The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Forum
Urgent: Southfront's Work Is Fully Blocked on YouTube (Updated)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

UPDATE [8.09.2017 23:42 CEST]: Dear friends, few moments ago Youtube removed one of the two “Community Guidelines strikes” from SouthFront’s channel and restored our video “Syrian War Report – September 8, 2017: US-led Coalition Rescues ISIS Commanders From Deir Ezzor?”. This means that SouthFront is now able again to upload new videos to our Youtube channel.

However, the Community Guidelines strike that was added to the channel on September 6 remained. (You can find more about it in the text below)

The remaining strike directly impacts SouthFront’s ability to provide exclusive content. We cannot more host live streams because our Youtube channel has a Community Guidelines strike.

Furthermore, it’s clear that a threat that SouthFront’s YouTube channel might be closed down or once again frozen (as a result of false flagging by the project’s ill-wishers or by ‘mistake’ of the Youtube system) remains while the channel still has one Community Guidelines strike.

URGENT: SouthFront's Work Is Fully Blocked On Youtube (UPDATED)

ORIGINAL POST:

ATTENTION!

SOUTH FRONT’S WORK ON YOUTUBE IS BLOCKED

The project’s YouTube channel received two community guidelines strikes over the past 48 hours. With two community guidelines strikes, SouthFront cannot upload new videos on YouTube. Work on YouTube is now fully blocked.

URGENT: SouthFront's Work Is Fully Blocked On Youtube (UPDATED)

URGENT: SouthFront's Work Is Fully Blocked On Youtube (UPDATED)

This is a clear violation of the freedom of speech and an attempt to eliminate an independent media.

On September 8, 2017, SouthFront’s war report video “Syrian War Report – September 8, 2017: US-led Coalition Rescues ISIS Commanders From Deir Ezzor?” (You can watch the deleted video here) was removed because it allegedly violated “YouTube Community Guidelines”. The video included no graphic content, but was nevertheless flagged and deleted.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Censorship, Google, Russia, Syria, Youtube ban 
    []
  1. So what is your plan?I have never heard of Southfront, and just read this article on unz.com out of curiosity and worry about this new censorship trend coming down. How, can you title this article as: “Urgent: ….. “ when you don’t even have any suggestion of what people should do about it? Do you have a plan to put your stuff on another server? Can you get a whole bunch of channels and keep switching around to escape youtube’s PC tyranny?

    Again, have some kind of plan, or why bother posting. If your stuff is gone, people will know it’s gone and figure what happened, but you need to let them know NOW what your back-up plan is. If nothing else get them to harass youtube in some way, if that’s on the table, but let your readers/viewers what comes next.

    Man, it seems like I have to do all the thinking for the whole damn internet. Get your shit together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    The situation is changing quickly.

    Google is deliberately releasing as little information as possible, favouring a sudden removal without warning or recourse to appeal.

    So it may be that Mr Unz has some kind of game plan — I wouldn't know. But he will also likely act suddenly without warning.

    As far as this group goes, I stopped following Syria in detail a couple of years ago. It seemed to me the accurate information was hard to come by. I trusted Syrian Observatory group at the time but by now I haven't the foggiest.

    Why this obscure group is permitted to post here I don't know.

    Perhaps it is simply a record of censorship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /forum/urgent-southfronts-work-is-fully-blocked-on-youtube-updated/#comment-2000292
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Hugh says:

    Try Bitchute as an alternative platform. Its peer to peer architecture should make it more resilient against censorship efforts.

    Here’s the link:

    https://www.bitchute.com

    Read More
  3. @Achmed E. Newman
    So what is your plan?I have never heard of Southfront, and just read this article on unz.com out of curiosity and worry about this new censorship trend coming down. How, can you title this article as: "Urgent: ..... " when you don't even have any suggestion of what people should do about it? Do you have a plan to put your stuff on another server? Can you get a whole bunch of channels and keep switching around to escape youtube's PC tyranny?

    Again, have some kind of plan, or why bother posting. If your stuff is gone, people will know it's gone and figure what happened, but you need to let them know NOW what your back-up plan is. If nothing else get them to harass youtube in some way, if that's on the table, but let your readers/viewers what comes next.

    Man, it seems like I have to do all the thinking for the whole damn internet. Get your shit together.

    The situation is changing quickly.

    Google is deliberately releasing as little information as possible, favouring a sudden removal without warning or recourse to appeal.

    So it may be that Mr Unz has some kind of game plan — I wouldn’t know. But he will also likely act suddenly without warning.

    As far as this group goes, I stopped following Syria in detail a couple of years ago. It seemed to me the accurate information was hard to come by. I trusted Syrian Observatory group at the time but by now I haven’t the foggiest.

    Why this obscure group is permitted to post here I don’t know.

    Perhaps it is simply a record of censorship.

    Read More
  4. Norumbega says:

    Southfront is an essential source of information on the day-to-day progress of the war in Syria. Many who keep up with the Saker’s writings here will already be familiar with it. I have also found their relatively recent series of livestreams extremely valuable – and find it distressing that they they are blocked from adding new ones and at the mercy of an Youtube’s opaque censorship system. Other channels covering Syria have been deleted from Youtube completely – such as one Syrian channel that had much invaluable footage of the liberation of eastern Aleppo last December – for example, showing thousands of civilians (virtually all Sunni muslims, incidentally) coming toward government areas, cheering the Army and many women doing the distinctive tongue-trilling hoots (like footage from recent days in Deir Ezzor); in one case there was a young soldier with the Tiger Forces under Gen. Suheil Hassan named Ahmed who was briefly united with his parents and younger sister and brother who had been been in eastern Aleppo during the jihadist occupation. I watched many such videos in untranslated Arabic many times. But its all gone now (though a few items are replicated elsewhere and some footage comes from longer news programs which are still around). R & U videos has been deleted twice, and I suspect that much if not all of the old content has not been restored, though haven’t taken the time to look through all the videos on the current incarnation of R & U. There is a definite need to at least mirror all content on alternative platforms (Southfront at least has a website of its own.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    There is a definite need to at least mirror all content on alternative platforms (Southfront at least has a website of its own.
     
