Deleted WSJ h3h3 video link

Original Jewish video youtube.com/watch?v=6zImIxBHNoU&feature=youtu.be

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/g0_n-j5rd0Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

can you explain what this whole issue is about?

Can I get a quick rundown on why he deleted it?

He (the jew) failed to frame WSJ. Not in the name of anti-SJW and/or anti-retardness. But in the name of saving his income generated by ads.

probably Wallstreetjournal has claimed it

>Guy got pissed at WSJ for playing the jew
>Got bad/misleading evidence of WSJ lying
>Published it
>Took it down once he realized it was shit info

>Shills botting hard in non-Freedom loving IPs
>Sweeden isnt a bot but is general cuck

People believed a youtuber and look like retards now

The whole issue is about the WSJ declaring war on new media and contriving a race firestorm to get brands to pull advertising from YouTube.

Either that or the WSJ just discovered how YouTube works and is mad about something that literally no one else in the world is mad about.

I hope he defeats the Wall Street Jew.
We need more people like Ethan to stand up for our freedoms.

Best way to fight Jews is with other Jews

Guarantee (((they))) will call him anti semetic for this.

Who are these scrotum sorceresses?

youtu.be/g0_n-j5rd0Y join this cuck of a livestream to keep up to date on all the bullshit, link to the discord is on the livestream

>oy vey, we made a mistake
>the goyim are going to laugh at us

this jews are the jews worst enemy

jew civil war

whats the problem with this

Meanwhile Joreg is getting fucked by UK tabloids for playing with knives

If they come for Hickock or Ian next I will go to war

Is that an abstract merchant?

how to destroy your credibility by pursuing clicks and being lazy

poetry

What is misleading about his info? I'm not seeing anything wrong.

he publicly accused a media corporation and their journalist of falsifying news in order to create billions of dollars in damage to other huge corporations, sic'd his supporters on said journalist and heavily implied that said news corporation is about to be sued out of existence.

turns out, said journalist and said media corporations did not falsify anything and he gave them a smoking gun.

>turns out, said journalist and said media corporations did not falsify anything
What about the points he addresses in the video. The Nigger video shouldn't have been monetized around the time the screencap posted in the WSJ was made.