PewDiePie Under Vicious Attack by Evil Jews

Originally published at: PewDiePie Under Vicious Attack by Evil Jews | Infostormer.com

Top YouTube personality PewDiePie who is literally the most watched person in the world with his 76 million plus YouTube subscribers, is under vicious attack by evil Jews yet again. They’re trying to figure out a way in which they can justify banning his YouTube channel. This is primarily due to the fact that PewDiePie has cleverly included anti-Semitic and Alt-Right related memes in his videos. The problem the Jews have is that it is very difficult to justify banning the most watched person on the tubes.

The Jewish Buzzfeed propagandist Joe Bernstein attempted to expose PewDiePie as a radical hater of Jews because a user called “Rabbi Shekel” appeared in a multiplayer online game he was playing. It was a vast overreach.

https://twitter.com/Bernstein/status/1072505665049018368

PewDiePie offered the following response.

https://twitter.com/pewdiepie/status/1072810196223836160

https://twitter.com/pewdiepie/status/1072812891642961920

Top Infowars homosexual Paul Joseph Watson also exposed Bernstein’s report as a lie. PewDiePie was not even laughing at the “Rabbi Shekel” player, he was laughing at the other character getting killed who was saying how much he loved him.

PewDiePie has also been under attack by the kikes for endorsing a video from an anti-Semite.

Vox:

YouTube’s most popular user is once again facing backlash — this time for promoting a highly anti-Semitic channel by recommending a video featuring a racial slur and a white supremacist conspiracy.

With 76 million subscribers, controversial gaming vlogger PewDiePie, a.k.a. Felix Kjellberg, is the most popular individual on YouTube. In a since-edited video posted on December 9, he recommended a litany of YouTube channels he said he’d been enjoying recently, briefly mentioning a YouTube channel called “E;R,” noting that it produces “great video essays,” including “one on [the Netflix movie] Death Note which I really enjoyed.” He also linked to the channel in his video description. (The recommendation has since been edited out of the video.)

To casual observers, PewDiePie’s support of E;R may have appeared harmless — one YouTube user supporting another. But a more-than-cursory dive into the channel would have revealed a litany of disturbing imagery, slurs, and white supremacist messaging.

The outcry against PewDiePie’s recommendation of the channel was immediate, with media outlets and other YouTuber users citing it as an example of PewDiePie’s ongoing dalliance in alt-right culture. In response, PewDiePie released a follow-up video on December 11 in which he sarcastically described the incident as an “oopsie” and scoffed at the idea that he was promoting neo-Nazism by merely “recommending someone for their anime review.”

It's obvious that PewDiePie is trolling these retarded Jews and he's doing a very good job of it. He is daring the Jews to ban his YouTube channel with these veiled references to anti-Semitism. And with each veiled reference he makes, he is exposing the Jews as a bunch of unreasonable and ridiculous assholes. It is exposing their treachery and lies for the entire world to see.

If the Jews actually go through with banning him off of YouTube, it will be quite the happening. It will only serve to transform many millions of young people into anti-Semites.

7 Likes

I would say PewDiePie’s viewers are mostly on the younger side. He is showing these young people that even mild criticism of Jews is anti-Semitic which is a crazy overreach.

2 Likes

The Millenials are lost- PewD needs to reach out to Generation Zyklon

2 Likes

Last week, the Swedish YouTube star Felix Kjellberg, known to his fans as PewDiePie, uploaded an edition of “Pew News,” a regular series in which he riffs on recent world news events. And since Kjellberg’s world is YouTube, this generally means news about the events, fans, and stars of the video-sharing platform. He spent most of this video discussing the widely despised “YouTube Rewind” official year-end video and a hilarious meme in which people like Jordan Peterson and Logan Paul instruct their followers to subscribe to PewDiePie in order to maintain his position as the most-subscribed-to independent creator on YouTube. (A channel of Bollywood videos had been threatening his dominance.) At the end of Pew News videos, Kjellberg takes care to use this enormous platform — he has more than 75 million subscribers — to promote other, smaller YouTube creators. In this video, he shouted out a creator called “E;R,” who, Kjellberg said, “does great videos.”

As many people almost immediately pointed out, E;R’s “great videos” include, for example, “uninterrupted footage of an Adolf Hitler speech overlaid with anti-Semitic cartoons.” The video that Kjellberg said that he, in particular, “really enjoyed,” was intercut with footage of Charlottesville protester Heather Heyer’s murder last year — as a joking way of attempting to illustrate the arcane rules of the anime Death Note. “The truth about why this took so long is because I thought it was so funny to call Black L ‘Niglet’ throughout all my recordings.” E;R explained in the now-removed caption. (The slur doesn’t appear in the video, which E;R rerecorded for fear of YouTube censorship.) By Tuesday afternoon, Kjellberg had apologized for promoting the video, but the mini-drama didn’t seem to have mattered much for the subscribe-to-PewDiePie campaign: The day before, he’d surpassed YouTube Sports to become the third-most-subscribed-to channel across all of YouTube. (Only YouTube Gaming and YouTube Music are bigger.)

In general, PewDiePie’s frequent controversies seem to have no real effect on his popularity. In 2017, at a little over 50 million subscribers, he lost a lucrative partnership with Disney over a series of videos in which he paid Indian men on the gig website Fiverr — as a sort of black-humored social experiment — to record themselves holding signs saying things like “Death to All Jews”; later that year, he called an opponent a “fucking nigger” while livestreaming a video game. And yet, Kjellberg remains YouTube’s biggest star, to the tune of 75 million subscribers, 19 billion views, tens of millions of dollars, and the adoration of millions of adolescents worldwide. If you come from outside YouTube, where letting a single N-bomb slip can be enough to end your career permanently, this sequence of events is baffling: How can someone flirt so frequently and so explicitly with racist slurs and anti-Semitic jokes and thrive?

One quick and easy answer is “because YouTube lets him.” There are reasons YouTube doesn’t want to get deeply involved, both cynical (he’s a huge, engagement-driving star) and earnest (YouTube feels uncomfortable wielding its absolute power over its own platform so nakedly) — but it’s important to keep in mind that the company has both the practical and the formal power to remove Kjellberg from its site, or find other ways to punish or limit him, the way a movie studio or television network might distance themselves from an anti-Semitic movie star.

But Kjellberg’s continued popularity lies not just in YouTube’s hands-off attitude toward his content, but also in the culture created and cultivated by the nature of the platform — really, by the nature of any advertising-supported social-media platform.

PewDiePie, like other major YouTube stars, relies on the parasocial relationships he builds with his fans to maintain his status as an influencer. He feels less like a distant celebrity to be worshipped, the way a pop star might, and more like a close friend. His viewers see him daily; they know his habits and preferences; they even have something that approaches conversation — albeit entirely one-sided — in the rambling direct-to-camera monologues that characterize videos like Pew News. When their favorite YouTuber is accused of anti-Semitism, his millions of subscribers respond in much the same way friends of a movie star accused of anti-Semitism might: I know him; he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body!

This dynamic is exacerbated by an evolving sense of persecution on the part of YouTubers and their audiences. As the researcher Crystal Abidin wrote in an excellent explainer of the reaction to Kjellberg’s anti-Semitic joke sign videos, many YouTubers interpreted Wall Street Journal articles about Kjellberg not as neutral reporting but as a tactic in a “a struggle between Influencers and legacy media more generally.” And why shouldn’t they? By the logic of platform rewards systems — which value high-engagement figures — it makes sense to imagine that, as Abidin puts it, “legacy media is capitalizing on the digitally-native popularity of PewDiePie to reel in clicks on their articles,” or that “WSJ’s intention and incentive is primarily monetary rather than social justice.” If your frame of reference is YouTube, you might understand outrage over Kjellberg’s recommendation of E;R as a cynical attack on your close friend, undertaken to draft off of his success in a race for clicks. (That YouTubers, no matter how financially successful, often lack or decline the elaborate and cushioning managerial infrastructure of the established entertainment industry, and must deal with negative attention directly, only increases their sense of being under attack.) Stories about what Kjellberg has done become, to people in the world of YouTube, stories about what is being done to Kjellberg.

Such a persecution complex is a natural consequence of lives and businesses conducted on a contemporary megaplatform like YouTube. One of the core conditions of platform life is precarity: No matter how successful you are in the platform’s terms — no matter how many followers or how many views — you could at any moment find yourself on the wrong end of some algorithmic sorting process, left out of some recommendation system, or even removed entirely for reasons you weren’t made aware of and can’t understand. The business you built could be ruined; the life you’d enjoyed leading irrevocably changed. Platforms can be powerful democratizing tools, but the processes by which decisions are (or aren’t) made are on every level intentionally opaque. (For Google to reveal the “rules” of YouTube’s various discovery mechanisms in too much detail would be to give away the game, if not the entire business.) When your livelihood and emotional life exist at the whim of a distant and impersonal alien god prone to reshaping your world without warning, it’s hard not to feel victimized — a lesson illustrated during congressional hearings this past week when lawmakers more or less accused Google CEO Sundar Pichai of rigging the results of Google searches for their names.

Kjellberg, for his part, is seen as a standard-bearer for the oppressed YouTuber subject to the whims of YouTube’s corporate masters — a symbol of the ongoing tension between YouTube and the culture that it spawned. As YouTube attempts to grow beyond its devoted adolescent fan base and secure its reputation as a safe and friendly advertising vehicle for corporate clients, that fan base is beginning to feel abandoned, if not swept under the rug. What’s at stake, as far as these YouTubers are concerned, is more than just ensuring their favorite accounts retain their prominence — it’s the purpose, direction, and identity of YouTube. (There are some unfortunate resonances with the digital revanchism of 4chan and other longtime internet trolls, whose anger at the encroachment of meatspace norms into their wild online spaces helped drive their politics far to the right.)

For more than a year, anger has roiled YouTube’s various communities over shifting and unclear ad policies that prevent YouTubers from monetizing videos that might upset advertisers. This past week, YouTube’s official year-end video, traditionally a showcase for stars developed on the platform, featured Will Smith and John Oliver, but not Kjellberg or Logan Paul — the YouTube megastar who launched his 2018 by uploading video of himself finding a dead body in Japan’s “suicide forest.” (The Rewind video is now one of the two most-disliked on the website, a fact that Kjellberg covered with some glee in the very Pew News edition that got him in so much trouble.) Even the out-of-control “subscribe to PewDiePie” meme that got Jordan Peterson to recommend Kjellberg is a function of this tension — where Kjellberg himself stands in for the independent, fan-beloved creator reasserting territorial dominance over the encroachment of a corporate account like the Bollywood channel T-Series.

We’re all pretty familiar at this point with the psychological process by which a once-prominent class of people, subject to a confusing and unaccountable regulatory regime, choose to overlook or defend a pattern of bigoted behavior from a televisually charismatic figure promising to maintain imagined community identity. Kjellberg’s continued success, seen through this lens, is maybe less surprising. But I don’t think it makes it any less worrying. Not because he’s a “bad influence” or malign actor in particular — though he very well may be — but because his status as the standard-bearer of True YouTube gives his position in broader political debates an outsize weight. As Abidin writes, “millions of young followers for whom social media such as YouTube were primarily for entertainment value are now being seduced into joining camps and participating in global discursive debates in defence of/in opposition to Influencers” like Kjellberg; he, through fights over his behavior and his position within the YouTube space, is something like a gateway drug to bigger political battles over free speech, the role of media, and diversity. And if you start from the position that PewDiePie is great and his critics unfair (and possibly disingenuous), you may soon find yourself taking on some unfortunate new political positions — especially since, as the academic Becca Lewis extensively documented in a report for Data & Society earlier this year, the far right has developed a considerable influence network on YouTube poised to take advantage of exactly this dynamic. Until we find a way to change the culture of megaplatforms, that’s probably not going to go away. And neither will PewDiePie.

In early 2017, when the Wall Street Journal called attention to the fact that PewDiePie made Nazi jokes on his YouTube channel, fans of the most-subscribed YouTuber in the world went to war.

Erin, now 16, had been watching PewDiePie, whose real name is Felix Kjellberg, for years by then. She understood that when PewDiePie paid two strangers through a freelancing service called Fiverr to hold up a sign that read “Death to All Jews,” the stunt was intended as extreme humor meant to criticize Fiverr — even if she thought it crossed a line. But this wasn’t just some random online stranger. This is a person she felt she knew.

When, as a result of the Journal’s reporting, Kjellberg lost lucrative deals with YouTube, Kjellberg and his fans increasingly said that the media was conspiring to take him down by smearing him as a racist, that the reporting on him was out of context, driven by a rival industry’s fear of jealousy.

Erin doesn’t always like how the media writes about YouTube celebrities. But when Kjellberg said the n-word, in anger, while live-streaming himself playing a video game a few months later, Erin’s opinion of him changed.

Erin, who asked us not to use her last name out of fear of harassment, suddenly started to wonder who PewDiePie really was.

“It’s like if you had a pretty good friend of many years and you found out they were a racist: What would you do?” she said. She still watches his videos sometimes. But she no longer considers herself a fan.

Welcome to the PewDiePie forever war, the one that is, by popular telling, the media and YouTube’s corporate overlords against Kjellberg, his fans and the true YouTube “community.” But in interviews with The Washington Post, fans, journalists and experts argue that he’s obscuring a more important issue. With 77 million subscribers, Kjellberg’s audience is larger than that of most television shows — and this massive reach has given him responsibilities that he doesn’t always seem interested in taking seriously.

Julia Alexander, a reporter at the Verge who closely covers YouTube, knows this firsthand. After reporting last week that Kjellberg had recommended an anti-Semitic YouTube channel to his followers, her Twitter DMs were filling up with threats, insults and hateful messages.

“When he promotes certain ideologies, there’s a sense of responsibility he has to respond to it,” Alexander said in an interview. “Instead, what he likes to do is direct all that responsibility to the mainstream media.”

Kjellberg deleted the recommendation from his video in response to the Verge’s reporting and said that he gave the shout-out without knowing the full scope of the content on that channel.

But he made multiple, meme-laden YouTube videos about Alexander’s article and other reporting. The tone was defiant.

“This is it? This is all you have?” Kjellberg said, laughing into the camera during one of the videos where he discussed what he dismissively called his “oopsie.”

“Pathetic.”

In addition to flooding Alexander’s DMs, fans lashed out in other ways. Someone hacked a portion of the advertising wing of the Wall Street Journal’s website to post a pro-PewDiePie message.

In another reality, the 2017 Wall Street Journal article would have ended Kjellberg. Instead, Kjellberg became YouTube culture’s antihero.

The mood on YouTube back then is pretty well summed up by a Philip DeFranco video. In it, DeFranco accused the mainstream media of “misrepresenting” PewDiePie to generate outrage. “They 100 percent have a bead on the forehead of PewDiePie,” DeFranco argued. “Their intent was to take down and ruin Felix.”

Power, on YouTube, is permeable, and Kjellberg knows how to cross the membrane as needed: Sometimes he’s a creator who can motivate a large army of fans to raise $150,000 for charity in a matter of weeks. At other times, he says he’s just a guy running a small operation being beleaguered by powerful institutions who want to take him down.

The thing about being a fan of a YouTuber is that it makes you feel like you belong. When the media reports on PewDiePie, for his fans, it can feel like an attack on a friend.

Dasha Abramova, 19, of Moscow, said she’s been watching Kjellberg since she was 12. He was an inspiration for her own career as an esports administrator for competitive games. “He went from renting a small apartment and didn’t have any particular job,” Abramova said. “He spent all his money on a new PC just to make videos. It’s kind of encouraging, how he was not giving up.”

When it comes to the most recent controversy, Abramova said the ultimate responsibility falls on his viewers. “I think that despite your age, you should think and decide for yourself, even who to watch and what to think about,” Abramova said.

Rod Breslau, a longtime gaming journalist who has a significant online following of his own, said that while he believes figures like PewDiePie should be covered in the media, “journalists need to consider that content creators are most of the time one or two people. They don’t have an entire corporation team of editors.”

He dismissed concerns that PewDiePie was radicalizing his following by sending them to YouTube videos created by racists. “I personally do not think that it has caused a negative effect,” Breslau said. “I don’t think that his jokes are making his fans actually racist or sexist. What I do think might be happening is that the effect is that his fans are more willing to make the same jokes.”

And that, for Whitney Phillips, an assistant professor in Syracuse University’s Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, is exactly why it’s worth scrutinizing how PewDiePie interacts with the fringe parts of YouTube culture.

PewDiePie has become “the poster boy for the anti-PC crowd” on the Internet, Phillips said, as a result of these controversies. He appears to be using that crowd’s same logic: Offensive jokes don’t cause harm and are worth defending, and anyone who questions that claim is his enemy. Phillips said that in his mind, “He makes them [his critics] mad, and they are offended, and therefore he’s doing something right.” (PewDiePie did not reply to a request for comment sent to his business email.)

And as Kjellberg’s channel has shifted from video-game entertainment to commentary, YouTube’s large, influential network of right-wing personalities has seen an opportunity to reach his huge audience.

A few weeks ago, libertarian pundit Dave Rubin posted a Twitter video of Jordan Peterson saying he was subscribing to Kjellberg. He referenced a meme that has become popular with YouTubers who are rallying to keep PewDiePie as the most-subscribed creator on the platform, even as a rival channel from India threatens to overtake his title. Peterson, a psychology professor who became a viral star in the right-wing YouTube diaspora, is not an unknown entity to PewDiePie’s audience. Kjellberg once posted a video containing a favorable review of his book.

Alex Jones spent days last summer trying to get Kjellberg to collaborate with him, after the YouTuber followed Jones’s Twitter account. There’s little evidence that Kjellberg actually is an Infowars fan. But a lot of right-wing YouTube, including Jones, has felt that when Kjellberg talked about the media, he sounded an awful lot like them.

For Justin, a 33-year-old Kjellberg fan in Idaho, the endless cycle of controversies has left him somewhere in the middle. (Justin doesn’t use his full name online as a PewDiePie fan and asked that we withhold his last name because of that.)

Justin generally feels that media coverage of Kjellberg is “clickbait.” But, he said, “the problem is that he keeps feeding into it.”

Algorithmic rabbit holes can send viewers from a relatively innocuous video to extremist content with just a few clicks. And when Kjellberg, say, sends his followers to a channel in that space — whether intending to or not — he’s giving that radicalization process a shortcut.

“You don’t want people to go from a PewDiePie video to Stormfront,” he said referring to a white-nationalist message board. “He just doesn’t seem to take the responsibility that you’d expect him to take.”

“It’s disheartening to see him keep placing the blame on other people. He’s not a 19-year-old kid,” said Alexander, the Verge reporter. Kjellberg is 29. Although, Alexander believes, Kjellberg has gotten better at filtering out extremist content from his channel in the past several months, he still has to do more.

“If he doesn’t take responsibility, we’ll be having this same conversation in six months.”