The Cynical and Dangerous Weaponization of the “White Supremacist” Label

Within hours of the August 25, 2020, shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin — not days, but hours — it was decreed as unquestioned fact in mainstream political and media circles that the shooter, Kyle Rittenhouse, was a “white supremacist.” Over the next fifteen months, up to and including his acquittal by a jury of his peers on all charges, this label was applied to him more times than one can count by corporate media outlets as though it were proven fact. Indeed, that Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist” was deemed so unquestionably true that questioning it was cast as evidence of one’s own racist inclinations (defending a white supremacist).

Yet all along, there was never any substantial evidence, let alone convincing proof, that it was true. This fact is, or at least should be, an extraordinary, even scandalous, event: a 17-year-old was widely vilified as being a white supremacist by a union of national media and major politicians despite there being no evidence to support the accusation. Yet it took his acquittal by a jury who heard all the evidence and testimony for parts of the corporate press to finally summon the courage to point out that what had been Gospel about Rittenhouse for the last fifteen months was, in fact, utterly baseless.

Washington Post news article was published late last week that was designed to chide “both sides” for exploiting the Rittenhouse case for their own purposes while failing to adhere carefully to actual facts. Ever since the shootings in Kenosha, they lamented, “Kyle Rittenhouse has been a human canvas onto which the nation’s political divisions were mapped.” In attempting to set the record straight, the Post article contained this amazing admission:

As conservatives coalesced around the idea of Rittenhouse as a blameless defender of law and order, many on the left just as quickly cast him as the embodiment of the far-right threat. Despite a lack of evidence, hundreds of social media posts immediately pinned Rittenhouse with extremist labels: white supremacist, self-styled militia member, a “boogaloo boy” seeking violent revolution, or part of the misogynistic “incel” movement.

 “On the left he’s become a symbol of white supremacy that isn’t being held accountable in the United States today,” said Becca Lewis, a researcher of far-right movements and a doctoral candidate at Stanford University. “You see him getting conflated with a lot of the police officers who’ve shot unarmed Black men and with Trump himself and all these other things. On both sides, he’s become a symbol much bigger than himself.”

Soon after the shootings, then-candidate Joe Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Rittenhouse was allegedly part of a militia group in Illinois. In the next sentence, Biden segued to criticism of Trump and hate groups: “Have you ever heard this president say one negative thing about white supremacists?

Valuable though this rather belated admission is, there were two grand ironies about this passage. The first is that The Post itself was one of the newspapers which published multiple articles and columns applying this evidence-free “white supremacist” label to Rittenhouse. Indeed, four days after this admission by The Post‘s newsroom, their opinion editors published an op-ed by Robert Jones that flatly asserted the very same accusation which The Post itself says is bereft of evidence: “Despite his boyish white frat boy appearance, there was plenty of evidence of Rittenhouse’s deeper white supremacist orientation.” In other words, Post editors approved publication of grave accusations which, just four days earlier, their own newsroom explicitly stated lacked evidence.

Keep reading

Former New York Times journalist says the paper deliberately HELD her story condemning Kenosha rioters until after 2020 election: ‘The reality of what brought Kyle Rittenhouse into the streets was one we were meant to ignore’

A former New York Times journalist has claimed the paper deliberately held a story about how Kenosha rioters destroyed local businesses until after the 2020 election.  

Nellie Bowles is the partner of Bari Weiss, a fellow disillusioned former New York Times columnist who says she was bullied out of the newspaper because she didn’t align entirely with its views. 

Writing for Weiss’s Substack channel Common Sense, Bowles revealed on Friday that after the August 2020 riots, she went to Kenosha to speak to the owners of small local businesses that had been razed between August 23 and August 28, after Jacob Blake‘s shooting. 

She found in her reporting that the rioters were indiscriminate in who they targeted, often going after businesses and properties in the poorer parts of town. She focused on the fact that those smaller business owners had a harder time claiming back portions of their money from insurance, and that the riots left them down and out. 

She submitted the story but was told ‘The Times wouldn’t be able to run my Kenosha insurance debacle piece until after the 2020 election.’

‘There were a variety of reasons given—space, timing, tweaks here or there. Eventually the election passed. Biden was in the White House. And my Kenosha story ran,’ she wrote.

It ended up not running until November 9, almost a week after the election and nearly four months after the Kenosha riots.

Keep reading

WHISTLEBLOWER: Facebook Internal Docs Likely Show How Tech Giant Blacklisted Kyle Rittenhouse

In order to do this, Facebook likely exploited a loophole that allowed them to skate around their terms of service and selectively moderate content. Internal documents shared with National File by Facebook whistleblower Ryan Hartwig shine light on these practices.

Hartwig worked on Facebook’s content moderation team while employed at a company called Cognizant from 2018-2020 until he eventually blew the whistle after realizing the platform’s content moderation efforts pushed political agendas and punished those who disagree. Hartwig now says he believes he knows the mechanisms Facebook used to purge all positive mention of Kyle Rittenhouse.

According to Hartwig, Facebook most likely branded the Kenosha shootings as a “mass murder”, then used that designation to purge pro-Rittenhouse content under the company’s “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” policy.

“In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence to have a presence on Facebook,” reads the policy rationale.

Facebook will assess organizations both online and offline in order to gauge the likelihood of groups or individuals causing real world harm. Groups that fall under the dangerous organizations policy include terrorist organizations, “hate organizations”, organized crime syndicates such as drug cartels, and multiple-victim murderers.

Keep reading

Misinformation About Kyle Rittenhouse Case Floods Social Media, TV Networks

Kyle Rittenhouse shot three black men. Kyle Rittenhouse traveled across state lines with a gun. Kyle Rittenhouse had an AK-47.

These are three examples of false information being spread about Rittenhouse, whose trial ended last week with his acquittal.

Prominent influencers, including lawmakers and reporters, are sources of some of the misinformation—possibly disinformation—leaving experts troubled.

On CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, reporter Mark Strassman falsely said Rittenhouse “drove in from Illinois armed for battle.” On CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time” on Friday, Harvard University professor Cornell William Brooks falsely said Rittenhouse was carrying an AK-47. The Independent falsely reported late last week that Rittenhouse shot three black men.

Rittenhouse, 17 years old at the time, shot three men, two fatally, with an AR-15 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020. All were white, as is Rittenhouse. The gun was bought by a friend and was picked up by the teenager, who resided in Illinois, from a home in Kenosha.

Rittenhouse claimed self-defense and the jury agreed, clearing him of all charges after video footage and witness testimony during the trial showed he was attacked by all of the men he shot.

Keep reading

How Unethical Were the Prosecutors Trying to Put Kyle Rittenhouse in Prison? Let Us Count the Ways…

Let’s go over just a few of the things these weasels did to Kyle Rittenhouse.

District Attorney Michael Gravely chose to bring a case against someone with a clear-cut case of self-defense. Voters should do something about that guy in the next election.

Gravely’s hand-picked attack dogs, Binger and Kraus, lied throughout the process and never resisted and revised the charges to reflect new information uncovered in their case.

The case was overcharged. Even Daily Caller reporter Ritchie McGinnis, who appeared to be hiding behind a car when Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum to preserve his life, thought reckless endangerment charges on his behalf were uncalled for.

Defense attorney Mark Richards told reporters after the verdict that putting on the Khindri brothers, the owners of Car Source, was a lie to the world — and they knew it — so that Binger could further the fiction that Rittenhouse and his buddies were never asked to come and protect the buildings that night. PJ Media’s Megan Fox does a total takedown of this outrage. We were on to them the whole time.

Kyle Rittenhouse lived in the area. He was not a “chaos tourist” or “vigilante.” He was a good kid who came to help his, yes his, community. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. His dad lived in Kenosha. His friends lived in Kenosha. He lived 17 minutes away in a border town in Illinois. More than half the people who work in Washington, D.C. don’t live there. Let’s ban them, those damned chaos tourists.

The gun used in the shootings was purchased with Rittenhouse’s money by a good friend, Dominick Black, who kept the gun in his dad’s gun safe in Kenosha with the plan to sell it to Rittenhouse when he turned 18. That young man is on trial in Kenosha for procuring that gun. He testified that if he helped the prosecution he might get a better deal from Thomas Binger in his case. Do tell.

The gun was legal. Prosecutors kept up the farce that it was not legal for more than a year until the last possible moment — before the jury got the case. That lie launched a thousand Leftist conspiracy theories. It needn’t have. They could have read the law and learned the truth. Looking at you, Bill de Blasio, you big tub of goo, and Jerry Nadler.

Thomas Binger and Jim Kraus withheld witnesses from the night in question. They lied. LIED — about the name of the man who provided drone video of the shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum. They knew who it was the whole time and then lied straightfacedly to the judge saying, “Gee, your honor we had no idea.” Of course, we later found out that the man’s name was on the witness list the whole time.

Keep reading