Wednesday, September 13, 2023
So let me see if I’ve got this straight. Vivek Ramaswamy gave
an interview to an antisemite and then got angry when the Washington
Free Beacon reported that fact. No, wait. That’s not quite right.
Ramaswamy didn’t know that Albert
Faleski, aka An0maly, was an antisemite at the time of the interview, so it
wasn’t nice that the Washington Free Beacon made it look like he did it
on purpose. But actually, even if he HAD known Faleski was an antisemite,
Ramaswamy might have still done the interview because of his amazing
tolerance for all views and because of this presidential hopeful’s belief
in free speech.
But no. That can’t be right either. Because if Ramaswamy
really cared about freedom of speech, he wouldn’t have blocked the Washington
Free Beacon’s access to his campaign for bringing up Faleski’s very public and
virulent antisemitism in the context of the Ramaswamy interview.
Why isn’t the Washington Free Beacon free to talk about this? Why isn’t Ramaswamy tolerant of the media outlet’s sensitivity to and dedication to raising the issue of antisemitism—especially when the topic, by association, concerns a presidential candidate—I mean, first Ramaswamy goes on Russell Brand’s show and now this. In light of these facts, why does Ramaswamy’s campaign describe the Washington Free Beacon as acting in “bad faith?”
Have you ever read the State Department’s “Defining Anti-Semitism” page?
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) October 12, 2022
They say it’s hate speech to say Jews killed Jesus, have more loyalty to Israel than other countries & saying they control large sectors of society.
Read here: https://t.co/w2SwtmAcBD pic.twitter.com/ixpz3brArz
Zionists have the Republican Party by the nuts & they pass anti-American pass speech laws for their donors/Israel because that’s who controls them.
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) November 29, 2022
Facts don’t care about their feelings. They are selling America out to the highest bidder. https://t.co/kTFD43JAmo
Here’s what happened:
On September 5, the Washington Free Beacon published
a report by Alana Goodman on the aforementioned Faleski-Ramaswamy podcast. One
day later, on September 6, Goodman reported that the Ramaswamy
campaign had cut off free access to the Free Beacon, as a result:
Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign said it would no longer facilitate access between the Washington Free Beacon and the candidate after the Free Beacon reported that Ramaswamy appeared on a podcast hosted by an anti-Semitic YouTuber on Tuesday.
The campaign’s decision comes after the Free Beacon reported on anti-Semitic comments, including the assertion that both the left and right push for "speech censorship on behalf of big Jewish power," made by social media influencer Albert Faleski, also known as "An0maly," who interviewed Ramaswamy this week.
In other words, despite his declared commitment to the
concept of freedom of speech Ramaswamy, did not at all like the Free Beacon
mentioning Faleski’s extensive history of Jew-hating comments and tweets in its
report of the podcast. The 38-year-old presidential candidate thinks that Goodman
added unnecessary context designed to smear his reputation. But isn’t that also
free speech? Instead, this is described by the Ramaswamy campaign as acting in “bad
faith” (emphasis added):
Ramaswamy spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said on Tuesday that the Free Beacon acted in "bad faith" by highlighting Faleski’s comments in the context of Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show, adding that the campaign plans to cut off the Free Beacon’s access.
Are we all getting this? Because I’m finding it hard to take it in. Vivek goes on an antisemite’s youtube show in the name of free speech and tolerance, then denies all media access to the outlet that writes it up.
If ever there were an exemplar of free speech for me and not
for thee, this is it.
Which begs the question: If doing an interview with a virulent
and quite public antisemite is acceptable in the name of free speech, why isn’t
a factual report of the event acceptable as free speech?
Now, I’m not a Harvard graduate, or a 38-year-old, wet-behind-the-ears presidential candidate, but if I were, I sure as shooting would have my people research the background of those asking for interviews. If my people were to then find something suspicious, like the fact that the guy’s an antisemite, they would either turn down the interview, or pass that information along to me. This leaves us with a number of possibilities to consider regarding Vivek Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show of a known antisemite:
1.
Vivek Ramaswamy or his
staff failed to do basic research before accepting the interview, then lied
about it
2.
Ramaswamy didn’t care that Faleski
is an antisemite, or agrees with and chose to amplify Faleski’s antisemitic conspiracy
theories, and then lied about it
3.
Ramaswamy thought he could get
away with appearing on an antisemite’s youtube show and got angry when he got
caught
4.
Ramaswamy doesn’t really
believe in free speech. He doesn’t even know what it is. When he says he is
tolerant of other views, he is LYING. He punishes the media when they publish
unpleasant truths about him.
In piecing together the facts, we must also consider the timeline. First Ramaswamy told antisemite Russell Brand he’d cut aid to Israel, and then he did a show with
antisemitic conspiracy theorist. When he is subsequently criticized for communing
with Jew-haters, Vivek Ramaswamy lets it be known that he believes in free
speech for all. All, that is, except for the Washington
Free Beacon.
What do Epstein, Weinstein & 85% of the writers, producers & media execs making the most subversive programming have in common?
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) April 21, 2020
I’ll give you a hint, Trump & Republicans pass speech orders trying to stop you from saying the truth about it.
But it’s cultural to blame “white ppl”
The Republican Party & the Rep. Media Establishment are Zionist > 🇺🇸. That means they will sacrifice America, Americans, their values, free speech & everything they claim to stand for to blacklist people who know they back hate speech laws & anti-boycott laws for Jewish donors.
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) January 20, 2023
McLaughlin’s statement goes on to speak of Ramaswamy’s open
media policy—his willingness to speak with even hostile media outlets (emphasis
added):
Ramaswamy appeared on Faleski’s show because he will talk to any media outlet, even controversial ones, she said, adding that Ramaswamy wasn’t aware of Faleski’s anti-Semitic comments before the interview, but might have appeared on the show even if he was aware because of the campaign’s open media policy.
Once more, I have to ask, especially to those who say I have no proof that Ramaswamy is an antisemite--are you getting all this? This wet-behind-the-ears
presidential candidate is saying he didn’t know Faleski was an
antisemite, but even if he had, he still might have gone on the show. Vivek Ramaswamy doesn’t rule out talking to antisemites, only to those
who point it out.
Not that it much matters. At this point, no one serious believes that Vivek Ramaswamy has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming president. Definitely not this time around, and almost certainly not ever.
Wishing all my readers שָׁנָה טוֹבָה תִּכָּתֵבוּ וְתֵחָתֵמוּ!
*Updated for accuracy
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
