I am banned permanently from Farcebook, Twatter and Discord. Any attempt to take part in Zoom calls is ruined by poor connections. Are there degrees of contrariness?
I re-iterate my call for a review of the term 'Contrarian'.
Expanding on my definition listed elsewhere in this thread ...
A "contrarian" is simply someone who holds opinions that are "contrary" to conventional wisdom (aka the "authorized narratives"). Whatever just about everyone thinks is the truth, the contrarian will respond, "No. That's not so."
It's actually difficult for me to identify a single IMPORTANT narrative that I think is true or valid.
"Narratives" are important only because policy makers use them as predicates/justifications for implementing policies, regulations, executive orders, virus-control mandates, vaccine mandates, wars, etc.
If all the narratives are wrong or FUBAR, the policies and dictates that flow from these accepted narratives (which are usually bogus "fear narratives") are going to inflict terrible consequences on society.
Also, once implemented, these policies usually produce the opposite effect of the stated goal (also known as "unintended consequences.")
I blame the "watchdog" press more than any other entity for allowing toxic narratives to become iron-clad or "settled science."
It should be the the Fourth Estate's most important job to expose and debunk false narratives. Instead, "journalists" do more than other profession to create (and then defend and hype) these false narratives.
... Also, if one assumes that the Establishment Classes benefit from policies that flow from bogus or dubious narratives, common sense tells us these organizations will fight to preserve the "Status Quo," a state of affairs which has allowed them to hold prestigious positions, acquire great power (and control) and accumulate more wealth and even greater future influence.
In other words, these entities and "leaders" will perceive "contrarian," narrative-challenging authors as a THREAT to their continued control ... Or identify these contrarian voices as a threat that could thwart their ability to bring their unfinished agendas to fruition.
This explains the necessity of the Censorship Industrial Complex and why "Contrarian" authors and thinkers cannot be allowed to grow their reach and influence.
I believe the "contrarian" authors who have achieved some degree of prominence and influence on Substack have now been identified as, perhaps, the greatest threat to the Status Quo of virtually every captured organization o the planet.
By now, I'm convinced these forces are evil, brazen and definitely don't "fight fair."
So the task of debunking as many bogus and harmful narratives as possible will be fiercely opposed.
In other words, this is a David vs. Goliath battle which, probably, isn't for sissies.
I need to write a piece defining my own definition, which I've admitted is arbitrary and subjective. That might be an interesting column. Also, see post below for the quick definition I use. UPDATE: I've now written and posted that column! I didn't know it, but I composed an essay in this comment thread.
I looked at that but I am too simplistic and failed to understand what you were saying. I think your spreadsheet idea is far too cumbersome (24 questions) and so few people would take the trouble to check it out. Bill Rice’s idea is very simple and does show how much support each person gets. Obviously it is then necessary to pop into the accounts and see if they appeal.
What you're saying is that Substack subscriber numbers, real or imagined, will be the gate that's kept, and only authors getting those numbers, no matter how, will be read.
I've long abandoned fb. Post nothing of intellectual consequence there. Learned well before the "covid" op that Fb will make invisible anything the ptb don't like. This became clear to me around 2016. Before then it functioned somewhat organically, but at that point became algorithmed and censored to pointlessness.
I was off of it - mainly because I kept getting banned - for probably two years. However, I got back on and started making innoccuous and unthreatening posts a few months before I launched my "local" Substack (The Troy Citizen).
To market that local newspaper, I knew I would need to use Facebook, which reaches my "target audience" far better than any other social media company.
I don't believe for one minute that Facebook has ended its censorship or altered those "reach" algorithms. As I've noted in several articles, Facebook's censorship of people who were trying to save lives and prevent mass misery resulted in global carnage.
Used as it should have been used, Facebook could have stopped most of these draconian lockdowns and the "vaccine" mandates. Almost everyone has quit getting the boosters. Still, probably 10 percent or more people are still getting these mRNA Covid boosters ... as well as other mRNA shots like the flu "vaccines."
Is Facebook really going to stop suppressing the reach of 'anti-vaxxers' like myself. No way.
Are flu shots mRNA now? Also re: people still getting covid boosters I know a few of those. They are very health conscious and in their 60's and 70's. And they are obviously not reading the works of contrarian writers such as yourself.
I quit FB years before covid when I realized what skanky shale FB was doing with its algorithms. Never missed it. It really is appalling -- and criminal--what FB did to censor people during covid time, especially the vaccine injured.
Rush Limbaugh, on his TV program, put Reich in front of a podium with only the top of his head showing. Can't get that image out of my mind... Especially when Mr. Reich starts talking.
