This, above all else, is what explains their rage -- same reason they are so happy to see Julian Assange rotting in prison, not despite the fact that he's broken more major stories than all of them combined, but precisely *because* of that:
This is a person whose sole mission in life is to keep an audience in perpetual captivity to the Democratic Party, and does it by making money on YouTube, and yet has convinced herself, it seems, that her work is important and noble and on a pure platform:
Also find it amusing that partisan hacks like that are citing the WPost article as proof I'm some sort of far-right activist while this photo and caption sits atop the article. I know real life work isn't as important as hashtags put in your Twitter bio but it should matter some:
The discussion I had with @mtaibbi and @kthalps about why journalists are so consumed with hating and maligning Joe Rogan -- brilliantly and hilariously edited by @TurncoatD -- seems relevant today:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's been genuinely hilarious watching left-liberals spend the day insisting you shouldn't use platforms that have bad investors, as they all use Google's YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and read and cite Bezos' WPost and Comcast's MSNBC and Majority Report and Warner's CNN.
Ultimately, it's about nothing more complex or interesting than their hatred for free speech and thought.
They desperately crave corporate overlords to control and suppress speech, and view any platform that remains free of that control as inherently threatening and bad.
Anyone have a list of the Good and Principled Left-Liberals who refuse to use or read platforms funded by bad billionaires?
I'm incredibly excited we've created a new video platform at @Rumblevideo. Along with @TulsiGabbard, @BridgetPhetasy, @SirajAHashmi, @ZaidJilani, @Orf and others, I'm there because, like Substack, it's dedicated not to an ideology or party but to free speech and free discourse.
You can subscribe to my new page here, where I'll continue the in-depth documentary-style System Update programs we had been producing, along with more regular video and live chats for Substack subscribers. It will be a new way to expand our journalism.
The first Rumble video, up shortly, explains why free speech platforms like Substack and Rumble are so vital -- as evidenced by the censorship spate we saw this week on YouTube. I also dissect today's @washingtonpost article on our move there to show how corporate media deceives.
Here's what DR. Osterholm, not just an epidemiologist but the Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and Biden's own former COVID adviser, said on PBS. Read this: you can't say this on YouTube:
Here's Dr. Osterholm on CNN saying exactly the same thing that @RandPaul just got suspended from YouTube for saying: that cloth masks, as opposed to N95s, provide very, very little protection. Why can yo say this on CNN or PBS but not YouTube????
The US attempt to extradite and prosecute Assange for publishing truthful documents embarrassing to US leaders is the greatest threat to press freedom over the last 5 years by far: nothing is close.
But most corporate media is silent or supportive because they are also frauds.
US corporate media despise Assange because he's broken more huge stories than they have or ever could. That's why corrupt US officials wants to imprison him for life while feeding them cookies: because he does real journalism.
His existence is a testament to the frauds they are.
The NSA's independent investigator, Robert Storch, is a long-time and respected D.C. bureaucrat -- appointed by Obama and re-appointed by Trump -- making it unlikely he'd formally investigate frivolous allegations of "unmasking."
It is extremely difficult to imagine any legitimate reason the NSA would have for seeking to “unmask” the identity of a journalist who was merely seeking to interview the leader of a foreign country -- unless it believed linking Carlson to Russians could damage his reputation.
This rationale 100% applies to people who don't exercise, eat unhealthy diets, are obese and refuse to change, etc. But no liberal would shame them like this and malign them like they're non-human, monetized burdens on society.
And since many suffer extreme difficulties mastering basic principles of logical reasoning, contagiousness is irrelevant to the moral principle.
The issue is whether it's we should scorn those who make unhealthy choices on the ground that they're a financial burden to society.
It amazed me how many responded to the point I made here yesterday by saying: but COVID is contagious & obesity isn't, as if that had negated my point.
It's irrelevant to whether it's grotesque to mock those who die due to bad health choices: