Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
After many years of running “LandDestroyer” on Blogspot, I have finally created a new independent website: NewAtlas.report.
Please visit The New Atlas to find and follow all of my recent work. Below is a playlist featuring daily videos I put out on YouTube and it will update inside this post regularly – otherwise all new articles will be published only on The New Atlas website.
There are NO ads and NO paywalls on The New Atlas website and there never will be. So please bookmark and share it with others.
The New Atlas is on YouTube here, Odysee here (a backup if ever YouTube deletes my channel) and can be found on Patreon here.
If you don’t think that Israeli spies haven’t been engaged in covert warfare online and via social media, then you have been living in a cave somewhere on planet earth.
We know for example that Israeli spies under the guise of “art students” infiltrated the United States, particularly the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, way back in 2002,[1] one year before the Bush administration led us to a bloody war in Iraq. Back in 2019, Insider came out with an article entitled, “A company run by former Israeli spies reportedly tried to influence a local US election — and courted Trump’s campaign.”[2]
If readers would like to pursue these things further, I would highly recommend Gordon Thomas’ Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, Ronen Bergman’s Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, Michael Bar-Zoha’s Mossad: The Great Operations of Israel’s Secret Service, Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman’s Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Levant Books, 2012), etc.[3]
We are certainly in a war with the Israelis, who find it congenial to call anyone who criticizes Israel a Nazi, but Israeli officials and Neoconservatives find it congenial to work with former Nazis like Otto Skorzenry,[4] who styled himself “Hitler’s most daring commando,”[5] and Stepan Bandera;[6] the United States and Israel tell us that they are fighting against gangsters and terrorists, but one of the infamous gangsters in America, Meyer Lansky,[7] was working for the Israeli Mossad.
So, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to realize that Israeli spies have been infiltrated media outlets like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. The following video shows how:
If you still believe that Israeli spies are “the Good Guys,” then I have nothing to say to you because you have already gone too far.
[1] “Spies, or students?,” Haaretz, May 13, 2002; “The Israeli “art student” mystery,” Salon, May 7, 2002.
[2] “A company run by former Israeli spies reportedly tried to influence a local US election — and courted Trump’s campaign,” Insider, February 12, 2019.
[3] For related studies, see Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010); Michael Karpin, The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).
[4] See Michael Bar-Zohar and Nissim Mishal, Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), chapter 8.
[5] Otto Skorzeny, My Commando Operations: The Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Daring Commando (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 1995).
[6] See E. Michael Jones, “Crimea River: The Hypocrisy of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Culture Wars, April 2014.
[7] For historical studies on this issue, see for example Albert Fried, The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Gangster in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Jenna Weissman Joselit, Our Gang: Jewish Crime and the New York Jewish Community, 1900-1940 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983); Stephen Birmingham, The Rest of Us: The Rise of America’s Eastern European Jews (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1999); David Pietrusza, Rothstein: The Life, Times, and Murder of the Criminal Genius Who Fixed the 1919 World Series (New York: Basic Books, 2011); Robert A. Rockaway, But He Was Good to His Mother: The Lives and Crimes of Jewish Gangsters(Jerusalem and New York: Gefen Publishing House, 2000).
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled, Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure: A Philosophical and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and White Identity. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
The problem of censors who don’t know fact from opinion struck home this Sunday when YouTube froze my channel for two weeks due to two strikes for what they call “medical misinformation.” My weekly news roundup show False Flag Weekly News has covered a wide range of medical and scientific experts’ views about COVID-19 related issues, including the safety and efficacy of vaccines. YouTube’s censors apparently didn’t like some of those views. They explained: “YouTube doesn’t allow claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO).”
On the show, I made no such claims. Instead I simply reported on the claims that various experts had made, without endorsing any of them. In fact, I was quite skeptical towards many of the alarmist claims of anti-vaccine scientists.
The fact that scientific experts like Geert Vanden Bossche, Mike Yeadon, Reiner Fuellmich, and Sucharit Bhakdi are saying alarming things about COVID vaccines is…well, a fact, and a newsworthy one. The draconian censorship of such facts, and of the experts’ interpretations, suggests very strongly that the elites pushing the COVID party line have something to hide.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE OPENING OF THE CENSORED EPISODE:
FFWN_210424-audio.m4a
Kevin Barrett: Welcome to False Flag Weekly News, the weekly news show where we question everything, especially public myths of the kind described by Philip Zelikow. I’m Kevin Barrett with Lucy Morgan Edwards this week. Welcome back, Lucy. Great to have you.
Lucy Morgan Edwards: Good to be back, Kevin.
Kevin Barrett: All right. So you’re the author of The Afghan Solution. You were a political adviser to the E.U. in Kabul, Afghanistan. And we will get to some some Afghan stories as we continue. But first, the obligatory disclaimers. Let’s let’s read those disclaimers. OK, first, this could be very disturbing to people who feel an emotional attachment to conventional wisdom as expressed in the mainstream media or from the mouths of politicians. So if you can’t handle questioning that stuff change the channel. Also, we are not a medical advice outfit. I am a doctor of literature, not medicine. So if I tell you to take three pills and call me in the morning, tell me to shove off. So we’re doing political commentary and analysis here, not medicine. No medical advice, no medical information, misinformation, nothing like that. All right. Here we are with our lead story: Philip Zelikow, the self-described expert in the creation and maintenance of public myths, who operates out of the University of Virginia. He not only wrote the script for 9/11 — or many people suspect as much — and then was called on to turn it into a bestselling novel called the 9/11 Commission report. He not only controlled that investigation completely, he wrote the entire report in chapter by chapter outline before the Commission even convened, and he probably wrote it from the script for the actual event that he co-wrote before 9/11. But now here he is back doing the same thing with COVID-19. He’s setting up what he hopes will become a COVID-19 Commission to tell the official public myth of COVID-19c. Lucy, would you say that this guy has chutzpah or something which requires a more obscene expression?
Lucy Morgan Edwards: Well, he surely does. There’s a comment from another academic colleague that that his appointment to do this is a rare public admission that this COVID project is set to run into the long term, maybe for the next 20 years, in the same way that the war on terror has run based on his his myth that has, of course, underpinned it.
Kevin Barrett: And so Zelikow says that “this is the greatest crisis suffered by America, if not the world, since 1945. Scholars and journalists will do their jobs. But there is also a role for the kind of massive investigation and research effort that only a large scale commission can provide.” So here comes the National COVID Commission, chaired by Philip Zelikow. I can’t even imagine what that big lie is going to sound like.
Lucy Morgan Edwards: And together with the censorship from mainstream media, that is becoming increasingly prevalent, that will be the official narrative. And we’re all going to have to follow it because we’re going to be canceled or censored if we don’t, doubtless.
Kevin Barrett: And he’s using a war metaphor, just like he did with the “war on terror” that was scripted before they blew up the Twin Towers and flew remote controlled airplanes into targets and stuff like that. So now apparently he’s saying this is a war, too. He says we have to win the war globally, not just nationally. It’s a world war. So once again, a war metaphor — against a virus.
Lucy Morgan Edwards: OK, so I feel that this is a clue that the same group that were behind 9/11 are behind the current situation. Rolling him out is a huge, clear clue.
Kevin Barrett: They’re not even trying to hide it. They’re actually basically telling us what they’re doing. And there’s a whole theory that Satanists have some kind of metaphysical duty to tell their dupes what they’re doing, because then the bad karma is on the dupes instead of on them. I don’t know if that’s true, but sometimes they act like it.
Lucy Morgan Edwards: That’s the modus operandi, isn’t it?
Kevin Barrett: Indeed. OK, let’s get into our “vaxxed” news. Let’s see…So Alan didn’t flash the the medical advice disclaimer. I can’t believe it. He Usually flashes it about every third story that has anything to do with COVID. OK, so here’s our nonmedical advice about Biden and his two hundred million COVID-19 vaccinations. He said his goal was 100 million. And they’ve shot Americans two hundred million times so far. Half of Americans now have been shot, and they’re still walking around. They’re still alive. And I hope that they will be for a while. Allen, our producer, of course, is a vaccine enthusiast and he’s still doing just fine. So, Lucy, your take on Biden’s heroic triumphalism around his two hundred million shots?
Lucy Morgan Edwards: Well, I mean, who knows if those figures are correct? I’m not sure what they’re based on. It does say in the piece that the government’s planning to incentivize people to take the vaccinations with bonuses, paid leave, gift cards and so on, so that they’re obviously going all in and are very keen to get everyone vaxxed. One could also say, why don’t they get rid of McDonald’s, given that most people die of obesity? So that raises more questions about what’s really going on with these so-called vaccinations, which some people, some eminent epidemiologists, are saying aren’t vaccines at all because they haven’t been fully tested while we’re in the third stage trial, which people are unaware of. And some are actually raising questions as to whether these really are actually vaccinations or just injections of something else.
Kevin Barrett: Oh, but you’re not allowed to say things like that. “That’s medical misinformation!” No, it’s not, because we’re not giving medical advice. We’re simply speculating. (And reporting what others have said.)
So in our next story, we see that the censorship axe is coming down with unprecedented ferocity on anybody who expresses any opinions on any of this stuff that deviate one iota from the official party line as created by the WHO and Faucci and Bill Gates and all their friends. And here’s Senator Klobuchar telling us that they’ve got to start seriously censoring the vaccine skeptics, the super-spreaders of misinformation. So if you express an unorthodox opinion now, you’re the equivalent of somebody who’s killing people by spreading an evil virus. And in this climate…The problem with this, it seems to me, Lucy, is that how can we believe the Orthodox party line when anybody who expresses anything else is axed and destroyed and censored and suppressed? There’s no robust free debate. And so God knows how many experts are out there (who dissent but are afraid to go public.)
Lucy Morgan Edwards: In the UK, it’s worse than that. So they’re going to be seeking to criminalize anyone who expresses opinions that don’t conform to the big tech big pharma view of COVID and what’s going on. There was a very good piece yesterday on UK Column News that went through the development of this increasing censorship and deplatforming. And the drive by the British government just to shut down any alternative viewpoints, any discussion, any academic discussion and so on, and that started really with David Cameron’s speech to the U.N., I think it was in 2013, where he laid out really what they were going to do, and the the non-tolerance for any alternative viewpoints. It was it was a real whoring of his position, actually. I felt it was absolutely disgraceful speech. And of course, the British government operates through Ofcom, which is a quasi governmental organisation, which is pretty totalitarian and is involved in the development of 5G and holds licenses and is therefore profiting from the development of 5G, which they’re, of course, trying to put in in tandem with all of this censorship that’s going on in order to suck up our data and surveil us increasingly.
Kevin Barrett: And so who knows how many experts are out there who actually agree with the skeptics but are afraid to say anything because they’re afraid that they’ll be deplatformed or fired or have their careers or reputations ruined. And that means it’s very hard for us to know what the truth is because it could easily be the majority of the experts that deviate from the party line in the privacy of their own minds, but are afraid to say anything. So in this kind of atmosphere of ferocious, hysterical censorship, it’s impossible to get at the truth. And so anybody who wants to genuinely convince us that the Orthodox line is correct should not be doing this! They should be encouraging free and fearless debate. And then we’ll see how many experts really think this and how many experts really think that. But as it stands right now, we can’t possibly know.
BIOGRAPHYKevin BarrettDr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.
He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.http://www.truthjihad.comtruthjihad@gmail.com
It’s been a very strange few weeks, well if it could possibly get any stranger than it already is.
On the 16th February I uploaded a 30 minute video onto my YouTube channel, titled “Vaccination and Vacation or Sceptical Staycation?” The video accompanied an article which I have also published in print.
The video was taken down within 3 hours of being uploaded, it had been viewed by 4 people (yes a whopping 4 people) and bearing in mind the channel is less than 4 weeks old and has less than 10 subscribers! Someone was incredibly upset with the content I had produced but neglected to give me a reason for censoring it.
I subsequently found myself banned for the second time on YouTube, the previous ban was for re uploading a speech which I gave in Sheffield last summer that had reached 67.5k views on another channel before
before being taken down by YouTube. Free speech really is under the threat of total annihilation!
On the 28th Feb I arrived at work (yes, I work full time, 48 hours per week as well as writing and researching, no furlough for me!) at 6 a.m. where it quickly transpired, that the company I work for, had suddenly decided to introduce ‘on the spot’ covid testing!
I entered the building and was met by someone I’d never met previously (who was wearing a Hi-Viz vest, so he must’ve been important!) and was told “You need to take a covid test mate.” I politely responded by explaining to the newly appointed Hi-Viz Health Enforcement Officer (he was a supervisor apparently), that “I don’t need to take any test and will not be doing as I’m not sick or showing any symptoms.”
“If you don’t take the test you’ll be immediately suspended and face disciplinary action.” I was told.
I was completely taken by surprise and was amazed that this individual, who had been given the task of herding people into a temporary testing facility (basically an office with rearranged furniture) had no clue that what he was doing or what he was instructing people to do, was completely unethical and unlawful.
I replied by attempting to appeal to his common sense, with “Really? You do realise that I have inalienable rights to bodily integrity and what you have just said is totally unlawful, don’t you? Are you threatening me with disciplinary action should I not consent to an invasive medical procedure? Because that would be coercion.”
He reasoned his instruction with “It’s no different to a drugs and alcohol test.”
I went on to explain to him that the covid test is nothing like a drugs and alcohol test and that the drugs and alcohol test is consensual and part of the terms and conditions within the contract of my employment, should I be suspected of being drunk or under the influence of drugs whilst at work.
I also added that the covid test is an invasive medical procedure which requires the appropriate training, as there is a danger that an untrained person could cause injury by piercing the blood brain barrier.
I asked him if the person performing the test had any medical qualifications at all (she didn’t and is in fact in the vulnerable group for covid, as she has a child at home with a respiratory issue!!) and what training they had received.
I was told that the person overseeing the test had been trained and was instructing others to perform their own tests. I asked what training she’d had that qualified her to instruct people to perform invasive medical tests on themselves and received no response.
After a lengthy debate with the obviously unqualified Hi-Viz Health Enforcement Officer, whilst in full view of roughly thirtyish other people crammed into an open office, it was decided that I was suspended on full pay pending an investigation for the allegation of ‘Refusing a reasonable management instruction, refusing a lateral flow test’ which could result in disciplinary action. I was handed a letter of suspension in full view of the gawping group of willing test subjects and told “Don’t shoot the messenger.”
This entire incident was completely wrong on so many levels I was stunned that it was actually happening and went home in sheer amazement.
I arrived back home at 6.30a.m. Much to the confusion of my partner (who is in the medical profession) who was in complete disbelief when I told her the full story over a cup of coffee. I then typed up the entire incident as a statement whilst it was still fresh in my mind so as not to forget any details. (I have attached a copy of the suspension letter and my statement at the end of this article should you wish to read my version of the whole encounter).
On the 3rd March I was invited into an interview with HR regarding the allegations and subsequent suspension which lasted roughly 30 mins.
I handed them a pre prepared statement containing my version of events from the incident. I then read it out for the record. I was asked a couple rather pointless questions, which aren’t even worth mentioning, before handing them my written conclusion. I read it out for the record and is as follows.
“I do not accept the allegations that I refused a “reasonable management request”. (By refusing a lateral flow test.)
The current government guidelines on testing for covid in the work place are quite clear.
Government guidelines state that employers have a duty to protect the health and safety of their employees, it is likely that they can reasonably instruct an employee exhibiting symptoms to be tested.
However, it may not be reasonable for the employer to require an employee to be tested, if they are not exhibiting symptoms (for example, if they are part of a testing programme to identify possible asymptomatic cases).
The current government guidelines state that if I have exhibit symptoms of covid then I should report to a testing centre to take an RT – PCR test and that testing requires my consent, as the tests are an invasive medical procedure.
Should I exhibit symptoms, I would not attend my place of work and I would consult the government’s guidelines.
I had received no prior communication from (work place omitted) before the 28/02/21, that I would be required to give my consent to take a test for covid.
