Media Begins Censorship Lobbying Campaign Against Substack

A bunch of banned people moved to Substack. I never really understood what the platform was exactly, or why people keep saying “it can’t be censored.” It’s some kind of subscription news letter, that is also a blog.

It obviously can be censored, and I think the people saying “it can’t be censored” are just boomers who don’t understand the internet. I’ve heard Tucker Carlson say it though, and Tucker did multiple reports on me being censored, so he’s aware of the levels of censorship that are possible.

I was censored in totally new ways never seen before all the way back in 2017. But none of these things that were done to me were like, ruled unconstitutional or anything. They just haven’t been used since (except some of them against 8chan).

Before 2017, the censorship against me was the same as normie conservatives are experiencing now. I was banned from social media, banned from PayPal, banned from credit card processing, my bank accounts were closed. It’s obviously logical that the next step for normie conservatives will be to suffer the same kinds of censorship I suffered in 2017.

So, now we’re seeing the media go after Substack.

They will of course go after the payment processor first.

So they’re talking about money in their first big censorship push. If you go Joker mode and say “it’s not about the money, it’s about sending a message,” then they go on to the next stage.

The Guardian:

A group of vaccine-sceptic writers are generating revenues of at least $2.5m (£1.85m) a year from publishing newsletters for tens of thousands of followers on the online publishing platform Substack, according to new research.

Prominent figures in the anti-vaccine movement including Dr Joseph Mercola and Alex Berenson have large followings on Substack, which has more than 1 million paying subscribers who sign up for individual newsletters from an array of authors who include novelist Salman Rushdie, the writer musician Patti Smith and former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings.

Mercola, a US alternative medicine doctor and prolific producer of anti-vaccine content, and Alex Berenson, a journalist banned from Twitter last year after questioning the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, are among five vaccine sceptics on the platform who earn themselves and Substack a minimum of $2.5m a year from their newsletters. Under Substack’s business model, writers keep about 90% of the subscription income, with the platform taking 10% and payment company Stripe charging the writers 3% of their take.

See, they identify the payment processor.

That is a call for a Jihad against Stripe, which always cracks.

Research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a campaign group, showed that Mercola’s newsletters made a minimum of $1m a year from charging subscribers an annual fee of $50, with Berenson making at least $1.2m from charging people $60. Three other vaccine sceptic newsletters, from tech entrepreneur Steven Kirsch, virologist Robert Malone and anonymous writer Eugyppius, generate about $300,000 between them.

It’s hilarious that all of these Jewish “anti-hate” companies are now just pro-vax enforcement. And they literally refer to anti-vax as “hate.” David Icke was deplatformed by the above mentioned organization, and they identified him as a “hate actor.”

I guess Pfizer is a protected group. It’s run by the Jews, after all.

Imran Ahmed, chief executive of CCDH, said companies like Substack were under “no obligation” to amplify vaccine scepticism and make money from it. “They could just say no. This isn’t about freedom; this is about profiting from lies … Substack should immediately stop profiting from medical misinformation that can seriously harm readers.”

…

A Substack spokesperson referred the Guardian to an essay published on Wednesday by the platform’s co-founders, Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie and Jairaj Sethi, in which they said silencing vaccine sceptics would not work. “As we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation,” they said.

If they find an alternative to Stripe, Amazon will pull them. Eventually, Cloudflare will pull them.

They won’t do it immediately. This is a process of building up an outrage narrative that the media does. This is the first big hit I’ve seen so far on Substack, but you’ll start seeing CNN pieces on it and so on.

It’s amazing that no one ever even bothers to point out that the media is literally calling for the shutdown of its competition. I don’t think anyone says that but me.

Actually, no – it’s definitely entered the narrative with CNN calling for the silencing of Joe Rogan.

I believe these people are ideological, and want to silence people for that reason. But you could theorize that isn’t even a factor, and all they are trying to do is ensure they have a media monopoly for financial reasons.

Speaking of finances – it’s obvious The Guardian is lying about the amount of money these people are making. These hate groups just make these numbers up. Trust me. The SPLC keeps saying I have a Bitcoin address with $500,000 in it. They will not publish the address. It’s certainly not any public address I ever used, which anyone can go check. So they appear to just make up random numbers.

With me, they do it to discourage people from donating. (By the way – donate, please.)

With the Substack guys, it’s a narrative – “these people are making millions by killing people!”

The only ones allowed to make money are the pharmaceutical Jews, of course.

UPDATE: 

A reader noted that the same people demanding political and medical information censorship on Substack are also demanding they allow pornography, who is such a hard kek my sides went interstellar.

Here’s the response from one of their employees (who is probably not coincidentally Chinese – at this point, most companies supporting free speech are heavily staffed by Asians).

(For the record, in case anyone doesn’t know, the First Amendment still doesn’t cover pornography. You can look that up. Even though pornography is legal, it is not related to First Amendment speech, which only covers political and press freedom. It is always the same people who demand more pornography, claiming “freedom,” while also demanding censorship of thought. That should make someone think about what exactly is going on with this whole democracy thing)