The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Jonathan Revusky, Linh Dinh, and Yours Truly on Internet Censorship
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

FFWN recently reported on:

NYT devotes top of front page to propagandizing for YouTube censorship

First half hour: Jonathan Revusky takes a nuanced and ambivalent view. He suggests that defamatory big lies reported by various racist/nationalist types (like the supposed “Muslim rape army,” the alleged Cologne mass sexual assaults, “no-go zones,” and so on) are so bad that maybe we shouldn’t be too outraged if the purveyors get deplatformed.

Second half hour: Linh Dinh generally agrees with yours truly that anything that remotely qualifies as non-criminal political speech is protected by the First Amendment, that internet platforms are today’s digital town square and must obey the Constitution—and that the internet should basically be a free speech zone even for countries without a First Amendment. Free speech is a basic human right!

Note: If the internet censorship gets much worse, I may have to give up alternative journalism and go into the T-shirt business.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Censorship, YouTube 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. bravo linn. John revulsky it’s easy to spot his spots. my knowledge of him is very limited but when he attacked Paul Roberts he lost me.
    A word to Kevin. A while ago, maybe 6 weeks ago, I got critical of Gordon Duff in the comments section at VT. Amazingly he banned me, After about 2 weeks of not being allowed to comment I suddenly had access again, then not, then yes. So, it was on and off for a few weeks. Right now my access seems fully restored. I comment there as joetv,
    Anyway all’s good. Your audio and video chats are first class. thanks.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  2. PPB says:

    So, instead of the customary soup du jour served up by the TV network and cable news, we now also have the internet, where we can order a la carte from a plethora of catering services. And cater they do, to each conceivable or potential inclination. Many of the lesser players are specialists, while the big names go for the broadest appeal that remains consistent with their raisons d’etre. And, in defending their foundational models, they employ the same level of self-justifying disingenuousness that’s par for the course elsewhere in the world of politics and big business. Moral and intellectual integrity rarely qualify anyone to play with the big boys. Plus ca change, etc. … (pardon the absence of appropriate diacritical marks and extended critical commentary).

    For true free speech, there are always public restroom stalls.

  3. The fact that claims of violent crimes have gained so much attention in the toxic-alternative media (ex. Breitbart, InfoWars) is a huge flashing sign that there is a Zionist agenda behind both the big money pushing migration as well as the backlash and resistance to that push. Problem, reaction, solution. Who wins and gains more power when Christians are fighting Muslims in Europe and Protestant Christians are fighting Catholic Mexicans in the Americas? What pro-Israel groups fund both sides of the controlled chaos?

  4. I muar say it was irritating to hear Linh being cut off continually in his criticisms because Kevin can’t take Linh’s valid critiicism of Revulsky, who was unlistenable in the first part. And then Linh was suddenly cut off with the “promise” that one day they might do a part II.

    A terrible podcast due to Kevin’s prejudice. Enjoyed hearing Linh though during the brief times that Kevin wasn’t interrupting.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  5. @the grand wazoo

    when he attacked Paul Roberts he lost me.

    Well, I don’t feel I was “attacking” him. I was just pointing out the truth. Of late, PCR has not been very meticulous about actually checking facts. He seems to get too excited and writes about things without any cold assessment. So, as a result, you get things like this:

    And, actually, even above, where I say that he “has not been very meticulous” about actually checking facts, on reflection, I’m still pulling my punches. That is actually an extreme understatement! And you’ll note that Kevin did have to concur that “he has fallen for some things lately”.

    To be clear, I didn’t even really want to single out PCR. After all, he is one of many public intellectuals who fell for the “Muslim Rape Epidemic” hoax, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The whole thing has reached a level of absurdity at this point, since all the actual crime statistics show that crime Germany is at multi-decade lows!

    In any case, what I was saying about PCR is, unfortunately, just true. If pointing out the facts is “attacking” somebody, then… well… so be it…

  6. @restless94110

    Linh being cut off continually in his criticisms because Kevin can’t take Linh’s valid critiicism of Revulsky,

    Well, I just have no idea whatsoever what “valid criticism” you are referring to. Granted, self-observation is always problematic but I listened to it carefully and just couldn’t find anything that seemed remotely valid.

    He would just continually misrepresent things that I had said. For example, at one point, he was representing that I had said that no Muslims ever commit any crimes or some ridiculous straw man position like that. But of course I never said that.