I work alone and outside in a huge yard area, where I have close to zero physical interaction with any other person throughout my working day, therefore there are no reasonable grounds to:-
a) Reasonably suspect that I am asymptomatically infected with covid or
b) That I am considered to be in a category of risk that would potentially increase the spread of covid.
Taking into consideration the above information, I cannot accept that I did not follow a reasonable management request.
I am of the view that I exercised my inalienable rights to privacy, confidentiality and bodily integrity which were completely ignored.
I do not believe that the health and safety obligations within my contract of employment were applied to me at any time during the incident.
On reflection, however, I am of the view that there are several potential breeches of my contract of employment.”
I handed over a pre prepared list of ten questions which I would require the answers, prior to any disciplinary hearing, should one go ahead. Those questions can be found at the end of the article should you wish to read them.
The interview concluded and I left, pondering the possible disciplinary hearing which I had no doubt would soon take place. To my astonishment it never did!
Instead I received a phone call from a senior manager apologising to me for what had happened and that the allegations had been dropped and I was free to return to work on Monday 9th March.
I was totally shocked, particularly when considering the current climate we are in. I had been looking passed returning to work and pondering my future post dismissal and was feeling rather bleak about the whole thing but despite my worries I stood my ground and I won! A small but very significant little victory!
I am in no doubt that there will be more battles to fight in this war of medical tyranny and with certainty, the enemy along with their army of Hi-Viz Health Enforcement Officers, will be planning other attacks on freedom and liberty but for now I have survived to fight another day.
I am an ex Royal Marines Commando and my gut instinct will always be to stand and fight. I understand that not everyone is able to do the same and I would never criticise them for that but I could not justify, not putting into practice, that which I encourage others to do. I have never and will never encourage someone to do something, which I am not prepared to do myself.
These are testing times where every little victory matters, however small and we must push back where we can, however we can!
If you wish to read the statements, questions and letter of suspension, then continue on. I have left out the name of my employer and those involved, as I still work there and would be in breach of my contract of employment should I reveal such details whilst still employed there.
I would further like to add that this is a personal experience and I am not advising or encouraging anyone to imitate my actions nor do I give advice in any legal capacity.
I believe it is everyone’s personal responsibility to educate themselves on their inalienable rights and exercise them where they feel they are obliged to.
MY STATEMENT OF THE INCIDENT
1. I arrived to (work place omitted) at 0554hrs on 28/02/2021, which is my normal place of work. I am employed as a (title omitted). My duties are to (job description omitted).
2. On entering the building, I was immediately met in the main entrance, by a person unknown to me, who did not identify themselves to me and immediately instructed me to take a test for covid 19.
3. I asked why I was being instructed to take a covid test and was simply told that “Everyone was being tested.”
4. I refused to take the test on the grounds that I was not showing symptoms of covid 19, I was not ill, I had not been in contact with anyone showing symptoms of covid and that any test would require my consent.
5. I was instantly threatened with suspension should I not comply with the testing that was being carried out.
6. I explained that it was unlawful to coerce me into an invasive medical procedure and that my inalienable rights to bodily integrity were being disregarded as a result of the attempted coercion.
7. This was refuted by the person instructing me to take the test who went on to inform me that “The covid test is like the Drugs and Alcohol test and if you refuse to take it you will be suspended and face possible disciplinary action.”
8. I again pointed out that that statement alone was coercion and unlawful. I also added that the drugs and alcohol tests were totally different and that they were part of a consensual contract of employment.
9. I explained that being ordered to participate in an invasive medical procedure at the behest of anyone who simply orders me to, is definitely not within the terms and conditions of my contract of employment.
10. I was concerned that the conditions of the test were unsafe and that the area of testing was inappropriate for several reasons.
11. I explained my reservations regarding the inaccurate covid testing system which was being used, the way in which it was being used and the setting in which it was being performed, was of a huge concern.
The test produces high rates of false positives which wrongly inform the individual being tested that they are positive resulting in financial loss due to forced quarantining.
Whilst being performed by non-medically qualified staff, the chances of test inaccuracy is dramatically enhanced due to possible cross contamination because the whole of the workforce were all being ushered into the same room at the same time, not socially distancing and not wearing any face coverings. This is not in line with the standards of a medical testing facility.
I also had concerns that the area had not been suitably disinfected or prepared to the required standard of a medical testing facility.
12. I asked if there was a Medically Qualified person on site performing the testing procedure, as the action of swabbing the nasal passage can be dangerous when performed by unqualified people and can result in injury or damage to the blood brain barrier.
13. I was told that the person performing the test had been trained.
14. I asked who was performing the test and what training they had received.
15. I was then told that members of staff were performing their own tests. I was at this point extremely concerned bordering on horrified at such a cavalier approach to my health and safety.
16. I explained that could be a particularly dangerous and those performing procedures on themselves could injure themselves if they pierce their blood brain barrier.
17. I then asked if I was being suspended because if I was, then I needed to be going home immediately due to the unsafe environment I was in and the level of distress this had caused me.
18. I was told by another member of staff, who instructed me to go into the room where everyone was being tested because someone wanted my Family name.
19. I told this person, that whoever required my details should come out of the crowded room, which I assumed was suspected of a covid outbreak and get my details as I was not prepared to enter on the grounds of safety.
