YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify all ban Alex Jones & Infowars

[mojo]

Censorship is happening, patriots will stand up against this....

bSBVTeYZHLk

rCNukdWyr_g

[Sophocles]

Live:

🕪INFOWARS BANNED BY SITES! LIVE STREAM🔊ALEX JONES, OWEN SHROYER, WAR ROOM, DAVID KNIGHT, REAL NEWS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=037BgulZ06M)

037BgulZ06M

(And just now the live feed was taken down due to violations...(18:51))

(At least to me it was. But now I can view it again; the full 1:13:13 version (19:34))

----------------------
----------------------

And here`s CNN:

YouTube, Facebook and Apple shut down Alex Jones channels (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoojVXE5Xao)

MoojVXE5Xao

[Cardillac]

are we surprised?- the steam roller of censorship continues on- who's next?

[norman]

Ah well, onwards we go.

Alex Jones is still on line at:

Real.video
https://www.real.video/channel/infowarsnews


Mixcloud
https://www.mixcloud.com/TheAlexJonesShow/



And, if you have a media player you can paste audio stream URLs into, this URL is the 24hr loop of the Alex Jones Show:

http://stream-aac.infowars.com/

or

http://stream-mp3.infowars.com/

or

http://www.infowars.com/infowars.asx


Also, there are 2 apps for smart phones. One has been around for years and works on old phones very well. It simply plays the radio show loop as soon as you boot it up.

There's a newer one that does a lot of fancy things I don't know about because I don't have a new enough device to run it.

[Soullight]

KqGDD0bTkXs

I don't know who this guy is but he seems to have a decent grasp of the situation.

[PurpleLama]

I believe we are seeing active election interference in the coming midterms.

[Mari]

are we surprised?- the steam roller of censorship continues on- who's next?

Keeping everything crossed here that they leave dear ol' Icke alone.

[Mari]

Ah well, onwards we go.

Alex Jones is still on line at:

Real.video
https://www.real.video/channel/infowarsnews


Mixcloud
https://www.mixcloud.com/TheAlexJonesShow/



And, if you have a media player you can paste audio stream URLs into, this URL is the 24hr loop of the Alex Jones Show:

http://stream-aac.infowars.com/

or

http://stream-mp3.infowars.com/

or

http://www.infowars.com/infowars.asx


Also, there are 2 apps for smart phones. One has been around for years and works on old phones very well. It simply plays the radio show loop as soon as you boot it up.

There's a newer one that does a lot of fancy things I don't know about because I don't have a new enough device to run it.

Thanks. Even though I find Alex irritating, its good to know you can't keep the old dog down!

[arwen]

Mike Adams statement on the tech censorship of Alex Jones:

https://www.real.video/5818721788001

[Mari]

Mike Adams statement on the tech censorship of Alex Jones:

https://www.real.video/5818721788001


Thank you for that - will watch this video fully at a later date. Mike Adams has been a target too, so lets hope his new venture endures....

[Sophocles]

I can`t find the article but I believe this is the video that Mike Adams is referring to (as if it is AJ in the video):

oJ55KLMUBRA

[justntime2learn]

YouTube and Facebook aren't the only ones with the power to ban.

We have the power!

I've already banned Facebook from my life.

Even though it's an incredibly stable platform, YouTube will be next as the disinformation rises above the truth. Actually, I rarely use YouTube other than to view videos posted on Avalon.

Cheers Avalonians

[Sophocles]

Statement from FB: (https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/08/enforcing-our-community-standards/)


So what happened with InfoWars? They were up on Friday and now they are down?

As a result of reports we received, last week, we removed four videos on four Facebook Pages for violating our hate speech and bullying policies. These pages were the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page. In addition, one of the admins of these Pages – Alex Jones – was placed in a 30-day block for his role in posting violating content to these Pages.

Since then, more content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.

All four Pages have been unpublished for repeated violations of Community Standards and accumulating too many strikes. While much of the discussion around Infowars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue that we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this.

[TomKat]

I haven't checked the timeline for sure, but I remember hearing that Zuckerberg said he would not ban hate speech on Facebook. Then the next day his stock was cut almost in half, the excuse being a poor earnings report. Now Zuckerberg's saying he will indeed ban hate speech (what they consider Jones to be). When you're that rich you're not hard to control.

[TargeT]

First they addict you to social media

https://i.imgur.com/tzIR4qz.jpg

Then they control you with it..... Keep justifying your use of these companies... I'm sure it's "nothing" right???

Your power is in BOYCOTT, QUIT using services that are morally diametrically opposed to your core beliefs.


Your attention (use, energy, what have you...) empowers them.. STOP IT!
qm4Pks_1_hI

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:

This is more than banning Alex Jones and any other celebrity! Facebook bans people all the time by the 1,000's or 10,000's or millions!
Anything they don't like is banned. Even if you are following their rules since it's their website.
The problem is as I have stated before is that if you cannot contact facebook why would you want to be on their website?

It's pretty much impossible to contact them and other large websites if you need clarity in "their rules" or if you get kicked off their website(s) for any reason they choose.

The best thing anyone can do is show that they hate thugs and quit facebook and anyother website that has taken a person's right away to speak truth even though they believe it isn't truth.

Free Speech has been taken over by political correctness! political correctness has polluted the very fabric of our identity as humans with FREE SPEECH and love for one another along with treating each other with respect.

political correctness has taken away our say and now it's taking away everthing else we hold dear including contact with the very people who appear to control the masses.

Shame on facebook and everyother platform people use to contact each other.

Ya'll know what to do and that's delete these morons who control what we do and who we talk to. Listen to and give us another slant on everything.

Push the delete button on organizations like facebook who are squeezing the truth out of everyones lives and taking your information and claiming it's theirs.
chancy

[ThePythonicCow]

Paul Joseph Watson also posted this article on Infowars about this banning: The Real Reason Apple, Facebook, Spotify & YouTube Banned Infowars - This is what election meddling looks like (https://www.infowars.com/the-real-reason-apple-facebook-spotify-youtube-banned-infowars/).

His article begins with this statement from Alex Jones:

Statement from Alex Jones: The EU is already fining Google and others if they don’t start censoring speech by calling it “hate speech” and/or “fake news.”

When our government doesn’t start fining them for violations of free speech, racketeering and trust/monopolistic behavior, that encourages other governments like China and the EU have influence over the free market of ideas.

But this situation also highlights the trust set up by mutli-national combines based in China and in Europe that’s stealing all of our rights and freedoms through a concerted effort.

Over two-and-a-half years ago, Matt Drudge came to our studio and warned of this attack on the First Amendment. That’s why they want alternative and independent media shut down.

They would’ve done all of this last year had Hillary gotten into the White House. Yet, due to Trump instead getting elected, this plan has been held off for about a year-and-a-half.

Now, it seems, they don’t fear Trump for whatever reason, and now they’re making their move.

But I don’t think President Trump has been compromised, but he’s compromising himself one way or another if his administration doesn’t make this the central issue.

Free speech is the central issue; this is the heart of the matter. This is the core. This is it.
Then Paul Joseph Watson's own words begin with:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other, illustrating how last night’s purge was a coordinated effort and has nothing to do with these platforms enforcing “hate speech” rules.

Here are the real reasons Infowars is being purged by Big Tech;

– Infowars is widely credited with having played a key role in electing Donald Trump. By banning Infowars, big tech is engaging in election meddling just three months before crucial mid-terms.

– With the Infowars ban, Apple, Facebook , Spotify & YouTube (Google) have all now ascribed themselves the power to remove people & outlets from their platforms based on their political opinions. This power will be abused time and time again to meddle in elections.

– The ban also sets the precedent that the mere charge alone of having committed “hate speech,” with no specific examples even provided, is enough to memory hole an individual or group’s digital presence.

– The ban is just part of a wider censorship purge that also use stealth censorship, shadow banning and algorithmic manipulation to hide and bury conservative content.

– Apple also chose to shut down Infowars after we repeatedly criticized them for working with and selling data to the Communist Chinese government. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Joseph Watson concludes with this commendation:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


It will only intensify unless lawmakers act now to introduce a Digital Bill of Rights and treat social media giants as telecommunications companies who are forbidden by law from discriminating against people and media outlets based on their political opinions.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is similar to the recommendation that Mike Adams make, as I will describe in my next post below.

[Innocent Warrior]

First they throttle Assange and WikiLeaks, now Alex Jones and InfoWars.

They can’t ban this: THE ALEX JONES SHOW (https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/)

You’re right, TargeT, **** just got real, time to adopt alternative platforms ASAP.

Edit: @Paul We posted at the same time, all good if you want to move this post to follow your second post.

[ThePythonicCow]

In this video, Mike Adams comments on the banning of Alex Jones: Mike Adams official statement on the #censorship of @RealAlexJones (http://12160.info/page/mike-adams-official-statement-on-the-censorship-of-realalexjones).

Mike recommends laws, or what he figures is more likely possible, regulations by the US government that ban such discrimination by media groups based on political beliefs, and Mike calls out for the US government to arrest the CEO's of Apple, Facebook, Spotify & YouTube on RICO (racketeering) charges.

That's not what I hope happens, as I will describe in my next post, of Brandon Smith's comments.

[ThePythonicCow]

A couple of days ago now, Rory Hall of the Daily Coin posted an interview he made of Brandon Smith. In my view, Brandon is one of the sharpest knives in the drawer at present.

The interview is in two parts, both available at: Brandon Smith: Censorship, Economic Collapse and Breaking Free (https://thedailycoin.org/2018/08/05/brandon-smith-censorship-economic-collapse-and-breaking-free/)

This interview was recorded about a week ago now, well before this latest banning of Alex Jones and Infowars from Apple, Facebook, Spotify and Youtube happened.

But Brandon is already well tuned into the danger of such bannings:

The danger is that conservatives will support government arrests, prosecutions, laws or regulations to stop media censorship of conservative views.

No, I say, with Brandon:

Do NOT give the government yet more power over public discourse.

It will end up being used against us, the people, with near certainty.
Some things that would help, "bigly" (so I'll grant, seem unlikely):

The government stop supporting, colluding with, funding, and creating "compliant" media, such as the half billion dollar CIA contract with Amazon, whose CEO Bezos owns the dominant Washington DC paper, the Washington Post, and the deep state support of Google, from its beginning.
Unravel the massive accumulation of legal power granted to corporations - they live forever, cannot be jailed, cannot be executed, and can donate unlimited amounts to political campaigns. Go back to limited partnerships, which would make the actual people behind them liable for criminal prosecution.
Build up more robust conservative alternatives to such social media, search and cloud sites as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify and Youtube.

In short, I ask myself, each time I see a proposal (such as those of Paul Joseph Watson and Mike Adams, in my previous two posts above) to "fix" internet censorship, I ask myself: Would I want that same "remedy" applied to Project Avalon?

[ThePythonicCow]

Such censorship, in my estimation, serves several purposes:

Censor opposition to the "leftist" "deep state".
Potentially provide distraction from news unfavorable to this deep state.
Divide us, the people, once again, this time along the lines of whether someone is outraged that Alex Jones was censored.
Motivate increased control of the media by the government, as I warn of in my above comments.
Gaining and maintaining control of the narrative.

That last item, gaining and maintaining control of the narrative, is essential to pulling off major psyops, such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction charges against Iraq that motivated the invasion and destruction of Iraq, the charges of bombing, killing and torturing innocent civilians against Mohamar Ghadaffi that motivated the invasion and destruction of Libya, the events of 9/11 that motivated a variety of wars and tyranny, and the false story and coverup that enable the assassination of US Presidents.

The alternative media, including Project Avalon and perhaps Q Anon, are essential to making sure that the deep state does not have sufficiently confident control over the narrative that it can continue to carry out such major psyops with impunity.

[Michelle Marie]

This is the Bill that supposedly gave them the right to censor:

HR 5181
The bill that opened the door for Twitter, FaceBook, Google, etc. to CENSOR & CONTROL.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5181/text

"Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016."

"Develop and disseminate fact-based narratives..."
They use the excuse of combatting foreign interference to eliminate our rights of freedom.

Yeah, no!

This deceptive rhetoric that gives power to (?) smacks of the abuse of the FISA deception.
(Same old patterns...again.)

It would be more effective to cancel their previous "fixes".

MM

[ThePythonicCow]

Erin Elizabeth, who is incidentally the long time partner of Dr. Joseph Mercola, has posted this comment on the banning of Inforwars: BREAKING: Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify ban Alex Jones and Infowars (https://www.healthnutnews.com/breaking-facebook-youtube-apple-and-spotify-ban-alex-jones-and-infowars/):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


BREAKING: Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify ban Alex Jones and Infowars

Posted by Erin Elizabeth | Aug 6, 2018

(Note from Erin: This is scary. Regardless of how you feel about Alex Jones this is breaking news happening. Social media giants Facebook and YouTube have put an end to Alex Jones right to free speech and removed all his content.)

Facebook and YouTube, as well as Apple (Sunday) and Spotify (Saturday), have all removed Alex Jones and Infowars pages and content, explaining that the channels repeatedly violated each site’s policies against hate speech and bullying.

In total, four of Alex’s Facebook pages were removed altogether: the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the Infowars Page, and the Infowars Nightly News Page and visiting any of these pages now shows the message: “Sorry, this content isn’t available right now.”

For their part, Apple removed five of Infowars’ six podcasts from the iTunes and Podcasts app saying “Apple does not tolerate hate speech.”

And YouTube said the pages violated their policies against child endangerment and hate speech, “When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts.” 2 Just this weekend, Jones said that he fully expected the platform would delete his page.

Agree with him or hate him, do you believe this is an assault on free speech?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are more details at the above link to Erin Elizabeth's website.

[Michelle Marie]

Over on 8chan I saw this in red:

Senate Democrats are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet.
https://www.axios.com/mark-warner-google-facebook-regulation-policy-paper-023d4a52-2b25-4e44-a87c-945e73c637fa.html

The link includes a white paper by Sen. Mark Warner.
Oh, that Russian disinformation!
We better take control.
One piece is to determine origin of posts and/or accounts. They don't like anonymity or VPNs.

MM

[ThePythonicCow]

Over on 8chan I saw this in red:

Senate Democrats are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet.
https://www.axios.com/mark-warner-google-facebook-regulation-policy-paper-023d4a52-2b25-4e44-a87c-945e73c637fa.html

The link includes a white paper by Sen. Mark Warner.
Oh, that Russian disinformation!
We better take control.
One piece is to determine origin of posts and/or accounts. They don't like anonymity or VPNs.

MM
You beat me to it ... I just came back to this thread to post the same news.

I first saw it in one of Gary Franchi's Next News Network Youtube videos: FACEBOOK and Google Are About to Get A RUDE AWAKENING After The Senate Just Put Its Foot Down (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtX8_cwXBm8)

Gary got his source from Senate Proposal Calls for Regulating Big Tech - White paper suggests limiting anonymity, making sites liable for content (FreeBeacon.com) (https://freebeacon.com/issues/senate-proposal-calls-regulating-big-tech/).

From this FreeBeacon article:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


All of these data protections might be rolled into a single, more radical proposal—creating an American version of Europe's General Data Protection Regulation. The GDPR, implemented across the European Union, guarantees individuals certain rights to their data, including portability and access, and a "right to be forgotten." It also allows for harsh penalties against rule breakers—Google and Facebook have already surpassed $9 billion in fines.

Data privacy is of course not the only policy focus. The paper calls for substantive rules like disclosures of the sources of online political ads, and the banning of dark patterns (interface designs meant to trick users into selecting a desired outcome). It also endorses a "public initiative for media literacy" to educate Americans on how to spot misinformation.

All of the proposals are likely to prove controversial, but some especially so. Mandatory labeling of bots, labeling of the geographic origin of posts, and the identification and removal of "inauthentic" accounts are all likely to attract the condemnation of privacy advocates who argue that the subjects of autocratic regimes, for example, rely on the internet’s anonymity for their personal safety.

Also likely to attract concern among the internet privacy community is the idea of making platforms legally liable for failing to take down defamatory content. Such an idea—which would protect users from faked images and videos of themselves—would run afoul of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which makes platforms not liable for the content posted on them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Such legislation could make sites such as Project Avalon very difficult to continue; the cost of regulatory compliance could greatly exceed our "tech budget", and the cost of non-compliance could greatly exceed our tolerance for imprisonment and financial penalties.

I shudder when I see the acronym "GDPR", and had been hoping that that acronym would not come to the States.

Clearly, with the ban of Alex Jones, the stage is being set to bring GDPR to the States, even with the backing of many conservatives.

Here is Democrat Senator Mark Warner's white paper to which the above news reports refer: Potential Policy Proposals for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms (pdf) (https://graphics.axios.com/pdf/PlatformPolicyPaper.pdf).

===

Thus we see what has been one of the motivations for the "Russians interfered with the US elections" narrative. The swamp critters in Washington want to "fix" this by regulating social media.

This. Can. Not. Stand.

[Valle]

This is very very dangerous..
To stop critical opinions is what totalitarian-powers always try to do?
To me blocking digital information as youtube channels and shadowbanning it is exactly the same thing as burning books in the past.. :-(


http://thepythoniccow.us/1184px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-14597,_Berlin,_Opernplatz,_Bücherverbrennung.jpg

[ThePythonicCow]

The anti-Russian narrative is being pushed hard in the US, as I describe on the Qanon thread, post #6092 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a---Very-Bad-Day---Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters--Nov-2017-and-beyond-&p=1240283&viewfull=1#post1240283). One "benefit" (for the deep state) of pushing the narrative that the Russians are using social media to interfere in US elections is to justify GDPR style regulations in the US, such as I consider in my previous Post #10 25 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103768-Apple-Facebook-Spotify-and-Youtube-all-banned-InfoWars-with-in-12-hours....-obvious-colusion&p=1240278&viewfull=1#post1240278), just above.

[ThePythonicCow]

This is very very dangerous..
To stop critical opinions is what totalitarian-powers always try to do?
To me blocking digital information as youtube channels and shadowbanning it is exactly the same thing as burning books in the past.. :-(
Yes - it is doubly dangerous.

"Book burning" by tyrannical governments is dangerous.

But extensive regulation of our communication to "prevent" any such abuse is just as dangerous.

[ThePythonicCow]

The anti-Russian narrative is being pushed hard in the US, as I describe on the Qanon thread, post #6092 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a---Very-Bad-Day---Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters--Nov-2017-and-beyond-&p=1240283&viewfull=1#post1240283). One "benefit" (for the deep state) of pushing the narrative that the Russians are using social media to interfere in US elections is to justify GDPR style regulations in the US, such as I consider in my previous Post #10 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103768-Apple-Facebook-Spotify-and-Youtube-all-banned-InfoWars-with-in-12-hours....-obvious-colusion&p=1240278&viewfull=1#post1240278), just above.
Martin Armstrong, who I mention in that Qanon post #6092 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a---Very-Bad-Day---Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters--Nov-2017-and-beyond-&p=1240283&viewfull=1#post1240283) as noticing that the anti-Russian narrative is being used to bolster the case for bringing GDPR style regulations to the States, also makes the observation, in this post (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/infowars-banned-for-hate-speech/), that it might have been the existing European GDPR regulations that caused Apple, Facebook, Spotify and Youtube to ban Alex Jones work. Major social media sites such as these have serious exposure to European GDPR regulations, and so can be expected to start removing material that might not pass Euro GDPR muster.

===

P.S. -- Martin Armstrong has a deep history with the anti-Russian narrative, going back to the 1990's, as he explains in this post (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/magnitsky-affair-the-murder-of-edmond-safra-in-monaco/). The intrigue that led to Yeltsin turning to Putin in 1999, and Martin's deep entanglement in it, is stunning. When Martin Armstrong talks about the anti-Russian narrative, people listen. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/when-ef-hutton-talks-people-listen.html)

P.P.S. -- The trio who pushed the Magnitsky act through the US Congress, Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin, are up to more no good. As described in this Russia Insider article The 'Magnitsky Trio' Pushes for War With Russia With New Sanctions (https://russia-insider.com/en/magnitsky-trio-pushes-war-russia-new-sanctions/ri24398), they are now pushing for insanely more Draconian sanctions against Russia.

[ThePythonicCow]

Senate Democrats are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet.
https://www.axios.com/mark-warner-google-facebook-regulation-policy-paper-023d4a52-2b25-4e44-a87c-945e73c637fa.html

The link includes a white paper by Sen. Mark Warner.


Reason.com posted an article about Senator Warner's plan a week ago: Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked).

[Bubu]

alarm bells ringing. Ban your own kind so it appears like belonging to the other side.

[mountain_jim]

The supposed white-hats behind Q better hurry up and get the facts out in order to further prove the lie in the Russian-effect-on-elections narrative and to help further purge these deep-state minions before our constitutional freedoms of thought and expression on the internet are completely gone.

My concern is the propaganda-created mind-controlled reality tunnel saturation in the US population is now so deeply ingrained in folks minds that most of the US citizenry will be totally ok with this.

[ExomatrixTV]

iyma-3g1CGo

¤=[Post Update]=¤

YFtn4chS6C4


#Snowflakes (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/snowflakes?hc_location=ufi) that needs "protection" against alleged "hate speech" is all part of a Mass Censorship Agenda!

#BringBackAlexJones (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/bringbackalexjones?hc_location=ufi)


h0yhtgdZYDI


KqGDD0bTkXs


BZR-HjJl4DE


iVD-mMA_UVY

[norman]

I don't think we should get paranoid about government intervention to level the playing field.

It just has to be neutral and completely objective.

https://steemitimages.com/DQmbVmUwHH1o7zSCZFXNhJYecZLo85nvjH5gmsinVDv959z/level-playing-field.jpeg



can we really call these Tech Giants "Private Corporations", when they were incubated using tax dollars from DARPA and In-Q-Tel and have continuously received cash injections from other spook entities like GeoINT and they feed all of their data into NSA's servers in Bluffdale, Utah? - Dave Cullen, Irish Youtuber

[ExomatrixTV]

You Too, Like Me, Can Sign This Petition:

https://www.change.org/p/google-bring-back-infowars



:wizard:

[Tintin]

Here's Jon Rappoport's blog entry from today tackling this outrage.


The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part One
by Jon Rappoport

Rivers of elite revenge are flowing.

THEY are out to get him and drive him into oblivion.

He, and his huge website, infowars, stand as a threat to the empire they are building, where free speech is a thing of the past and only correct speech that supports THEIR objectives is permitted.

Monday, the coordinated war against Alex Jones escalated along several fronts, within a space of about 12 hours, according to infowars reporter Paul Watson:

CNBC:

“Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest clamped down on content by Alex Jones Monday.”

“Apple confirmed on Monday that it had removed five out of six podcasts, which includes Jones' infamous ‘The Alex Jones Show’ as well as a number of other InfoWars audio streams.”

“Facebook and Google made similar decisions later on Monday. Facebook removed four pages controlled by him, while Google removed the official "Alex Jones Channel" on its platform. The YouTube channel for InfoWars, the media company owned by Alex Jones, still remains live. Pinterest also removed the InfoWars board.”

I just saw a report that YouTube has taken down Jones’ channel altogether. That would mean tens of thousands of videos of his past shows are gone from that platform. Here are links you would go to, to listen to his show now:

http://streams.infowars.com/realnews
http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones
http://streams.infowars.com/warroom

There are several reasons for this war against Jones and infowars. One is: he rallied untold numbers of “deplorables” and helped elect Donald Trump.

Another is: over and over, he has described the differences between nationalism and globalism---and he favors nationalism, in particular for America.

The tech giants/social media who are aligned against him ARE CORPORATIONS. Therefore, they can ban Jones and not face the raft of rules they would have to deal with if they were public utilities.

However, there is no doubt these corporations are colluding in restraint of trade, to invoke an old phrase pertaining to trusts and monopolies. They are waging a COORDINATED COLLABORATIVE war against Jones.

In fact, several years ago, major news giants approached social media giants and pleaded for help. The news businesses were fading further into the background. They needed Facebook, for example, to feature their coverage of the news.

The dark side of this collusion was and is: put big alt.-news operations out of business. Delist them. De-platform them. Delete them.

And so it has been happening, and it is escalating now.

Here is where the free-speech angle enters the scene: suppose a member of a favored minority (fill in that blank yourself) launched a podcast mercilessly attacking “traditional American values” and those Americans who support those values.

Would Facebook or You Tube lift a finger to stop them? No? Then why attack Alex Jones?

The answer is simple.

This issue is not about Jones engaging in “hate speech” or “violating community standards.”

It’s about whose speech and ideas are favored and whose are opposed.

The solution and the response to the war on Jones (or any number of other so-called conservatives) is: GO DIRECTLY TO THEIR SITES AND BLOGS. DON’T USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO GET THERE.

Go direct.

More coming in Part 2…

[mgray]

My thoughts (https://grayseconomy.com/2018/08/07/some-conspiracy-theories-are-allowed-to-continue-for-the-left/) on censorship and how some conspiracy theories are allowed to prosper.

[ExomatrixTV]

#BringBackAlexJones ...
O8BRU4HTzhU

[PurpleLama]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-07/crackdown-continues-twitter-suspends-libertarian-accounts-including-ron-paul

Did we really believe they would stop at AJ? The crackdown will continue until everyone feels safe on the internet!

[apokalypse]

the attack from Tech Gaint is on...

One day after what appeared to be a coordinated attack by media giants Facebook, Apple, Spotify and Google on Alex Jones, whose various social media accounts were banned or suspended in a matter of hours, the crackdown against alternative media figures continued as several Libertarian figures, including the Ron Paul Institute director, found their Twitter accounts suspended.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-07/crackdown-continues-twitter-suspends-libertarian-accounts-including-ron-paul

Facebook has banned Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng’s campaign video ad about communist crimes that led her family to flee Cambodia for the U.S., claiming the platform doesn’t allow “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational” content.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/06/facebook-blocks-congressional-candidate-elizabeth-hengs-video-ad-about-communist-crimes/

[PurpleLama]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-07/crackdown-continues-twitter-suspends-libertarian-accounts-including-ron-paul

The crackdown will continue until everyone feels safe on the internet! Anything I disagree with is hate speech!

P.S. Mojo also has a thread covering this topic. I personally feel strongly enough about this subject to bring myself out of radio silence. I have a very conservative cousin who is a paralegal in a major law firm in my state, who is drafting letters to be sent to congress and the fcc, which I will share when they come my way.

[Matt P]

I say Giddyup! Get on with it. These deep state corporations don’t realize that the tighter they turn the screws the more people wake up. I’m tired of this slow burn. Let’s go! Let’s wake ‘em up!

We’ve known this was coming. Heck, Obama made it legal for the American government to use propaganda (lies) against it’s own people. Alex calls his site InfoWARS. Make no mistake, this IS war. It’s the awakened against the sleepwalkers and deep state and nothing short of the future on this planet is at stake! The sooner we accept that, mobilize and take appropriate actions the better.

Matt

[Bill Ryan]

Paul, Debra and I had an interesting conversation about this on the mods Skype chat yesterday. We felt it might be shared.

~~~

Paul: Apple, Facebook, Spotify & YouTube Banned Infowars (Alex Jones): https://infowars.com/the-real-reason-apple-facebook-spotify-youtube-banned-infowars

Debra: Good article Paul .. a very plain statement of affairs

Paul: Beware the proposed remedy, however. This article ends by saying: "It will only intensify unless lawmakers act now to introduce a Digital Bill of Rights and treat social media giants as telecommunications companies who are forbidden by law from discriminating against people and media outlets based on their political opinions."
Thus the "fix" for some outrageous corporate activity is greater control by the government over what we say and do.
For example, I have probably expressed doubt in some article, sometime in the last 7 years I've been here, over the official version of the Holocaust. Should that be illegal, as it is already in Germany, under such laws?
Or I find myself pleased when Q observes that "we have it all", referring to the NSA's surveillance of the CIA, Clintons, et al. Should I really be cheering on the "total surveillance" of the US government ?
Thus they divide us. Thus they create problems for which the solution is more power for them.

Debra: Got it. Thank you. I overlook the MO of Infowars to whip up and help divide .. thus working to lay the groundwork for the next iteration of control.
Whether they are doing this consciously or not. That’s still not utterly clear to me.

Bill: Well, they're trying to counter tyranny... if Infowars is dividing people by disagreeing with the mainstream narrative, then so are we.

Debra: Yes .. we are one level .. yet it’s also being co-opted on another. A grey zone for sure but would assume these other parties also play in the space, jockeying for control or auditing for places to swoop on and manipulate

Bill: Here
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103732-Fiona-Barnett-from-the-land-down-under-paradise-yep-pedophile-paradise.&p=1239639&viewfull=1#post1239639
You wrote:
"Bump and bump until something is DONE"
Are you 'whipping up and helping divide'? I'd say you're promoting concern and activism.
:heart:

Debra: All speculation on my part drawn from the tides of commentary out there, including from the brains trust here on the mod chat and PA in general
Yes .. I am. If there’s one space I would jump into - it’s this one.

Bill: Yes.
We have to CARE. Alex Jones does. Too many people don't.

Debra: It’s a dark space and I mostly stay out of it - but if it taps me on the shoulder it is the moral thing to do

Bill: Doing and saying nothing, in case it upsets someone's applecart, is exactly the soft road to a new fascism.

Debra: Yes - I agree. I once suffered a lot for stepping in so I don’t know how Alex Jones does it...

Bill: Well, he has the thick skin of a stegosaurus. So does David Icke, and a few others.
But we HAVE to say divisive things. There's no other way.
We do that on the forum every day... but we always try to say civil. That matters.

Paul: Beware the remedy. Brandon Smith, in this interview with Rory Hall of the Daily Coin, says it as well as anyone I know: https://thedailycoin.org/2018/08/05/brandon-smith-censorship-economic-collapse-and-breaking-free
Rory is a bit slow witted for my tastes ... but Brandon continues to delight me.

Bill: @Paul:Yes... noted. But we still have to speak out. On the forum, we're educators. I see that as our prime function. Not polemicists. There's a difference. But educators also have to have principles.

Paul: Speak - yes. Care - yes. But first understand enough so that the remedy is not worse than the ailment.

Bill: It's a slippery slope if we all stay quiet because we're afraid of a possible 'remedy'... like afraid of being punished for speaking out. We have to be smart, and know what to say and what not to say (and how!) but not be silent.

Paul: No one here is suggesting we say quiet, Bill, or am I missing something?

Bill: Every YouTube channel holder will be thinking of this right now. It's all a giant case study.
Totalitarian tactics: (Stalin was good at this)
Pick on the leader of a group (as it were), and execute them publicly. Then you never have to deal with the thousands of others. They all become very afraid.
So this is what they've done with Alex. It's not an attack on him and Infowars, it's to silence everyone.
My strategic question is what False Flag may be coming soon.
...One maybe so major that they HAVE to get Infowars off the air first.

Paul: Contrary to my agreement with Brandon Smith, I disagree with the direction that Mike Adams is taking on this: http://12160.info/page/mike-adams-official-statement-on-the-censorship-of-realalexjones. Mike figures the first step should be for the US government to arrest the CEO's of Apple, Facebook, Spotify & YouTube on RICO (racketeering) charges

Bill: Yes, Mike Adams isn't a very good political strategist.
He was just ranting unrealistically. He said nothing at all useful.

Paul: When one gets in a tight spot, whether in the mountains as I'm sure you've done, Bill, or riding a bicycle too fast in dangerous traffic, as I did in my youth, it should first concentrate the mind, not push the emotions over the top.

Bill: Yes, agreed.
Paul wrote:
> No one here is suggesting we say quiet, Bill, or am I missing something?
Well, Debra referred to
> the MO of Infowars to whip up and help divide .. thus working to lay the groundwork for the next iteration of control.
... implying that Infowars maybe shouldn't be so strident (and maybe should be silent!) about a bunch of things. I'm glad Alex Jones yells his truth. (I do wish he were more like Richard Dolan — both historians concerned for the future! — but they have rather different DNA.)
I'm worried, too, about the possible day — maybe in a decade or so — when Avalon will no longer be legally permitted to promulgate 'fake news'. I have no solution... it's all totally uncomfortable, the more one thinks about it. We can probably all 100% agree on that.
We're all at the theoretical mercy of the large corporations and interests that have almost total control over how we communicate. That's really really dangerous.

Paul: So ... Mike Adams ... if Bill Ryan bans flat earthers from ProjectAvalon.net, then should the United States send an extradition request to Ecuador (perhaps Bill could be exchanged for Julian Assange in a prisoner swap) ?

Bill: I referred to Rich Dolan above... he thinks now that the variant of UFO disclosure that may eventually happen is what he calls "Fascist Disclosure'.... when they have social media wrapped up so tight (and everything else with it) that they can announce a bunch of grossly distorted untruths, and know they'll get away with it, because they'll be no organized pushback or well-publicized questions.
When they can completely control the narrative (better than they did with 9/11 !! ), then they'll not be afraid of the consequences of whatever they announce.

Paul: Lack of control over the narrative - our best defense against a 9/11 or Presidential assassination

Bill: On 8/6/18, at 10:14 PM, Paul wrote:
> if Bill Ryan bans flat earthers from ProjectAvalon.net...
Prevention is better than cure! (Never let that immigration happen on the forum)

Paul: :thumbsup:

Bill: On 8/6/18, at 10:16 PM, Paul wrote:
> Lack of control over the narrative - our best defense against a 9/11 or Presidential assassination
Yes, 100% agreed
(btw, this is another mods chat that could maybe be shared with the forum)

Bill:
I'll be interested to see what (if anything) Q says about this. He came out in a diatribe against Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi a few months ago.... considering today's events, that's more evidence to me that Q is a clever establishment device.

Paul: It's not clear to me, at least not without going back to the record, which of Jones/Corsi, or of Q, started the discord between them.

Bill: Q started it.
Before that, Alex had been very supportive of Q, and so (absolutely!) had Corsi.

Paul: My fading recollections differ, and are more Q friendly (neither of these leanings of mine surprises me <grin>)

Bill: Alex and Corsi concluded from that that Q was an intel op.

Paul: I concluded, IIRC, that Alex and Corsi were an intel op ... for the CIA side, and that Q is an intel op, for the Trump/NSA side

Bill: My prediction: Q will say absolutely nothing at all. That would show me that he wanted this censorship to happen, and/or was on the 'side' of the censors.

Bill: ^^ Well... you're flat wrong. :bigsmile:

Paul: :bigsmile:

Bill: Hey... we're being divided :heart:
Don't let THAT happen!!

Paul: If Q says nothing, it would show me that he doesn't want to add energy to this pro vs anti Alex intel op, intended to drive regulations that would limit all the alt-media.
:bearhug:

Bill: :bearhug:

And :heart: —> Debra

Paul: The older who have climbed both sides of several mountains look on mountains differently than the younger who are looking for their first mountain side through the fog

Debra: No, not implying at all we should be silent Bill - nor Alex Jones. There is though a level that is hovering around all levels, co-opting and exacerbating and using it all for their purposes. Can’t ignore that.
Good night Bill :heart:

[mojo]

Far left democrat Senator Chris Murphy is calling for more censorship!!! Since when did the democrats ever wish this?????

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/07/sen-chris-murphy-calls-for-more-silicon-valley-censorship-survival-our-democracy-depends-on-it.html


Sen. Chris Murphy thinks tech giants banning Alex Jones’ Infowars is a good start, but says the “survival of our democracy” depends on sites like Facebook and YouTube removing additional content.

“Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it,” Murphy, D-Conn., tweeted on Monday.

[turiya]

And, this from the other side...









https://www.curezone.org/upload/_T_Forums/Turiya_Files_/AVALON/TRUMP/GENRL_TWEETS/THOMAS_PAINE_TRUE_PUNDIT.png (https://twitter.com/Thomas1774Paine/status/1026853031206440960)

O’Keefe Calls on Whistleblowers to “Expose the Entire Rotten Tech Machine”

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/api/image/resize/400x297/aHR0cDovL2NkbjIuYnRyc3RhdGljLmNvbS9waWNzL3Nob3dwaWNzL2xhcmdlLzU1MjE5N19Ld0NCa0dxWS5qcGc/552197_KwCBkGqY.jpg?mode=Fill (https://truepundit.com/okeefe-calls-on-whistleblowers-to-expose-the-entire-rotten-tech-machine/)
O’Keefe Calls on Whistleblowers to “Expose the Entire Rotten Tech Machine”
President of Project Veritas, James O’Keefe vowed to “expose the entire rotten tech machine” after Facebook, YouTube, Google and Apple banned Infowars in a coordinated attack on Monday.
truepundit.com (https://truepundit.com/okeefe-calls-on-whistleblowers-to-expose-the-entire-rotten-tech-machine/)

8:30 AM - 7 Aug 2018

[Hervé]

I merged the following thread: Apple, Facebook, Spotify and Youtube all banned InfoWars with in 12 hours.... obvious collusion? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103768-Apple-Facebook-Spotify-and-Youtube-all-banned-InfoWars-with-in-12-hours....-obvious-collusion)



with this pre-existing and current one: Youtube & Facebook ban Alex Jones & Infowars (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-Youtube-Facebook-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars)

[norman]

Paul, Debra and I had an interesting conversation about this on the mods Skype chat yesterday. We felt it might be shared.

~~~



It's a meme war, and we're not fighting the wrong memes with the right memes.


There is some moral high and defendable ground to be occupied that even rabid socialist/fascist programmed rentamobs can only bounce off in the eyes of the general and reasonable masses who will be going to vote in November.


The first distinction that has to be made is the difference between free market enterprise ( and the rights of corporations to ban whoever they like etc ) and the real state of affairs which is a soviet corporate state (global).


Another, is to drill into how tax exemption really works at corporate level. Currently, one company can gobble up another, wiping out it's anual ( or longer ) taxable profits. The whole system is completely rigged to make buying out the planet as simple as possible, with little or no dividend trickling down to empower the little people. They are still hanging on to debt based handouts that corrupt their political instincts at street level.

Find me a Rep' or neutral voter who would support that if they really understood it.


It's a meme war much more than it's an information war. Information is a peacetime thing, in comparison to the pressing needs right now.

[mojo]

Full attack mode has many looks...


Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: d51ef9 No.2430708 📁
Aug 3 2018 10:09:53 (EST)
Full attack mode.
Washington Post leading?

[Foxie Loxie]

Has Tracy Beanz been taken down as well! One she posted at 10:02 comes up black. :(

[ExomatrixTV]

iVD-mMA_UVY

[ExomatrixTV]

#BringBackAlexJones ... http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones

[Cardillac]

so many on this topic have contributed so much vital information/many informative video links- and I greatly appreciate and thank all for that-

and special thanks to @Bill who has piece-mealed this even more;

obviously Alex Jones is not the 1st one to be censored but he's the loudest-mouthed alternative media source out there; I personally don't like Jones' sensationalist delivery (and his grated voice is contrived) and have at times to a certain extent disagreed with some of his opinions but I find it horrific that someone, somewhere is trying to shut his mouth-

so if the biggest mouth is now being censored how long will it take for smaller mouths (like us) to be censored (we don't have the financial backing that Jones has- look at his broadcasting studio- who bank-rolled this?- but that's another topic)?

we're pitance compared to Alex Jones-

please stay well all-

Larry

[turiya]

From Post #4613 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90590-Transition-into-Trump&p=1240198&viewfull=1#post1240198):

Dave over at X22Report has pointed out something interesting that is Q related... as follows - click on the image it will start at the point that is being referenced to the 'Something big is about to happen'.... transcribed below.


http://img.youtube.com/vi/G7Vv4tRemqk/0.jpg (https://youtu.be/G7Vv4tRemqk?t=12m20s)
VIDEO


New Q post 1821... contains a couple pdf files...

http://www.curezone.org/upload/_T_Forums/Turiya_Files_/AVALON/TRUMP/GENRL_TWEETS/Q_ANON/1821.png






PDF #1: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_memo_key_points.pdf

PDF #2: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fisa_title_i_summary.pdf
X22Report TRANSCRIPT @ 16m59s (https://youtu.be/G7Vv4tRemqk?t=16m59s):



"So, Q is out there saying, 'This information everyone needs to know to understand what is going to happen & what is going to drop.

So we can see that big things are coming. And, we're going to see the Deep State scramble. We're going to see the corporate media scramble. And I believe this is why they decided to take down certain channels on Youtube, and I think its Alex Jones, and I think Sean (SGT Report) had his channel drop but it was brought back up, and many others, where they're taking down the very, very large ones to try to stop what is about to happen, because they know they have alot of listeners & they're trying to stop all the reporting of all this & spreading the word out there.

But I don't think this is going to work, because as we can see - the word is getting out. So that means, they're going to try to take this to the next level.

What is the next level? The next level may be some type of event. Or, some type of story that they make up to keep in the news cycle. It could be anything.

Whatever they're going to do, they're going to try to clog the news cycle with something completely different. And, of course, its going to be something negative to Trump, where its going to be some type of collusion-Russian, or something-other-story that they're going to make up, to try to convince everyone that Mueller has.... or maybe even Mueller might all of a sudden push something out there to get it out in the news cycle... Push something out there to show that they're very close in finding Russian collusion.

Who knows? And, they're trying to censor all those that might report on this.

[Bill Ryan]

Dave over at X22Report has pointed out something interesting that is Q related... as follows - click on the image it will start at the point (https://youtu.be/G7Vv4tRemqk?t=12m20s) that is being referenced to the 'Something big is about to happen'.... transcribed below.

Yes. This fits with what I suggested a few hours ago:



It's not an attack on him and Infowars, it's to silence everyone.
My strategic question is what False Flag may be coming soon.
...One maybe so major that they HAVE to get Infowars off the air first.

Of course, it might not be a violent False Flag event. It might be a major item introduced in the news cycle that has to be tightly-controlled, so they need to pre-emptively silence dissent and questions about it by silencing the major channels that would challenge what's about to happen.

[arwen]

Alex Jones Statement On Alex Jones YouTube Channel Shut Down - Infowars Youtube Channel Shut Down.

(on YouTube for now...good idea for those who feel so inclined to make and keep a copy)


h0yhtgdZYDI

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

They must be in full-on panic mode to dare open this can of worms. This is Orwellian truth-editing personified. If the opinions of Alex Jones are nonsense, what need to censor him? If his claims are baseless, than that should be self-evident.

In the authoritarian model, the ban-hammer only falls when their LIES are threatened. One can only hope the normies wake the hell up and realise that for themselves.

I'm not a huge fan of Alex Jones truth be told, but this is bulls**t, especially as they claim its on the grounds of "conspiracy theories" and "hate speech". What this really is, is a strategic strike by proxy, from deep state puppetmasters through the tech companies they control. It's a move to break the dangerous alt-media narrative, that seems clear. Well, those puppet strings need to be cut now, and quickly. Goog, fb, twatter etc,. they've gone too far now, and in my opinion it's time to send in the jackboot.

A good example of their twisted standards.

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/2c35fce0bff84103eeb7b34c38332e30263de965680ba5e9f750bedf16fd4317.png

[norman]

Hate speech is the vortex they want us all to get sucked into. It's their golden ticket all the way through November.



We HAVE TO change the narrative.

[Valerie Villars]

I just wrote the President about it. I don't tweet. Has he said anything about this situation?

[arwen]

Alex and Mike Adams discuss the issue on Bitshute:

"The “great patriot purge” of 2018 continues as even more platforms move to ban Alex Jones from having access to social media. This authoritarian censorship mirrors communist China."

Big Tech Champions Communist China Style Censorship (https://www.bitchute.com/video/JYBiSadvIFNF/)

[happyuk]

YouTube and Facebook aren't the only ones with the power to ban.

We have the power!

I've already banned Facebook from my life.

Even though it's an incredibly stable platform, YouTube will be next as the disinformation rises above the truth. Actually, I rarely use YouTube other than to view videos posted on Avalon.

Cheers Avalonians

Still not touching Facebook with a proverbial bargepole - and for reasons that have little to do with the storm in a teacup that was Cambridge Analytica.

Anything coming from Facebook I dismiss immediately or at least fact check. It is not a source of information.

Sadly your average Facebook user will believe everything that is fed to them.

And that fits the agendas of those who hold power and want easily fooled, functional ignoramuses to maintain the status quo that they think benefits them the most.

They're likely even wrong about that - what good are people who can't reason or produce much value?

If you spend any amount of time on Facebook, you will see that much of the bilge you see in the form of forwarded articles, that when you dig further, you notice that the person who forwarded it to you didn't get it from the original publishing account, but from someone they knew. Like-minded idiots then spam the hundred or so people who know them (the average size of a Facebook "friends" list is 100 - Google "Dunbar's Number" for an explanation of why this is so). Within that hundred, there'll be at least one more who'll inflict the same post on his or her friend-list by commenting on it, liking it, re-posting it etc. And it goes on, until millions have least seen the message.

It gets worse: Facebook-owned WhatsApp doesn't even label forwards as "Forwarded by", a practice that has caused a spate of murders in India, where WhatsApp is used as a de-facto social media platform. A series of urban myths warning about child-abductors, when forwarded around rural villages, ended up being interpreted as "I saw two strangers here this morning in a green car, who were trying to steal young boys" rather than the correct "I was sent this story about two strangers somewhere ..."

Facebook is not free, it's costing society dearly.

[Michelle Marie]

My thoughts (https://grayseconomy.com/2018/08/07/some-conspiracy-theories-are-allowed-to-continue-for-the-left/) on censorship and how some conspiracy theories are allowed to prosper.

That's great! I love it. :heart:

MM

[arwen]

I just wrote the President about it. I don't tweet. Has he said anything about this situation?

Not yet, and Alex Jones and Mike Adams both stated here (shttps://www.bitchute.com/video/dnlCLVEwyxoX/) that Trump needs to act now, given the impact on the upcoming elections. They also echo Bill's take earlier on the thread here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-Youtube-Facebook-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1240390&viewfull=1#post1240390) that Something Big is coming. (My words - Something Wicked This Way Comes...)

[Hervé]

Dave over at X22Report has pointed out something interesting that is Q related... as follows - click on the image it will start at the point (https://youtu.be/G7Vv4tRemqk?t=12m20s) that is being referenced to the 'Something big is about to happen'.... transcribed below.

Yes. This fits with what I suggested a few hours ago:



It's not an attack on him and Infowars, it's to silence everyone.
My strategic question is what False Flag may be coming soon.
...One maybe so major that they HAVE to get Infowars off the air first.

Of course, it might not be a violent False Flag event. It might be a major item introduced in the news cycle that has to be tightly-controlled, so they need to pre-emptively silence dissent and questions about it by silencing the major channels that would challenge what's about to happen.
Me thinks that getting Alex's loud voice off the air is a big enough of a falseflag/fakenews end result to fulfill the "something big about to happen" all by itself... because, then, indeed, the MSM has no counter voice loud enough to thwart their floods of fake news onto the social media... job done!


38677
Yeeee Haaaah! La voie est libre!

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Bill:
I'll be interested to see what (if anything) Q says about this. He came out in a diatribe against Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi a few months ago.... considering today's events, that's more evidence to me that Q is a clever establishment device.

Paul: It's not clear to me, at least not without going back to the record, which of Jones/Corsi, or of Q, started the discord between them.

Bill: Q started it.
Before that, Alex had been very supportive of Q, and so (absolutely!) had Corsi.

Paul: My fading recollections differ, and are more Q friendly (neither of these leanings of mine surprises me <grin>)

Bill: Alex and Corsi concluded from that that Q was an intel op.

Paul: I concluded, IIRC, that Alex and Corsi were an intel op ... for the CIA side, and that Q is an intel op, for the Trump/NSA side

Bill: My prediction: Q will say absolutely nothing at all. That would show me that he wanted this censorship to happen, and/or was on the 'side' of the censors.

I don't know if Q will say anything specifically about Alex Jones or not (the recent drops are talking about social media censorship in general as an attempt to control the mid-terms), but either way, if they didn't want Alex Jones banned, then it certainly plays into the overall goal of generating outrage and bringing things to a head.

This one seems to belong in the "don't interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes" category. The tech giants have stuck their necks way out now, and are openly cozying up to China at the same time. Some are too far gone with the brainwashing, but many others, even those with a distaste for Jones, know that this does not bode well for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. These are communist policies of censorship, and they are becoming clearer and more undeniable every day.

For what it's worth, Q never advocated greater government regulation of press, but an "Internet Bill of Rights" instead, while Trump has been talking about strengthening libel laws and removing the press's ability to completely fabricate stories without legal consequences.

No one can pass a statutory law restricting the freedom of the press. A court could easily strike it down as unconstitutional. They'd have to amend the Constitution itself, and that's not going to happen.

[norman]

Propaganda is 'legal' in the US.


I remember something either being passed or signed into being by the president. It was GW Bush, I think.


Whatever it was, Trump needs to dig it out and scrap it.


I don't know enough about war powers. Can a president remove special measures created by a previous president during a war, even if that war has not ended ?

[Ernie Nemeth]

This is getting a little too Orwellian for me.

I used to be proudly Liberal, broadly Liberal even. Now I find myself unable to side with the left in their demonic and mindless pursuit of the least common denominator in all things. They have sullied the values of loyal, stock Liberals and they will pay for it. Even Quebec looks conservative when compared to these so-called Liberals. The first thing to go of course is alternate views, of which they availed themselves so many years ago. If the Conservatives are two-faced, these Liberals have no face at all. They will latch onto any side-lined minority view and champion it mercilessly, often clashing with other Liberals championing diametrically opposed views. They throw money at entrenched supporters and bandy words about with their newfound friends in the minority camps. Throw order and the rule of law out the window and rile up the rabble, call for death and the murder of opponents. Where do these types come from? Who but the most weak-minded fools take up their standards? Exactly how many fools are there, I wonder? Enough to cause a riot, or a civil war?

Now our voice is to be muffled as the giant umbrella of google/utube/facebook slowly casts its shadow over us. This is no longer covert at all. This must be the end game...

[mojo]

more data points... Who would have thought we would see such an incredible move towards censorship in our Country???


