PJW Claims That BitChute & Gab Are White Supremacist Ghettos

#1

I wish that the title of this post was merely clickbait, but it’s not. In PJW’s recent appearance on the Candace Owens Show, Paul Joseph Watson not only claimed that BitChute and Gab were white supremacist ghettos, but he also implied that BitChute should censor White Supremacists on their platform by not allowing their content to show up on BitChute’s homepage when you look up the most recent uploads to the site.

It’s really weird to see PJW promote BitChute and Gab a lot over the past year, build up 44,000 subs and 87,000 followers respectively on those platforms, and then turn around throw those platforms under the bus while simultaneously promoting Parler, a Twitter alternative that’s way smaller than Gab and isn’t nearly as innovative.

Here is my video that I made about the topic:

Anyone else got any ideas why PJW has done such an about-face regarding BitChute and Gab?

3 Likes
#2

He probably thinks it’s bait, potentially in an attempt to create controlled opposition. Let’s think about it: The globalists and left declare us to be white supremacists, yes? So we migrate to these alternatives because we were thrown off the mainstream for “hate speech” and “white supremacy”.

So if I were a part of the tech left, I’d bombard the alternatives with actual white supremacy. I’d have it, since it was volunteered to me on ScrewTube and Twatter (just because it’s not up there doesn’t mean I don’t have it). I would already have an idea of how the algorithms work, having written a few of them (maybe not have the specifics, but most of these sites are starting from the mainstream tech anyway, as even machine learning has to be programmed). Then, once the actual white supremacy got to the top, and my “enemies” were to promote the alternative site, I could easily point and say that they’re white supremacists given what’s “trending” there, and the public would take the bait of correlating what has no correlation whatsoever.

3 Likes
#3

I DEFINITELY agree with you in regards to @CandaceO. I like her BUT she has ALWAYS been controlled opposition…We saw this with her association with Charlie Kirk and then he dropped her like a hot rock.

As far as #PJW he’s not far off and that’s what the mainstream clowns are claiming too. I don’t think Paul meant it the way you’re taking it though. I think he was saying that the MAJORITY of those on Gab and bitchute are the REJECTS from #SocialMedia platforms that Booted us off their platforms…Which is TRUE!

That’s the reason I went with them to share my content and eventually will ONLY have them…so in that sense it IS an Internet ghetto…and WE are it’s residents.

I 100% agree that ALL people MUST have the right to speak…even IF it’s so-called hate speech…Whatever that is…it’s in the eye of the beholder!

I personally do NOT have to listen to their foolishness BUT they do have the right to speak just like the rest of us.

There is NO FREE SPEECH IF you don’t protect the rights of ALL to speak freely.

3 Likes
#5

He’s not a candy ass, he’s British. :wink:

4 Likes
#6

I only subscribe to Ron Gibson and @Texas_T on bitchute

#7

I think we got to look at what peoples perception is and definition is of Nazis, KKK is. The Nazis are responsible for the camp killings in ww2, the KKK, hung and killed blacks. So where do we really draw the line on Censorship. I go by history, history repeats itself. I don’t want a known murder party on any platform. So they can call me what they want I don’t care.

#8

I look at it this way. If a group is provenly known for mass murder, on a large scale why would any sane person allow that group on a platform?

#9

Because it’s grouping a whole group as mass killers. It’s bad apples in these groups that do these mass shootings, very small percentage.
These idiots are all delusional in thier thinking don’t get me wrong, but they have freedom of speach like we all do, no matter thier group affiliations and thier mind set.

2 Likes
#10

But that group has a proven history of mass murdering.
KKK had their right to assemble under the constitution and they assembled and mass murdered.

#11

I get freedom of speech. But the constitution was written for common since people. Freedom of speech was not intended for people to assemble and plan mass murdering. Those groups are both proven mass murdering groups murdering in the thousands. Those why should they have freedom of speech rights under the constitution?

1 Like
#12

I get what your saying we don’t want to be censored.

1 Like
#13

I would agree if they are all planning and organizing a mass murder event as whole. If this is the case then yeah, they should be investigated for sure and shut down immediately.
If they are just spewing racial hatred and showing videos of thier idol, Hitler, they are protected under our constitution.

1 Like
#14

But those groups assembled before under our constitution and they planned murders. So given their passed history why would we let them assemble again?.

1 Like
#15

If they are planning it in the open then yes.

1 Like
#16

I understand that too. In my mind, every body is different, so I see your point. But in my mind those groups lost their rights to assemble in public or on a platform. The group lost their rights when they committed mass murders.

1 Like
#17

I’ll continue to use it. Fuck YouTube.

2 Likes
#18

Let’s say hypothetically a person from here goes to Portland next week and murders everyone, are we guilty as well? Should Infowars Army be lumped in with a crazy lone wolf?

1 Like
#19

On a large scale…

1 Like
#20

But that’s only one person that goes out and commits a mass shooting. So let’s say only Hypotheteicallt speaking.
There was a group on a platform and that spewed out murder and then 1,000 of them went out and committed a mass murder. Which resulted in 50,000 dead. Should they censor the group?

1 Like
#21

Even though 100 people in that group was not involved with a mass shooting?

1 Like