20. This person then came back and said “that I had to go in there as HR were in there.”
21. I asked this person to identify himself. He said “I’m just (name omitted).”
22. I informed (name omitted) that “this was a private matter” and that “I do not ‘need’ (as he put it) to go anywhere and that I do not take orders from strangers where my health is concerned.” I added that he should also mind his own business and repeated that should someone require my details that they come out and get them.
23. I was then shouted at by the security guard who said “it’s no good arguing with us, it’s not our rules”. Or words to that effect.
24. I responded by saying that “they were responsible for facilitating a procedure that could potentially cause injury and that they were involving themselves in the ‘argument’ by shouting comments.”
23. I was then handed a sheet of paper, informing me that I was suspended on full pay for “Refusing a reasonable management request” (refusing a lateral flow test for covid).
24. The person who handed me the letter did not identify himself, he did not take me to a private area to explain what was happening and simply said “don’t shoot the messenger”.
25. Not at any point during the incident was I offered the option of a private area to discuss any of the concerns I had raised, nor was I asked if I was comfortable discussing this in full view of the entire workforce. I have the right to privacy and confidentiality which was not afforded to me at all during this incident.
26. Throughout the incident which lasted roughly 20 minutes, I was subjected to several members of staff who found it highly appropriate to comment and voice their opinions on what should have been a private conversation between myself and a manager.
27. I found the entire experience to be, distressing, extremely humiliating and totally unprofessional.
28. I then left the premises, on receiving the letter of suspension.
QUESTIONS I HAD PREPARED FOR POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY HEARING
1. What was the purpose of the mass testing on the date of the incident?
2. Who was given the responsibility for overseeing the testing?
3. What Medical Qualifications does the person responsible for overseeing the testing have?
4. What preparations were made in the area to be used for testing?
5. Was suitable insurance in place on the date of the incident, to cover any injury which could be sustained, as a direct result of Negligent Medical Procedures?
6. Why, was prior notice of testing not given, including an explanation for the requirement to be tested, as testing requires consent?
7. Why was I not taken to a private area to discuss my concerns to protect my confidentiality? And alleviate my clear and obvious distress?
8. Why were people allowed to form in a huge group whilst observing none of the government guidelines regarding social distancing or face coverings?
9. Why wasn’t there a qualified professional there to answer my concerns?
10. Which Laws, contractual or otherwise did the person suspending me from my duties, have the authority to behave in such an inappropriate, unethical and unprofessional manner?
An academic conference on media censorship and the dangers of free speech infringements online has, ironically, been censored by YouTube.
The Google-owned video platform decided to pull all videos from the Critical Media Literacy Conference of the Americas 2020 for violating its “community standards,” which include never saying anything bad about censorship.
“At first I thought it was a joke,” said Mickey Huff of Diablo Valley College in California, as quoted by MintPress.
“My initial reaction was ‘that’s absurd;’ there must have been a mistake or an accident or it must have gotten swept under somehow. There is no violation, there was no reasoning, there was no warning, there was not an explanation, there was no nothing. The entire channel was just gone.”
The two-day event featured a number of esteemed speakers and panel discussions about Big Tech censorship and online violations of the First Amendment. So naturally it had to be pulled in its entirety in order to keep We the People from hearing the truth.
“Each video was a different panel and every panel had different people from the other ones, so it is not like there was one theme or person or copyrighted content in all of our videos,” added Nolan Higdon of California State University, East Bay, who was one of the event’s organizers.
“This seems to be an attack on the conference, not on a singular video.”
Big Tech needs to be broken up and publicly run so everyone has a voice
Higdon and his colleagues actually went out of their way to ensure that there was no copyright infringement in any of the talks or panels. Many of them were conducted in lecture format similar to a Zoom call, and included some of the best-known names in media studies.
“This wasn’t a keg party with Parler users: It was an academic conference,” Huff explained, noting that the event was sponsored by reputable schools like Stanford University and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
“These are pioneering figures in critical media literacy scholarship. It’s mind-numbing that all of this was just disappeared from YouTube. The irony is writ large … This is part of a potentially algorithmic way of getting rid of more radical positions that criticize establishment media systems, including journalism.”
Google reportedly told MintPress that it has no idea where the missing videos went, and claims they were never even uploaded to YouTube. The company found only one video in its archives and reinstated it.
This explanation does not cut it for Huff or Higdon, though, as the two seem to recognize that corporations like Google and YouTube have become digital tyrants that forcibly control the free-flow of information online to the degree that free speech no longer even exists.
“I don’t think they should have achieved this kind of power over our communication systems in the first place, and these should be publicly run platforms regulated the same way our government regulates and enforces the First Amendment,” Huff commented.
Higdon had much the same to say about the situation, warning that the tech giants have amassed so much power that they are now blatantly trampling the constitutional rights of millions of Americans without consequence.
“By empowering these tech companies to decide what is and is not appropriate, they are going to look out for their vested interests, and people who are critical of their business model and practices are going to be targets,” Higdon says.
“These lefties right now who are advocating for censorship … the outcome of this is going to be on them.”
More related news about Big Tech censorship can be found at Censorship.news.
Facebook, Google and Twitter are not neutral platforms.
They control the digital public square to aid the powerful – and can cancel any of us overnight
Palestinian critics say Facebook has become ‘another face of occupation’ (AFP/File photo)
There is a growing unease that the decisions taken by social media corporations can have a harmful impact on our lives. These platforms, despite enjoying an effective monopoly over the virtual public square, have long avoided serious scrutiny or accountability.
