Breaking: Infowars and Natural News under attack : Jon Rappoport

12
183

Breaking: Infowars and Natural News under attack

by Jon Rappoport

February 22, 2017

.

Alex Jones’ infowars.com and Mike Adams’ naturalnews.com are both under attack.

 

Infowars has been dropped by its ad platform provider — adroll.com, which spreads ads for Infowars products to many, many media outlets. Last year, that ad operation accounted for more than $3 million in sales for Infowars.

Natural News has been “delisted” by Google. Google appears to have wiped out 140,000 pages of listings for Mike’s website. I just typed in “natural news” at Google and what came up was something different, natural.news — another tiny site owned by Mike, not naturalnews.com, as the top listing.

The Empire is striking back. This isn’t debate or discussion or even baseless accusation. This is war by attrition. And censorship.

This is part of the elite mantra: if we don’t like it, wipe it out.

If you’ve been awake for the past year, you’ve seen an escalation, along many fronts, of the so-called “Progressive” forces to censor what they don’t want to read or hear.

It’s taken a new turn. They want to take down key independent media outlets.

They want to narrow down the “information superhighway” to a one-lane road that runs directly into their headquarters, where all the big-time fake news is dispensed, every day, to the hypnotized masses.

Don’t let them win. At the very least, take the independent news you judge is vitally important and spread it out far and wide.

Finally, for now, a message to those individuals who, by work and sweat and intelligence, by their own efforts, have built and created independent news sites:

WHATEVER DIFFERENCES YOU MAY HAVE HAD, FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH ONE ANOTHER, THIS IS BIGGER THAN THAT. MUCH BIGGER. THIS IS ABOUT CENSORSHIP OF FREE SPEECH. THIS IS ABOUT A WAR AGAINST THE FREEDOMS WE HOLD DEAR, THE FREEDOMS THAT MEAN THE MOST WHEN THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK. DEFEND EACH OTHER.

Originally Published on Jon’s site

 

 

12 COMMENTS

  1. Q: What’s the difference between a conservative and a liberal?

    A: If a conservative doesn’t like something on TV, on the radio or in the news, he/she simply doesn’t watch, listen to or read it. If a liberal doesn’t like what he/she sees, hears or reads, he/she demands it be shut down so that no one can see, hear or read it.

    Liberals can’t be allowed to control or censor what we see, hear or read. It’s long overdue to shut the Empire (as Jon Rappoport calls the liberal media – including adroll.com and Google) down and make them pay for lying to us and censoring and silencing the truth every waking moment.

  2. Biff:

    Apparently, you’re not getting the point (and using moral equivalence to justify your argument does nothing for your argument). Liberals resort to the power of the State, as well as thuggery, intimidation, lies and deceit to force anything they don’t like to be censored and silenced. Conservatives, on the other hand, use the power of their wallets and boycotts to force the liberal media to realize that the liberals’ way of thinking and the resulting methods of doing business are wrong.

    This is why liberals want a so-called “fairness doctrine” and to use it and the State (i.e. the Democrats stateside and the federal Liberals here) to shut down conservative media – because they know that in a free market, the liberal media is unable to compete (remember Air America Radio?) and they don’t like that. If liberals in the media and politics continue to abuse the system and they continue resorting to dishonest tactics to get their way, it’ll only mean trouble for them in the long run (and November 8 last year was just an example of what can happen to liberals who think they can have their way with the public).

  3. Moral equivalence? I laughed so hard I nearly choked on my caviar! Complaining about the “liberals” who want to shut down “conservative” media, while advocating the same thing for what you perceive to be “liberal” media IS your point, isn’t it? The plain truth is… nobody can “have their way” with the public, and there should be room for BOTH points of view. How’s that for “equivalence”?

  4. Biff:

    Well, thanks for proving everything I said about what you said right. Ridiculing my statement just because you didn’t like what I said (especially regarding your choice to use moral equivalence and your ignorance of why I pointed it out) not only did nothing for your argument, it ended up losing you the argument entirely because you had to resort to Alinskyism (which is the fallback position of liberals who have no logical or rational counter to an argument) to do so.

  5. Alinskyism? Looks like somebody is taking his cue from breitbart,com:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/03/14/how%20saul%20alinsky%20taught%20barack%20obama%20everything%20he%20knows%20about%20civic%20upheaval/

    I never said I was a liberal, you did. I reject extremism at both ends of the political spectrum – you and Alinsky included. And if you’re going to use what you find on the Internet as a basis for your beliefs, you might look up the “so-called” Fairness Doctrine. The results might surprise you!

  6. Biff:

    With every comment you continue to make (even denying that you resorted to Alinskyism), you only continue to prove me right. It’s even common for some liberals to deny that they’re liberals (as you just did).

  7. Hahahaha… well I guess that settles it then! Anybody who disagrees with you is a “liberal”… good thing we live in a world of absolutes. I think you just proved yourself “right”. Do you work in TV? Watch out for that “fake news”… I hear it’s everywhere. Hope you’re staying vigilant!

  8. Biff:

    You’re only continuing still to prove me right about what I said in my first two posts (and making yourself look more foolish) every time you reply. Cut your losses and call it quits.

  9. Biff:

    You just don’t know when to quit, do you? It’s you, not me, who was the one that looked foolish from the beginning for your initial use of moral equivalence in your argument and your continued ridicule of my comments about the liberal media and their tactics (and incidentally, ridicule is Rule 5 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – so whether you want to admit it or not, yes, you did resort to Alinskyism in your comments, which lost you the argument the moment you resorted to it).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.