If you had to pick one example to best encapsulate the mainstream media bias and censorship that have contributed significantly to suppressing the truth about 9/11 for nearly two decades, it would have to be the extraordinary actions of Courthouse News Service earlier this week.
The first extraordinary action came on March 26, 2019, when Courthouse News published the article “FBI Accused of Omitting Evidence From 9/11 Report,” which — to the astonishment of many — offered fair coverage of the lawsuit filed one day earlier by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine.
In this rare deviation from the media’s dogmatic denigration of any person who questions the government account of 9/11 (and who refuses to believe that miracles took place that day), Courthouse News reporter Jennifer Hijazi committed the cardinal sin of failing to refer to the plaintiffs as “truthers” or “conspiracy theorists.” She also neglected to question their mental state or to dismiss out-of-hand the validity of their case against the FBI. Practicing objective journalism, she accurately quoted from the complaint and from her interview with attorney Mick Harrison.
“The plaintiffs’ attorney, Harrison, told Courthouse News that he is ‘cautiously optimistic’ they’ll see the injunction they’re looking for. He said the complaint isn’t about any one particular theory regarding the attacks, but simply ‘to force the FBI to do its job’ and present all the available evidence to Congress as required by its original mandate.”
The second extraordinary action came the following day, at around 6:00 PM Eastern, when Courthouse News apparently pulled the article from its website. This happened to coincide with the time that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth sent a bulletin to its email list, sharing the refreshingly unbiased coverage with thousands of supporters — except that thousands of supporters were directed to a dead link.
As of now, approximately 24 hours after the article was first removed, Courthouse News has not provided an explanation for why its article is no longer available on its website. It could just be an innocent technical issue that will hopefully be fixed soon. On the other hand, it is more likely that the article was un-published for editorial reasons.
An email from Ted Walter to Courthouse News Webpage Editor Barbara Leonard.
I am not a journalist. But, from the information I’ve gathered, it is exceedingly unusual for an online publication to completely yank an article it has already published. News outlets seem to agree that it should be done only as a last resort — when extreme journalistic malpractice has been committed — and that such deletions should always be accompanied by an explanation.
If Courthouse News did remove the article for editorial reasons, its editors should explain those reasons to the public (assuming they want to be taken seriously as a news source). Until that happens, we can reasonably surmise that Courthouse News censored its own article not because of any journalistic malpractice, but because of the woefully fair and accurate coverage that its young reporter afforded to groups and survivors still seeking truth and justice regarding the tragic events of 9/11.
The Courthouse News article can still be accessed on Wayback Machine and as a PDF on AE911Truth.org.
If Zionism was the political movement to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in the Middle East, then surely it achieved its goal and the term ceased to have meaning in terms of defining the objectives of a political movement.
Alternatively, if Zionism then morphed into support for the continued existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, then the only point of view what would not be Zionist would be the one that calls the Jewish state illegitimate and calls for it to be dismantled. Yet there are few political voices that call for such an approach, and governments that have referred to the Jewish state as illegitimate have been demonized for doing so. Clearly, such a view is regarded as a fringe one.
So, what is Zionism today? Is everybody who does not declare Israel to be an illegitimate state that should be dismantled and the land given back to its dispossessed people a Zionist? Would that not make nearly everyone a Zionist? And, if so, does that not deprive the term of any meaning whatsoever?
This is not just semantics. Clearly, considerable effort goes on, particularly within movements like BDS and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, to imprint the mantra into people’s minds that it is “Zionism not Judaism” that is responsible for the ongoing plight of the Palestinian people; and that, more importantly, we should not ask any questions about the role of Judaic teaching or ideology in attempting to understand what motivated and continues to motivate the supporters of what is now a genocidal apartheid state that openly defines itself as a “Jewish state” in the Middle East. If it is Zionism and not Judaism that is the problem, then clearly we need to understand what Zionism is (and, relatedly, whether it is rooted in Jewish religious teaching). And if Zionism turns out to be an empty concept, then we should be asking ask what are the ideological underpinnings of Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians (and the lack of action on the part of the international community in that context) for more than 70 years.
Personally, I reject the “Zionism is not Judaism” approach and see that we are being fobbed off with nonsense. It seems clear that this wonderfully popular term “Zionism” is now devoid of content. Either no one is now a Zionist (because the goal of Zionism was achieved via the Catastrophe of 1948) or almost everyone is a Zionist (because there are very few people who would declare that the Jewish state should be dismantled and returned to its dispossessed owners). And,as Israel Shahak argued eloquently in his important and insightful work Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, I would suggest that we cannot begin to understand Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians without examining the roots of Judaic thinking and Jewish identity in the ethnically and religiously discriminatory doctrines of Judaic religion, which has shaped the Jewish mindset for most of its history. It seems, however, that Shahak’s writing continues to reap far less attention than it merits.
Yesterday, I attended a social evening organized by BDS Granada. Towards the end of the evening, I spoke to a couple of members, who seemed very nice people, but they instantly became uncomfortable when I made this point, namely, that we cannot understand Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinians without looking at its ideological roots and justification in the Jewish religion. ‘Oh no,’ they said, ‘that is dangerously close to anti-Semitism. Zionism is not Judaism,’ etc. Then their Jewish friend popped up and, well, let’s just say things went downhill from there.
Clearly, the topic continues to be both policed and silenced within many circles. It is thus no surprise that the activities of the many nice people within the BDS movement and various PSC collectives have failed to gain any real traction over the last decades, when discussion of issues highly relevant for understanding the problem continue to be policed and rendered taboo out of fear of offending Jewish feelings. And while I agree that there is always a need to respect the feelings of others in all forms of discourse, this needs to be balanced against many other needs, including the right to free speech – especially when the matter involves attempts to resolve ongoing crimes against humanity being committed against a specific collectivity, in this case the Palestinian people. To say that we cannot understand the roots of Israel’s ongoing genocide without examining the doctrines of Judaic teaching over the centuries is not to call for violence or discrimination against people who identify as Jews (and there are various different mechanisms of identification involved here, which merit considerable academic analysis in themselves). Nor is it an attempt to say that all people who identify as Jewish are involved in or support the illegal, oppressive and discriminatory actions of the Jewish state. Attempts to suggest otherwise violate our right to and need for free and open discourse on matters of great importance. Furthermore, discourse about justifications of violence in religious texts have taken place without problem in the context of other religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam (and also, “Hinduism”, though this term is something of a misnomer for the various traditions that are usually grouped together under this name).
Like Professor E Michael Jones, who has also sought to open up discourse surrounding Jewish thinking so that we might understand what is going on in our world, I have never advocated violence against any specific collectivity. And, like Gilad Atzmon, too, I reject racially or biologically based generalizations to examine questions related to the political and social influence of Jewish power and ideology in our world. I have lost count of the amount of times I have had to explain that to talk about discriminatory and supremacist teachings at the core of Judaic teaching does not mean that all individuals who identify as Jewish are as equally influenced by such doctrines. Jewish thought runs the gamut from the belief that all human beings (including non-Jews) should have the same rights and be valued and treated equally to the view that non-Jews have Satanic souls, that only Jews have a Higher Soul that comes from God, and that the non-Jew exists only to serve the Jew like a clever beast of burden, with a vast range of shades in between representing various attempts to reconcile (or not) the notion of being a “chosen people” with a private covenant with their own god (hence the commandment that ‘thou shalt not have other gods before me’) and own set of laws, on the one hand, with the Enlightenment ideals of universalizable morals and the equality of all human beings, on the other. Certainly, there are many people who identify as Jews today who would seek to distance themselves from views espoused by groups such as that of the powerful ultra-Orthodox sect Chabad that it is only Jews that have a Higher Soul, or that expressed by the chief rabbi of the Sephardic community that Gentiles exist only to serve Jews. On the other hand, in noting that, we must also recognize that such an egalitarian strand within Jewish thinking is a relatively recent phenomenon, stretching back only to the post-Enlightenment period, when many Jews sought to break free of the strict mental and social control of the rabbis that had sought to keep them segregated from the rest of humanity in ghettos for so long. And the deep traces of the ancient religious teachings can still be found, and thus merit serious examination, even within today’s secular Jews. As the joke has it, and not without some merit, many secular Jews say they don’t believe in God that but still seem to think He granted them their “promised land”.
Leaving all that aside for now, though, the fact that there exist individuals who identify as Jewish but who reject (consciously or otherwise) the discriminatory ideology of Judaic teaching does not mean that we cannot or should not be allowed to talk meaningfully about the role of supremacist and genocidal teachings within Jewish thought as a Jewish phenomenon as a whole, just as the fact that there are many Americans who have opposed US exceptionalism throughout history does not mean that we cannot or should not be allowed to talk meaningfully about American exceptionalism. This should be fairly obvious. Even in the recent farcical allegations of Russian collusion made against the Trump campaign, no one suggested that all Russians were colluding with Trump, or that Trump’s team was colluding with all Russians. It’s quite simple really. The fact that there are people who see themselves as Jewish who reject (to greater or lesser degree) Jewish supremacist ideology and activity does not mean that we cannot and should not be allowed to talk about supremacist and genocidal thinking within Jewish ideology and religious teaching, nor to examine how far such thought influences events in the social and political sphere. And the fact that so much effort goes into attempting to prevent us from doing so should set off red warning lamps in the minds of any true defender of freedom of speech and academic enquiry.
I thus repeat my claim from a day or two ago, that we need (but of course will not get for what should be by now obvious reasons) full academic recognition of a critical discourse on questions related to Jewish identity, Jewish thinking and Jewish power. We might perhaps call such discourse Critical Jewish Studies. And it should be understood by any legitimate scholar of integrity that Critical Jewish Studies is not anti-Semitism, and that any attempt to silence such studies or discourse on such grounds would represent a violation of principles of free enquiry that any true academic should seek to defend, as well as of the natural law right to freedom of speech.
Thirty seven years ago this month, four Dutch journalists were ambushed by troops of the Salvadoran army and murdered.
In early 1982, El Salvador was a dangerous place for journalists covering the civil war between FMLN guerrillas and the country’s armed forces. Despite the danger, four Dutch journalists,Koos Koster, Jan Kuiper, Joop Willemse and Hans ter Laag, ventured out to the department of Chalatenango to get an interview with guerrilla fighters. The Salvadoran army ambushed their group and killed all the journalists.
The ambush was one of the war crimes documented in the 1993 UN Truth Commission Report following the conclusion of El Salvador’s civil war:
On the afternoon of 17 March 1982, four Dutch journalists accompanied by five or six members of FMLN, some of them armed, were ambushed by a patrol of the Atonal Battalion of the Salvadorian armed forces while on their way to territory under FMLN control. The incident occurred not far from the San Salvador-Chalatenango road, near the turn off to Santa Rita. The four journalists were killed in the ambush and only one member of FMLN survived. Having analysed the evidence available, the Commission on the Truth has reached the conclusion that the ambush was set up deliberately to surprise and kill the journalists and their escort; that the decision to ambush them was taken by Colonel Mario A. Reyes Mena, Commander of the Fourth Infantry Brigade, with the knowledge of other officers; that no major skirmish preceded or coincided with the shoot-out in which the journalists were killed; and, lastly, that the officer named above and other soldiers concealed the truth and obstructed the judicial investigation….
1. The Commission on the Truth considers that there is full evidence that Dutch journalists Koos Jacobus Andries Koster, Jan Cornelius Kuiper Joop, Hans Lodewijk ter Laag and Johannes Jan Willemsen were killed on 17 March 1982 in an ambush which was planned in advance by the Commander of the Fourth Infantry Brigade, Colonel Mario A. Reyes Mena, with the knowledge of other officers at the El Paraíso barracks, on the basis of intelligence data alerting them to the journalists’ presence, and was carried out by a patrol of soldiers from the Atonal BIRI, under the command of Sergeant Mario Canizales Espinoza.
2. These same officers, the sergeant and others subsequently covered up the truth and obstructed the investigations carried out by the judiciary and other competent authorities.
The commander in charge of the ambush, Colonel Mario A. Reyes Mena, is currently living in the United States.
Today an event was held in San Salvador in commemoration of the Dutch journalists and to urge that the perpetrators of the killings be brought to justice. The event featured the use of journalism to seek justice for the ambushed journalists with the presentation of a new book titled La Emboscada (The Ambush) written by Colombian journalist Nancy Sáenz and Salvadoran journalist Willian Carballo. The book covers the Dutch journalists’ work in El Salvador, the ambush, the search for justice, and the path forward.
The new book will be accompanied by a multi-media website in Dutch, Spanish and English with information about the case. Advocates hope the book and the website will promote interest in the case and keep up pressure on Salvadoran authorities to bring justice for the families of the victims. As soon as a link to that website becomes available, I will publish it on this blog.
The event today featured two panel discussions. The first discussion covered emblematic cases of crimes against humanity in El Salvador and where the search for justice stands today. The second discussion centered on the Dutch journalists and included family members and colleagues of the journalists as well as the authors of the book.
The elimination of a 1993 amnesty law permitted prosecutors in El Salvador to reopen the case after the advocates for the journalists filed a complaint last year. Attorney Pedro Cruz who represents the victims told the assembled audience that he believes the initial investigation phase should be drawing to a close and now a case against military defendants needs to move to the courtroom.
Many of the speakers at today’s event also spoke out against a proposed law of “national reconciliation” proposed in an Ad Hoc Commission of the National Assembly which would re-institute amnesty for war crimes in El Salvador.
The office of El Salvador’s Human Rights Advocate, Raquel de Guevara, also announced her office would work to assure the Dutch journalists case is pushed forward.
A freelance journalist has gone public about a bizarre intimidation attempt by a senior MSNBC editor who tried to “bully” him into keeping a story under wraps – on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, not the network.
MSNBC politics managing editor Dafna Linzer tried to pressure Yashar Ali, a journalist who has written for the Huffington Post and New York Magazine, into holding back the release of the Democratic primary debate dates, Ali has claimed in a series of tweets. Linzer wasn’t trying to beat him to the story, or calling on behalf of her own network at all – she was acting wholly on behalf of the DNC, according to Ali.
Ali got wind of the Democratic primary dates, information even the candidates didn’t have, on Thursday morning and called the party to verify them before publishing. They asked him to hold back the information while they made a few calls – which he refused, not wanting to lose the scoop – and then things got weird.
Linzer then called Ali and asked him to hold the story in order to give the DNC time to “make a few phone calls” to state party leaders, informing them of the debate dates. While her own network was planning to break the news later on that day, she spent the call “menacing” Ali, threatening to call his editor and trying several lines of reasoning to convince him to sit on the story – even bringing up her own history as a national security reporter at the Washington Post, when they “would hold stuff all the time.”
While MSNBC generally favors the Democratic Party in its news coverage, the network isn’t a party organ – not officially, at least – and Linzer’s “unethical” behavior, conspiring with party leadership to quash another journalist’s story, set off alarm bells in the journalist. Several other reporters he spoke to urged him to go public.
Neither MSNBC nor Linzer have made any public comment in response to Ali’s tweets so far. In the week since Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation, Rachel Maddow and other top-rated MSNBC shows have lost 20 percent of their viewers as Americans realize they spent the last two years being led down the garden path. It’s understandable that Linzer might be a little stressed, now that so much is riding on the network’s “pivot to 2020.”
The U.S. State Department is offering to pay up to a million dollars each for two projects “that counter the rise of anti-Semitism” in Europe and Central Asia. The State Department uses a new definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticisms of Israel.
The projects will be funded through two State Department offices: the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitism envoy position was created through 2004 legislation over the objection of the State Department. All four such envoys have been Israel partisans.
The objective of the new projects, according to the announcement of the program, is to address anti-Semitism abroad that is manifested in several ways, including “the use of hateful or inflammatory speech in public discourse, traditional media and online.” The announcement does not specify what language will be considered “hateful or inflammatory speech.” (In the U.S., the First Amendment prohibits the censorship of free speech.)
Special Anti-Semitism Envoy Hannah Rosenthal adopted the new Israel-centric definition of anti-Semitism in 2009. The formulation had been created by Israeli minister Natan Sharansky.
The new projects will “include training law enforcement to adequately and holistically respond to hate crimes from a legal, social, and community perspective; and to better equip police and prosecutors to engage effectively with local Jewish populations.”
The grants will be available to both nonprofit organizations and for-profit, commercial businesses. Organizations winning the grants may be allowed to keep aspects of their identity secret.
The current Anti-Semitism Envoy is Elan Carr, who ran for Congress in 2014 with the promise that he would be “a reliable vote for Israel.” Carr, who was backed by billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, said he visits Israel every year.
Russia is not seeking to erect a Chinese-style “great firewall” with new legislation on the ‘sovereign internet’ or otherwise regulate the web, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has said.
The bill, introduced to the State Duma in December, envisions a set of measures to allow the ‘Runet’ – the Russian part of the internet – to operate autonomously in case of a global web shutdown or a cut-off of Russian IP addresses from it.
The legislation prompted speculation that the Russian government was seeking to regulate and censor the web – or even create a secluded one of its own. Such fears are unsubstantiated and the goal of the bill is entirely different, Medvedev said on Friday while speaking to users of Vkontakte online.
“Certainly, we won’t have Chinese-style regulations. And I’ll tell you more, even in China, such regulation does not often yield the results it was designed for,” Medvedev said. “Moreover, we are not even seeking regulation. No firewall will emerge here.”
The optimum scenario regarding internet regulation is to have an international mechanism of sorts, Medvedev believes, but the emergence of such a system – or a convention at least – appears to belong to the future.
“The overwhelming majority of the keys to regulate [the internet] is located at one single country – the United States of America,” Medvedev stated. “The technology, which has become universal, which is used by billions of people, is largely regulated by a single country. That’s not very good actually.”
The legislation was initially drafted in response to a new US cyber strategy that accuses Russia, along with China, Iran, and North Korea, of using the web to “undermine” its ‘democracy’ and economy. The strategy also threatens a strong response against those who dare to conduct cyber activities against the US.
“We must protect our interests, not to switch off anything ourselves, but to prevent us from getting cut off. That is quite possible,” the prime minister stated.
The EU’s new, comprehensive new Copyright Directive passed the European Parliament ensuring the way we use the Internet will change in the future.
And not for the better.
The controversial parts are Articles 11 and 13, the “link tax” and the “upload filter” requirements. For a good run down of how terrible these new rules are look anywhere on the internet but this article at Gizmodo (who I hope doesn’t charge me a link tax for doing so!) will do.
I would also watch this video from Dave Cullen, a resident of Ireland, i.e. the EU, as to what he thinks this means.
Dave makes a number of fantastic points about the ramifications of Articles 11 and 13 which I will not dispute.
The arrogance and pig-headedness of EU MEPs to push this through without even listening to arguments for Amendments speaks volumes as to how much this legislation was bought and paid for.
And you know who was doing the buying. The same folks currently behind destroying Brexit — The Davos Crowd. I don’t want to put too fine a point on this now, since I’ve covered all this recently (here) and in the past (here ).
Controlling The Wire
But there are very valid reasons why this push for control of information flow from the EU is yet another example of their desperations to keep control of what I’ve in the past called The Wire:
In short, The Wire is the main conduit through which we communicate with each other. Even money is The Wire. What are prices if not information about what we are willing to part with our money in exchange for?
Without The Wire modern society fails. So, government can’t shut it down but neither can it allow unrestrained access to it.
Electricity, commerce, communications, everything, goes over The Wire.
This isn’t a radical concept but like all important ideas, once it is presented to you you can’t unsee it.
Control of The Wire is the only fight that matters or has ever mattered in society. The Internet is The Wire writ large. Therefore, it only makes sense that control of it is paramount to maintaining any control over society at large.