In a new Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, former Silicon Valley executives warn of a dystopian future. Google, Facebook and Twitter have gathered vast quantities of data on us to better predict and manipulate our desires. Their products are gradually rewiring our brains to addict us to our screens and make us more pliable to advertisers. The result, as we are consigned to discrete ideological echo chambers, is ever greater social and political polarisation and turmoil.
Western publics are waking up very belatedly to the undemocratic power social media wields over them
As if to underline the ever-tightening grip these tech corporations exert on our lives, Facebook and Twitter decided this month to openly interfere in the most contentious US presidential election in living memory. They censored a story that could harm the electoral prospects of Joe Biden, the Democratic challenger to incumbent President Donald Trump.
Given that nearly half of Americans receive their news chiefly via Facebook, the ramifications of such a decision on our political life were not hard to interpret. In excising any debate about purported corruption and influence-peddling by Biden’s son, Hunter, carried out in his father’s name, these social media platforms stepped firmly into the role of authoritarian arbiter of what we are allowed to say and know.
‘Monopoly gatekeeper’
Western publics are waking up very belatedly to the undemocratic power social media wields over them. But if we wish to understand where this ultimately leads, there is no better case study than the very different ways Israelis and Palestinians have been treated by the tech giants.
The treatment of Palestinians online serves as a warning that it would be foolish indeed to regard these globe-spanning corporations as politically neutral platforms, and their decisions as straightforwardly commercial. This is to doubly misunderstand their role.How Facebook threatens vulnerable Muslim communities Read More »
Social media firms are now effectively monopolistic communication grids – similar to the electricity and water grids, or the phone network of a quarter of a century ago. Their decisions are therefore no longer private matters, but instead have huge social, economic and political consequences. That is part of the reason why the US justice department launched a lawsuit last week against Google for acting as a “monopoly gatekeeper for the internet”.
Google, Facebook and Twitter have no more a right to arbitrarily decide who and what they host on their sites than telecoms companies once had a right to decide whether a customer should be allowed a phone line. But unlike the phone company, social media corporations control not just the means of communication, but the content too. They can decide, as the Hunter Biden story shows, whether their customers get to participate in vital public debates about who leads them.
The Hunter Biden decision is as if the phone company of old not only listened in to conversations, but was able to cut the line if it did not like the politics of any particular customer.
In fact, it is even worse than that. Social media now deliver the news to large sections of the population. Their censoring of a story is more akin to the electricity company turning off the power to everyone’s homes for the duration of a TV broadcast to ensure no one can see it.
Censorship by stealth
The tech giants are the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in human history, their riches measured in hundreds of billions, and now trillions, of dollars. But the argument that they are apolitical – aiming simply to maximise profits – was never true.
They have every reason to promote politicians who side with them by committing not to break up their monopolies or regulate their activities, or, better still, by promising to weaken controls that might prevent them from growing even more fabulously rich and powerful.
Social media algorithms help drive decisions on content removal (AFP/File photo)
Conversely, the tech giants also have every incentive to use the digital space to penalise and marginalise political activists who urge greater regulation either of their activities, or of the marketplace more generally.
Unlike their explicit deletion of the Hunter Biden story, which incensed the Trump administration, social media corporations more usually censor by stealth. That power is wielded through algorithms, the secret codes that decide whether something or someone appears in a search result or on a social media feed. If they desire, these tech titans can cancel any one of us overnight.
This is not just political paranoia. The disproportionate impact of algorithm changes on “left-leaning” websites – those most critical of the neoliberal system that has enriched social media corporations – was highlighted this month by the Wall Street Journal.
Wrong kinds of speech
Politicians increasingly understand the power of social media, which is why they want to harness it as best they can for their own ends. Since the shock of Trump’s election victory in late 2016, Facebook, Google and Twitter executives have regularly found themselves dragged before legislative oversight committees in the US and UK.
There, they are ritually rebuked by politicians for creating a crisis of “fake news” – a crisis that, in fact, long predated social media, as the deceptions of US and UK officials in linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and claiming that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” testify to only too clearly.
The online fate of Palestinians points to a future in which the already-powerful will gain ever greater control over what we know and what we are allowed to think
Politicians have also begun holding internet corporations responsible for “foreign interference” in western elections – typically blamed on Russia – despite a dearth of serious evidence for most of their allegations.
Political pressure is being exerted not to make the corporations more transparent and accountable, but to steer them towards enforcing even more assiduously restrictions on the wrong kinds of speech – whether it be violent racists on the right or critics of capitalism and western government policy on the left.
For that reason, social media’s original image as a neutral arena of information sharing, or as a tool for widening public debate and increasing civic engagement, or as a discourse leveller between the rich and powerful and weak and marginalised, grows ever more hollow.
Separate digital rights
Nowhere are ties between tech and state officials more evident than in their dealings with Israel. This has led to starkly different treatment of digital rights for Israelis and Palestinians. The online fate of Palestinians points to a future in which the already-powerful will gain ever greater control over what we know and what we are allowed to think, and over who is visible and who is erased from public life.
Israel was well-positioned to exploit social media before most other states had recognised its importance in manipulating popular attitudes and perceptions. For decades, Israel had, in part, outsourced an official programme of hasbara – or state propaganda – to its own citizens and supporters abroad. As new digital platforms emerged, these partisans were only too willing to expand their role.Facebook accused of censoring Palestinians under pretext of fighting hate speech Read More »
Israel had another advantage. After the 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, Israel began crafting a narrative of state victimhood by redefining antisemitism to suggest it was now a particular affliction of the left, not the right. So-called “new antisemitism” did not target Jews, but related instead to criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.