Q !A6yxsPKia. No.124 📁
Aug 7 2018 16:17:45 (EST)
Q !A6yxsPKia. No.122 📁
Aug 6 2018 18:39:46 (EST)
The BILL that opened the door for TWITTER, FB, GOOG, etc. to CENSOR & CONTROL.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5181/text📁
Think Russian bots.
Think Foreign propaganda.
The more you know.
Q
>>122
Digest and understand.
'Foundation to support censorship against Conservatives'
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/95cqhw/lisamei62_here_we_go_hr_5181_was_stuffed_into_the/📁
All-in [Blue Wave].
Midterms.
>>>Their entire future depends on winning majority in the House<<<
Q

[arwen]

Propaganda is 'legal' in the US.


I remember something either being passed or signed into being by the president. It was GW Bush, I think.


Whatever it was, Trump needs to dig it out and scrap it.

That was the Smith–Mundt Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act), which was repealed on July 2, 2014.

"For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened? "

Full article here (https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/).

Other related articles:

The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public (https://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5)

US ends ban on 'domestic propaganda' (https://www.rt.com/usa/smith-mundt-domestic-propaganda-121/)

Obama Quietly Signs The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" Into Law (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law)

jrX4VhNgTRc

[ThePythonicCow]

.
From LinkedIn and MailChimp Join Social Media Purge of Infowars (Breitbart) (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/07/linkedin-and-mailchimp-join-social-media-purge-of-infowars/):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Microsoft’s LinkedIn and MailChimp are the latest technology companies to ban Infowars from their services, following a left-wing media campaign which got InfoWars banned from Facebook, YouTube, Apple podcasts, and Spotify.

“We have removed the Infowars company page for violating our terms of service. We value the professional community on LinkedIn and strive to create a platform where the exchange of ideas by professionals can happen without harmful misinformation, bullying, harassment or hate,” declared LinkedIn in a statement. “We encourage our members to report any inappropriate content or behavior. We investigate and if it is in violation take action, which could include removing the content or suspending the account.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Pinterest Removes Alex Jones and InfoWars from Platform in Response to Mashable Press Enquiry (Breitbart) (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/06/pinterest-removes-alex-jones-and-infowars-from-platform-in-response-to-mashable-press-enquiry/):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The social media platform Pinterest has removed Alex Jones and Infowars from its service in response to a press request by media website Mashable.

In the wake of Jones’ banning from multiple platforms including Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and the Apple app store, Pinterest responded to a press enquiry by Mashable’s technology correspondent Jack Morse.

“It’s hard out there for conspiracy-theory peddling, dietary-supplement hawking, tormentors of grieving parents,” Morse wrote in his story. “But hope shines eternal in the human breast, and for Alex Jones that breast was starting to look a lot like Pinterest. Until Mashable emailed the social-sharing platform, that is.”

After enquiring as to why Jones had not been yet censored from the platform, citing community guidelines that ban “attacks on private people or sharing of personally identifiable information,” Pinterest duly responded to the request by removing Jones and InfoWars from the platform.

“Consistent with our existing policies, we take action against accounts that repeatedly save content that could lead to harm,” a company spokesperson said. “People come to Pinterest to discover ideas for their lives, and we continue to enforce our principles to maintain a safe, useful and inspiring experience for our users.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[norman]

2W8M7G8X68w

[ThePythonicCow]

.
(I suggest getting your barf bag ready at hand, before reading the following. -- Paul)

From Free Speech Scholars to Alex Jones: You’re Not Protected (The New York Times) (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/business/media/alex-jones-free-speech-not-protected.html):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Free Speech Scholars to Alex Jones: You’re Not Protected

By Alan Feuer -- Aug. 7, 2018

Not long after several of the country’s biggest tech firms — namely Apple, Facebook and Google — kicked the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones off their various online platforms, Mr. Jones’s allies complained that he had been deprived of his First Amendment rights to free speech.

“Social media goes Gestapo!” wrote Bill Mitchell, a conservative Twitter personality with 366,000 followers, on Monday evening.

“The great censorship purge has truly begun,” warned Paul Joseph Watson, a contributor to Mr. Jones’s website, Infowars.

And in his own message on Twitter, one platform that hasn’t removed his content, Mr. Jones asked: “Now, who will stand against Tyranny and who will stand for free speech?”

The removal of Mr. Jones and Infowars came after months of mounting pressure on technology companies to tackle the spread of misinformation online. Mr. Jones and Infowars have for years used social media to push unfounded conspiracy theories. On Sunday, Apple removed five of the six Infowars podcasts on its popular Podcasts app and by Monday Facebook and Google’s YouTube had followed with similar measures.

But this isn’t the only effort to stop Mr. Jones from spreading his theories. He also faces multiple defamation claims, and well before Monday’s moves, several scholars of free speech had already concluded that many of the things he has said online were not in fact protected by the First Amendment.

In a recent court filing, four law professors who specialize in free-speech issues said that Mr. Jones’s oeuvre was riddled with “absurd conspiracy theories” and urged a federal judge considering a lawsuit against him not to let him hide behind the First Amendment while publishing his rhetoric.

“False speech does not serve the public interest the way that true speech does,” the scholars wrote. “And indeed, there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”

The filing — an amicus, or friend of the court, brief — was submitted in June in the case of Brennan Gilmore, a former State Department official and Democratic Party activist who attended last summer’s violent far-right rally in Charlottesville, Va. Mr. Gilmore, 39, was on the street on Aug. 12 when James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of protesters, killing a woman, Heather Heyer, and injuring several others.

After Mr. Gilmore posted a video of the episode online and spoke about it repeatedly to the media, Mr. Jones published his own video on Infowars, accusing him in a rambling jeremiad of being a plant from the Central Intelligence Agency employed by the billionaire George Soros.

In a breathless moment (“I mean, it’s like, whoa, whoa — C.I.A.?”), Mr. Jones went on to suggest that Mr. Gilmore may have been involved in the attack on Ms. Heyer to bring about what he described as “the downfall of Trump.”

In March, Mr. Gilmore sued Mr. Jones for defamation, arguing that he had suffered threats and harassment because of the report.

Mr. Jones is also facing defamation lawsuits filed by the parents of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut for claiming the attack was an elaborate hoax. But the Gilmore suit is the first against Mr. Jones in which a judge, Norman K. Moon of Federal District Court in Charlottesville, has directly sought the opinion of First Amendment scholars.

In defending himself, Mr. Jones has claimed in court papers that his allegations concerning Mr. Gilmore were “opinion, not statements of fact” and that Infowars is a “freewheeling” website, “in which hyperbole and diatribe reign as the preferred tools of discourse.” His viewers, Mr. Jones maintained, “expect an interview or monologue to be more free-flowing and opinionated and less precise in its use of language than an article or a book.”

While they acknowledged that the protection of speech is “a priority of the first order,” the First Amendment scholars, from institutions like Rutgers University and the University of Chicago Law School, noted that since the Middle Ages defamation law has created “social boundaries about what speech is and is not acceptable.” It has also, they wrote, long sought to balance the freedom of expression with the safeguarding of people’s reputations.

To do this, the scholars said, defamation statutes have always restricted some speech — especially for private figures like Mr. Gilmore, who have less of an ability than those like Mr. Jones with media platforms to “disseminate their own side of the story.”

The scholars were particularly scathing when it came to Mr. Jones’s contention that his videos on Infowars reflected nothing more than his beliefs. It would set a dangerous precedent, they said, if Judge Moon ruled on his behalf.

“It would allow unscrupulous news organizations to couch their language as ‘opinion’ and to mask their meaning with implication and insinuation,” the scholars wrote. That, they added, would leave “readers clear as to the message but avoiding all liability for defamatory remarks. This should not be allowed and, in fact, is not allowed.”

The law professors who signed the amicus brief were Lyrissa B. Lidsky, dean of the University of Missouri School of Law, Tamara R. Piety at the University of Tulsa College of Law, David A. Strauss from the University of Chicago Law School, and Carlos A. Ball of Rutgers.

The brief was also signed by Michael B. Hissam, a lawyer at the firm of Bailey & Glasser in Charleston, W.Va., who is amicus counsel for Mr. Gilmore, and Katharine M. Mapes and Katherine O’Konski, lawyers at the firm of Spiegel & McDiarmid in Washington.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[norman]

They make it sound so cut and dried.



So can a banned American citizen claim and win damages when a conspiracy theory he/she espoused is later proven to be the truth ?



Makes sense, right ?

[ThePythonicCow]

.
And here are some headlines of other mainstream media "news" articles on these bannings of Alex Jones:


NBC New: Infowars' Alex Jones has a long history of inflammatory, anti-LGBTQ speech (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/infowars-alex-jones-has-long-history-inflammatory-anti-lgbtq-speech-n898431)
The Verge: How Alex Jones lost his info war -- Misinformation is fine — but hate speech isn’t (https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/7/17659026/alex-jones-deplatformed-misinformation-hate-speech-apple-facebook-youtube)
CNet: Alex Jones, Infowars test limits of free speech on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Apple. (https://www.cnet.com/news/alex-jones-and-infowars-test-the-limit-of-free-speech-on-twitter-facebook-youtube-and-apple/)
Baltimore Sun: Zurawik on Alex Jones crackdown: Finally, digital giants showing some social responsibility (http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-fe-alex-jones-facebook-youtube-20180806-story.html)
Los Angeles Times: Tech companies gave massive platforms to conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. Is the crackdown finally here? (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-alex-jones-20180807-story.html)
UK Telegraph: Apple removes conspiracy theory personality Alex Jones from iTunes over hate speech (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/08/06/apple-removes-conspiracy-theory-personality-alex-jones-itunes/)

[Helene West]

So where's our fearless leader? All i need is some dumb *ss tweet about all this and i just may barf.

[ThePythonicCow]

The Economist is one of the premier outlets of the Rothschild interests.

They pull no punches in slandering Alex Jones in their report on these bannings.

From Are Facebook and YouTube quasi-governmental actors? (The Economist) (https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/08/07/are-facebook-and-youtube-quasi-governmental-actors):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ONE of the internet’s most odious conspiracy theorists has had his videos and podcasts removed from Apple, YouTube, Spotify and Facebook. Alex Jones (pictured), who has a radio show and runs a few websites, including Infowars, has raised doubts about the murders of 26 children and teachers in the Sandy Hook mass shooting, claiming the story was manufactured by gun-control advocates. He has suggested that America’s government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1993 and the September 11th terrorist attacks. He says that vaccinating children will give them autism. He repeatedly warns that America is on the brink of another civil war.

Mr Jones’s websites peddling this rubbish are still fully operational. But with the worlds’ biggest media platforms removing his pages and links over the past few days, he has lost direct access to millions of listeners and viewers. Mr Jones has, naturally, seen machinations in this too: the decisions by Apple, swiftly followed by others, to remove his material from their platforms feed with comic precision into his conspiracy theorising about mainstream media. “Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other”, an Infowars writer wrote on August 6th. This is proof that the “purge was a co-ordinated effort” to meddle with the mid-term elections November rather than a good-faith effort to enforce the sites’ rules about hate speech.

There is no single explanation for why the tech companies chose this week to crack down on Mr Jones. His ludicrous theories, threats of violence and offensive characterisations of vulnerable people are nothing new. But with the platforms facing increasing pressure to weed out false and misleading posts—including co-ordinated attempts by foreign governments to manipulate public opinion in the run-up to the midterms—perhaps it’s not so surprising they picked a week three months before the election to act. Facebook says it removed Mr Jones after a surge of reports from users that his pages were “glorifying violence” and “using dehumanising language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants”. A YouTube spokesman was pithier: when users violate “policies against hate speech and harassment” or try to escape the site’s rule-enforcement, “we terminate their accounts". (Brian Feldman of New York magazine makes a persuasive argument that it boils down to Apple’s power: “While Facebook and YouTube and Spotify can all cite hate speech or policy infractions as their reasoning publicly, the unspoken reason is that to not follow Apple’s lead could get their own apps booted from the App Store. Federal law shields platforms from responsibility for what users post; Apple’s policies don’t.”)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[PurpleLama]

So where's our fearless leader? All i need is some dumb *ss tweet about all this and i just may barf.

Fwiw you can actually say ass on Avalon.

Actually, that was an aside. I would posit that the message is going out loud and clear, by the fact that several tech giants took AJ off the air nearly simultaneously, and the message is very clearly directed at us, as the real free thinkers of the 21st century. It is chilling, as indeed the shift to totalitarianism is becoming overt, and it isn't just those so conspiracy minded as ourselves who are seeing it now. It is my prediction that the purge will continue, but that ultimately the actions will be seen as premature and will lead to the bip overplaying their hand. The elite can do nothing if not badly, and the world is indeed waking up.

[KiwiElf]

Bill:
I'll be interested to see what (if anything) Q says about this. He came out in a diatribe against Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi a few months ago.... considering today's events, that's more evidence to me that Q is a clever establishment device.

Paul: It's not clear to me, at least not without going back to the record, which of Jones/Corsi, or of Q, started the discord between them.

Bill: Q started it.
Before that, Alex had been very supportive of Q, and so (absolutely!) had Corsi.

Paul: My fading recollections differ, and are more Q friendly (neither of these leanings of mine surprises me <grin>)

Bill: Alex and Corsi concluded from that that Q was an intel op.

Paul: I concluded, IIRC, that Alex and Corsi were an intel op ... for the CIA side, and that Q is an intel op, for the Trump/NSA side

Bill: My prediction: Q will say absolutely nothing at all. That would show me that he wanted this censorship to happen, and/or was on the 'side' of the censors.

I don't know if Q will say anything specifically about Alex Jones or not (the recent drops are talking about social media censorship in general as an attempt to control the mid-terms), but either way, if they didn't want Alex Jones banned, then it certainly plays into the overall goal of generating outrage and bringing things to a head.

This one seems to belong in the "don't interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes" category. The tech giants have stuck their necks way out now, and are openly cozying up to China at the same time. Some are too far gone with the brainwashing, but many others, even those with a distaste for Jones, know that this does not bode well for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. These are communist policies of censorship, and they are becoming clearer and more undeniable every day.

For what it's worth, Q never advocated greater government regulation of press, but an "Internet Bill of Rights" instead, while Trump has been talking about strengthening libel laws and removing the press's ability to completely fabricate stories without legal consequences.

No one can pass a statutory law restricting the freedom of the press. A court could easily strike it down as unconstitutional. They'd have to amend the Constitution itself, and that's not going to happen.

Respectfully Bill, "Q" did not name anyone (Alex or Corsi); they effectively outed themselves, along with a few others, who were making money out of it [the "Q" platform] - (Corsi got completely off track with his "Q interpretations" & was spending more time promoting his book), and once exposed, attempted to discredit "Q", all over a mistake with a tripcode... (InfoWars failed on that one... miserably!)

We'll agree to disagree, but IMO, Corsi started it (and was summarily dropped!) ... :)

The Praying Medic video after the fact explained it very well. (Below - Time index 55:30 onward, near the end) but worthwhile watching the whole thing for context... :sherlock:

yNMPRf1BPaw

Please refer to Posts #4292 - 4318 of the "Q" thread plus the related "Q" drops, member posts & videos, particularly the damning Reddit article @ #4292... :thumbsup:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a---Very-Bad-Day---Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters--Nov-2017-and-beyond-/page215

Several of the "Q" posts addressed the internet Bill of Rights/YT/FB etc bannings around this time, and even going back to when David Hogg showed up shortly after the Parkland School shooting... which is about the time these bannings on mass began to happen incl a strike against Infowars - it was ALL about anyone speaking out against David Hogg...

[TargeT]

Corbett speaks about the censorship


We've all seen the latest moves to de-platform independent voices online, but how many people can see beyond their immediate reaction to the way they are being programmed to embrace the coming wave of government censorship? James Corbett joins Garland Nixon and guest host Eric Ladny on Radio Fault Lines to discuss this pressing issue.

hIobB6SATcQ


The filter bubble video talked about:
PiNDNyh-XtA

[ThePythonicCow]

"Q" did not name anyone (Alex or Corsi); they effectively outed themselves, along with a few others, who were making money out of it [the "Q" platform] - (Corsi got completely off track with his "Q interpretations" & was spending more time promoting his book), and once exposed, attempted to discredit "Q", all over a mistake with a tripcode... (InfoWars failed on that one... miserably!)
That matches my recollections, yes.

[apokalypse]

i leave this here and need to look more into it before confirm....group of people calling out in shareblue whom have ties with DNC and china.

this whole thing is weird, facebook said last month AL is ok and against freedom of speech but now they flip.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/democrat-propaganda-group-shareblue-has-ties-chinese-government-host-foreign-special


https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/95e9sz/the_dnc_is_who_is_behind_the_censoring_of_alex/

i think have to do with sandy hook which leed to this...

[Bluegreen]

The major shareholder in all of these companies is the Vanguard Group, headed by CEO Mortimer "Tim" Buckley. I'll post one of their products:

gh0ERO_Kkvo
Although his name is barely mentioned, he is a major character in the 'Q' and 'Hollyweird' threads. Ever since Q asked who owns facebook, google, etc I have tried to find out more about this guy (and his byzantine company), but my search engine skills have proven to be inadequate.

Autists welcome

[geofffxdwg]

If a public Corp / non govt entity can censor... then what do you call it when Infowars bans users, people, blackballs other researchers etc....????http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkA7WM7VAAAhGGn?format=jpg&name=small

[ThePythonicCow]

.
Multiple Choice Test:

How should we fix the problems with fake news and censorship on the Internet?

Websites such as Facebook and Youtube should filter out fake, slanderous or hateful material, as they're doing with Alex Jones.
The government should prohibit social media websites from censoring content and arrest CEO's for what their sites did with Alex Jones.

Click here for answer. (http://thepythoniccow.us/answer.html)

Hint:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.



--- Ronald Reagan

See further my earlier Post #20 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-Youtube-Facebook-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1240254&viewfull=1#post1240254), above, discussing Brandon Smith's comments of a week ago, regarding how to properly "fix" these problems.

[ThePythonicCow]

If a public Corp / non govt entity can censor... then what do you call it when Infowars bans users, people, blackballs other researchers etc....????http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkA7WM7VAAAhGGn?format=jpg&name=small

This very site, ProjectAvalon.net, also bans users and censors comments :).

Thus it should be, and thus it is very important that it continue to be.

The problem is that through a complex, deeply corrupt, web of corporate, political, intelligence, social manipulation and financial power, a few web sites have gained immense control over vast swaths of the public discourse.

I favor honest people being allowed to have guns.

I do not favor the largest imperial empire in recorded human history bombing millions into death and destruction.

I favor honest websites, surviving on the legitimate merits of their content and service, being able to ban members and censor content. Sites such as ours would quickly turn in to trash heaps otherwise.

I do not favor allowing a few companies such as Facebook, Amazon and Google/Youtube gaining such vast power and resources, through a variety of largely covert and deceptive means, intimately integrated with the most powerful elite bastards on the planet.

[James Newell]

In the US we are supposed to have the First amendment which guarantees our right of free speech, and practice of religion etc.
Obviously the Deep state are informing the people that that old law is no longer valid.

It is time to wake up and retake our RIGHTS back!!

[Bill Ryan]

If a public Corp / non govt entity can censor... then what do you call it when Infowars bans users, people, blackballs other researchers etc....????

Geoff, we do that too, occasionally, and we fully reserve the right to. That's why when you joined, we asked you to kindly fill in an application form. That filter, like a kind of controlled firewall, is what makes the forum the VERY high quality community that it is.

And we keep it that way, inasmuch as if anything later comes to light that causes us to realize that approving that applicant was our error... then we'll reverse our decision. We DO show some people the door here sometimes, though it really doesn't happen all that often.

Other researchers? We call it like it is, or as seems to be based on good information: some 'researchers' out there (Flat Earth, anyone? :) ) just aren't worthy of the name. It'd be way off-topic here to go into all that, but as you know from your own strong contributions to the Mark Richards thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103447-Problems-with-Mark-Richards-SSP-testimony-to-Kerry-Cassidy), we do fully support the truth being told, whatever it may be.

If that involves apparent criticism of others' presentations, no matter what their good intentions, then we have to countenance that, too. It's HOW we all do it that I suggest may be important.

:focus:

[ThePythonicCow]

In the US we are supposed to have the First amendment which guarantees our right of free speech, and practice of religion etc.
Obviously the Deep state are informing the people that that old law is no longer valid.

It is time to wake up and retake our RIGHTS back!!

Yes, however, my rights of speech and religion do NOT mean that I have a right to practice or pronounce my rather atheistic beliefs in front of a worship service in the Catholic church that my sister attends.

We have a right of assembly as well. Catholics have a right to assemble and worship together as Catholics, and similarly atheists ... in a different hall.

Similarly, others have a right to construct and participate in very different websites than what we have here on ProjectAvalon.net ... on a different website.

[ThePythonicCow]

It's not just Alex Jones that's getting banned.

From Tom Woods, posting at: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/thomas-woods/687498-2/




Yesterday Scott Horton, the libertarian foreign-policy expert, was suspended from Twitter. So was Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Peter Van Buren, formerly of the State Department and a two-time guest on my show, seems to have been eliminated entirely.

[ThePythonicCow]

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts weighs in with his article: Apple, Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter Subvert the US Constitution, Free Speech, and American Liberty (https://thedailycoin.org/2018/08/08/apple-google-youtube-facebook-twitter-subvert-the-us-constitution-free-speech-and-american-liberty/).

His article begins:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The coordinated attack on widely watched Info Wars host Alex Jones by Apple, Facebook, Google/Youtube, and Spotify is all the proof that we need that the total failure to enforce America’s anti-trust laws has produced unaccountably powerful firms that are able to exercise far more censorship, not only in America but also abroad among Washington’s vassal states, than the Nazi Gestapo or Stalin’s NKVD were ever able to achieve.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Later in his article, he writes:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Are Americans so stupid that they do not see what is unfolding in front of their eyes? Our ruling elite have agendas that they cannot defend. People like Alex Jones expose these agendas. The ruling elite have to shut this exposure down, so they misrepresent and demonize Alex Jones. Those brainwashed into Identity Politics and the presstitute media are manipulated and used to instigate a campaign against Alex Jones, just as they have been used against President Trump, Julian Assange, Snowden, and many others. Indeed, PropOrNot was used against 200 independent-minded websites.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[uzn]

update:
Spotify banned InfoWars.

Twitter is not banning InfoWars / Alex Jones.

Jack Dorsey (Twitter Chief) tweeted that:
We didn’t suspend Alex Jones or Infowars yesterday. We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified.
— jack (@jack) 8. August 2018


And by the way, I cannot watch Alex Jones, he is always screaming, thats very annoying.

[ThePythonicCow]

Similarly, others have a right to construct and participate in very different websites than what we have here on ProjectAvalon.net ... on a different website.
However what no website, or other business, should have is the use of the full faith and credit force and deceit of a government to help secure a position of dominance, in an oligarchy of conspiring corporations, to enforce the will of a few elite bastards onto the people and other life on this planet.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think we should all go to Facebook and cause a stir until we are all censored as well...

[Michelle Marie]

YouTube and Facebook aren't the only ones with the power to ban.

We have the power!

I've already banned Facebook from my life.

Even though it's an incredibly stable platform, YouTube will be next as the disinformation rises above the truth. Actually, I rarely use YouTube other than to view videos posted on Avalon.

Cheers Avalonians

I agree. I'm also outspoken in my smart meters activist group about my position regarding FaceBook, and I'm not the only one. Word is getting out, and we are banning Facebook.

I'm ready to migrate to Real.video, too. This move by Youtube will help to facilitate this change. Another of my favorite channels is also migrating to real.video.

We have the Power! Yes!

Free speech is an INALIENABLE right. No way can they stop the truth. :sun:

MM

[Michelle Marie]

Similarly, others have a right to construct and participate in very different websites than what we have here on ProjectAvalon.net ... on a different website.
However what no website, or other business, should have is the use of the full faith and credit force and deceit of a government to help secure a position of dominance, in an oligarchy of conspiring corporations, to enforce the will of a few elite bastards onto the people and other life on this planet.

I think the masses are waking up to the corruption in government, and we're not going to have it.

We do have power. Truth is more powerful than deceit, and the cat is already out of the bag.

For my part, I'm going to write more letters. I think we should sic Valerie Villars on them, too, as this is her strength as well.

Right now, I'm dealing with our power company and the Public Utility Commission. I'm just getting started.

There IS an uprising of voices. :yes4:

MM

[norman]

Richard Dolan gets right into this subject in his latest intelligent disclosure podcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CE-G7M2rY0

[Valerie Villars]

I'm listening to Dolan's excellent as always video.

I don't have a Facebook account. But, I was wondering what would happen if someone posted a link to Alex Jones website on their Facebook page. Would that person get banned?

[norman]

The Clampdown


Forbidden Knowledge TV
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/the-clampdown/



In February 2018, CNN (CIA) began to lean heavily on YouTube to make them terminate Alex Jones (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Alex-Jones/)’ YouTube channels but instead, several medium-sized alt news channels took the hit, including the utterly innocent Bombard’s Body Language (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/nxivm-party-with-stormy-daniels-anthony-weiner-and-huma-abedin/) with 265k subscribers and the Richie Allen (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Richie-Allen/) Show with 76k subscribers. The latter was eventually restored, after vigorous lobbying, while others, like the SGTReport (351k subscribers) and Crowdsource the Truth (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/crowdsource-the-truth/) (65k subscribers) have since experienced their own dramatic take-downs and restorations.