The corporate oligarchs are in fear for their projects. They want desperately to maintain control. They’ve worked for decades to evolve the nation-state into the new shiny transnational superstate the EU exemplifies.
The new Copyright Directive is designed to erect barriers-to-entry and shut down opposition speech by outsourcing the enforcement to the platforms hosting the material.
And those platforms are only too happy to do this because they get to crowd out any potential competition. So, while their costs increase slightly, they are now immune to the competition which would grind out their margins to zero over time, as any unfettered market would.
Remember, that in all human endeavors profit is an ever-elusive thing. With incentives properly aligned someone is always attracted to the profit someone else is achieving and will figure out a way to build a better mousetrap, as it were, grinding out that profit.
If you can short-circuit this process via control of The Wire then you can guarantee a profit for your past work for far longer than you would otherwise.
This is known as rent.
Fake Property, False Choices
This is why the music and film industry want their IP protected from ‘fair use’ policies. They see the plummeting margins and want to continue charging on a per use/listen/view basis things they retain the copyright to far beyond the public’s willingness to pay them.
It’s too expensive for these companies to go after us individually. That doesn’t work except in very limited ways. Yes, they can de-platform Alex Jones or Sargon of Akkad ad hoc but with predictable backlash against it.
Enshrining it in law takes this, however, to another level. And it is a yet another Hobson’s Choice put before people to either accept regulation of these companies as public utilities — ensuring their monopoly status — or render the internet unusable.
This Directive is pure protectionism of legacy media producers be it news, music, film, etc. whose business models haven’t just collapsed they’re literally now subsidized by other profitable industries, i.e. the Washington Post is, effectively, an Amazon company.
So, in effect, Article 11 and 13 are just typical corporatist honey pots, at least in theory.
But it is all bad? Is the future to be this and more laws and controls like this?
Likely not.
IP Deflation
Let’s look specifically at the link tax. To do this we have to look at a worst-case scenario where the EU disregards all cross-border treaty and tax-enforcement issues and our governments go along with this nonsense.
So, I want to link to an article in Der Speigel to make some point about Angela Merkel.
To do so now, under Article 13, I have to get a license to link from them and pay a fee. Let’s call that fee €100. Instead of paying that fee my natural reaction would be to not link to it and just make reference to it.
I’ll quote it and not put in a link.
If that doesn’t work and WordPress takes my post down, I’ll screencap the relevant section of the article (4chan-style) and then not link to it. This requires a more sophisticated sniffer to figure out what I did.
And in the worst case if they figure that out, I’ll simply not even quote them anymore. And I’ll write the article in such a way that I don’t need to. They don’t get the traffic anymore. They never got the license fee.
The result is they fall in the Google search rankings.
And I get to keep my traffic up and my audience happy.
Who wins here? Me or them?
Me.
Especially if I keep my link license fee set for my content at what it’s worth, zero.
To me a link is free advertising. I know that each one is a gift that pays huge dividends. I cherish people who contact me for permission to scrape my work.
The whole point of what I do is to reach as wide an audience as possible. Why would I put up barriers to that?
You have to put this in perspective. Ninety five percent of the news you read is a restatement of a government or corporate press release. If you think someone can’t reprint government or corporate press releases for less than €100 a head you are crazy.
Just like it is in retail sales. Amazon is killing local retailers because easily cross-shopped items are simply more efficiently delivered without a brick and mortar storefront. The costs of maintaining it and people going to the central location is a waste of scarce, precious capital.
It’s an old model without a future.
News organizations that don’t add anything but only disseminate the same stuff but with a slightly different spin on it won’t be able to charge a dime for links. Functionally, for 95% of news, is there any difference between Yahoo!, MSN, CNN or FOX?
No.
If you produce something that is value-added people will figure out a way to justify to themselves paying for it. Advertising covers some of that cost. If they don’t it isn’t lost revenue, it was revenue you never had in the first place at that price.
In the Internet business eyeballs are everything. Losing eyeballs for link taxes is just bad business.
The Last War
So the EU just gave these sclerotic, dying industries everything they’ve ever wanted. But, in the long run, it will be their undoing as it will incentivize an entire generation of citizen journalists to fill in the niches and do primary research.
Moreover, it will be unenforceable at any practical level, as Dave Cullen points out. The EU will itself cause a cratering of traffic to and from its IP ranges.
As the cost of The Wire drops on a per megabyte basis, think 5G, so too does the cost to resist control of it. Lower bandwidth costs makes possible peer-to-peer networking and decentralized autonomous organizations that even the most hardened crypto-enthusiast haven’t conceived of yet.
And once there are no middle men to go after and turn into the copyright police, we’re back to them going after individuals again. At that point it’s game over.
That’s a long way off at this point and the present will be difficult, at best, to navigate. But we’re not flat-footed here. I do feel for guys like Dave Cullen who build great content and now are looking at real constraints.
I don’t envy them in the slightest.
But to me this feels like just another desperation move by old men fighting the last war to hold onto The Wire that’s slipping out of their fingers, writing laws out of date before they are even implemented.
The European Union parliament has just rubber-stamped new copyright legislation that will have a stifling effect on digital freedom of speech. Opposition to the proposals have seen big American tech companies including Google, online activists, world-wide-web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Paul McCartney and online star PewDiePie unite against the new draconian measures that will now need to be integrated into the corpus of national law throughout every EU member state. This process is expected to take around two years.
The worrying proposals
The most novel and therefore controversial aspects of the new EU copyright directive are contained in Articles 11 and 13 of the proposals. According to Article 11, any time a digital publisher links to or otherwise publishes even a small portion of copyrighted material, the owner of the outlet in question will have to pay a statutory rate (aka a tax) for the privilege of so doing.
Article 13 will force major online platforms, including and especially social media platforms to implement an automated vetting algorithm that will instantly censor any attempts at posting copyrighted material, without providing for any kind of reasonable appeal by the poster.
Arguments for the new proposals
The arguments in favour of the new legislation suggest that such mechanisms are needed to prevent the unauthorised exploitation of copyrighted material without the owner receiving rapid remuneration. The arguments against the new proposals however are far more lengthy and manifold which is itself is a cautionary warning sign against legislation that may prima facie be overly broad and consequently do more harm than good.
Arguments against the new proposals
–Stifling effect on the freedom of speech and artistic expression
While no legal system encourages the violation of copyright, most legal systems allow for something that in the United States is known as fair use. According to the fair use doctrine, copyrighted material may be typically used without remuneration or permission from the copyright owner if the copyrighted work is used in the services of journalism, information decimation vital to the public good, critique/review/criticism/journalistic analysis, certain forms of advertising (e.g. a cinema displaying an image of a film that is now playing or coming soon) and last but not least, parody (e.g. memes that show a copyrighted image of Kermit The Frog to illustrate a humorous or satirical message).
According to current EU copyright law, most of the fair use exceptions which have long been established in US law and most other Common Law countries also apply. However, many European judges take a narrower view of the concept of fair use than do most American judges.
Both Article 11 and Article 13 of the new EU copyright laws effectively end anything remotely related to the fair use doctrine. This would not only have a chilling effect on the ability of both small and large publishers who rely on fair use in order to produce the content that all readers, viewers and listeners now expect, but it will also vastly limit the freedom of expression of social media users who do not not even stand a chance of profiting from their creation and/or sharing of memes or short parody videos. This in and of itself will have a chilling effect on some of the main forms of free expression that makes the internet worthwhile to millions.
—Stifling effect on the freedom of information
Journalists rely on quoting from a variety of sources in order to accurately convey information to their audience. For example, if I were to link someone else’s analysis of the present situation under the new laws, just this simple link would cost Eurasia Future money according to the proposed reforms. The result would be that most outlets would simply not bother to link or quote important sources which itself could expose publishers to allegations of spreading “fake news”, even if this was not the case. This could set off a dangerous chain reaction which could see media outlets deprived of the profits they would have otherwise legitimately earned for providing a much valued service in the private sector.
It is noteworthy that Article 11 will not only apply to websites that copy and paste entire stories or articles without remuneration or permission (a practice I personally find troubling), but it will effectively tax publishers for even quoting and crediting a small portion of a source that helps to bolster one’s argument. If lawyers for example had to pay other lawyers or judges whose legal precedent they were citing in a court of law – one could imagine how awkward the tasks of the legal profession would become.
In an internet age where both true and false information is ubiquitous, the job of publishers is as important as that of lawyers and to this end, both require similar tools in order to effectively execute their job.
–Major enforcement problems
Because of the overreaching characteristics of the proposals, one must enquire as to weather the EU will soon chase down violators of these new laws outside of Europe in order to enforce its laws on publishers whose material on the world wide web can be viewed and in many cases likely will be viewed in the EU. Not only would this be costly but in many cases it would be fruitless as most countries outside of the EU will not likely comply with a foreign organisation effectively harassing their citizens. An example of a related concept was when in 2010 the US President specifically signed a law stating that US courts would not enforce foreign libel judgements on US citizens if the foreign country’s libel standards are more severe towards the defendant than those in the US. Due to the fact that the outcry against the EU’s new legislation has been louder in America than in much of Europe, one might reasonably expect something similar from Washington in respect of the new EU copyright law. This is true especially given the currently poor status of EU-US relations on the all important matter of trade.
Then there are the technical issues of enforcement. How could an as of yet unknown algorithm designed to censor the posting of copyrighted content on social media determine whether or not the person posting a copyrighted image is the owner of the copyright? Would one have to post all of his or her original art pieces for example into a mega data-base even if they are only sharing their original drawing with a small number of Facebook friends? Furthermore, who would own such a data-base and could the copyright holder’s right to exploit his material be trusted in the hands which every private or public entity controls this date-base? This could well be the road to a repeat of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in more ways than one. Lastly, if one is posting copyrighted material with the full permission of the copyright owner, how is the algorithm going to determine this?
Furthermore, when it comes to Article 11, it is not entirely clear who would collect the link tax and how? Take for example an 18 year old with no income or savings who runs a small website and posts copyrighted images or links to other websites. How much money is the EU prepared to spend on chasing such an individual down only to find that he is judgement proof? There’s a reason that the existing private sector doesn’t chase down judgement proof individuals and its called logic.
–Outlandish burden shifting
As it stands, copyright is almost always a civil rather than a criminal issue. As such, it is up to the copyright holder to discover that his or her work has been used without permission or remuneration and to then decide whether he or she will reach a settlement over the matter or take the infringing party to court. Realistically, copyright holders will not waste time and money on small matters. If a website nobody reads decides to publish entire copyrighted pieces with no permission, the publisher of the original piece – Eurasia Future for example, would likely ignore the matter. However, if the New York Times copied an entire article from Eurasia Future without permission or remuneration and if furthermore it could not be justified in any way by fair use – the matter would be raised in the appropriate way.
Under the new laws the EU will force third parties like Facebook and Twitter to automatically enforce copyright rules, thus shifting the burden of enforcement of copyright from the copyright owner to social media owners, search-engine owners and other website owners. This approach is entirely impractical as it invokes the power of law to force third parties to take a greater interest in protecting the use of copyrighted material than many copyright holders themselves have ever taken or care to take.
The same is true of the link-tax. Why should a public or private body collect taxation via statute when existing laws, however flawed one might argue they are, are still less burdensome on the entire public and private sector than the new proposals?
Geopolitical policy hypocrisy
The EU itself is a frequent critic of alleged internet censorship in China and Russia, even though the laws in China and Russia cannot be compared to the new EU proposals. In China, the only materials censored online are those which are deemed to be provocative in respect of the civil order, those which threaten the public peace and those which violate the social norms of the People’s Republic of China. In other words, China’s internet regulations are derived from a desire to protect China’s internal peace and cultural characteristics, rather than a cynical ploy to pit those with lots of money against those with little. Even an article critical of China’s internet policy accurately described the nature of internet regulation in the country, in spite of its overly cynical editorial overtones. It should also be noted that while western states criticise China for its policies, many western governments are trying to randomly censor free speech under the guise that it is “hate speech”, even though strongly worded and aggressive speech has traditionally been protected in the US and much of Europe so long as it doesn’t contain a specific criminal threat. This is in fact the very essence of the US First Amendment which has long been admired throughout Europe.
Russia has some laws which also seek to prohibit the posting of anti-social material online. But in reality, unlike China, Russia rarely tries to enforce any internet regulations and when it tries, it usually fails miserably. Thus, the internet in Russia is actually incredibly free in terms of an absolutist view of free speech.
Because of the new laws, the EU risks becoming a laughing stock in multiple countries including the United States – a country that clearly values fair use, in Russia – a country which realistically doesn’t censor anything on the internet and in China – a country where measures taken to protect people from being needlessly provoked are prioritised over protecting huge corporations from small social media users who aren’t seeking to make a profit from the memes they post online. Of course notably absent from the wider debates about the new EU laws were any commentary from the governments of China or Russia. If the tables were turned, one could imagine the chorus of excoriation against the eastern superpowers coming from both Brussels and Washington.
Brexit takes on a new importance
Of course, if the United Kingdom successfully exits the European Union, none of these new draconian measures will apply to Britain, just as they don’t apply to the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand or other countries in the English speaking world with similar domestic legal systems to that in Britain.
Furthermore, while Brexit has often been portrayed as a policy favoured by older British voters, because the new EU legislation will disproportionately impact young people whose business and leisure is largely centred around the internet, it is now crucial for young people in the UK who are opposed to the EU’s anti-free speech laws to rally behind a full Brexit that does not reduce the process to a series of halfway measures.
Only by remaining fully out of the EU Single Market and Customs Union can it be guaranteed that this regressive, repressive and oppressive legislation is kept away from British publishers and ordinary people who are active online.
Conclusion
The EU has made some powerful new enemies including the world’s largest tech firms. While the lights of free speech are dimming in Europe, at least for one European country, there is a clear path to the sunlit uplands of freedom. That path is called Brexit.
Over the last decade, Amazon has gained a near-total monopoly over Internet book sales, and late last month, we saw the dangerous consequences of such intellectual control as the company suddenly banned dozens of books, many of them of excellent scholarly quality. Apparently, activist organizations such as the ADL and the SPLC had succeeded in pressuring the company to ban those works to avoid any risk that American readers might become “confused” on certain controversial historical matters.
In an extremely ironic twist, several outstanding works of black historiography were banned at the height of Black History Month, presumably because they provided a far more complex and nuanced view of the historical relations between blacks and Jews than the ADL and those in its orbit have long promoted. In particular, one of the volumes published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, which I had only discovered and read last year, seemed to conclusively demonstrate that the circumstances of the ADL’s own establishment a century ago were almost exactly contrary to what I had long believed based upon my standard history books.
Clearly, the ADL was loath to have others discover these same facts, and must be pleased that Amazon has now banned the work in question. I covered this and the various other Amazon book banning in a lengthy article a couple of weeks ago.
Although various people have discussed plans aimed at pressuring Amazon to retract its policy and I have even provided them some suggestions in that regard, it is not at all clear whether a company with a market value of nearly $900 billion will be swayed by a few intellectual malcontents. Indeed, the far greater likelihood is that large numbers of additional books will eventually be “disappeared.”
This small webzine was founded with a mission of providing “interesting, important, and controversial perspectives largely excluded from the American mainstream media.” Therefore, it seems natural to extend this policy to cover books, and I have now added a new Bookstore Section, allowing interested readers to browse and order those texts that Amazon has banned, in most cases directly from the websites of the particular publisher. As a start, I have stocked it with the hundred-odd books banned by Amazon but still available elsewhere on the Internet.
A half-century ago in a totally different America, publishers sometimes trumpeted the fact that their books had been “Banned in Boston,” which vastly increased their sales in many other parts of the country. Since past sales of the banned books had hardly been great, it seems not impossible that the notoriety associated with their removal might actually boost their visibility and purchase sufficiently to render the policy counter-productive.
After all, Amazon eagerly sells many millions of books these days, including Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and how-to manuals for producing homemade explosives to be used in domestic terrorist attacks. Yet the hundred-odd books now provided in my new system are apparently believed to contain ideas so horrifically dangerous that Amazon has chosen to violate its longstanding policy of intellectual freedom and ban them. Perhaps you should consider purchasing a couple of them and deciding for yourself.
I’m only familiar with a small fraction of the banned books, but can highly recommend the following half dozen:
The Culture of Critique, by Prof. Kevin MacDonald, on organized Jewish activist movements in America, originally published in 1998 by a leading academic press.
The works provided in this Bookstore section may be filtered based on Topic, Author, or Period, and the first of these criteria may provide some intriguing clues as to why they were selected for elimination from among Amazon’s endless millions, along with suggestions of the source of the pressure. George Orwell famously observed that those who control the past control the future, and those who control the present control the past. Therefore, we should hardly be surprised that the overwhelming majority of the banned books fall into the category of scholarly texts dealing with important historical events.
More than two-thirds of the books focus on the subject of “Jews” and over half deal with the Holocaust in particular. Indeed, it appears that the Amazon ban now now encompasses virtually all Holocaust books that substantially deviate from the orthodox framework promoted by the ADL and its allies, which is currently enforced by the threat of fines and prison sentences throughout most of Europe. These include several of the texts I had relied upon for my long 2018 article American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, but which I had fortunately purchased at Amazon before they were banned.
Aside from now providing convenient access to what the Amazon Corporation officially ranks as the hundred most dangerous books in the history of the world, I’m also pleased to be able to resurrect the collected writings of a very prominent conservative writer and intellectual purged from National Review nearly thirty years ago, during the early stages of the Neocon takeover of the conservative movement.
Although the name of Joseph Sobran may be somewhat unfamiliar to younger conservatives, during the 1970s and 1980s he possibly ranked second only to founder William F. Buckley, Jr. in this influence in mainstream conservative circles, as partly suggested by the nearly 400 articles he published for NR during that period. By the late 1980s, he had grown increasingly concerned that growing Neocon influence would embroil America in future foreign wars, and his occasional sharp statements in that regard were branded “anti-Semitic” by his Neocon opponents, who eventually prevailed upon Buckley to purge him. The latter provided the particulars in a major section of his 1992 book-length essay In Search of Anti-Semitism.
Oddly enough, Sobran seems to have only very rarely discussed Jews, favorably or otherwise, across his decades of writing, but even just that handful of less than flattering mentions was apparently sufficient to draw their sustained destructive attacks on his career, and he eventually died in poverty in 2010 at the age of 64. Sobran had always been known for his literary wit, and his unfortunate ideological predicament eventually led him to coin the aphorism “An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”
Following his defenestration from National Review, he spent about a dozen years as a syndicated columnist, while providing a small monthly conservative newsletter called Sobran’s. I’m very pleased to have now made arrangements to republish his complete archives of that period, currently totaling just nearly 650 columns and a half-million words, but probably due to rise as additional writings are located and added.
The obvious similarities between between the purge of a leading conservative writer thirty years ago and the banning of various books from Amazon thirty days ago provides an intriguing glimpse in the underlying nature of American political life, and the forces that can shape its trajectory. Writers, authors, and other intellectuals constitute a minuscule fraction of our society, yet removing or muzzling just a few of these can have enormous influence upon the social and political directions eventually taken by our country.
The controversial copyright law facing a final vote in the EU parliament is less about copyright than it is about hammering a final nail in the coffin of the freedoms the internet once promised. Yes, Article 13 is that bad.
Most laws address themselves toward tangible, human-sized problems. Article 13, the sweeping European copyright legislation that proposes to filter all content on its way to the web to ensure no rights are being violated, isn’t interested in such prosaic stuff. It seeks to defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Physics? In my internet? The web operates according to the laws of entropy. It trends toward decentralization – of ideas, of social groups, but most importantly of power. Authority looks at this delightful disorder and sees only malevolent chaos that needs to be reined in. Legislators and the corporations that run their countries have spent a lot of time brainstorming on how to put the cat back in the bag, and Article 13 is the result.
This is not just a European problem. Like a catastrophic nuclear meltdown, there is no containing the fallout from this kind of measure, designed to effectively destroy the internet as we know it. Companies and platforms may start by leaving Europe, or refusing to serve European customers, but the internet has no borders, and the big platforms will embrace whatever filters are required to maintain their hold on their users – no matter what country they inhabit. One need only witness the absurdity when Canadian, American and Australian Twitter users are sanctioned for violating Pakistani blasphemy laws to understand the willingness of these platforms to cater to the most oppressive common denominator.
It’s almost surprising that the EU isn’t trying to sell this law as the killer weapon in the ongoing War on Fake News, given its member countries’ use of that trendy adversary to justify increasingly draconian speech restrictions – from the proposed end of anonymity in France to criminal charges for platforms that don’t take down “problematic” speech quickly enough in the UK. But then, EU leaders aren’t actually elected, so they don’t have to sell the people anything. Like the monopolies Article 13 enables, the EU gives its users no choice – accept this degraded, deliberately-hobbled, entropically-eviscerated parody of the internet, or stay offline (by the time they’re done with it, you’ll hardly be able to tell the difference, anyway).
Google spent $100 million to develop a filter capable of screening uploaded content in real time in order to prevent wrong-think from seeping into YouTube livestreams. There are few feelings as unsettling as livestreaming to an audience only to find one’s mic cut after broaching a topic that has been declared off-limits. For now, those who would resist the jackbooted march of “progress” can join another platform, but under Article 13’s restrictions, will that other platform be able to afford a $100 million content filter of its own?
Algorithms are dumb – dumber than even the most clueless human forum moderator – and automated filters cannot tell the difference between fair use, parody, and straight-up rip-offs any more than they can tell the difference between real and fake news. Collateral censorship will tear a hole in casual communication – forget memes and similar forms of humor. AI doesn’t laugh.
To their credit, many of the early architects of the internet see this legislation for the threat that it is and have spoken passionately against it. They understand the threat posed to innovation and the free exchange of ideas, but they naively believe those who wrote the legislation do not. “Indeed, if Article 13 had been in place when the Internet’s core protocols and applications were developed, it is unlikely that it would exist today as we know it,” warned a letter signed by 70 web pioneers in opposition to the law.
The way the web developed the first time was not ideal for centralized power structures. Only a nuclear option like Article 13 could ever hope to rein in the human potential unleashed by the web and give them a second chance to get it right.
Article 13, the internet’s founding fathers warn, means the “transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.” That’s a feature, not a bug. Keeping out small platforms that could challenge the monopolies that have shown they’re willing to work with governments certainly makes life easier for those governments. The internet once held the promise to liberate humanity. The European Parliament believes that’s too big a risk to take.
Who’s afraid of Alan Sabrosky? Whoever they are, they have the ability to monitor and censor YouTube live-streams in real time. And they apparently don’t want you to know what Sabrosky thinks about the Holocaust.
That’s the obvious takeaway from the highly unusual example of YouTube censorship that disrupted the March 22 live broadcast of False Flag Weekly News. The broadcast, which live-streamed from Vimeo to three different YouTube channels, transpired normally up to the 59:31 mark, when Sabrosky stated that the Holocaust was “a technological and logistical impossibility—“ and suddenly his mike was cut… but only on the YouTube stream, archived here:
If you want to hear the rest of Dr. Sabrosky’s Holocaust statement (instead of long stretches of dead air) you’ll have to watch the Vimeo version, which was not censored:
Whoever did this must have been monitoring the broadcast in real time. It must have been a human, not an AI algorithm. The censor must have had his or her finger hovering over the “cut his mike” button throughout the show. And that censor must have been trained and given the power to cut Sabrosky’s mike within a couple of seconds of Sabrosky starting to “deny the Holocaust.” Altogether quite an amazing feat of censorship!
But however logistically and technologically impressive this bizarre crime against free speech may have been, it seems even more impressively stupid and self-defeating. Can they really believe that actions like this are going to stop people from asking questions about the Holocaust? Haven’t they heard of the Streisand Effect? Isn’t everyone who hears about this going to say, “gee, if they have to take such extreme measures to silence this guy, maybe he’s onto something?”
It is really quite a tribute to Dr. Sabrosky and False Flag Weekly News that someone went to so much trouble. They must be spending far more money to monitor and censor us than we are spending doing the show in the first place. Talk about asymmetrical information warfare!
But I don’t believe the people behind this are as stupid as they seem. Such apparently counterproductive acts sometimes do serve strategic purposes. In this case, I assume the censors were beta-testing protocols for censoring live-streams in real time. It is no coincidence that this attack on Alan Sabrosky’s First Amendment rights came exactly one week after the allegedly live-streamed Christchurch shooting. Since the Christchurch terror event, Facebook and YouTube representatives have been all over the MSM announcing that they have to fix their systems to prevent “the live-streaming of hate.”
If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist I would wonder whether the Christchurch attack was a set-up to roll out the beta testing of precisely this sort of censorship. I would note the incongruity of the fact that the people pushing for internet censorship are almost all Zionist Jews, not Muslims—yet the censorship is being rolled out on the pretext that it is supposed to protect Muslims and “honor the sacred Christchurch victims.” Since when did Zionists care about Muslim lives? They proudly slaughter a Christchurch worth of Palestinian Muslims every month or two. And they have murdered 32 million Muslims, and created tens of millions of refugees, in the 9/11 wars for Israel.
It’s as if the people behind the Christchurch push-for-censorship PR op, and the subsequent deployment of new censorship systems like the one just beta-tested against FFWN, are trying to conceal their true identities. Perhaps that is why they made sure that the word “Jew” was almost entirely absent from the Tarrant manifesto. As Daniel Haqiqatjou notes:
The 73-page document reads like it was written by someone who is trying very hard to pretend to be a White Nationalist… But there is one glaring inconsistency. If you ever visit places on the internet frequented and owned by White Nationalists, such as 4chan, 8chan, Daily Stormer, or Gab, one immediate, indubitable fact hits you in the face: These people hate Jews. More than anyone else, White Nationalists hate Jews and are not afraid of expressing it with thousands of different memes…. What is bizarre about Tarrant’s alleged manifesto is that he says a great deal about this (Jewish) plot. He rails against immigration, fertility rates, and “White genocide.” But he doesn’t mention who the supposed plotters are. Why? Why is Tarrant following the White Nationalist script to the letter but doesn’t mention Jews once in the entire 73 pages?
(Except one passing mention that they’re fine when they’re Israeli!)
If the perps were hiding their identities while orchestrating Christchurch and the internet censorship campaign it launched, they dropped the mask when they silenced Alan Sabrosky. We all know who reacts reflexively against “Holocaust denial.” And we all know who hates Alan Sabrosky, the former US Army War College Head of Strategic Studies who came out as a 9/11 truther on my radio show in March, 2010—and announced that Israel did it.
The Zionist fear and loathing of Sabrosky is so off-the-charts that the mere mention of his name can get you arrested. That’s what happened to Jeremy Rothe-Kushel in May 2016 when he tried to ask Dennis Ross a question during the Q&A after Ross’s talk at the Kansas City Public Library.
Tellingly, the Times of Israel report on Rothe-Kushel’s free speech lawsuit tiptoes around Sabrosky’s unspeakable name.
Alan Sabrosky, “he who must not be named,” is also “he who must not be broadcast.” Bonnie Faulkner’s Guns and Butter radio show, one of the most popular and respected Pacifica staples, was abruptly terminated by KPFA management last August due to Sabrosky’s appearance there.
“Somebody” apparently doesn’t want Sabrosky on False Flag Weekly News, either. Last January 4th Alan Sabrosky made his debut appearance as a regular FFWN co-host. The audience gave him a huge thumbs-up. But when he tried to return on a regular basis, his computer suddenly started coming down with bizarre ailments. It always seemed to happen right before the show. His computer would be working fine, and then suddenly WHAM—it would melt down right before broadcast time and we’d scramble to find a replacement. This has happened so many times in the past three months that I have lost count. Tech experts who have tried to solve the problem say Sabrosky is the victim of a highly sophisticated cyber-attack. It was only this past Friday, March 22, that after elaborate precautions we were finally able to get Alan broadcasting again on FFWN. And miraculously enough, he somehow got through 58 minutes of live-streaming before they cut his mike.
Why is Dr. Alan Sabrosky the most censored man in America? Those seeking to silence him don’t want you to know what he thinks about two issues: 9/11 and the Holocaust. Specifically, they don’t want you to know that he thinks 9/11 was “a Mossad operation, period.” And they don’t want you to know that he thinks the official Holocaust narrative of six million Jews killed mostly in gas chambers is “a technological and logistical impossibility.”
Why are these two issues so sensitive? The Holocaust, whatever it was, happened 75 years ago. And 9/11 happened more than 17 years ago. Isn’t all that stuff ancient history?
The answer, I believe, is that both Official Conspiracy Theories (OCTs) are foundational myths of Zionism. The myth (sacred narrative) of the Holocaust is Israel’s primary basis of legitimacy in global public opinion and especially Jewish opinion. The Platonic guardians of Zionism need the Holocaust horror story to bludgeon world Jewry into accepting the necessity of establishing and maintaining a “Jewish state.”
Likewise the sacred official myth of 9/11 is the lynchpin of the “clash of civilizations,” which in essence is a long-term Western war against Israel’s enemies. Were it widely known that Israel itself orchestrated 9/11 and the ensuing crusade, Israel’s already-dubious future wouldn’t just be dubious—it would be nonexistent.
Alan Sabrosky happens to be one of the world’s best-credentialed and most-eloquent voices debunking the two foundational myths of Zionism. The fact that he hails from a Jewish background makes him that much more annoying—and that much more credible. Dr. Sabrosky is extremely well-informed, and he expresses himself in an engagingly straight-shooting manner. An ex-Marine as well as Strategic Studies professor, Alan Sabrosky has a full clip of info-ammo and unloads it with uncanny accuracy and alacrity. In many respects he is the Zionists’ worst nightmare.
No wonder “Doc Sabrosky” is the most-censored man in America.
Everywhere one looks these days, the world seems to be moving away from debate on contentious subjects and toward demands that those who have unpopular opinions — or even just ask impertinent questions — be forcibly silenced.
“You will never hear me mention his name,” prime minister Jacinda Ardern said of Brenton Tarrant, the sole suspect in two deadly attacks on mosques in Christchurch. “He may have sought notoriety but here in New Zealand we will give him nothing — not even his name.”
That’s fine as a personal decision, I guess, but not as a top-down decision for her fellow New Zealanders. Even as Ardern spoke, police working for her government were arresting at least two people for sharing the shooter’s live-streamed video of the attacks on social media.
Across the Tasman Sea, Australian prime minister Scott Morrison is calling on the governments of G20 countries to implement measures “including appropriate filtering, detecting and removing of content by actors who encourage, normalise, recruit, facilitate or commit terrorist and violent atrocities.”
Let’s be clear about what Morrison, other “world leaders,” and significant segments of activist communities and even the general public, are demanding (and to a frightful degree already implementing): Internet censorship.
This isn’t really a new development. The mosque attacks are merely the latest incident weaponized by politicians and activists in service to a long-running campaign against public discussion and debate that requires them to make arguments and persuade instead of just bark orders and compel.
The fictional “memory hole” of the IngSoc regime in George Orwell’s 1984 stood for more than half a century as an oft-cited and wisely acknowledged warning. Now that hole is opening up beneath us for real and threatening to suck us down into a new Dark Age of “thoughtcrime” and “unpersons.”
The threat is content-independent. Renaming climate change skeptics “deniers” and demanding “investigations” of them, or pressuring media to ban discussions of policy on vaccines, is just as evil as suing Alex Jones for promulgating bizarre theories about the Sandy Hook massacre.
The only appropriate response to “bad” speech — that is, speech one disagrees with — is “better” speech.
Attempting to shut down your opponents’ ability to participate in an argument isn’t itself a winning argument. Forbidding your opponents to speak to a problem doesn’t solve that problem.
In fact, those tactics are tantamount to admitting that your arguments are less persuasive and that your solutions can’t withstand scrutiny.
Freedom of thought and expression are primary, foundational rights. They make it possible for us to hash out issues and solve problems peaceably instead of by force. Any attempt to suppress them is itself a call for totalitarianism and the alternative to those liberties is social and political death.
Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org).
By Maryanne DemasiMaryanne Demasi | Brownstone Institute | June 15, 2026
For decades, vaccines have been treated as the sacred cow of modern medicine. I was taught that they were the holy grail. To question them was heresy. To raise concerns about safety was to risk professional exile.
“No child should be sacrificed on the altar of the religion of vaccines,” Siri writes, as he turns his focus to America’s overcrowded childhood immunisation schedule.
I assumed little in this book would surprise me. I’ve spent years reporting on drug safety, regulatory capture, and the corruption of science. But Siri showed me how wrong I was.
Siri is not a doctor or a scientist. He is an attorney, and this, he says, is his advantage. In court, rhetoric won’t save you. Evidence does. As he puts it, he doesn’t get to say “trust me” the way many doctors do. “I need to prove claims with real data.”
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 