NBC News' attack on 'right-wing influencers' over claims about Haitian cannibalism kneecapped by stunning admission



Murderous Haitian gangsters have massacred countless unarmed civilians; freed thousands of convicted felons from jail; torched police stations; engaged in systematic rape; threatened genocide; seized control of the country's key port; besieged the airport in Port-au-Prince; and forced the failed nation's prime minister to resign.

Some commentators online have even suggested that among the thugs regarded by some American leftists as revolutionaries are killers who have developed a taste for more than rape, torture, and murder.

NBC News apparently wanted to rehabilitate the gangsters' reputation this week or at the very least kill the notion that those otherwise keen to burn people alive and stack bodies in the streets like cordwood might be cannibals. After all, the threat of cannibal gangs might engender a desire among Americans to prevent migrants from Haiti from continuing to illegally enter the United States.

The trouble with the liberal network's effort is that it contained the seed of its own undoing.

NBC Newspublished a report Wednesday claiming that South African billionaire Elon Musk and "right-wing pundits online are weaponizing unverified claims of cannibalism coming out of the conflict to advance a political agenda on immigration."

The thrust of the article is that conservative commentators have unfairly vilified those Haitian nationals who would steal into the U.S. — not by highlighting the crimes other illegal aliens from Haiti have committed on American soil and against citizens but by noting barbaric practices allegedly engaged in by some of their countrymen back home.

"Musk and conservative influencers have spread the message to millions, smearing Haitian migrants as cannibals," wrote NBC News tech reporter David Ingram.

A number of Haitian cannibalism claims online have been accompanied by a possibly real video from another recent rash of Haitian violence as well as a number of fake videos, including one taken from a Nigerian film set.

Ingram noted, "The cruelty of Haitian gang leaders is not in dispute, nor is the widespread killing in the country during a yearslong political crisis, but the false claims about widespread cannibalism go much further in trying to paint the whole Caribbean nation as barbarous."

Just four paragraphs into his article, however, Ingram admitted that the accusations of cannibalism were actually grounded in fact "on what experts said was a likely intimidation tactic from select gang members."

"In some videos, the most prominent examples being at least two years old, alleged members of violent gangs in Haiti appear to bite into human flesh," wrote Ingram. "Experts said these videos are likely part of propaganda campaigns designed to scare rivals and terrorize local Haitians rather than a reflection of common or normalized behavior. One former armed group went by the name 'Cannibal Army.'"

Ingram spoke to a moderator of the Haitian Subreddit who was similarly condemnatory of the cannibalism narrative, but even his outrage apparently centered on a recognition that the claims ultimately have merit.

"A whole population is getting blamed for what some psycho gang members are doing," said Chris Nestor, a Reddit moderator and a lawyer in Washington, D.C. "It is racist. It is dehumanizing."

Among the posts Ingram found vexing was one from podcast host Tim Pool, one from Malaysian commentator Ian Miles Cheong, and a handful from Musk.

Podcaster Tim Pool received a mention in the NBC News article for tweeting, "Look at Haiti[:] Murder, chaos, cannibalism."

Cheong wrote on March 6, "There are cannibal gangs in Haiti who abduct and eat people. We are not supposed to talk about that because of cultural relativism. The entire country has now entered a state of chaos after gangs attacked two prisons, setting many criminals free. 80% of Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince is now controlled by these gangs."

— (@)

Cheong doubled down days later, writing, "Haiti has collapsed. The President is no longer in the country. The ports are officially closed. Cannibal gangs are besieging the national palace in Port-au-prince."

"And now they want to import this into America," added Cheong.

Elon Musk replied to the Malaysian commentator, writing, "End of days. This is bleaker than Mad Max."

On March 12, Ingram wrote to Cheong concerning a video allegedly depicting a Haitian gangster eating human flesh, noting, "This video is two years old at least."

Cheong responded, "I guess cannibalism in Haiti isn't so bad if a video of it happening was taken two years ago. Haiti has a long, colorful history of cannibalism. In 2004, a gang called the Cannibal Army also called the Artibonite Resistance Front, seized control of Gonaives. And then they took over Port-au-Prince. I’m sure the name was just for show."

Musk managed to get deep under Ingram's skin with repeated cannibal claims.

"When people wonder 'how bad can it really get?', well it can get cannibal-gang bad," he wrote on Monday.

The Tesla CEO commented on a video about America's open borders, "Cannibal gangs."

After NBC News ran Ingram's piece, Musk wrote, "If wanting to screen immigrants for potential homicidal tendencies and cannibalism makes me 'right wing', then I would gladly accept such a label! Failure to do so would put innocent Americans in mortal risk. Shame on NBC. Shame, shame, shame."

"Objecting to rolling out the red (in more ways than one) carpet for homicidal cannibals seems like a reasonable position to me," added Musk.

Cannibalism is just one of many terror tactics that has been employed by Haitian gangs.

Last year, Jon Lee Anderson of the New Yorker interviewed Jimmy "Barbeque" Chérizier, the mass murderer sanctioned by U.N. and various Western nations for human rights abuses, who recently united various disparate gangs, threatened genocide, and took over Port-au-Prince. In the July article, Anderson noted that the practice of "necklacing," whereby victims are "yoked with tires doused in gasoline and set alight," has become "widespread in Haiti, as a growing array of gangs have taken up the methods of the Chimères."

Anderson noted that "it is not uncommon to see the bodies of people murdered by gang members and left in public as a warning to rivals. Some are charred after being set on fire. Others show signs of having been beaten or shot or hacked with machetes."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rolling Stone magazine ridiculed for peddling claim that 'cancel culture is good for democracy'



Rolling Stone once covered rock and roll music and counted among its contributors Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Wolfe, and Matt Taibbi. This week, it platformed a defense of horizontal despotism and the mobbing of nonconformists.

The magazine, which paid out $1.65 million in 2017 for its part in a defamatory episode of cancel culture and previously ran a critique of efforts to "cancel Liz Cheney," published an article by LGBT activist Ernest Owens on Monday entitled, "Why Cancel Culture Is Good For Democracy."

Twitter CEO Elon Musk was among those who ridiculed the publication over the article, calling its defense of mob tyranny "obnoxious."

Tyranny of the mob

Owens downplayed in his article fears of the "angry mob instantly judging us and preparing to end our careers before they start," suggesting that "we are the people who make up the so-called mob."

After ostensibly identifying himself and his readers with the mob, Owens indicated that the character assassinations, censorship, and attacks on persons with whom activists disagree have simply been a matter of vigilante justice: "Cancel culture has leveled the playing field for those who can’t always rely on the government to protect them."

Persons whom Owens and other LGBT activists regard as "bigots are protected under the First Amendment to fuel disgusting rhetoric without state-sanctioned consequence. ... Cancel culture is the poison to those in power that have benefited from unchecked free speech."

Owens racialized his defense of virtual lynch mobs and horizontal despotism, stating, "Straight white men and other people with power aren’t used to getting pushback for the ways they conduct themselves—and cancel culture has reset the ways society can react. Those who fear cancel culture may claim they fear suppression of speech, but it’s accountability that they want to avoid."

The LGBT activist noted in the piece that the internet has changed the game; that previously it "was hard to fully cancel something," but after "the internet began to take off in the 1990s, society began to see a shift in how the public could consider canceling with less gatekeeping."

In an Orwellian twist, the LGBT activist suggested that "cancel culture is a way for a new generation of people to practice free speech."

What Owens regards as an exercise in free speech, Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in “Democracy in America” was a form of horizontal despotism.

While "chains and executioners are the coarse instruments that tyranny formerly employed" in democratic republics, despotism “leaves the body and goes straight for the soul," wrote de Tocqueville, whose family narrowly avoided a bloody cancellation at the hands of the mob during the French Revolution.

De Tocqueville detailed the nature of cancel culture, albeit in its pre-digital form: "The master no longer says to it: You shall think as I do or you shall die; he says: You are free not to think as I do; your life, your goods, everything remains to you; but from this day on, you are a stranger among us. You shall keep your privileges in the city, but they will become useless to you; for if you crave the vote of your fellow citizens, they will not grant it to you, and if you demand only their esteem, they will still pretend to refuse it to you. You shall remain among men, but you shall lose your rights of humanity.”

The writer who runs afoul of the mob is made the "butt of mortifications of all kids and of persecutions every day. ... He yields, he finally bends under the effort of each day and returns to silence as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.”

Characterizing this pursuit of ideological conformity by way of horizontal social pressure as an effective way of holding others "accountable," Owens suggested that the "potential for cancel culture is democracy uncensored and unchained. Despite how critics have tried to represent it, cancel culture is not cyberbullying or doxing. Cancel culture gives us the chance to engage in new and exciting ways—civically, culturally, and politically."

Owens elsewhere intimated that cancel culture can also be engaged in kinetically.

He told the Boston Globe that "when you look at the LGBTQ rights movement, in the end, marginalized voices won because of cancel culture," adding that "it was not a peaceful, 'I agree, I disagree.' It was a riot."

Backlash

While the Rolling Stone article was roundly ridiculed online, its detractors did not appear to seek Owens' cancellation.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeted Tuesday, "How blatantly obnoxious that they just want to keep canceling people! Do they ever write about music anymore? They should rename themselves 'Scolding Stone', as all they seem to do these days is holier-than-thou nagging."

\u201c@WallStreetSilv How blatantly obnoxious that they just want to keep canceling people! Do they ever write about music anymore?\n\nThey should rename themselves \u201cScolding Stone\u201d, as all they seem to do these days is holier-than-thou nagging.\u201d
— Wall Street Silver (@Wall Street Silver) 1677011070

Billy Markus, one of the software engineers behind Dogecoin, intimated the magazine was due for a name change, writing, "rolling sanctimony."

Conservative Twitter commentator Ian Miles Cheong responded, "Canceling people is that rag’s bread and butter now. I don’t think they write about anything that doesn’t have some woke angle."

Mathematician and "Sokal Squared" woke-hoaxer James Lindsay suggested that Owen was effectively pushing for Maoism, citing a 1957 document from communist mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung entitled, "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People."

The document referenced by Lindsay discusses the different methods by which "the contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and the contradictions among the people must be resolved."

According to Mao, the first function of the people's democratic dictatorship was "internal, namely, to suppress the reactionary classes and elements and those exploiters who resist the socialist revolution, to suppress those who try to wreck our socialist construction, or in other words, to resolve the contradictions between ourselves and the internal enemy. For instance, to arrest, try and sentence certain counter-revolutionaries, and to deprive landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists of their right to vote and their freedom of speech for a certain period of time — all this comes within the scope of our dictatorship."

Although now platforming a defense of cancel culture, Rolling Stone paid a hefty sum for its participation in and exacerbation of the phenomenon in 2017.

The magazine ran an article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely in November 2014 entitled "A Rape on Campus."

In an apparent effort to cancel a fraternity and a former associate dean at University of Virginia, the article advanced the claims by a single source that young men had brutally raped her in 2012. However, police in Charlottesville determined there was "no substantive basis" to conclude the incident had ever occurred, reported the New York Times.

According to the Washington Post, the article "caused an immediate sensation ... going viral online and reverberating through the U-Va. community." The resultant cancel mob was as misled as it was incensed.

A 10-member jury determined that the so-called reporter, Erdely, was responsible for defamation with actual malice and similarly found the magazine liable of defamation.

It would appear that not all calls for accountability are warranted and not all cancellations are measured or just.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

PayPal bans account belonging to journalist Ian Miles Cheong



The online financial company PayPal has permanently banned journalist Ian Miles Cheong from using its services. Cheong, a writer for the Post Millennial, reported the ban on Twitter Tuesday, writing that he was not given a specific reason why his account was shut down.

"PayPal just informed me that they have permanently banned my account," Cheong wrote. "Without giving an explicit reason why, the supervisor was extremely rude and implied that it had everything to do with my politics."

PayPal just informed me that they have permanently banned my account. Without giving an explicit reason why, the supervisor was extremely rude and implied that it had everything to do with my politics.
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com) 1641351797

In follow-up tweets, Cheong said PayPal would not tell him which specific rules his account violated.

"They gave me a lecture on how they can’t reveal which rule I broke and they mentioned how I was a journalist and how it’s the same as not revealing sources," Cheong wrote. "When I asked if it was about my politics, they implied that it was and how they 'remain neutral' on such things."

After some Twitter users accused him of lying about the ban, Cheong posted a screenshot of a message he received from PayPal, informing him that his account was "permanently limited" for allegedly violating the company's Acceptable Use Policy.

"After a review of your account activity, we've determined that you're in violation of PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy. As a result, your account has been permanently limited and you won't be able to conduct any further business using PayPal," the notice said.

The message said that any funds he held in his PayPal account are frozen and will be held by PayPal for up to 180 days.

PayPal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The company's Acceptable Use Policy prohibits transactions that relate to "the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory," as well as any sort of illegal transactions.

Following the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, PayPal took action against several accounts belonging to individuals alleged to have participated in the riot. At a virtual event hosted by Fortune magazine last year, PayPal CEO Dan Schulman said that these individuals violated the company's "acceptable use policy," which means "they can't advocate violence, hatred, or racial intolerance."

Schulman said that navigating "the fine line between what is hatred and what is free speech and who do we allow to fundraise using PayPal or Venmo, and who don’t we ...” is “one of the hardest things that we have to do.”

He also emphasized his commitment to enforcing that policy.

“Once you go down the path and say, ‘This is what we stand for,’ you have to live up to that every single day, even if it becomes quite uncomfortable, even if it results in a ton of different death threats, which we have all the time,” Schulman said.

In the past, PayPal has taken action to ban the accounts of conservative organizations that were labeled "hate groups" by left-wing organizations. In 2017, PayPal restricted the accounts belonging to Jihad Watch and the American Freedom Defense Initiative, before restoring those accounts after backlash.