This highly dubious narrative proved easy to condense into social media-friendly soundbites.
Israel still routinely describes any Palestinian resistance to its belligerent occupation or its illegal settlements as “terrorism”, and any support from other Palestinians as “incitement”. International solidarity with Palestinians is characterised as “delegitimisation” and equated with antisemitism.
‘Flood the internet’
As far back as 2008, it emerged that a pro-Israel media lobby group, Camera, had been orchestrating covert efforts by Israel loyalists to infiltrate the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to edit entries and “rewrite history” in ways favourable to Israel. Soon afterwards, politician Naftali Bennett helped organise courses teaching “Zionist editing” of Wikipedia.
In 2011, the Israeli army declared social media a new “battleground” and assigned “cyber warriors” to wage combat online. In 2015, Israel’s foreign ministry set up an additional command centre to recruit young, tech-savvy former soldiers from 8200, the army’s cyber intelligence unit, to lead the battle online. Many have gone on to establish hi-tech firms whose spying software became integral to the functioning of social media.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a 2019 cyber industry conference in Tel Aviv (AFP)
An app launched in 2017, Act.IL, mobilised Israel partisans to “swarm” sites hosting either criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians. The initiative, supported by Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, was headed by veterans of Israeli intelligence services.
According to the Forward, a US Jewish weekly, Israel’s intelligence services liaise closely with Act.IL and request help in getting content, including videos, removed by social media platforms. The Forward observed shortly after the app was rolled out: “Its work so far offers a startling glimpse of how it could shape the online conversations about Israel without ever showing its hand.”
Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli military censor who was then assigned to Israel’s strategic affairs ministry, said the goal was to “create a community of fighters” whose job was to “flood the internet” with Israeli propaganda.
Willing allies
With advantages measured in personnel numbers and ideological zeal, in tech and propaganda experience, and in high-level influence in Washington and Silicon Valley, Israel was soon able to turn social media platforms into willing allies in its struggle to marginalise Palestinians online.
In 2016, Israel’s justice ministry was boasting that Facebook, Google and YouTube were “complying with up to 95 percent of Israeli requests to delete content”, almost all of it Palestinian. The social media companies did not confirm this figure.
The Anti-Defamation League, a pro-Israel lobby group with a history of smearing Palestinian organisations and Jewish groups critical of Israel, established a “command centre” in Silicon Valley in 2017 to monitor what it termed “online hate speech”. That same year, it was appointed a “trusted flagger” organisation for YouTube, meaning its reporting of content for removal was prioritised.
Tech corporations are now the undeclared, profit-driven arbiters of our speech rights. But their commitment is not to open and vigorous public debate
At a 2018 conference in Ramallah hosted by 7amleh, a Palestinian online advocacy group, local Google and Facebook representatives barely hid their priorities. It was important to their bottom line to avoid upsetting governments with the power to constrain their commercial activities – even if those governments were systematically violating international law and human rights. In this battle, the Palestinian Authority carries no weight at all. Israel presides over Palestinians’ communications and internet infrastructure. It controls the Palestinian economy and its key resources.
Since 2016, Israel’s justice ministry has reportedly suppressed tens of thousands of Palestinian posts. In a completely opaque process, Israel’s own algorithms detect content it deems “extremist” and then requests its removal. Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested by Israel over social media posts, chilling online activity.
Human Rights Watch warned late last year that Israel and Facebook were often blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and incitement. Conversely, as Israel has shifted ever further rightwards, the Netanyahu government and social media platforms have not stemmed a surge of posts in Hebrew promoting anti-Palestinian incitement and calling for violence. 7amleh has noted that Israelis post racist or inciteful material against Palestinians roughly every minute.
News agencies shut down
As well as excising tens of thousands of Palestinian posts, Israel has persuaded Facebook to take down the accounts of major Palestinian news agencies and leading journalists.
By 2018, the Palestinian public had grown so incensed that a campaign of online protests and calls to boycott Facebook were led under the hashtag “FBcensorsPalestine”. In Gaza, demonstrators accused the company of being “another face of occupation”. Leila Khaled shutdown shows how corporate tech is enemy of free speechRead More »
Activism in solidarity with Palestinians in the US and Europe has been similarly targeted. Ads for films, as well as the films themselves, have been taken down and websites removed.
Last month, Zoom, a video conferencing site that has boomed during the Covid-19 pandemic, joined YouTube and Facebook in censoring a webinar organised by San Francisco State University because it included Leila Khaled, an icon of the Palestinian resistance movement now in her seventies.
On Friday, Zoom blocked a second scheduled appearance by Khaled – this time in a University of Hawaii webinar on censorship – as well as a spate of other events across the US to protest against her cancellation by the site. A statement concerning the day of action said campuses were “joining in the campaign to resist corporate and university silencing of Palestinian narratives and Palestinian voices”.
The decision, a flagrant attack on academic freedom, was reportedly taken after the social media groups were heavily pressured by the Israeli government and anti-Palestinian lobby groups, which labelled the webinar “antisemitic”.
Wiped off the map
The degree to which the tech giants’ discrimination against Palestinians is structural and entrenched has been underscored by the years-long struggle of activists both to include Palestinian villages on online maps and GPS services, and to name the Palestinian territories as “Palestine”, in accordance with Palestine’s recognition by the United Nations.
That campaign has largely floundered, even though more than a million people have signed a petition in protest. Both Google and Apple have proved highly resistant to these appeals; hundreds of Palestinian villages are missing from their maps of the occupied West Bank, while Israel’s illegal settlements are identified in detail, accorded the same status as the Palestinian communities that are shown.
New houses being built in the Nokdim settlement in the occupied West Bank on 13 October (AFP)
The occupied Palestinian territories are subordinated under the name “Israel”, while Jerusalem is presented as Israel’s unified and undisputed capital, just as Israel claims – making the occupation of the Palestinian section of the city invisible.
These are far from politically neutral decisions. Israeli governments have long pursued a Greater Israel ideology that requires driving Palestinians off their lands. This year, that dispossession programme was formalised with plans, backed by the Trump administration, to annex swathes of the West Bank.
Google and Apple are effectively colluding in this policy by helping to erase Palestinians’ visible presence in their homeland. As two Palestinian scholars, George Zeidan and Haya Haddad, recently noted: “When Google and Apple erase Palestinian villages from their navigation, but proudly mark settlements, the effect is complicity in the Israeli nationalist narrative.”
Out of the shadows
Israel’s ever-tightening relationship with social media corporations has played out largely behind the scenes. But these ties moved decisively out of the shadows in May, when Facebook announced that its new oversight board would include Emi Palmor, one of the architects of Israel’s online repression policy towards Palestinians.
Palestinians know only too well how easy it is for technology to diminish and disappear the voices of the weak and oppressed, and to amplify the voices of the powerful
The board will issue precedent-setting rulings to help shape Facebook’s and Instagram’s censorship and free speech policies. But as the former director-general of the justice ministry, Palmor has shown no commitment to online free speech. Quite the reverse: she worked hand-in-hand with the tech giants to censor Palestinian posts and shut down Palestinian news websites. She oversaw the transformation of her department into what the human rights organisation Adalah has called the Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”.
Tech corporations are now the undeclared, profit-driven arbiters of our speech rights. But their commitment is not to open and vigorous public debate, online transparency or greater civic engagement. Their only commitment is to the maintenance of a business environment in which they avoid any regulation by major governments infringing on their right to make money.
The appointment of Palmor perfectly illustrates the corrupting relationship between government and social media. Palestinians know only too well how easy it is for technology to diminish and disappear the voices of the weak and oppressed, and to amplify the voices of the powerful.
Many more of us could soon find ourselves sharing the online fate of Palestinians.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.Jonathan CookJonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001, is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net
Nouvelles du front ukrainien, par Thierry Meyssan
-
Les États-Unis et la Russie veulent conclure la paix le plus vite possible
en Ukraine. Le problème n'est pas où l'on croit : il semble que les
straussiens ...
The man bankrupting America
-
“Go F*** Yourself, Scott: A Full Background Check on The Man Bankrupting
America, Human Skin Tag, Scott Bessent.“ (Blundell).In the same week,
different US...
Occult Utopia Of Jewish Golden Age
-
Occult Utopia Of Jewish Golden Age September 6 2026
___________________________________ More Vids! +BN Vids Archive! HERE!
________________________________...
And You Remain Impossible to Erase
-
There you are, the inspiring Imam, forever present in the conscience of the
honorable and the hearts of the loyal.
Father Dave Smith, Pray For (Mufti) Dr. Hassoun
-
Abducted by the terrorist regime in Syria in 2025, Sheikh Hassoun has been
sentenced to life in prison I spoke with Father Dave Smith, an Australian
Anglic...
Report on Beth Israel vigil 08-15-26
-
*Charlie Kirk and JFK*
John F. Kennedy was assassinated under questionable circumstances on
November 22, 1963, and Charlie Kirk fell on September 10 of la...
On The Road To International Anarchy
-
ON THE ROAD TO INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY— An Analysis (14 August 2026) by
Lawrence Davidson Part I — The Turn Toward […]
-
Hello all,
It is with great sadness that I share with you the passing of our beloved
sister, Mother, and Grandmother, the individual that you all knew ...
Best Horror Podcast
-
Best Horror Podcast Introduction: Horror podcasts […]
The post Best Horror Podcast appeared first on Copper Shock Horror Podcast.
Ikhras Endorses Muntadhar Al-Zaidi
-
“Oh parties of banditry and sectarianism and corruption, we have come and
our goal is to destroy you.” Ikhras formally endorses Muntadhar al-Zaidi,
Iraqi j...
Prince Charles: Foreign Jews behind bloodshed in ME
-
In May, 2017, British Crown Prince Charles declined an invitation from
Zionist entity’s president Reuven Rivlin‘s to attend the 100th anniversary
of the no...
Palestinian Women – One for All, All for One
-
Honouring All Palestinian Women by Honouring Three: Hanin Zoabi, Ahed
Tamimi, Samah Sabawi Vacy Vlazna “Palestinian women have always stood side
by side ...
US’s Saudi Oil Deal from Win-Win to Mega-Lose
-
By F. William Engdahl Who would’ve thought it would come to this? Certainly
not the Obama Administration, and their brilliant geo-political think-tank
neo-...
-
*Mordechai Vanunu wins human rights prize of Brazilian Press Association *
* http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/features/updates/7038-mordechai...
Abdul Aziz Rantissi:
"My ultimate wish, my God, is to attain martyrdom,"...God granted him his wish on April 17, 2004, at the hands of Israeli assassins.