    The need is surely to have alternatives to the over-powerful providers such as Google, Apple, YouTube, etc, to protect political liberty and media honesty, so that at least if we are going to have censorship of dissent it will have to be more openly and accountably imposed by laws rather than silently by unaccountable monopolist/duopolist global businesses. The former can be fought more easily than the latter.

    That's going to need state power, most likely, but the levers of state power are by and large in the hands of exactly the same kinds of people (often the same actual people) as seek to abuse these over-powerful corporations to control dissent, so it won't be straightforward. A degree of divide and conquer and misdirection might be needed, to play European elite and state interests off against US elite and state interests.
    , @JohnT
    Thank you for informing people about the good work of Southfront.
  5. Randal says:
    @Norumbega
    Southfront is an essential source of information on the day-to-day progress of the war in Syria. Many who keep up with the Saker's writings here will already be familiar with it. I have also found their relatively recent series of livestreams extremely valuable - and find it distressing that they they are blocked from adding new ones and at the mercy of an Youtube's opaque censorship system. Other channels covering Syria have been deleted from Youtube completely - such as one Syrian channel that had much invaluable footage of the liberation of eastern Aleppo last December - for example, showing thousands of civilians (virtually all Sunni muslims, incidentally) coming toward government areas, cheering the Army and many women doing the distinctive tongue-trilling hoots (like footage from recent days in Deir Ezzor); in one case there was a young soldier with the Tiger Forces under Gen. Suheil Hassan named Ahmed who was briefly united with his parents and younger sister and brother who had been been in eastern Aleppo during the jihadist occupation. I watched many such videos in untranslated Arabic many times. But its all gone now (though a few items are replicated elsewhere and some footage comes from longer news programs which are still around). R & U videos has been deleted twice, and I suspect that much if not all of the old content has not been restored, though haven't taken the time to look through all the videos on the current incarnation of R & U. There is a definite need to at least mirror all content on alternative platforms (Southfront at least has a website of its own.)

    There is a definite need to at least mirror all content on alternative platforms (Southfront at least has a website of its own.

    The need is surely to have alternatives to the over-powerful providers such as Google, Apple, YouTube, etc, to protect political liberty and media honesty, so that at least if we are going to have censorship of dissent it will have to be more openly and accountably imposed by laws rather than silently by unaccountable monopolist/duopolist global businesses. The former can be fought more easily than the latter.

    That’s going to need state power, most likely, but the levers of state power are by and large in the hands of exactly the same kinds of people (often the same actual people) as seek to abuse these over-powerful corporations to control dissent, so it won’t be straightforward. A degree of divide and conquer and misdirection might be needed, to play European elite and state interests off against US elite and state interests.

    Read More
  6. While this is obnoxious and outrageous behavior on the part of the owning class, it’s not “violation of free speech” as I think you mean it. The constitution says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”. For example, if I tell one of the nuns who run my school to go to hell, I cannot be arrested. But I can and will be fired, promptly.

    This is one peripheral problem with privatizing everything. All opinions, behavior, language, security, etc. are subject to the control of a CEO or similar entity, and there isn’t a thing we private citizens can do about it except find another CEO or start our own similar endeavor. There are some theoretical advantages to this particular example, as kids won’t accidentally, while surfing You-Tube, stumble upon videos of human sacrifices and such. But no one’s “free speech is being violated”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    This is the orthodox libertarian defence of the suppression of dissent in the US sphere, and it's the equivalent of the orthodox libertarian argument for privatisation of roads. Both arguments arguably work fine in theory so long as you ignore the practical effects of concentrations of power, elite orthodoxies and monopolistic practices.

    In the real world, like the orthodox libertarian inability to grasp the centrality of collective human loyalties that makes so many libertarians suckers for the anti-racist etc dogmas, it's a recipe for disaster.

    Ensure that someone cannot be heard and you have achieved the same purpose as forbidding their speech. As such, freedom of speech is of course primarily threatened by state censorship, but it is false to say that corporate and plutocratic censorship do not also threaten it.

    During the rise of the radical left to its complete dominance by the end of the C20th, there were constant political struggles over control of big media for this very reason. The success of the left in preventing complete control of the media by wealthy businessmen (back when such men were not necessarily leftists themselves as they mostly are today) gave them the opening they needed to rise to power. Note that it was not just about ownership, but also about limiting the ways in which the ownership could safely be used.

    Orwell gave the classic description of how freedom of speech was restricted in early C20th Britain by wealthy media owners, though in your terms this was supposedly not restriction of freedom of speech at all since it wasn't government censorship. His piece was part of the wider leftist campaign to ensure that the ownership of media businesses could not be used with impunity to suppress their dissent from the then established views, in the way the modern ownership of big business and especially big internet corporations is now being used to suppress traditionalist/conservative/nativist/racist etc dissent from the prevailing radical leftist views.

    Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

    Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

     
    The Freedom of the Press, 1945

    Note that the general elite unwillingness to see communist Russia criticised at that point in time, which was the particular focus (as representative of the general case) of Orwell's argument, is the equivalent of the elite imposition of anti-racist/sexist/antisemitic/homophobic/islamophobic dogmas today.

    Today we need to break up the monopolist tech firms and find ways to ensure diversity of ownership.
    , @Avery
    {.... it’s not “violation of free speech” as I think you mean it. }

    Correct.

    First Amendment applies only to the Government (US Congress).
    US Congress is forbidden to curtail your free speech.
    But there is no law that says a private enterprise cannot prevent you from saying something while you are using their services.

    Having said that, a case can be made that the monopoly enjoyed by Facebook, Google, etc is tantamount to the Commons (e.g. and electric or water utility).
    As such, US Gov has a duty to break up those monopolies.
    As it is, if you are blocked by Google or Facebook, you have nowhere else to go.

    In a healthy competitive environment, if one enterprise blocks you, you can go somewhere else.

    OR

    US Gov can give these monopolies a choice: agree not to block people you don't like, no matter how odious, or we'll break you up.
    , @Anonymous
    Some of these technology companies need to be nationalized or perhaps broken up like the oil monopolies.