    I mean, it’s such a moronic framing of the question anyway. Obviously, if you took a million random people from any demographic, a few of them are criminals. If you took a million random white guys, a few of them committed some crimes in the last year, and some even committed some heinous crimes, sure.

    That’s not the issue.

    The problem is that what is going on with this “Muslims as rapists” narrative, just like with the longstanding “Muslims as terrorists” narrative is that it’s just an orchestrated defamation campaign. At this point, that really should be obvious to anybody.

    It should also be pretty obvious who (broadly speaking) is behind the defamation campaign.

    But genius boy Linh, for all his supposed opposition to the Jewish lobbies, somehow doesn’t understand who is behind that defamation campaign!

    But it gets worse. Linh’s idea that I express righteous anger about all this out of some sort of “obsessive Jewiness” or something… something like that… that’s just borderline demented. I really listened to some of that and (not for the first time at this point) had to question Linh’s mental health.

    I actually agree with you that Kevin was doing a pretty lousy job as an interviewer, but for the opposite reason. I really feel that he should have been much more forceful in shutting down Linh’s BS. Linh did not have a valid critique. He was just flailing away without any real point of some resentment and malice towards me. I found the whole thing to be just utterly cringe worthy.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @eah
    , @restless94110
  7. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Granted, self-observation is always problematic …”


  8. eah says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    the alleged Cologne mass sexual assaults

    Simple question: do you read/understand German? — yes or no?

    In the past, I’ve suggested people should be careful about forming hard opinions about events in Germany by reading English language media, especially initial reports that are often inaccurate, and seldom later corrected when more facts are known — the media has simply moved on.

    There’s a German language Wikipedia page about what happened — it seems fairly accurate:

    Sexuelle Übergriffe in der Silvesternacht 2015/16

    There is nothing “alleged” about the “sexual assaults” around the Köln Hauptbahnhof on Sylvester 2015/2016.

    In German the crimes committed that night were called (variously) “sexuelle Übergriffe”, “sexuelle Belästigung”, or “sexuelle Nötigung” — the one common term “Sexualdelikte” can be used — “sexual assault” is definitely an acceptable translation of any/all of these terms.

    From the beginning, it was very clear in German media that few (if any) rapes (Vergewaltigungen) had taken place — text from Wikpedia describes what most victims (girls and young women) reported:

    …wurden überwiegend Frauen von unterschiedlich großen Gruppen von Männern umringt und dabei massiv sexuell belästigt, beleidigt oder sexuell genötigt und ausgeraubt. Die Opfer beschrieben später in Interviews, wie sie immer wieder und überall am Körper, vor allem zwischen den Beinen, angefasst worden seien und wie man versucht habe, ihnen die Kleidung auszuziehen, während die Täter gleichzeitig in die Taschen gegriffen hätten.

    They were surrounded by groups of males — these males sexually molested them by violently grabbing their breasts and asses; putting their hands between their legs; forcefully kissing them — this includes putting their hands underneath clothing, and removing clothing — they were also robbed at the same time: their purses were taken and their wallets and mobile phones stolen.

    Later it says what kind of formal charges were made:

    Bis zum 10. Februar wurden 1054 Strafanzeigen wegen Vorfällen in der Kölner Innenstadt während der Silvesternacht aufgenommen. In 454 Fällen handelte es sich dabei um Sexualdelikte, darunter waren auch mindestens drei Anzeigen wegen Vergewaltigung.

    454 charges related to “Sexualdelikte” — also at least 3 rapes — the rest were for Diebstahl (robbery) and Körperverletzung (assault) — later a total of 5 rapes were found to have occurred, and 16 “Sexualdelikte” were rated as attempted rapes:

    5 Anzeigen wegen vollendeter Vergewaltigung und 16 wegen versuchter Vergewaltigung lagen vor.

    By June 16 2016, 1276 victims had been identified:

    Nach Angaben der Staatsanwaltschaft Köln gab es mit Stand 16. Juni 2016 durch die Vorfälle in der Silvesternacht insgesamt 1.276 mutmaßliche Opfer.

    Trying to identify, arrest, and build a case against the perpetrators was very difficult, since they pretty much all disappeared that night because the police were overwhelmed — on the Wikipedia page you can see a Fahndungsplakat the police used to ask for help:

    Von den 183 Beschuldigten galten 55 als Marokkaner, 53 als Algerier, 22 als Iraker, 14 als Syrer und 14 als Deutsche. 73 Beschuldigte waren Asylsuchende, 36 zur Tatzeit illegal in Deutschland, 11 hatten eine Aufenthaltserlaubnis.