Wow, 3.5 million followers on FB... there is absolutely no way that is legitimate. That's 1/100th the population of the United States... I doubt more than 1 in a 1,000 people even know who Robert Reich is.
Although I am sure most of his "followers" aren't located in the US. Unless lines of code in a US-based server counts.
I wonder what portion of Leftist followers are bots or are otherwise fake. Could Reich's apparent popularity be an example of "astroturfing"? I never read anyone in the conservative media observing that "Reich, a very popular Leftist commentator, made this point on Substack or Facebook . . ."
Honestly there's a chance that he and others (certainly complete no-names on Twitter/X like Jojo from Jerz and BrooklynDad) start with absolutely no natural following on those platforms and then the astro turf feeds the algorithm which then basically makes them a "new account you should follow" to everyone on the platform.
I just can't stand how people then use that 100% fake consensus to write news stories and formulate their opinions. The entire idea of social media as a legitimate consensus is a sham.
Comment: Reich’s total subscribers increased by 5,000 in one day and have grown by 25,000 in 10 days! So his percentage of growth in nine-days is now even greater than 3.66 percent.
Sure there is likely shenanigans going on, but for myself I am tired of the complaining and seeing little being done. My enthusiasm waned when no prosecutions were happening after all the evidence. So I and I am sure others, are taking a wait and see stance. My enthusiasm may regain if things actually look like they are changing. If we see a series of these corrupt people getting their just dues. We are all holding our breaths waiting for a shoe to drop somewhere.
I enjoy creating “By the Numbers” sidebars. One of my favorite recent numbers ….
0 - Number of Contrarian authors who would ever be hired by corporate news organizations (or, for 99 percent of my contrarians, the number who have written articles published by MSM news organizations).
This number shows us the true value MSM publishers and editors place on “diversity” of thought.
From my research into Robert Reich, I found a couple of (now dated) articles that say Reich’s net worth is at least $4 million.
I don’t begrudge anyone becoming a multi-millionaire, but I do note that liberal bureaucrats and Substack pundits seem to achieve this status more than conservative bureaucrats and pundits.
As far as I can tell, Reich has worked almost his entire life as a college professor, federal bureaucrat (he was Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor for four years), author of many books and, now, “Star Substack author.”
I’m sure he also does well on the speakers’ circuit.
Still, how many college professors compile a net worth this impressive?
I assume he’s gotten many book advances that helped him grow his wealth, confirming that the country’s publishing houses don’t mind showering money on authors who write books for the “lucrative” (?) liberal market.
(Question: Does anybody really buy - and then read - these books?)
If Substack’s metrics are correct, I also now know that Reich is grossing at least $1.1 million every year from Substack subscriptions (a figure that’s clearly growing). So his updated net worth must be significantly more than $4 million.
As my “Contrarian” list of Substack authors reveals, probably only about 50 Substack writers on “our team” make at least $50,000 from their Substack writing.
One of my take-aways: There is no “equity” when you compare the income/revenue of “contrarian” Substack authors to the income streams of liberal writers, most of whom get salaries of at least $70,000 from corporate news organizations.
I ask again: Are corporate news organizations CONSPIRING to discriminate against conservative or narrative-challenging writers?
Where’s the “diversity” Mr. Reich tells us is so important?
I am a Brit so I apologise for my ignorance of Mr Robert Reich's existence. It is only because you have placed him at the top of your league table that I even looked him up online. I have never read a word he has written and only viewed a few minutes of his YouTube content.
What I wonder is this: What are your criteria for defining a 'Contrarian'? From the very little I have seen, isn't Mr Reich simply a democrat? Somehow I don't think that means he is a 'Contrarian'.
Perhaps you should review and define precisely what you mean by the term 'Contrarian' and, having done that, perhaps knock the top 12 (at least) out of the category.
In my description of my Substack I did a good job explaining the topics I would write about.
Paraphrasing from memory: ("I write about topics that challenge conventional wisdom (aka 'the authorized narratives.'" )
This mission statement explains why I never run out of subject matter because virtually ALL the authorized narratives are bogus or dubious ... and need to be debunked.
... If I referred to Reich as a "contrarian" somewhere in this piece, that was a terrible mistake on my part. He's the opposite. He's a staff officer in the enemy/villain class I'm trying to fight in this "battle for America."
OH! I am sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that you were looking closely at his figures because he is one of the contrarians! I apologise. I am easily confused!
Exactly. Like the massive book buying both sides do. Which end up in the donate bins at libraries like the one I worked at for 14 years. Most ended in the recycle bin.
