Adam used to write for Forbes. But he pissed off Tony Fauci. So they fired him at Forbes. This sends a clear message to the media: if you challenge the narrative, you will lose your job.
First of all -- you have done an amazing job ... just an amazing amount of investigation and work, and i appreciate it and YOU! Thank you so much! Please keep up the great work!
But, Steve ... Really!? Do you really believe "They all believe the narrative" ... !??
Do you really believe that those that have been chosen to be the propaganda pushers, the spin-sters, the obfuscators, the mealy mouthpieces for the globalist cabal / deep state are "innocents?"
Ok, maybe a few of them are moronic mules / useful idiots for them ... maybe. But I don't believe for a moment that most of them who have attained any particular level of "importance" at their various networks / companies haven't been taken aside and let in on at least some of the details of the scam that they have been paid some serious $$$ to promote as "real news."
I seen Andrew on Warroom today. Very impressive, professional and a fighter. Goes along with what you all have been saying, Fauci is either out to make a name for himself based on how many he can kill with his murderous Gain of Function, or simply to be the "top" man on the totem pole. I don't Klaus Schwab would go for that.
Although Steve Forbes continues to write editorials for Forbes, keep in mind that he sold the magazine to Chinese owners who prefer a particular narrative that is convenient to the "Great Reset" directions that the oligarchs of several countries prefer, in fact, dreamed up. These oligarchs clearly believe that they are smarter than us middle class folks and thus should be running the world. Part of that is ensuring that narratives on important subjects favor their points of view are the major ones allowed, thus the bag of lies about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines espoused by Anthony Fauci which are designed to keep the public docile and afraid.
Hopefully substack won't be the next media soldier to fall. There are increasing indications they're turning to the media "dark side," too. Media only try to cater to their audience. Forbes readers apparently love fauch more than truth. Probably a lot of substack readers are fully vaxed, and don't want to learn of their mistake. Substack will struggle with which segment of their audience to support -- truth is secondary to profits. It's we the people who defend or destroy the truth, not the media.
"if you challenge the narrative, you will lose your job." - That's been the way for a while now. I want to know how long until that becomes 'you will lose your freedom'? Or life?
FOX did it to Lara Logan as well. A brave and brilliant journalist with impeccable credentials, she dared call out Fauci for the horrible experiments being done on beagle puppies and monkeys. Compared him to Josef Mengele. An apt description in my book, but FOX fired her with Fauci complained.
Andrzejewski was canceled as per plan to fight against "misinformation."
The pandemic plan to push vaccines and fight against vaccine "misinformation" was all laid out in Event 201. You can read it on the Johns Hopkins website and see who all the major players are.
Johnson & Johnson, CIA, CDC, Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins, various high tech social influencers, etc.
It's not a theory if the conspiracy has been openly published.
I welcome him. It is indeed a "badge of honor." Given the obvious moral decay of our craven media, I actually use "got fired" (or cancelled, etc.) as a quality control mechanism: I conclude "Oh, he had the guts to speak out against the system and paid a price." I gladly pay for some of these banished intellects and at least browse the others. Beyond the occasional glance or accidental exposure, I haven't read mainstream for decades, and see no reason to start again now.
I've just finished the RFK Jr. book. If you google some reviews of it, you will find some where Fauci and others are, not surprisingly, impressed. I find it curious to note that in the book's case, and with the wider pogrom against "misinformation," I have yet to see one, a single, instance where the authorities or other legacy publication provides cogent arguments, cites sources, etc. in support of the party line, or indeed, to attempt to disprove what they are saying is wrong. For example, in this article
RFK is variously decried as "very disturbed individual," "it's a shame" that a man from such a "distinguished family" would fall so short of that idea, etc. The attitude is one of simple dismissal, label the opponent as unsound, crazy, an enemy of the public, whatever. Completely absent is any logical argument to bolster one's own position or to attack the opposing team.
Note the weasel wording: "Fauci said that RFK’s comments, which have included unfounded and unsupported claims..." I'll be the first to admit that, in writing a provocative and unflattering biography, the author may have made inaccurate claims. But a critical thinker would ask, although the MSM wishes he wouldn't, "What about the many claims that are, perhaps, well-founded and substantiated? The book offers several hundred citations, many of them from respected sources and not partisan blogs easily dismissed as 'crackpot.'" Do we completely dismiss a source if it turns out that 1%, or even 10% of his claims are untrue, for whatever reason? If you're Dr. Fauci, you do.
Steve,
First of all -- you have done an amazing job ... just an amazing amount of investigation and work, and i appreciate it and YOU! Thank you so much! Please keep up the great work!
But, Steve ... Really!? Do you really believe "They all believe the narrative" ... !??
Do you really believe that those that have been chosen to be the propaganda pushers, the spin-sters, the obfuscators, the mealy mouthpieces for the globalist cabal / deep state are "innocents?"
Ok, maybe a few of them are moronic mules / useful idiots for them ... maybe. But I don't believe for a moment that most of them who have attained any particular level of "importance" at their various networks / companies haven't been taken aside and let in on at least some of the details of the scam that they have been paid some serious $$$ to promote as "real news."
Inquiring minds really want to know,
jt
'-)
I seen Andrew on Warroom today. Very impressive, professional and a fighter. Goes along with what you all have been saying, Fauci is either out to make a name for himself based on how many he can kill with his murderous Gain of Function, or simply to be the "top" man on the totem pole. I don't Klaus Schwab would go for that.
Although Steve Forbes continues to write editorials for Forbes, keep in mind that he sold the magazine to Chinese owners who prefer a particular narrative that is convenient to the "Great Reset" directions that the oligarchs of several countries prefer, in fact, dreamed up. These oligarchs clearly believe that they are smarter than us middle class folks and thus should be running the world. Part of that is ensuring that narratives on important subjects favor their points of view are the major ones allowed, thus the bag of lies about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines espoused by Anthony Fauci which are designed to keep the public docile and afraid.
Steve Forbes sold out.
Adam had an excellent interview with Bannon this morning.... definitely a must see.
Forbes is China owned.
Just look at their youtube channel > Forbes breaking news. It's in your face communism.
Hopefully substack won't be the next media soldier to fall. There are increasing indications they're turning to the media "dark side," too. Media only try to cater to their audience. Forbes readers apparently love fauch more than truth. Probably a lot of substack readers are fully vaxed, and don't want to learn of their mistake. Substack will struggle with which segment of their audience to support -- truth is secondary to profits. It's we the people who defend or destroy the truth, not the media.
Thanks for the New Substack Author share.
Forbes is owned by the Chinese BTW. Not the days of Malcolm anymore.
"Banished" to Substack? That's where it's happening! I'd say he escaped from a sinking ship.
"if you challenge the narrative, you will lose your job." - That's been the way for a while now. I want to know how long until that becomes 'you will lose your freedom'? Or life?
I hope Adam wears his banishment to SubStack as a Badge of Honor.
Adam isn't cancelled...he just changed sides...to the truth side...he's welcome here!
FOX did it to Lara Logan as well. A brave and brilliant journalist with impeccable credentials, she dared call out Fauci for the horrible experiments being done on beagle puppies and monkeys. Compared him to Josef Mengele. An apt description in my book, but FOX fired her with Fauci complained.
Andrzejewski was canceled as per plan to fight against "misinformation."
The pandemic plan to push vaccines and fight against vaccine "misinformation" was all laid out in Event 201. You can read it on the Johns Hopkins website and see who all the major players are.
Johnson & Johnson, CIA, CDC, Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins, various high tech social influencers, etc.
It's not a theory if the conspiracy has been openly published.
I welcome him. It is indeed a "badge of honor." Given the obvious moral decay of our craven media, I actually use "got fired" (or cancelled, etc.) as a quality control mechanism: I conclude "Oh, he had the guts to speak out against the system and paid a price." I gladly pay for some of these banished intellects and at least browse the others. Beyond the occasional glance or accidental exposure, I haven't read mainstream for decades, and see no reason to start again now.
I've just finished the RFK Jr. book. If you google some reviews of it, you will find some where Fauci and others are, not surprisingly, impressed. I find it curious to note that in the book's case, and with the wider pogrom against "misinformation," I have yet to see one, a single, instance where the authorities or other legacy publication provides cogent arguments, cites sources, etc. in support of the party line, or indeed, to attempt to disprove what they are saying is wrong. For example, in this article
https://www.thewrap.com/dr-fauci-rfk-jr-shame-kennedys-disturbed-individual/
RFK is variously decried as "very disturbed individual," "it's a shame" that a man from such a "distinguished family" would fall so short of that idea, etc. The attitude is one of simple dismissal, label the opponent as unsound, crazy, an enemy of the public, whatever. Completely absent is any logical argument to bolster one's own position or to attack the opposing team.
Note the weasel wording: "Fauci said that RFK’s comments, which have included unfounded and unsupported claims..." I'll be the first to admit that, in writing a provocative and unflattering biography, the author may have made inaccurate claims. But a critical thinker would ask, although the MSM wishes he wouldn't, "What about the many claims that are, perhaps, well-founded and substantiated? The book offers several hundred citations, many of them from respected sources and not partisan blogs easily dismissed as 'crackpot.'" Do we completely dismiss a source if it turns out that 1%, or even 10% of his claims are untrue, for whatever reason? If you're Dr. Fauci, you do.