L. A. Marzulli Blasts YouTube for Not Monetizing His Videos, Claims Horny Fallen Angels Are Seducing Men into Transgender Identity

​Earlier this week, the Express reported the exclusive news that Gaia.com has been making a ton of money off a fake mystery concocted from the mutilation of human corpses to feed the internet’s and cable TV’s obsession with ancient astronauts. Or, to be more exact, the Express reported that DNA tests on the so-called three-fingered Nazca mummies promoted on Gaia.com as evidence of alien contact with Earth confirmed that the bodies are human, or at least started out as real human corpses before they were manipulated to appear like stereotypical space aliens. 

​Meanwhile, this week Nephilim theorist L. A. Marzulli delivered another hour-long rant, this time about UFOs and government conspiracies. I tuned in only because he promised on his blog to reveal the “truth” about Blacks and “transgender’s” (sic) on his broadcast, and I had a morbid curiosity as to what hideous right wing talking point he planned to warp into a disgusting explosion of intolerance. He did briefly mention “Black on Black killings” being “through the flippin’ roof” (murder rates are up slightly but are still near historic lows) and even mistakenly said “Black on crack killings” at one point, but overall he ignored his stated topics. The “truth about trangenderism” had to wait for the last minutes of the video. “There’s a satanic, occult dimension to this,” Marzulli said. He added that a transgender man’s “artificial penis” does not work and therefore the person is not a true male. But his greatest ire was reserved for biological males who surrender their holy phallic birthright. He can understand why women would want to become men, since men are awesome, but so impossible is the reverse for him that he can only attribute it to a satanic attack on the holy power of masculine authority. “The fallen angels are obsessed with the female form, completely obsessed with it,” he said. He threatened next week to talk about how shape-shifting angels are convincing men to become women for their horny pleasure and to fulfill a satanic agenda.
 
But so much for that. He also included a lengthy discussion of why he believes science doesn’t understand enough about consciousness to exclude interdimensional demon-piloted flying saucers (don’t ask), after which we got to the meat of his video. Marzulli delivered this diatribe about his allegation that an evil liberal axis of Obama and the Alphabet Corporation (parent of Google and YouTube) are conspiring to prevent him from making money from his hate:

Certain factions of the government did not like what I had to say when Mr. Obama was president, so much so—and we’ve known this before—the IRS is used as a way to go after people like me, just like YouTube is demonetizing certain conservative news sites. Now, who’s sitting there behind the desk looking at my YouTube video and demonetizing it and saying, “Well, it’s not ad-friendly.” I mean, how is that done? How is that done? Is it not ad-friendly because I’m saying something that’s against the person’s world view who’s sitting there? And they’re making the judgment? See where this goes? Unless it’s free speech, including hate speech—and let me make this really clear—I don’t agree with anything that the Ku Klux Klan says on any level, in any way, shape, or form. However, as much as I despise the Klan and despise the Neo-Nazis, they have the right to say what they want to say, as protected by the First Amendment. I can disagree with it. I can blog against it vehemently. I will do so and have done so in the past. And I can voice my opinion. But the moment we begin to marginalize free speech, to say “well, that’s offensive; we can’t go there”—the moment we do that, then we’re down a slippery slope. Then who is the arbitrator and who decides what is good speech and what is hate speech? See where I’m going with this?

​Notice the way Marzulli made himself into a martyr for free speech when no one has prevented him from speaking or sharing his hate videos online? His videos are freely available to all comers; the only restriction is that YouTube will not place advertisements on them for cash. YouTube, a private company, exercised editorial discretion in saying that advertisers’ products and services would not be made to pay to appear before such videos, mostly because few companies want to have their brands explicitly associated with intolerance. Refusing to financially support a YouTube video is not the same as government-mandated censorship. 
 
YouTube makes its monetization policy quite plain, and Marzulli agreed to it when he signed up for YouTube service. The policy states that, along with hateful, explicit, or demeaning content, content related to current events (such as political commentary) is not eligible to monetize: “Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.” Marzulli himself admits that his videos that are not monetized are filled with discussion of “radical Islamic terror.” And there you have it. He’s mad because of a policy he agreed to in the free market he claims to support. If you don’t like it, L. A., start your own competing video service rather than bitch about the policies of the one you are using for free. Isn’t that what the free market commands you to do? Sometimes I wonder if he confuses the Invisible Hand with the Holy Ghost.
 
At the end of the video, after disparaging transgendered people as tools of Satan and concluding that they are psychologically damaged, Marzulli returned to his most precious subject: “There’s no way they’re going to monetize this video. […] They’re going to demonetize it because I’m not ad-friendly. […] Where’s my free speech? Where’s my First Amendment?” He seems to forget that advertising dollars are a business transaction, not an inalienable right. No one has a right to ad dollars.
 
The truth might set you free, but not for free. “Free” is a word Marzulli hates. It’s all about those sweet dollar dollar bills, y’all. And yes, that is a decade-old reference. That makes it a few centuries more recent than Marzulli’s medieval misanthropy.