    They've become too important in society to have them involving themselves in whose content gets play and who's doesn't. They've shown themselves to have clear ideological biases. Something needs to be done.
  7. hyperbola says:

    As part of Google, YouTube is now as heavily distorted as Google itself. Full thought-control of Americans by foreign corporations is now well underway.

    Read More
  8. Randal says:
    @Sane Left Libertarian
    While this is obnoxious and outrageous behavior on the part of the owning class, it's not "violation of free speech" as I think you mean it. The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". For example, if I tell one of the nuns who run my school to go to hell, I cannot be arrested. But I can and will be fired, promptly.

    This is one peripheral problem with privatizing everything. All opinions, behavior, language, security, etc. are subject to the control of a CEO or similar entity, and there isn't a thing we private citizens can do about it except find another CEO or start our own similar endeavor. There are some theoretical advantages to this particular example, as kids won't accidentally, while surfing You-Tube, stumble upon videos of human sacrifices and such. But no one's "free speech is being violated".

    This is the orthodox libertarian defence of the suppression of dissent in the US sphere, and it’s the equivalent of the orthodox libertarian argument for privatisation of roads. Both arguments arguably work fine in theory so long as you ignore the practical effects of concentrations of power, elite orthodoxies and monopolistic practices.

    In the real world, like the orthodox libertarian inability to grasp the centrality of collective human loyalties that makes so many libertarians suckers for the anti-racist etc dogmas, it’s a recipe for disaster.

    Ensure that someone cannot be heard and you have achieved the same purpose as forbidding their speech. As such, freedom of speech is of course primarily threatened by state censorship, but it is false to say that corporate and plutocratic censorship do not also threaten it.

    During the rise of the radical left to its complete dominance by the end of the C20th, there were constant political struggles over control of big media for this very reason. The success of the left in preventing complete control of the media by wealthy businessmen (back when such men were not necessarily leftists themselves as they mostly are today) gave them the opening they needed to rise to power. Note that it was not just about ownership, but also about limiting the ways in which the ownership could safely be used.

    Orwell gave the classic description of how freedom of speech was restricted in early C20th Britain by wealthy media owners, though in your terms this was supposedly not restriction of freedom of speech at all since it wasn’t government censorship. His piece was part of the wider leftist campaign to ensure that the ownership of media businesses could not be used with impunity to suppress their dissent from the then established views, in the way the modern ownership of big business and especially big internet corporations is now being used to suppress traditionalist/conservative/nativist/racist etc dissent from the prevailing radical leftist views.

    Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

    Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

    The Freedom of the Press, 1945

    Note that the general elite unwillingness to see communist Russia criticised at that point in time, which was the particular focus (as representative of the general case) of Orwell’s argument, is the equivalent of the elite imposition of anti-racist/sexist/antisemitic/homophobic/islamophobic dogmas today.

    Today we need to break up the monopolist tech firms and find ways to ensure diversity of ownership.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Good points all, Randal, showing where libertarianism goes a bit wobbly. (I'm a longtime Libertarian voter, a default disposition of mind for me.)

    "A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

    To Orwell's thought I'd add that a genuinely unfashionable opinion--even when supported by incontrovertible facts, robust argument, and demonstrable predictive power--is almost never given a fair hearing. The "marketplace of ideas" cliché that good ideas will survive the bruising of public controversy seems to me a heap of rubbish. Unz Review is chock-full of well-formed observations that ought to be better oxygenated, but they just plain aren't. As Orwell suggests, you don't need formal government censorship or the whip hand of a media mogul to suppress thought. The internalized shackles that keep ordinary people and opinion leaders from thinking outside their comfort zones will do just fine.

  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    it’s not “violation of free speech”

    But of course it is. Whether it’s done by a global(ist) monopoly corporation or a government doesn’t change the effect. It’s worse actually since you can’t vote out the corporate owners (theoretically) and re-set the system.

    American Libertarians have a huge blind spot. They believe that all governments are inevitably bad… because their own government – and their personal and national sovereignty – have been drowned in a bathtub (by the “business”) long time ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    So please tell us, which governments are not "bad"?

    And what distinguishes their 'goodness'.

  10. Avery says:
    @Sane Left Libertarian
    While this is obnoxious and outrageous behavior on the part of the owning class, it's not "violation of free speech" as I think you mean it. The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". For example, if I tell one of the nuns who run my school to go to hell, I cannot be arrested. But I can and will be fired, promptly.

    This is one peripheral problem with privatizing everything. All opinions, behavior, language, security, etc. are subject to the control of a CEO or similar entity, and there isn't a thing we private citizens can do about it except find another CEO or start our own similar endeavor. There are some theoretical advantages to this particular example, as kids won't accidentally, while surfing You-Tube, stumble upon videos of human sacrifices and such. But no one's "free speech is being violated".

    {…. it’s not “violation of free speech” as I think you mean it. }

    Correct.

    First Amendment applies only to the Government (US Congress).
    US Congress is forbidden to curtail your free speech.
    But there is no law that says a private enterprise cannot prevent you from saying something while you are using their services.

    Having said that, a case can be made that the monopoly enjoyed by Facebook, Google, etc is tantamount to the Commons (e.g. and electric or water utility).
    As such, US Gov has a duty to break up those monopolies.
    As it is, if you are blocked by Google or Facebook, you have nowhere else to go.

    In a healthy competitive environment, if one enterprise blocks you, you can go somewhere else.

    OR

    US Gov can give these monopolies a choice: agree not to block people you don’t like, no matter how odious, or we’ll break you up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Correct.
     
    No, it's precisely "violation of free speech" for the reasons set out above.

    What it isn't, which is what you are pointing out, is the kind of state censorship forbidden in the US by the First Amendment (but already more and more openly practised in Europe and the UK under the guise of "hate speech" laws). Which is correct, but pretty much beside the point unless you are addressing it to somebody who is specifically calling it state censorship.


    US Gov can give these monopolies a choice: agree not to block people you don’t like, no matter how odious, or we’ll break you up.
     
    Why would the USG want to do that? There's no requirement in the Constitution to do it. What constituency, party, lobby or power bloc of any effectiveness today in the US wants to see freedom of speech for the kind of dissidents whose political freedom of speech is being violated by Google etc today?

    Business is dominated either by leftists who see all genuine conservative/nativist/traditionalist opinion as "hate speech" or by men who see a need to cynically play along with that characterisation for business reasons. Mainstream media, law and academe are worse. The minority identity lobby groups - jewish/Israeli, black, homosexualist, feminist, etc - all either see advantages for their own identity group in playing along with it or are inherently committed to it anyway.

    The as yet undeveloped white identity lobby is uncoordinated, and critically divided by the anti-racist etc taboos and the need to turn on and denounce anyone trying to organise it as "racist" or "fascist", for self-preservation or for cynically self-interested motives. The supposed political representatives of conservatives are dominated by treasonous social liberals and pro-immigration military interventionists who certainly won't cooperate with any attempt to prevent the silencing of their own enemies on the right unless they are directly coerced into doing so by real threat of losing their positions - something that almost never happens to incumbents.

    In order to argue that the government must break up these monopolies for the greater good, you need to have an argument that explains why that is so.

    Unless the argument is made on the basis of political liberty, in the particular sense of freedom of speech , what argument is there that will have any effect?

    , @map
    This game has already been played out.

    You know what used to think it was a private company? Every power company. Every public utility, from AT&T, People's Gas, Commonwealth Edison, etc., believed that it was a private company...yet natural monopolistic practices led to regulation. And this was at a time when the US economy was a lot more free.

    Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and most companies of this type are natural monopolies that need to be regulated...if only because they represent natural monopolies against free speech rather than prices.
  11. I like Vimeo better anyway. There you can share on social sites as well as to groups users create there although it’s membership is nothing compared to Youtube. Then again, with Google in the news about their censorship ways I expect more to head to Vimeo.

    Read More
  12. Norumbega says:

    I should note that Southfront’s video content, as on their own website, is in an other-than-Youtube format already. I’m not savvy enough to know what the name of the format is, or why I’ve always had trouble playing back their videos on my computer compared to the better playback on Youtube. It would be nice if they played just as well in the alternative form.

    Read More
  13. Wally says:

    Anything that is not ‘good for Jews’ is or will be under attack.

    In AIPAC announced at their 2010 convention: “We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”

    “We can force through any lie. It just has to be big enough so that a normal person says, ‘Well that cannot be a lie!’. Then the lie cannot be recognized as such. And the lie has to be repeated continuously. Then it is believed and is powerful because it is the belief in a ‘truth.’”
    - from ‘Propaganda’, by Zionist Jew Edward Bernays

    [MORE]

    Jew stages fake antisemitic crime:

    https://newtownbee.com/first-degree-arson-arrest-police-allege-package-store-owner-faked-crime/

    &

    https://newtownbee.com/police-chief-investigators-tirelessley-working-first-ever-robbery-hate-crime/

    Jews Promote Homosexual Marriage in America but Outlaw it in Israel

    http://newobserveronline.com/jews-promote-homosexual-marriage-in-america-but-outlaw-it-in-israel/

    Bomb threats to Jewish centers & schools were really a dark web moneymaking scheme ? FBI

    https://www.rt.com/usa/399027-bomb-jcc-kadar-warrant-alphabay/

    JCC bomb hoaxer charged with vast list of offenses, including threats to execute children, blow up planes
    US-Israeli teen hacker accused in Israeli court of making over 2,000 intimidating calls to Jewish institutions, malls, schools, airlines and police in US and worldwide; threatening US senator and top defense official

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-files-massive-indictment-against-jcc-bomb-hoaxer-for-thousands-of-counts-of-threats-extortion-fraud/

    Jewish suspects arrested over swastika graffiti on synagogues

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-suspects-arrested-over-swastika-graffiti-on-synagogues/

    Jew arrested for dozens of fake ‘hate crimes’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/israeli-jew-19-arrested-antisemitic-hate-crime-hoax-spree/

    excerpt: “last month concerned a suspect who allegedly vandalized Chicago’s Loop Synagogue and was apparently caught on surveillance video camera. The man, already facing a March trial on unrelated charges, was charged with a hate crime.

    In December, a synagogue was vandalized with feces in Santa Monica, California. No arrest has yet been made in that case.

    Almost all of the other hate crimes in recent weeks and months have been false bomb threats. Now, Israeli police believe they have identified the person responsible for most of those threats, which sparked panic worldwide.”

    ‘antisemitic’ crimes are the rule, not the exception.
    As a rule, these are never ‘crimes’ that are tried in courts of law.

    These are only what some people ‘report’ as ‘hate crimes’, not what was actually charged against someone & tried in court.
    IOW, if someone doesn’t like what someone said, they then report it as ‘racist, antisemitic, anti-whomever’ and voila! … instant ‘hate crime’ statistics.

    Read More
  14. Randal says:
    @Avery
    {.... it’s not “violation of free speech” as I think you mean it. }

    Correct.

    First Amendment applies only to the Government (US Congress).
    US Congress is forbidden to curtail your free speech.
    But there is no law that says a private enterprise cannot prevent you from saying something while you are using their services.

    Having said that, a case can be made that the monopoly enjoyed by Facebook, Google, etc is tantamount to the Commons (e.g. and electric or water utility).
    As such, US Gov has a duty to break up those monopolies.
    As it is, if you are blocked by Google or Facebook, you have nowhere else to go.

    In a healthy competitive environment, if one enterprise blocks you, you can go somewhere else.

    OR

    US Gov can give these monopolies a choice: agree not to block people you don't like, no matter how odious, or we'll break you up.

    Correct.

    No, it’s precisely “violation of free speech” for the reasons set out above.

    What it isn’t, which is what you are pointing out, is the kind of state censorship forbidden in the US by the First Amendment (but already more and more openly practised in Europe and the UK under the guise of “hate speech” laws). Which is correct, but pretty much beside the point unless you are addressing it to somebody who is specifically calling it state censorship.

    US Gov can give these monopolies a choice: agree not to block people you don’t like, no matter how odious, or we’ll break you up.

    Why would the USG want to do that? There’s no requirement in the Constitution to do it. What constituency, party, lobby or power bloc of any effectiveness today in the US wants to see freedom of speech for the kind of dissidents whose political freedom of speech is being violated by Google etc today?

    Business is dominated either by leftists who see all genuine conservative/nativist/traditionalist opinion as “hate speech” or by men who see a need to cynically play along with that characterisation for business reasons. Mainstream media, law and academe are worse. The minority identity lobby groups – jewish/Israeli, black, homosexualist, feminist, etc – all either see advantages for their own identity group in playing along with it or are inherently committed to it anyway.

    The as yet undeveloped white identity lobby is uncoordinated, and critically divided by the anti-racist etc taboos and the need to turn on and denounce anyone trying to organise it as “racist” or “fascist”, for self-preservation or for cynically self-interested motives. The supposed political representatives of conservatives are dominated by treasonous social liberals and pro-immigration military interventionists who certainly won’t cooperate with any attempt to prevent the silencing of their own enemies on the right unless they are directly coerced into doing so by real threat of losing their positions – something that almost never happens to incumbents.

    In order to argue that the government must break up these monopolies for the greater good, you need to have an argument that explains why that is so.

    Unless the argument is made on the basis of political liberty, in the particular sense of freedom of speech , what argument is there that will have any effect?

    Read More
  15. Brabantian says: • Website

    The big & very creepy issue unspoken here, is WHY nations like Russia – Russia essentially behind SouthFront & other pro-Russian sites – did not more greatly develop its own existing internet video channels, which it easily could have done … and instead rely on the Google – CIA YouTube … and why doesn’t South Front talk about this obvious option?

    Russia has long had its own video channel, Smotri, on which Western people used to post things as well as Russians, given that long ago, Smotri had a quite easily usable English interface. But then the English-language interface was deleted from Smotri, making it much harder to use for Westerners.

    The Powers That Be in Russia, left Smotri to languish, going along with the CIA’s GoogleTube, and the Russian news sites like RT Russia Today made YouTube their primary video platform as well … when there was zero reason not to have Smotri as the main site for Russian news video links, with YouTube as a back-up for Westerners already browsing there. ‘Smotri’ can translate as ‘Look!’, and you can take a look here at Russia’s video channel, no longer inviting the Western audience.

    http://smotri.com/

    What we are looking at here, ladies & gentlemen, is ever-more evidence that Russia itself is ‘compromised’ (and China too), all members of the same cabal with the USA regime, the CIA & Google.

    Consider the immense weakness and timidity of RT Russia Today, Sputnik news etc … Yes they somewhat needle things in a way some Westerners do too, but they do not go into hard-core critique of the USA Deep State that many of us wish.

    For years various Western people have been fantasising about Putin & Russian media ‘exposing 9-11 truth’ etc … but they don’t, and Vladimir Putin is on record as supporting the official US gov fairy tales on 9-11. Some Russians say that is because Russia did its own anti-Muslim false flags in the 90s-00s, in order to justify killing up to 100,000 Chechens, suppressing Chechnya-Dagestan secession, & thus holding on to their rich oil & gas revenues for Gazprom … Putin keeps quiet about USA 9-11, & the West keeps quiet about Chechnya, that may be the deal.

    The Russian media keeps itself more or less within the ‘limited hang out’ of ‘official’ media-pumped dissidents such as Noam Chomsky etc… and speaking of ‘limited hang out’, consider the fact that Putin has publicly hinted he knows that the young friend of Dick Cheney & the Brzezinski family, ‘Edward Snowden’, is a CIA fraud & hoax, along with Julian Assange, who was openly admitted as a fraud by both Zbigniew Brzezinski & Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu.

    Putin is quite directly playing along with the USA CIA in these hoaxes, giving blatantly obvious CIA agent Snowden a fake ‘asylum’ in another of Russia’s quiet ‘deals’ with the CIA & the USA Deep State. The report that major governments have on the Snowden fraud, was originally presented to Moscow’s own FSB & SVR

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/09/21/russia-govt-report-snowden-greenwald-are-cia-frauds/

    People have been shortly dead after ‘whistle-blowing’ to Assange / Snowden … who are both anti-9-11-truth … The media pumping of Snowden’s nothing-new ‘revelations’ about spying, have aided CIA international blackmail … Snowden-Assange media pumping de-legitimises real dissidents ‘because if it was true they would be famous like Snowden’ … anyone who contacts Assange, Rothschild employee Glenn Greenwald, or the Snowden-Assange pumpers at CIA news outlets NY Times / UK Guardian, is ‘rat trapped’ so the CIA can ‘handle’ him or her … etc. See link just above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    We get it, Shlomo. Putin, Snowden, Chomsky, Greenwald and Assagne are bad because you, Brzezinski and Netanyahu say so...

    It's all becoming clear now.

    https://s26.postimg.org/3r7qhyvbt/squinty-leo.jpg
  16. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “The constitution says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

    …and that’s why we lose – blind allegiance to a piece of paper while our enemies blatantly ignore it or reinterpret it to their heart’s desire.

    The constitution also says nothing about having a Supreme Court that can overturn acts of congress. They made that up and gave themselves that power with Marbury v. Madison. Their logic was that congressional overriding was implicit in the document. However, the same logic could be used to extend our rights of freedom of speech, thereby preventing illegal monopolies from silencing dissidents. The founders NEVER intended the situation we have now, and without implicit protections for unpopular speech, their might as well not even be such a concept.

    North Korea: Yeah, sure there is freedom of speech here as long as you don’t write down anything subversive, tell anyone your thoughts, grant interviews to foreigners, or act like you don’t believe our propaganda…but otherwise there is freedom of speech, just say it to yourself in the middle of the woods and very quietly where no one can hear you.

    Response: but doesn’t that defeat the point?

    The implicit point of the constitution’s wording was to prevent unfair retaliation/suppression of unpopular opinions. There was no internet back then, and there was no private industry that could restrict speech to the level large corporations can today. The government was the say all and the be all; therefore, the clause addressed the government.

    Using the original intent of the document, there is no reason speech protections shouldn’t be extended to protect unpopular forms of speech from illegal monopolies and large corporations. And it should, and we should be pushing for that. The left did the same with the Civil Rights movement (redefining Freedom of Association in order to get a desired result for themselves), so why aren’t we doing the same?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Does not Congress include the FAANGs? After all, they cooperate with Congress and the Deep State to surveil us. They are part of a public / private partnership, and, as such, are Congress for first amendment purposes.
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Brabantian
    The big & very creepy issue unspoken here, is WHY nations like Russia - Russia essentially behind SouthFront & other pro-Russian sites - did not more greatly develop its own existing internet video channels, which it easily could have done ... and instead rely on the Google - CIA YouTube ... and why doesn't South Front talk about this obvious option?