Spot on! Obama got a 65 million book commission up front! Pay off! Big time! That’s why he. Can afford a 50 million? 25 acre estate on Oahu! Plus 4 others!
Fauci, reportedly, got a $5 million advance for his memoirs. (I actually thought it would be more and maybe was.)
I wonder how Fauci's book sales compared to RFK, Jr's "The Real Anthony Fauci."
Of course, no MSM news organization ever ran a book review of Kennedy's book, which still (via alternative media "word-of-mouth") became the international No. 1 non-fiction best-seller for many weeks. I think most "brick-and-mortar" book stores wouldn't even stock this book.
Yes, though it's the globalists who run every board piece and the board itself. Both "parties" are owned by the same masters. It's a divide and conquer strategy to manipulate and control the masses.
Teasing a business idea I hope to announce at some point. (This post really explains why I'm so interested in subscriber and "reach" metrics of "contrarian" journalists).
***
Some readers might ask why I’ve tried to highlight the small incomes streams of most “Contrarian” newsletter authors? In this post, I’ll try to answer this question.
In my opinion, the key to “winning this battle for America (or the world)” is debunking as many bogus and harmful narratives as possible.
It might be counter-intuitive, but this goal actually requires far more talented journalists who take on this mission. Also, these journalists/writers need to “reach” far more citizens/readers … so “the masses” come to understand how many narratives are bogus.
Our side would have a much better chance of winning this existential battle if “our side” had far more persuasive troops performing “real” watchdog journalism.
Money - or financial incentives - are a great motivator or prerequisite that allows more people to do this vital work.
When, or if, authors had a better or more realistic expectation that they can make a decent living performing this vital work, more writers will engage in this work.
Right now, all the false narratives are created and then supported by “journalists”subsidized or working for corporate media or the MSM - which pays this army of “narrative protectors” much better.
The principle of meritocracy tells us people who perform important work will be compensated at higher rates than people who do sorry work.
In journalism, this principle of “meritocracy” largely does not apply. In fact, those who are routinely wrong - and routinely spread lies - receive far more compensation.
Somehow we need to change this.
Substack has played a vital role in allowing more writers to debunk or challenge bogus narratives and deserves credit for producing this change.
However, the pool of Substack contrarian authors - and the reach of these authors - is still much too small to create the sea change in public opinion (belated “enlightment”) that needs to occur.
We still need a better way to provide even more financial incentives for “contrarian” authors.
Also, readers/subscribers need a better means to easily find, read and support deserving “contrarian” authors.
We need more important stories to “go viral” and reach the masses, which will terminate the toxic influence of the narrative-protecting classes.
Providing greater financial rewards to authors who do this work would give our side a much better chance to prevail in this battle or at least debunk a few harmful narratives … which would make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren going forward.
I haven’t written about it yet, but I have a business idea that might make all of the above more possible.
Believe it or not, it’s good and important journalism that will or can defeat atrocious and harmful journalism.
As do I. I assume that this is a money laundering or propaganda distribution operation.
Substack Trust & Safety could figure this out because they can determine what IP addresses go with which email address. Would they want to? Probably not since this process increases their bottom line.
As do I. I’m a fairly new Republican and supporter of Trump and a fan of the Medical Freedom Movement. Reich is a has-been from the days of the Clinton Administration where he was only the Secretary of Labor. He’s also elderly. His ideas are stale. So it’s difficult to believe that he has that many actual subscribers. Are some of them bots maybe? I don’t think Substack is fooling around with the numbers; others are. Certainly no one is reading what that old geezer has to say.
Robert Reich is a hack and all he publishes is slightly more aggressive versions of standard Establishment boilerplate. I know why it’s happening: the guy has been recommended to me 1000 times.
It’s been obvious to me for awhile that Substack caved. They got hit with those “why does Substack help Nazis blow up?” headlines a few times and then the attacks stopped.
Why do you think they stopped? I know the only reason they ever stop. The veracity of this thesis is in no doubt in my mind.
it makes me sick. I am obviously naive, but for some time I saw Substack as an oasis where I could read insightful intellectually honest op-eds, and I recommended it to others. Now substack has intellectually poor writers whose only thought is Trump bad, and readers who are seemingly all virulent Jew haters. I don't want that BS in my feed and I certainly don't want to be receiving articles written by propagandists. I have paid for a few subscriptions so I will see them out but I will not be renewing.
Reich is not stupid, he just "plays stupid on TV." Consider his potential audience of 70 million (+) Biden/Harris voters. He says "Orange man bad," and they are whipped into a frenzy. He peddles the slop that his constituents crave.