You can call Alex Jones (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Alex-Jones/) “controlled opposition” all you want but you can’t deny that the other shoe has now dropped, with his stunning mass de-platforming on Monday by YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, Spotify, LinkedIn, Pinterest, MailChimp, etc. in the latest installment of this ongoing behaviorist study of public reaction to the demonetization of free speech.

I’ve been chronicling the saga since it happened to me in December 2014, when Google AdSense demonetized the ads on my website from one day to the next, with no warning or recourse and I went from having a comfortable 6-figure job to scrounging to eat and pay my rent. When I tried to tell people about this, they thought I was crazy. A year later, it started happening to lots of others. And now, it’s happened in a very public way to Alex Jones (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Alex-Jones/).

My first shocking episode was way back in August 2011, when my mass emailing company at the time, AWeber deleted my account without warning and no opportunity of backing up my data. They told me that complaints over a post about SmartMeters (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/SmartMeters/) caused one of the 3 biggest Internet Service Providers to threaten them with blocking all of AWeber’s other clients’ traffic, unless my account wasn’t immediately deleted.

American Intelligence Media (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/american-intelligence-media/) (60k+ subscribers) recently explained how all of the above has been part of a “controlled demolition” of free speech and that we are in a race against the Globalist technocracy (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/technocracy/), who are clamoring to implement a 5G Global Information Grid (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/page/2/?s=global+information+grid), which will coincide with a system of “social credit”, now being beta-tested (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/propaganda-games-sesame-credit/) in China (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/China/). The latter merges individual credit and legal records, online purchases and monitors social media accounts for any sign of dissent, resulting in a score of one’s “citizen ranking”.

If you associate with dissidents who have low rankings, your score is lowered, which may prevent you from traveling, buying property, sending your child to private school or even eating at a nice restaurant, all of which have begun happening (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/china-banning-people-from-transit-for-bad-social-credit-scores/). The final version of this scoring system is set to be implemented in 2020. It will relay real-time data reports to government officials and law enforcement. Apparently, this is what Eric Schmidt has been up to since he abruptly departed Google/Alphabet in December, 2017.

As reported by TRUTHStream Media (335k subscribers), Estonia is leading the pack of EU countries that are launching similar projects, where one’s government ID will connect with ALL personal data, including one’s genome! Medical, pharmaceutical, voting records, government transactions, legal activities and banking will be linked with biometrics to authenticate one’s online comments and enable financial and legal transactions, including the signing of contracts, etc. and store all encryption keys online. Similar e-ID (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/bilderberg-and-the-digital-new-world-order/) programs have already been rolled out in all of the Scandinavian states and France wants to be on par with Estonia by 2022.

The rest of the world is not too far behind. If any US readers have gotten a new driver license recently, you’ve probably noticed that the DHS’ REAL ID Act of 2005 has altered the way your state issues your card, which also has new features. Apparently, the REAL ID database links to a global database.

One wonders if social media sites like YouTube are even what they purport to be. YouTube is a money-losing behemoth that’s only good for feeding AI and the Global Information Grid. Can you imagine the amount of data and servers and the electrical costs involved with maintaining YouTube? 15 years of YouTube data is estimated to equal roughly 1 sextillion gigabytes, to say nothing of what it costs to serve over one billion users in 88 countries several billions of views daily.

The Google-YouTube monopoly, Amazon, Facebook and other Tech Giants only exist in their current form as a result of their relationship with the National Security complex (and US Tax Dollars). They merely masquerade as private enterprises and should therefore not be allowed to operate under US Laws governing corporations but should rather be bound by the laws of public utilities.

American Intelligence Media (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/american-intelligence-media/) says we may soon see these Tech Giants intentionally collapsed, as they’re unable to afford the heavy taxes and royalties being imposed on them by recent EU legislation.

In this video by Ben Swann, a former Mainstream Media journalist who was himself de-platformed explains why the de-platforming of alternative news by the Tech Giants may result in their own demise.

MaMFu3jmUJ8
Facebook Purge of Dissenting Voices Could Lead To Its Demise?

[turiya]

Hagmann & Hagmann is still up & running w/ this 3 hour report on this particular issue...


Technological Monopoly on The Truth
(15 hours ago)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY_DJ_akkXs

Description:

One day after the coordinated attack by Social media giants and technological companies Infowars continues to be ridiculed by the main stream media as the haters of this nation cheer them on.


Doug Hagmann:





"They're going after us, circling after all of us, and they're going to come after you."

[Andre]

MaMFu3jmUJ8Facebook Purge of Dissenting Voices Could Lead To Its Demise?[/QUOTE]

Mark Swann makes the very valid point that a lot of people originally gravitated to Facebook and alt-media to find alternative viewpoints that mainstream media was failing to present. The masses deserted MSM because they found it was just BS and by following the Deep State's orders to ramp up the purge of alternative viewpoints, FB is shooting itself in the foot. It is now suffering from "reduced use" and this was reflected last week's $120 billion drop in market value. YouTube channels will now desert YouTube and migrate to real.video and other outlets. It's not the end, it's just the further polarization of opposites. We'll just go elsewhere and those who want to hang around the sterile MSM environment will continue to be dumbed down while the rest of us continue the evolution of consciousness! And let's face it the MSM now includes FB and YouTube and Apple.

[Matt P]

I’ve been saying this for years....in this new information age people are waking up to the complete deception of the ruling class like never before. I have no doubt we will win this infowar but the bad guys will fight tooth and nail to hold onto their power as they are dying. Independent investigative journalism has been kicking the establishment press’ ass. They exposed the lies of Waco, OKC bombing, 2000 stolen election, 9/11, fraudulent Iraq war, heck even JFK, Vietnam war and the Gulf of Tonkin false flag and many, many others, while CNN, NBC and the rest were silent. That silence in the real issues is why I walked away and found places like InfoWars and Project Avalon. The establishment press is the collective mouth of the deep state and their job is to lie to us about everything of importance. That power has been seriously diminished the last decade or two.

I see the banning of Alex Jones as a WIN. It’s the evil guys lashing out because they are being threatened with extinction. They wouldn’t do this unless we were hurting them. And remember, the bad guys will do much worse before it’s all said and done. We must keep our eye on the prize and stand strong in the face of what will be intense pressure from the brainwashed masses who are still sleepwalking.

Matt

[arwen]

A view from the Liberal mainstream, The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/):

What Does It Mean to Ban Alex Jones?

Extract:


The inconsistent embargo on Infowars demonstrates the breadth of tools tech companies have to police speech....

...But if you went to Apple’s App Store, you could find his company’s app, which contains Jones’s podcasts and shows, and which has been “rocketing” up the App Store charts. Or, if you went to Facebook today and shared an Infowars link, it’d post. YouTube still hosts various Infowars associates such as Paul Joseph Watson, along with dozens of Jones’s appearances on other outlets.....

...There are many kinds of bans, and they each represent a different tool technology companies can use to police speech. Platforms can weaken the distribution of content they don’t like. They can ban the discovery of content they don’t like, as Apple has with Jones’s podcasts. Platforms can decline to host content they don’t like, as YouTube and Facebook have with InfoWars videos and pages, respectively. Or platforms can ban the presence of content they don’t like, regardless of where it is hosted or discovered....

...These platforms sit atop the web in two different ways. One is that they enclose a piece of the internet, hosting the content; YouTube and Facebook Video are good examples of this. But in other circumstances, the platforms act as a skin over the top of the web. Apple’s podcast app is just a big directory of podcast feeds; Apple puts the hosting costs on podcasters. So to “ban” the Infowars podcast in this case is to remove the pointer to that feed from the app....

...In Apple’s podcast app, all you have to do to keep listening to Jones is manually add the URL. It takes 10 seconds, and voila....

...Jones and his followers are probably right to be mad. They took the tech world at face value, played the game as it was sold to them by a generation of internet entrepreneurs, and they succeeded....

...This is going to be an ugly, fraught process, but let’s be real: This is just the latest of many tweaks they’ve made to the structural conditions of the media. These same technology companies methodically disassembled the media industry in the course of less than a decade, snatching up most of the profits in digital advertising for themselves, and sending media companies careening down dead ends. Papers are struggling. Magazines are struggling. There are thousands fewer reporters than there used to be....

Full article is here. (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/what-does-it-mean-to-ban-alex-jones/566960/)

My own observation here is that there is no immediate legal remedy - as much as RICO lawsuits have been referenced by Mike Adams and others, it will take years to untangle that one. The issue of using public platforms when one agrees to Terms of Service, puts this squarely in the jurisdiction of Contract Law (which supercedes any other kind of law as far as I know - I am not a lawyer, so am open to correction on that one).

The issue of this being very well timed, politically and strategically, in an obvious display of opposition to one of the alternative media allies of Trump and the narratives that support Trump, just under 3 months before what will be a heavily polarized and contested mid-term election, is another story. A pre-emptive strike for sure, and a cleverly timed one. Because as the old saying goes "Better to apologize later after the deed than ask permission first".

They know there is no immediate legal remedy, they know it will take time to address and untangle this legal quagmire, (and no, Trump cannot just write an "Executive Order" on this one) and even if eventually they are proven wrong, and receive a sanction, it will be long after the fact.

My view from the outside (watching all this quite sadly) is that the Democrat/Liberal Globalist worldview - which just so happens to have control of most of the money, power, institutional muscle, and opinion and policy shapers of this world - are so "in-bred" in their thinking that they are completely out of touch with the people. They underestimated public sentiment grossly in the past, but have realized now, too late, and their only way to address it is to censor, which is really primitive, and shows lack of intelligent leadership.

By the same token, the people who are and represent nationalist/conservative values (and have the right to live them) also completely underestimate the strategic capabilities of the global power brokers. We are way past the time when the Will of the People prevails (in more ways than apparent), and it is down to a battle of intelligence and strategy.

Just my (somewhat irrelevant) opinion.

[Hervé]

Censorship of conservatives continues: Tommy Robinson's Instagram page removed (https://www.rt.com/uk/435312-tommy-robinson-instagram-ban/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/uk/435312-tommy-robinson-instagram-ban/)
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:02 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/482169/large/5b6986dddda4c8fc318b4575.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/482169/full/5b6986dddda4c8fc318b4575.jpg)
Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson in Birmingham, UK. March 24, 2018. © Joel Goodman / Reuters


Former English Defense League leader and right-wing activist Tommy Robinson has had his "realtommyrobinson" Instagram account removed. The social media website now displays a message saying "Sorry, this page isn't available."

Robinson - whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - was recently released on bail following his appeal against a contempt of court charge. He has suggested that he may fall victim to further bans.

In a recent Facebook post, he announced that he can no longer access Instagram.

"They have now deleted my Instagram account," he wrote. "Facebook will soon close us down."

Twitter banned Robinson in March. The company has failed to reveal which of his tweets led to the ban. However, the founder of the EDL and self-styled journalist claims he was told it was for tweeting "Islam promotes killing people," according to the Guardian.

Robinson is thought to be currently staying on the Spanish island of Tenerife, having flown there not long after being released from prison.

Speaking about his experience behind bars, he recently claimed he was 'mentally tortured' in jail, complaining of having no access to TV, being unable to eat prison food, and being moved to a facility with a larger Muslim population.

Robinson's ban comes after a number accounts belonging to other controversial far-right and right-wing figures were shut down by social media platforms. Most notably, Alex Jones' Infowars has been removed from Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and Apple's podcasts.

[Hervé]

More censorship to come: Facebook's 'most sensitive political decisions' to be outsourced to think tanks (https://www.rt.com/usa/435412-facebook-outsourcing-think-tanks/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/usa/435412-facebook-outsourcing-think-tanks/)
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:22 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/482177/large/5b6ad1cdfc7e93a04b8b45c4.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/482177/full/5b6ad1cdfc7e93a04b8b45c4.jpg)
© Dado Ruvic/Reuters


Facebook reportedly plans to hand over political decision-making related to 'propaganda campaigns' to think tanks. The IT giant already uses 'geopolitical expertise' from the group funded by State Department and the US Army.

The company's head Mark Zuckerberg wants to outsource "most sensitive political decisions," leaving "geopolitics" to think tanks, Facebook employees privately told (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cyber/u-s-think-tanks-tiny-lab-helps-facebook-battle-fake-social-media-idUSKBN1KS22N) Reuters.

Facebook is already working closely with the Digital Forensic Research Lab, organized by the US government-funded think tank, the Atlantic Council. The company relies on the lab's "geopolitical expertise" when tackling the 'Russian trolls' allegedly meddling in US election campaigns.

Facebook's Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos explained to reporters that the tech company itself doesn't have "the necessary information"to identify the "relationship between political motivations that we infer about an adversary and the political goals of a nation-state."

Last week, Facebook deleted 32 pages and accounts it said were run by 'bad actors.' The company didn't specify who the deleted accounts belonged to, but its partner, the Digital Forensic Research Lab said (https://medium.com/dfrlab/trolltracker-facebook-uncovers-active-influence-operation-74bddfb8dc06) the same day that they were "reminiscent of the troll operation run from Russia."

Facebook had announced (https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/announcing-new-election-partnership-with-the-atlantic-council/) its election partnership with the Atlantic Council in May. The company cited the council's "stellar reputation" in battling disinformation. That month Facebook also donated to the council's digital lab an undisclosed amount of money, Reuters reports.

The Atlantic Council was established in 1961 to promote the NATO agenda worldwide, with the US State Department still serving (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/20180514-Atlantic-Council-Annual-Report-sm.pdf) as one of its chief funders. The US Air Force, Army, Navy, the Marine Corps, the US Army War College, and the US Air Force Academy are also listed as the council's active donors, along with the US Mission to NATO and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Aside from the financial support from the US government, the think tank receives money from NATO and other nations, including the various EU states, like the UK, Germany, Sweden, and Lithuania, all of whom expressed concerns over the alleged 'Russian meddling' into their domestic affairs.

The organization's donor list includes major corporations, like Microsoft, General Electric, oil and gas companies Chevron and Total S.A., weapons manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, financial giant JPMorgan Chase & Co, and the European Investment Bank.

The think tank also accepts money from anti-Russian interest groups, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, which welcomed (https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/2429875-ukrainian-canadian-congress-welcomes-expulsion-of-russian-diplomats.html) the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the Western states and urged (http://euromaidanpress.com/2018/06/17/why-canadian-ukrainians-are-boycotting-fifa-world-cup-2018-in-russia/) the public to boycott the FIFA World Cup hosted by Russia.

=================================

Savvy?

... anyone supporting Alex or any Alt websites is gonna be branded "troll" and deported... somewhere where internet connections are banned...

[arwen]

More censorship to come: Facebook's 'most sensitive political decisions' to be outsourced to think tanks (https://www.rt.com/usa/435412-facebook-outsourcing-think-tanks/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/usa/435412-facebook-outsourcing-think-tanks/)
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 13:22 UTC

Very interesting, thanks. Somehow, I cannot shake the impression that all this is an outcome of Bilderberg 2018, whose participants (http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html) and agenda included dealing with what is for them, a "Post-Truth" world, and also specifically, "The U.S. before midterms" (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/bilderberg-meeting-elite-focuses-on-politics.html)......there are no publically available minutes of what was discussed, of course.....Chatham House Rule.

[norman]

Savvy?




I think that means Kissinger and Soros.


It's time to call out the global corporate state for what it is, and the nation state fixers for it.



It might wrench the problem out of the dying grip of the American small business believers church of enterprise that has given this horrendous process a free pass for many decades.

[norman]

I've only just realised what the significance of Alex Jones's MAILChimp account is. Mailchimp handles all his emails to people like me. I'm subscribed to his newsletter and his products special offers.


He's just said the Mailchimp axe has stopped that.

[Mari]

YouTube and Facebook aren't the only ones with the power to ban.

We have the power!

I've already banned Facebook from my life.

Even though it's an incredibly stable platform, YouTube will be next as the disinformation rises above the truth. Actually, I rarely use YouTube other than to view videos posted on Avalon.

Cheers Avalonians

It gave me the GREATEST satisfaction to Boot FB out of my life forever 5 years ago. I didn't like then & certainly don't like now, The Zuckerberg & his irritating t-shirts....He is a programmed robot. Like someone on here has recently said, anyone that wealthy is very easily controlled.

[ThePythonicCow]

The Google-YouTube monopoly, Amazon, Facebook and other Tech Giants only exist in their current form as a result of their relationship with the National Security complex (and US Tax Dollars). They merely masquerade as private enterprises and should therefore not be allowed to operate under US Laws governing corporations but should rather be bound by the laws of public utilities.
I would rewrite that :

The Google-YouTube monopoly, Amazon, Facebook and other Tech Giants only exist in their current form as a result of their relationship with the National Security complex (and US Tax Dollars). They merely masquerade as private enterprises and should therefore not be allowed to operate under US Laws governing corporations but should rather be left to shrivel and perhaps vanish, after the National Security complex is carved into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds, no longer able to support these tech giants.
:) :cow: :)

[norman]

Yea but, Paul, the evolving emergency has reached this point and can shed a skin like that almost without missing a beat.


Corporate armies, corporate intel, corporate politics, corporate secret space program and on and on.


Welcome to the global corporation where a nation's security complex is barely a burp from the belly of the beast.


edit:


I'll go on to say this.


The "Deep State" are probably very pleased that we call them that. It gives them a less threatening tone than what they really are.


We should really be calling them the Global Corporation. That would make more people sit up and think

[Bill Ryan]

Richard Dolan gets right into this subject in his latest intelligent disclosure podcast:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CE-G7M2rY0

:bump: :bump: :bump: :bump: :bump:

Everyone should listen to this. This is Richard Dolan at his strongest, clearest, most passionate, and most articulate. It may be the best presentation of his I've ever heard.

And it's by FAR the best summary on the net so far, on video or in text, about the Infowars censorship issue.

After an hour, he ventures briefly into UFOs, and then returns at the end to talk more about totalitarianism.

HIGHLY recommended, for anyone, whatever they might think of Alex Jones. It's the kind of thing to play through several times, making good notes.

I'm hoping this might reach a LOT of people, including those who aren't into ufology and may never have heard of him.

[Valerie Villars]

Thanks Bill. I heard it this morning on another thread and it IS excellent. I have a lot of respect for Richard.

[RunningDeer]

Still listening... :thumbsup:

On the topic of Alex Jones, Richard Dolan states @ 20:28 (https://youtu.be/9CE-G7M2rY0?t=20m28s)ish:




With the establishment or at least elements of the establishment, do they have the right? Does YouTube have the right? Does Google have the right? Does Apple have the right to make unilateral decisions that affect the broad base of our society? And I think this is going to work against them. This is the new censorship. Again this is not the old censorship in practice. This is the new censorship this is 21st century style of censorship.

I think it's clear that these corporations have gone too far this time. There’s a large obvious backlash against what's happened. And I think you know it's odd to think this, but they are turning Alex Jones into a martyr for free speech. And I don't think they want to go down that road. But they are absolutely doing this by utterly opaquely defining draconian action that affects millions of people. So I think this is a very, very dangerous thing that has been done. I think the decision to muzzle him should not be made like this. It’s clear political pressure.

One of the other things that Paul Joseph Watson pointed out that I thought was apropos was his comment about CNN. Which you know you can really see the irony here CNN for the longest time has really tried to take Alex Jones out of the picture. They’ve gone after him again and again and again. And they've aired calls to de-platform him multiple times. And here's CNN now promoting itself really as the bastion of free speech and free media in their war with the President Trump. And yet they are gleeful, clearly gleeful. And it’s arguable that it was a lot of their pressure that helped to push Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify into this realm now where they've de-platformed really the major critic of big centralized statism as it exists in our world...

[Bluegreen]

The "Deep State" are probably very pleased that we call them that. It gives them a less threatening tone than what they really are.

I always liked "ankle-biters"

:)

[Mike Gorman]

Censorship is happening, patriots will stand up against this....

bSBVTeYZHLk

rCNukdWyr_g

Although I am not surprised at this removal of Infowars from the major public social sites, I was deeply shocked that they went ahead so brazenly and simply refused to discuss it.
The powerful groups which are behind this removal of Infowars are the very same ones which underpin the entire mainstream media empire across the western world.

I don't care if you watch my little video, we are each 'attention seekers' online, because this is what the internet truly is, a communications platform which can amplify our voices, and also provides the return channel!
It was because Alex Jones was becoming too successful, too influential!
Millions, upon millions of views on his content, vastly out stripping the paltry mainstream cultures' attempts.
You see, the MSM groups are so utterly dependent on their Broadcast empire for their power & influence, that this new media group represents a significant challenge.

Anyway, here is my protest video, and a brief description of my discovery of Alex Jones, back in 2000 and my assessment of him as a credible, sincere investigative journalist.
Alex is not a member of the 'Hairspray' journalism school, he is a Texan, and a working man.
I have not agreed, 100% with Infowars, but by heaven, they are a significant challenge to the dominant narrative builders, they are so frightened by Infowars, and so perturbed by its success they
have conspired to bring it down.

If Alex Jones is a tin-foil hat wearing crank, why are they taking him so deadly seriously?
5XZDUWMtZmY
The game just got very real for many people, there truly is an 'Information War' being waged, and this is an act of war.
We as people who are a little more aware, and probably a bit smarter than most among the public, need to support Alex Jones and add our voices to protest this intolerable paternalism!

[Mike Gorman]

I agree with you Bill, Richard Dolan has impressed me over the years and I think he is one of the most potent voices for clarity and truth, the disclosure field occupies a broad range of topics and social matters.
For what it is worth, I add my support to his projects. It is now very important that people such as ourselves double down on the push to gain attention, and to reveal just what is happening in this troubled world of ours!
I salute you sir, and offer my own services and voice to the cause.

[norman]

. . . . . there truly is an 'Information War' being waged, and this is an act of war.
We as people who are a little more aware, and probably a bit smarter than most among the public, need to support Alex Jones and add our voices to protest this intolerable paternalism!





Thanks Mike. You should be doing a whole hell of a lot more of that microphone speaking stuff, you are very good at it.


The BBC is the Grand Master of spin and re framing issues on a tilt, and making it all sound intellectual and obviously correct.

I was so exasperated listening to this while I edited out a few chunks that were about other things.

It's the BBC Radio 4 Media Show edited down to just the relevant Alex Jones Banning parts of the 4 way conversation.

You'll notice that a certain theme gets aired here. The idea of platforms like facebook and youtube becoming "Publishers" with editorial responsibilities, oh how crafty these BBC types are at this sort of thing.

Here goes, have a listen to this:


MP3
https://app.box.com/s/ji00zequ72k11ygb5f5446yh5ispglhm

[PurpleLama]

Did Alex piss off his handlers? CNN is cheerleading the whole thing, but it seems the rest of the MSM is silent.

Someone with the right tools really needs to cut the UFO stuff out of Dolan's video and reupload it. It could go viral! I would see it shared far and wide.

[ThePythonicCow]

Everyone should listen to this. This is Richard Dolan at his strongest, clearest, most passionate, and most articulate. It may be the best presentation of his I've ever heard.

And it's by FAR the best summary on the net so far, on video or in text, about the Infowars censorship issue.
Richard Dolan is indeed well spoken, and indeed makes an excellent defense of freedom of speech.

However ...

However, as I've posted above (see posts 20 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-Youtube-Facebook-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1240254&viewfull=1#post1240254), 83 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-Youtube-Facebook-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1240469&viewfull=1#post1240469), 84 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-Youtube-Facebook-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1240472&viewfull=1#post1240472), and 91 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-Youtube-Facebook-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1240502&viewfull=1#post1240502), for examples), I must disagree with what I took Richard Dolan to be advocating.

Some questions to consider:

* Would most of us here, including I presume Richard Dolan, oppose these removals of Alex Jones?

* Would most of us here, including the forum mods/admins/founder, agree that this Avalon forum sometimes should remove members?

* Would most of us here agree that whomever (whether individual as in our case, or some recognized group) owns a website should have the final determination on who is welcome on that website, and who is not?

* What is the difference between Facebook and Project Avalon, that one should be allowed to choose its membership, but that the other should not be?

* Why should Bill Ryan have that right on this Avalon forum, but not Mark Zuckerberg on his Facebook forum?

* Who should decide what is the difference, which websites should or should not have arbitrary control over their membership?

* Would it be you, me, Bill Ryan, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Dolan, Alex Jones, or even Donald Trump who decides this?

* Or would it be some obscure regulatory agency located somewhere near Washington, DC?

* Who would control that regulatory agency: we the people, or the deep state?

* Who partially controls, and likely sponsored from their inception, Facebook, Google/Youtube, and Amazon?

* Could the "right answer" be that such a deep state concentration of power in a few corporations and agencies be broken into a thousand pieces?

* Or is the "right answer" that we should choose between (1) some agency or (2) some corporation, for deciding which websites can arbitrarily ban members?

* Would that be a false choice?

My recommendations:

Break up the institutions, whether "public" or "private", which carry out the agenda of the deep state.
Break them into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds.
It is the concentration of power, often covertly, that enables too few to reign tyrannically over too many.
Disperse, localize, and minimize the powers that the state, and their private partners the corporations, assume over we the people.


I have no "free speech right" to post as I want on a website; not on Facebook, not on Avalon. If Bill wants me gone, I'm gone (though granted, in my personal case, I have insinuated myself rather deeply into the administration of this website, so Bill would find such a decision rather inconvenient.)

Nor does, in my perhaps unusual view, Alex Jones have a "free speech right" to post on Facebook (though granted the suddenness and arbitrariness of his removals was most rude.)

I oppose these removals of Alex Jones from various social media websites, but not because the act (removal from a website) is violation of his free speech rights, rather because the actors in this case (Facebook, et al) are evil manifestations and agents of excessively concentrated power.

~~~



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
. . . . . . . . -- Lord Acton.

[norman]

I can't answer Paul's questions as a string of replies at all, but I get a definite feeling that what is the issue here is a juxtaposition of 2 opposite domains of reasoning.



One seeks to elevate an assumed wise and well informed subjectivity above objectivity, and the other seeks to do the exact opposite.


I'm torn between bits of one and bits of the other.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Did Alex piss off his handlers? CNN is cheerleading the whole thing, but it seems the rest of the MSM is silent.

Ratings may have something to do with it. Alex Jones' total daily ratings crush that of CNN, but are comparable to MSNBC or Fox. When your ratings are in the toilet as badly as CNN's, you'd probably say or do a lot of strange things to try to get more people to pay attention to you.

And for the InfoWars app, it's still on the Google app store, and I heard that it moved up to the fourth most downloaded news app after Alex was deplatformed. It's only behind Twitter and two other apps I don't remember now, in the news delivery category. It will be interesting to see if Google removes that app next, or leaves it up. I don't use Google Play so I might be mistaken but it seems like it's only for Android devices.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

My recommendations:

Break up the institutions, whether "public" or "private", which carry out the agenda of the deep state.
Break them into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds.
It is the concentration of power, often covertly, that enables too few to reign tyrannically over too many.
Disperse, localize, and minimize the powers that the state, and their private partners the corporations, assume over we the people.


I don't even think we have to do that much.

Let's forget about the corporate legal entities for a moment, because they're fictional.

What we need to do is investigate the entire network of private individuals behind these networks for criminal activity and physically throw them all into prison. Then their companies would go belly-up on their own and we wouldn't have to enforce any more laws than we already have on the books.

They finally got Al Capone on tax evasion. He committed an enormous amount of crime and no one disputes that, but no one could prove it, because he was too smart. So rather than pass a bunch of authoritarian measures to go after him anyway, the government simply got creative and prosecuted him for something they could prove, and then threw the book at him to ensure he died in prison.

Granting the government broader powers to "fix" this problem is the mentality of communists, and was also what the Nazis did to try to get the same international network off their backs. I don't think that is desirable in the end, because after this one problem is cleaned up, you'll have created a new problem of a new entrenched power in government, an age-old problem that the Constitution has done a superb job of preventing thus far.

[Bill Ryan]

Everyone should listen to this. This is Richard Dolan at his strongest, clearest, most passionate, and most articulate. It may be the best presentation of his I've ever heard.

And it's by FAR the best summary on the net so far, on video or in text, about the Infowars censorship issue.
Richard Dolan is indeed well spoken, and indeed makes an excellent defense of freedom of speech.

However ...



Here's my summary:


'Free speech' is one thing.
Having one's front door unlocked and wide open with an invitation for anyone at all to come into your house and spray paint crude slogans all over your walls is another.

Richard wouldn't welcome that, either. :)

People can — I suppose! — write and paint and shout their slogans (ideally, though, not as ugly, disfiguring graffiti) anywhere else. But not here.

What Richard is saying is that free and open debate is healthy and even essential. Very hard to disagree. But it's HOW that happens that counts.

The moderators consider Avalon membership applications every day. Even a Flat Earther, maybe, who's genuinely open-minded and genuinely seeking the truth, and has NOT got a rigid opinion that they're determined to defend, may be welcome. We're educators here. (However, we're more likely to accept a Flat Earther who's 20 than one who's 60! Experience on Planet Earth really should count for something.)

But applicants who want to rant and rave and preach, or have very fixed extreme ideas, or seem blindly uninformed while not recognizing that they are, or seem angry or unpleasant, or just seem unable to communicate intelligibly, may be politely declined.

This is NOT a free-for-all here, where anyone at all can come in and run riot and cause chaos and upset. And no members would want it to be.

And as a kind of university, as it were (because, again, we're educators), there are certain entrance criteria. Classes at any school wouldn't be quite the same — at all! — if anyone whatsoever were allowed to wander in, unqualified in anything, and yell abuse at the teachers, or the other students, from the back row.

Of course not. No-one would win. But I'm quite sure that Richard, being an academic himself, doesn't advocate that either.

[ThePythonicCow]

Yea but, Paul, the evolving emergency has reached this point and can shed a skin like that almost without missing a beat.Yea, you've got a point there :).

[ThePythonicCow]

Let's forget about the corporate legal entities for a moment, because they're fictional.
Corporations can live on forever, can not be imprisoned, can not be hung from the gallows. Corporations (in the US) can make unlimited donations to political campaigns, individuals can not.

Corporations (and governments, which nowadays are also incorporated) are two of the more powerful tools in the tool box of the deep state.

I would not dismiss them so lightly.

[ThePythonicCow]

Of course not. No-one would win. But I'm quite sure that Richard, being an academic himself, doesn't advocate that either.
Right now, half the people whose opinions I know well (my liberal relatives in California) are probably saying "good riddance" to Alex Jones.

The other half (here on this forum) are mostly saying "good riddance" to Facebook, et al.

The division is strong between those who despise Alex Jones and what they think he stands for, and those who despise violators of our free speech rights.

That's why, in my estimation, that Alex Jones was chosen for this role ... he's divisive.

===

Let us not lose sight of the evil bastards behind the curtain who are smashing this divisive choice into our face.

When a mad man forces you to choose, at gun point, which of your children to sacrifice ... you get creative looking for "a third way."

===

I would encourage readers to consider answering my series of questions in my above post. Where they lead seems inescapable to me.

[Bill Ryan]

That's why, in my estimation, that Alex Jones was chosen for this role ... he's divisive.



ANYONE who challenges the status quo, or the abuse of power and vested interests, is divisive. That's almost by definition.

Campaigners for the abolition of slavery were divisive. The suffragettes were divisive. Anti-apartheid campaigners were divisive. Death penalty abolitionists are divisive. Anti-abortionists are divisive. Even some vegans are divisive.

Jesus Christ was divisive.

But, yes, maybe he was chosen for his role, too.

:)

[ThePythonicCow]

===

Let us not lose sight of the evil bastards behind the curtain who are smashing this divisive choice into our face.

When a mad man forces you to choose, at gun point, which of your children to sacrifice ... you get creative looking for "a third way."

===

I would encourage readers to consider answering my series of questions in my above post. Where they lead seems inescapable to me.
In particular, I am concerned that the stage is being set to create something like the GDPR (https://www.eugdpr.org/) in the US ... Federal control of the "fairness" of the Internet.

That concerns me more than whether Alex Jones has a Youtube or Facebook account.

By such means as the GDPR, the Internet becomes controlled ... not the only means, but a key means.

Neither PrisonPlanet nor ProjectAvalon would survive a fully implemented GDPR in the USA.

===

We already have a situation where I find myself cheering on the NSA "full spectrum surveillance", because they surveilled my political enemies, the Clintonistas and such.

... before I remind myself that allowing any such massively powerful oligarchy of institutions such pervasive surveillance is a big step toward Orwell's 1984.

===

Eventually. as in Russia in the 1990's, the people will come to understand that these large organizations, corporate and political, are best ignored where possible, and tolerated as need be, but not relevant to their daily life and concerns in any desirable way. As I am told they said in the declining Soviet Union (in Russian no doubt, not in English), "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

===



That's why, in my estimation, that Alex Jones was chosen for this role ... he's divisive.



ANYONE who challenges the status quo, or the abuse of power and vested interests, is divisive. That's almost by definition.

Joseph Farrell, Richard Dolan, Alex Jones, and yourself Bill Ryan, as well as myself, challenge the status quo.

One of those five people is substantially more divisive than the others, meaning one of those five people raises stronger emotional reactions, in more (lots more) people than the others.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Let's forget about the corporate legal entities for a moment, because they're fictional.
Corporations can live on forever, can not be imprisoned, can not be hung from the gallows. Corporations (in the US) can make unlimited donations to political campaigns, individuals can not.

Corporations (and governments, which nowadays are also incorporated) are two of the more powerful tools in the tool box of the deep state.

I would not dismiss them so lightly.

But what is the physical substance of a corporation?

It's just a group of people.

Arrest the entire corrupt network of people and then what, is the corporation going to automatically corrupt any good people who are left, who try to salvage it? Maybe they can be salvaged and maybe they can't be, depending on how corrupt their business models are. But corporations are just hierarchies of people.

What are they going to shed their skin into? Another hierarchy of people, this time who aren't a bunch of psychopaths? It might not be so bad.

You would have to believe that a corporate hierarchy is evil in and of itself.

[ThePythonicCow]

But what is the physical substance of a corporation?
...
You would have to believe that a corporate hierarchy is evil in and of itself.
The laws, courts, police, banks, legal and financial records, governments, and armies provide some of the "muscle", the physical reality, that instantiates major corporations.

Some corporations in the US are over 200 years old, including the New York Stock Exchange, Colgate, Citigroup, Dupont and Remington. They've gone through many generations of human people. Other corporations are younger in their current form, but have a long history of mergers.

Corporations are a major tool of the powerful for managing the people, resources and activity on this planet.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The laws, courts, police, banks, legal and financial records, governments, and armies provide some of the "muscle", the physical reality, that instantiates major corporations.

I'm not sure how you're figuring this. First of all, we have to get rid of all of the corruption, the entire network, including those in political and judicial positions. All of this is ongoing. I think we're on the same page about this.

But once all of that is cleaned up, how are all of those things going to be still attached to the corporate structure? Once the entire corrupt networks are taken down and things restored to legal order, Twitter, for example, shouldn't have any leverage over any military, or judge, or politician. Right?


Corporations are a major tool of the powerful for managing the people, resources and activity on this planet.

You could say the same thing about government itself, or militaries, or any network of people with power. The solution I'm proposing is to arrest all of the criminals.

Then what's going to go wrong next? If we find more criminals, arrest them too. The process goes on.

And look: no additional laws are passed, no freedoms curtailed. If anything we can start repealing laws and regulations.

[ThePythonicCow]

You could say the same thing about government itself, or militaries, or any network of people with power. The solution I'm proposing is to arrest all of the criminals.

To a significant degree, the key controllers of the major social media (or other) large corporations are not committing prosecutable crimes.

A key benefit of Corporations, to the wealthy and powerful, is to insulate them, as individuals, from legal liability. Sometimes their minions, various executive officers of the corporation, get hung out to dry, but usually even then, not to a great degree.

Even sending Jamie Dimon and all his direct reports to prison would not stop JPMorgan Chase, and that's not going to happen anyway.

The "law" is not an impediment to powerful corporations; the "law" is one of their tools, to keep the little people, and their little businesses and governments, in line.

The lawyers of the rich and powerful, while on the payroll of large corporations, write our laws to serve their purposes. "Our" representatives rubber stamp those laws, often unread, or if a young legislator doesn't play ball, they lose their first re-election campaign.

[ThePythonicCow]

In some good part, Brandon Smith spells out what I am trying to say here, and I owe some of my views to him.

Listen to the following video, say the four minutes between about the 10:50 and 15:00 marks, for a good, clear, explanation of what I'm saying.
IH4ixdWU-7A
In these four minutes, Brandon observes that Youtube, Facebook, and similar are essentially monopolies. But he observes that if we use legal means (lawsuits or legislation) to prohibit Youtube or Facebook from being able to throw people off their website, for whatever arbitrary reason they want, then we "open the door" to have those same rules applied to smaller websites, such as Brandon's own website.

Brandon does favor breaking up what are essentially government supported monopolies, such as Facebook (DARPA funded) or Google/Youtube (CIA supported).

[A Voice from the Mountains]

You could say the same thing about government itself, or militaries, or any network of people with power. The solution I'm proposing is to arrest all of the criminals.

To a significant degree, the key controllers of the major social media (or other) large corporations are not committing prosecutable crimes.

Neither was Al Capone, that's why I used him as an example.

People suspected Al Capone of plenty of crimes, and we take it for granted now, but the courts couldn't prove anything about him either. So they went with tax evasion.

In reality I think we both know that both Capone and these modern corporate executives are up to their eyeballs in illegal activity. Facebook has been selling private user data of Americans to China. Twitter has been involved in political censorship. Google, Apple, and other companies have been acting as a de facto private intelligence services for any nation or other entity who is willing to pay the price for their services.

The situation should be even easier today because the NSA is watching and listening to nearly everything that happens on the surface of the Earth.

I also think that the safety provided by corporate law is largely illusory. The fact is no one had the guts to go after them before, or else they were compromised or directly involved in the same activity. Times are changing rapidly.

[Michelle Marie]

@Paul,

No to any deep state concentration of power.
Yes to individual forums/sites/platforms having standards to abide by.

If the deep state is overreaching its powers to politicize a monopolized platform to create devisiveness and promote one-sided views, then what's left is the choice to participate or not.

Too many big corporations have been allowed to monopolize and choke the smaller businesses like an overgrowth of weeds. It's time to tend the garden!

MM :flower:

[ThePythonicCow]

... corporate ...
I choose not to continue with this detour from the main topic of this thread.

[ThePythonicCow]

No to any deep state concentration of power.
Yes to individual forums/sites/platforms having standards to abide by.

If the deep state is overreaching its powers to politicize a monopolized platform to create devisiveness and promote one-sided views, then what's left is the choice to participate or not.

Too many big corporations have been allowed to monopolize and choke the smaller businesses like an overgrowth of weeds. It's time to tend the garden!

Agreed.

Support smaller and independent websites, and other such businesses and endeavors.

Avoid getting too dependent on any big anything ... especially the big ones that seem to be colluding against us.

===

And, in particular, in the current circumstances, I expect that I will oppose any legislation that comes before Congress to "fix" the Internet or the social media websites. Currently the propaganda efforts have those on the left favoring legislation that would "stop Russian election meddling", and those on the right favoring legislation that would stop "banning conservative websites."

I have absolutely zero trust that any legislation on these hot topics would actually be written to accomplish either of these ends. We'll be sold whatever we want to hear, so that it passes. We'll have to pass the bill to see what is in it (as Nancy Pelosi said so famously of the Obamacare medical act.) In the current highly charged environment, any such legislation, like the "Patriot Act" after 9/11, will by design further erode our liberty, entrench the powerful, and bring the Internet under globalist control.

[Michelle Marie]

No to any deep state concentration of power.
Yes to individual forums/sites/platforms having standards to abide by.

If the deep state is overreaching its powers to politicize a monopolized platform to create devisiveness and promote one-sided views, then what's left is the choice to participate or not.

Too many big corporations have been allowed to monopolize and choke the smaller businesses like an overgrowth of weeds. It's time to tend the garden!

Agreed.

Support smaller and independent websites, and other such businesses and endeavors.

Avoid getting too dependent on any big anything ... especially the big ones that seem to be colluding against us.

===

And, in particular, in the current circumstances, I expect that I will oppose any legislation that comes before Congress to "fix" the Internet or the social media websites. Currently the propaganda efforts have those on the left favoring legislation that would "stop Russian election meddling", and those on the right favoring legislation that would stop "banning conservative websites."

I have absolutely zero trust that any legislation on these hot topics would actually be written to accomplish either of these ends. We'll be sold whatever we want to hear, so that it passes. We'll have to pass the bill to see what is in it (as Nancy Pelosi said so famously of the Obamacare medical act.) In the current highly charged environment, any such legislation, like the "Patriot Act" after 9/11, will by design further erode our liberty, entrench the powerful, and bring the Internet under globalist control.

Oh, that "stop Russian meddling" excuse is already tired, old, and transparent.

There has been a tidal wave of legislation like the Patriot Act that is completely subversive and it is becoming so apparent that it is time to turn the tides. It's just plain wrong, and it needs to be reversed. Although the current focus is on the free speech on the Internet, it is all across the board, right down into our state and local governments and spanning all institutions.

Btw, I was inspired by this thread to write to my State Representative. I'm using my voice as I mentioned that I would. I sent him a link to that article by Paul Craig Roberts. :)

MM

[Bill Ryan]

That's why, in my estimation, that Alex Jones was chosen for this role ... he's divisive.



ANYONE who challenges the status quo, or the abuse of power and vested interests, is divisive. That's almost by definition.

Campaigners for the abolition of slavery were divisive. The suffragettes were divisive. Anti-apartheid campaigners were divisive. Death penalty abolitionists are divisive. Anti-abortionists are divisive. Even some vegans are divisive.

Jesus Christ was divisive.

But, yes, maybe he was chosen for his role, too.

:)

Joseph Farrell, Richard Dolan, Alex Jones, and yourself Bill Ryan, as well as myself, challenge the status quo.

One of those five people is substantially more divisive than the others, meaning one of those five people raises stronger emotional reactions, in more (lots more) people than the others.

Well, let's go on!

Major vested interests tried to silence all the following. In many cases they succeeded, at least for a while.

It's a LONG list. We're seeing the same thing here.


Martin Luther King. Gandhi. Nelson Mandela. JFK.



Copernicus. Galileo.



George Washington.



John Lennon.



Obi-Wan Kenobi. Luke Skywalker. Princess Leia. Han Solo. :)

If someone speaks out passionately and articulately, gathering a following that's considered threatening by the status quo, it doesn't mean anyone's paying them.

Maybe they're just doing the right thing.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Alex Jones is a Libertarian and a patriot. He also has a big mouth and some rather far out opinions. But as Dolan says, we want counter opinions out there because that is what preserves my right to my opinion.

"I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Akasha]

Wow! Seven pages in and not one person has voiced the possibility that this is all in the name of restoring his dwindling credibility courtesy of temporary martyrdom. More and more of his once loyal followers have been questioning his loyalties ever since he cemented his outspoken, pro-Israeli stance not long ago. What greater way to counter such sentiment by repainting him as a rebel rather than the lapdog he actually is.

[Mari]

That's why, in my estimation, that Alex Jones was chosen for this role ... he's divisive.



ANYONE who challenges the status quo, or the abuse of power and vested interests, is divisive. That's almost by definition.

Campaigners for the abolition of slavery were divisive. The suffragettes were divisive. Anti-apartheid campaigners were divisive. Death penalty abolitionists are divisive. Anti-abortionists are divisive. Even some vegans are divisive.

Jesus Christ was divisive.

But, yes, maybe he was chosen for his role, too.

:)

Joseph Farrell, Richard Dolan, Alex Jones, and yourself Bill Ryan, as well as myself, challenge the status quo.

One of those five people is substantially more divisive than the others, meaning one of those five people raises stronger emotional reactions, in more (lots more) people than the others.

Well, let's go on!

Major vested interests tried to silence all the following. In many cases they succeeded, at least for a while.

It's a LONG list. We're seeing the same thing here.


Martin Luther King. Gandhi. Nelson Mandela. JFK.



Copernicus. Galileo.



George Washington.



John Lennon.



Obi-Wan Kenobi. Luke Skywalker. Princess Leia. Han Solo. :)

If someone speaks out passionately and articulately, gathering a following that's considered threatening by the status quo, it doesn't mean anyone's paying them.

Maybe they're just doing the right thing.


Nikola Tesla. Look how he ended up.

[justntime2learn]

Not familiar with Youtube site, but video includes: Missile shot down in Hawaii, "Humongous" SWAT trucks in Washington and talk of predictions that came true.

Also, some suggestions if you're a Q follower.

Live chat open in video link.



Dutchsinse has Moved to twitch, which he says is indefinite for the foreseeable future. Dutchsinse has put blood, sweat, and tears into his channel and has unjustly been called fake news. Dutchsinse will be missed and I believe I speak for many, that we hope he returns, but we understand why he left.

Streamed live on Aug 7, 2018:
0n7kDg0WZ-Y

Video says "Please follow me on Twitch", but no mention of leaving Youtube.
8/8/18 10pm channel update dutchsinse:
COu9HfWPXZs

[norman]

While the world argues about abstract principles, the biggest crooks on the planet press ahead towards their goal.


We take our eyes off that ball at our peril. They even spin and manipulate our own talking points and principled red lines into obstructions to our ability to stop them.


Sometimes, we just have to recognise that an unarmed man going up against an armed man isn't going to end well for the unarmed man, no matter how much smarter and 'right' he is. After all, those people got to be where they are through brute bastardry and are never going to listen to a well reasoned case for how to get the best out of humanity. They will only ever exploit the loopholes of human generosity and liberty we keep on building into our projection of our better future.


It's perfectly clear to me that the structure they are building their new world order with is corporate unification. Just look at the 'trade deal' Trump scrapped. It included the blueprint for corporate domination over nation states.


We have to shake off this largely American obsession with a mythically perfect free market governor of everything. It's ok if it's one family at a time earning it's way in the world on the sweat of it's brow. That's the idealists view that is like a religion and has long since been corrupted into something grotesque that is becoming more and more indistinguishable from a communist state. That's what those crooks do. They flip everything we think we want over into the complete opposite of it. They get away with it because the majority of people stick religiously to the simple principles that have been corrupted without thinking through the effects of having an intelligent adversary screw with everything we do.


Where's the sanity in defending the corporate entity's business rights, just because they evolved out of hard working people earning a living, when that corporate entity has become the global control system ?



Wakey wakey !

[Hervé]

The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part 3 (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-war-to-destroy-alex-jones-part-3/)

by Jon Rappoport (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/author/jonrappoport/) Aug 9 (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-war-to-destroy-alex-jones-part-3/), 2018

(For Part 2, click here (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/the-war-to-destroy-alex-jones-part-2/))

When several big-tech companies remove a person from their platforms in a 12-hour period, which is what happened to Alex Jones, you need to ask:
Where are the specific violations Jones is charged with?

Where is the bill of particulars against him?

Where is the “hate speech” he is accused of spewing to his audience?

What definition (if any) of hate speech is being used as a measuring stick?
Asking those questions, you come up very short on answers.

Jones is being made into a SYMBOL of a hater by social media and the mainstream press—and when THAT is the objective, the whole idea is to avoid specifics and just smear the target with a very broad and general brush.

“Hate speech” is replacing the 1st Amendment as a standard of judgment. The question now is: did you express hate toward someone? Rather than: did you commit slander or libel?

Did you utter something that could offend and might disturb a victim or victim-group? Yes? YOU’RE BANNED. CENSORED. Of course, social media giants decide what constitutes hate and who is designated a victim-group with “protected status.”

The term “hate speech” is very elastic. Its definition can be changed on a moment’s notice.
Don’t like someone?

Upset at their actual ideas?

Disturbed at their success?
Embroil them in charges of being a hater and expressing hatred toward victims. Ban and censor them from online platforms based on that accusation. Ignore millions of their words—instead, invoke a few outbursts they committed over the years.

And finally, make the conversation all about whether the accused—in this case, Jones—is good or not, is honest or not, is caring or not, is worthy or not—AS IF THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD DECIDE WHETHER BANNING JONES FROM ONLNE PLATFORMS WAS A CORRECT ACTION.

This is the ultimate diversion and distraction, for increasing numbers of the dumbed-down public.

And toss the brain-challenged a bone—permission to HATE THE HATER.

“You see, in this case, it’s OK to hate, because the target is a hater. So go to it, express all that bottled-up emotion. Have a field day.”

“With every molecule of hate you express, you change the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment. And this is exactly what we need: a new society based on less freedom and more goodness.”

Less freedom, more goodness.

If you buy that package, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.

Here are links you to go to, to listen to the Alex Jones shows now:
Live stream: 9am to Noon ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/realnews
(http://streams.infowars.com/realnews)
Live stream: Noon to 4pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones
(http://streams.infowars.com/alexjones)
Live stream: 4pm to 7pm ET:
http://streams.infowars.com/warroom
(http://streams.infowars.com/warroom)
Additionally, here:
https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/
Jon Rappoport

[Foxie Loxie]

States Rights........AND......Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?!! :pound:

How DOES one stop the global corporatism that is already in force?! Those with the power & money don't really "care" about us little people. To me, it is very encouraging that so many "little people" ARE speaking up! :horn:

And.....Puleeeeese don't change the way Avalon operates! :cheer2: We all need to continue our education!! :ranger:

[ThePythonicCow]

If someone speaks out passionately and articulately, gathering a following that's considered threatening by the status quo, it doesn't mean anyone's paying them.

Maybe they're just doing the right thing.
Ah - you're considering whether or not they are saying and doing the right thing !

That seems to scarcely matter, in this game of divide and conquer that the elite bastards continue to play, millenia after millenia, with us as the pawns.

Yes, their game is not the only game in town. Yes, being right matters too.

I'm not suggesting or hoping that Alex Jones will take a "Richard Dolan chill pill."

I am suggesting that to the extend that we can see what's going on, often at several levels, often "right" on one level while "outrageous or evil" on another level, we can reduce the chances of our being unwittingly suckered into adding our energy to something outrageous or evil, because it appeared (perhaps falsely) as right on another level.

In the practicalities of the present moment, the above means to me, among other things:
beware of newly proposed laws or regulations, and
keep your eye on other major problems, such as the CIA-FANG mafiosa, and
if something BIG is going down, "they" might weaken/distract alt-media first.

No doubt some minions of the evil bastards seek to gain greater control over the Web, and if they can do so in the name of "protecting free speech", that's all well and good, from their perspective. The ends (regaining more control of the Web) would easily justify (in their mind) the means (stirring up outrage by violating the free speech rights of a few Web personalities.)

Meanwhile, all this Sturm und Drang helps to hide the massive leverage that the CIA, DARPA and related intelligence, political, media and financial interests have built up, by sponsoring the growth of a new Internet Oligarchy, the Robber Barons of the Web, aka "FANG" (Facebook, Apple, Netflix, and Google) ... though Amazon might be more worthy of being on that list than Netflix ... perhaps it should be the FAAG list, not the FANG list ... but that acronym would be too edgy.

[ThePythonicCow]

Oh, that "stop Russian meddling" excuse is already tired, old, and transparent.
For us, yes, tired, old and transparent.

But for my California liberal family, if the mid-term elections turn out significantly worse for the Democrats than what the main stream media and polls predict, then the explanation that "the Russians did it, just as they did in Trump's 2016 election" will make plenty of sense.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Wow! Seven pages in and not one person has voiced the possibility that this is all in the name of restoring his dwindling credibility courtesy of temporary martyrdom.

Well that would imply Alex Jones working together with Google, Apple, and the others on some level. I'm open to the idea of him having military intelligence or the Netanyahu faction of the Israelis behind him, but I'm not seeing the connection to these others, who are much closer to China today.

Another complication: China is beginning to fracture internally into different factions as well. There was just an article on Zero Hedge today about how this could be evidence of the US gaining ground in the trade war, as some in China are now saying their nationalist economic push was too aggressive internationally, and is what forced the US into this position in order to defend itself. I would agree that that's a pretty accurate assessment.



States Rights........AND......Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?!! :pound:

He would have taken a hammer to these companies a long time ago.

https://steemitimages.com/0x0/http://geke.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/roosevelt.jpg

http://ahapush.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/5/4/16545982/9708406_orig.jpg

Modern politicians could learn a lot from TR.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Public fora, which is what social media basically is, was not invented by the internet. I think back to St. Paul preaching early Christianity on his stone block in the plazas of Corinth long ago. That was the platform of ancient times. Everyone had a right to occupy that block, and say whatever they wanted on that block; by the same token, everyone listening, standing nearby, had the equal right to accept, believe, or reject whatever they heard from that block.

The only really difference today is, that stone block, as a medium, reaches to the stratosphere, and the voice it projects carries across the world. Never in the history of human kind has a platform wielded this degree of power over minds and opinions. What was once a local phenomenon is now global, hence the headache for the powers that be. They could not help but interfere with it!

But some interference is necessary. There should always be reasonable moderation – but not by the platforms themselves in my opinion. Because why should the CEO or a board of directors decide what we should or shouldn't access? By what moral standard would they make those decisions? Of course, I'm 99% sure they don't really make any decisions of their own anyway. They only follow the orders of those in the shadows.

Where there's power to be exerted, dark tentacles always appear. If Project Avalon was a giant platform with a billion subscribers, you can bet your house that dark tentacles would surface here, pushing buttons, pulling levers, trying to exert control. And throwing lots of lots of cash at those behind the scenes. I'm fully confident that the power to resist – by Bill and the team – would far exceed the temptation to submit, and Avalon would be safe. But the tentacles would try nonetheless, I've no doubt!

But these corporate platforms, like Google, facebook, twitter, itunes, youtube, et cetera, have grown so huge they've become a monopoly. They're like cartels. What they provide is a public service now, even a utility, and should in my opinion be treated as such. Does that mean some sort of centralized regulatory control? I think yes, but only so far as how they operate and conduct themselves. Maybe a 'digital bill of rights' is the correct way to go; it's the only way to counteract secret agendas, corrupt practices, and 'outside' interference. Those dark tentacles must be cut! The two most important things such a bill should contain, in my view, are neutrality and transparency. These companies should have the right to control their platforms in any way they choose of course, but never the content.

This bill should have another tier for all the non-corporate non-profitmaking platforms, like Avalon and millions of others: a guarantee, to retain the right to complete private control. PA doesn't qualify as social media, and only occupies a tiny subscribership by comparison. Internet niches like ours should be protected, and allowed to flourish by themselves.

Naive and idealistic perhaps...but I will always believe in the general principle that he or she who climbs up on the block should rise and fall by the words they speak, as interpreted by their audience. It should never be by some suit sitting on a board in DC, Langley, or London. Unless of course one is inciting violence, or actually breaking the law. Then it becomes a matter for the authorities, like with any other crime.

[Bob]

I asked SIRI to tell me about Alex Jones - it pointed me to pscp.tv

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vOxwVgozqMJB?q=%22Alex+Jones%22+message

It says 18 minutes for his video.


It has a current video/audio dialog from Alex.

I think it is worth a listen to hear what he himself is saying. See what you think.

[ThePythonicCow]

Alex Jones' Infowars.com reports other websites are shutting him down as well. An article at https://www.infowars.com/the-list-platforms-that-have-banned-infowars-and-alex-jones states:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tech monopolies are scrambling to send every last trace of Infowars down the memory hole.

So far, the following companies have declared war on free speech:

Facebook
YouTube
Apple
Google Podcast
Spotify
TuneIn
Spreaker
iHeartRadio
Audioboom
Pinterest
MailChimp
Stitcher
Disqus
Sprout Social
LinkedIn
Flickr

Be sure to check back – this list is being constantly updated.

In many cases, we were never notified we’d been banned, or we were informed we’d violated terms of service, while never provided examples of our alleged offensive content.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The article goes on to provide a few specifics, though not for all the above listed sites.

[David Trd1]

I see this action in particular and this kind of censorship to be a massive shortsighted strategic mistake by thoses that rolled this out. It will have the opposite effect desired in the medium term. And like everything else that has been engaged in since 9/11 will eventually serve the purpose of waking ever more people up over time.

Its a very very risky high stakes game that's being played and exposure becomes exponentially more likely as motives Are beyond apparent on this one...

[norman]

I see this action in particular and this kind of censorship to be a massive shortsighted strategic mistake by thoses that rolled this out. It will have the opposite effect desired in the medium term. And like everything else that has been engaged in since 9/11 will eventually serve the purpose of waking ever more people up over time.

Its a very very risky high stakes game that's being played and exposure becomes exponentially more likely as motives Are beyond apparent on this one...


That medium term had better be less than three months.

[Valerie Villars]

Well, this is a coincidence. I decided I wanted to watch a film on Amazon prime and asked for documentaries. The first one I was interested in, without seeing the names first, was "State of Mind: The Psychology of Control" and the names listed was Alex Jones, Colin Ross and Craig Roberts.

So, it is a choice.

I actually started watching and it is very relevant to the discussion in this thread.

[Michelle Marie]

Oh, that "stop Russian meddling" excuse is already tired, old, and transparent.
For us, yes, tired, old and transparent.

But for my California liberal family, if the mid-term elections turn out significantly worse for the Democrats than what the main stream media and polls predict, then the explanation that "the Russians did it, just as they did in Trump's 2016 election" will make plenty of sense.

Yes, I understand how it would make sense to them. :)

They might look deeper into things when they get hit with truth the hard way. I'm sorry about the rude awakening that will befall those who bought the narratives. I really am. To me, it seems immanent.

Just today when I was talking to a friend who is awake and aware in some areas, she confessed that when I told her my story about inculcation and false flags in the schools, that this was the first time she heard anything about them being staged. But I was not saying it to convince her. I didn't know that she didn't know. I was just speaking from my heart about my own experience. I'm sure she doesn't understand the whole thing yet, but it planted some seeds in her mind.

She is in my activist group about Smart Meter and Smart Grid education and pushback.

I just told her that I'm sure she is also aware of things I'm not aware of, and that's why we need to share.

Maybe if we just find a common connection first, people will be open to learn more...at the teachable moment, that moment of receptivity.

We did not talk about "The Russians"!

MM

[Fellow Aspirant]

are we surprised?- the steam roller of censorship continues on- who's next?

My hope is that it's everybody online who makes hate filled claims about parents whose children have been murdered, saying that the grieving parents are being "actors" involved in a hoax.

B.

[Bill Ryan]

are we surprised?- the steam roller of censorship continues on- who's next?

My hope is that it's everybody online who makes hate filled claims about parents whose children have been murdered, saying that the grieving parents are being "actors" involved in a hoax.


Well then, you must strongly approve of these two actions. :)


All Dutchsinse's FB/YT et al pages taken down over Sandy Hook (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?77760-all-Dutchsinse-s-FB-YT-et-al-pages-taken-down-over-Sandy-Hook)
Wolfgang Halbig Coerced Into Removing ‘Sandy Hook Justice Report’ Website, Ceasing Investigation (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93002-Wolfgang-Halbig-Coerced-Into-Removing---Sandy-Hook-Justice-Report---Website-Ceasing-Investigation)

A serious note. Please discuss Sandy Hook issues on this newly merged megathread. (14 threads into one, now 44 pages long)


What Really Happened at Sandy Hook?? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53271-What-Really-Happened-at-Sandy-Hook)



:focus:

[Fellow Aspirant]

are we surprised?- the steam roller of censorship continues on- who's next?

My hope is that it's everybody online who makes hate filled claims about parents whose children have been murdered, saying that the grieving parents are being "actors" involved in a hoax.


Well then, you must strongly approve of these two actions. :)


All Dutchsinse's FB/YT et al pages taken down over Sandy Hook (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?77760-all-Dutchsinse-s-FB-YT-et-al-pages-taken-down-over-Sandy-Hook)
Wolfgang Halbig Coerced Into Removing ‘Sandy Hook Justice Report’ Website, Ceasing Investigation (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93002-Wolfgang-Halbig-Coerced-Into-Removing---Sandy-Hook-Justice-Report---Website-Ceasing-Investigation)

A serious note. Please discuss Sandy Hook issues on this newly merged megathread. (14 threads into one, now 44 pages long)


What Really Happened at Sandy Hook?? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53271-What-Really-Happened-at-Sandy-Hook)



:focus:

Well, if they push the lie that Sandy Hook was a hoax, with no murders and only actors being involved, then yes, indeed, I strongly approve.

B.

[Bill Ryan]

are we surprised?- the steam roller of censorship continues on- who's next?

My hope is that it's everybody online who makes hate filled claims about parents whose children have been murdered, saying that the grieving parents are being "actors" involved in a hoax.


Well then, you must strongly approve of these two actions. :)



All Dutchsinse's FB/YT et al pages taken down over Sandy Hook (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?77760-all-Dutchsinse-s-FB-YT-et-al-pages-taken-down-over-Sandy-Hook)
Wolfgang Halbig Coerced Into Removing ‘Sandy Hook Justice Report’ Website, Ceasing Investigation (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93002-Wolfgang-Halbig-Coerced-Into-Removing---Sandy-Hook-Justice-Report---Website-Ceasing-Investigation)


A serious note. Please discuss Sandy Hook issues on this newly merged megathread. (14 threads into one, now 44 pages long)



What Really Happened at Sandy Hook?? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53271-What-Really-Happened-at-Sandy-Hook)




:focus:

Well, if they push the lie that Sandy Hook was a hoax, with no murders and only actors being involved, then yes, indeed, I strongly approve.

B.

I thought you'd say that. :)

So, by your logic, it's fine for us to close your account here, because we think your narrative is incorrect? (And, I should clearly say, I do.)

[Fellow Aspirant]

are we surprised?- the steam roller of censorship continues on- who's next?

My hope is that it's everybody online who makes hate filled claims about parents whose children have been murdered, saying that the grieving parents are being "actors" involved in a hoax.


Well then, you must strongly approve of these two actions. :)



All Dutchsinse's FB/YT et al pages taken down over Sandy Hook (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?77760-all-Dutchsinse-s-FB-YT-et-al-pages-taken-down-over-Sandy-Hook)
Wolfgang Halbig Coerced Into Removing ‘Sandy Hook Justice Report’ Website, Ceasing Investigation (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93002-Wolfgang-Halbig-Coerced-Into-Removing---Sandy-Hook-Justice-Report---Website-Ceasing-Investigation)


A serious note. Please discuss Sandy Hook issues on this newly merged megathread. (14 threads into one, now 44 pages long)



What Really Happened at Sandy Hook?? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53271-What-Really-Happened-at-Sandy-Hook)




:focus:

Well, if they push the lie that Sandy Hook was a hoax, with no murders and only actors being involved, then yes, indeed, I strongly approve.

B.

I thought you'd say that. :)

So, by your logic, it's fine for us to close your account here, because we think your narrative is incorrect? (And, I should clearly say, I do.)

If I ever post hate speech in this forum, then I would expect to be banned.

B.

[norman]

Well, if they push the lie that Sandy Hook was a hoax, with no murders and only actors being involved, then yes, indeed, I strongly approve.

B.


Fellow Aspirant, is there somewhere I can read what you know about and understand. Something that tells me that you've actually studied a subject and have a full grasp of it.


I don't know, it might be that your English is not your first language, but your posts don't inform me about anything. They are more like when I accidentally walk into a room where there is a TV sucking my soul out through my eye sockets.

[Bill Ryan]

If I ever post hate speech in this forum, then I would expect to be banned.


But Brian, what's hate speech?

Please define it precisely. Your post that I quoted implies that you think you know exactly what it is.

(Maybe others can try to do the same. But do note that it has NO formal legal definition.)

This is central and important to this entire thread.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Maybe a 'digital bill of rights' is the correct way to go; it's the only way to counteract secret agendas, corrupt practices, and 'outside' interference. Those dark tentacles must be cut! The two most important things such a bill should contain, in my view, are neutrality and transparency. These companies should have the right to control their platforms in any way they choose of course, but never the content.

This bill should have another tier for all the non-corporate non-profitmaking platforms, like Avalon and millions of others: a guarantee, to retain the right to complete private control. PA doesn't qualify as social media, and only occupies a tiny subscribership by comparison. Internet niches like ours should be protected, and allowed to flourish by themselves.

It would be interesting to see how the details could be worked out on an Internet Bill of Rights. Notice that the US is trying to regain control of ICANN since Obama gave it away to international globalists.

I'm not sure that the distinction should be based on whether or not a website makes profit. Here's an alternative way to do it: allow for private platforms to moderate their own content however they see fit, but prevent ISPs and other basic utility providers from seeking to regulate content. That way anyone can be guaranteed the right to open their own platform based on whatever style of content they would like, and no ISP or server host would be able to object to the content or threaten to take it down simply because they don't like it.

And if Facebook and Twitter have big enough monopolies, they could also be considered as basic infrastructure providing a service, and forced to allow free speech.

That way, Project Avalon would still be free to moderate its content, but the company who owns the servers would not be allowed to interfere with it, nor would any other basic Internet service (DNS server, etc.). So anyone could have their own website and run it how they please, with the companies providing infrastructure for it (equivalent to the town square in which a private shop is set up) not being allowed to discriminate.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

My hope is that it's everybody online who makes hate filled claims about parents whose children have been murdered, saying that the grieving parents are being "actors" involved in a hoax.

B.

JFK's mom was still alive when he was assassinated. Should no one have questioned his assassination either, to avoid hurting his mom's feelings?

[Retief]

I think it's hopeless to believe that you're going to get the leviathan to play nice. We need to build "our" own platforms if possible. I don't know enough about this subject to know if that's even possible. Maybe someone (Paul?) can opine on the feasibility of a network as outlined here https://www.masternewmedia.org/the-alternative-p2p-wireless-internet-network-the-netsukuku-idea/

[apokalypse]

If I ever post hate speech in this forum, then I would expect to be banned.


But Brian, what's hate speech?

Please define it precisely. Your post that I quoted implies that you think you know exactly what it is.

(Maybe others can try to do the same. But do note that it has NO formal legal definition.)

This is central and important to this entire thread.

Microsoft threatened to drop hosting for Gab over hate speech posts
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/9/17671188/microsoft-gab-hate-speech-hosting-ban-deplatform

i agreed, now they using Hate Speech as reason to banned or delete...

[David Trd1]

If I ever post hate speech in this forum, then I would expect to be banned.


But Brian, what's hate speech?

Please define it precisely. Your post that I quoted implies that you think you know exactly what it is.

(Maybe others can try to do the same. But do note that it has NO formal legal definition.)

This is central and important to this entire thread.

This is critical!!!!

How is this defined and who does the defining? it's almost a cloak and a smokescreen to put ever more increasingly receding perimeters on human thought and expression. The very basis of being alive and experiencing as a human...

EVERYTIME hate speech is brought up as a subject, this question should be asked alongside it. It never seems to be something that's thought about in depth and detail by those who are proponents of it to begin with even though it is fundamentally the most important aspect of the idea of "hate speech".

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Surprisingly, even the New York Times is advising against "hate speech" laws.

Why? Because the Black Panthers used to use hate speech against whites, and we can't outlaw that! rofl... These people.


If We Silence Hate Speech, Will We Silence Resistance?

“Hate” is a dangerously elastic label. And it has long been used to demonize unpopular expression, particularly among people of color.

Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and most other major internet distributors took a bold step this week when they all but banned content from Infowars, a website run by the right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. The tech companies cited their policies against hate speech for their decision, rather than the trafficking in fake news by Infowars.

It’s tempting to applaud this move, but we should be wary. While Mr. Jones’s rhetoric is certainly repugnant, mounting pressure from the political left to censor hateful speech may have unintended consequences, especially for people of color.

That’s because “hate” is a dangerously elastic label, one that has long been used in America to demonize unpopular expression. If we become overzealous in our efforts to limit so-called hate speech, we run the risk of setting a trap for the very people we’re trying to defend.

History offers countless examples. Consider black nationalists of the 1960s and 1970s. Impatient with the lack of progress for African-Americans after the civil rights movement, leaders like Malcolm X routinely inveighed against white America using inflammatory rhetoric. He had no trouble expressing animosity toward the “white devil,” and he contemplated violent resistance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/if-we-silence-hate-speech-will-we-silence-resistance.html

So there you have it. Even the JYT, I mean NYT, doesn't want "hate speech" laws in the US, because then how could we complain about the white devil?

Really activates the almonds, as they say.

[KiwiElf]

I think it's hopeless to believe that you're going to get the leviathan to play nice. We need to build "our" own platforms if possible. I don't know enough about this subject to know if that's even possible. Maybe someone (Paul?) can opine on the feasibility of a network as outlined here https://www.masternewmedia.org/the-alternative-p2p-wireless-internet-network-the-netsukuku-idea/

"Q" is onto that... "they" are creating their own platform which will circumvent Google... - refer to the "Q" thread a few weeks back)

EDIT: See here, post 5807 (from "Q" on Twitter, July 14);

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a---Very-Bad-Day---Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters--Nov-2017-and-beyond-&p=1237822&viewfull=1#post1237822

"We have almost reached our goal to build the new Q Website/social network that will NOT be indexed and controlled by Google."

[ThePythonicCow]

Maybe someone (Paul?) can opine on the feasibility of a network as outlined here https://www.masternewmedia.org/the-alternative-p2p-wireless-internet-network-the-netsukuku-idea/
Something like Netsukuku is based on local Wi-Fi, and useful in an urban environment, if say a number of people want to stay in contact even if Internet service is being suppressed for a short period of time, such as during a protest or rebellion.

Long term connectivity between people all over the world can really only work over the underlying Internet infrastructure, in our present world. This means using the basic IP protocol, over the various interconnected phone, cable, fiber, wi-fi, microwave, satellite and cell phone networks. That basic, underlying, infrastructure works almost all the time, for almost everyone who is not way out in the boondocks.

The most valuable thing that we, or anyone in similar circumstances, can do at present is to not depend on the big intelligence agency connected websites, services or search engines, such as run by Google, Gmail, Youtube, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Skype, Apple, or Microsoft.

Notice that Alex Jones Infowars.com website is still up and working well for him.

So is ProjectAvalon.net up and working well for us.

That is because both Infowars.com and ProjectAvalon.net are their own websites, depending only on the widely available underlying infrastructure of the Internet and on web hosting companies that have little motive to censure the content of their customers websites.

Except for the big cloud providers Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, most web hosting companies, such as those used by Infowars and ProjectAvalon, operate more as "utilities" ... providing a basic service, with minimal interest in what content is provided over that service, so long as it does not expose them to lawsuits or criminal prosecution.

If Singlehop, the web hosting company that we (Project Avalon) us did start taking a dislike to our content, then we could (with some inconvenience, some loss of my sleep, and some downtime) move to another web hosting company.

[Tintin]

If I ever post hate speech in this forum, then I would expect to be banned.


But Brian, what's hate speech?

Please define it precisely. Your post that I quoted implies that you think you know exactly what it is.

(Maybe others can try to do the same. But do note that it has NO formal legal definition.)

This is central and important to this entire thread.

Absolutely - there is no definition for it.

Jon Rappoport in his recent blog post "The War aginst Alex Jones: Part 3" - and I'll be posting both parts 2 and 3 later on today and may even consolidate all three in one post - raises these questions:





When several big-tech companies remove a person from their platforms in a 12-hour period, which is what happened to Alex Jones, you need to ask:

• Where are the specific violations Jones is charged with?
• Where is the bill of particulars against him?
• Where is the “hate speech” he is accused of spewing to his audience?
• What definition (if any) of hate speech is being used as a measuring stick?

Asking those questions, you come up very short on answers.

Bingo.

These are extremely pertinent points and very worthy of consideration here.

And slicing through the atrophied cheesecake that is the nonsense of "censorship" ---in other words, censorship seeming to embody slamming the stable door so very long after the steeds have fled--- here's a quote from Christopher Hitchens cited in Jon's Part 2 submission:





“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor?...To whom you would delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read? To whom you would give the job of deciding for you – relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone? Hands up. Do you know anyone to whom you'd give this job? Does anyone have a nominee?” (Christopher Hitchens, 2006)

Well, to whom indeed.

The answer?

Lies within: YOU, would be my suggestion.

[Valerie Villars]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech

Out of curiousity, I looked this up on the internet though I have little faith in many things I find there, present company excluded and found the reasons below the "definition" that people looked this term up, more enlightening than the meaning as presented.

The first reply below the definition was from someone who looked it up because Alex Jones was banned.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

If I ever post hate speech in this forum, then I would expect to be banned.
B.

It seems to me that the Newspeak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak) term "hate speech" has been come to basically mean "an opinion fiercely contrary", eg the rhetoric of Alex Jones. But by this logic, is not one's triggered rebuke against Alex Jones also...hate speech?

What is this, some warped, latter day version of the Tower of Babel?

Hate speech is literally rewriting human language, and in turn rewiring the brain. It's goal is to stifle freedom of thought, will, and action. Exactly as Orwell wrote. It began with political correctness.

If we go down this road, soon no one will even have an opinion. In a generation or two (or maybe much sooner) the very will to express it would have been bred out of them.

They don't want thinkers, they want doers. Robots that obey.

[Tintin]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech

Out of curiousity, I looked this up on the internet though I have little faith in many things I find there, present company excluded and found the reasons below the "definition" that people looked this term up, more enlightening than the meaning as presented.

The first reply below the definition was from someone who looked it up because Alex Jones was banned.

Yes, interesting Valerie.

From the UK CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime) as it relates to 'Hate Crime' - note that there is nothing specific to "hate speech" per sé, just a cursory mention of verbal abuse.





'There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.'

and:





'These aspects of a person's identity are known as 'protected characteristics'. A hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property. The perpetrator can also be a friend, carer or acquaintance who exploits their relationship with the victim for financial gain or some other criminal purpose.'

From US, specifically uslegal.com (https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/) ---I do not know if this is a particularly reliable source in truth --- the following:

Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition





'Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.'

To wit: what to make of the recent incitement to violence at the behest of Maxine Waters (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html) then?

[Hervé]

...

"Hate Speech":...

... but he didn't say no-nothing...


http://reporters365.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Anelka-charged-over-quenelle2.jpg

[ThePythonicCow]

It seems to me that the Newspeak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak) term "hate speech" has been come to basically mean "an opinion fiercely contrary", eg the rhetoric of Alex Jones. But by this logic, is not one's triggered rebuke against Alex Jones also...hate speech?

What is this, some warped, latter day version of the Tower of Babel?

Hate speech is literally rewriting human language, and in turn rewiring the brain. It's goal is to stifle freedom of thought, will, and action. Exactly as Orwell wrote. It began with political correctness.
Yes - "political correctness", by a different name.

The problem I see with labeling someone else's speech as politically incorrect, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, hateful, ... is that there is an assumed remedy in the overly emotional and antagonistic manner of the labeling.

It is assumed that I can shut down your speech because I have labeled it thus, or that a public institution can shut down such speech because it is labeled as something offensive to some class of listeners.

===

Imagine some gruff old man saying: "Yeah, I think that purple polka-dotted people are ugly. You got a problem with that?" (the implication in the tone of his voice being that he really doesn't care whether or not you have a problem with his opinion of purple polka-dotted people.) If you're a purple polka-dotted young man having a clandestine affair with his daughter, you're probably going to have to elope with her, because you sure aren't getting her father's blessing to marry her.

So far, nothing unusual or of great concern to society going on there that I see. Such prejudices have been going on for eons, in various colors, stripes and dots.

But when the "architects of society" then leverage such labels to riots, rebellions, and wars, to divide people against each other, and to punish large groups of people because one of their people (perhaps an actor in "gruff old man costume", planted in their midst) uttered some insult of purple polka-dotted people ... then I see something of greater concern.

For when that happens, these "architects of society" are leveraging what is a built-in capacity that most living creatures have to distinguish friend from foe, us versus them, family versus outsider, neighbor versus foreigner. This capacity is leveraged, without our consent and without our best interests in mind, to shape our communities, institutions, cultures, and such.

===

I honor someone else's right to think I'm ugly, or that my speech is crude, or that my opinions are politically or otherwise incorrect.

I honor the right of others to not consent to my marrying their daughter, to not invite me into their living room, and to join with their fellow beings in keeping me from their church or private club, or web forum.

But, just as someone else's right to swing their fist ends at my nose, similarly their right to be repulsed by my appearance, speech or opinions ends at my front door.

Similarly, groups, communities, teams, villages, nations, businesses, web forums, and sundry other organizations get to set "community standards" ... what will be welcome, what will be tolerated, what will be discouraged, what will be rejected, and what will be punished.

But ... "architects of society" don't get to use nefarious and covert means, at times leveraging our built-in capacity to distinguish and categorize others, in order to radically alter a community's standards, for their nefarious and covert purposes. When we notice that happening, we have a right, sometimes even a duty, to object, resist and oppose.

[ThePythonicCow]

...

"Hate Speech":...

... but he didn't say no-nothing...

I suppose that Hervé refers to this incident: Nicolas Anelka faces sanction for 'disgusting' gesture (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/28/west-bromwich-nicolas-anelka-nazi-gesture) :)

[TargeT]

Corbett talks about what this whole situation is probably REALLY about (legislation that will in effect make the monopolies in social media even bigger).
EqC82zmHccU

Don't be an idiot! The government is NOT going to be the neutral arbiters of the internet and the big tech companies are NOT monopolies unless YOU forfeit your responsibility and use their controlled platforms. The answers to the social media crackdown are already here and it is your choice whether the alternatives that already exist thrive or die. It's up to you. Choose wisely.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

...

"Hate Speech":...

... but he didn't say no-nothing...

I suppose that Hervé refers to this incident: Nicolas Anelka faces sanction for 'disgusting' gesture (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/28/west-bromwich-nicolas-anelka-nazi-gesture) :)

I remember that, only because of the media storm that followed. That's what the media does, take a spark and make a wild fire. Solely to incite public outrage. Before the outrage flared, the public emotion likely exceeded little more than confusion, distaste, a bit of ridicule. But the media inform us that we must be outraged by this. It is thought-engineering and no more.

Another example of this: Boris Johnson and the Burka scandal (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45139084). Johnson often plays the idiot, but I guarantee he is not an idiot. To say what he said, jeopardising his career, is pure idiocy. So why did he say it? A tin-foil hat possibility: he was obeying orders like any good puppet. The reason? To set a precedent in a public space.








Introduce a false premise
that muslim veils are compatible with western culture

Let media fan the flames
shame anyone who disagrees

Seed the narrative
portray muslim women as victims of prejudice

Trigger an emotional response
applaud female empowerment, and the right to wear the veil

Make an example
Johnson goes down as the fall guy

Set over all precedent
from hereon anything anti-burka is hate speech

[Hervé]

Venezuelanalysis: Official Statement on Facebook’s Removal of Our Page (http://thesaker.is/venezuelanalysis-official-statement-on-facebooks-removal-of-our-page/)


The Saker August 10, 2018

On Thursday morning our Facebook page (https://facebook.com/venanalysis) was arbitrarily “unpublished” by Facebook with no warning or explanation, apart from a standard message informing us that we had allegedly violated the company’s terms and conditions.

The timing of such a move is concerning for several reasons.

Firstly, there is the international context, in which Facebook appears to be targeting independent or leftwing sites in the wake of Russiagate.

However, in terms of our own coverage, in the days leading up to our removal, we had published important pieces which challenge the corporate mainstream media narrative on Venezuela. Specifically, we published an article giving details on the assassination attempt against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, as well as a very popular analysis criticising the mainstream media’s coverage of the attack.

In addition, Venezuelanalysis has also been covering the growing international campaign to End US and Canadian Sanctions against Venezuela which are unilateral, coercive economic measures that are illegal under the Organization of American States as well as United Nations charters. The campaign recently released a Call to Action for individual and organizational sign-ons condemning this act of economic strangulation, and has organised International Days of Action on August 14th 2018 to mark the one year anniversary when the Trump administration heightened economic sanctions and referenced military intervention as a possibility in Venezuela.

Venezuelanalysis.com (https://venezuelanalysis.com/) is the only independent English language website covering news and analysis on Venezuela from a progressive perspective, and which platforms leftist grassroots voices from within Venezuela. It is run by committed journalists, authors and academics, & praised by renowned journalists and intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Marta Harnecker, Oliver Stone, and so on.

We cannot help but feel that the removal of our page is related to an attempt to stifle the alternative and progressive perspectives that we feature on Venezuela.

Though our page was suddenly reinstated on Thursday evening, following our official appeal, as well as people expressing their support for us on Twitter, media interviews and an article on the issue in Sputnik International, Facebook has still not responded with any explanation for what happened, nor to inform us which terms and conditions we allegedly violated. The whole thing is extremely mysterious, to say the least.

The VA Collective

[RunningDeer]

Similarly, groups, communities, teams, villages, nations, businesses, web forums, and sundry other organizations get to set "community standards" ... what will be welcome, what will be tolerated, what will be discouraged, what will be rejected, and what will be punished.

But ... "architects of society" don't get to use nefarious and covert means, at times leveraging our built-in capacity to distinguish and categorize others, in order to radically alter a community's standards, for their nefarious and covert purposes. When we notice that happening, we have a right, sometimes even a duty, to object, resist and oppose.


Tall Women Punished in China

https://i.imgur.com/kBvEiQ2.jpg


While reading your post, it reminded me of this photo in a video I watched yesterday: “In China, women were only suppose to grow so tall. Those who grew tall were punished by spending their day standing with a door with holes over their head and through their shoulders.”

PS Great thread. I've saved a lot of posts. Thanks, Everyone. :wave:


Photos Of Slavery From The Past That Will Horrify You
UcgIfZetvOo

[ThePythonicCow]

Corbett talks about what this whole situation is probably REALLY about (legislation that will in effect make the monopolies in social media even bigger).
EqC82zmHccU

Don't be an idiot! The government is NOT going to be the neutral arbiters of the internet and the big tech companies are NOT monopolies unless YOU forfeit your responsibility and use their controlled platforms. The answers to the social media crackdown are already here and it is your choice whether the alternatives that already exist thrive or die. It's up to you. Choose wisely.