    They were able to identify 183 perpetrators with nationalities as above — 73 were asylum seekers (with some kind of temporary legal permission to be in Germany) — 36 were illegally in the country — only 11 had a residence permit.

    Part of the outrage was due to the fact many of the perpetrators who could be identified and arrested turned out to be migrants and asylum seekers who had arrived only a few months before, “allegedly” seeking protection — and being fully cared for by German taxpayers: housing, food, medical care, interpreters, pocket money, etc etc.

    You really are a tiresome prick — why you seem to want to minimize or dismiss what happened to these girls and young women that night is a question only you can answer — for them, it was a frightening and humiliating experience.

    And if you were stupid enough to believe wrong reports in English language media, that’s your damn fault, and it’s fucking irrelevant.

    I’m personally really tired of your nonsense, you dumb faggot.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  9. @eah

    Simple question: do you read/understand German? — yes or no?

    Actually, I read German moderately well, but I enlisted the help of a native speaker of German to help me go through the main 1352 (!) page police report that the relevant authorities produced as a result of all this brouhaha. That report can be found here, so you can verify this yourself:

    This is quoted text from private email after my native German speaking correspondent helped me go through all this. He wrote:

    There is a grand total of one (1) young woman whose “body cavities” were penetrated with fingers. There is lots of arguing back and forth between different levels of officialdom whether this constitutes “rape.” After legal texts and experts have been consulted, the conclusion prevails that it does. That is the only case of “rape” there is in those 1352 pages.

    Otherwise, a few dozen cases of stealing and groping, which seems to not be in dispute. You know, that is not really all that different from what goes on in Cologne on carnival every year.

    That’s it. Based on an analysis of that relevant final commission report, which was the last word from officialdom on the whole thing. One “digital rape”. Apparently. No consummated normal rape. Not one. That is all that happened on a major public festival day in a German city of a couple of million people.

    That’s it.

    So I researched this seriously. It’s a big fat nothing, but converted into this massive ideological weapon for various people, though…

    And if you were stupid enough to believe wrong reports in English language media, that’s your damn fault, and it’s fucking irrelevant.

    Well, if I was stupid enough, but I’m not that stupid. You see, the problem here is that when you are a total pathetic bullshitter, you just cannot conceive that somebody else is not that, that he’s serious. So you then make an ass of yourself as you just did.

    So, no, dumbshit, I looked at the source material in German. Now, again, it’s overwhelming (and that’s obviously intentional) but I enlisted help from somebody and he also did not sit down and read all 1352 pages, but he tried as best he could to figure out the sum total of what happened. And that’s it. Just a big fat nothing burger.

    Though, even without this level of thoroughness, it was actually pretty obvious already that the whole thing was just a hoax. I mean, if you just look at the Wikipedia page on the incident, you have the description of the authorities poring over well over a thousand hours of video — I guess, both CCTV and smartphone video footage. And there’s nothing there. Well, basically, they found one guy they could convict of something or other based on like a thousand hours of video footage. A thousand hours of video to cover an alleged mass event that lasted maybe a couple of hours, so there is like an hour of video for practically every minute of the overall event (alleged event…) so there must be video footage from practically imaginable angle and even so, they could not hardly find anybody to prosecute for anything. Because, obviously, there is really just nothing to look at…

    The whole thing is a complete and utter hoax basically.

    I’m personally really tired of your nonsense, you dumb faggot.

    Well, you see, this is also a dead giveaway that there is no proof. If there really was any proof that anything had happened, you would outline it, but instead you resort to insults from behind a mask. This is what people do when the facts are not on their side.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Troll: restless94110
  10. @Jonathan Revusky

    Here’s a tip: write a lot less word salad in your commentary.

    Let me nelp you. You appear to sincerely believe that a little bit of rape, murder, and mayhem is ok.

    Especially or maybe even ONLY if it is some minority who is doing the raping, murdering, grooming, and mayheming.

    Most other human beings disagree with you.

    I am one of them.

    Furthermore, I find you making excuses and poo pooing these common occurances to be repulsive, repugnant, reprehensible, and disgusting.

    What is wrong with you, man?

    See? No word salad. Now. The next time you reply to anyone? Edit yourself down to about 1/10th of what you oritingally wrote.

    Cause when you run off at the mouth? We all know you are trying to obfuscate.

    And no one is falling for it.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
  11. Bravo to you Mr. Linh. You are the voice of reason. Keep up the good work!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS