Hundreds of Central American migrants demanding asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico Sunday may be poor, but they have support of major foundations, corporations and billionaire George Soros for their well-organized caravan-style invasion.
President Trump has instructed the Department of Homeland Security not to allow the caravan into the U.S. to hear their asylum claims. They are expected to attempt to enter the U.S. Sunday.
“The Pueblo Sin Fronteras (“People Without Borders”) is a project of La Familia Latina Unida, a Chicago, Illinois-based 501(c)(4) illegal immigration advocacy organization formed in 2001 by Elvira Arellano, an activist for immigrants living illegally in the United States. The organization is affiliated with the Chicago-based 501(c)(3) pro-illegal immigration groups Centro Sin Fronteras and Pueblo Sin Fronteras. Together, the organizations have been involved in organizing approximately 1,000 economic migrants from Central America to attempt to cross the U.S. and Mexican borders illegally since 2010.
They include a diagram of YouTube personalities and connect them with a bunch of red lines, claiming to map out all of their guest appearances on each other’s shows.
They don’t mention that many of these YouTubers and personalities are usually opposing each other.
They don’t mention that many of these guest appearances were to have a debate between opposing ideas. Very few of these people agree about everything.
Apparently it’s “extremist” to invite people onto each other’s shows… and debate any views differing from the corporate mainstream.
“the problem is fundamentally linked to the social network of political influencers on the platform and how, like other YouTube influencers, they invite one another on to their shows.”
Apparently, these “influencers” have a wide range of positions, including just plain old conservatism… so they’re not all “dangerous extremists,” but they’re dangerous because they’ve debated with “extremists” on their show.
Or does having any non-liberal viewpoint make someone an extremist?
“promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism.”
How are they “overt” white nationalists? Did they say something good about white people? How can you be an “overt” white nationalist, or is the author just throwing out highly emotional, negative words hoping it sticks?
This is propaganda, pure and simple. This is a hit piece against the competition in media and the competition of ideas.
Remember these YouTubers have won in the ratings war, especially since they claim Joe Rogan is one of these dangerous influencers.
And non-leftist and non-globalist views are making a comeback as people realize the lies behind multicultural globalism as an ideology.
Any view advocating people’s rights is called “Nationalism” and any view against demographic warfare through mass immigration is called “White Nationalism” or “White Supremacy.”
When did people lose the right to free speech and association?
This is Nineteen-Eighty-Four-level stuff. This is the real world example of Orwell’s Newspeak. They are trying to rewrite reason and logic and debate to all mean dangerous and subversive because it doesn’t agree with their ideology and agenda.
YouTube provides a breeding ground for far-right radicalisation, where people interested in conservative and libertarian ideas are quickly exposed to white nationalist ones, according to a report from Data & Society.
The report describes an “alternative influence network” of about 65 scholars, media pundits and internet celebrities promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism. They are broadly united by their reactionary position: an opposition to feminism, social justice and leftwing politics and present themselves as an underdog alternative to the mainstream media.
The report, for those who have not read it yet, is as exactly what you would expect from an establishment stenography institution like The Guardian: The so-called “Syrian Civil Defence,” aka the White Helmets, are pure and virtuous; anyone who questions them is an anti-imperialist activist/conspiracy theorist/troll with support from the Russian government; no criticisms of the group are valid and they’ve all been refuted by reputable fact-checkers like Snopes; blah blah blah, etc., etc. As I say, you know exactly how the story goes…but you should read it anyway. It really is a perfect snapshot of the template that the MSM uses to discredit any and all opposition, and it would have been incredible effective…in the 1950s, when people still trusted the mainstream media. (Protip: no one trusts the MSM anymore!)
This being the age of the internet, though, it’s impossible for fake news stories like this to fly with an increasingly informed and connected public. When The Guardian ran its hit piece on the independent researchers like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett and Tim Anderson, all of whom are countering the mainstream White Helmets / Syria narrative, they simply responded on their own websites and social media and in interviews on independent media sites, probably reaching more people in the process.