~~~~~~~~

Yes, yes, yes.

James Corbett says what I've been trying to say, in my too many, too long, text posts on this thread.

He's a far better communicator, and he's spot on here.

Have a listen.

(I've been making my choice, gladly giving many hours a day, for many years, to one modest alternative forum on the web :).)

[bobme]

Excuse me as I have no referances for you to look at. I may well also, misspell some words.

This is only my words from observing.

I understand the thread of the banning of Alex Jones as a reaction to the unjust reason, of him being him.

But this is hardly new.

In my understaning of all things, this is just a
test of what whoever is in controll can get away with.

For instance, what about drug screening for a requirment for getting a job?

I have read a statement here, that when someone comes into your home, that that is a violation, or an intrusion, on your rights. I agree.

What is your home? Is it the residance you rent from the government by paying property taxes?

Who can tell you what is right for you, as long as you do not harm another physically, financially, or even mentally? {The latter being perhaps worse}.

Let us go farther into controll, if we must.

You cannot vote unless you do it properly, by registering. The government knows you were born here. Or if you were not.

Health care. You have no choice if you can have it or not. You must, or we will take even more money from you.

Now for a little twist. bear with me please. A bit off topic,maybe not.

Remember when the talk of unions were the enemy of corperations?

How these workers would band together to under mind the well being of whatever corperation?

The unions were destroyed, somewhat.

Now the corparatios, are doing the exact same thing as the unions did.

Do not think so? Facebook, You tube, whatever media chain, now doing exactly that.

One corp drug testing what you do at home, now all doing it.

Bottom line is, (amost), This has been going on for quite some time.

You are not free, unless you stand up now, for all others.

As It stands now, only those in power are free to do as they wish.

do not give them yours.

[Fellow Aspirant]

My hope is that it's everybody online who makes hate filled claims about parents whose children have been murdered, saying that the grieving parents are being "actors" involved in a hoax.

B.

JFK's mom was still alive when he was assassinated. Should no one have questioned his assassination either, to avoid hurting his mom's feelings?

Come on, Voice. You know better than to argue with this example. Questioning the circumstances of a murderer is not the same as saying that Kennedy's mother was a crisis actor.

B.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Bobme
I like this: "You are not free, unless you stand up now, for all others."

It's a strong belief of mine, and goes to the core of my attitude towards bullies.

(And please don't ever think that one needs perfect spelling (or grammar) to post around here. Engage!)

B.

[ExomatrixTV]

3MaGlCGRnM0

[bobme]

Again Exo, for short. Repeat.

Bowie song, this is not america.

old news.

[Deborah (ahamkara)]

The tenor of this debate brings to mind the Middle Ages, when any criticism of the Church, or religious ideas or dogma was considered "heresy" - with very nasty consequences. (I believe it took the horror of the Black Plague to break the power of the church.....) Once again, fear in its many forms is being used to silence those whose observations may strike to close to truths better kept hidden by those in control.

[PurpleLama]

https://www.infowars.com/confirmed-mark-zuckerberg-personally-made-decision-to-ban-infowars/


As Jones himself tweeted today, “Should billionaires & huge corporations get to decide what we can say and read?”

Should governments decide what can and cannot be controlled by internet platforms, then a new dark age is upon us. I agree mostly with the sentiment to minimize our interactions with apple, google, etc, out of protest, rather than allowing for government intervention. AJ seems uncomfortably close to advocating the very thing that would prove far more disastrous than what's been done to him.

[PurpleLama]

Reality 3: The mainstream establishment for whatever reason allows Alex to live. This means his meaning and mantra is irrelevant or supportive of their cause. As Alex points out on his website, if you point out something extremely negative against the establishment, they will kill you. This is all fine but why is Alex alive? We can see hundreds of intellectual and business people who died of weird circumstances not to mention just a few Paul Wellstone, Hunter S Thompson, Matt Simmons, more recently Andrew Breitbart, founder of Reddit Aaron Schwartz, and others.. not to mention John Kennedy, Frank Olsen, and countless others too many to name here, all who have deaths which speaking forensically are not conclusive based on evidence. But Alex is allowed to bash the establishment and expose the wrongs and so on and he has a bullhorn outside of Bilderberg “we are not your slaves” – Obviously he’s either working with them consciously or unwittingly OR what he’s promoting is completely irrelevant to their agenda, OR is some sort of smokescreen for something much deeper. In any event, his life and existence based on circumstances is proof that his views are either wrong, irrelevant, or serve the agenda of the elite. Breitbart, and others with damaging evidence, such as Simmons after the BP gulf spill, were immediately disappeared when it was learned they had damaging information. Alex promulgates a wide variety of information. Are we to believe based on his living that all his information is invalid? Matt Simmons was as those in the Oil community will attest one of the top minds in the field and once he explained what he knew about the BP spill he ended up killing himself in a bathtub. So is all of Alex information invalid, or is he just a puppet for the establishment, or is he irrelevant? (If he want to comment about this he should write about it he’s done enough speaking into megaphone).

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-10/problem-alex-jones

While I don't agree with every expression in this article, the quoted part does somewhat echo my underlying concerns as stated above.

[bobme]

I have a question. Maybe someone can help me to understand what I am missing.

The statement of alex jones being alive, while being a part of the establishment, and allowed to continue, makes a little sense to me. I do not feel he is irrelevant, nor anyone here.

My question is, Does the government not already have a hand in this?

That leads to many more Questions. Who, or what controls the youtube, facebook, or the government?

I do not think it is us.

[norman]

https://www.infowars.com/confirmed-mark-zuckerberg-personally-made-decision-to-ban-infowars/


As Jones himself tweeted today, “Should billionaires & huge corporations get to decide what we can say and read?”Should governments decide what can and cannot be controlled by internet platforms, then a new dark age is upon us. I agree mostly with the sentiment to minimize our interactions with apple, google, etc, out of protest, rather than allowing for government intervention. AJ seems uncomfortably close to advocating the very thing that would prove far more disastrous than what's been done to him.


Government can intervene without having to get into deciding what people can and can't say.

A nation state can make a corporation abide by it's rules [ That was almost lost in the trade deal Trump scrapped ] within the borders of that nation state. A government can make a corporation operate a perfectly flat/level platform within the jurisdiction of that government. The corporation can only choose to abide by that or choose to not operate within that nation state at all.

For America, it's a fairly easy call because it has a perfectly distinct bill of rights and constitution. Other nation states would have to work on that a bit.

[PurpleLama]

https://www.infowars.com/confirmed-mark-zuckerberg-personally-made-decision-to-ban-infowars/


As Jones himself tweeted today, “Should billionaires & huge corporations get to decide what we can say and read?”Should governments decide what can and cannot be controlled by internet platforms, then a new dark age is upon us. I agree mostly with the sentiment to minimize our interactions with apple, google, etc, out of protest, rather than allowing for government intervention. AJ seems uncomfortably close to advocating the very thing that would prove far more disastrous than what's been done to him.


Government can intervene without having to get into deciding what people can and can't say.

A nation state can make a corporation abide by it's rules [ That was almost lost in the trade deal Trump scrapped ] within the borders of that nation state. A government can make a corporation operate a perfectly flat/level platform within the jurisdiction of that government. The corporation can only choose to abide by that or choose to not operate within that nation state at all.

For America, it's a fairly easy call because it has a perfectly distinct bill of rights and constitution. Other nation states would have to work on that a bit.

So, do you mean something like a corporate bill of rights should be introduced? How does a government get involved without legislation, or worse, executive orders, any of which are almost guaranteed to bite the people in the butt on down the line?

[norman]

https://www.infowars.com/confirmed-mark-zuckerberg-personally-made-decision-to-ban-infowars/


As Jones himself tweeted today, “Should billionaires & huge corporations get to decide what we can say and read?”Should governments decide what can and cannot be controlled by internet platforms, then a new dark age is upon us. I agree mostly with the sentiment to minimize our interactions with apple, google, etc, out of protest, rather than allowing for government intervention. AJ seems uncomfortably close to advocating the very thing that would prove far more disastrous than what's been done to him.


Government can intervene without having to get into deciding what people can and can't say.

A nation state can make a corporation abide by it's rules [ That was almost lost in the trade deal Trump scrapped ] within the borders of that nation state. A government can make a corporation operate a perfectly flat/level platform within the jurisdiction of that government. The corporation can only choose to abide by that or choose to not operate within that nation state at all.

For America, it's a fairly easy call because it has a perfectly distinct bill of rights and constitution. Other nation states would have to work on that a bit.

So, do you mean something like a corporate bill of rights should be introduced? How does a government get involved without legislation, or worse, executive orders, any of which are almost guaranteed to bite the people in the butt on down the line?


It's really very simple. There is no need to add more legislation. The only tuff bit is extricating the American mind out of the "divine rights of commercial entities" vortex.


We are not commercial entities, we are human beings.

[Bill Ryan]

...why is Alex alive?

I'd suggest they're wanting to humiliate and disempower him, not make him a martyr. (But the tactic is risky, because this may be making him a martyr anyway.)

And if they DID kill him, then that might well propel into action a very large number of gun-toting patriots. If they wanted to trigger a civil war, that'd be one of the things they'd surely do. This might imply, interestingly, that a civil war might NOT be what they're trying to achieve right now... or, at least, not in this form.

[PurpleLama]

The tough bit reminds me of the underpants gnomes of Southpark fame. Steal underpants --> .... --> Profit!

I agree that corporate personhood and the lack of accountability that goes with it lies at the heart of this, and likewise is central to most of what is wrong in the modern world. With the influence of such upon the government and its people, what would it take to actually raise the ire of the majority to actually repeal such a policy?

[norman]

. . . .what would it take to actually raise the ire of the majority to actually repeal such a policy?





A clear path alternative.


Easier said than done, but we won't get there by arguing the wrong arguments within the wrong framwork set up by, of all people, corporate lawyers.

[ExomatrixTV]

6OFbhZLzzUY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OFbhZLzzUY)

[Michelle Marie]

Censorship + targeting with bully tactics.

38731

38732

38733

38734

It's interesting that the lawless ones attempt to create laws to control other people.

It's not like the laws matter to techno-bullies.

MM

ADD: Max Egan speaking to the same issue in above video.
Accuses government of causing harm and not respecting law, and should be held accountable.
Our job is to hold THEM accountable and prevent them from distorting laws to serve their own ends.
********
That's what they are up to...using the "Delphi technique" to channel a group of people to accept a point of view (or law to give them more control) that is imposed upon them while convincing them it was their idea. More mind control through manipulation/deception.

NOT BUYING INTO IT!

[ThePythonicCow]

Reality 3: ... ended up killing himself in a bathtub ...
Clearly, bathtubs should be licensed, just as firearms are :).


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-10/problem-alex-jones
Interesting article - thanks for the link.


While I don't agree with every expression in this article, the quoted part does somewhat echo my underlying concerns as stated above.
Yes ... I have concerns similar to the ones you quote, regarding Alex Jones.

[KiwiElf]

"Q" has just posted this (click to enlarge graphic; delete the folder icon off the end of the included links in your browser):

https://qanon.app/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1844

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.141 📁
Aug 11 2018 12:23:43 (EST)

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.138 📁
Aug 11 2018 11:51:36 (EST)
media-consolidation.png
⬇
38737

FAKE NEWS consolidation [propaganda arm of the D party].
Define Antitrust Law(s).
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize."
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws
"The FTC's competition mission is to enforce the rules of the competitive marketplace — the antitrust laws. These laws promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices."
Reconcile.
+GOOG
+FB
+TWITTER
[CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN]
Q

>>138
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
[BC set the stage]
[Plan]
Could a new Telecommunications Act be on the way?
Q
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Could a new Telecommunications Act be on the way?"

... which would tend to suggest that there will be?

[ExomatrixTV]

Is Alex Jones Back on Fakebook? :shocked::eyebrows::pleasantry::unsure: but all 1,7 Million likes & followers & content is still taken down :(

http://facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones

[Valerie Villars]

Well it might help their cause if they spelled band, banned. Resistance needs to be smart.

[KiwiElf]

Well it might help their cause if they spelled band, banned. Resistance needs to be smart.

LOL - then don't read the Anon's comments or memes on 8CHAN; some of their spelling is atrocious! (poor spelling seems to be common, these days!) ;)

:focus:

[ExomatrixTV]

Facebook Bans InfoWars, but Keeps Antifa, Louis Farrakhan Etc.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/06/facebook-bans-infowars-but-keeps-antifa-louis-farrakhan/

[Carmody]

The trick is to never be reactive and always be proactive.

Inform the self. anticipate. predict. act. Adjust. Act again. Repeat.

To react is to fall like a confused domino.

[norman]

And if they DID kill him, then that might well propel into action a very large number of gun-toting patriots. If they wanted to trigger a civil war, that'd be one of the things they'd surely do. This might imply, interestingly, that a civil war might NOT be what they're trying to achieve right now... or, at least, not in this form.





If they were planning on a civil war at all, it was while they expected Hillary Clinton to be President. They certainly won't want one right now while Trump has the controls in his hands.

I can't forget all that ammunition they were stockpiling though.

General Flyn must have SO much info to get on record.

[ThePythonicCow]

.
Yesterday, in the New York Times article Facebook Banned Infowars. Now What? (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/technology/facebook-banned-infowars-now-what.html), it is reported (does the NY Times still know how to report?) that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the call to ban Alex Jones from Facebook:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Facebook Banned Infowars. Now What?

By Kevin Roose, Aug. 10, 2018

Late on Sunday, after returning to his hotel room on a trip away from home, Mark Zuckerberg made a decision he had hoped to avoid.

For weeks, the Facebook chief executive and his colleagues had debated what to do about Infowars, the notorious far-right news site, and Alex Jones, Infowars’ choleric founder, who became famous for his spittle-flecked rants and far-fetched conspiracies, including the idea that the Sandy Hook massacre was an elaborate hoax promoted by gun-control supporters.

Mr. Jones is just one Facebook user out of 2.2 billion, but he had become symbolic of tech platforms’ inconsistency and reluctance to engage in a misinformation war.

The pressure on Facebook to do something about him had intensified after executives gave a series of vague and confusing answers to lawmakers and reporters about the company’s policies. Misinformation was allowed to stay on the platform, they said, but hate speech wasn’t. So users dug up and reported old Infowars posts, asking for their removal on the grounds that they glorified violence and contained dehumanizing language against Muslims, immigrants, and transgender people.

These posts clearly violated Facebook’s hate speech rules. And in a normal situation, a low-level content moderator might have reviewed them, found that they qualified, and taken them down.

But Mr. Jones was no typical internet crank. He has millions of followers, a popular video show, and the ear of President Trump — who once told the provocateur that his reputation was “amazing.” Banning such a prominent activist would lead to political blowback, no matter how justified the action was.

The situation was volatile enough that Mr. Zuckerberg got personally engaged, according to two people involved in Facebook’s handling of the accounts. He discussed Infowars at length with other executives, and mused privately about whether Mr. Jones — who once called Mr. Zuckerberg a “genetic-engineered psychopath” in a video — was purposefully trying to get kicked off the platform to gain attention, they said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is more of this "reporting" at the above NY Times link.

Here is how this article ends.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are legitimate questions, still unanswered, about what to do about the huge, unaccountable corporations that control large pieces of our modern communications infrastructure. Both fans and critics of Infowars can probably agree that a system in which one executive can decide to shut off a news organization’s access to a large portion of its audience is hardly ideal.

There are also valid questions about why Infowars got so popular in the first place, and whether attention-maximizing platforms like Facebook and YouTube are designed in ways so that people like Mr. Jones are incentivized to push the boundaries of acceptable speech.

After all, these platforms didn’t just host Infowars content for those who were seeking it — they actively promoted it to millions of people for years, through algorithmic feeds and recommendation engines that decide which videos to show you next. Could these platforms be redesigned so that the next Alex Jones never gets that kind of boost, and remains on the ideological fringes?

These questions will have to wait. For now, tech leaders seem satisfied to have dealt with their Infowars problems, at least temporarily. They will return to their defensive crouch, hiding their power behind policies, making small changes under pressure, and hoping that nobody notices the size of their footprints.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notice how this ending seems to be building a narrative for "fixing" major social media websites such as Facebook, which may have had "designed in ways so that people like Mr. Jones are incentivized to push the boundaries of acceptable speech." The article asks the question "Could these platforms be redesigned so that the next Alex Jones never gets that kind of boost, and remains on the ideological fringes?"

The ideological left is being seduced with the possibility of forcing major social media websites to redesign themselves so as to keep unacceptable ideological fringes from gaining a boost.

Meanwhile the ideological right is being seduced with the possibility of forcing these websites to remain politically neutral in how they moderate their sites.

... pray tell, just who will be doing all this forcing, and deciding which websites should be so forced. and how they should be so forced?

===

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - President Reagan Aug. 12, 1986

[ThePythonicCow]

...why is Alex alive?

I'd suggest they're wanting to humiliate and disempower him, not make him a martyr.
I'd suggest that Alex Jones is serving as a useful foil in setting up an energized division in the people.

We risk ending up with both "sides" (the pro-Alex and the anti-Alex) welcoming government intervention to "fix" this mess.

As I might have mentioned before on this thread, I welcome no "government fix" to this mess. In such an energetically polarized environment, no good would come of that from one of the most corrupt swamps on the planet.

[norman]

Relax Paul, America has a very fine Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Facebook and the rest, only have 'terms and conditions'.

Put those two sides up in court and watch.

[ThePythonicCow]

The only tuff bit is extricating the American mind out of the "divine rights of commercial entities" vortex.
You're a master of the understatement, norman.

"Tuff", indeed. But it sure could go a long way to improving our lot.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Put those two sides up in court and watch.
My money would be on whichever side had the most money.

[RunningDeer]

http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/scratch-thinker.gif

This one's new to me.

Joe Rogan @ 8:12 (https://youtu.be/Uxwmcg7H5DU?t=8m12s) had a conversation with someone who said a YouTube subscriber added a podcast they listened to on their YouTube playlist and got a community guideline strike. It was for hate speech. The topic was about the problems with immigration in Europe.

http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/hypnotize.gifhttp://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/im-ok.gif


Joe Rogan on Alex Jones Being Deplatformed
Uxwmcg7H5DU

A funny from Joe Rogan vid …


Alex Jones Rants as an Indie Folk Song
uWd6XgBVIcg

3,850,122 views
Published on Jul 14, 2017

[norman]

.

. . . Mr. Zuckerberg got personally engaged, according to two people involved in Facebook’s handling of the accounts. He discussed Infowars at length with other executives, and mused privately about whether Mr. Jones — who once called Mr. Zuckerberg a “genetic-engineered psychopath” in a video — was purposefully trying to get kicked off the platform to gain attention, they said. . . . . .





I think Zuckerberg is keeping his options open with that kind of talk.

It gives him the face saving scope to do a U turn.

[muxfolder]

What is hate speech exactly? Where do those in power draw the line? I bet this is only beginning. Those behind this made a HUGE mistake banning Alex Jones. I'm not really a fan of his show but I do support free speech.

Has anyone done any research on this?
https://www.salon.com/2018/08/08/meet-jared-holt-the-guy-whos-getting-alex-jones-kicked-off-the-internet/

[Bubu]

I say Giddyup! Get on with it. These deep state corporations don’t realize that the tighter they turn the screws the more people wake up. I’m tired of this slow burn. Let’s go! Let’s wake ‘em up!

We’ve known this was coming. Heck, Obama made it legal for the American government to use propaganda (lies) against it’s own people. Alex calls his site InfoWARS. Make no mistake, this IS war. It’s the awakened against the sleepwalkers and deep state and nothing short of the future on this planet is at stake! The sooner we accept that, mobilize and take appropriate actions the better.

Matt

Heya Mike I like the words you say. Just like you I was tired of slow burn and wanted TSHTF sooner the better. But It wasn't happening and I took action. I decided I will be the change I wanted to see. I wanted a peaceful place for all so I started caring for people I mean every human that I can whenever I can. To me that's the most appropriate action to do. If we take arms who we will be fighting against? Our own kind that are under the spell?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

JFK's mom was still alive when he was assassinated. Should no one have questioned his assassination either, to avoid hurting his mom's feelings?

Come on, Voice. You know better than to argue with this example. Questioning the circumstances of a murderer is not the same as saying that Kennedy's mother was a crisis actor.

B.

Don't just casually dismiss this. Explain to me what the fundamental difference is between offending JFK's mom by questioning JFK's death, and offending parents of the alleged Newtown shooting?

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Relax Paul, America has a very fine Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I agree, this is not the messaging I'm seeing from the right.

At most the restrictions will be placed upon basic service providers, not content providers.

The Freedom Caucus is the future of the Republican party, not the neocons.

[Michelle Marie]

I say Giddyup! Get on with it. These deep state corporations don’t realize that the tighter they turn the screws the more people wake up. I’m tired of this slow burn. Let’s go! Let’s wake ‘em up!

We’ve known this was coming. Heck, Obama made it legal for the American government to use propaganda (lies) against it’s own people. Alex calls his site InfoWARS. Make no mistake, this IS war. It’s the awakened against the sleepwalkers and deep state and nothing short of the future on this planet is at stake! The sooner we accept that, mobilize and take appropriate actions the better.

Matt

Heya Mike I like the words you say. Just like you I was tired of slow burn and wanted TSHTF sooner the better. But It wasn't happening and I took action. I decided I will be the change I wanted to see. I wanted a peaceful place for all so I started caring for people I mean every human that I can whenever I can. To me that's the most appropriate action to do. If we take arms who we will be fighting against? Our own kind that are under the spell?

This is beautiful, Bubu.

I like to say that the only arms I need are the ones I have to hug with.

Yesterday I gave my friend 3 hugs!

Of course, he had come to my rescue with a new laptop cord. But stll, the more love and :hug: hugs, the better!

"Appropriate action" includes Free Speech that we will NOT give up.

Watch out! I'm armed!
MM

(All rights stay intact, including the second amendment. I have bare arms, but I support those who bear arms to protect our freedom.)

[norman]

As the timing of the dumping of Alex Jones has coincided perfectly with the ongoing court case against Alex by the so called Sandy Hook families, I went looking for the documentary called "We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook".


Youtube has got rid of it, of course, but I found a copy that's playable from archive dot org.


Here:
https://archive.org/details/HQWeNeedToTalkAboutSandyHookFullVideoInHigherQuality


In my personal opinion the only thing Alex has done wrong is to apologise for anything he has said. A big mistake I'll guess he already regrets. That, more than anything else, damages him ( it's amazing how stupid we can be on a monday morning pow wow with our lawyer, it seems )

Refresh your memory, and let's keep things in perspective, and the right way up.

[Michelle Marie]

As the timing of the dumping of Alex Jones has coincided perfectly with the ongoing court case against Alex by the so called Sandy Hook families, I went looking for the documentary called "We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook".


Youtube has got rid of it, of course, but I found a copy that's playable from archive dot org.


Here:
https://archive.org/details/HQWeNeedToTalkAboutSandyHookFullVideoInHigherQuality


In my personal opinion the only thing Alex has done wrong is to apologise for anything he has said. A big mistake I'll guess he already regrets. That, more than anything else, damages him ( it's amazing how stupid we can be on a monday morning pow wow with our lawyer, it seems )

Refresh your memory, and let's keep things in perspective, and the right way up.

Maybe another positive outcome is that we will learn the whole truth about Sandy Hook. It seems like the more they try to cover things up, the more the truth comes out. I Have already looked deeper into Sandy Hook because of this. I'm going to keep looking. With all of the anomalies and unanswered questions, there must be something that needs to see the light of day.

:sun:
MM

[Bill Ryan]

As the timing of the dumping of Alex Jones has coincided perfectly with the ongoing court case against Alex by the so called Sandy Hook families, I went looking for the documentary called "We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook".

Youtube has got rid of it, of course, but I found a copy that's playable from archive dot org.

Here:
https://archive.org/details/HQWeNeedToTalkAboutSandyHookFullVideoInHigherQuality


Many thanks... I'll add that into the Sandy Hook thread.


What Really Happened at Sandy Hook?? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53271-What-Really-Happened-at-Sandy-Hook)

Note: we also have a copy in the Avalon Library, in medium resolution: (538 Mb)


http://avalonlibrary.net/We_need_to_talk_about_Sandy_Hook.mp4


:focus:

[ExomatrixTV]

3EZbTqxeMPU

[ExomatrixTV]

y1exi2TnMVA

[ExomatrixTV]

ryD-TdkRnGc

[Bill Ryan]

y1exi2TnMVA

Wow. :muscle: Thoughtful, articulate, intelligent, and grounded. I was impressed.

Someone please invite her to Avalon... we'd fast-track her right in.





Update: one of the mods found her e-mail address, and so I've just now written to her.

[ExomatrixTV]

4UgGY22bCMU

[norman]

Interesting that his [Halbig's] case was dropped yet they're going after Jones. Why is that?

There was way too much that was VERY significant and embarrassing (and would have been widely reported) that would have come out in court.


And . . . as soon as Alex Jones took a lawyer's advice to back off and go the apology route, they then had a clear path to go after him because his trial wouldn't throw up dirt.





And . . . Alex Jones is a 'larger than life' figure that's plainly "white" who drives a coach and horses between the universally hated "old white men" who rule the world and ordinary white people who have very legitimate concerns about the pending shakdown of power reforms in the world. Trump's enemies need people to stop seeing him as "one of us" and see him as one of the bad guys. They can't do that successfully with Alex Jones's leading voice in the mix.

From a strategy management perspective on the proverbial left, anything that can help them lump all whites in together as one bad influence on the world, is good to do.


https://vgy.me/omWfRx.jpg

[KiwiElf]

Is it a "Test", to see how far "they" can push the boundaries? :confused::silent::censored:

[Foxie Loxie]

I keep wondering if all this will lead to the disestablishment of the "monarchy"? :confused: Do we HAVE to have other people to worship?!

Love to listen to David Icke on this issue! :thumbsup:

[Deux Corbeaux]

y1exi2TnMVA

This is really a smart girl.

[ExomatrixTV]

zPq0UabCgbA

[James Newell]

I agree! Don't give the government any more power, especially if the demand it. Just say NO!!
But in the US civil war Lincoln did seize the papers, so who knows where this could go.

[ThePythonicCow]

In related news, from a longer article by Caitlin Johnstone, posted a week ago on her own website (https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/08/07/in-a-corporatist-system-of-government-corporate-censorship-is-state-censorship/), then reposted on Consortium News here (https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/10/in-a-corporatist-system-of-government-corporate-censorship-is-state-censorship/), and then from there reposted again on Lew Rockwell here (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/no_author/in-a-corporatist-system-of-government-corporate-censorship-is-state-censorship/):


Today Twitter has silenced three important anti-war voices on its platform: it has suspended (https://twitter.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1026563145463201794) Daniel McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, suspended Scott Horton of the Scott Horton Show, and completely removed (https://twitter.com/account/suspended) the account of prominent Antiwar.com writer Peter Van Buren.

However, this news is secondary to the more important point of this article. Caitlin Johnstone explains how the US intelligence agencies, and their corporate accomplices, are deliberately bringing a "war on false stories" to US media.

Caitlin Johnstone does some formatting of her article that would be hard for me to reproduce here, and it is, in my view, an important article in this discussion.

So I will just excerpt her article here, and recommend that you go to the source for the full article: In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship (https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/08/07/in-a-corporatist-system-of-government-corporate-censorship-is-state-censorship/).

Her article begins:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Last year, representatives of Facebook, Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to “quell information rebellions” and adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment to “prevent the fomenting of discord.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Her article concludes:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We’re going to have to find a way to keep the oligarchs from having their cake and eating it too. Either (A) corporations are indeed private organizations separate from the government, in which case the people need to get money out of politics and government agencies out of Silicon Valley so they can start acting like it, and insist that their owners can’t be dragged out on to the Senate floor and instructed on what they can and can’t do with their business, or (B) these new media platforms get treated like the government agencies they function as, and the people get all the First Amendment protection that comes with it. Right now the social engineers are double-dipping in a way that will eventually give the alliance of corporate plutocrats and secretive government agencies the ability to fully control the public’s access to ideas and information.

If they accomplish that, it’s game over for humanity. Any hope of the public empowering itself over the will of a few sociopathic, ecocidal, omnicidal oligarchs will have been successfully quashed. We are playing for all the chips right now. We have to fight this. We have no choice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with her conclusion - well stated. I recommend reading her article to get a better sense of the evidence and logic that has led her to this conclusion.

I am now adding her website https://caitlinjohnstone.com to my already too long list of websites to regularly check for new, interesting, material.

[mountain_jim]

zPq0UabCgbA

What was this video? It's now been removed



This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines.

[ExomatrixTV]

mountain_jim (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?1485-mountain_jim)
see:

https://www.infowars.com/forbidden-information-in-the-age-of-the-internet/

[Foxie Loxie]

Still blanked out! :confused:

[Ernie Nemeth]

I can no longer get to infowars. This is the first instance of this newest insult. Even just this morning I linked to his site but just now I tried and there is no longer a working link.

So here we go! Slapped in the face by the likes of nerd Zuckerberg and his nasty cohorts like Tim Cook. Absolutely appalling. These disgusting mega billionaires. Why do you even have so much money? What good does it do? Give it away, you greedy dirtbags.

[Bill Ryan]

I can no longer get to infowars.

Right. Click on Infowars.com (http://Infowars.com), and there's just this:

http://projectavalon.net/Infowars_is_under_attack.gif

[ExomatrixTV]

INFOWARS.COM Is Down ALEX JONES Warns Of Imminent FALSE FLAG Event!

i1STUzIi3No

Problem reaction solution is the name of the game. The modus operandi for the global puppet strings pullers is to provide order out of chaos…but what happens when there is no “chaos” per say? In the absence of policy changing events the current powers that ought not to be use false flag attacks as a way to covertly attack their political enemies. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth discuses the recent downing of the infowars website while looking at the claim that this may be a premeditated move on the part of the global elite in an effort to control the narrative of an UPCOMING false flag attack.


https://yt3.ggpht.com/a-/ACSszfFqEZXZy2THY6pwD1IM81Edir0HeElMfV6k1A=s88-mo-c-c0xffffffff-rj-k-no (https://www.youtube.com/user/weavingspider)Press For Truth (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMOWB-s0Kek9o9sS8xA_kZQ)

[Tintin]

Alex Jones responds to his ban here, for download capability via TVClip.biz (https://tvclip.biz/video/2vCUS7y8aAs/alex-jones-breaks-silence-on-ban.html)

The youtube version here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vCUS7y8aAs

[T Smith]

In my estimation, this is all part of the calculus. They understand there will be blowback for censoring Jones, but so what? So we stamp our feet a little bit and cry foul? It is necessary for them and they will deal with our tantrums and the blowback, but it's the only way.

It is imperative for Democrats and the DNC and all their political affiliates (who are really nothing but useful idiots for the globalist agenda) to win (or create the milieu to steal) the mid-terms. Imperative. They would sooner nuke a city to ashes and liquidate a million human lives before they would concede the midterms and allow the Trump Administration to remain in power. They will do anything to remove Trump. Anything. For that they NEED the midterms. Right now, this is the plan du jour.

To this end:

The plan to remove Trump entails gaining a majority in Congress. As long as they can either win (or steal) the midterms, they will have their majority and will then impeach Trump. Take it to the bank. Mueller is currently running a marathon, and his job is to keep running no matter how baseless or ridiculous the case against Trump, all until they can get their majority. Until then, Mueller will subpoena the likes of girl scouts who sold Donald Trump cookies on the street corner or Trump's eleventh-grade English teacher to keep their ridiculous charade going... until/after midterms. Short of attempting a coup by assassination, this is the easiest path to victory. The case for impeachment doesn't matter on what. Trumped up charges (no pun) will suffice. The charges are irrelevant. It could be that Trump stole a ham-sandwich from the homeless shelter. Doesn't matter. The charges will be false and fully fabricated anyway, but no matter. That charges are irrelevant and a side point. The important point is the majority they need to procure (midterms) and the public relations campaign they are waging, which first entails the elimination of InfoWars and scaring anyone else into keeping their mouths shut who might be tempted to fill the vacuum. The most important task is to manipulate the court of public opinion at all costs--and for that, they absolutely must take down InfoWars.

Love him or hate him, Alex Jones is the flagship media platform that counters their narrative.

For the record, I don't approve of everything Alex Jones says or implies, but I will say, as a classical liberal/libertarian who has studied geopolitics for a very long time, his information, sans all the theatrics and histrionics, is 90% - 95% on target. Compared to State propaganda, e.g MSM, which is about 10% - 15% on target, and mostly when they are talking about the weather or plane crashes. And THIS is the reason they are de-platforming Alex Jones.

Back to the agenda:

If they can win the mid-terms they WILL try to take down Trump. The stage is being set. All they need is the votes to do it. There is absolutely no decency, no democracy, no justice in the system. This is a system on life support, and they will do ANYTHING to survive. They are corrupted to the core and are currently but a carcass looking for self-preservation. To survive they must impeach the agent (Trump et. al) who is systematically dismantling their lifeblood.

And in my estimation this is what is going on.

[norman]

As Paul Watson put it, when Alex asked him what he thought the imminent false flag event might be, "Alex, the imminent false flag event is the mid term elections".


T Smith, you've got it bang on.


There is only one thing to say, after that. Considering how much work the patriots in the system and military have obviously put into getting this far, don't count on them walking away and giving up if the crooks get their way in the upcoming elections.


I'm not even sure which was plan A and which was plan B.

[ThePythonicCow]

Dimitri Orlov has an excellent essay on this topic: Censoring Alex Jones (https://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2018/08/censoring-alex-jones.html).

After a number of well stated comparisons between his own views and Alex Jones' views, Orlov observes that the censoring of Alex Jones by "Google, Facebook, Apple, Google Podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio, MailChimp, Disqus, LinkedIn, Flickr, Pinterest and several others" (Orlov's list) was clearly coordinated effort instigated by some element of or near the US government.

This makes these organizations, "Google, Facebook, Apple, Google Podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio, MailChimp, Disqus, LinkedIn, Flickr, Pinterest and several others", agents of the US government.

This means that these organizations are in violation of international law. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defends the right to freedom of opinion and expression: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

This also means that these organizations are in violation of laws in various nations that require foreign agents to register.

Orlov suggests that "Jones should sue the US and the companies that censored him in the European Court of Human rights in Strasbourg, France and seek redress both against entities within the US government which issued the illegal order (to be ferreted out in the course of discovery) and against the transnational companies that carried it out."

Orlov further expects that the activity of these censoring companies, once it becomes clear they agents of the US, will become significantly curtailed in various other nations whose laws have been violated.

If you enjoy reading Dimitri Orlov as I do ... give it a read.

[Bob]

Twitter says ALEX , you are banned for a week.. Have a nice day

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/14/media/twitter-alex-jones/index.html

Conspiracy, culpability most certainly..


The spokesperson said the content which prompted Twitter to suspend Jones was a video published Tuesday in which he said, "Now is time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag."

On Friday, one day after a CNN investigation found that Jones' Twitter accounts appeared to have repeatedly violated the company's rules, Twitter said the accounts belonging to Jones and his fringe media organization InfoWars would remain online.

At the time, a Twitter spokesperson said the company concluded that of the more than a dozen tweets included in CNN's Thursday report, seven were found to have violated Twitter's rules. Twitter would have required those tweets to be deleted, if they were to have remained up.

But after CNN's investigation was published, the tweets cited in it were almost immediately deleted from the social media website. Jones said on his program that he had instructed his staff to do so and "take the super high road," though he contested whether the tweets violated any Twitter rules.

Related: Twitter admits InfoWars violated its rules, but says it will remain on the platform

Twitter is one of the only major social media companies that has not scrubbed its platform of Jones or InfoWars. Recently, Jones has seen the vast majority of the social media infrastructure for his media empire crumble. Apple has removed the full library of his podcasts, Facebook has unpublished his pages, YouTube terminated his account, and other technology companies took similar action.

However, InfoWars apps remain available through the Google Play store and Apple's app store.

Mass-Social-media needs a reset.. no words..

[Dom1noe]

The website itself is down right now.

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/infowars.com.html

Edit: After trying some more, the page loaded, but I can't repeat the loading. This suggests a DoS attack. How are your attempts?

[ThePythonicCow]

The website itself is down right now.

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/infowars.com.html

Edit: After trying some more, the page loaded, but I can't repeat the loading. This suggests a DoS attack. How are your attempts?

I've been able to reload InfoWars.com each time I tried just now, but it's a bit slow (perhaps a few seconds slower than I'd expect.)

However http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/infowars.com.html continues to show that InfoWars.com is down. I don't know why the discrepancy.

[T Smith]

Dimitri Orlov has an excellent essay on this topic: Censoring Alex Jones (https://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2018/08/censoring-alex-jones.html).

After a number of well stated comparisons between his own views and Alex Jones' views, Orlov observes that the censoring of Alex Jones by "Google, Facebook, Apple, Google Podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio, MailChimp, Disqus, LinkedIn, Flickr, Pinterest and several others" (Orlov's list) was clearly coordinated effort instigated by some element of or near the US government.



Excellent essay/ analysis... very enjoyable read. Although I think you are refining Orlov's analysis by characterizing his notion of collusion as "some element of or near the US Government..." As far as I could glean from Orlov he is coming at this from more of an old-school-Soviet perspective where he envisages the government as the centralized power giving the marching orders (in his words, Big Tech then "salutes"); I believe it is true that in the old USSR the big tech companies would have been the lapdogs for the government/KGB; but I would posit whatever the power structure undergirding this conspiracy isn't the US Government, per se. Call it Deep State. Call it some power "of or near" as you have, but not the US Government itself, which is a lap dog to them. Big Tech itself either is, or is closer to this power than the US Government itself.

[PurpleLama]

As a result of our reaction, the solution to be presented will be to have the gov't get in to the internet business, ostensibly to ensure fairness but in reality to control the discourse leaving us with less recourse than we have now.

What recourse do we have? Put every bit we can to drive traffic to every smaller independent social media site that we can.

[norman]

I dissagree there PL. That's continuing the same merry go round. What's small and independent one year is a monolithic menace to humanity a few years later.


A level playing field is not something to be ideologically paranoid about.


What absolutely confounds me to the point of banging my head on the wall is, why are Americans SO proud of their bill of rights at exactly the same time as they are stuck with superglue to the principle of corporate autonomy ?

[Fellow Aspirant]

Re:
Default Re: YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify all ban Alex Jones & Infowars

Quote Posted by Fellow Aspirant (here)
If I ever post hate speech in this forum, then I would expect to be banned.
But Brian, what's hate speech?

Please define it precisely. Your post that I quoted implies that you think you know exactly what it is.

(Maybe others can try to do the same. But do note that it has NO formal legal definition.)

This is central and important to this entire thread.




Why yes, Bill, as a matter of fact, when I use language, I usually DO think I know what I mean, a condition not too alien to most of us around the here. This would, by extension, include the concept of “hate speech”. And while legal assignations of its meaning are always in flux, the concept itself is deeply enshrined in a plenitude of legal declarations. Entire countries have signed on to definitions of it. As always, though, its validity and consequences are to be decided on a case by case basis.

But here we are faced with a historical conundrum, aren’t we? The subjective nature of language requires a constant vigilance coincident with its use – else we risk the danger of confusing our audience. Clarity is key to understanding, and careful choice in one’s diction is always of utmost concern. And nowhere, not incidentally, is diction more germane than when deciphering the intent of those who wield hate speech.
Lewis Carrol had some serious fun with the subjective nature of language when he penned the encounter between Alice and Humpty Dumpty as …

38786

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI

Word meaning, as Carrol so beautifully points out, can be rather malleable, depending on the intent of the one using it, and it behooves all of us to try to nail down the essences and boundaries of our thinking, especially when we embark on dialogues and arguments with others.

Herewith, then, is my rather feeble attempt at “nailing down” the amoeba that is hate speech.

To begin, I promise that I will eschew the temptation to resort to using the famous claim uttered by Justice Potter Stewart, to wit:

The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2][3] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[4]

Tempting as it is, and as common-sensical as it is, such an approach as ‘knowing it when you see it’ will do little to sate the appetites of those of us in the Avalon Forum who crave a deeper understanding of the human condition. So I must persist in my efforts, and I will.

“Hate speech” is, of course, a very complicated and contentious area of human interaction, but one which is extremely important and of increasing relevance (unfortunately) today. No longer is it possible to consider hate speech to be a weapon utilized only by deranged third world demagogues or upstart National Socialists of the past. No. With the advent of the all-pervasive and all-intrusive internet, hate speech is now in a golden era, a time when it is rampant and ascendant within our social discourse and our very psyches. It is simultaneously a beast that is dragonlike, full of ostentatious, fiery destruction and at the same time something far more subtle, an insidious nascent germ set into the protoplasm of the victim, growing stealthily within. It is a scourge that must be acknowledged and comprehended and, I would venture, one of the most damaging forces that our civilization has to reckon with.

The predicament in which Alex Jones finds himself, with respect to the legal consequences of his hate speech, and his vain attempts to save himself from financial ruin, (to the point of actually disowning his own claims, saying that "Sandy Hook probably happened") is now ground zero for what is surely to be a defining moment for the American notion of free speech. That the United States Supreme Court will have to weigh in at some point is very likely, and its decisions will have ramifications extending far into the lives of all of us. Whether having the court stacked with right leaning thinkers is an effect that is yet to be determined in this area.

Examining the concept of hate speech offers up the possibility spending a lifetime in the back and forth of moral concepts and applicability of the role that language plays. Such is not my intention – this lifetime is already too short to spend much effort on the unsolvable mystery that involves ideological fixations, psychological and spiritual core beliefs and other personal discernments. The shibboleth that is Alex Jones is but one manifestation of the looming crisis. The issue at hand, in my view, is not whether censorship is being imposed on Alex Jones because he poses a threat to The Powers That Be, but because he has incited violence in his deranged rants. In other words, there are limits to "free speech".

That said, I would like to ask your indulgence to allow a break in my essay. On my return, I intend to further my investigation. Till then,

Be Well everyone

Brian

===

[ Mod-edit: I disagree with your emboldened claim that Alex Jones has incited violence. See also Bill's Post #274 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-YouTube-Facebook-Apple-and-Spotify-all-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1242443&viewfull=1#post1242443) and my Post #276 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103766-YouTube-Facebook-Apple-and-Spotify-all-ban-Alex-Jones-Infowars&p=1242449&viewfull=1#post1242449), below. -- Paul. ]

[PurpleLama]

I dissagree there PL. That's continuing the same merry go round. What's small and independent one year is a monolithic menace to humanity a few years later.


A level playing field is not something to be ideologically paranoid about.


What absolutely confounds me to the point of banging my head on the wall is, why are Americans SO proud of their bill of rights at exactly the same time as they are stuck with superglue to the principle of corporate autonomy ?

Dialing back corporate power and enforcing rules on them is one thing, doing so on the whole of the internet and its users is quite another. What we have is quite the sticky situation, and government rules applied to the internet at large is definitely not which way we want to go, as government and corporations alike make every attempt to end run around our beloved documents with the rules and rights they enumerate.