A long con

Twitter, Facebook, Google and the like, they will continue to bend the knee to the establishment until it no longer becomes profitable for them to do so. They will continue the business of suppressing information that they determine to be to false, as if it is their authority to do so. And they will hypocritically follow their doctrine of “hate speech” on ideological lines, targeting whatever directly opposes their ideological line while ignoring misinformation and abuse from their own ends of the political spectrum. But their competitors, such as Gab or Minds, from what I have understood based on developments I have seen within the last couple of months, are not the bastions of freedom of speech that they promise to be. They too will ban content that they dislike, often with minimal explanation if at all.

It’s becoming increasingly evident to me that social media is a long con. I would like that social media websites allow individuals to speak freely, post what they like that isn’t pornography, incitement or private information, and/or at the very least be honest about the terms that they’re setting for their users. But sadly, I predict that they aren’t going to me. In the meantime, we’re all suckers in the end because, in many ways, we depend on social media to sustain our modern lives. As I’ve mentioned before, communication with fellow students is pretty much one of the only reasons I’m on Facebook besides the fact that people like Summer Thunder and Sean Ridley Ravensdale are there with me. At least I still have some friends there. As much as it renders us into a situation where we’re pretty much stuck dealing with social media companies run by people who are, frankly, untrustworthy, it’s also the biggest reason why the struggle to actually have some rights is an important one, even if perhaps a tragic one (on account of how, like I said, there may not be much we can do). I do not want those companies being able to just trample over me like a dog, but if I don’t the only way I can do anything is to fight, and I don’t know how.

But if I’m convinced of anything in that direction, it’s that they will not be defeated by the self-serving. The people who would’ve been all for social media companies denying the liberty of the people who use it, were it not for the fact that the people they like received . The people who are against censorship, like myself, were warning about precisely this. There is no guarantee that the forces of censorship will spare you in their wrath, instead they will eventually target you, whether for ideological reasons or out of pure incompetence. You can’t control the censor once you allow him to censor anymore than you can control the Internet, so don’t complain if he decides to censor you or someone you like unless you are opposed to it on principle.

And I extent this principle to the fake news meme I still see going around. The fight against fake news is pointless. Those of us who aren’t sheep know it’s just a way of accusing someone else of spreading lies, when the people who started the meme in the first place started saying it in response the failure of an American presidential candidate they wanted to win. They needed a scapegoat, and social media was arguably the perfect fit in an age where it is so ubiquitous that it practically dominates our lives. Those who think the powers that be will save you from this think that all they ask is to protect the public from misinformation, when really all it is is making it a crime to either lie or spread something you think is true, but might not be. All we would be doing is surrendering our faculty, and duty, to determine for ourselves through reason whether or not we are being told lies. This is something that should not be given up so that politicians could win a game they lost over a year ago.

It’s all a long con. The only difference is with one con we can’t avoid without total hermitude, but the other, we can think our way out of. If, that is, we remain free to.

Advertisements

You’ve outdone yourself again, YouTube

Remember last month when I complained about YouTube shadowbanning Jeremy Crow’s videos, and in that post I pointed out how YouTube’s quest for censorship is nonsensical and serves no purpose other than to make YouTube look good to potential advertisers? Weeeeeelll, it appears YouTube has hit a major snag in that department.

For all the fuss that was generated over “extremist” video content, which mostly was just a way of saying they’re going to try to suppress politically incorrect content, YouTube didn’t count on what really fucked their brand this weekend: pedophiles. Or, more specifically, the presence of videos depicting real children appearing in suggestive situations for pedophiles to masturbate to, or the presence of pedophiles chortling to the comments sections of home videos featuring children in which they express their desire to have sex with them. According to an investigation from The Times this is being financially supported by ads from major corporations, including Amazon, eBay, BT and TalkTalk, appearing on those videos. This has resulted in overwhelming backlash from advertisers, who have been pulling their YouTube ads and expressing doubt over YouTube’s commercial viability.

So let’s just get this straight: YouTube, in a desperate bid to sanitize their platform by chasing the alt-right bogeymen away, left out the large numbers of pedophiles who are on their website, and searching for videos of scantily clad children so that they can leer at those children, and now that this has come to light it is hurting their brand, when they thought all they had to worry about was some Nazis ranting about Jews and the Holocaust. Good job YouTube. You’ve demonstrated once again how much of a farce your censorious policies are proving to be.

I’m sure YouTube are going to clean this up in the light of such a major boycott from advertisers – this is their bottom line we’re talking about – but, if you defended YouTube for removing content it doesn’t deem advertiser friendly before, are you now beginning to see a problem with this position? Apparently it’s not OK to shitpost or express opinions that the company deems offensive or disposable, but it is OK for pedophiles to lurk on your website for lord knows how long and leer at people’s prepubescent daughters. It is increasingly impossible defend YouTube, and by proxy its parent company Google, over its plans to regulate the content and information that appears on its platform when such scandals, and more, spread like wildfire so easily, and can be shown without much difficulty for the farce that they are. I sincerely hope that more people come to realize this as time goes by.

What Jeremy Crow shows us about YouTube’s crusade against offense

I think I’ve said in the past that YouTube is headed in a noticeably censorious direction, getting rid of content they deem offensive to either themselves or prospective advertisers, based on very arbitrary conceptions of hateful content. And recently, it appears that I was proven right, again. Jeremy Crow, a prominent Luciferian occultists and one of the founders of the Assembly of Light Bearers (formerly Greater Church of Lucifer), has announced that a number of his videos have been shadow-banned by YouTube.

As Crow himself explains:

About a month ago several of my videos were “shadow banned” by YouTube/Google. If you aren’t aware, this is something that has affected an insane number of YouTubers. This form of censorship doesn’t outright remove the video from the platform, but greatly diminishes it’s possible viewership and eliminates any potential revenue earned from it. A shadow banned video will never show up in search results, the trending page or related video suggestions. Often it won’t even serve up the video to people subscribed to the channel! The primary ways you can find a shadow banned video is by having the direct link or by browsing the uploaded videos on a specific channel. In addition, these videos are excluded from the advertising revenue share. In other words, you’re going to get way less views and will earn no money off the video.

So why is Crow being targeted for shadow-banning by YouTube? Well, looking at the examples of shadow-banned videos given on his Steemit article (which will be linked at the bottom of this post), you may have noticed that all of them except one deal with the subjects of Luciferianism and Satanism. He explains that YouTube’s criteria for what is deemed non-advertiser-friendly includes political content (though strangely enough The Young Turks or CNN don’t seem all that affected), profanity, unpopular religions and apparently having a disheveled/unattractive appearance.

Now I actually touched on this subject last year, when writing about the changes to YouTube’s content policies at the time, and I gave out a list quoted from YouTube’s policy guidelines on what is deemed non-advertiser friendly.

Content that is considered “not advertiser-friendly” includes, but is not limited to:

  • Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
  • Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
  • Inappropriate language, including vulgar harassment, swearing and vulgar language
  • Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use, and abuse of such items
  • Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.

It might not be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Jeremy Crow’s discussions of Satanism, Luciferianism and the occult would be filed under controversial subjects, but even so, I find it baffling to me how Jeremy Crows videos would be considered offensive. Last time I checked, the only people who might be offended are Christians, Jews or Muslims, and even then I don’t recall them having seen fit to mass report Satanist or Luciferian YouTube content. And setting aside the issues of “hate speech”, I’m not entirely sure what the threat is to YouTube’s bottom line. I notice in the article that Crow doesn’t mention a statement from YouTube on the issue, which if you’re shadow-banned you probably wouldn’t get anyway since you’re being banned without you knowing it. What this suggests to me is that YouTube flagged Luciferian videos for arbitrary reasons, without explanation.

Two things are certain in my eyes. Firstly, this is to me further proof of the utterly nonsensical and farcical nature of the parameters of hate speech. I have seen a number of YouTubers report videos being demonetized for absurd reasons, including a someone who uploaded a review of Sonic Adventure 2 it got demonetized for “controversial subject matter”. And a couple of months ago, YouTube introduced the limited state feature, which bans certain videos from receiving likes, shares, comments or revenue not necessarily for violating YouTube’s content policy, but for “offensive” content. It is done self-evidently to suppress wrongthink, but its supporters claim that it is supposed to be done to suppress extremist and radicalizing content. I have gone through lists of videos put under the limited state, in fact I have also seen a Twitter account that logs videos put under the limited state. You’ll find videos that can accurately be described as white nationalist or fascist propaganda, or videos that posit arguments for those systems, but you know what you won’t find on those lists? ISIS propaganda videos. And hey, if YouTube wanted to suppress videos advocating for totalitarian and violent political systems, you’d figure there’d be videos advocating for communism on these lists. But apparently not. The parameters for extremism are one-sided, driven by the ideological bias held by Google, which was documented in detail by former Google engineer James Damore in his essay. And when it isn’t, it’s just downright idiotic all round.

Second, if Jeremy Crow’s videos discussing Luciferianism and Satanism were shadowbanned, then it leaves me wondering just how many other occultists, particularly Left Hand Path occultists, have been shadowbanned. What about Michael W. Ford or E A Koetting, both of them prominent occultists in Left Hand Path systems who talk about largely similar subject matter to Jeremy Crow? Or Styxhexenhammer666, another occultist, albeit for more well known and popular because of his political commentary than for his occult videos? For all I know, Jeremy Crow may indeed be the only case of a Luciferian occultist getting shadow-banned, but if they’ve shadow-banned him, then why not others?


Link to Jeremy Crow’s Steemit article: https://steemit.com/occult/@jeremycrow/jeremy-crow-s-luciferian-videos-banned-by-youtube

Vault 7

This most may seem sudden, but I want to share something very important, particularly for my American readership. Last month, Wikileaks released a series of cryptic tweets on their Twitter page regarding the mysterious Vault 7, and until now we didn’t know what it meant. But yesterday, Wikileaks released a document revealing the extent of CIA hacking tools and confidential documents. Vault 7, as it turns out, was the code name for these documents. It revealed, among other things, that the CIA under the Obama administration stole Russian malware and used it to hack into computer systems in order to extract information from them using that malware, and apparently they lost that malware along with other hacking tools.

Given that the CIA lost the malware recently in 2016, this was also probably some time before the election or even around that time (I can only speculate) and that the malware the CIA obtained was from Russia, I am wondering if this has something to do with the theory that Russia hacked the DNC, and why the CIA claimed to have evidence but refused to provide it or put a name to it. I can only speculate.

But it does show that the NSA was not the only intelligence agency under Obama that had been gathering information , and apparently they are doing this as some kind of larger project involving cyber warfare. As if I *needed* another reason to hate Obama.


Vault 7: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

Time for an update

So here’s an update for the blog that I kind of feel like putting out on a number of subjects.

First, and foremost, of all, I have less than a month before the end of my second term for this year at university. That means I have quite a lot to do and increasingly less time to do it in. The deadline for my major project is March 27th, right before my birthday, and both of the reports that I have to write are due on March 31st. So I might be busy. Maybe not busy enough that it’ll stop me from slacking off during weekends, but busy enough that it might make the rest of my schedule pretty stringent, to the point that I will likely put things off in order to emphasize my coursework, because that has to come first. I may, however, plan for some posts to be written in the meantime, because there are still things I’d like write about.

Second, I plan to talk about current events and politics significantly less than I do now, so that I can detach myself from those things. There’s going to some rants that I have waiting in the wings to be released pretty soon, and obviously there are soon-to-be-current events that I think ought to be covered (for instance, given that it is now March, we’re waiting on the Netherlands and later France to cast their votes in general elections), but other than that I want to begin to distance myself from such subject matter beyond the rants I have coming up this month unless a really pressing or important development catches my attention. The reason why I want to do this is because I am sensing that there is the danger that I’m going to become entirely too focused on such subject matter. And I know that we’re living in some wild times right now, so there’s probably a lot of developments that might show up ripe for analysis, deconstruction or just plain savagery or mockery on my part. But I am beginning to think I’m getting caught up, and that’s bad.

Third, once I have enough free time after the end of my current term, or ideally before that, I’d like very much to revisit the drawing board, and return with a post or two about some reflections on Satanism and other philosophies, as well as what probably be a long post about what I consider to authentic Satanic philosophy (particularly on account of the fact that I’ve criticized The Satanic Temple for not observing). Part of me is thinking that I’ve got my eyes off the ball. I mean I’ve got my eye on the ball regarding my coursework, I believe, but sort of away from the ball in other areas. Maybe it’s laziness in some respects if I think about it, but then that’s surely the sign of another malady in itself. I hope I correct it sooner or later if that’s the case.

The Milo debacle

So recently Milo Yiannopolous has been at the center of a real shitstorm that swept the Internet on Monday. I had intended to write about this on pretty much the night that it happened, seeing as I have spoken in support of Milo’s work here on the Heretical Domain since the summer of 2016 and I felt it would be appropriate to comment. But I had been kept busy by other matters the past two days, and I had been receiving some new information since Monday night.

Here’s the situation as I understand it: some time after Milo made his appearance on Late Night with Bill Maher last week (I’ve seen it, by the way, and it was disappointing on all fronts; all of the panelists could have performed far better than they did), a clip taken from Milo’s appearance in the Drunken Peasants podcast on YouTube from about a year ago, where they talk about a video where someone accuses Milo of defending pedophiles. In the video, Milo states that, apparently, he “gave head” to a Catholic priest when he was 13 years old and explained how he claimed to enjoy the experience and felt that not only can an adolescent consent to performing a sexual act with an adult, but also that sexual acts between 13-28 years was actually normal. I don’t know where he gets this view from, but it is my understanding that he was apparently sexually abused in his youth, and may have been distorted by this experience. Anyways, after the clip was “discovered”, Twitter exploded with tons of people claiming that he defended pedophilia or even that was actually a pedophile, and the mainstream media gobbled it up with many figures showing their virtue in true virtue signalling fashion. He also received backlash not just from the left, but also from the right. In fact, the story apparently “broke” via the Twitter account of a conservative political organization known as The Reagan Battalion – try to remember that little detail for later. Milo had released a statement on Facebook on Monday stressing that he does not support pedophilia, claiming that the clips have been selectively edited. On Tuesday Milo gave a press conference on the whole fiasco, which he also released on Facebook, and he explained it was announced that Milo had resigned from Breitbart News.

OK, now that that’s said, let me just say straight up: I can’t defend what Milo said, at all. I can defend his right to say it, but that’s about it. I think that Milo’s opinions on sexual consent, particularly within the context of homosexuality, is bizarre to say the least. He thinks that the current legal age of consent is OK, but at the same time he feels the general idea of consent is arbitrary and even “oppressive”. If I’m going to be honest, I have to say Milo, that last part sounds like something a Bizarro World gender students student might say. He apparently justified his position on the grounds that some people are more sexually active. But needless to say, it is understandable that the fact he would even have had questionable opinions on the subject of sexual relationships between teenagers and adults would be cause for concern, and it certainly gave me pause when I thought about it. He did release statements clarifying the matter, saying that he is against pedophilia, which I think is good, and on the press conference it seems he has reflected on the matter and it has been a great source of disturbance and regret for him. On that token at least, I think he shouldn’t be treated like some kind of monster to be run out of town with pitchforks, not least because he still isn’t actually a sexual predator – and if his story is to be believe he was arguably a victim. However, when he claims that the clips have been selectively edited, I think that’s open for questioning at least. I’ve seen the clips that got shared around and they definitely didn’t seem edited to me. I think that Milo honestly believes that he isn’t actually advocating for pedophilia, and probably didn’t intend to, but the position he took was simply too dangerous, and to be honest the lines between advocating for pedophilia and defending pederasty seem too thin. The most charitable interpretation of all this is that Milo is advocating for cross-generational relationships, something that one of the Drunken Peasants at least tried getting Milo to admit, but given the generations in question, coupled with his claims about pederasty in the gay world, this doesn’t seem like it’s enough to fit Milo for a halo so to speak. Then there’s the dubious comments about people in Hollywood he made on Joe Rogan’s podcast, where some people think that he was outright protecting the names of pedophiles in Hollywood. Since I don’t know any of the names in question, I unfortunately can’t comment.

So all-in-all, there’s nothing really to defend, so I don’t defend his position, but I’m not going to succumb to outrage either. There’s already too much outrage in the world these days, and no sense in me adding to it. I certainly won’t gain anything by doing so anyhow. Milo, anyways, is at least capable of defending himself. It’s just a shame he couldn’t do so on Twitter due to being permanently banned from the site.

All that said, however, I think there is so much wrong with all of this. For starters, , this is ultimately another case of outrage being whipped over something that, to me at least, was already out there for the public to see when it was new. The podcast was from about a year ago, so where were all the people outraged over this issue in 2016? Why now? Meanwhile, as cliche as this will sound, Lena Dunham talked about apparently inspecting her younger sister’s genitals in one of her books, and she didn’t get run out of town like Milo did – in fact she still got to keep her acting career and remained a prominent face of the Democratic Party in 2016 (which was probably one of the many reasons why the Democrats lost). Second of all, this all seems to coincidence with Milo being invited to speak at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend. The Reagan Battalion posted the clip on Monday, pretty much right after Milo was invited, and after all the Twitter drama and media hysteria, CPAC dropped Milo from their panel. Let me be clear: CPAC is completely within their rights to invite and dis-invite whoever they like from speaking at their conference, and I accept that they think Milo is unfit to represent their views over these comments. But I haven’t got a doubt in my mind that they might not have dis-invited him were it not for The Reagan Battalion spreading that Drunken Peasants clip. And let me tell you about The Reagan Battalion. From what I understand they are one of those conservative groups that really doesn’t like the populist, anti-establishment movement that still gathers around Trump, and they almost certainly detest Milo, and not just because of the Drunken Peasants clip either. They view the populist conservative moment as (that is when  When Milo claimed that the drama was an attack on him by establishment Republicans, I don’t think he was entirely wrong. Also, take a look at what they said on Monday as part of their statement in support of ACU disinviting Milo from CPAC for not only the DP thing but, of all things, they think he’s anti-Semitic:

Free speech is the cornerstone of our great democracy, but giving a platform for hate, racism and intolerance is fortunately not.

Yeah some conservative free speech advocates you are. If that’s the true conservative platform, I’m glad I don’t call myself a conservative no matter much further to the right I may have lurched in recent months. But more to the point, I’m fairly convinced that their motives are just as likely to be political as they are to be merely moral. They wanted Milo to be disinvited from CPAC 2017, and in the end they got what they wanted. Also, for an organization that claims to have no affiliation with the NeverTrump movement, their Facebook profile has a now-broken link to a “Stop Donald Trump” PAC, which is apparently a conservative PAC that opposes Trump on the grounds that they think he’s another liberal.

But there’s another dubious element to this story as well. Someone on 4chan claimed to be an insider on an operation to destroy Milo, in a post apparently published on Sunday night. Here’s the text of that post:

FYI the MSM has a huge fucking media onslaught that is set to go live Monday to scorch earth Milo and destroy him via the pedophile label.

I’m part of a mailing list (not giving my name for the sake of protecting my ass from retaliation) but they have been sitting on the story for a while, because they thought Milo was small fry and wanted to wait until he got big enough a thread to go nuclear on.

The journalists are pissed the fuck off Maher put him on the air and more so, pissed off that his book deal had not been revoked (and some are pissed that Milo got a book deal from the same publisher who dropped Zoe Quinn’s book, along with a larger signing bonus than most of the publisher’s social justice authors).

There are also those who want to hurt him simply as a proxy to hurt Steve Bannon/Breitbart, since their attempts to attack Bannon have largely failed. Not to mention people on the left being pissed off that most people sided with Milo over the rioters. Rioters that were paid for by Soros through a variety of fronts and laundered through companies that can’t be traced back to him.

Expect a steady drumbeat of “Milo is a pedophile” and “Milo must be dropped from CPAC”. The later is especially important, in terms of the divide and conquer long game the press is playing: the press wants a civil war with the McCain/Graham wing of the GOP and the Trump/Ryan wing so as to weaken the Republicans in 2018. The overall plan is to make the Republicans fear social shaming from the media and the left more than they already do their actual constituents who love Trump, in hopes of regaining the House and enough Senate seats to pull off an impeachment of Trump.

Believe it or not, I think it’s entirely possible. We already know that not only is the media generally extremely biased against Trump, but a lot of the media is generally against the GOP, usually out of a deep-seated ideological agenda. And they beat on the Democrats and lost, hard. I’m not surprised if they’d go to any lengths to bring the Democrats back to power, and at any rate I’m not foolish enough to believe that any of the parties in large part are interested in much more than money and power. In addition to this, we know that traditional media is failing in relevance and I think the media at large recognizes that more people trust Trump and his supporters over their word. Given that after The Reagan Battalion “broke” that story the media went into full attack mode it looks like they got what they wanted out of Milo – namely his fall from public esteem – it would seem like either there may be some truth to this or it might be a coincidence. I suspect that the media may have been waiting for the opportunity to take Milo down, given that he has always been such a thorn on their side leading people against the Democratic Party, but any real campaigning against Milo was most likely the work of The Reagan Battalion. That said, none of this changes what Milo said. By all accounts his position at large is still pretty awful by its own merits. The only difference is that there were people looking to use this for their own political advantage. And in the end, if there was a mission from the media to defame Milo and by extension Breitbart, I’d say the mission was very much accomplished. As to whether or not the Republicans will be shamed or pushed into a civil war (as if there wasn’t already conflict among the Republicans) in order to enable the Democrats to win the mid-terms, that remains to be seen.

One thing that is for certain is that the people who think this is the end of Milo’s career, while I’m guessing are somewhat hyperbolic, probably aren’t too far from the truth. His career has been tangibly damaged by this whole affair: not only has he had to resign from Breitbart, but apparently Simon and Schuster have cancelled the publishing deal for his new book Dangerous, and I see many people on the right, even people on the far-right like Richard Spencer, coming out and denouncing him.

Oh, and one last thing: it looks like Bill Maher, the man who put Milo on air, is revealing himself to be an opportunistic pile of scum. It certainly seems that way if Bills think he has any business taking credit for Milo’s downfall. In his half-hearted defense, he did give Milo a lot more exposure in the media, but honestly that’s about all he did, at least beyond incessantly talking over him throughout the show. But what alarms me more is that, if this is true, then guess what that means? During the show itself he claimed that he invited Milo to show that there can be a civilized discussion between opposite points of view (Maher being a New York liberal and Milo the right-wing populist), but after the whole drama Bill Maher went and said “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. If that’s true and he is to be credited with Milo’s downfall, then do you know what that means to me? It means that Bill Maher never cared about open discussion with the right despite his claims to the contrary. He brought Milo on the show so that he can become famous for it, only so he could be brought down by his bizarre opinions about sex from a year-old podcast being used against him. To Bill, this is just another . His talk about reforming liberalism thus now seems to be as utterly insincere unless it’s on his terms. He doesn’t care about freedom of speech and open exchange of ideas at all. He only cares about bringing Americans back to the fold of the Democratic Party, and no one can convince me otherwise. Fuck Bill Maher and the late night panel show he rode in on!

The discrediting of the media

Well, that’s it. I guess we’re all Nazis now. You, me, everyone. We’re all Nazis because at some point in our lives we looked at footage of Adolf Hitler giving a speech somewhere. That’s what the Wall Street Journal seems to have implied with their hit piece against a world-famous YouTube star called Felix Kjellberg (a.k.a. PewDiePie). And yes, unfortunately we’re at a point where I’m talking about him, even though before hand I never gave too much of a shit about him. Only I’m not talking about PewDiePie himself per se, but rather the shitshow that has resulted from a joke he made that was deemed to be anti-Semitic, or jokes he made that involved references to Nazism.

The thing is, that’s all they were. Jokes. It was a kind of edgy but ultimately silly form of comedy. Otherwise, he has no known affiliation with any anti-Semitic movements. But it was on the basis of some jokes and some comedy that he got labelled a Nazi by the mainstream media. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Guardian, Salon, Vox, lots of mainstream media outlets went on the attack, and the Internet took notice and I’ve seen nothing but people calling them out on their obvious bullshit. And then The Daily Stormer went and seized on this by, for a short period of time, declaring themselves to be the number one PewDiePie fan site (now they call themselves the number one Wall Street Journal fan site, in reference to the three “journalists” who wrote the hit piece on PewDiePie to begin with).

There’s not much for me to say on this matter other than this is pure hysteria. One that, in my opinion, should be familiar to those who might be older than me, old enough to be far more intimately familiar than I with the demented moonscape that is the mainstream media. The media always either looks for some kind of panic to spread or outright fabricates one of their own. And why? For attention of course, which likely results in attaining not just revenue but also societal relevance, people hanging on their every word. Once upon a time this was seen as the game of some right-wing Murdoch media or some shit, but now we see it as the game of progressive media, with almost everyone outside of alternative media playing along, and I hope that by the end we start to this for what it is – a game of cynical corporations and delusional ideologues on both sides of the spectrum who are less interested in the truth and more interested in influence and a paycheck. And for me that’s all there is to it. PewDiePie and his allegedly anti-Semitic content were just the next target of an ongoing hysteria, in concert with the reign of political correctness I should add.