I couldn't tolerate reading his crap but the comments to it are like an alternate universe. Talking about boycotting Amazon, Washington Post, etc. How dire the US is/will be without Cabbage Brain in power, etc. Very weird.
What a crock of crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappppp. This "fake" nonsense on substack is disgraceful. Must be some of the "cackling buffoons latte capucchino swilling
I wonder if there’s an illusion that Robert Reich is getting more subscribers are these people really people or just bots? How could you tell? Is there a way you can tell? Think troll farms but in reverse to elevate particular account, is that what is happening?
My First Addendum (comparing Reich's explosive growth to the subscriber growth of the best-known "Contrarian All-Stars") ...
I wish I had definitive data that showed the growth of total subscribers of "our" team's All-Star writers - people like Dr. Malone, Alex Berenson, Steve Kirsch and Dr. Mercola - all of whom have more than 240K subscribers (which is the closest our team has to the subscription figures of Mr. Reich).
I've been a subscriber to three of these authors for at least two years, but I never saved their subscription numbers at different times in the history of their Substack newsletters.
However, from my memory (which might be wrong), I'm pretty sure Malone, Kirsch and Berenson have not experienced anywhere close to the growth rate of Reich.
For example, (I think) Alex Berenson's subscription numbers have been around 240K for many months.
This doesn't really make sense to me as I make the assumption that at least a million (perhaps more) readers searching for "alternative" journalism, especially on Covid topics, have probably discovered Substack in the last year or two.
It would seem that as these readers/citizens discover a platform famous for its "contrarian" authors, the first authors these people would check out would be these four people.
That is, Berenson, Kirsch, Mercola and Berenson would get their "unfair" (or fair) share of these NEW readers. This point would seem to suggest the subscriber numbers of these authors - already large - would grow even larger.
But I don't think this has happened. I don't doubt the total subscriber numbers of these authors have continued to grow - they just haven't grown at a rate that approaches the growth rate of the liberal ("Status Quo-protecting") Reich.
While the population of people looking for "alternative" perspectives must have grown (probably significantly), this hasn't resulted in significant growth of these already well-known writers. That is, more subscribers did NOT beget ... many more subscribers.
But this trend did kick-in or apply at Reich's newsletter. Which, to me, is ... curious and worth noting.
Again, the rate of growth of total subscribers for the "Contrarian" authors on my list seems to be much lower than those of the status-quo protecting liberal authors (like Reich, Dan Rather and Michael Moorer).
I also noted in my prior story on Mr. Reich that he has 3.5 million followers on Facebook.
I've been banned, or had my account suspended, by Facebook at least three times.
When I came out of "Facebook timeout," I still don't think my "Covid contrarian" posts reached more than 10 of my followers.
Has Reich written any columns railing against Faceook's censorship? Shouldn't Facebook also promote "diversity" of opinions?
I am banned permanently from Farcebook, Twatter and Discord. Any attempt to take part in Zoom calls is ruined by poor connections. Are there degrees of contrariness?
I re-iterate my call for a review of the term 'Contrarian'.
Expanding on my definition listed elsewhere in this thread ...
A "contrarian" is simply someone who holds opinions that are "contrary" to conventional wisdom (aka the "authorized narratives"). Whatever just about everyone thinks is the truth, the contrarian will respond, "No. That's not so."
It's actually difficult for me to identify a single IMPORTANT narrative that I think is true or valid.
"Narratives" are important only because policy makers use them as predicates/justifications for implementing policies, regulations, executive orders, virus-control mandates, vaccine mandates, wars, etc.
If all the narratives are wrong or FUBAR, the policies and dictates that flow from these accepted narratives (which are usually bogus "fear narratives") are going to inflict terrible consequences on society.
Also, once implemented, these policies usually produce the opposite effect of the stated goal (also known as "unintended consequences.")
I blame the "watchdog" press more than any other entity for allowing toxic narratives to become iron-clad or "settled science."
It should be the the Fourth Estate's most important job to expose and debunk false narratives. Instead, "journalists" do more than other profession to create (and then defend and hype) these false narratives.
... Also, if one assumes that the Establishment Classes benefit from policies that flow from bogus or dubious narratives, common sense tells us these organizations will fight to preserve the "Status Quo," a state of affairs which has allowed them to hold prestigious positions, acquire great power (and control) and accumulate more wealth and even greater future influence.
In other words, these entities and "leaders" will perceive "contrarian," narrative-challenging authors as a THREAT to their continued control ... Or identify these contrarian voices as a threat that could thwart their ability to bring their unfinished agendas to fruition.
This explains the necessity of the Censorship Industrial Complex and why "Contrarian" authors and thinkers cannot be allowed to grow their reach and influence.
I believe the "contrarian" authors who have achieved some degree of prominence and influence on Substack have now been identified as, perhaps, the greatest threat to the Status Quo of virtually every captured organization o the planet.
By now, I'm convinced these forces are evil, brazen and definitely don't "fight fair."
So the task of debunking as many bogus and harmful narratives as possible will be fiercely opposed.
In other words, this is a David vs. Goliath battle which, probably, isn't for sissies.
"So the task of debunking as many bogus and harmful narratives as possible will be fiercely opposed."
Thats why an index or search list is necessary, one not based on existing subscription numbers.
Otherwise it depends on individual recommendations, which has its problems too.
I am recommending either a taxonomy of "contrariness" or a similar thing could be done using sortable columns on a spreadsheet of issues.
Why is this not a good idea? Please respond:
0) not necessary
1) won't work
2) will work which is why I don't like it
3) I just like to ignore YAT
4) I'm waiting for YAT to do all the work
5) There's no money in it for me
I call it "taking the against position." I have done this my whole professional life, too.
I need to write a piece defining my own definition, which I've admitted is arbitrary and subjective. That might be an interesting column. Also, see post below for the quick definition I use. UPDATE: I've now written and posted that column! I didn't know it, but I composed an essay in this comment thread.
Zoom also banned me (blocks calls - "The subscriber you are trying to reach is not available."); not just X-rated Twatter.
see https://billricejr.substack.com/p/robert-reich-continues-to-blow-up/comment/87341096
I looked at that but I am too simplistic and failed to understand what you were saying. I think your spreadsheet idea is far too cumbersome (24 questions) and so few people would take the trouble to check it out. Bill Rice’s idea is very simple and does show how much support each person gets. Obviously it is then necessary to pop into the accounts and see if they appeal.
What you're saying is that Substack subscriber numbers, real or imagined, will be the gate that's kept, and only authors getting those numbers, no matter how, will be read.
And apparently you like it that way.
No - that is not what I am saying.
I've long abandoned fb. Post nothing of intellectual consequence there. Learned well before the "covid" op that Fb will make invisible anything the ptb don't like. This became clear to me around 2016. Before then it functioned somewhat organically, but at that point became algorithmed and censored to pointlessness.
I was off of it - mainly because I kept getting banned - for probably two years. However, I got back on and started making innoccuous and unthreatening posts a few months before I launched my "local" Substack (The Troy Citizen).
To market that local newspaper, I knew I would need to use Facebook, which reaches my "target audience" far better than any other social media company.
I don't believe for one minute that Facebook has ended its censorship or altered those "reach" algorithms. As I've noted in several articles, Facebook's censorship of people who were trying to save lives and prevent mass misery resulted in global carnage.
Used as it should have been used, Facebook could have stopped most of these draconian lockdowns and the "vaccine" mandates. Almost everyone has quit getting the boosters. Still, probably 10 percent or more people are still getting these mRNA Covid boosters ... as well as other mRNA shots like the flu "vaccines."
Is Facebook really going to stop suppressing the reach of 'anti-vaxxers' like myself. No way.
Are flu shots mRNA now? Also re: people still getting covid boosters I know a few of those. They are very health conscious and in their 60's and 70's. And they are obviously not reading the works of contrarian writers such as yourself.
He’ll, I got kicked off of WSJ for answering someone with a “?” Yep.
Of course not.just because Zuckerberg confesses his sins, means nothing. False flag
I quit FB years before covid when I realized what skanky shale FB was doing with its algorithms. Never missed it. It really is appalling -- and criminal--what FB did to censor people during covid time, especially the vaccine injured.
Rush Limbaugh, on his TV program, put Reich in front of a podium with only the top of his head showing. Can't get that image out of my mind... Especially when Mr. Reich starts talking.
Certainly not! Do they censor vacation, cute pet photos, or videos of asinine stunts? They love all those pseudoscience posts. ($$$)
Wow, 3.5 million followers on FB... there is absolutely no way that is legitimate. That's 1/100th the population of the United States... I doubt more than 1 in a 1,000 people even know who Robert Reich is.
Although I am sure most of his "followers" aren't located in the US. Unless lines of code in a US-based server counts.
I wonder what portion of Leftist followers are bots or are otherwise fake. Could Reich's apparent popularity be an example of "astroturfing"? I never read anyone in the conservative media observing that "Reich, a very popular Leftist commentator, made this point on Substack or Facebook . . ."
Honestly there's a chance that he and others (certainly complete no-names on Twitter/X like Jojo from Jerz and BrooklynDad) start with absolutely no natural following on those platforms and then the astro turf feeds the algorithm which then basically makes them a "new account you should follow" to everyone on the platform.
I just can't stand how people then use that 100% fake consensus to write news stories and formulate their opinions. The entire idea of social media as a legitimate consensus is a sham.
UPDATE: Reichs's one-day growth rate was actually 5,000 subscribers (not 3,000).
I just added this text to my original story:
Jan. 16: 537,900+
= + 19,000 total subscribers (+3.66 percent)
But, wait, there's more!
Jan. 17 (today's numbers): 540,900+
NEW INFO:
Second update (Jan. 17 this evening): 542,900+
Comment: Reich’s total subscribers increased by 5,000 in one day and have grown by 25,000 in 10 days! So his percentage of growth in nine-days is now even greater than 3.66 percent.
Sure there is likely shenanigans going on, but for myself I am tired of the complaining and seeing little being done. My enthusiasm waned when no prosecutions were happening after all the evidence. So I and I am sure others, are taking a wait and see stance. My enthusiasm may regain if things actually look like they are changing. If we see a series of these corrupt people getting their just dues. We are all holding our breaths waiting for a shoe to drop somewhere.
I enjoy creating “By the Numbers” sidebars. One of my favorite recent numbers ….
0 - Number of Contrarian authors who would ever be hired by corporate news organizations (or, for 99 percent of my contrarians, the number who have written articles published by MSM news organizations).
This number shows us the true value MSM publishers and editors place on “diversity” of thought.
From my research into Robert Reich, I found a couple of (now dated) articles that say Reich’s net worth is at least $4 million.
I don’t begrudge anyone becoming a multi-millionaire, but I do note that liberal bureaucrats and Substack pundits seem to achieve this status more than conservative bureaucrats and pundits.
As far as I can tell, Reich has worked almost his entire life as a college professor, federal bureaucrat (he was Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor for four years), author of many books and, now, “Star Substack author.”
I’m sure he also does well on the speakers’ circuit.
Still, how many college professors compile a net worth this impressive?
I assume he’s gotten many book advances that helped him grow his wealth, confirming that the country’s publishing houses don’t mind showering money on authors who write books for the “lucrative” (?) liberal market.
(Question: Does anybody really buy - and then read - these books?)
If Substack’s metrics are correct, I also now know that Reich is grossing at least $1.1 million every year from Substack subscriptions (a figure that’s clearly growing). So his updated net worth must be significantly more than $4 million.
As my “Contrarian” list of Substack authors reveals, probably only about 50 Substack writers on “our team” make at least $50,000 from their Substack writing.
One of my take-aways: There is no “equity” when you compare the income/revenue of “contrarian” Substack authors to the income streams of liberal writers, most of whom get salaries of at least $70,000 from corporate news organizations.
I ask again: Are corporate news organizations CONSPIRING to discriminate against conservative or narrative-challenging writers?
Where’s the “diversity” Mr. Reich tells us is so important?
You gotta conspire to cash in.
That's about the "bottom line." Great post!
And proves that we need to build alternate systems - without the globalists - because this is not the world we want anymore.
I am a Brit so I apologise for my ignorance of Mr Robert Reich's existence. It is only because you have placed him at the top of your league table that I even looked him up online. I have never read a word he has written and only viewed a few minutes of his YouTube content.
What I wonder is this: What are your criteria for defining a 'Contrarian'? From the very little I have seen, isn't Mr Reich simply a democrat? Somehow I don't think that means he is a 'Contrarian'.
Perhaps you should review and define precisely what you mean by the term 'Contrarian' and, having done that, perhaps knock the top 12 (at least) out of the category.
Reich is definitely NOT a "contrarian." My "contrarians" are authors like yourself that made my "Top 137" list.
A contrarian is someone who routinely challenges "authorized narratives" (aka "conventional wisdom.")
Reich would be a defender and promoter of the world's legions of bogus or dubious "authorized narratives."
Regarding Covid, most of "our group" said, "Do not comply" or do NOT trust these alleged experts.
Reich said, "Do Comply" and "We should never question the experts and authorities."
In my description of my Substack I did a good job explaining the topics I would write about.
Paraphrasing from memory: ("I write about topics that challenge conventional wisdom (aka 'the authorized narratives.'" )
This mission statement explains why I never run out of subject matter because virtually ALL the authorized narratives are bogus or dubious ... and need to be debunked.
... If I referred to Reich as a "contrarian" somewhere in this piece, that was a terrible mistake on my part. He's the opposite. He's a staff officer in the enemy/villain class I'm trying to fight in this "battle for America."
OH! I am sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that you were looking closely at his figures because he is one of the contrarians! I apologise. I am easily confused!
He is a demokrat, plain and simple.
Bobby Reich is being subsidized by the left to create the impression that he is in leadership and a thought leader to gaslight the American public!
Exactly. Like the massive book buying both sides do. Which end up in the donate bins at libraries like the one I worked at for 14 years. Most ended in the recycle bin.
Spot on! Obama got a 65 million book commission up front! Pay off! Big time! That’s why he. Can afford a 50 million? 25 acre estate on Oahu! Plus 4 others!
Fauci, reportedly, got a $5 million advance for his memoirs. (I actually thought it would be more and maybe was.)
I wonder how Fauci's book sales compared to RFK, Jr's "The Real Anthony Fauci."
Of course, no MSM news organization ever ran a book review of Kennedy's book, which still (via alternative media "word-of-mouth") became the international No. 1 non-fiction best-seller for many weeks. I think most "brick-and-mortar" book stores wouldn't even stock this book.
Nobody paid RFK, jr. any book advances.
I read the Obamas may be divorcing. Plenty of estates to divvy up.
I hadn't read that. Can't they just stay together in a sham marriage just like Bill and Hillary have done for so long?
And we all know these “book deals” are just another way to pay off certain actors for towing the party line and following orders.
And the music industry charts. Most everything is fake.
money laundering. i wonder how much of reich's $1.1M substack earnings get paid out as kickbacks
and how many of his new paying subs are bots deployed by Act Blue
just a hunch
Actually, you might be spot on. Thanks.
And don’t forget Hilary. She was one of the first fake deal. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/10/10/hillarys-new-book-still-bemoaning-2016-election-loss-is-a-flop-out-of-the-gates-1493877/
Yes, though it's the globalists who run every board piece and the board itself. Both "parties" are owned by the same masters. It's a divide and conquer strategy to manipulate and control the masses.
Teasing a business idea I hope to announce at some point. (This post really explains why I'm so interested in subscriber and "reach" metrics of "contrarian" journalists).
***
Some readers might ask why I’ve tried to highlight the small incomes streams of most “Contrarian” newsletter authors? In this post, I’ll try to answer this question.
In my opinion, the key to “winning this battle for America (or the world)” is debunking as many bogus and harmful narratives as possible.
It might be counter-intuitive, but this goal actually requires far more talented journalists who take on this mission. Also, these journalists/writers need to “reach” far more citizens/readers … so “the masses” come to understand how many narratives are bogus.
Our side would have a much better chance of winning this existential battle if “our side” had far more persuasive troops performing “real” watchdog journalism.
Money - or financial incentives - are a great motivator or prerequisite that allows more people to do this vital work.
When, or if, authors had a better or more realistic expectation that they can make a decent living performing this vital work, more writers will engage in this work.
Right now, all the false narratives are created and then supported by “journalists”subsidized or working for corporate media or the MSM - which pays this army of “narrative protectors” much better.
The principle of meritocracy tells us people who perform important work will be compensated at higher rates than people who do sorry work.
In journalism, this principle of “meritocracy” largely does not apply. In fact, those who are routinely wrong - and routinely spread lies - receive far more compensation.
Somehow we need to change this.
Substack has played a vital role in allowing more writers to debunk or challenge bogus narratives and deserves credit for producing this change.
However, the pool of Substack contrarian authors - and the reach of these authors - is still much too small to create the sea change in public opinion (belated “enlightment”) that needs to occur.
We still need a better way to provide even more financial incentives for “contrarian” authors.
Also, readers/subscribers need a better means to easily find, read and support deserving “contrarian” authors.
We need more important stories to “go viral” and reach the masses, which will terminate the toxic influence of the narrative-protecting classes.
Providing greater financial rewards to authors who do this work would give our side a much better chance to prevail in this battle or at least debunk a few harmful narratives … which would make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren going forward.
I haven’t written about it yet, but I have a business idea that might make all of the above more possible.
Believe it or not, it’s good and important journalism that will or can defeat atrocious and harmful journalism.
I question the legitimacy and those subscribers
As do I. I assume that this is a money laundering or propaganda distribution operation.
Substack Trust & Safety could figure this out because they can determine what IP addresses go with which email address. Would they want to? Probably not since this process increases their bottom line.
As do I. I’m a fairly new Republican and supporter of Trump and a fan of the Medical Freedom Movement. Reich is a has-been from the days of the Clinton Administration where he was only the Secretary of Labor. He’s also elderly. His ideas are stale. So it’s difficult to believe that he has that many actual subscribers. Are some of them bots maybe? I don’t think Substack is fooling around with the numbers; others are. Certainly no one is reading what that old geezer has to say.
LOL! True.
I agree. I don’t believe in the numbers. They’ve lied about everything else what’s stopping them from fudging the numbers. What do we believe?
Can bots make paid subscriptions?
Robert Reich is a hack and all he publishes is slightly more aggressive versions of standard Establishment boilerplate. I know why it’s happening: the guy has been recommended to me 1000 times.
It’s been obvious to me for awhile that Substack caved. They got hit with those “why does Substack help Nazis blow up?” headlines a few times and then the attacks stopped.
Why do you think they stopped? I know the only reason they ever stop. The veracity of this thesis is in no doubt in my mind.
it makes me sick. I am obviously naive, but for some time I saw Substack as an oasis where I could read insightful intellectually honest op-eds, and I recommended it to others. Now substack has intellectually poor writers whose only thought is Trump bad, and readers who are seemingly all virulent Jew haters. I don't want that BS in my feed and I certainly don't want to be receiving articles written by propagandists. I have paid for a few subscriptions so I will see them out but I will not be renewing.
Reich sux.
Reich is not stupid, he just "plays stupid on TV." Consider his potential audience of 70 million (+) Biden/Harris voters. He says "Orange man bad," and they are whipped into a frenzy. He peddles the slop that his constituents crave.
I couldn't tolerate reading his crap but the comments to it are like an alternate universe. Talking about boycotting Amazon, Washington Post, etc. How dire the US is/will be without Cabbage Brain in power, etc. Very weird.
What a crock of crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappppp. This "fake" nonsense on substack is disgraceful. Must be some of the "cackling buffoons latte capucchino swilling
friends" that are doing this.
Very very sad.
Respectfully.
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/even-chatgpt-says-robert-reich-is
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/is-robert-reisch-listening
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/mental-midgets
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/retarded-communist-dwarfs
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/no-offense-to-little-people-but
I subbed (non-paying!) to Reich's substack quite some time back simply for the weirdness.
It's hard to take his columns as anything but satire, though he seems to be sincere. And quite possibly insane.
I, too, wonder at his subscriber count.
Let us know if you find anything!
I wonder if there’s an illusion that Robert Reich is getting more subscribers are these people really people or just bots? How could you tell? Is there a way you can tell? Think troll farms but in reverse to elevate particular account, is that what is happening?
My First Addendum (comparing Reich's explosive growth to the subscriber growth of the best-known "Contrarian All-Stars") ...
I wish I had definitive data that showed the growth of total subscribers of "our" team's All-Star writers - people like Dr. Malone, Alex Berenson, Steve Kirsch and Dr. Mercola - all of whom have more than 240K subscribers (which is the closest our team has to the subscription figures of Mr. Reich).
I've been a subscriber to three of these authors for at least two years, but I never saved their subscription numbers at different times in the history of their Substack newsletters.
However, from my memory (which might be wrong), I'm pretty sure Malone, Kirsch and Berenson have not experienced anywhere close to the growth rate of Reich.
For example, (I think) Alex Berenson's subscription numbers have been around 240K for many months.
This doesn't really make sense to me as I make the assumption that at least a million (perhaps more) readers searching for "alternative" journalism, especially on Covid topics, have probably discovered Substack in the last year or two.
It would seem that as these readers/citizens discover a platform famous for its "contrarian" authors, the first authors these people would check out would be these four people.
That is, Berenson, Kirsch, Mercola and Berenson would get their "unfair" (or fair) share of these NEW readers. This point would seem to suggest the subscriber numbers of these authors - already large - would grow even larger.
But I don't think this has happened. I don't doubt the total subscriber numbers of these authors have continued to grow - they just haven't grown at a rate that approaches the growth rate of the liberal ("Status Quo-protecting") Reich.
While the population of people looking for "alternative" perspectives must have grown (probably significantly), this hasn't resulted in significant growth of these already well-known writers. That is, more subscribers did NOT beget ... many more subscribers.
But this trend did kick-in or apply at Reich's newsletter. Which, to me, is ... curious and worth noting.
Again, the rate of growth of total subscribers for the "Contrarian" authors on my list seems to be much lower than those of the status-quo protecting liberal authors (like Reich, Dan Rather and Michael Moorer).