    Russia has long had its own video channel, Smotri, on which Western people used to post things as well as Russians, given that long ago, Smotri had a quite easily usable English interface. But then the English-language interface was deleted from Smotri, making it much harder to use for Westerners.

    The Powers That Be in Russia, left Smotri to languish, going along with the CIA's GoogleTube, and the Russian news sites like RT Russia Today made YouTube their primary video platform as well ... when there was zero reason not to have Smotri as the main site for Russian news video links, with YouTube as a back-up for Westerners already browsing there. 'Smotri' can translate as 'Look!', and you can take a look here at Russia's video channel, no longer inviting the Western audience.
    http://smotri.com/
    What we are looking at here, ladies & gentlemen, is ever-more evidence that Russia itself is 'compromised' (and China too), all members of the same cabal with the USA regime, the CIA & Google.

    Consider the immense weakness and timidity of RT Russia Today, Sputnik news etc ... Yes they somewhat needle things in a way some Westerners do too, but they do not go into hard-core critique of the USA Deep State that many of us wish.

    For years various Western people have been fantasising about Putin & Russian media 'exposing 9-11 truth' etc ... but they don't, and Vladimir Putin is on record as supporting the official US gov fairy tales on 9-11. Some Russians say that is because Russia did its own anti-Muslim false flags in the 90s-00s, in order to justify killing up to 100,000 Chechens, suppressing Chechnya-Dagestan secession, & thus holding on to their rich oil & gas revenues for Gazprom ... Putin keeps quiet about USA 9-11, & the West keeps quiet about Chechnya, that may be the deal.

    The Russian media keeps itself more or less within the 'limited hang out' of 'official' media-pumped dissidents such as Noam Chomsky etc... and speaking of 'limited hang out', consider the fact that Putin has publicly hinted he knows that the young friend of Dick Cheney & the Brzezinski family, 'Edward Snowden', is a CIA fraud & hoax, along with Julian Assange, who was openly admitted as a fraud by both Zbigniew Brzezinski & Israel's Bibi Netanyahu.

    Putin is quite directly playing along with the USA CIA in these hoaxes, giving blatantly obvious CIA agent Snowden a fake 'asylum' in another of Russia's quiet 'deals' with the CIA & the USA Deep State. The report that major governments have on the Snowden fraud, was originally presented to Moscow's own FSB & SVR
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/09/21/russia-govt-report-snowden-greenwald-are-cia-frauds/
    People have been shortly dead after 'whistle-blowing' to Assange / Snowden ... who are both anti-9-11-truth ... The media pumping of Snowden's nothing-new 'revelations' about spying, have aided CIA international blackmail ... Snowden-Assange media pumping de-legitimises real dissidents 'because if it was true they would be famous like Snowden' ... anyone who contacts Assange, Rothschild employee Glenn Greenwald, or the Snowden-Assange pumpers at CIA news outlets NY Times / UK Guardian, is 'rat trapped' so the CIA can 'handle' him or her ... etc. See link just above.

    We get it, Shlomo. Putin, Snowden, Chomsky, Greenwald and Assagne are bad because you, Brzezinski and Netanyahu say so…

    It’s all becoming clear now.

    Read More
  18. JackOH says:
    @Randal
    This is the orthodox libertarian defence of the suppression of dissent in the US sphere, and it's the equivalent of the orthodox libertarian argument for privatisation of roads. Both arguments arguably work fine in theory so long as you ignore the practical effects of concentrations of power, elite orthodoxies and monopolistic practices.

    In the real world, like the orthodox libertarian inability to grasp the centrality of collective human loyalties that makes so many libertarians suckers for the anti-racist etc dogmas, it's a recipe for disaster.

    Ensure that someone cannot be heard and you have achieved the same purpose as forbidding their speech. As such, freedom of speech is of course primarily threatened by state censorship, but it is false to say that corporate and plutocratic censorship do not also threaten it.

    During the rise of the radical left to its complete dominance by the end of the C20th, there were constant political struggles over control of big media for this very reason. The success of the left in preventing complete control of the media by wealthy businessmen (back when such men were not necessarily leftists themselves as they mostly are today) gave them the opening they needed to rise to power. Note that it was not just about ownership, but also about limiting the ways in which the ownership could safely be used.

    Orwell gave the classic description of how freedom of speech was restricted in early C20th Britain by wealthy media owners, though in your terms this was supposedly not restriction of freedom of speech at all since it wasn't government censorship. His piece was part of the wider leftist campaign to ensure that the ownership of media businesses could not be used with impunity to suppress their dissent from the then established views, in the way the modern ownership of big business and especially big internet corporations is now being used to suppress traditionalist/conservative/nativist/racist etc dissent from the prevailing radical leftist views.

    Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

    Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

     
    The Freedom of the Press, 1945

    Note that the general elite unwillingness to see communist Russia criticised at that point in time, which was the particular focus (as representative of the general case) of Orwell's argument, is the equivalent of the elite imposition of anti-racist/sexist/antisemitic/homophobic/islamophobic dogmas today.

    Today we need to break up the monopolist tech firms and find ways to ensure diversity of ownership.

    Good points all, Randal, showing where libertarianism goes a bit wobbly. (I’m a longtime Libertarian voter, a default disposition of mind for me.)

    “A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”

    To Orwell’s thought I’d add that a genuinely unfashionable opinion–even when supported by incontrovertible facts, robust argument, and demonstrable predictive power–is almost never given a fair hearing. The “marketplace of ideas” cliché that good ideas will survive the bruising of public controversy seems to me a heap of rubbish. Unz Review is chock-full of well-formed observations that ought to be better oxygenated, but they just plain aren’t. As Orwell suggests, you don’t need formal government censorship or the whip hand of a media mogul to suppress thought. The internalized shackles that keep ordinary people and opinion leaders from thinking outside their comfort zones will do just fine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Agreed, Randal is on it.

    The government's easily debunked & impossible 9/11 conspiracy theory and the equally impossible & absurd 'holocaust' narrative are classic examples of what you speak.

    People believe in these whoppers because they want to believe in them.

    www.ae911truth.org/

    www.codoh.com

    , @Randal

    Good points all, Randal, showing where libertarianism goes a bit wobbly. (I’m a longtime Libertarian voter, a default disposition of mind for me.)
     
    Cheers. I'm a recovering libertarian myself, so I understand their positions and their weaknesses intimately, but I also recognise their strengths. I can certainly understand voting libertarian over either Democrat or Republican in the US if the usual Republican warmongering immigrationist Romney/Bush/McCain type is standing.

    The worst aspect of many libertarians for me is their enthusiastic collaboration with the dishonest anti-racist/sexist/homosexualist/islamophobe/anti-Semite dogmas. I finally gave up recently on the formerly excellent antiwar,com, for instance, when I set out some traditionalist opinions (in absolutely respectable terms) as examples of things which are dishonestly censored as "hate", following which my post was censored by their censor on the explicitly dishonest grounds that it was "hatred".

    The “marketplace of ideas” cliché that good ideas will survive the bruising of public controversy seems to me a heap of rubbish. Unz Review is chock-full of well-formed observations that ought to be better oxygenated, but they just plain aren’t. As Orwell suggests, you don’t need formal government censorship or the whip hand of a media mogul to suppress thought. The internalized shackles that keep ordinary people and opinion leaders from thinking outside their comfort zones will do just fine.
     
    As so often, the theory is fine but the practical real world situation means other factors overwhelm it.

    Such men as anti-war.com's censor help to ensure that, in this case.
  19. @Anon
    "The constitution says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

    ...and that's why we lose - blind allegiance to a piece of paper while our enemies blatantly ignore it or reinterpret it to their heart's desire.

    The constitution also says nothing about having a Supreme Court that can overturn acts of congress. They made that up and gave themselves that power with Marbury v. Madison. Their logic was that congressional overriding was implicit in the document. However, the same logic could be used to extend our rights of freedom of speech, thereby preventing illegal monopolies from silencing dissidents. The founders NEVER intended the situation we have now, and without implicit protections for unpopular speech, their might as well not even be such a concept.

    North Korea: Yeah, sure there is freedom of speech here as long as you don't write down anything subversive, tell anyone your thoughts, grant interviews to foreigners, or act like you don't believe our propaganda...but otherwise there is freedom of speech, just say it to yourself in the middle of the woods and very quietly where no one can hear you.

    Response: but doesn't that defeat the point?

    The implicit point of the constitution's wording was to prevent unfair retaliation/suppression of unpopular opinions. There was no internet back then, and there was no private industry that could restrict speech to the level large corporations can today. The government was the say all and the be all; therefore, the clause addressed the government.

    Using the original intent of the document, there is no reason speech protections shouldn't be extended to protect unpopular forms of speech from illegal monopolies and large corporations. And it should, and we should be pushing for that. The left did the same with the Civil Rights movement (redefining Freedom of Association in order to get a desired result for themselves), so why aren't we doing the same?

    Does not Congress include the FAANGs? After all, they cooperate with Congress and the Deep State to surveil us. They are part of a public / private partnership, and, as such, are Congress for first amendment purposes.

    Read More
  20. map says:
    @Avery
    {.... it’s not “violation of free speech” as I think you mean it. }

    Correct.

    First Amendment applies only to the Government (US Congress).
    US Congress is forbidden to curtail your free speech.
    But there is no law that says a private enterprise cannot prevent you from saying something while you are using their services.

    Having said that, a case can be made that the monopoly enjoyed by Facebook, Google, etc is tantamount to the Commons (e.g. and electric or water utility).
    As such, US Gov has a duty to break up those monopolies.
    As it is, if you are blocked by Google or Facebook, you have nowhere else to go.

    In a healthy competitive environment, if one enterprise blocks you, you can go somewhere else.

    OR

    US Gov can give these monopolies a choice: agree not to block people you don't like, no matter how odious, or we'll break you up.

    This game has already been played out.

    You know what used to think it was a private company? Every power company. Every public utility, from AT&T, People’s Gas, Commonwealth Edison, etc., believed that it was a private company…yet natural monopolistic practices led to regulation. And this was at a time when the US economy was a lot more free.

    Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and most companies of this type are natural monopolies that need to be regulated…if only because they represent natural monopolies against free speech rather than prices.

    Read More
  21. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sane Left Libertarian
    While this is obnoxious and outrageous behavior on the part of the owning class, it's not "violation of free speech" as I think you mean it. The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". For example, if I tell one of the nuns who run my school to go to hell, I cannot be arrested. But I can and will be fired, promptly.

    This is one peripheral problem with privatizing everything. All opinions, behavior, language, security, etc. are subject to the control of a CEO or similar entity, and there isn't a thing we private citizens can do about it except find another CEO or start our own similar endeavor. There are some theoretical advantages to this particular example, as kids won't accidentally, while surfing You-Tube, stumble upon videos of human sacrifices and such. But no one's "free speech is being violated".

    Some of these technology companies need to be nationalized or perhaps broken up like the oil monopolies.

    They’ve become too important in society to have them involving themselves in whose content gets play and who’s doesn’t. They’ve shown themselves to have clear ideological biases. Something needs to be done.

    Read More
  22. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    it’s not “violation of free speech”
     
    But of course it is. Whether it's done by a global(ist) monopoly corporation or a government doesn't change the effect. It's worse actually since you can't vote out the corporate owners (theoretically) and re-set the system.

    American Libertarians have a huge blind spot. They believe that all governments are inevitably bad... because their own government - and their personal and national sovereignty - have been drowned in a bathtub (by the "business") long time ago.

    So please tell us, which governments are not “bad”?

    And what distinguishes their ‘goodness’.

    Read More
  23. Wally says:
    @Randal

    Correct.
     
    No, it's precisely "violation of free speech" for the reasons set out above.

    What it isn't, which is what you are pointing out, is the kind of state censorship forbidden in the US by the First Amendment (but already more and more openly practised in Europe and the UK under the guise of "hate speech" laws). Which is correct, but pretty much beside the point unless you are addressing it to somebody who is specifically calling it state censorship.


    US Gov can give these monopolies a choice: agree not to block people you don’t like, no matter how odious, or we’ll break you up.
     
    Why would the USG want to do that? There's no requirement in the Constitution to do it. What constituency, party, lobby or power bloc of any effectiveness today in the US wants to see freedom of speech for the kind of dissidents whose political freedom of speech is being violated by Google etc today?

    Business is dominated either by leftists who see all genuine conservative/nativist/traditionalist opinion as "hate speech" or by men who see a need to cynically play along with that characterisation for business reasons. Mainstream media, law and academe are worse. The minority identity lobby groups - jewish/Israeli, black, homosexualist, feminist, etc - all either see advantages for their own identity group in playing along with it or are inherently committed to it anyway.

    The as yet undeveloped white identity lobby is uncoordinated, and critically divided by the anti-racist etc taboos and the need to turn on and denounce anyone trying to organise it as "racist" or "fascist", for self-preservation or for cynically self-interested motives. The supposed political representatives of conservatives are dominated by treasonous social liberals and pro-immigration military interventionists who certainly won't cooperate with any attempt to prevent the silencing of their own enemies on the right unless they are directly coerced into doing so by real threat of losing their positions - something that almost never happens to incumbents.

    In order to argue that the government must break up these monopolies for the greater good, you need to have an argument that explains why that is so.

    Unless the argument is made on the basis of political liberty, in the particular sense of freedom of speech , what argument is there that will have any effect?

    Well said, sir.

    Read More
  24. Wally says: • Website
    @JackOH
    Good points all, Randal, showing where libertarianism goes a bit wobbly. (I'm a longtime Libertarian voter, a default disposition of mind for me.)

    "A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

    To Orwell's thought I'd add that a genuinely unfashionable opinion--even when supported by incontrovertible facts, robust argument, and demonstrable predictive power--is almost never given a fair hearing. The "marketplace of ideas" cliché that good ideas will survive the bruising of public controversy seems to me a heap of rubbish. Unz Review is chock-full of well-formed observations that ought to be better oxygenated, but they just plain aren't. As Orwell suggests, you don't need formal government censorship or the whip hand of a media mogul to suppress thought. The internalized shackles that keep ordinary people and opinion leaders from thinking outside their comfort zones will do just fine.

    Agreed, Randal is on it.

    The government’s easily debunked & impossible 9/11 conspiracy theory and the equally impossible & absurd ‘holocaust’ narrative are classic examples of what you speak.

    People believe in these whoppers because they want to believe in them.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
  25. JohnT says:
    @Norumbega
    Southfront is an essential source of information on the day-to-day progress of the war in Syria. Many who keep up with the Saker's writings here will already be familiar with it. I have also found their relatively recent series of livestreams extremely valuable - and find it distressing that they they are blocked from adding new ones and at the mercy of an Youtube's opaque censorship system. Other channels covering Syria have been deleted from Youtube completely - such as one Syrian channel that had much invaluable footage of the liberation of eastern Aleppo last December - for example, showing thousands of civilians (virtually all Sunni muslims, incidentally) coming toward government areas, cheering the Army and many women doing the distinctive tongue-trilling hoots (like footage from recent days in Deir Ezzor); in one case there was a young soldier with the Tiger Forces under Gen. Suheil Hassan named Ahmed who was briefly united with his parents and younger sister and brother who had been been in eastern Aleppo during the jihadist occupation. I watched many such videos in untranslated Arabic many times. But its all gone now (though a few items are replicated elsewhere and some footage comes from longer news programs which are still around). R & U videos has been deleted twice, and I suspect that much if not all of the old content has not been restored, though haven't taken the time to look through all the videos on the current incarnation of R & U. There is a definite need to at least mirror all content on alternative platforms (Southfront at least has a website of its own.)

    Thank you for informing people about the good work of Southfront.

    Read More
  26. Randal says:
    @JackOH
    Good points all, Randal, showing where libertarianism goes a bit wobbly. (I'm a longtime Libertarian voter, a default disposition of mind for me.)

    "A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

    To Orwell's thought I'd add that a genuinely unfashionable opinion--even when supported by incontrovertible facts, robust argument, and demonstrable predictive power--is almost never given a fair hearing. The "marketplace of ideas" cliché that good ideas will survive the bruising of public controversy seems to me a heap of rubbish. Unz Review is chock-full of well-formed observations that ought to be better oxygenated, but they just plain aren't. As Orwell suggests, you don't need formal government censorship or the whip hand of a media mogul to suppress thought. The internalized shackles that keep ordinary people and opinion leaders from thinking outside their comfort zones will do just fine.

    Good points all, Randal, showing where libertarianism goes a bit wobbly. (I’m a longtime Libertarian voter, a default disposition of mind for me.)

    Cheers. I’m a recovering libertarian myself, so I understand their positions and their weaknesses intimately, but I also recognise their strengths. I can certainly understand voting libertarian over either Democrat or Republican in the US if the usual Republican warmongering immigrationist Romney/Bush/McCain type is standing.

    The worst aspect of many libertarians for me is their enthusiastic collaboration with the dishonest anti-racist/sexist/homosexualist/islamophobe/anti-Semite dogmas. I finally gave up recently on the formerly excellent antiwar,com, for instance, when I set out some traditionalist opinions (in absolutely respectable terms) as examples of things which are dishonestly censored as “hate”, following which my post was censored by their censor on the explicitly dishonest grounds that it was “hatred”.

    The “marketplace of ideas” cliché that good ideas will survive the bruising of public controversy seems to me a heap of rubbish. Unz Review is chock-full of well-formed observations that ought to be better oxygenated, but they just plain aren’t. As Orwell suggests, you don’t need formal government censorship or the whip hand of a media mogul to suppress thought. The internalized shackles that keep ordinary people and opinion leaders from thinking outside their comfort zones will do just fine.

    As so often, the theory is fine but the practical real world situation means other factors overwhelm it.

    Such men as anti-war.com’s censor help to ensure that, in this case.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored