Caleb Cain, an unknown who was plastered on the front page of the New York Times on Saturday in a pro-censorship piece claiming he was “radicalized” by YouTube’s recommended algorithms, said Sunday on Twitter that he was an “alt-lite civ[ic] nat[ionalist].”

That claim blatantly contradicts his own slickly produced Twitter profile, which describes himself as “Caleb Cain-Former Alt-Right.”

This is a major contradiction. He claims to be “former alt-right” yet says he was never alt-right and was instead a “alt-lite civic nationalist,” which is basically just a mainstream conservative in the Trump era.

Tim Pool had a great video over the weekend exposing the New York Times’ hit piece:

The truth of the matter is the New York Times has radicalized more people than anyone elsethrough their hate-filled propaganda.


Youtube is receiving a backlash after they blocked channels that were simply posting footage from the Nazi Germany era for educational purposes. Paul Joseph Watson joins Alex via Skype to expose Big Tech’s motives are to control what the population is allowed to see and believe.

In their cover story hit piece, they claim this clown was radicalized into becoming a “TradCon,” which literally just means traditional conservative.

Which is more “radical” and “extreme,” traditional conservatism or these articles printed in The New York Times over the past several months?

Is watching a recommended video on YouTube more likely to radicalize someone than watching a New York Times reporter call for the government to scrap the First Amendment?

The media and our crooked government sabotaging Trump’s presidency and preventing any of the change we voted for from getting through (and actually forcing us to accept the opposite) is what is “radicalizing” people, not independent voices from a wide range of political perspectives telling the truth about what’s happening on YouTube.

This Caleb Cain character’s shady background and slickly produced Twitter profile reminds me of one of the campaigns the UK government staged with the help of a PR firm in order to “manage” the responses to terrorist attacks to suit government narratives (they farm this out to other governments).

All these heavily funded left-wing think tanks have been funding “deradicalization” research ever since Trump won in 2016 and coming up with phony “reports” to justify internet censorship.

Do these tweets come across as though they were written by a video gamer “radicalized” by YouTube or by a female working for a PR firm?

I suspect it’s not just a coincidence the New York Times dropped this story just as GooTube ramped up their censorship and declared war on right-wing free speech.

Last year, the New York Times editorial board compared right-wingers to jihadists to demand censorship of social media.

They know this is going to radicalize people but they don’t care.

They’re desperate to regain control of the narrative and they’re willing to censor anyone and everyone who stands in their way to try and bring it about.


Related Articles


Comments