’s political bias. But, love him or hate him, President Trump will not let his own account be tampered with. It can be guaranteed now that he will take every action possible to safeguard speech online. This battle is just beginning.

The decision to lock this tweet down seems to have come directly from the top, with Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, retweeting a Twitter Comms bulletin about their decision to censor the leader of the “free” world.

Twitter’s Communications team has issued the following statement regarding their decision:

“This Tweet violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today. We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the Tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance. As is standard with this notice, engagements with the Tweet will be limited. People will be able to Retweet with Comment, but will not be able to Like, Reply or Retweet it.”

Here’s how Trump’s tweet looks after you click to access it:

Summary: Trump Issues Executive Order On Social Media Censorship, And It’s Excellent

President Trump issues executive order on “Preventing Online Censorship”

On Thursday, President Trump delivered on a long overdue promise to get a grip on the censorship of tech oligarchs on major platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. After months of promising to “monitor the situation” it seems that Twitter’s expedition into directly censoring the president’s tweets has triggered a response. So, on behalf of America, thank you for screwing up so badly, Jack Dorsey.

The entirety of the order may be read here, but a more digestible breakdown of the main points may be read below. In brief, the president is utilizing the full force of the executive branch and all tools at his disposal to combat the stifling threat of censorship on social media platforms. He’s ordered the Attorney General, Secretary of Commerce, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and all other government department and agencies to take action.

Where a so-called platform (defined below) oversteps its authority to remove harmful content without liability, he’s seeking out methods to strip them of their Section 230 immunity. Where government agencies are spending taxpayer dollars on such platforms, he’s demanding that an assessment be made as to whether they should continue marketing their programs and thereby funding the tech oligarchs in the process. He’s even dispatching the Attorney General to determine if any state laws can be used to combat the censorship occurring on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Twitter recently crossed a very bold line by adding fact checking disclaimers to the president’s tweets about mail-in voting. As a result, President Trump promised to take action. And today, he followed through.

The executive order is the best first step that Americans could hope for

“This practice [of online censorship] is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.”

The order begins by outlining the Trump Administration’s philosophy on free speech as a necessity for involvement in the republic and the dangerous influence of the consolidation of internet traffic to a select few number of sites. “In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression,” it reads, “we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access on the internet.”

Arguing that the platforms are the modern equivalent to the “public square,” Trump’s order states the platforms have deceptively gone beyond their published Terms of Service agreements in a “manner that clearly reflects political bias.”

Meanwhile, it continues, despite creating “groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home,” these platforms are often caught doing the bidding of foreign governments, such as the Communist Party in China. Just recently, YouTube was caught censoring any criticism of the Communist Party’s internet propaganda arm, deleting tens of thousands of comments and videos that criticized the regime, as District Herald reported.

Without referring to a specific American business by name, the order clearly refers to Alphabet (Google and YouTube’s parent company), when it references a tech company that “also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.”

So what sort of policy does the Executive Order actually initiate? Read on!

It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.

Trump’s order argues that social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have violated their immunity from liability under Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity from liability to online platforms that do not engage in editorializing or content creation of their own. The theory is simple: if you set up a website and allow people to come and post their own viewpoints, any illegal content posted by them—such as threats or pornography depicting minors—can’t be used to hold them criminally liable.

The rule was issued to allow these platforms to remove harmful content without themselves being deemed a publisher and was issued to address “early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a ‘publisher’ of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.”

“but in reality [social media platforms] use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.”

Article Continues Below – – If you support Independent Journalism, please take a moment to sign up for our newsletter!
We are also currently running a giveaway of an authentic musket ball from the Revolutionary War. You can enter for a chance to win here. (No Purchase Necessry)

In reality, however, social media sites have used this limited immunity from liability to shield themselves while taking deceptive action to remove political speech they find unfavorable. These so-called platforms are, in effect, “far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content,” and instead have been stifling viewpoints with which they disagree.

Trump Argues That Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Instagram should lose their limited liability shield due to deceptive bad behavior:

“When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.”

The Executive Order on censorship commands the Attorney General and Secretary of Commerce to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission

“In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations.”

“Determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions”

“[Define] the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not ‘taken in good faith’.”

Trump’s order also declares an intention to cease spending money for advertising on these platforms

The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.

Mobilizing the Federal Trade Commission to see if social media sites have been misrepresenting themselves to their users and hurting the bottom line of other American businesses in the process

“The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.”

He is authorizing the Attorney General to review and assist in the enforcement of applicable state laws that prohibit platforms from engaging in unfair practices

“The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.”

It orders the Attorney General to develop proposals for Federal legislation that will deter further acts of online censorship

“The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.”

