Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

📺Panel on mainstream media's downfall: Controls 90% of comms but lost popularity to alt media like podcasts. Young men ditching neurotic Dems for populism & trades. Praise for DOL poster on rugged individualism; slam 100% inheritance tax. #MediaDecline #YouthCrisis FOX Business Charles V Payne

jonnajarian's profile picture

Jon Najarian

328,151 subscribers

19,510 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieNachrichten & PolitikBildung#MediaDecline#YouthCrisis
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

1,000 days ago I was on Charles V Payne FOX Business talking about starting the $GNS fight against illegal short selling and market manipulation. 1,000 days later, new SEC chair Paul Atkins is on Charles V Payne and when Charles says "Dark pools, synthetic shares, illegal shorting... what are you doing about it?" he says: "We're doing a good spring cleaning.. we have a lot of work to do to try to, I think, make up for lost time frankly - all these things, potentially market manipulation and whatnot - we have active surveillance going. We have the tools to do it... Suffice it to say we're out to protect investors and to make sure they are not taken advantage of." It's been 1,000 days of patiently collecting data, of building our case against market manipulation. 1,000 days standing strong. 1,000 days getting ready. Now we are ready. Our lawyer Wes Christian and his team plan to file this week. I believe our filing will make history for a number of reasons that will become clear once filed. In 1,000 days, we have: 1,000 days more data 1,000 days more evidence 1,000 days of new case law 1,000 days with a new SEC on our side 1,000 days more power to the people In business, fast usually beats slow. In law, slow usually beats fast. Getting there faster may have been nicer. But getting their now will be better. Justice is a dish best served cold.
2:46

1,000 days ago I was on Charles V Payne FOX Business talking about starting the $GNS fight against illegal short selling and market manipulation. 1,000 days later, new SEC chair Paul Atkins is on Charles V Payne and when Charles says "Dark pools, synthetic shares, illegal shorting... what are you doing about it?" he says: "We're doing a good spring cleaning.. we have a lot of work to do to try to, I think, make up for lost time frankly - all these things, potentially market manipulation and whatnot - we have active surveillance going. We have the tools to do it... Suffice it to say we're out to protect investors and to make sure they are not taken advantage of." It's been 1,000 days of patiently collecting data, of building our case against market manipulation. 1,000 days standing strong. 1,000 days getting ready. Now we are ready. Our lawyer Wes Christian and his team plan to file this week. I believe our filing will make history for a number of reasons that will become clear once filed. In 1,000 days, we have: 1,000 days more data 1,000 days more evidence 1,000 days of new case law 1,000 days with a new SEC on our side 1,000 days more power to the people In business, fast usually beats slow. In law, slow usually beats fast. Getting there faster may have been nicer. But getting their now will be better. Justice is a dish best served cold.

Roger James Hamilton

144,119 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

JUST IN: With Americans losing complete trust in the mainstream media, "The New York Times lost $30-40 million in 2023, cutting 74 jobs; WaPo lost $100 million, cutting 240 jobs; The LA Times just laid off 115 journalists—22% of its newsroom. The Atlantic is still unable to turn a profit, and NBC just slashed 75 jobs," Glenn Greenwald notes. NOTE: Nobody is rejoicing over this, but when people lose trust in you, you can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. NOTE: Meanwhile, although I'm still a bit below my target of reaching 30 million people daily, at 10 a.m. EST, my posts had already generated about 13 million views and nearly 30,000 comments today (attachment below). The day is still young, but it means people would rather read trustworthy individuals like me than those they have lost trust in—those who look down on them, disparage them daily, and ask for no feedback. You can watch the full episode of Glenn Greenwald on his Rumble channel below
5:57

JUST IN: With Americans losing complete trust in the mainstream media, "The New York Times lost $30-40 million in 2023, cutting 74 jobs; WaPo lost $100 million, cutting 240 jobs; The LA Times just laid off 115 journalists—22% of its newsroom. The Atlantic is still unable to turn a profit, and NBC just slashed 75 jobs," Glenn Greenwald notes. NOTE: Nobody is rejoicing over this, but when people lose trust in you, you can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. NOTE: Meanwhile, although I'm still a bit below my target of reaching 30 million people daily, at 10 a.m. EST, my posts had already generated about 13 million views and nearly 30,000 comments today (attachment below). The day is still young, but it means people would rather read trustworthy individuals like me than those they have lost trust in—those who look down on them, disparage them daily, and ask for no feedback. You can watch the full episode of Glenn Greenwald on his Rumble channel below

Simon Ateba

1,846,138 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

MEDIA HIT PIECES: Eliminating Threats | Elon, Tucker, Brand, Tates Russel Brand faces accusations of rape and sexual assault at the peak of his popularity as an alternative media source. Has the media become the judge, jury, and executioner of those they don't like? Epstein, Gates, Prince Andrew, and Soros were treated much better by the media. WHY? They were media darlings and part of the mainstream engine. Is Russel Brand guilty of these allegations, or is mainstream media going after yet another ‘alternative media’ threat? VICTIMS OF MEDIA ATTACKS: WHY AND HOW 1) RUSSEL BRAND WHY: - Criticized the COVID-19 policies (vaccinations and lockdowns), saying the restrictions were being used to control people. - Vocal against the WEF, stating it is "a bunch of rich and powerful people who get together to talk about how to make themselves even richer and more powerful." HOW: The media has now posted accusations of rape, sexual assault, and abuse from WHEN he worked as part of the mainstream media! Why have these allegations come to light years later and conveniently when the media hates Brand? In previous attacks, the media labeled him a conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxxer, misogynist, and narcissist - the Four Horsemen of Cancellation. 2) ELON MUSK WHY: He has transformed 𝕏 into a citizen journalism platform, the biggest threat to Media Elon Musk quotes: - "Reuters and facts are not well acquainted." - "The New York Times is a propaganda machine." - "The media is the enemy of the people." - “Cable News Network is desperate for viewers, as bundled cable “channels” go the way of dialup modems, so they will say anything to get attention.” HOW: They accused Elon of: - Impeding Ukraine’s war efforts (Despite providing Ukraine with Starlink, FOR FREE) - Antisemitism, blaming him for a fabricated rise of hate speech - They blamed him for allowing the spread of misinformation on 𝕏 (all thoroughly debunked) 3) TUCKER CALRSON WHY: He had a massive platform on FOX, where he was outspoken and criticized censorship practices. His fans now follow Tucker on 𝕏. HOW: They accused him of being a far-right extremist, of misogyny, and of creating a culture of toxicity, eventually playing a role in him getting fired from his show. 4) TATE BROTHERS WHY: They rapidly rose to power, reaching massive influence, and were outspoken against the media and what they called ‘The Matrix.’ HOW: The media accused them of rape, misogyny, violence against and pimping women. MY THOUGHTS Even I was not spared as I continued expanding our shows on 𝕏. The first wave of attacks was by NBC News. They claimed the FBI and SEC were ‘responding to complaints' about me and my companies. Took me weeks to debunk their two witnesses (one admitted to not having evidence and shared how he was pressured to lie to NBC). The other witness admitted to lying in multiple recordings and messages, all of which have been submitted to authorities. Despite all this, NBC refused to remove him from the story, only adding a correction. What makes the hit piece worse is that the FBI and SEC dismissed the complaints, yet NBC didn’t care. The journalist (who has a history of attacking Elon) didn’t need credible evidence, didn’t need an investigation, but submitted fake complaints to the authorities with a fabricated story to come up with a hit piece. I was always skeptical of mainstream media, but naively hoped that facts mattered to them more than agendas. I learned the hard way I was wrong. Those who do not conform to the media’s bias or pose an existential threat to them, are TARGETS to be ELIMINATED by ANY MEANS necessary. Who’s mainstream media's next target?
0:40

MEDIA HIT PIECES: Eliminating Threats | Elon, Tucker, Brand, Tates Russel Brand faces accusations of rape and sexual assault at the peak of his popularity as an alternative media source. Has the media become the judge, jury, and executioner of those they don't like? Epstein, Gates, Prince Andrew, and Soros were treated much better by the media. WHY? They were media darlings and part of the mainstream engine. Is Russel Brand guilty of these allegations, or is mainstream media going after yet another ‘alternative media’ threat? VICTIMS OF MEDIA ATTACKS: WHY AND HOW 1) RUSSEL BRAND WHY: - Criticized the COVID-19 policies (vaccinations and lockdowns), saying the restrictions were being used to control people. - Vocal against the WEF, stating it is "a bunch of rich and powerful people who get together to talk about how to make themselves even richer and more powerful." HOW: The media has now posted accusations of rape, sexual assault, and abuse from WHEN he worked as part of the mainstream media! Why have these allegations come to light years later and conveniently when the media hates Brand? In previous attacks, the media labeled him a conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxxer, misogynist, and narcissist - the Four Horsemen of Cancellation. 2) ELON MUSK WHY: He has transformed 𝕏 into a citizen journalism platform, the biggest threat to Media Elon Musk quotes: - "Reuters and facts are not well acquainted." - "The New York Times is a propaganda machine." - "The media is the enemy of the people." - “Cable News Network is desperate for viewers, as bundled cable “channels” go the way of dialup modems, so they will say anything to get attention.” HOW: They accused Elon of: - Impeding Ukraine’s war efforts (Despite providing Ukraine with Starlink, FOR FREE) - Antisemitism, blaming him for a fabricated rise of hate speech - They blamed him for allowing the spread of misinformation on 𝕏 (all thoroughly debunked) 3) TUCKER CALRSON WHY: He had a massive platform on FOX, where he was outspoken and criticized censorship practices. His fans now follow Tucker on 𝕏. HOW: They accused him of being a far-right extremist, of misogyny, and of creating a culture of toxicity, eventually playing a role in him getting fired from his show. 4) TATE BROTHERS WHY: They rapidly rose to power, reaching massive influence, and were outspoken against the media and what they called ‘The Matrix.’ HOW: The media accused them of rape, misogyny, violence against and pimping women. MY THOUGHTS Even I was not spared as I continued expanding our shows on 𝕏. The first wave of attacks was by NBC News. They claimed the FBI and SEC were ‘responding to complaints' about me and my companies. Took me weeks to debunk their two witnesses (one admitted to not having evidence and shared how he was pressured to lie to NBC). The other witness admitted to lying in multiple recordings and messages, all of which have been submitted to authorities. Despite all this, NBC refused to remove him from the story, only adding a correction. What makes the hit piece worse is that the FBI and SEC dismissed the complaints, yet NBC didn’t care. The journalist (who has a history of attacking Elon) didn’t need credible evidence, didn’t need an investigation, but submitted fake complaints to the authorities with a fabricated story to come up with a hit piece. I was always skeptical of mainstream media, but naively hoped that facts mattered to them more than agendas. I learned the hard way I was wrong. Those who do not conform to the media’s bias or pose an existential threat to them, are TARGETS to be ELIMINATED by ANY MEANS necessary. Who’s mainstream media's next target?

Mario Nawfal

684,724 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨 I went on Jeremy Boreing ‘s show to give my “state of masculinity.” The Right and the Left are both to blame. The Left hijacked the institutions that shape our minds—the storytellers—(education, Hollywood, media, etc.) and convinced a nation that our men are toxic. Then they infiltrated an overwhelming amount of corporate HR departments and men began to feel real-life outcomes through lost opportunities via quotas and anti-meritorious systems based solely on gender. All of this was accelerated by the #metoo movement when a justice system that was built on “innocent until proven guilty” was inverted to the detriment of many good men’s lives and careers. Rightly so, eventually men had had enough and fought to reclaim masculinity. BUT…like many cultural issues, the masculinity pendulum stretched so far in one direction that it came roaring back in the other and the Right was asleep at the wheel. It thus landed in the hands of bad actors who saw a fame and business opportunity ripe for the taking. They prey on young men by appealing to the two most powerful emotions: fear and greed. Fear that the culture hates them and greed of the life they “can” have (Ferraris and as many women as you want). And thus, we got the “manosphere” which is just a new form of toxic masculinity. I, however, believe that most men are virtuous and “virtuous” is the only adverb that belongs in front of masculinity. It is our job to catch the pendulum the next time it swings to the middle and help (mostly) Gen-Z men BUILD lives on the foundation of hard work, respect for women, love of America, and the fear of God. Because…the pendulum is coming back our way. 🇺🇸
2:51

🚨 I went on Jeremy Boreing ‘s show to give my “state of masculinity.” The Right and the Left are both to blame. The Left hijacked the institutions that shape our minds—the storytellers—(education, Hollywood, media, etc.) and convinced a nation that our men are toxic. Then they infiltrated an overwhelming amount of corporate HR departments and men began to feel real-life outcomes through lost opportunities via quotas and anti-meritorious systems based solely on gender. All of this was accelerated by the #metoo movement when a justice system that was built on “innocent until proven guilty” was inverted to the detriment of many good men’s lives and careers. Rightly so, eventually men had had enough and fought to reclaim masculinity. BUT…like many cultural issues, the masculinity pendulum stretched so far in one direction that it came roaring back in the other and the Right was asleep at the wheel. It thus landed in the hands of bad actors who saw a fame and business opportunity ripe for the taking. They prey on young men by appealing to the two most powerful emotions: fear and greed. Fear that the culture hates them and greed of the life they “can” have (Ferraris and as many women as you want). And thus, we got the “manosphere” which is just a new form of toxic masculinity. I, however, believe that most men are virtuous and “virtuous” is the only adverb that belongs in front of masculinity. It is our job to catch the pendulum the next time it swings to the middle and help (mostly) Gen-Z men BUILD lives on the foundation of hard work, respect for women, love of America, and the fear of God. Because…the pendulum is coming back our way. 🇺🇸

Gates Garcia

68,702 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Hi Guys Back from Canberra. The last two weeks had been another exercise in holding back the tide and nothing more. The Disinformation/Misinformation Bill was blocked but the Online Safety Bill was passed. A number of other bills were passed which mainly involved giving subsidies for housing instead of cutting immigration. Labor’s proposed stand alone Independent Environment Watchdog was not put up which was also a win. Unfortunately I didn’t get very far with ASIO in regard to the politician who sold us out. I wrote to them asking for more information but said they couldn’t tell us anything. ASIO can’t be trusted. They are more interested in protecting the Establishment than the people. Same for Avoca Road. Labor refused to hand over the business case for spending $100 million to Albanese Beach House. This stinks to high heaven. The big picture in all of this that gets overlooked is debt levels. Nothing controls the people like debt and bills. Even the media can’t exercise the kind of control the banks do. Thats why the government need to focus on solutions to our economic malaise rather than trying to control us. Unfortunately none of the major or minor parties have any idea on how to deal with Australias debt other than People First. That’s because I’ve worked in Finance my entire life and understand how to generate wealth and control costs. Australia desperately needs an Infrastructure Bank as a way to internally fund Infrastructure instead of using foreign debt. We also need to cut the bureaucracy and reform the tax act to fund income tax cuts. And finally superannuation and childcare support need to be much more flexible. I will be focusing on selling these solutions along with getting candidates for PeopleFirst over the Holiday Season. For anyone interested in hearing more about these solutions I will be up at Maleny this Wednesday night and Bridgeman Downs next Monday night. Talk soon.
4:33

Hi Guys Back from Canberra. The last two weeks had been another exercise in holding back the tide and nothing more. The Disinformation/Misinformation Bill was blocked but the Online Safety Bill was passed. A number of other bills were passed which mainly involved giving subsidies for housing instead of cutting immigration. Labor’s proposed stand alone Independent Environment Watchdog was not put up which was also a win. Unfortunately I didn’t get very far with ASIO in regard to the politician who sold us out. I wrote to them asking for more information but said they couldn’t tell us anything. ASIO can’t be trusted. They are more interested in protecting the Establishment than the people. Same for Avoca Road. Labor refused to hand over the business case for spending $100 million to Albanese Beach House. This stinks to high heaven. The big picture in all of this that gets overlooked is debt levels. Nothing controls the people like debt and bills. Even the media can’t exercise the kind of control the banks do. Thats why the government need to focus on solutions to our economic malaise rather than trying to control us. Unfortunately none of the major or minor parties have any idea on how to deal with Australias debt other than People First. That’s because I’ve worked in Finance my entire life and understand how to generate wealth and control costs. Australia desperately needs an Infrastructure Bank as a way to internally fund Infrastructure instead of using foreign debt. We also need to cut the bureaucracy and reform the tax act to fund income tax cuts. And finally superannuation and childcare support need to be much more flexible. I will be focusing on selling these solutions along with getting candidates for PeopleFirst over the Holiday Season. For anyone interested in hearing more about these solutions I will be up at Maleny this Wednesday night and Bridgeman Downs next Monday night. Talk soon.

Gerard Rennick

40,788 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.
4:13

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Ricardo

250,877 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

👀🧐📻 Charlamagne Reacts to Reports of a $200M Deal Charlamagne Tha God addresses viral reports claiming he signed a $200 million deal and uses the moment to call out misinformation in media. 🗣️ Charlamagne’s Response (Key Points) • Tells people to stop the money talk • Says Forbes simply highlighted his career and business ventures • Claims he has no knowledge of the numbers being reported • Jokes about still needing help with student loans • Denies rumors about leaving iHeartMedia • Calls out AI-driven rumors and fake “sources” “Y’all worried about the wrong things.” 📺 On YouTube, Rumors & Fake Sources Charlamagne shifts focus to the bigger issue: • Says people prefer lies because they’re more entertaining than the truth • Calls out creators who lie for clicks • Criticizes YouTubers who read numbers they don’t understand • Rejects fake “industry insiders” claiming unnamed sources “At what point do we stop listening to people who lie to y’all for a living?” 🎙️ Creators He Respects • Praises YouTubers with intellectual curiosity • Highlights creators who report what they see, give opinions, and move on • Shouts out Chigs Smooth for not pretending to have inside access “God is my source every single time.” 👀 The Bigger Context: Black Effect & Media Power Reported Context (per Forbes): Charlamagne has been positioned as a media executive, not just radio talent, largely due to the growth of The Black Effect Podcast Network. 💰 The Deal (As Reported) • Five-year extension with iHeartMedia • Keeps Charlamagne on The Breakfast Club • Places him among top-earning media personalities • Solidifies his role as an executive and platform builder 🎙️ The Vision: “BET for Podcasting” • Black Effect launched in 2020 • 60+ podcasts released • Partnerships with Drink Champs, Daymond John, Matt Barnes & Stephen Jackson, more • Plans to launch 10+ new shows in 2026 • Goal: “Create 100 versions of me” 📊 Why Black Effect Matters • Podcasting is now a data-driven business • iHeart podcast revenue growth: – $101M (2020) – $252M (2021) – $448M (2024) • Black Effect is a key revenue driver • Netflix set to stream The Breakfast Club and other podcasts in 2026 💭 My Take (Student of the Game) Even though I don’t agree with Charlamagne’s stances on Drake and Nicki Minaj, I’m fully aware of his power and skill in radio, media, and now politics. • He controls Black radio and media in a way few do • Comparable to Howard Stern, Joe Rogan, and Ryan Seacrest all in one • Arguably the modern-day Oprah of media • There was never a real chance of him being “canceled” • No company lets someone like that walk without something major happening As someone who studies the industry, the shift was obvious especially after The Breakfast Club ended its run on BET. 📌 Bottom Line This isn’t just about a number. It’s about leverage, infrastructure, and control. From radio intern → media power broker From voice → platform From talent → influence 👀 This isn’t just a deal. It’s positioning.
3:12

👀🧐📻 Charlamagne Reacts to Reports of a $200M Deal Charlamagne Tha God addresses viral reports claiming he signed a $200 million deal and uses the moment to call out misinformation in media. 🗣️ Charlamagne’s Response (Key Points) • Tells people to stop the money talk • Says Forbes simply highlighted his career and business ventures • Claims he has no knowledge of the numbers being reported • Jokes about still needing help with student loans • Denies rumors about leaving iHeartMedia • Calls out AI-driven rumors and fake “sources” “Y’all worried about the wrong things.” 📺 On YouTube, Rumors & Fake Sources Charlamagne shifts focus to the bigger issue: • Says people prefer lies because they’re more entertaining than the truth • Calls out creators who lie for clicks • Criticizes YouTubers who read numbers they don’t understand • Rejects fake “industry insiders” claiming unnamed sources “At what point do we stop listening to people who lie to y’all for a living?” 🎙️ Creators He Respects • Praises YouTubers with intellectual curiosity • Highlights creators who report what they see, give opinions, and move on • Shouts out Chigs Smooth for not pretending to have inside access “God is my source every single time.” 👀 The Bigger Context: Black Effect & Media Power Reported Context (per Forbes): Charlamagne has been positioned as a media executive, not just radio talent, largely due to the growth of The Black Effect Podcast Network. 💰 The Deal (As Reported) • Five-year extension with iHeartMedia • Keeps Charlamagne on The Breakfast Club • Places him among top-earning media personalities • Solidifies his role as an executive and platform builder 🎙️ The Vision: “BET for Podcasting” • Black Effect launched in 2020 • 60+ podcasts released • Partnerships with Drink Champs, Daymond John, Matt Barnes & Stephen Jackson, more • Plans to launch 10+ new shows in 2026 • Goal: “Create 100 versions of me” 📊 Why Black Effect Matters • Podcasting is now a data-driven business • iHeart podcast revenue growth: – $101M (2020) – $252M (2021) – $448M (2024) • Black Effect is a key revenue driver • Netflix set to stream The Breakfast Club and other podcasts in 2026 💭 My Take (Student of the Game) Even though I don’t agree with Charlamagne’s stances on Drake and Nicki Minaj, I’m fully aware of his power and skill in radio, media, and now politics. • He controls Black radio and media in a way few do • Comparable to Howard Stern, Joe Rogan, and Ryan Seacrest all in one • Arguably the modern-day Oprah of media • There was never a real chance of him being “canceled” • No company lets someone like that walk without something major happening As someone who studies the industry, the shift was obvious especially after The Breakfast Club ended its run on BET. 📌 Bottom Line This isn’t just about a number. It’s about leverage, infrastructure, and control. From radio intern → media power broker From voice → platform From talent → influence 👀 This isn’t just a deal. It’s positioning.

Cousin Tino ™️

40,568 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I'm convinced that CNN actually stands for “Condescending News Network.” They are unnecessarily snarky & demeaning when they engage in debate because they really believe they're the smartest people in every room. Their crap attitudes are a result of catering to the elitist left, carving out an even more dogmatic niche audience than in previous years. The people they bring onto their panels and hire as contributors are so abrasively condescending that it's like second nature for them to hit you with a rude quip for the sake of exuding their self-perceived dominance over anyone who dares to challenge their egotism. Their high self-regard makes them equally loud and oblivious to how foolish they appear to outsiders when they are wrong. In a recent appearance, "Journalist" Toure, in a classic snobbish manner, repeatedly laced Scott Jennings with unnecessary condescending remarks. Classic one-liners like "Do I need to give you a civics lesson?" and "At some near point, this conversation is going to look very silly to you." Meanwhile, in typical deranged fashion, Toure is implying that Trump will put someone in charge of the military to do Trump's bidding...when Trump is already in charge of the military as the commander-in-chief. Speaking of unlikable snobs, CNN routinely features Washington Post's Catherine Rampell on roundtables to visually demonstrate her contempt for anyone disagreeing with her. My favorite moment was when she was sitting next to a successful businessman, Kevin O'Leary, and she's constantly interrupts him to tell him how business really works. Granted, she is a former associate economics professor and likely knows more than I do about economics. However, only a fool would think they know more about a given topic than a person who lives it day in and day out. It's like thinking that the sports announcer knows more about basketball than an NBA player. The icing on the cake is CNN anchor Jake Tapper coming out with a new book focused on the cognitive decline of Joe Biden during his administration when he made it a point to snide Lara Trump for saying the most obvious. The true irony is that Tappers' book is about how people weren’t allowed to talk about his mental decline, yet he was part of this enforcement. It's like the getaway driver complaining about the prevalence of bank robberies. So, I'm not being misunderstood: I have no problem with debates and passionate discussions surrounding politics and news. For me, it's not about a particular side and defending someone because of personal bias. I'm focusing on the decorum, or lack thereof, that exists in the mainstream media atmosphere. Since 2020, my political worldview has been molded by rejecting outright snobbery coming from the media and politicians alike. Part of the reason I started contributing to publications like the New York Post and Newsweek was because of how elitists in the media give bad faith interpretations about how Americans see the world. In other words, outlets like CNN have turned into an unlikable network and with every passing day, they repel viewers like they're broadcasting kryptonite. It's not just that their hosts and panelists have contempt for the people sitting across from them, but that air of disdain transmits through the cameras as well. It took me a while to contemplate why people still watch CNN, regardless of if you're on the political left or right. For some, it's the habit of watching legacy media that is difficult to quit. However, I believe the real audience they're catering to is the classical elitist who is familiar with speaking to people "below" them with an unabashed, condescending attitude. The reason most Americans are turning off the mainstream media for their information is because they've realized that the message coming across isn't for them anymore. It's for a class of Americans that enjoys being argumentative and ridiculing anyone they feel isn't on their level. This attitude is a massive turn off for most Americans. We get nothing from watching six to eight people yell over each other and laughing in the face of someone who has an opposing viewpoint. Normal people don't engage in this type of in-person demonizing and have a healthy amount of humility. The people on these networks aren't normal though, which is why they look alien to us. With the average CNN viewer being 67 addition to their lack of self-reflection, makes it inevitable that this legacy network will be put out to pasture. But don't worry, they'll blame us for their downfall. Accountability isn't the media's forte after all.
14:10

I'm convinced that CNN actually stands for “Condescending News Network.” They are unnecessarily snarky & demeaning when they engage in debate because they really believe they're the smartest people in every room. Their crap attitudes are a result of catering to the elitist left, carving out an even more dogmatic niche audience than in previous years. The people they bring onto their panels and hire as contributors are so abrasively condescending that it's like second nature for them to hit you with a rude quip for the sake of exuding their self-perceived dominance over anyone who dares to challenge their egotism. Their high self-regard makes them equally loud and oblivious to how foolish they appear to outsiders when they are wrong. In a recent appearance, "Journalist" Toure, in a classic snobbish manner, repeatedly laced Scott Jennings with unnecessary condescending remarks. Classic one-liners like "Do I need to give you a civics lesson?" and "At some near point, this conversation is going to look very silly to you." Meanwhile, in typical deranged fashion, Toure is implying that Trump will put someone in charge of the military to do Trump's bidding...when Trump is already in charge of the military as the commander-in-chief. Speaking of unlikable snobs, CNN routinely features Washington Post's Catherine Rampell on roundtables to visually demonstrate her contempt for anyone disagreeing with her. My favorite moment was when she was sitting next to a successful businessman, Kevin O'Leary, and she's constantly interrupts him to tell him how business really works. Granted, she is a former associate economics professor and likely knows more than I do about economics. However, only a fool would think they know more about a given topic than a person who lives it day in and day out. It's like thinking that the sports announcer knows more about basketball than an NBA player. The icing on the cake is CNN anchor Jake Tapper coming out with a new book focused on the cognitive decline of Joe Biden during his administration when he made it a point to snide Lara Trump for saying the most obvious. The true irony is that Tappers' book is about how people weren’t allowed to talk about his mental decline, yet he was part of this enforcement. It's like the getaway driver complaining about the prevalence of bank robberies. So, I'm not being misunderstood: I have no problem with debates and passionate discussions surrounding politics and news. For me, it's not about a particular side and defending someone because of personal bias. I'm focusing on the decorum, or lack thereof, that exists in the mainstream media atmosphere. Since 2020, my political worldview has been molded by rejecting outright snobbery coming from the media and politicians alike. Part of the reason I started contributing to publications like the New York Post and Newsweek was because of how elitists in the media give bad faith interpretations about how Americans see the world. In other words, outlets like CNN have turned into an unlikable network and with every passing day, they repel viewers like they're broadcasting kryptonite. It's not just that their hosts and panelists have contempt for the people sitting across from them, but that air of disdain transmits through the cameras as well. It took me a while to contemplate why people still watch CNN, regardless of if you're on the political left or right. For some, it's the habit of watching legacy media that is difficult to quit. However, I believe the real audience they're catering to is the classical elitist who is familiar with speaking to people "below" them with an unabashed, condescending attitude. The reason most Americans are turning off the mainstream media for their information is because they've realized that the message coming across isn't for them anymore. It's for a class of Americans that enjoys being argumentative and ridiculing anyone they feel isn't on their level. This attitude is a massive turn off for most Americans. We get nothing from watching six to eight people yell over each other and laughing in the face of someone who has an opposing viewpoint. Normal people don't engage in this type of in-person demonizing and have a healthy amount of humility. The people on these networks aren't normal though, which is why they look alien to us. With the average CNN viewer being 67 addition to their lack of self-reflection, makes it inevitable that this legacy network will be put out to pasture. But don't worry, they'll blame us for their downfall. Accountability isn't the media's forte after all.

Adam B. Coleman, Proud Father & Imperfect Man

177,412 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Jeffery Epstein vs Roaring Kitty! What would give Steven Cohen, Loop Capital, Highbridge Capital, or any of the other Dumb Stormtroopers the confidence to short GameStop way more than 100%? Epstein had the whole financial system from end-to-end compromised, from Obama and his Loop capital to Goldman Sach's Partner, Obama White House council, and FINRA Board of Governors Kathryn Ruemmler. Why does Ryan Cohen wear a bulletproof vest and what did he mean when he said "children must be protected at all costs?" How do you launder trillions of dollars around the world for the drug and human trafficking trade? and Why did Epstein make all his money as a tax consultant for primarily 2 clients, Les Wexner and Leon Black? You and me, mere peasants are held to different rules, for example only being able to write off $3500 of losses through failed investments, but what about the Harvard Endowment? Here is how illicit money moves around the world: Step 1) Donate money to Harvard and get a tax deduction Step 2) Harvard buys a stock and runs the price up one day. Step 3) The trafficker then shorts the top, and now has tax free money they can use. There are also just ways that Epstein's clients could all make tax-free money, and that is picking a public company to short in the ground, and coordinate to make it go bankrupt. This scheme became very obvious because it got so big and shameless as main stream media repeatedly kept jumping the shark. People noticed, and here we are today with Ryan Cohen as CEO and GameStop as the most healthy company in the stock market. You can see how scared the Dumb Stormtroopers are because they are threatening violence like Jim Cramer did recently on CNBC. Mainstream media lost much of its funding when USAID was cut, and they are being sued for lying. Democrat and deep state hitman like the Tren de Agua gang are being thrown in jail in El Salvador. The financial system is being updated with blockchain accountability. It looks like the plan is going according to plan!🚀
16:12

Jeffery Epstein vs Roaring Kitty! What would give Steven Cohen, Loop Capital, Highbridge Capital, or any of the other Dumb Stormtroopers the confidence to short GameStop way more than 100%? Epstein had the whole financial system from end-to-end compromised, from Obama and his Loop capital to Goldman Sach's Partner, Obama White House council, and FINRA Board of Governors Kathryn Ruemmler. Why does Ryan Cohen wear a bulletproof vest and what did he mean when he said "children must be protected at all costs?" How do you launder trillions of dollars around the world for the drug and human trafficking trade? and Why did Epstein make all his money as a tax consultant for primarily 2 clients, Les Wexner and Leon Black? You and me, mere peasants are held to different rules, for example only being able to write off $3500 of losses through failed investments, but what about the Harvard Endowment? Here is how illicit money moves around the world: Step 1) Donate money to Harvard and get a tax deduction Step 2) Harvard buys a stock and runs the price up one day. Step 3) The trafficker then shorts the top, and now has tax free money they can use. There are also just ways that Epstein's clients could all make tax-free money, and that is picking a public company to short in the ground, and coordinate to make it go bankrupt. This scheme became very obvious because it got so big and shameless as main stream media repeatedly kept jumping the shark. People noticed, and here we are today with Ryan Cohen as CEO and GameStop as the most healthy company in the stock market. You can see how scared the Dumb Stormtroopers are because they are threatening violence like Jim Cramer did recently on CNBC. Mainstream media lost much of its funding when USAID was cut, and they are being sued for lying. Democrat and deep state hitman like the Tren de Agua gang are being thrown in jail in El Salvador. The financial system is being updated with blockchain accountability. It looks like the plan is going according to plan!🚀

Michael A.M.E.

167,567 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Around the world, the crackdown on free speech is accelerating. In Britain, the courts are sentencing people to years in prison for things they posted on X, formerly Twitter. In the United States, the architects of the Censorship Industrial Complex are raising money for Kamala Harris in hopes of re-imposing government censorship on social media platforms after she wins. And in Brazil, the government has forced X to end its operations after threatening to arrest X’s employees in Brazil if the company continues to refuse to permanently ban disfavored journalists, influencers, and elected political leaders from its platform. The Brazilian government may soon block access to X in Brazil, forcing its citizens to rely upon VPNs, or virtual private networks, in order to access X illegally. On the one hand, none of these events appear to have anything in common. In Britain, there were riots triggered by misinformation that the killer of two children was an illegal immigrant. In the United States, the Censorship Industrial Complex emerged in reaction to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. And in Brazil, a single Supreme Court justice has taken it upon himself to demand extreme levels of censorship in reaction to the election of a populist president in 2018. But at another level, all of these events are connected. Starmer, Harris, and Lula have all embraced the first and most important step toward totalitarianism, which is censorship. This is even more alarming given the events of the last few days, when Harris announced that she would seek price controls on food and a housing agenda that would significantly expand the role of the government without increasing supply. I don’t think the labels of communist or fascist accurately describe the systems that Starmer, Harris, and Lula are creating. In some ways, those three leaders are drawing upon elements of both totalitarian systems. But trying to compare what’s happening now to what happened in the early 20th Century risks confusing us as to what is happening before our very eyes. But I do think the label of totalitarianism is accurate to describe what these leaders are doing and where they appear to be headed. Part of what’s so alarming about what they are doing is that they are melding together the demands of global capital and of Woke Leftists at the grassroots level. Both are driven by intolerance of free speech and free expression. Scarcely a day passes without the mainstream media attacking Elon Musk as a threat to democracy because he has allowed freedom of speech on X. Why are they doing that? Because the mainstream media are financed by and should be thought of as global capital’s marketing and propaganda operation. And, as alarming, there is strong evidence that those leaders are and have been working together to impose a censorship industrial complex worldwide. Europe, Australia, and Brazil have all sought to ban and censor disfavored views and individuals not just in their home countries but worldwide. Over the last decade, these governments, politicians, and political parties have worked to coordinate their work at the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and other NGOs that operate across borders. And reporting by Public and others has uncovered collaboration between intelligence agencies in all three nations. Media disinformation that populism poses a threat to democracy has increased the public’s support for online censorship. From 2018 to 2023, the share of Democrats who told Pew they wanted the government to engage in more censorship of disfavored online speech rose from 40% to 70%. An identical dynamic is occurring in Brazil and Britain, whereby the mainstream news media and Left-wing political activists have called for the censorship of their political enemies. Friends, I’m sorry to say, but this is what the global transition to totalitarianism looks like. Big businesses, left-wing governments, and the legacy news media have made clear that they cannot tolerate free speech online. They grew accustomed to controlling public opinion first through the legacy media and then through Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Global elites have made clear that they believe that freedom of speech on a single social media platform, and one that is far smaller than Facebook or Google, is intolerable. This desire for total control is the central characteristic of the totalitarianism that is presently emerging from elites at the corporate and political levels around the world. In addition to pushing censorship, these leaders and global elites are seeking to overturn liberal democracies and impose a radically different system of iliberal rule in the Western world. Rather than meritocracy and equal justice for all, elites are seeking to impose a Woke racialist hierarchy that gives preferential treatment to some groups and prejudicial treatment to other groups supposedly based on historic oppression. There are signs of hope. Recently, a group of censorsial advertisers called the group of advertisers, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) disbanded after X sued them. But X cannot defend freedom of speech alone. We need a global free speech movement to defend our fundamental freedom against tyranny. If we lose free speech we will lose everything else, including our civilization. The step between censorship and price controls and shortages will be a very small one. We are working with our allies around the world to raise the alarm. In June we gathered free speech advocates from the United States, Britain, Brazil, and other countries, and we are now working together on a combined effort to stand up for freedom and against the tyrants. If you’d like to support our work, please subscribe now to Public. If you can do more than that, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support the free speech movement. The moment we have been warning about is approaching more rapidly than any of us expected.
5:58

Around the world, the crackdown on free speech is accelerating. In Britain, the courts are sentencing people to years in prison for things they posted on X, formerly Twitter. In the United States, the architects of the Censorship Industrial Complex are raising money for Kamala Harris in hopes of re-imposing government censorship on social media platforms after she wins. And in Brazil, the government has forced X to end its operations after threatening to arrest X’s employees in Brazil if the company continues to refuse to permanently ban disfavored journalists, influencers, and elected political leaders from its platform. The Brazilian government may soon block access to X in Brazil, forcing its citizens to rely upon VPNs, or virtual private networks, in order to access X illegally. On the one hand, none of these events appear to have anything in common. In Britain, there were riots triggered by misinformation that the killer of two children was an illegal immigrant. In the United States, the Censorship Industrial Complex emerged in reaction to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. And in Brazil, a single Supreme Court justice has taken it upon himself to demand extreme levels of censorship in reaction to the election of a populist president in 2018. But at another level, all of these events are connected. Starmer, Harris, and Lula have all embraced the first and most important step toward totalitarianism, which is censorship. This is even more alarming given the events of the last few days, when Harris announced that she would seek price controls on food and a housing agenda that would significantly expand the role of the government without increasing supply. I don’t think the labels of communist or fascist accurately describe the systems that Starmer, Harris, and Lula are creating. In some ways, those three leaders are drawing upon elements of both totalitarian systems. But trying to compare what’s happening now to what happened in the early 20th Century risks confusing us as to what is happening before our very eyes. But I do think the label of totalitarianism is accurate to describe what these leaders are doing and where they appear to be headed. Part of what’s so alarming about what they are doing is that they are melding together the demands of global capital and of Woke Leftists at the grassroots level. Both are driven by intolerance of free speech and free expression. Scarcely a day passes without the mainstream media attacking Elon Musk as a threat to democracy because he has allowed freedom of speech on X. Why are they doing that? Because the mainstream media are financed by and should be thought of as global capital’s marketing and propaganda operation. And, as alarming, there is strong evidence that those leaders are and have been working together to impose a censorship industrial complex worldwide. Europe, Australia, and Brazil have all sought to ban and censor disfavored views and individuals not just in their home countries but worldwide. Over the last decade, these governments, politicians, and political parties have worked to coordinate their work at the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and other NGOs that operate across borders. And reporting by Public and others has uncovered collaboration between intelligence agencies in all three nations. Media disinformation that populism poses a threat to democracy has increased the public’s support for online censorship. From 2018 to 2023, the share of Democrats who told Pew they wanted the government to engage in more censorship of disfavored online speech rose from 40% to 70%. An identical dynamic is occurring in Brazil and Britain, whereby the mainstream news media and Left-wing political activists have called for the censorship of their political enemies. Friends, I’m sorry to say, but this is what the global transition to totalitarianism looks like. Big businesses, left-wing governments, and the legacy news media have made clear that they cannot tolerate free speech online. They grew accustomed to controlling public opinion first through the legacy media and then through Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Global elites have made clear that they believe that freedom of speech on a single social media platform, and one that is far smaller than Facebook or Google, is intolerable. This desire for total control is the central characteristic of the totalitarianism that is presently emerging from elites at the corporate and political levels around the world. In addition to pushing censorship, these leaders and global elites are seeking to overturn liberal democracies and impose a radically different system of iliberal rule in the Western world. Rather than meritocracy and equal justice for all, elites are seeking to impose a Woke racialist hierarchy that gives preferential treatment to some groups and prejudicial treatment to other groups supposedly based on historic oppression. There are signs of hope. Recently, a group of censorsial advertisers called the group of advertisers, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) disbanded after X sued them. But X cannot defend freedom of speech alone. We need a global free speech movement to defend our fundamental freedom against tyranny. If we lose free speech we will lose everything else, including our civilization. The step between censorship and price controls and shortages will be a very small one. We are working with our allies around the world to raise the alarm. In June we gathered free speech advocates from the United States, Britain, Brazil, and other countries, and we are now working together on a combined effort to stand up for freedom and against the tyrants. If you’d like to support our work, please subscribe now to Public. If you can do more than that, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support the free speech movement. The moment we have been warning about is approaching more rapidly than any of us expected.

Michael Shellenberger

88,025 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Sheila Copps, Hon. Sheila Copps a former Canadian politician, has a rap sheet of controversies that paint her as a shady operator. Her firm, MediPro Canada Inc., is suing BTNX for $100 million, claiming unpaid commissions for securing a $2 billion federal contract for COVID-19 rapid tests. BTNX fires back, alleging Copps lobbied illegally without registering as a lobbyist, a violation of Canadian law. Emails expose her setting up meetings with senior officials in then procurement minister Anita Anand’s office, pushing for masks and tests. A deal for N95 masks was flagged by 3M as potential fraud, sparking a police investigation. Her cozy ties to Anand, whose husband’s companies scored millions in COVID contracts, scream insider favoritism, sidelining Canadian PPE firms like Vitacore Industries despite a Buy Canadian policy. This stinks of corrupt profiteering, leveraging connections for personal gain. In 2004, Copps cried foul, accusing the Liberal Party of massive orchestrated fraud after losing a nomination to Tony Valeri. She claimed tampering but produced zero evidence, and Hamilton police found nothing to back her up. Her appeal was dropped, likely because she knew it was a dead end. As Heritage Minister, she was blasted for handing out government grants, with critics branding her part of a corrupt Liberal machine that funneled money to cronies. Her 1996 GST promise was a blatant ploy; she swore to resign if the tax wasn’t axed, quit, then ran in a byelection to slink back to her post 49 days later. The stunt cost her voter support, with her vote share dropping, exposing her as a political opportunist. Copps’ 2014 claim of being sexually assaulted as an MPP and raped years earlier raises eyebrows for its timing. She said a male colleague assaulted her during a parliamentary tour, but didn’t report it, claiming she handled it by kneeing him. Her rape allegation from decades prior went nowhere, with police dismissing it as unwinnable. Dropping these claims during the Jian Ghomeshi media storm smells like a calculated grab for relevance, casting doubt on her motives. Whether true or not, her selective timing undermines her credibility, suggesting she’s milking serious issues for attention. Media and public backlash have been brutal. Outlets like Rebel News and the International Journal of Forensic Science slam Copps for her role in the $2 billion contract scandal, with X posts from IJFMedia and junonewscom calling her out for profiteering. Critics see her as a poster child for Liberal corruption, exploiting her political clout. Her silence on the ongoing lawsuit only deepens suspicions she’s hiding something. Copps’ track record of alleged fraud, cronyism, and political games, from the current lawsuit to her baseless 2004 accusations and self-serving GST stunt, shows a pattern of dodging accountability while cashing in on connections.
3:11

Sheila Copps, Hon. Sheila Copps a former Canadian politician, has a rap sheet of controversies that paint her as a shady operator. Her firm, MediPro Canada Inc., is suing BTNX for $100 million, claiming unpaid commissions for securing a $2 billion federal contract for COVID-19 rapid tests. BTNX fires back, alleging Copps lobbied illegally without registering as a lobbyist, a violation of Canadian law. Emails expose her setting up meetings with senior officials in then procurement minister Anita Anand’s office, pushing for masks and tests. A deal for N95 masks was flagged by 3M as potential fraud, sparking a police investigation. Her cozy ties to Anand, whose husband’s companies scored millions in COVID contracts, scream insider favoritism, sidelining Canadian PPE firms like Vitacore Industries despite a Buy Canadian policy. This stinks of corrupt profiteering, leveraging connections for personal gain. In 2004, Copps cried foul, accusing the Liberal Party of massive orchestrated fraud after losing a nomination to Tony Valeri. She claimed tampering but produced zero evidence, and Hamilton police found nothing to back her up. Her appeal was dropped, likely because she knew it was a dead end. As Heritage Minister, she was blasted for handing out government grants, with critics branding her part of a corrupt Liberal machine that funneled money to cronies. Her 1996 GST promise was a blatant ploy; she swore to resign if the tax wasn’t axed, quit, then ran in a byelection to slink back to her post 49 days later. The stunt cost her voter support, with her vote share dropping, exposing her as a political opportunist. Copps’ 2014 claim of being sexually assaulted as an MPP and raped years earlier raises eyebrows for its timing. She said a male colleague assaulted her during a parliamentary tour, but didn’t report it, claiming she handled it by kneeing him. Her rape allegation from decades prior went nowhere, with police dismissing it as unwinnable. Dropping these claims during the Jian Ghomeshi media storm smells like a calculated grab for relevance, casting doubt on her motives. Whether true or not, her selective timing undermines her credibility, suggesting she’s milking serious issues for attention. Media and public backlash have been brutal. Outlets like Rebel News and the International Journal of Forensic Science slam Copps for her role in the $2 billion contract scandal, with X posts from IJFMedia and junonewscom calling her out for profiteering. Critics see her as a poster child for Liberal corruption, exploiting her political clout. Her silence on the ongoing lawsuit only deepens suspicions she’s hiding something. Copps’ track record of alleged fraud, cronyism, and political games, from the current lawsuit to her baseless 2004 accusations and self-serving GST stunt, shows a pattern of dodging accountability while cashing in on connections.

Vote Canada

89,782 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

My little brother got punched in the face at 12. So, I took him to the gym. Now he deadlifts 455lbs and wins wrestling tournaments. Here are 13 must-dos if you want to help a young man gain confidence: 𝟏. 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲. I work out with my little brother. I do ice baths with my little brother. These activities teach him to overcome adversity in a controlled fashion. Expose young men to controlled adversity so they can handle the challenges of life. 𝟐. 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. Could you give a homeless person a $100 bill if you didn’t have $100 yourself? You can’t give something you don’t have. Schedule time to build your own confidence with things like working out, ice baths, or BJJ. Fill your cup first so you may pour it out into others. 𝟑. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐧. My little brother competes with me in everything. But, his confidence comes from the wins in his personal life and his competitiveness comes from the L’s to the man he looks up to. (P.S. This doesn’t mean he won’t beat you. My little brother has taken me down in BJJ and landed punches in Muay Thai. He’s surpassed me in guitar. He has beaten me, but I don’t go easy on him.) 𝟒. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠. At first, my little brother rejected what he was told but followed the example he would see. Now, he values my every word. Become confident, disciplined, and strong so that your word holds weight. 𝟓. 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲. In conversations with my little brother, I positively reinforce his God-given gifts and personality traits. This builds his identity: his perception of WHO HE IS. His identity stays with him forever and translates into every area of life. 𝟔. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬. My little brother has accomplished a lot but has failed a lot. A young man’s confidence comes from who he is, not just what he does. Praise his wins but don’t let them become the entire focus. 𝟕. 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞-𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐧. My little brother's trust in me drastically increased when he met my friends and business partners. They share my values, beliefs, and confidence. Introduce the young man in your life to your friends and mentors - this gives his mind more evidence that he can trust you. 𝟖. 𝐁𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. My little brother and I lift together. My little brother and I train in combat sports together. My little brother and I go to the range together. Schedule bonding activities like workouts, physical challenges, and hobbies with the young man you are called to lead. 𝟗. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬. It’s easier for young men to trust someone they can relate to. It’s hard for young men to relate to someone who appears to be perfect on the outside. My little brother knows my failures and he’s seen my success. Be honest about your mistakes, correct them, and share the lessons you learned in the process. 𝟏𝟎. 𝐆𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲. I ask my brother for help with things that he’s good at. Even if I could’ve figured it out myself. This is a practical way for him to practice leadership. Let young men lead you so they can learn to lead others. TLDR? It starts with you. If you want to give confidence, gain confidence. If you want to teach strength, become strong. If you want to teach self-respect, respect yourself first. Older brothers, dads, and mentors, let's help each other out. What advice would you give?
0:26

My little brother got punched in the face at 12. So, I took him to the gym. Now he deadlifts 455lbs and wins wrestling tournaments. Here are 13 must-dos if you want to help a young man gain confidence: 𝟏. 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲. I work out with my little brother. I do ice baths with my little brother. These activities teach him to overcome adversity in a controlled fashion. Expose young men to controlled adversity so they can handle the challenges of life. 𝟐. 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. Could you give a homeless person a $100 bill if you didn’t have $100 yourself? You can’t give something you don’t have. Schedule time to build your own confidence with things like working out, ice baths, or BJJ. Fill your cup first so you may pour it out into others. 𝟑. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐧. My little brother competes with me in everything. But, his confidence comes from the wins in his personal life and his competitiveness comes from the L’s to the man he looks up to. (P.S. This doesn’t mean he won’t beat you. My little brother has taken me down in BJJ and landed punches in Muay Thai. He’s surpassed me in guitar. He has beaten me, but I don’t go easy on him.) 𝟒. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠. At first, my little brother rejected what he was told but followed the example he would see. Now, he values my every word. Become confident, disciplined, and strong so that your word holds weight. 𝟓. 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲. In conversations with my little brother, I positively reinforce his God-given gifts and personality traits. This builds his identity: his perception of WHO HE IS. His identity stays with him forever and translates into every area of life. 𝟔. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬. My little brother has accomplished a lot but has failed a lot. A young man’s confidence comes from who he is, not just what he does. Praise his wins but don’t let them become the entire focus. 𝟕. 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞-𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐧. My little brother's trust in me drastically increased when he met my friends and business partners. They share my values, beliefs, and confidence. Introduce the young man in your life to your friends and mentors - this gives his mind more evidence that he can trust you. 𝟖. 𝐁𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. My little brother and I lift together. My little brother and I train in combat sports together. My little brother and I go to the range together. Schedule bonding activities like workouts, physical challenges, and hobbies with the young man you are called to lead. 𝟗. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬. It’s easier for young men to trust someone they can relate to. It’s hard for young men to relate to someone who appears to be perfect on the outside. My little brother knows my failures and he’s seen my success. Be honest about your mistakes, correct them, and share the lessons you learned in the process. 𝟏𝟎. 𝐆𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲. I ask my brother for help with things that he’s good at. Even if I could’ve figured it out myself. This is a practical way for him to practice leadership. Let young men lead you so they can learn to lead others. TLDR? It starts with you. If you want to give confidence, gain confidence. If you want to teach strength, become strong. If you want to teach self-respect, respect yourself first. Older brothers, dads, and mentors, let's help each other out. What advice would you give?

Gabe Pluguez

1,245,895 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Former Golden State Warriors minority owner Chamath Palihapitiya says sports valuations will peak in 2024. Chamath Palihapitiya paid $25 million for a 10% stake in the Warriors in 2011. But he sold his stake in the team last year and most likely profited more than $250 million. This is something that could impact all professional sports teams — but let's use the NBA as an example. NBA teams used to trade at a 3-4x revenue multiple, but now they routinely trade at a 10x revenue multiple. Most people have ignored the NBA's multiple expansion because there are several powerful tailwinds at play. • Sports Betting • International expansion • Real estate development But TV money is MUCH more important. For example, NBA franchise valuations doubled overnight when the NBA announced its last media rights deal in 2014 — from $634 million to $1.1 billion. That's because 1) these deals only come up once every decade, and 2) media rights represent the majority of league revenue. But since media rights are so crucial to the growth of the NBA and its franchises, the same could be said about what will happen if media rights slow down. Everyone knows how valuable live sports are to the TV bundle — sports represented 96 out of the top 100 most-watched TV broadcasts last year. And even with the decline of the cable bundle, the idea has always been that the demand from linear networks, plus the addition of streaming companies, would drive media rights higher. That’s been true so far. The NFL recently added billions in revenue from deals with Amazon and Peacock, while Fox, CBS, NBC, and ESPN also increased their fees. But that doesn’t mean it will happen forever. Cable companies will soon reach a point where it doesn’t make financial sense to pay up for future rights, which is why you have already heard rumors that the NBA’s next media deal won’t be as big as they previously thought it would. Streaming companies also make more money off other endeavors, including Amazon’s genuine desire to have people join the Prime bundle. And bankruptcies across regional sports networks have already cost NBA, MLB, and NHL hundreds of millions in projected payments over the next decade. That's not to say the NBA won't grow. Expansion teams are on the horizon, providing each NBA owner with a ~$300 million payment. International growth is getting stronger — NBA China is now a $5 billion business — and that's without even mentioning the lucrative tax benefits these teams provide billionaire owners. But my point is simple... The media landscape is changing, and no one should expect NBA valuations to grow at the same rate they have over the last decade. (Ps. Follow me Joe Pompliano for more sports business content like this).
1:56

Former Golden State Warriors minority owner Chamath Palihapitiya says sports valuations will peak in 2024. Chamath Palihapitiya paid $25 million for a 10% stake in the Warriors in 2011. But he sold his stake in the team last year and most likely profited more than $250 million. This is something that could impact all professional sports teams — but let's use the NBA as an example. NBA teams used to trade at a 3-4x revenue multiple, but now they routinely trade at a 10x revenue multiple. Most people have ignored the NBA's multiple expansion because there are several powerful tailwinds at play. • Sports Betting • International expansion • Real estate development But TV money is MUCH more important. For example, NBA franchise valuations doubled overnight when the NBA announced its last media rights deal in 2014 — from $634 million to $1.1 billion. That's because 1) these deals only come up once every decade, and 2) media rights represent the majority of league revenue. But since media rights are so crucial to the growth of the NBA and its franchises, the same could be said about what will happen if media rights slow down. Everyone knows how valuable live sports are to the TV bundle — sports represented 96 out of the top 100 most-watched TV broadcasts last year. And even with the decline of the cable bundle, the idea has always been that the demand from linear networks, plus the addition of streaming companies, would drive media rights higher. That’s been true so far. The NFL recently added billions in revenue from deals with Amazon and Peacock, while Fox, CBS, NBC, and ESPN also increased their fees. But that doesn’t mean it will happen forever. Cable companies will soon reach a point where it doesn’t make financial sense to pay up for future rights, which is why you have already heard rumors that the NBA’s next media deal won’t be as big as they previously thought it would. Streaming companies also make more money off other endeavors, including Amazon’s genuine desire to have people join the Prime bundle. And bankruptcies across regional sports networks have already cost NBA, MLB, and NHL hundreds of millions in projected payments over the next decade. That's not to say the NBA won't grow. Expansion teams are on the horizon, providing each NBA owner with a ~$300 million payment. International growth is getting stronger — NBA China is now a $5 billion business — and that's without even mentioning the lucrative tax benefits these teams provide billionaire owners. But my point is simple... The media landscape is changing, and no one should expect NBA valuations to grow at the same rate they have over the last decade. (Ps. Follow me Joe Pompliano for more sports business content like this).

Joe Pompliano

709,618 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Watch Ben Shapiro Tear into Censorship Cartel in Fiery Congressional Testimony “We're in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was trafficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people. “So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn't really why the legacy media have lost Americans' trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands. “Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Nevermind the yarmulke. “Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging. In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter, ‘You created these platforms and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising. “In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you're not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it's nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you're not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled. We at Daily Wire have experienced this firsthand. In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, the Daily Wire YouTube channel saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions. “Or take Joe Rogan. When Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, ‘We want every platform to be doing more to call out missing disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.’ Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM. “So what are the brand safety standards that GARM uses? The standards begin with inarguable things that we've heard from the other witnesses, like preventing the distribution of child sexual abuse material or stopping terrorism. But GARM doesn't draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous. Their standards also include restrictions on hate speech, harassment, misinformation, or, my personal favorite, insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues. Those criteria are highly subjective in theory, and they are purely partisan in practice. For example, last year, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was fully demonetized on YouTube, a GARM member. Why? For quote-unquote misgendering, which to GARM is to say that men are not women. Perfectly obvious facts now run afoul of GARM's censorship standards. “Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It's time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress. “Congress can do so in two ways. First, Congress must investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. The Daily Wire has already filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department for allegedly doing just this. Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles. Two weeks ago, writing a dissent in Murthy versus Missouri, Justice Alito condemned what he called sophisticated and coercive government campaigns against free speech. “Members of this committee have engaged in precisely such campaigns. When Congressman Schiff speaks about targeting social media companies that must be, quote, ‘pulled and dragged into this era of corporate responsibility because they are too tolerant of misinformation,’ he knows what he is doing. He is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congresswoman Jayapal blames social media for placing America at the precipice of a democratic crisis and calls on them to target what they deem hate groups, she also knows what she is doing. She is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congressman Hank Johnson says, quote, ‘We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,’ he also knows what he is doing. “We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You're using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don't particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you're abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.” Ben Shapiro
5:04

Watch Ben Shapiro Tear into Censorship Cartel in Fiery Congressional Testimony “We're in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was trafficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people. “So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn't really why the legacy media have lost Americans' trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands. “Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Nevermind the yarmulke. “Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging. In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter, ‘You created these platforms and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising. “In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you're not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it's nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you're not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled. We at Daily Wire have experienced this firsthand. In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, the Daily Wire YouTube channel saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions. “Or take Joe Rogan. When Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, ‘We want every platform to be doing more to call out missing disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.’ Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM. “So what are the brand safety standards that GARM uses? The standards begin with inarguable things that we've heard from the other witnesses, like preventing the distribution of child sexual abuse material or stopping terrorism. But GARM doesn't draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous. Their standards also include restrictions on hate speech, harassment, misinformation, or, my personal favorite, insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues. Those criteria are highly subjective in theory, and they are purely partisan in practice. For example, last year, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was fully demonetized on YouTube, a GARM member. Why? For quote-unquote misgendering, which to GARM is to say that men are not women. Perfectly obvious facts now run afoul of GARM's censorship standards. “Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It's time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress. “Congress can do so in two ways. First, Congress must investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. The Daily Wire has already filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department for allegedly doing just this. Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles. Two weeks ago, writing a dissent in Murthy versus Missouri, Justice Alito condemned what he called sophisticated and coercive government campaigns against free speech. “Members of this committee have engaged in precisely such campaigns. When Congressman Schiff speaks about targeting social media companies that must be, quote, ‘pulled and dragged into this era of corporate responsibility because they are too tolerant of misinformation,’ he knows what he is doing. He is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congresswoman Jayapal blames social media for placing America at the precipice of a democratic crisis and calls on them to target what they deem hate groups, she also knows what she is doing. She is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congressman Hank Johnson says, quote, ‘We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,’ he also knows what he is doing. “We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You're using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don't particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you're abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.” Ben Shapiro

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

38,158,476 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Is this Aurora, Ont. Tim Hortons denying young customers access to the bathroom? You may recall our recent reports regarding Tim Hortons. We exposed the company for lying through its teeth at a recent presser. Tim Hortons said it was going to go back to hiring Canadian citizens. That would certainly be great news — if only it were true. That’s because Tim’s is STILL making use of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program! Indeed, there are about 90 positions currently available under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Oops… Even worse, the company’s CEO has personally registered as a lobbyist to keep make sure the TFW Program remains in place for the benefit of Tim Hortons! Shameful. Tim Hortons loves selling its wares to Canadians. As for hiring Canadians? Nah… not so much, really. But get this: we discovered Tim Hortons has a very thin skin. Because when the executives at Canada’s biggest foodservice company saw our reports, they blew a fuse! You see, Tim’s is used to getting positive press from the mainstream media. Tim’s is one of the largest advertisers in Canada. Translation: this company maintains a cozy business arrangement with the trained seals in the mainstream media. It boils down to this: report nice stuff about Tim’s, and Tim’s will cut big cheques for ads. Quid pro quo. But unlike the mainstream media, Rebel News is not domesticated. We don’t bend the knee to this company nor any other company. And so it was that Tim’s decided to play hardball. Which is to say, the company was so infuriated with our reporting that Rebel News was sent a legal letter on June 1. Here’s the skinny: for practicing unauthorized and unapproved journalism at an Aurora, Ont. Tim Hortons store, I am now BANNED FOR LIFE from going to ANY Tim Hortons in Canada! Wow, that’s harsh! (Well, not really given the nosedive in food quality in recent years…) In any event, we are not making this up! Here’s an excerpt from that letter: “David Menzies, due to past behaviour, is not, for any reason, permitted access to the premises, including parking lots, landscaped areas, and drive-thrus of any Tim Hortons restaurant in Canada, any and all manufacturing and distribution facilities owned or operated by TDL across Canada and the Tim Hortons offices in Montreal, Calgary and Toronto.” Incredible… Do you want to know something else that’s incredible? That very same Tim Hortons in Aurora is currently breaking the law! Here’s the skinny: we interviewed a young lady, Jordyn,18, while on-site (well, we were on a public sidewalk as we didn’t want to be arrested for trespassing.) Jordyn told us an astonishing story. Namely, young people at this Tim’s are routinely refused the use of the bathroom — even if they are paying customers! Alas, this time the control freaks at Tim Hortons have gone too far. First, they are breaking the public health code of York Region. Which is to say a sit-down restaurant MUST provide the use of a bathroom for paying customers – regardless of age. Secondly, this franchise is clearly in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code when it comes to ageism. Indeed, this particular Tim Hortons is truly skating on thin ice believing that it is above the law. And get this: when we phoned the franchise owner, Drew, we caught him in a lie! Drew said nobody is denied the use of the washroom — even though just minutes earlier a supervisor said it is true that young people are banned from the bathroom, especially when the restaurant gets busy. And yes, we have it all on tape. Bottom line: it is downright disgusting this Tim Hortons franchise would deny a basic human right to its paying customers. What are they thinking? As for the owner, Drew, we predict he has a very bright future ahead for him at Tim’s parent company, Restaurant Brands International Inc. Just like RBI’s CEO, Drew is very adept in the art of lying. And that surely makes this particular Tim-Wit executive class material… REPORT by David Menzies:
9:50

Is this Aurora, Ont. Tim Hortons denying young customers access to the bathroom? You may recall our recent reports regarding Tim Hortons. We exposed the company for lying through its teeth at a recent presser. Tim Hortons said it was going to go back to hiring Canadian citizens. That would certainly be great news — if only it were true. That’s because Tim’s is STILL making use of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program! Indeed, there are about 90 positions currently available under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Oops… Even worse, the company’s CEO has personally registered as a lobbyist to keep make sure the TFW Program remains in place for the benefit of Tim Hortons! Shameful. Tim Hortons loves selling its wares to Canadians. As for hiring Canadians? Nah… not so much, really. But get this: we discovered Tim Hortons has a very thin skin. Because when the executives at Canada’s biggest foodservice company saw our reports, they blew a fuse! You see, Tim’s is used to getting positive press from the mainstream media. Tim’s is one of the largest advertisers in Canada. Translation: this company maintains a cozy business arrangement with the trained seals in the mainstream media. It boils down to this: report nice stuff about Tim’s, and Tim’s will cut big cheques for ads. Quid pro quo. But unlike the mainstream media, Rebel News is not domesticated. We don’t bend the knee to this company nor any other company. And so it was that Tim’s decided to play hardball. Which is to say, the company was so infuriated with our reporting that Rebel News was sent a legal letter on June 1. Here’s the skinny: for practicing unauthorized and unapproved journalism at an Aurora, Ont. Tim Hortons store, I am now BANNED FOR LIFE from going to ANY Tim Hortons in Canada! Wow, that’s harsh! (Well, not really given the nosedive in food quality in recent years…) In any event, we are not making this up! Here’s an excerpt from that letter: “David Menzies, due to past behaviour, is not, for any reason, permitted access to the premises, including parking lots, landscaped areas, and drive-thrus of any Tim Hortons restaurant in Canada, any and all manufacturing and distribution facilities owned or operated by TDL across Canada and the Tim Hortons offices in Montreal, Calgary and Toronto.” Incredible… Do you want to know something else that’s incredible? That very same Tim Hortons in Aurora is currently breaking the law! Here’s the skinny: we interviewed a young lady, Jordyn,18, while on-site (well, we were on a public sidewalk as we didn’t want to be arrested for trespassing.) Jordyn told us an astonishing story. Namely, young people at this Tim’s are routinely refused the use of the bathroom — even if they are paying customers! Alas, this time the control freaks at Tim Hortons have gone too far. First, they are breaking the public health code of York Region. Which is to say a sit-down restaurant MUST provide the use of a bathroom for paying customers – regardless of age. Secondly, this franchise is clearly in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code when it comes to ageism. Indeed, this particular Tim Hortons is truly skating on thin ice believing that it is above the law. And get this: when we phoned the franchise owner, Drew, we caught him in a lie! Drew said nobody is denied the use of the washroom — even though just minutes earlier a supervisor said it is true that young people are banned from the bathroom, especially when the restaurant gets busy. And yes, we have it all on tape. Bottom line: it is downright disgusting this Tim Hortons franchise would deny a basic human right to its paying customers. What are they thinking? As for the owner, Drew, we predict he has a very bright future ahead for him at Tim’s parent company, Restaurant Brands International Inc. Just like RBI’s CEO, Drew is very adept in the art of lying. And that surely makes this particular Tim-Wit executive class material… REPORT by David Menzies:

Rebel News

28,295 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Long rant, but worth it, please read & share. A bunch of businessmen, some quite famous, sit around a table discussing the "business of alcohol." So far so good. Alcohol is good business, a business that leech out others life. It rakes in money for governments through taxation & monopoly; and fattens the bank accounts of those behind the industry (like this round table group) and makes barons out of those who sell well. But when these businessmen, start glorifying their business of alcohol by equating it to "good healthcare intervention," it goes definitely into the realm of health misinformation, which is why, I have to keep discussing this absolutely garbage myth that "alcohol in moderation is good for you" and the absolute nonsense disclaimer to support that myth, which they call "drink responsibly." You know, first of all, it is easy for these rich men and women to glorify their alcohol business and discuss their high flying life, because "God" forbid, if they ever land with diseases related to alcohol - from strokes, to cancers to liver disease to mental health disorder - they can afford the best care out there. I treat alcohol use disorder and related acute liver disease, chronic liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure (the most devastating of them all with highest death rate without a timely liver transplantation) on a daily basis. I am not even saying "almost on a daily basis" - it is daily. Every single day from Monday to Friday - both in-patients, as well as out-patients. Patients and families struggle to make ends meet for proper healthcare because alcohol use destroyed their life savings. And by the time they find the funds to get things going, the patient is already on the ventilator and in multiple organ failure. They use the money to bury the dead person - killed by alcohol (normalized by round-table discussions like these) and the rest of the money, go toward the fatherless childrens education. Nice going? To claim drinking alcohol in moderation is good, is actually a crime. It is a crime towards humanity, it is not in good-faith --> it is in good-faith to run the business yes, because the many people who use it occassionally, move on to frequently, and then get dependent or "routinize" it. These businessmen have nothing to lose - because they have already put up a stupid disclaimer to get away with it - "drink responsibly." So it becomes the drinkers fault. But then is it really? Drinking alcohol is a choice. But drinking more alcohol becomes "not" a choice anymore. The first drink takes your brain. It reduces brain volume, gives you a dopamine kick, makes you happy. And then onwards, you are alcohol's slave. The drinks increase. Or a routine sticks. The alcohol controls your life. You have to drink to stay happy. And then the serotonin (the actual happiness hormone, not the pleasuring one like dopamine) cease to work inside your brain and the mental health disorder that follows will swallow you whole. You die. Your family is brioken. There is no money left. If you are lucky and rich like these people sitting around this table doing this nonsense of a podcast, then you may be able to afford a lifesaving organ transplant or healthcare intervention. There is no safe level of alcohol that is good for human health and every person who claims drinking in moderation is good for you, is actually an idiot, intellectually depleted and without any regard for fellow humans and lack compassion. No amount of alcohol is safe because it is not just a liver poison, it is systemic poison. It gets to every part of your body. Even single to lowest exposure can wreck your DNA and promote cancer formation. There is scientific evidence to this. ✅️ ✅ Any amount of alcohol can increase your chances of getting at least 7 types of dreadful cancers. ➡️ & ➡️ It is not just disease causing, but alcohol use is also a societal poison. It drives people into becoming menace to society, takes lives, wrecks havoc in homes and is the real widow-maker. Have you forgotten these so quickly? 🔴The 17-year-old Pune boy, son of a renowned real-estate developer Vishal Agarwal, spent a whooping Rs 48,000 in just 90 minutes in one of the two pubs he visited on Saturday evening where he consumed alcohol with his friends before ramming his Porsche Taycan into a motorcycle, killing two young techies. and this one? India’s alcohol deaths are higher than China; per capita consumption is set to rise: WHO And please allow me refresh your memory about this patient of mine. Rich business people can sit around a table and discuss the business of alcohol and the "best alcohol" that they savor and falsely glorify and normalize alcohol use among youth, but end-of-the-line physicians like me have to bear the brunt of their intellectually deficient, a humanism lacking stupid conversations. "The 4th Laddu": Doctor Shares Emotional Post About A Patient Who Touched His Heart Also banning alcohol has NOT led to economies go into shambles. For example a recent study in the Lancet Regional Health showed that "strict alcohol regulation policies may yield significant population level health benefits for frequent drinkers and many victims of intimate partner violence." In fact, "economic savings and health benefits from reduced alcohol consumption may be substantial—particularly in the health sector with reduced alcohol-related disease and injury." So please chuck that idea that "banning/ limiting or reducing alcohol sales" actually desroys economies. In fact it improves it because you get a helathier population. See the Nordic Schema: “A comprehensive ban on alcohol marketing, enforced at the national and local level, is a best practice for reducing alcohol sales and consumption." - which means, podcasts like these, which glorify alcohol use and market it indirectly must also be burned to the ground and held accountable. There is no healthy or safe alcohol. There is no best alcohol. Alcohol is ethanol, which is a systemic and societal poison. Do not glorify it. And this why there is no "responsible drinking," because you cannot advice people to "drink poison responsibly." Podcast discussions like these are helping no one here. Please, do something that actually helps people out here. Do something good for the society, instead of goofing up like this. No one asked for this absolute bonkers of a podcast topic. Irresponsible. The whole team. For a realistic detailed discussion on alcohol and its effects on the body and why we must avoid it at all costs, please see my deep discussion with Ranveer Allahbadia here: And on that final note, I must confess that the title of podcast series (video below) was perfectly named: WTF.
1:14

Long rant, but worth it, please read & share. A bunch of businessmen, some quite famous, sit around a table discussing the "business of alcohol." So far so good. Alcohol is good business, a business that leech out others life. It rakes in money for governments through taxation & monopoly; and fattens the bank accounts of those behind the industry (like this round table group) and makes barons out of those who sell well. But when these businessmen, start glorifying their business of alcohol by equating it to "good healthcare intervention," it goes definitely into the realm of health misinformation, which is why, I have to keep discussing this absolutely garbage myth that "alcohol in moderation is good for you" and the absolute nonsense disclaimer to support that myth, which they call "drink responsibly." You know, first of all, it is easy for these rich men and women to glorify their alcohol business and discuss their high flying life, because "God" forbid, if they ever land with diseases related to alcohol - from strokes, to cancers to liver disease to mental health disorder - they can afford the best care out there. I treat alcohol use disorder and related acute liver disease, chronic liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure (the most devastating of them all with highest death rate without a timely liver transplantation) on a daily basis. I am not even saying "almost on a daily basis" - it is daily. Every single day from Monday to Friday - both in-patients, as well as out-patients. Patients and families struggle to make ends meet for proper healthcare because alcohol use destroyed their life savings. And by the time they find the funds to get things going, the patient is already on the ventilator and in multiple organ failure. They use the money to bury the dead person - killed by alcohol (normalized by round-table discussions like these) and the rest of the money, go toward the fatherless childrens education. Nice going? To claim drinking alcohol in moderation is good, is actually a crime. It is a crime towards humanity, it is not in good-faith --> it is in good-faith to run the business yes, because the many people who use it occassionally, move on to frequently, and then get dependent or "routinize" it. These businessmen have nothing to lose - because they have already put up a stupid disclaimer to get away with it - "drink responsibly." So it becomes the drinkers fault. But then is it really? Drinking alcohol is a choice. But drinking more alcohol becomes "not" a choice anymore. The first drink takes your brain. It reduces brain volume, gives you a dopamine kick, makes you happy. And then onwards, you are alcohol's slave. The drinks increase. Or a routine sticks. The alcohol controls your life. You have to drink to stay happy. And then the serotonin (the actual happiness hormone, not the pleasuring one like dopamine) cease to work inside your brain and the mental health disorder that follows will swallow you whole. You die. Your family is brioken. There is no money left. If you are lucky and rich like these people sitting around this table doing this nonsense of a podcast, then you may be able to afford a lifesaving organ transplant or healthcare intervention. There is no safe level of alcohol that is good for human health and every person who claims drinking in moderation is good for you, is actually an idiot, intellectually depleted and without any regard for fellow humans and lack compassion. No amount of alcohol is safe because it is not just a liver poison, it is systemic poison. It gets to every part of your body. Even single to lowest exposure can wreck your DNA and promote cancer formation. There is scientific evidence to this. ✅️ ✅ Any amount of alcohol can increase your chances of getting at least 7 types of dreadful cancers. ➡️ & ➡️ It is not just disease causing, but alcohol use is also a societal poison. It drives people into becoming menace to society, takes lives, wrecks havoc in homes and is the real widow-maker. Have you forgotten these so quickly? 🔴The 17-year-old Pune boy, son of a renowned real-estate developer Vishal Agarwal, spent a whooping Rs 48,000 in just 90 minutes in one of the two pubs he visited on Saturday evening where he consumed alcohol with his friends before ramming his Porsche Taycan into a motorcycle, killing two young techies. and this one? India’s alcohol deaths are higher than China; per capita consumption is set to rise: WHO And please allow me refresh your memory about this patient of mine. Rich business people can sit around a table and discuss the business of alcohol and the "best alcohol" that they savor and falsely glorify and normalize alcohol use among youth, but end-of-the-line physicians like me have to bear the brunt of their intellectually deficient, a humanism lacking stupid conversations. "The 4th Laddu": Doctor Shares Emotional Post About A Patient Who Touched His Heart Also banning alcohol has NOT led to economies go into shambles. For example a recent study in the Lancet Regional Health showed that "strict alcohol regulation policies may yield significant population level health benefits for frequent drinkers and many victims of intimate partner violence." In fact, "economic savings and health benefits from reduced alcohol consumption may be substantial—particularly in the health sector with reduced alcohol-related disease and injury." So please chuck that idea that "banning/ limiting or reducing alcohol sales" actually desroys economies. In fact it improves it because you get a helathier population. See the Nordic Schema: “A comprehensive ban on alcohol marketing, enforced at the national and local level, is a best practice for reducing alcohol sales and consumption." - which means, podcasts like these, which glorify alcohol use and market it indirectly must also be burned to the ground and held accountable. There is no healthy or safe alcohol. There is no best alcohol. Alcohol is ethanol, which is a systemic and societal poison. Do not glorify it. And this why there is no "responsible drinking," because you cannot advice people to "drink poison responsibly." Podcast discussions like these are helping no one here. Please, do something that actually helps people out here. Do something good for the society, instead of goofing up like this. No one asked for this absolute bonkers of a podcast topic. Irresponsible. The whole team. For a realistic detailed discussion on alcohol and its effects on the body and why we must avoid it at all costs, please see my deep discussion with Ranveer Allahbadia here: And on that final note, I must confess that the title of podcast series (video below) was perfectly named: WTF.

TheLiverDoc™

350,486 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Democrats just nominated a woman for Congress named Daraliza Avila Chevalier. She openly hates America. She said in a social media post “I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.” She calls America a "F**ing disgrace." She will be heading to Congress. She makes AOC look like a moderate. She defeated the incumbent Chair of the House Hispanic Caucus in Congress. Chevalier is an unemployed 32 year old who was recently rioting on behalf of the Hamas terrorist organization with pro-Hamas activist Mahmoud Khalil in the Columbia University encampment on the campus. She is a founder of CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest), whose stated goal is the "Eradication of Western civilization" Chevalier says she wants to grant immediate citizenship and voting rights to all illegal aliens. She supports full blown Communism. Zohran Mamdani-endorsed Communist candidates won all across New York City. Three Mamdani endorsed candidates will be headed to Congress. One, Brad Lander, defeated the radical Left incumbent Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman because Goldman is Jewish and wasn't radical Left enough. Lander says he wants to abolish ICE, end border security, and expand the Supreme Court so Democrats can immediately pack the court with radical Left Justices. And, of course, Lander supports full-blown Communism, like Mamdani. Also heading to Congress is Claire Valdez (NY-7). She wants to grant citizenship and voting rights to all illegal aliens, use taxpayer funds for all transgender treatments, and eliminate private health insurance. In theory, the Islamic faith and much of the Democrat Party's stated agenda are at odds, especially the LGBTQ agenda and feminism. In Islamic countries (such as Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza) gays are thrown off rooftops or hung from cranes for all to see. Woman are not considered to be fully human, and are of less value than goats. Women who are accused of adultery can be stoned to death. But in America, Islam and today's Democrat Party are allies of convenience in the war on America and the war on Western Civilization. It's a "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance. If and when the Islamists gain the majority, they will eliminate the LGBTQers, the feminists, and most Democrats. Obama and Biden imported millions of Islamists into America from Third World Hell holes like Somalia because Democrats see these people as votes for Democrats. In his run for mayor of NYC, Mamdani lost in a landslide among New Yorkers who were born in America, but won in a landslide among immigrants not born in America. If you live in New York City and are just a normal person, you need to get out now, just for your own safety. If you are a landlord or property owner, you need to sell your property now for whatever you can get, or Mamdani and the Communists who now run the city will just seize your property. If you are a business, you also need to get out -- and get out fast. Move to Florida, Texas, or Tennessee where there is no state income tax and criminals are not allowed to just roam the streets attacking people without consequence. John Fetterman should give serious consideration to becoming a Republican right now because he will not survive a Democrat primary challenge. This is what the Democrat Party has become. It's who they are. Even Nancy Pelosi is too mainstream for today's Democrat Party.
0:58

Democrats just nominated a woman for Congress named Daraliza Avila Chevalier. She openly hates America. She said in a social media post “I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.” She calls America a "F**ing disgrace." She will be heading to Congress. She makes AOC look like a moderate. She defeated the incumbent Chair of the House Hispanic Caucus in Congress. Chevalier is an unemployed 32 year old who was recently rioting on behalf of the Hamas terrorist organization with pro-Hamas activist Mahmoud Khalil in the Columbia University encampment on the campus. She is a founder of CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest), whose stated goal is the "Eradication of Western civilization" Chevalier says she wants to grant immediate citizenship and voting rights to all illegal aliens. She supports full blown Communism. Zohran Mamdani-endorsed Communist candidates won all across New York City. Three Mamdani endorsed candidates will be headed to Congress. One, Brad Lander, defeated the radical Left incumbent Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman because Goldman is Jewish and wasn't radical Left enough. Lander says he wants to abolish ICE, end border security, and expand the Supreme Court so Democrats can immediately pack the court with radical Left Justices. And, of course, Lander supports full-blown Communism, like Mamdani. Also heading to Congress is Claire Valdez (NY-7). She wants to grant citizenship and voting rights to all illegal aliens, use taxpayer funds for all transgender treatments, and eliminate private health insurance. In theory, the Islamic faith and much of the Democrat Party's stated agenda are at odds, especially the LGBTQ agenda and feminism. In Islamic countries (such as Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza) gays are thrown off rooftops or hung from cranes for all to see. Woman are not considered to be fully human, and are of less value than goats. Women who are accused of adultery can be stoned to death. But in America, Islam and today's Democrat Party are allies of convenience in the war on America and the war on Western Civilization. It's a "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of alliance. If and when the Islamists gain the majority, they will eliminate the LGBTQers, the feminists, and most Democrats. Obama and Biden imported millions of Islamists into America from Third World Hell holes like Somalia because Democrats see these people as votes for Democrats. In his run for mayor of NYC, Mamdani lost in a landslide among New Yorkers who were born in America, but won in a landslide among immigrants not born in America. If you live in New York City and are just a normal person, you need to get out now, just for your own safety. If you are a landlord or property owner, you need to sell your property now for whatever you can get, or Mamdani and the Communists who now run the city will just seize your property. If you are a business, you also need to get out -- and get out fast. Move to Florida, Texas, or Tennessee where there is no state income tax and criminals are not allowed to just roam the streets attacking people without consequence. John Fetterman should give serious consideration to becoming a Republican right now because he will not survive a Democrat primary challenge. This is what the Democrat Party has become. It's who they are. Even Nancy Pelosi is too mainstream for today's Democrat Party.

Ben Hart

21,844 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

To Mr. Victor Young Victor Young , Where do I even begin? You come across as someone professional, educated, and well-mannered—on the surface, at least. But respect? Especially toward a minority community that has been fighting for recognition for ages? That seems to have slipped through the cracks. Let me help you out here. Even the best interviewers—you know, the ones who actually care about their craft—do their homework before tackling sensitive topics. They don’t wing it with ignorance and careless phrasing. Now, about your oh-so-thoughtful question: “Why is it so popular now to ‘watch’ girls ‘make out with other girls’?” You said it as if people are tuning in to these stories like they’re surfing certain websites we all know exist but pretend not to. Let me educate you since you clearly missed the memo. It’s not about the “make-out scenes,” Victor. It’s about representation—finally seeing a love that has been ignored, dismissed, or outright vilified being shown in mainstream media. It’s about women finding a voice, a story, and a love that reflects their lives. These stories celebrate love between women just as much as society celebrates love between men and women. Do you even realize how much this community has fought to get here? How many women have struggled with discrimination, familial rejection, internalized homophobia, and identity crises, all while waiting to see themselves represented on screen? But sure, let’s reduce all that to a shallow stereotype about “hype” and “popularity.” Do you think the Thai government supported Girls Love representation or passed equal marriage laws because of a trend? Do you think Freen and Becky’s impact is just about “making out”? This is about visibility, history, and resilience. It’s about giving people a sense of belonging. And for actors, directors, and producers who endured waves of criticism just to tell these stories, the bare minimum you could offer is respect. Oh, and one more thing—you have a friend representing one of the original GL couples. Maybe take a moment to ask her why this matters instead of making poorly researched, condescending remarks. I’m not saying you need to know all the history (clearly, that’s a tall order), but you could have framed your question with some basic respect. Because, as the saying goes: Every word you utter can have ripples far beyond your immediate audience. You should really start thinking about those ripples.
0:54

To Mr. Victor Young Victor Young , Where do I even begin? You come across as someone professional, educated, and well-mannered—on the surface, at least. But respect? Especially toward a minority community that has been fighting for recognition for ages? That seems to have slipped through the cracks. Let me help you out here. Even the best interviewers—you know, the ones who actually care about their craft—do their homework before tackling sensitive topics. They don’t wing it with ignorance and careless phrasing. Now, about your oh-so-thoughtful question: “Why is it so popular now to ‘watch’ girls ‘make out with other girls’?” You said it as if people are tuning in to these stories like they’re surfing certain websites we all know exist but pretend not to. Let me educate you since you clearly missed the memo. It’s not about the “make-out scenes,” Victor. It’s about representation—finally seeing a love that has been ignored, dismissed, or outright vilified being shown in mainstream media. It’s about women finding a voice, a story, and a love that reflects their lives. These stories celebrate love between women just as much as society celebrates love between men and women. Do you even realize how much this community has fought to get here? How many women have struggled with discrimination, familial rejection, internalized homophobia, and identity crises, all while waiting to see themselves represented on screen? But sure, let’s reduce all that to a shallow stereotype about “hype” and “popularity.” Do you think the Thai government supported Girls Love representation or passed equal marriage laws because of a trend? Do you think Freen and Becky’s impact is just about “making out”? This is about visibility, history, and resilience. It’s about giving people a sense of belonging. And for actors, directors, and producers who endured waves of criticism just to tell these stories, the bare minimum you could offer is respect. Oh, and one more thing—you have a friend representing one of the original GL couples. Maybe take a moment to ask her why this matters instead of making poorly researched, condescending remarks. I’m not saying you need to know all the history (clearly, that’s a tall order), but you could have framed your question with some basic respect. Because, as the saying goes: Every word you utter can have ripples far beyond your immediate audience. You should really start thinking about those ripples.

DirtyMatcha 🌷🐰

69,376 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr