Strange Days Indeed

tpreitzel Fri, 11/30/2018 - 13:58
+1
0
-1

Isn't it interesting that Alex Jones complains about the "massive" censorship of his content on the Spynet, yet the overall negative impact on the dissemination of his message isn't nearly as comprehensive as he likes to portray. Why? Fundraising... Like kindred spirits in another life (exhibitionists akin to treehuggers, perhaps?), Laura Loomer's recent stunt at Twitter is probably the least offensive tactic to employ in an attempt to coerce PRIVATE companies into hosting content which those companies would rather avoid. As long as those stunts don't lead to further governmental intervention of the Spynet, I don't really mind as the consequences won't impact other users of the Spynet.

I've always known the negative impact of Jones' claims of pervasive censorship was signficantly overblown. The Spynet is OBVIOUSLY not nearly as much a part of the "public square" as Jones and crew insist. I'm even finding that the decline of print media in my area seems to have stabilized. Although it might appear otherwise, I don't really object to Jones being on the air even though he should probably take a lesson from P. Schafly and condense his content from hours into 30 minutes or so. Who really has the time to listen to HOURS of essentially the same crap slung against a wall over and over again? Get with the program, Jones, of providing a concise, honest interpretation of the current news instead of fussing constantly over your finances.

 

https://www.infowars.com/breaking-despite-massive-censorship-alex-jones-...

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
tpreitzel's picture