He really was monitoring the situation, here’s a breakdown of deceptive practices the order is looking into:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media
organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Cancel Culture’s Fear Of Reading, Jared Holt’s Feelings Of Inferiority

Should Americans be cancelled for the “sin” of reading the writings of particularly controversial figures? That seems to be the underlying question posed by Right Wing Watch’s Jared Holt—the guy who had Alex Jones banned from half the internet—in a recent hit piece targeting The Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra Fairbanks.

Fairbanks recently streamed a short reading of the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto which was first published simultaneously by the Washington Post and New York Times during his 17-year-long campaign of terrorism. In the manifesto he lays out various problems he sees developing in society owing to our technological advancement. “The Industrial Revolution and its consequences,” the manifesto begins, “have been a disaster for the human race.”

And haven’t they? Don’t take our word for it. We’re flanked on this issue by some quite “respectable” company. Chicago Tribune, Rolling Stone, Fox News, MIT’s Tech Opinion Editor, and countless others have dared to speak the self-evident truth that is apparent to anyone who bothers to give the work a fair reading: Kaczynski had some brilliant and clairvoyant predictions to share. Those predictions, which grow more accurate by the year, are a work of genius independent of the atrocities Kaczynski committed.

And that was Fairbanks point and seemingly Holt’s main beef with her Periscope stream—he went so far as to dramatically highlight her description of Kaczynski’s work as “brilliant” in his headline, as if it was some big revelation about Fairbank’s character. 

What about the rest of the country though? Isn’t there something that all Americans would agree with if they were to peel their eyes away from their phones for a moment? 

Americans surely have a deep subconscious understanding that a potential future wherein multinational and megacorporations place each individual into a technological slavery could come to pass. If this were not the case, the media they consumed would be far different than its current dystopian nature. From The Hunger Games to Divergent, from Westworld to Altered Carbon. Need more? There’s also Blade Runner 2049, Soylent Green, The Matrix, Minority Report, Snowpiercer, and Elysium. Children watch movies like WALL-E and Avatar. The list goes on and on. Clearly these types of films resonate with the population.

Holt’s Feelings Of Inferiority And Oversocialization

But, for her part, Fairbanks’ reading was more focused on responding to a specific instance of social media pitchfork-raising. A Twitter user, Sonia Fereidooni, riled up over 100,000 users to attack a high school student for making a joke she found offensive. She posted his mother’s contact details, his school’s emails, and multiple private social media profiles of his. Soon after, he and his mother were both receiving threats.

At the time, I had taken to Twitter myself, ironically to comment on what I viewed as Sonia’s overly socialized nature, which I believed led her to launch this crusade against the unsuspecting teen and completely upturn his life, all while confusing herself for the virtuous party in the affair.

Fairbanks, well-read and seeing this, was reminded of Kaczynski’s writing on the topic.

And, with little else to do and facing the warped schedule we’re all dealing with under quarantine, she decided to stream a bit of herself reading from his manifesto in order to further highlight the psychological analysis Kaczynski made about leftist activism.

(You can read the entirety of the pertinent passages at the end of this piece, and the entirety of the manifesto here. Please note that Fairbanks did not read everything posted below.)

She was soon contacted by Jared Holt of the parasitic Right Wing Watch, an organization that fancies itself as some combination of the internet police and shepherds of cancel culture—ironically the exact sort of outfit that Kaczynski was referring to (note: see paragraphs 12 and 21 from the manifesto below). 

Holt made it clear that he intended to write a hit piece on Fairbanks and a few hours later it was published. But Fairbanks refused to back down and instead boldly responded by streaming a second reading from the Unabombers work.

Fairbanks, it seems, is simply able to do something that Holt is incapable of—she can tackle a controversial figure and separate his thoughts from his actions. Holt, for his part, suffers from what Kaczynski might describe as “feelings of inferiority” and can do little more than point a finger and blame.

Some say Randall was loosely based off of Jared Holt.

While it is tragic that the Unabomber’s struggle with society manifested itself in the form of murder and destruction, it would be foolhardy to dismiss an argument that has merit because the source is distasteful. Thankfully, some are still willing to approach the most controversial of topics head on.

So what do some of the more daring elites think of the writings of Ted Kaczynski? What follows are just a few examples.

MIT The Tech’s Opinion Editor Anders Hove: “The Unabomber actually makes some interesting points about contemporary society”


“Of all the works of William Shakespeare, I like Hamlet the best. Crazed people with bizarre motivations sometimes have a lot to say. Generations of Hamlet readers will agree that just because someone has gone off the deep end and murdered a court intellectual or two doesn’t mean he can’t tell a hawk from a handsaw.”

“ Unlike most Op-Ed writers, the Unabomber actually makes some interesting points about contemporary society. He begins with a crushing attack on leftist intellectuals, arguing that the entire “politically correct” movement is motivated by self-hatred and low self-esteem.”

“Finally, nobody should be worried that anarchism will spread through the publication of the manifesto. The marketplace of ideas remains the best place for the airing of political views of any type”

The Rolling Stone: “He’s a highly intelligent person”


But Andrew Sodroski, executive producer of the new Discovery mini-series, Manhunt: Unabomber, thinks there is plenty to take away from Kaczynski’s words. As he said in a phone conference with reporters leading up to the show, “What the manifesto has to say about our relationship with technology and with society is more true right now than it was when Ted published it.”

He’s a highly intelligent person who wanted to try and stop where he saw humanity headed by any means necessary – including murdering people. Yet he routinely points out throughout his manifesto that there very well might be no stopping the inevitable.

Yet there is something to be taken away from his words if you read closely; it’s that we give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society’s standards. That, and we’re too plugged in. We’re letting technology take over our lives, willingly…Kaczynski, to steal a phrase from the tech world, was just an early adopter of these thoughts.

Fox News’ Dr. Keith Ablow: “[Kaczynski] was precisely correct in many of his ideas”


Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team

Well, Kaczynski, while reprehensible for murdering and maiming people, was precisely correct in many of his ideas.

He saw the political “left” as embracing these technologies with special fervor, because they were in keeping with the “leftist” ideology that centralized power was the way to govern men.

Well, I would rather be correct, than politically correct. And it is time for people to read “Industrial Society and its Future,” by convicted serial killer Ted Kaczynski.  His work, despite his deeds, deserves a place alongside “Brave New World,” by Aldous Huxley, and “1984,” by George Orwell.

The Chicago Tribune: “The Unabomber had a point”


The introduction of the new iPhone X — which features wireless charging, facial recognition and a price tag of $999 — appears to be a minor event in the advance of technology. But it’s an excellent illustration of something that has long gone unrecognized: The Unabomber had a point.

Stanford’s Interview With French Professor Jean-Marie Apostolidès: “Theodore Kaczynski may have been right”


He was intrigued by the killer’s anti-technology stance, and says that on that score, Theodore Kaczynski may have been right. “Technology transformed humanity into something different than it was before, into a new creation – flesh and technè,” he said

“In the past, I was in a certain way tied to a secret that I think has no more value,” he explained. Shortly after the arrest, Apostolidès was approached by Kaczynski’s team of lawyers, who said they were concerned for the prisoner’s sanity and well-being in prison.

In an interview, Apostolidès leaned forward across the desk in his campus office and his voice dropped: “This will shock you. He’s a very nice guy, sweet, open-minded. And I know he has blood on his hands. You cannot be all bad – even if you kill, even Hitler.”

“I do not agree with his ideas, let alone his means to spread them,” Apostolidès said. Nevertheless, “The role of a scholar is to go beyond my own emotions and analyze everything.

Excerpts From Industrial Society And Its Future, The Unabomber’s Manifesto

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.


24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

Twitter permanently bans censorship watchdog and creator of ShadowBan Checker

Twitter user “@RaphaelBeerlin” has been a thorn in the side of Twitter censors for quite some time. Now, Twitter has banned the web developer from using their platform. Twitter’s reasoning? He pointed out that another user had said the “N” word while attacking a German conservative who was arguing for unrestricted free speech. More on that at the bottom of this article. First, we’d like to talk a bit about what Raphael has done for the conservative and free speech movements as well as highlight his latest project to fight censorship on the social network. We’d also like to show you how you can check if your account is currently being censored on Twitter. More than two out of three conservatives are!

Back when the Quality Filter Discrimination (QFD) controversy erupted, it was Raphael who created the first effective means of determining whether one was being censored on the platform.

QFD was a method of censorship imposed on (mostly) conservative accounts as a means to remove them from the Twitter search feature. That means that when one clicked a hashtag or searched for a certain phrase, those who were labeled with a QFD status were left out of the results—regardless of how many retweets their content had received or what the tweet contained.

QFD status was not determined at all by the content of the tweets; instead, the status was determined by who an account followed and who followed the account.

It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that his tool,, was the primary impetus behind Twitter’s reversal of the policy.

Twitter’s Next Censorship Front

Lately, Raphael has turned his attention to the latest form of Twitter censorship, a new threat to conservative voices that he has labeled “deboosting.” At the time of this report, more than two out of three conservative users seem to be under the yoke of deboosting.

Deboosting on twitter refers to a type of soft censorship that targets (again, mostly conservative) accounts and limits the likelihood of their replies being seen.

When a user replies to a tweet sent by another user, their comments appear beneath the original. In the past, Twitter would sort those comments either by their sequence of arival (the first comment appeared first) or level of engagement (comments with more replies, retweets, or favorites would be ranked higher and more visible than others).

Recently, Twitter has taken a different approach.

User accounts in the United States are now graded, by some unknown rubric, to determine whether or not their reply should be easily accessible. If Twitter decides that a user’s account should receive limited attention, the tweets they post will be hidden below a “show more replies” button. But this is just the first layer of censorship.

This feature is ostensibly reserved for accounts that only contribute low quality content. In practice, it seems to target almost everyone with a dissenting view that would not be approved by Jack Dorsey and his ilk.

But it doesn’t stop there. Once one clicks to expand the “show more replies” button, there is often a second layer of censorship revealed. This one is labeled as “additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content.”

Often, these replies aren’t all that offensive at all. In many cases, they’re quite mundane. For example:

Unless a user follows the account that is “deboosted” they will not be able to see their tweets without clicking the “see more” options.

Check if you are “deboosted” on Twitter:

If you’d like to check if you’re deboosted on Twitter, it’s quite simple. Head on over to and type your username in the box on the page. You’ll get a breakdown on your status across four different censorship formats:

So why was RaphaelBeerlin banned?

Just the other day, and we apologize for burying the lede here a bit, Raphael Beerlin was banned. In a conversation on Twitter, he pointed out that a socialist proponent of censorship had dropped the “N” word while attempting to attack a conservative who was arguing for free speech.

Raphael pointed out to the user that they were self-censoring their use of the racial pejorative, an act that is more than a bit ironic for someone speech-policing another.

To be clear, Raphael was NOT using the word as a slur, it was not directed at anyone, it was a quote. And that’s why he was banned.

Nationalist Review has obtained a copy of the “offending” Tweet from Raphael.

Translation: “When you recognized the logic and still write ‘N*gger’. It’s all the attempt to control language and thereby you. Nigger – is that the word you used here, right?”

This ban will not stop Raphael from continuing his work to make transparent the censorship machine in Silicon Valley.

Twitter’s latest TOS change borrows more than just a page from the Scarlet Letter

The goal is to shame the user. Twitter is changing the way users are able to interact with tweets that have been reported for bad behavior. Now, when a user has a tweet reported and is found guilty of violating Twitter’s terms of service, that tweet will be censored and the user will be forced to acknowledge their wrong doing and delete the tweet.

But the tweet won’t go away. Their Twitter profile will alert any new user to their past misdeeds for up to two weeks following the event. I’ve dubbed Twitter’s latest foray into the world of censorship and harassment their Scarlet Letter update—because that’s precisely what the update achieves.

The yellow highlight displays what will appear in the feeds of users that visit a page marked with Twitter’s Scarlet Letter.

Every profile that is forced to wear Twitter’s Scarlet Letter will be marked as a soft target for liberal reporting brigades and don’t think for one second that this fact escapes the engineers at Twitter Safety. They know that this mark won’t act as a warning to stay away, but rather as a beacon or target that enables the worst abusers of the report function to find their latest prey.

Twitter told Mashable that this update was meant to “make it clearer to users about when and how the platform enforces its rules.” But this statement is one of the most transparent lies imaginable. How does entirely covering up the offending Tweet inform anyone about which behavior is against the rules? It doesn’t. It only acts as a target that informs people that the account has been suspended recently and is vulnerable to a permanent suspension.

A badge that proclaims “this person was censored” doesn’t help people understand why, it only tells them who was censored. What really, other than targeted harassment, can be achieved with this information? Nothing.

And, for just one second, enjoy that Freudian slip Twitter let fly—they want to inform users of how and when the platform enforces its rules, implicitly admitting that it is selective in that enforcement. But please ignore all of those anti-white tweets from verified profiles and forget about that time Twitter added a verification label to an account after she tweeted about assaulting elderly white men.

Prior to this update, tweets that were reported and found to be in conflict with Twitter’s community standards were left up until the user chose to delete the tweet. Deletion of the offending tweet was a requisite to gain access to your account, but you were theoretically free to leave the tweet up and refuse to delete it indefinitely—you just wouldn’t be allowed to tweet anything new until you caved.

Is Twitter responding to Woods’ protest?

That’s precisely what actor James Woods did recently. You might recall seeing a story or two about his suspension from the micro-blogging social network. If you do, you’ll remember that, as a point of protest, Woods refused to delete the tweet that Twitter deemed manipulative and false information.

Woods was suspended for this amusing tweet.

Woods had tweeted a parody campaign ad asking liberal men to stay home from the voting booths this November in order to make the women’s vote count more. He pointed out that the image was almost certainly a gag, but was banned for election meddling regardless.

Twitter didn’t take his protest lying down. Despite Woods refusing to delete the tweet, Twitter took care of the dirty business and deleted it without his consent and then restored his account.

Thanks for reading…just one more thing: