For the unweaponized only. In other words, they are setting traps for people whereby they can literally pick you up for any asinine reason and concentration camp. Of course, the cop is a lesbian. They have all their key assets in place and have been ready since 2009. They just needed to run out the clock and wait.
https://rumble.com/vr9oyu-13000.00-fine-and-6-mo-prison-time-for-sneezing-in-public.html
 |
| satanist and CIA front bitch |
YouTube bans videos promoting Nazi ideologyWhilst the Financial Times went with:
YouTube to ban supremacist videosBoth these headlines are wildly inaccurate, deliberately playing the racism/white supremacy angle in the hopes that people will clap along without reading anything else.
YouTube finally banned content from neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and Sandy Hook skepticsThe Independent likewise:
YouTube to delete thousands of accounts after it bans supremacists, conspiracy theorists and other ‘harmful’ usersHowever, even these headlines – though a touch closer to the whole truth – leave out some really important information (I’m sure entirely by accident).
videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.Honestly, almost any video you wanted – that expresses a political position – could be twisted into fitting that description. But it doesn’t end there:
Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.What does “well documented” mean? It’s a deliberately ambiguous phrase.
harmful misinformation, such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, or claiming the earth is flatAgain, note the use of extreme examples – flat earth and “miracle cures”. It’s manipulation. What they’re talking about is “well documented” science. They mean the big three: Climate change, GM crops and vaccinations. Questioning any of those will become “harmful”.
In addition to removing videos that violate our policies, we also want to reduce the spread of content that comes right up to the line.See? YouTube will ban channels, or at least suppress creators, who “bump up against the line”.
For example, if a user is watching a video that comes close to violating our policies, our systems may include more videos from authoritative sources (like top news channels) in the “watch next” panel.For example, if you watch an alt-news interview with Vanessa Beeley, your next “recommended video” will be a piece of western propaganda mainstream news from a massive corporate interest an authoritative source telling you to ignore everything you just heard, and/or calling Beeley an “apologist for war crimes”.
Finally, it’s critical that our monetization systems reward trusted creators who add value to YouTube. We have longstanding advertiser-friendly guidelines that prohibit ads from running on videos that include hateful content and we enforce these rigorously…In the case of hate speech, we are strengthening enforcement of our existing YouTube Partner Program policies. Channels that repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies will be suspended from the YouTube Partner program, meaning they can’t run ads on their channel or use other monetization features like Super Chat.See? If you’re a “trusted creator” you still get your ad money. Just don’t break the rules – or even come near breaking the rules – or the money stops.
As we do this, we’re partnering closely with lawmakers and civil society around the globe to limit the spread of violent extremist content online.“Partnering closely with lawmakers” means “working with the government”, essentially an admission that YouTube (owned by Google, in turn, owned by Alphabet Corp.) will remove any videos the state orders them to remove.
Finally, SHTFplan's Mac Slavo notes that we all knew that the censorship would be ramped up sooner or later. There are just not enough people left to fall in line with globalist and authoritarian ideals anymore without it.This tweet has not aged well https://t.co/tpFLFHW613— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 6, 2019
“…the Nazi party was being condemned by much of the world for burning books, they were already hard at work perpetrating an even greater literary crime.” – The Book Thieves: The Nazi Looting of Europe’s Libraries and the Race to Return a Literary InheritanceSadly and quite horrifically, the difference between the Nazi book burning of the past and the technology giants censorship of today is support. People all over the globe condemned the censorship of the Nazi’s, while today, people are pushing for others to be silenced. We live in a disturbing time in history, for certain.
 |
| DB... |
The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.What we learned from that piece was that the New York Times was frantically working to protect and support the political establishment from an insurgent Sanders surge. Similarly, what we see in today’s article is the same editorial board scrambling to protect the financial and economic establishment. So why do I come to such a conclusion? Let me explain.
In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.
One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.
With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.
Few Europeans use the 500-euro note, and most Americans rarely encounter the $100 bill. Yet hundreds of millions of these notes are in circulation around the world, where they are often used by drug cartels, corrupt politicians, terrorists and tax cheats to evade law enforcement. That’s why officials in Europe and elsewhere are proposing to end the printing of high-denomination bills.
Getting rid of big bills will make it harder for criminals to do business and make it easier for law enforcement to detect illicit activity. Consider this: a stack of 500-euro notes worth $1 million weighs just five pounds and can be carried in a small bag, whereas a pile of $20 bills worth the same amount would weigh 110 pounds and would be much more difficult to move around, according to a recent paper from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Really New York Times? Larry Summers? This man’s brain is like an economic plague that the world can’t seem to extricate itself from. Using him to support a cash ban speaks volumes as to where these people are coming from.Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary and former adviser to President Obama, has argued that the United States should get rid of the $100 bill; about 65 percent of these bills are held outside the country, according to a study published by the Federal Reserve. But that change could be disruptive because the $100 bill is used widely overseas for legitimate purposes, too. And as long as the E.C.B. continues to print 200-euro and 100-euro notes, criminals could switch to those bills. That’s why such efforts should be coordinated internationally.
