Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times



Censorship Overview


An Introductory Overview
by William Fox
Publisher and Editor, America First Books
December 29, 2019


There have been so many cases of censorship on so many different levels in recent years that one could easily write volumes on this topic. The following articles comprise simply a small sampling of some of the most outrageous forms of censorship in recent years that provide plenty of "leads" and "intellectual rabbit holes" for further exploration.
An article provided below that particularly hits a nerve with me is titled "Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle"
which describes how "Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them."
For a more detailed listing of articles about censorship, one good starting point is to type in "censor" in the search box at various independent web sites, particularly those that address such topics as "false flag research," "free thought," the "alt-right," and "nationalism." I also like to look at radical left, libertarian, and other sites on all ends of the political spectrum, not only to access diverse viewpoints, but also because in the final analysis our anti-free speech enemies practice "full spectrum dominance" and hate anyone who has enough critical reasoning capacity to threaten establishment propaganda lines, regardless of their particular racial, ethnic, or political orientation.
The following are some examples that range from generalized free thought to civic nationalist to racial nationalist to libertarian to extreme leftist websites (Note: if you get a "WOT Careful! This site has poor customer ratings" warning for any of the sites below, that probably means you are accessing some very insightful material that certain controlled media monopolists and other Orwellian control freaks and their politically malicious "hired gun" "click fraud" groups don't want you to see — from a contrarian viewpoint this can actually be a very good reason to click into a website in question).

"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censorship" tag search at
"censor" search at (publisher of The Nationalist Times)
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at
"censor" search at (pro-Zionist neo-con site)
"censor" search at (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
"censor" search at (World Socialist Web Site)
"censor" search at (premier libertarian site)


Leftist* "Big Tech" Censorship

eBook Censorship
Softcover Book Censorship
Internet Search Engine Censorship
Social Media Censorship

"Limited Hangout" Censorship



Leftist* "Big Tech" Censorship


*Editor's Note: The term "leftist," while technically true, can be overly simplistic. It is true that most studies of the editorial policies by both so-called "Mainstream Media" (MSM) as well as major Internet firms show that they are strongly tilted to the political left when it comes to U.S. domestic policies. (Various examples of sucxh sources include the book The Media Elite: America's New Power Brokers by Jewish academics S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter, 1986, that covered the pre-Internet era, "Who Rules America?" dated 2004 posted at the racial nationalist website, or the "Anti-New York Times" archive maintained by former advertising executive Mike King).
However, this does not explain the anomaly where MSM and "Big Tech" also tend to be supportive of some of the most extreme right wing racial nationalist policies when it comes to Jews and Israel. They can also be supportive of nonwhite forms of nationalism when engaged in "Liberal Minority Coalition" politics (for example, cooperating around a shared sense of envy, oppression, and victimhood). However, even in these cases "white nationalism" in all its various forms usually remains the number one enemy.
Many white nationalist note the overwhelming Jewish presence in Big Tech and MSM and explain this anomaly as a case of "Nationalism for me, but not for thee." Expressed differently, it is the use of the ancient formula: "Be left wing towards people in out-groups to diffuse their identity and cohesion and cause them to drop their guard and become easier to infiltrate and dominate, and simultaneously be right wing towards people within your own tribe to maintain their identity, cohesion, and competitive strength."

Winston Churchill (1874-1965) exposed a dark flip side to Zionism

A shorthand version of this formula is "Communism for the gentiles, Zionism for the Jews." See, for example, the famous article " ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM. A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE" by the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5.
According to Dr. Kevin MacDonald, editor of The Occidental Quarterly and a leading academic analyst of problems in Jewish-gentile relations, the Jewish version of Jewish history tends to focus on events where powerful white groups came in conflict with Jewish interests. This includes such ancient events as the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple and such modern events as the internment of Jewish populations in work camps by Germans during World War II (labeled by leading Jews as "The Holocaust"). Because of this special victimhood focus, many leading Jews believe "white nationalism" has been a prime ideological force behind the most powerful white groups that have opposed them, and hence it constitutes one of their potentially most dangerous ideological adversaries that must be suppressed or blotted out.
Of course there have existed very benign forms of white nationalism that have never threatened Jews, such as various nationalist movements that have existed in Scandinavian countries, but somehow these nuances and complexities do not seem to matter to most Zionist leaders. They are not only a prime force behind the demonization of white nationalism in North America and Europe today, but they have also been prime architects behind the massive Third World immigration invasion into these areas over the last five years that now threatens to not only to fragment and disorient white populations in the short term, but in the long term turn indigenous white homelands into majority nonwhite multi-racial, multi-cultural, neo-Marxist states that increasingly oppress their white minorities and marginalize them into oblivion, much like what has been taking place in South Africa since whites relinquished white self-rule. (For a look at the crisis faced by whites in South Africa, see the "Coming Revolution" web page at or " 70,000 Whites Murdered in ‘Modern’ South Africa; Obama’s African Legacy" by Paul Fromm, American Free Press, July 26, 2015).
The Great Replacement of whites with massive nonwhite illegal as well as legal immigration has been deliberately promoted by a hostile elite that rules over the U.S.-UK-Israeli deep state.  As some examples of this line of analysis, see Don Wassall's article "The Great Replacement is Not a ‘Conspiracy Theory’", The Nationalist Times, August 2019, page 7, or Dr. Paul Craig Roberts' articles "The End of White America Is Now Assured", September 7. 2019, and "Is White Genocide Possible?" August 20, 2019.  
As an additional side note, the terms "white nationalism" (heavily demonized today by MSM whether it is a benign form of nationalism or not) and "Zionism" (understood by many people to mean "Jewish nationalism") are actually tricky terms because they can have so many different permutations, complexities, and paradoxes embedded in them.
In its most basic form, "nationalism" simply connotes the desire of citizens to organize to protect their political interests within their own national borders and is often viewed by many contemporary American and European nationalists as the opposite of "internationalism" or "globalism" which usually seeks to erase national borders. "Nationalism" is often also viewed as the opposite of "imperialism" because imperialism by definition means a centralized power (for example,the ancient city of Rome) whose spreading military and economic power ran roughshod over local "nationalisms" (for example the ancient regions of Gaul, Greece, Briton, or Iberia) in order to stitch together the "Roman Empire".
"Zionism" in this context is a very strange and peculiar form of "nationalism" because it is combined with major elements of internationalism and imperialism. In addition, while claiming to be the "sole democracy in the Middle East," we learn from By Way of Deception by former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky that in reality the Israeli is very much run "top-down" by the out-of-control internationalist spy agency called Mossad. We learn from Victor Ostrovsky, Michael Collins Piper, and other sources that Mossad is over its eyeballs supporting Dope, Inc (described in more detail below), false flag operations (to include the JFK assassination and 9/11), and other global criminal activities.


"VLADIMIR JABOTINSKY (center ) visits Pinsk, Poland, in 1933 with Menachem Begin (right)" Photo Credit: National Photo Collection of Israel, Photography dept. GPO. Caption and photo from "Ze’ev Jabotinsky, his legacy and importance in Zionism: Many ideas that he wrote about in the 1920s and 1930s have now come to fruition such as the concept of individual and national pride, evident in his phrase, `every individual is a king.'” by Yaakov Hagoel, Jerusalem Post, July 11, 2018. The author, Vice chairman of the World Zionist Organization, noted that "Jabotinsky was and will continue to be one of the most important leaders in the Zionist world and his writings and philosophy will continue to inspire us for many years to come."


Also worth mentioning is Vladimir Zeev Jabotinsky. He was the "founder of Revisionist Zionism which was the forerunner of today’s Likud Party" who "supported the settler colonial and militaristic core of Zionism, openly talked about the need to fight the indigenous Palestinian population, and called on Jews to mobilize for ` war, revolt and sacrifice.'”
According to "Ze'ev (Zeev) Jabotinsky-A Brief Biography & Quotes," Jabotinsky originated the "Iron Wall" doctrine. "...He was the first to warn the Zionist Movement that the clash between Jewish and Palestinian nationalisms is inevitable, and it should not be ignored. On the other hand, he advocated the use of force to curb the inevitable clash and to keep it at bay, instead of negotiating with the Palestinian people to resolve this issue." In addition, he "...set up the party's youth movement, Betar, which was characterized by militaristic, some might say fascist, appearance (dark brown uniforms), activities (parade ground drill) with firearm exercises, slogans, and a militaristic ideology and structure. Jabotinsky admired Mussolini . . . and his movement repeatedly sought affiliation with and assistance from Rome. Jabotinsky version of Zionism was single minded, exclusivist, and rigid."
Israel to this day has many strong similitarities to Mussolini's Italy, with a strong goverment-corporate partnership that runs top-down over a highly militarized society that holds sacred the Israeli state. In other words, the U.S. fought World War II to allegedly defeat fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany (according to the Why We Fight propaganda film series created by Frank Capra), only to turn around give conceptually similar things nearly blank-support in Israel today.
Because of all the aforemention internal contradictions and paradoxes, it may be more appropriate to define "Zionism" as hybridized and even psychopathic form of Jewish jingoism, chauvinism, exceptionalism, racism, globalism, imperialism, fascism, socialism, religious fanaticism, atheistic secularism, and supremacism rather than as just a simple form of Jewish "nationalism." (See, for example, "Demystifying Zionism" by Yakov M Rabkin which provides an interesting perspective by a Jewish scholar on the many different ideological strands that comprise "Zionism," which to many casual observers seems to be filled with numerous paradoxes and internal contradictions).
"Zionism" not only includes extreme forms of Jewish racial nationalism within Israel (for example, involving "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinian communities like the Deir Yassin massacre and supporting laws that forbid intermarriage between Jews and Palestinians), but at the same time it is strongly supported by a globalist, internationalist community of Diaspora Jews. In addition, on the imperialist front, Israeli leaders have been engaged in nonstop campaigns to extend Israeli hegemony over countries throughout the Middle East (for example Israeli instigation of America's invasion of Iraq, its covert support of ISIS and various other insurgent and even terrorist organizations to wage war by proxy in Muslim and other gentile countries, its annexation of formerly Palestinian lands, its invasions of Lebanon and Syria, and its attempts to incite an American attack on Iran — see The High Priests of War by Michael Collins Piper for more background on the "Project For a New American Century" campaign of conquest by Zionist neocons at the highest levels of the U.S. Government). Israel also seeks global hegemony by becoming a global nuclear power with hundreds of nuclear weapons that can realistically threaten to take the entire world down with it under the "Sampson Option" (see The Golem by Michael Collins Piper). Lastly, the Rothschilds / City of London, and their allies in major media and financial centers around the world (such as George Soros, the late David Rockefeller, or the late "boss of all crime bosses" Meyer Lansky in America — see The New Jerusalem and The New Babylon by Michael Collins Piper) have been primary patrons of the state of Israel. They practice global imperialism through such means as control of major media and central banks around the world, control of organized crime, control of certain global financial and commodities markets (to include gold and diamonds), control of Congress (see They Dare to Speal Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby by former Congressman Paul Findley and Target: TRAFICANT by Michael Collins Piper), control of global intelligence agencies such as Mossad-CIA-MI6, control of targeted assassinations and false flag operations aorund the world (see for example Final Judgment and False Flags by Michael Collins Piper), control of blatant acts of war against the United States such as the 1954 Lavon Affair, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut (according to By Way of Deception the Mossad knew advance about the bomb plot), 9/11, the assassination of JFK and the attempted assassination of President Harry Truman in 1947 and contemplated assassination of President George H. W. Bush in 1992, control of massive "weaponized", destabilizing, and anti-white replacement-levels of Third World immigration into the European-descended countries around the world (such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Greece, and other European countries), control of highly-coordinated campaigns involving "bought" politicians, hostile MSM, well-funded non-governmental organizations (NGO's) , and radical leftist groups (such as Antifa) that seek to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all privately owned firearms in the U.S. (already largely accomplished in the UK and Australia — while Zionist globalists simultrneously encourage West Bank "settlers" and other Israeli citizens to remain armed to the teeth), and control of the global drug trade, vigorously supported by the "British-Yiddish" offshore banking system (see the four books of the Dope, Inc series, beginning with the first two books Dope, Inc.: Britain's Opium War Against the U.S., 1978, by Konstandinos Kalimtgis, U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team, and David Goldman and Dope Inc: Boston Bankers and Soviet Commissars, 1987, by Executive Intelligence Review and other affiliates of the late Lyndon LaRouche).
It is important to note that amidst all this Zionist New World Order intrigue, the long term economic outlook for America looks increasingly grim. A little more than half way down my "Chernobyl Catastrophe" web page I provided background on our current economic crisis: the time of Chernobyl, Jewish-controlled Wall Street ignored urgent warnings by leading academics across America that the country had been suffering industrial decline ever since the 1960's, and major policy changes had to be taken to pull America out of the tail-spin. In June 1980 Business Week sounded the alarm with its cover story "The Reindustrialization of America." This was followed by a long series of books and studies explicitly addressing America's competitiveness problems. For example, in 1985 Harvard Business School professor Bruce R. Scott and his coeditor George C. Lodge, published U.S. Competitiveness in the World Economy (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1985). Scott and his colleagues went on a national road tour, and the working papers version of this book which explained the nature of decline in great detail was circulated widely around the country among business school organizations and top consulting firms. In 1999, Eamonn Fingleton published In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the key to Future Prosperity, almost like a last call before America plunged into its Central Asia/Middle Eastern military adventures post-9/11 designed to grab natural resources and destroy real or perceived enemies of Israel.'s Jewish power elite was not only served notice in the1980's regarding the true underlying nature of America's economic decline, and what needed to be done immediately to stage a turnaround — that is, if they valued a peaceful productive economy vs. one based on deception, exploitation, aggressive war, and intrigue — but as another important form of notice, the Grace Commission Report presented to Congress in January 1984 explained that the longstanding patterns of steadily increasing government spending and growth in debt obligations were unsustainable. of America implied rehabilitation of the productive white middle class, a reversal of the open borders policies with Third World countries, and a re-imposition of at least modest tariffs and other trade barriers against foreign slave labor exploitation. Although many contemporary libertarians (like Lew Rockwell and Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo with the Mises Institute) disdain tariffs as a coercive measure to stimulate reinvestment in domestic industry, tariffs had in fact played a major role for much of the 19th century to help America build its industry and raise its living standards to the highest level in the world.. of taking a corrective course of action that would restore American productivity and get government spending and debt growth under control, major Jewish groups continued to push for more open borders and racial integration that continued to erode the white middle class, and continued to push for more outsourcing of American industry to China and other ultra low cost labor countries. They also sanctioned continued growth in government spending, debt obligations, and escalating growth in Wall Street derivatives (which billionaire Warren Buffett once called "Weapons of Mass financial destruction"). Last, but not least, they continued their nonstop scheming for ways to make themselves relatively stronger by ruthlessly crippling or destroying all real or perceived competition, a very nasty and spiteful "negative sum game" approach to life., without taking the aforementioned recommended corrective measures, there was really only one path left for America, and that would involve the conquest of natural resources around the world to compensate for the decline in production of tradable quality goods at home. It would also entail continuous intimidation of foreign countries to defend the dollar as a global currency (despite ever higher balance of trade deficits that weaken the dollar), the use of ruthless negative sum game tactics towards all real or perceived competitors to maintain relative strength, the development of a police state to curb domestic dissent as the economic pie inevitably continues to shrink due to loss of domestic industry, and the increased use of false flag terror and other forms of deception to control people through fear.

In January 11, 2017 the Harvard Business School conducted an alumni webinar titled "State of U.S. Competitiveness: Problems Unsolved and a Nation Divided" featuring a panel discussion by professors Michael E. Porter, Jan W. Rivkin, and Mihir A. Desai.  The upshot of this discussion is that the negative trends identified by Bruce R. Scott and his coeditor George C. Lodge in U.S. Competitiveness in the World Economy in 1985 have continued along their downward slope, so now America is even more de-industrialized and less competitive than it was back then.
The growing pattern of government, corporate, and private debt identified by the Grace Commission Report presented to Congress in January 1984 has only become vastly worse.  Real unfunded obligations are vastly greater than the official debt figure of 22.03 trillion reported on August 22, 2019, above the U.S. gross domestic product reported at just over $21 trillion (source:  August 26 & Sept 2, 2019 American Free Press, page 3).  "The True Size Of The U.S. National Debt, Including Unfunded Liabilities, Is 222 Trillion Dollars" by Michael Snyder,, March 28, 2019, noted that:

The United States is on a path to financial ruin, and everyone can see what is happening, but nobody can seem to come up with a way to stop it.  According to the U.S. Treasury, the federal government is currently 22 trillion dollars in debt, and that represents the single largest debt in the history of the planet.  Over the past decade, we have been adding to that debt at a rate of about 1.1 trillion dollars a year, and we will add more than a trillion dollars to that total once again this year.  But when you add in our unfunded liabilities, our long-term financial outlook as a nation looks downright apocalyptic.  According to Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff, the U.S. is currently facing 200 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, and when you add that number to our 22 trillion dollar debt, you get a grand total of 222 trillion dollars.

One can find an interesting summary of ultimate globalist ambitions of the U.S.-UK-Israeli deep state in the article "Israel and the Unexpected New World Order" by Brian Shrauger, Jerusalem Post, July 18, 2017. This article explains how Israel may benefit from BRICS, the One Belt One Road China initiative, its desire to control nearby oil fields, and its efforts to control the Internet — while at the same time showing little if any concern for the declining competitiveness and demographic changes afflicting both the U.S. and UK::

In the new and surprising economic world order, Israel could gain a degree of wealth not seen since the days of King Solomon....
...Israel is positioned to guard the world’s Internet. Everything today is traded, controlled and administered online. And Israel is emerging as the world’s number one guardian of the worldwide web. That means, regardless of being a few miles offtrack from China’s Land and Maritime Roads, it is positioned to be the center of both belts.
Economists worry that China’s ambition could trigger a global economic collapse; a currency collapse, specifically. Maybe BRICS and One Belt One Road don’t care. A global currency collapse might be seen as a way to wipe the slate clean of nation-based currencies, especially the US dollar, and establish an international one: like Bitcoin, perhaps.
If Bitcoin is the model for a new Internet-based global currency, Israel is likely to be its guardian too, protecting that currency from hackers around the world.
As chief of security for the world’s information and currency, and with energy independence, Israel stands to gain substantial wealth....

Because of the aforementioned anomalies and complexities, instead of "leftist" one could also use the phrase "extreme double standards" to describe MSM and Big Tech Internet firms. However, this can also be simplistic. The term "double standards" is often applied to people who can be shamed based on individualized moral behavior within an "in-group" setting that shows inconsistent principles or no principles at all. This is often due to such factors as lack of moral will power, an inability to resolve conflicts of interests, or ignorance of the ramifications of ones behavior.
However, there are certain highly organized groups that deliberately, systematically, and proudly act in a consistent and supportive manner towards members of their in-group while they simultaneously act in a deceitful, treacherous, and destructive manner towards members of out-groups. Such groups include organized crime mafias, intelligence organizations, violent revolutionaries, and the military. In such cases the term "double standards" seems weak and inappropriate because of the very deliberate, tactical, and hostile nature of this dual behavior. More appropriate terms might include "criminal subversion," "insurgency," "low intensity conflict," or just plain "war."
As the reader examines below various examples of "Big Tech" misbehavior towards the principles of freedom of speech and the free market place of ideas, I invite the reader to consider whether terms like "insurgents," "fifth columnists," "psychopolitical warfare operators," "traitors," or even the phrase "domestic enemies of the United States Constitution" might be more accurate than milder terms and phrases such as "leftists," "hypocrites practicing double standards," or "dual loyalists."
Perhaps even the term "censorship" is too mild. How about instead the phrase "psychological warfare practiced against common American citizens by a hostile, ruling elite and occupation establishment with first loyalties to a malevolent foreign power that seeks to `weaponize' all forms of Internet communication to its own selfish advantage"?
I leave it to the reader to ponder another question: "Is it possible that when `push comes to shove,' the rulers of the U.S.-UK-Israeli deep state are prepared to institute `Iron Wall' policies that clamp down on average American citizens every bit as ruthlessly as the kinds of polices that have suppressed Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza?"
As a prime example of a "push comes to shove" scenario, consider the article "The Worst Global Depression is Nigh" by Egon von Greyerz,, December 19, 2019. U.S.-UK-Israeli deep state rulers are probably well aware of this scenario. They probably feel they have a tiger by the tail, in no small part because their central bank policies, offshoring of American and UK industry, and other economic policies have played a key role in creating this mess to begin with. They are probably extremely paranoid and will stop at nothing to maintain control at all costs as the U.S.and UK enter the coming economic maelstrom. They probably fear terrible retribution from common citizens if they ever wake up and understand what has been done to them.
In many respects the articles below may be merely the tip of a very big and ominous iceberg.


2018-08-24 "U.S. tech giants are waging a war against free speech" by Dr. Eowyn [Pen name of a female professor at a major university],

Our Founding Fathers were learned men who founded the newly independent American Republic on a particular — and correct — view of human nature. They believed that humans have a dual nature, both good and bad, and that we are self-interested but rational, being each capable of discerning what is in our own interests.
That humans are fundamentally selfish accounts for why the Founders fashioned a government that is limited and constrained in its exercise of power, instead of unlimited and totalitarian. As James Madison so eloquently stated in The Federalist Papers:

What is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the greatest difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Among the constraints that our Founders placed on government to prevent it from abusing political power are the Bill of Rights or the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which collectively delimit government’s power by specifying the rights and liberties of the people which no government can abridge. The Founders also created other constraints on government, one of which is a free press (or media).
A free press also serves another function. Since humans are endowed by the Creator with the capacity to reason, the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that we be given a pluralism and variety of information and knowledge — the “market place of ideas” — which we can utilize to make the “right” choices in the ballot box and away.
Surveys have found that journalists of the Mainstream Media are overwhelmingly partisan in favor of one political party. For example, a poll found that Washington media correspondents voted Democratic 93% to 7% (see Professor Tim Groseclose’s Left Turn, How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind).  As a result of the MSM’s partisanship, the First Amendment’s freedom of the press no longer delivers pluralism of information and ideas.
Happily, with the rise of the Internet, social media and alternate media are doing what the MSM whether willingly or by coercion no longer do. A recent Pew Research Center study found that some 14% of Americans have changed their minds about an issue because of something they saw on social media. But the voice of both social and alternate media is now being silenced, one by one, by privately-owned high-tech corporations acting in the interest of and in cahoots with the Democratic Party and the Deep State.
The social media tech giants — Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, Disqus — are all owned and operated by liberals/Democrats/Progressive, i.e., the Left. Although they are separate corporations, their similar political partisanship and ideology make them a virtual monopoly. When they each act to censor and stifle the American people’s freedom of speech in social and alternative media, their collective reach approaches totalitarian in scope.

See Edwin Vieira Jr.’s “Censorship by Internet Corporations Is Still Censorship

Think of those tech giants as private enterprises with deceptive smiles but razor-sharp teeth.

Having unexpectedly lost the 2016 presidential election, in which social and alternative media played a significant role in electing D.C. outsider Donald Trump, Democrats and the tech giants have learned a lesson. To ensure against a repeat of 2016, the cabal of tech giants are silencing dissenting voices on social media and blogs before this November’s mid-term election.

See “The Coming Democrat Vote Fraud: dead voters in Ohio; non-citizen voters in Texas; Pelosi tells Dems to be unscrupulous"

The cabal first went after a giant AltMedia target — Alex Jones and his InfoWars. Next is the 21st-century digital version of book-burning when web-host WordPress began, abruptly and without warning, shutting down (“suspend”) blogs, including Fellowship of the Minds, ostensibly because they had violated WordPress’ Terms of Service (TOS).
Other blogs and voices that are silenced include (incomplete list):

  1. WordPress-hosted blogs American Everyman (Willy Loman), Harold Saive‘s ChemTrailsPlanet, Dutchsinse’s blog, Jay’sAnalysis, and Jeff Fenske‘s 11-year-old ToBeFree.
  2. Twitter terminated many accounts, including that of anti-war activist Caitlin Johnston @caitoz (see “Twitter purges accounts across the platform again“).
  3. Facebook is blocking ads for pro-Trump Diamond & Silk’s upcoming movie Dummycrats.
  4. The internet browser Mozilla Firefox is pushing an “Information Trust Initiative” to block independent media sources at the browser level while favoring corporate media giants like fake news CNN (Natural News).
  5. All 37 of Stewart Ogilby‘s columns on, including a dozen about 9/11, as well as his bio and photo, were removed without explanation.
  6. From a FOTM reader: “A priest who has a website in Europe told me that a liberal priest from the United States sent someone from Europe to shut down his website. This good priest was exposing Obama’s and other liberals’ agenda.”

The hypocrisy of WordPress is particularly galling. As Dr. James Tracy points out in his Memory Hole Blog, after silencing those it has identified as violating its TOS, WordPress nevertheless continues to host blogs “that are in demonstrable violation of the company’s TOS,” including the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer and blogs by Antifa, whom the Obama administration’s FBI and DHS had identified in April 2016 as “domestic terrorists”.

Explanations as to why WP-hosted blogs are being taken down include the following:
    1. Because the blogs are conservative and/or Christian (see WND; Breitbart).
    2. Because the blogs posted on the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting being a false-flag hoax (see; Techcrunch). As an example, Cinderella’s Broom, a relatively small blog that mainly posted on Sandy Hook, was taken down. WordPress is so vindictive that they also took down Cinderella’s three other blogs, none of which has political content.
    3. Because those blogs posted on other false flags, e.g., 9/11 and the 1985 Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, which suggests it is the Deep State that’s engineering the take-downs (see Natural News; All News Pipeline). That in turn has an ominous implication: Is the Deep State silencing bloggers who write about false flags because either a massive false flag or a diabolical conspiracy is in the works, such as an attempt to assassinate President Trump?

An email I just received from Stewart Ogilby lends strength to the #3 explanation. Ogilby had re-published my April 2015 post that the Challenger astronauts may be alive. He writes:

“The situation is worse than we fear. This morning the file that previously loaded  your page intact (challenger.htm), including the graphics, not only no longer loads from my server, but the file itself has been corrupted. I do not use WordPress or any other webpage ‘wizzard’.”

See also Ogilby’s “Owners of America’s Media Lie“.

The tech giants do what they do because they are sanctioned and shielded by the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), specifically Section 230’s “Safe Harbor” provision, which allows social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to censor at will any content they don’t like. Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wireless bureau chief Fred Campbell is on a mission to repeal that provision. (Read more about this on Thought Police.)



As if the Safe Harbor provision isn’t bad enough, Virginia Democrat senator Mark Warner means to restrict our free speech even further. In a policy paper obtained by Axios and in the name of combating “fake news,” Warner would have our freedom of speech be even more abridged by:

      • Requiring web platforms to label so-called fake and bot accounts or do more to identify “authentic” accounts, with the threat of sanction by the Federal Trade Commission if they fail to do so.
      • Making web platforms legally liable for claims of “defamation, invasion of privacy, false light, and public disclosure of private facts”.

Axios observes that “Warner, who made his fortune in telecommunications before running for office, has been a prominent critic of major social media platforms from his perch as top Democrat overseeing the intelligence committee’s investigation of Russian election interference.” Although Warner’s proposal for now is just that, a “Democratic wave in November could put more momentum behind these ideas”.
To the tech giants must be asked the same question that I’ve asked Sandy Hookers who harass, attack, terrorize, successfully get YouTube and WordPress take down videos, posts and entire blogs, and send hateful and life-threatening emails to Sandy Hook researchers who are simply exercising our First Amendment right to free speech and free press:

If you have truth on your sidewhy would you stifle our voices? What are you so afraid of?

H/t Big Lug, CSM, Greg Holt, Harold Saive, Kelleigh, and Matthew S.


Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

eBook Censorship

2019-03-02 "Counter-Currents Bites Back Against Censorship" by Greg Johnson, (see detailed examples of ebook censorship in the repeat listing of this article in the softcover censorship section below)

2009-07-17 "Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle" by Brad Stone,, July 17, 2009. (Backup archived copy of this article here).

In George Orwell’s “1984,” government censors erase all traces of news articles embarrassing to Big Brother by sending them down an incineration chute called the “memory hole.”
On Friday, it was “1984” and another Orwell book, “Animal Farm,” that were dropped down the memory hole — by
In a move that angered customers and generated waves of online pique, Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them.
An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, said in an e-mail message that the books were added to the Kindle store by a company that did not have rights to them, using a self-service function. “When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers’ devices, and refunded customers,” he said.
Amazon effectively acknowledged that the deletions were a bad idea. “We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers’ devices in these circumstances,” Mr. Herdener said.
Customers whose books were deleted indicated that MobileReference, a digital publisher, had sold them. An e-mail message to SoundTells, the company that owns MobileReference, was not immediately returned.
Digital books bought for the Kindle are sent to it over a wireless network. Amazon can also use that network to synchronize electronic books between devices — and apparently to make them vanish.
An authorized digital edition of “1984” from its American publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, was still available on the Kindle store Friday night, but there was no such version of “Animal Farm.”
People who bought the rescinded editions of the books reacted with indignation, while acknowledging the literary ironies involved. “Of all the books to recall,” said Charles Slater, an executive with a sheet-music retailer in Philadelphia, who bought the digital edition of “1984” for 99 cents last month. “I never imagined that Amazon actually had the right, the authority or even the ability to delete something that I had already purchased.”
Antoine Bruguier, an engineer in Silicon Valley, said he had noticed that his digital copy of “1984” appeared to be a scan of a paper edition of the book. “If this Kindle breaks, I won’t buy a new one, that’s for sure,” he said.
Amazon appears to have deleted other purchased e-books from Kindles recently. Customers commenting on Web forums reported the disappearance of digital editions of the Harry Potter books and the novels of Ayn Rand over similar issues...

(Article continues here)


Softcover Book Censorship


2019-03-15 "Amazon Pulls Books on Autism" Dr. Majia Nadesan,

Autism is emerging as the slippery slope for testing increased censorship of online content:

Hsu, Tiffany (2019, March 13). Amazon Pulls 2 Books That Promote Unscientific Autism ‘Cures.’ The New York Times

Amazon has removed the online listings for two books that claim to contain cures for autism, a move that follows recent efforts by several social media sites to limit the availability of anti-vaccination and other pseudoscientific material. The books, “Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” and “Fight Autism and Win,” which had previously been listed for sale in Amazon’s marketplace, were not available on Wednesday.

I strongly disagree that the solution for this crisis in confidence in US health care and government is censorship.
Censorship doesn't work.
Launch the vaccine safety committee proposed by Trump — Include R. Kennedy Jr and a wide array of stakeholders, including the most vehement critics of vaccination, as well as industry representatives.
Develop and promote risk communication on the benefits of vaccination, but don't pretend that vaccines have no risks.
Each vaccine should periodically be re-evaluated for safety, as should all medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
Vaccines have proven benefits as a medical technology but that doesn't mean that all vaccines are safe for all people, at all times of life.
Shutting down conversation about autism risks and non-traditional treatments is going to produce moral hazard and will ultimately amplify the larger crisis in confidence over US health care and medical governance.

2019-03-02 "Counter-Currents Bites Back Against Censorship" by Greg Johnson,

The Amazon purge of the Dissident Right continues. We need to assemble resources for fighting back. Thus I am asking readers to share the following pieces of information. Please post them in the comments below, and I will paste them in the body of this document. I will not, of course, reveal your identity in any way.

1. Titles Banned: Author, Title, and Formats (HC, PB, eBook, audiobook) 

2. Contact Emails and Phone Numbers to Complain to Amazon (Boycotting won’t help if they don’t know why you are doing it.)

3. Experiences with Kindles (Have Kindles of banned books been removed from your devices?)

4. Experiences of Amazon Marketplace Sellers (Have you been harassed in any way by Amazon for stocking the titles they are now banning?)

5. Memes & Templates to Share

Titles Banned (54 and Counting)

Counter-Currents Publishing titles:

  1. Greg Johnson, The White Nationalist Manifesto (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  2. Greg Johnson, New Right vs. Old Right (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  3. Greg Johnson, Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  4. Greg Johnson, In Defence of Prejudice (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  5. Greg Johnson, ed., North American New Right, vol. 1 (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  6. Greg Johnson, ed., North American New Right, vol. 2 (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  7. Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  8. Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (Kindle)
  9. Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  10. Jonathan Bowden, Western Civilization Bites Back (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  11. Jonathan Bowden, Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  12. Michael Polignano, Taking Our Own Side (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  13. James J. O’Meara, The Homo and the Negro: Masculinist Meditations on Politics and Popular Culture (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  14. Spencer Quinn, White Like You (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  15. Savitri Devi, And Time Rolls On (Kindle, HC, and PB)
  16. Savitri Devi, Defiance: The Prison Memoirs of Savitri Devi (Kindle)
  17. Irmin Vinson, Some Thoughts on Hitler & Other Essays (Kindle, HC, and PB)

New Century Foundation:

  1. Jared Taylor, White Identity (all formats)
  2. Jared Taylor, If We Do Nothing (all formats)
  3. Jared Taylor, ed., Face to Face with Race (all formats)
  4. Jared Taylor and George McDaniel, eds., A Race Against Time (all formats)

Kevin MacDonald titles:

  1. The Culture of Critique (all formats)
  2. Separation and Its Discontents (all formats)

Black House Publishing:

  1. K. R. Bolton, Zionism, Islam and the West (all formats)
  2. Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History of Central Banking & the Enslavement of Mankind (all formats)
  3. Stephen Mitford Goodson, Inside the South African Reserve Bank: Its Origins and Secrets Exposed (all formats)

George Lincoln Rockwell:

  1. This Time the World (all formats)
  2. White Power (all formats)
  3. Collected Works (all formats)
  4. A National Socialist Life (all formats)

William Pierce:

  1. The Turner Diaries (all formats)
  2. Hunter (all formats)
  3. Who We Are (all formats)
  4. Cosmotheism (all formats)

Harold Covington:

  1. The Brigade (all formats)
  2. Freedom’s Sons (all formats)
  3. A Mighty Fortress (all formats)
  4. Hill of the Ravens (all formats)
  5. A Distant Thunder (all formats)
  6. Dreaming the Iron Dream (all formats)
  7. The March Up Country (all formats)
  8. The White Book (all formats)

Ben Klassen:

  1. Nature’s Eternal Religion (all formats)
  2. The White Man’s Bible (all formats)
  3. Little White Book (all formats)

Miscellaneous Titles:

  1. Tommy Robinson, Mohammed’s Koran (all formats)
  2. Julian Langness, Identity Rising (all formats)
  3. David Duke, My Awakening (Kindle)
  4. Christopher Jon Bjerknes, E = Mc2 and the Jewish Agenda (all formats)
  5. E. Michael Jones, Jewish Nazis (all formats)
  6. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 1
  7. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 2
  8. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 3
  9. Colin Flaherty, Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry

Here is a list of Holocaust revisionist books banned by Amazon in a previous purge. 

2. Contacting Amazon

Please keep your complaints brief, polite, and factually accurate. Anything less does not help the cause.


3. Kindle Experiences

One reader in the US reports that the Kindle of David Duke’s My Awakening has been removed from his device. A second reader reports the deletion of unspecified titles by Harold Covington. Two other readers report no loss of CC titles.

4. Amazon Marketplace Experiences

One Amazon Marketplace seller reports being contacted to inform him that one Counter-Currents title and one Jared Taylor title that he had listed but sold had been removed from sale. He was informed that he had to close or delete his listings of these titles under threat of having his seller privileges revoked. Amazon’s communication was badly worded and ambiguous — ironic that semi-literate people work for the world’s biggest bookseller book banner — but it illustrates the crack brained totalitarian hysteria of this purge. Why do Amazon Marketplace sellers have to delete records of books? Can’t do that? And why would it even be necessary, given that the pages for these titles have been completely removed in the first place?

5. Memes & Templates to Share



















2018-09-28 "Edward Curtin, Amazon Censorship of 9/11 Unmasked Unmasked?" by Edward Curtin,

On September 10, 2018, I published a laudatory review of the new book, 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. It is the definitive book on the defining event of the 21st century. The book concludes that the official version(s) of the attacks of 11 September 2001 are false. The review was subsequently reposted at many publications. There was great reader response and interest in the book, which was due for official release the next day, 11 September. My review provided a link to the book’s Amazon page that noted the 11 September availability date.
By the next day readers were responding in great number that the Amazon site was reporting the book was “out of print,” when in fact it had just been published. This “out of print” notification lasted until the evening of 13 September when it was changed to “in stock on September 30, 2018.”
By the following morning it was changed to “in stock on September 21, 2018,” only to be changed again between 11-12 PM on September 14 to “in stock on September 24, 2018,” where it remains as of noon on Saturday the 15th. It is unheard of for a book that has an official release date and that is available straight from the publisher to be listed as “out of print.” Amazon Canada continues to report that the book “has not yet been released.” And obviously, all the date changes that push the book’s availability back by weeks suggest a clear-cut effort by Amazon to make sure readers cannot obtain the book quickly and in a timely manner from the most popular source, if ever.
Will they soon announce that the book will never be available for national security considerations or because it violates Amazon’s “content guidelines”? The book’s publisher, Interlink Publishing, is selling the book now and says Amazon has the books. So why is Jeff Bezos’s company playing this game? His other major business, The Washington Post, (known as the CIA’s newspaper) is surely not going to review the book, nor would their editorial staff post encomiums to David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth, their colleagues in this important research. Readers should demand that Amazon immediately change their website and accept orders to be shipped today. Whether they are responsible for this game of chaotic discouragement or the intelligence services, who are fully capable of hacking into Amazon, as Edward Snowden has pointed out, I do not know. But something very odd is happening and Amazon should correct it.


2018-05-13 "Amazon Censorship Hits Home" by Dave Martin,

See Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell (4th edition, 2017)


By this time most folks have probably heard about the March 2018 purge from of books that call into question the story that during World War II Nazi Germany implemented through official policy the gassing to death and cremation of six million Jews at government-run central “extermination” camps. One can find a good summary of the actions by Amazon in Kevin Barrett’s article with the tongue-in-cheek title, “Jeff Bezos, Amazon Endorse Holocaust Denial.”
Barrett observes that while books probing the facts of what was christened “The Holocaust” in a 1978 American television mini-series have been swept away with a very broad broom, books attacking the banned books are still freely available on Amazon, such as the one from a well-known professor of modern Jewish history and holocaust studies at Emory University, which Barrrett describes this way:

Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, possibly the best-known anti-revisionism book, is also the most shockingly vapid. Lipstadt makes little effort to argue her case on its merits, but instead spends virtually the entire 304 pages lobbing hysterical ad-hominem arguments. The only sane reaction to Lipstadt’s unbelievably lame volume is: “If this is the best the anti-revisionists can do, no wonder they have to try to get revisionists’ books banned!” You can get a used copy for less than two dollars and fifty cents.

Barrett, in his updated article, has a letter from German revisionist Germar Rudolf revealing that Castle Hill Publishers alone has had 68 titles banished from Amazon through the new policy. Amazon owner Bezos, according to Barrett, might just as well post the following announcement:

Attention, Amazon shoppers! You can still buy bad and mediocre books arguing that holocaust revisionists are wrong — but you are not permitted to buy better books (including at least one very good book, [Thomas] Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust) that might lead you to the opposite conclusion.

Rudolf notes that at least five of the banned Castle Hill books don’t even deal with the question of the Holocaust, leading Barrett to this conclusion:

The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled because their content was checked and found impermissible, but because someone (probably Yad Vashem) had sent them a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list.

In case you might be thinking of getting around the Amazon censorship by going to Barnes & Noble, consider the following announcement at the Castle Hill web site for Dalton’s book:

Note: Books published by Castle Hill Publishers should be available anywhere books are sold – except for those companies boycotting us, like Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Search other online stores using the book-price search-engine links provided below, or when searching other stores use the ISBN number provided above. Also ask your local book store to order it for you. They should be able to get it for you.

Suppressing Amazon Book Reviews

Now that Amazon has accumulated power over what gets read in books that surpasses any such power in previous human history, we should hardly be surprised that they should abuse that power, and, in so doing, reveal who the real power-wielders are in the United States. As it happens, this writer received a bit of a prior warning of the big March figurative book burning at Amazon almost a year ago, in June of 2017. That was when Phillip Nelson came out with his blockbuster book about the murderous assault by the Israelis on an American intelligence-gathering ship during the 1967 Six Day War entitled Remember the Liberty. I was so eager to review it on Amazon—and to have my review read—that I bought a copy of the book from them as a gift to a friend so that the review would be displayed as one by a verified purchaser of the book. Nelson had sent me an advance copy of the book to read, and I really didn’t need another copy. After finishing the review on Amazon, a notice popped up that I would receive an email notifying me when the review was posted. The notification never came, and the review never went up.
What was the problem? Was my review, which you can read on my web site here, too long? It is a good deal longer than the average review on Amazon, but you can see that the similarly favorable review by the Australian Greg Maybury got posted, and it is longer than mine. It wasn’t just a technical glitch, either. Just this week I tried again to post it, and I got the same results. It had to be something that I said, which gets us into pretty scary territory. It means that the Bezos boys are now combing over all the book reviews to make sure that unapproved things don’t get said. Considering the nature of the topic of Nelson’s book, which one would think would be about as unapproved, in itself, as anything could possibly be for the ruling molders of public opinion in the country, one must really wonder what it was that I said that was deemed to go too far.
Looking back at it, I can’t help but think that my bridge too far was my conclusion, which I put under the subheading, “Where Does Your Allegiance Lie?”

Although half a century has now passed, hardly any event, when looked at in the clear light of day, permits us to come to grips more completely with the political reality of the United States today than does the assault on the USS Liberty. We live in an era in which members of the United States military have never been more venerated. From sports events to airport encounters, we’re expected to honor them at every turn. “Support the troops” is seemingly an admonition that no one can disagree with.
All of the military reverence comes to a screeching halt, though, when it comes to the surviving crewmen of the USS Liberty. They can only be brushed aside, with their demands for a true accounting for what was done to them by our great “ally” with the connivance of their own leaders. For our politicians to do otherwise and to get to the bottom of what happened there in the Eastern Mediterranean on June 8, 1967, would put them on a collision course with the real ruling power in the country. When it comes down to the choice of supporting our troops or supporting the ethnic-supremacist state of Israel, whose fundamental nature was revealed as much by the Liberty attack as it was by the Lavon Affair, and for whom we regularly pour out our fortune, our credibility, and our blood, Israel it has to be.

Should I test the theory by trying to post the review again with those two paragraphs left off? I’m afraid that it’s too late for that now. It looks like Amazon has just put me on a review blacklist. I reached that conclusion when I attempted last week to put up a review of Thomas Merton’s Peace in the Post-Christian Era. I got the same treatment, and that one has nothing at all that I know of to do with Israel. At any rate, you can read what else is now forbidden to readers by going to my article, “Merton’s Message Resonates as Nuclear Holocaust Looms.” The book review that I tried to post on Amazon is the second part of that article under the heading, “Thomas Merton, the Anti-War Oracle,” minus the first sentence, which was a bridge from what I had written in the first part.
Simultaneously with the complete blackout of any new book reviews I might attempt, I have noticed a censorship of another sort of one of my previous reviews, that is of Christopher Ruddy’s The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. For years, my review was showcased on Amazon as the top review, based upon the number of people who had checked the box saying that they had found it helpful. Currently, there are 61 customer reviews of that book, and now you have to scroll down to page five of the reviews to find mine. When they were still posting the number, 47 people had checked the box saying that they found the review helpful. Only within the past couple of weeks it seemed to have dawned on the Amazon folks that it didn’t look good to have such a popular review buried away, when the one they were touting at the top as most helpful had only 12 “helpfuls” and the top “critical” review was a three-star review had only six “helpfuls” while my three-star review had 47 “helpfuls.” So now, you are supposed to believe that in the over 10 years the review has been up, it hasn’t managed to garner even a single “helpful.” If you don’t want to go to the trouble of scrolling all the way down for it on Amazon, you can read the 2015-updated version of the review in question on my web site.
It’s really quite a shame to see what they’re now doing with unapproved customer reviews at Amazon. It has been a quite educational forum in the past. I don’t recall what book it was that I was checking out at the time, but it was in a customer’s review of it that I learned about the little known attempt by the Zionist Stern Gang to assassinate President Harry Truman with a letter bomb in 1947. That discovery led me to write the article, “’Jews’ Tried to Kill Truman in 1947.” One can learn from that article that at the time I wrote it there was no mention of that assassination attempt on Wikipedia, either in the list of assassination attempts on American presidents, on Truman in particular, or even on the “Letter Bomb” page. All that has now changed. With the censorship regime now in place at Amazon, one must seriously doubt that that reviewer’s mention of the Stern Gang attempt to kill Truman would have ever gone up, our knowledge of 20th Century history would be the worse for it, and that’s clearly how our rulers, who are now apparently pulling Amazon’s strings, would have preferred it to be.
[Editor’s note: The ban wiped And I suppose we didn’t go to the moon, either? (2015), from which the above image comes, off as well, not because of the evidence adduced that we never went to the moon but because of four chapters challenging the “official narrative” of the Holocaust by Thomas Dalton, Robert Faurisson, Nicholas Kollerstrom and myself. Too much truth gets you booted from]



2018-05-06 "`The Most Dangerous Mind in America' interviewed about false flags and extreme censorship" by Mike Adams, (Also archived at

(Natural News) When YouTube banned my entire channel two months ago, they were putting strikes on my account for years-old interviews I had conducted with a conspiracy analyst and author named “Jim Fetzer.”
Fetzer, who I’m now calling, “The Most Dangerous Mind in America,” is the author of a book that was literally banned by Yes, the some e-commerce retailer that gladly sells books promoting Nazi fascism, deadly communism and weird sex indoctrination of children went out of its way to ban a book about Sandy Hook.
His book is entitled, “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook,” and it lays out the case for why Fetzer believes the entire Sandy Hook shooting was a staged false flag event held in an abandoned school that had no real teachers or students at the time of the shooting. (You can download the entire book at this link if you’re curious.) Notably, I disagree with many of Fetzer’s conclusions, but I agree with the right of people like Fetzer to be able to speak.
Fetzer also believes that nobody was actually shot at the Mandalay Bay event in Las Vegas. He says it was all “crowds for hire” and fake blood theatrics. I find that conclusion to be bizarre and inaccurate, but even as much as I disagree with Fetzer’s conclusions, I believe Fetzer has a right to be heard so that others can decide for themselves whether the things he says make sense. I also find it highly suspicious that companies like Amazon would go out of their way to ban Fetzer’s books when so many other obviously false books aren’t banned at all (such as books espousing the Flat Earth theory).
In an age where Pulitzer prizes are handed out to fake news media for publishing blatantly fake stories, I find it highly suspicious that Fetzer is being singled out for “extreme censorship.”

The fact that Fetzer is being banned and censored everywhere shows the authoritarianism of modern society

Even if you think Fetzer’s conclusions are nonsense, the banning of his books is nothing sort of authoritarian. It’s also fairly obvious that if his books were filled with total nonsense, they wouldn’t have to be banned at all because their lack of credibility would be self-evident. Yet the banning of Fetzer’s books and videos has been coordinated, aggressive and merciless.
That’s probably because his book contains a vast array of photographic evidence that many people find convincing enough to at least start questioning the official narrative we’ve all been fed on events like Sandy Hook. Perhaps Fetzer isn’t 100% correct, people might say, but he does raise some very big questions the media has been glossing over. (For example: Why is one of the supposed SWAT team police officers later interviewed as one of the parents of a Sandy Hook shooting victim? And if he’s really a SWAT guy, why was he photographed carrying his sniper rifle by the ammo magazine? No legitimate rifleman would ever carry a rifle that way…)
Here’s a popular video meme that highlights some of the huge, gaping mistakes of this “fake SWAT” actor who was widely publicized by CNN during the Sandy Hook video coverage. No legitimate SWAT member walks around slinging a rifle like this (the guy is obviously an actor):

Here’s another video that fully covers the total fakery of the SWAT team actor, who has since been identified as David Wheeler:

To watch this video expose, NEWTOWN SCAM, click on the title here.

I believe in free speech, and “free speech” includes unpopular speech. So I’ve posted Fetzer’s entire book as a PDF document so that you can read it for yourself. I don’t endorse all the findings in the book, but I do think the public shouldn’t be told what they can and cannot read. Thus, I’m posting this mostly as an act of rebellion against censorship.
Remember, the entire establishment says Fetzer is so dangerous that all his books and videos MUST be censored by everyone, from Amazon to YouTube. Don’t you find that intriguing? What information in his books is so “dangerous” that the public must not even be allowed to see what Fetzer wrote for themselves?
Download the book for yourself right here (PDF).
Note that I don’t endorse all the views and opinions of Jim Fetzer found in his videos, books and articles, but I do agree with his right to speak. Do we really live in a society where engages in online book burnings? The answer is, “Yes!”

Now YouTube is banning ANYONE who talks to Fetzer

Fast forwarding to today, YouTube is rapidly banning all accounts of anyone who dares talk to Jim Fetzer. In fact, YouTube is going back in time and finding videos posted years ago that might involve Fetzer, and they are banning all videos that provide Fetzer any sort of voice whatsoever.
That’s why I recently reached out to Fetzer to have a conversation about censorship, false flags and the banning of his books and videos. Here’s our lengthy conversation, which has been slightly edited for length and clarity:

To listen to the interview, click here: Mike Adams interviews Jim Fetzer

You may find Fetzer’s conclusions to be bizarre, but don’t you have a right to hear him speak and decide for yourself?

I’m listing a few links to more of Fetzer’s videos below. This is not an endorsement of these videos but rather an invitation to explore the “most dangerous mind in America” and see why the establishment thinks he’s so dangerous.
Like I said earlier, if Fetzer’s conclusions were obviously total nonsense, why wouldn’t the establishment simply ignore him and allow his own words to prove how wrong he is? Instead, they ban his books, his videos and his speech, then they tell us, “There’s nothing to see here.” So why ban Fetzer in the first place, then?
To see more of Fetzer’s work, take a look at “The Parkland Puzzle: How the Pieces Fit Together”!/v/monaalexis27/lvkflnbp

“Sandy Hook Update: Tracy Loses, Wolfgang Wins. The Deep State Strikes Back”

"False Flags on Five Fronts"


For a sample of the books he has edited, visit


[America First Books Editor's Note: The following illustration comes from the article "The Sandy Hook Lawsuit Concludes: Even The Yale Daily News Gets It Wrong," Yale Daily News article by Olivia Tucker, Contributing Reporter, October 31, 2019, posted at James Fetzerblog, November 9, 2019].


About the author: Mike Adams (aka the “Health Ranger“) is a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on called “Food Forensics“), an environmental scientist, a patent holder for a cesium radioactive isotope elimination invention, a multiple award winner for outstanding journalism, a science news publisher and influential commentator on topics ranging from science and medicine to culture and politics. Follow his videos, podcasts, websites and science projects at the links below. Mike Adams serves as the founding editor of and the lab science director of an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) analytical laboratory known as CWC Labs. There, he was awarded a Certificate of Excellence for achieving extremely high accuracy in the analysis of toxic elements in unknown water samples using ICP-MS instrumentation. Adams is also highly proficient in running liquid chromatography, ion chromatography and mass spectrometry time-of-flight analytical instrumentation. He has also achieved numerous laboratory breakthroughs in the programming of automated liquid handling robots for sample preparation and external standards prep



Israel to Amazon: Stop Selling Holocaust-Denying Literature




From the article cited above (appearing February 27, 2017):

"Israel's official Holocaust memorial has asked Amazon to stop selling literature on its site that denies the genocide of 6 million Jews during World War II and otherwise promotes anti-Semitism.
Yad Vashem's director of libraries Robert Rozett says he has dispatched a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos offering his assistance to "curb the spread of hatred."
Rozett says Sunday that Yad Vashem has approached Amazon before on the subject but the internet retailing giant insisted it would not halt sales of offensive and inciting material, citing freedom of information. Rozett says he hoped that given the recent spike in anti-Semitic incidents in the United States, particularly a vandalism attack on a Jewish cemetery near St. Louis, Amazon would reconsider its position.
He says he has yet to hear back."

It all makes perfect sense now! A few false-flag attacks, VP Pence shows up to repair
a Jewish Cemetery, and Vad Yashem makes yet another plea to Amazon.

From a Breitbart article dated February 27, 2017:

 "Yad Vashem’s (Holocaust Museum) director of the libraries, Dr. Robert Rozett, penned an appeal to the CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, in which he called on the online site to “curb the spread of hatred.”“Once again, given the presence of antisemitism around the globe, which has become more prevalent in recent years, we strongly urge you to remove books that deny, distort and trivialize the Holocaust from your store,” Rozett wrote to Bezos."  (here)

Sad news to report, boys and girls.
After years of ignoring letters from "the usual suspects," Mr. Bezos has finally caved into pressure to remove books denying disproving the Holocaust TM from the webpages of Amazon. Among the titles that suddenly disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole was 'The Bad War' — my main best-seller and personal "bread & butter" piece that had hundreds of positive reviews. Here is the blunt E-mail received from Amazon:


We’re contacting you regarding the following book: The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II. During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.



We will still sell the book through this website, of course, (here) and have it shipped third-party from another self-publishing service. But having lost access to Amazon's awesome marketing and distribution machine, we expect sales to drop by at least 80%. On a personal level, I am concerned over the lost revenue stream, angered over the censorship, and saddened that "newbies" and young students will no longer be introduced to the truth of World War II by Amazon's mass marketing power. Bastards!
If you appreciate and the assorted books, please help me to offset the forever-lost Amazon & Kindle book sales. What a shame it would be if your intrepid reporter here had to give up digging for truth on a full time basis. A minimum $5 per month sustaining membership or generous one-off donations would be greatly appreciated — as would continued book sales of other titles. Let's take this lemon and make some lemonade.


Addendum: Surprise — surprise — surprise!

The "anti-Semitic" culprit behind all all those highly publicized 2017 telephoned bomb-threats to Jewish Community Centers in the United States — incidents which were then used to induce Amazon's book-banning — was captured. It turns out that he . . . well . . .

NBC Headline (May 23, 2017)

Israel Arrests Hacker Linked to Threats on US Jewish Centers

A spokesman for Israel's public defender office told NBC New York that the suspect suffered
from a brain tumor and police have been ordered to have a medical expert evaluate him

A lone-nutcase with a brain tumor, eh? Well played Hymie —- well played.


Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times that Israel is pressuring Amazon to remove Holocaust Denial books.

Boobus Americanus 2: Good! That type of hatred has no place in a free society.




The Truth NEVER Taught About World War 2



8.5 x 11 / 320 pages / 600 illustrations





Internet Search Engine Censorship


2019-08-14 "Google Engineer Leaks Nearly 1,000 Pages of Internal Documents of Bias, Censorship" by By Petr Svab,


Former Google software engineer Zach Vorhies. (Courtesy of Project Veritas)

A former Google engineer has released nearly 1,000 pages of documents that he says prove that the company, at least in some of its products, secretly boosts or demotes content based on what it deems to be true or false, while publicly claiming to be a neutral platform.
The software engineer, Zach Vorhies, first provided the documents to Project Veritas, a right-leaning investigative journalism nonprofit, as well as the Justice Department’s antitrust division, which has been investigating Google for potentially anti-competitive behavior.
“I thought that our election system is going to be compromised forever by this company that told the American public that it was not going to do any evil,” he told Project Veritas in a video published Aug. 14. “And I saw that they were making really quick moves. … They were intending to scope the information landscape so that they could create their own version of what was objectively true.”

Going Public

Vorhies said he worked for Google for eight years, making $260,000 a year, when counting in the gains from the Google stock he owns.
“I had every incentive in the world to stay at the company and just collect the paycheck,” he said, noting that most others would do that.
“But I could never live with myself knowing that, if Google was able to implement the plans that they were planning, that I, at the moment of choice, backed out because I was selfish.”
Vorhies first came to Project Veritas more than a month ago, disclosing some documents and answering questions with his face hidden and his voice disguised.
When he returned to work, however, Google sent him a letter demanding, among other things, that he turn over his employee badge and work laptop, which he did, and “cease and desist” from disclosing “any non-public Google files.” Afraid for his safety, he posted on Twitter that if something would happen to him, all the documents he took would be released to the public.
Google then did a “wellness check” on him, he said. The San Francisco police received a call that Vorhies may be mentally ill. A group of officers waited for him outside his house and put him in handcuffs. “This is a large way in which they intimidate their employees that go rogue on the company,” he said.
Vorhies then decided that it would be safer for him to go public.
Vorhies called Google a “political machine” bent on preventing anybody like President Donald Trump from getting elected again. He said there are other Google employees who “see what’s going on and they are really scared.”
Changes at the company that worried him started in 2016, he said.
The documents indicate that Google has ramped up emphasis on suppressing what it deems “fake news.” That has led it to review news content using a variety of manual and automated means to make calls on what is true and what is “misinformation” and sort results accordingly.
Most of the documents appear to pertain to Google News, an aggregator featured prominently at the top of the page for news-related search results.

Google News

One document describes “Project Purple Rain: Crisis Response & Escalation,” the goal of which is to establish “processes to detect and handle misinformation across products during crises” and “install 24/7 team of trained analysts ready to make policy calls and take actions across news surfaces including News, News 360 and Feed.”
"News” appears to pertain to “Google News” and “Feed,” a rebrand of the former “Google Now” product, showing news articles below the search bar on the Google mobile app.
Another document, a presentation that appears to date back to late 2017, explains that websites that apply to be included in Google News results need to pass an automated review that checks their technical parameters, and also a manual review of their “processes, policies, and editorial guidelines.” If accepted, the sites are then repeatedly checked and given “demotion penalties” for infractions.
Then, however, the presentation presents “potential” next steps, which included expanding its screening policies to cover “fringe/controversial” content, such as that which is “factually incorrect, fake, irrelevant.” Furthermore, the document suggests that Google should also address “sensitive” content, such as that which involves “hate,” “diversity,” and “bias” or is “geo-politically sensitive.”
One of the goals of the effort was a “clean & regularly sanitized news corpus,” it reads.
It’s not clear whether these steps have been implemented.

‘Fringe Ranking’

One of the documents says that Paul Haahr, Google’s principal engineer, leads the effort on “fringe ranking” with the goal of “not showing fake news, hate speech, conspiracy theories, or science/medical/history denial unless we’re sure that’s what the user wants.”
Combined with information from other documents, “fringe ranking” appears to mean that unless a user already knows what specifically to look for, Google will hide from the user anything it labels “fake news, hate speech, conspiracy theories, or science/medical/history denial.” Such information would then be effectively obscured from users who haven’t yet been exposed to it.

Feed Blacklist

Yet another document lists websites whose content is manually banned from showing up in the “Feed.”
It includes a number of fringe sites on the political right, the more prominent ones including,, and
It also includes some sites on the progressive left, including,,, and
But it also includes relatively mainstream right-leaning sites such as,, and
The list indicates it’s because those are “sites with high user block rate.” It’s not clear though why these sites would need to be blacklisted manually if a high block rate alone was to automatically place them on the list.

Videos Manually Rated

One presentation slide, apparently photographed from a computer screen, bears the title “Fake news & other fringe: Trashy recap” and says that “every day, top 250 videos [on YouTube] in top 26 locales are rated by multiple human raters” and that “Trashy filtering launched on [YouTube’s] Home [page], Search, Trending [list], and Suggested [videos list].” This has led to a 50 percent decline in user complaints, it states.
Tech companies that cave too easily to complaints have been mentioned by some conservatives as one of the underlying reasons for disproportionate censorship of right-leaning content. People on the political left are much more likely to call a variety of statements “hateful,” while those on the right tend to call the same statements “offensive, but not hateful,” a 2017 Cato survey found (pdf).
Google, as well as other major tech companies, prohibit content they consider “hate speech” — itself a subjective standard impossible to enforce fairly, according to Nadine Strossen, a law professor and former president of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Google hasn’t responded to a request for comment.


The documents Vorhies provided previously, together with his explanations and hidden camera recordings by Project Veritas of other Google employees, indicate that the company has created a concept of “fairness” through which it infuses the political preferences of its mostly left-leaning workforce into its products.
Several studies have shown that Google News, in particular, is biased to the left.
Google has repeatedly denied political bias in its products. Vorhies suggested, though, that Google tries to present itself as a neutral platform to preserve legal protection under Section 230, which shields internet services from liability for user-generated content.
“Google is playing both sides of the game,” he said. “On the one hand, they’re saying they are a platform and that they are immune from being sued for the content that they host on their website. On the other hand, they’re acting as a publisher, in which they’re determining the editorial agenda of these certain companies, and they are applying that. If people don’t fall in line with their editorial agenda, then their news articles get deboosted and deranked. And if people do fall in line with their editorial agenda, it gets boosted and pushed to the top.”
Robert Epstein, a psychologist who has spent years researching Google’s influence on its users, has published research showing that just by deciding the sequence of top search results, the company can sway undecided voters.
Epstein determined that this has led to 2.6 million votes shifting in the 2016 presidential election to Trump’s opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He warned that in 2020, if companies such as Google and Facebook all support the same candidate, they will be able to shift 15 million votes—well beyond the margin most presidents have won by.
Trump has reportedly been working on an executive order to address politically biased censorship by social media companies.

Correction: A previous version of this article inaccurately described the amount of documents that Zach Vorhies released. Vorhies released nearly 1,000 pages of documents, not nearly 1,000 documents. The Epoch Times regrets the error.

Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab


Dear Readers,

Thank you for reading The Epoch Times. Media outlets in America are dividing our nation by pushing false narratives and spinning the facts. Honest news, without hidden agendas or corporate control, is now more crucial than ever. Our operating revenue is generated mostly from subscriptions. When you subscribe, you’re supporting our Mission of Upholding Independent, Honest and Traditional Journalism.

Thank you for your support and we look forward to welcoming you to the Epoch Community.

Holiday Sale Subscribe Now



2018-10-12 "LEAKED INTERNAL DOCUMENT: Google Admits They’ve ‘Shifted Towards Censorship’ to Suppress Nationalist Movements" by Chris Menahan, October 12, 2018,



A leaked internal document from Google shows Big Tech has abandoned free speech in favor of censorship in order to suppress various nationalist movements in America and Europe. 
Though Google loves to outright lie and claim they have no political bias in their search algorithms, the document just openly admits that they and other major tech companies are censoring free speech to stop “bad behaviour,” which they refer to, among other examples, as the rise of nationalism and trolling of celebrities by right-wingers.
They even say their censorship regime is helping them “increase revenues” from advertisers!

Breitbart News


Oct 9, 2018

Replying to @BreitbartNews

MORE: And, oh, but, um—that could bring up a tiny legal snag. …

THE GOOD CENSOR: Google Briefing Admits Censorship Makes It Akin to a ‘Publisher’ | Breitbart

If Google were categorized as a publisher rather than a platform, it would wipe away the company’s legal immunities. | Tech

Breitbart News


Hats off to @LibertarianBlue on another major scoop. Here he is breaking down what we’ve learned from “The Good Censor.”

8:18 PM – Oct 9, 2018



From Breitbart, “‘THE GOOD CENSOR’: Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for ‘Safety And Civility’”:

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.
Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.
But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.
Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.




Here’s a list of key points from Breitbart:

P2 – The briefing states that “users are asking if the openness of the internet should be celebrated after all” and that “free speech has become a social, economic, and political weapon.”
P11 – The briefing identifies Breitbart News as the media publication most interested in the topic of free speech.
P12 – The briefing says the early free-speech ideals of the internet were “utopian.”
P14 – The briefing admits that Google, along with Twitter and Facebook, now “control the majority of online conversations.”
P15 – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is linked to Google’s position as a platform for free expression. Elsewhere in the document (p68), Google and other platforms’ move towards moderation and censorship is associated with the role of “publisher” – which would not be subject to Section 230’s legal protections.
PP19-21 – The briefing identifies several factors that allegedly eroded faith in free speech. The election of Donald Trump and alleged Russian involvement is identified as one such factor. The rise of the populist Alternative fur Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) party in Germany – which the briefing falsely smears as “alt-right” – is another.
PP26-34 – The briefing explains how “users behaving badly” undermines free speech on the internet and allows “crummy politicians to expand their influence.” The briefing bemoans that “racists, misogynists, and oppressors” are allowed a voice alongside “revolutionaries, whistleblowers, and campaigners.” It warns that users are “keener to transgress moral norms” behind the protection of anonymity.
P37 – The briefing acknowledges that China – for which Google has developed a censored search engine – has the worst track record on internet freedom.
P45 – After warning about the rise of online hate speech, the briefing approvingly cites Sarah Jeong, infamous for her hate speech against white males (Google is currently facing a lawsuit alleging it discriminates against white males, among other categories).
P45 – The briefing bemoans the fact that the internet has until recently been a level playing field, warning that “rational debate is damaged when authoritative voices and ‘have a go’ commentators receive equal weighting.”
P49 – The document accuses President Trump of spreading the “conspiracy theory” that Google autocomplete suggestions unfairly favored Hillary Clinton in 2016. (Trump’s suspicions were actually correct – independent research has shown that Google did favor Clinton in 2016).
P53 – Free speech platform Gab is identified as a major destination for users who are dissatisfied with censorship on other platforms.
P54 – After warning about “harassment” earlier in the document, the briefing approvingly describes a 27,000-strong left-wing social media campaign as a “digital flash mob” engaged in “friendly counter-commenting.”
P57 – The document juxtaposes a factoid about Russian election interference with a picture of Donald Trump.
P63 – The briefing admits that when Google, GoDaddy and CloudFlare simultaneously withdrew service from website The Daily Stormer, they were “effectively booting it off the internet,” a point also made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the FCC in their subsequent warnings about online censorship.
P66-68 – The briefing argues that Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are caught between two incompatible positions, the “unmediated marketplace of ideas” vs. “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility.” The first is described as a product of the “American tradition” which “prioritizes free speech for democracy, not civility.” The second is described as a product of the “European tradition,” which “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.” The briefing claims that all tech platforms are now moving toward the European tradition.
P70 – The briefing sums up the reasons for big tech’s “shift towards censorship,” including the need to respond to regulatory demands and “expand globally,” to “monetize content through its organization,” and to “protect advertisers from controversial content, [and] increase revenues.”
P74-76 – The briefing warns that concerns about censorship from major tech platforms have spread beyond the right-wing media into the mainstream.

Note too, they also say the Arab Spring — which led to the rise of ISIS — was the “high point” of the “power of digitalised free speech!”

That was a color revolution pushed by Western intelligence agencies which totally destabilized the Middle East and led to the rise of ISIS and the refugee crisis!

TRENDING:  1500 Non-Citizens Registered to Vote in California, and that’s just the ones we know about





The Good Censor – GOOGLE LEAK by on Scribd

Follow InformationLiberation on TwitterFacebookGab and Minds.




Social Media Censorship


2019-10-24 "Facebook Wants Censorship Powers" by S. T. Patrick,


Mark Zuckerberg declares his social media site a “fully censoring publisher.”

By S. T. Patrick

Facebook, like a digital Random House, is a publisher. Or, that’s how CEO Mark Zuckerberg now defines his social media conglomerate of 16 years. In declaring itself a publisher and not a platform, it has simultaneously broadened its right to censor while exposing itself to myriad legal entanglements.
A platform is a medium, a company, a technology, or a means by which information can be distributed. Your phone and your text messenger app are platforms. If you curse or say something offensive on a call or in text, AT&T or Verizon or Sprint or Apple won’t censor you. They are merely providing the means by which you can communicate, but you will be responsible for the consequences of your own free speech decisions. A publisher, on the other hand, chooses the content it will allow to be published under its moniker. Producers of magazines, newspapers, and television news are publishers. Thus, they are legally responsible for the validity and effects of the content which they produce
This new specification of purpose for Facebook was brought in response to a lawsuit joined by conservative activist Laura Loomer after she and others were banned from the social media giant. In a motion to dismiss Loomer and the others’ suits, Facebook claimed, “Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message.” Loomer was banned under the “dangerous individuals” policy set up by Facebook to bar those they feel may cause violent, public disturbances.
The problem for Facebook now is that they can be held responsible for a litany of libel charges. Much of the Facebook chatter is personal, some heated. Unless Facebook knows the story behind someone’s strife with someone else, how can they discern truth from fiction, libel from fact? As a publisher and not a platform, they would be responsible for the validity of all content. Zuckerberg curiously agreed.
When asked if, indeed, Facebook is responsible for the content published on its app, Zuckerberg agreed that it is. “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake,” Zuckerberg said. “It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.”
At this point, the team of attorneys accompanying Zuckerberg must have been stricken with shock. The American Bar Association already stated publicly that Facebook is the number one locale for evidence in divorce cases. Imagine the number of personal libels, declarations of impending suicides, threats of violence, instances of teen bullying, and copyright infringements are posted on Facebook in an hour. In asking users to “report” offensive content, the onus has always been on the masses. Zuckerberg, in one swoop, admitted that it is now on Facebook, whether the offense is reported or not.
Facebook very much wants to hide behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Written to combat an exploding porn industry at the dawn of the internet, Section 230 allows owners of websites, forums, and message boards to set guidelines and standards that can be controlled and enforced through an editing process. In doing so, they can further retain their status as a platform and not a publisher, while making discretionary choices about content.
Michael Brendan Dougherty of the “National Review” website wrote that Section 230 “is now the legal remit under which social-media giants shadow- ban, block, and censor conservative speech.” Loomer absolutely agrees.
Facebook wants wider censorship powers. If they are to remain a platform, they would have to micromanage statements, similar to when a radio station chooses to bleep a curse word from a song or a statement. Zuckerberg’s goal is to ban a collection of artists rather than words in a song. In doing so, arguing that you are a platform as you wade in a swamp of censorship hypocrisy is untenable. A book publisher, for example, can choose who it prints and who it rejects. It isn’t obligated to print every manuscript it receives.
For Facebook, they desire having the pie and eating it, too. They’ve maintained all of their free speech rights without caring an iota about a responsibility that they have placed on the shoulders of the individual user. They want their very profitable billions of users (marks for advertising revenue) to continue using the service, and using it as they do now, as a vital part of their daily communications and socialization. Yet they want the censorship baton to fall upon their own chosen targets without judgment or litigation. After all, how can they remain the largest tool in the Deep State’s kit if they cannot fully control the information that passes through their doors?

S. T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication available from the AFP Online Store.


2019-10-21 "YouTube Removes 17,000 Channels, 100,000 Videos, 500 Million Comments for `Hate Speech'” by Bradford Hanson,


YouTube says it has removed more than 17,000 channels for “hate speech”, representing a spike in takedowns since its new “hate speech policy” went into effect in June.

THE GOOGLE-OWNED company calls the June update — in which YouTube said it would specifically prohibit videos that “glorify Nazi ideology” or deny “documented violent events” like the so-called Holocaust — a “fundamental shift in our policies” that resulted in the takedown of more than 100,000 individual videos during the second quarter of the year. The number of comments removed during the same period doubled to over 500 million, in part due to the new “hate speech policy”.
YouTube said that the 30,000 videos it had removed in the last month represented 3 percent of the views that knitting videos generated during the same period.
“We’ve been removing harmful content since YouTube started, but our investment in this work has accelerated in recent years,” the company wrote in a Sept. 3 blog post detailing its efforts to clean up its platform through the removal of videos that violate its standards.
YouTube, which has 2 billion monthly logged-in users, has come under fire in recent years for its struggle to keep up with the constant influx of new content that “promotes violence, hate speech or misinformation”. The company has taken steps to censor its platform and remove such content, relying on its machine learning technology to help detect videos that are in need of human review. In the blog post, YouTube said an update to its spam detection system during the second quarter led to a 50 percent increase in the number of channels that were terminated for violating its spam policies.
Together with Google, YouTube also has a team of over 10,000 people who focus on detecting, reviewing and removing videos that violate its policies.
YouTube says the videos removed represented a five-times increase compared with the previous three months. Still, in early August the ADL’s Center on “Extremism” reported finding “a significant number of channels that continue to spread anti-Semitic and white supremacist content”.


2019-06-30 "Insider reveals Facebook is a Deep State `Psy-Op'” by Dr. Eowyn,


A man who claims to be a Harvard classmate (and “gay” lover) of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, with insider knowledge of the founding of Facebook, has written an insider account of the founding of Facebook.
The anonymous man says:

      • Facebook was a psych-op project of the U.S. deep state from the very beginning.
      • Deep state operatives chose Zuckerberg to be the figure-head co-founder of Facebook, but Zuckerberg does not have the necessary computer and IT expertise to be credible as the founder.
      • Zuckerberg is bi-sexual, with a preference for men.

Below is the insider’s very long account, published on American Intelligence Media, June 13, 2019. Make of it what you will.




To Every Facebook User,

Mark Zuckerberg, and all of us who were there from the beginning, are lying to you and using your personal life as a government-controlled experiment in brain-washing and mind-control – basically a weaponized system of the military (CIA especially) that got out of control. At this point, Mark Zuckerberg has lost control of a company that he never really owned or operated. Truly, anyone who has ever worked with Mark knows that his mind is a blank and that he is nothing more than a parrot for the government handlers who created him. Mark is incapable of running a McDonald’s, let alone one of the most powerful companies in the world. Not even his name is real and his identity has always been covered up. Mark was chosen as child for a CIA training program because his relatives were some of the people creating the program.
I am not making excuses for Mark, but his choices have not been his own. Yes, he has become an evil sociopath who once believed in his heart-of-heart that if he decided he wanted to be president, all he had to do is say he wanted the job and “Facebook” would deliver the election to him. This is the level of brain-washing Mark is at – he is not in contact with reality.
You might think that a madman who could think he could become president – because he “said so” – would be discovered and accused as a fraud. Well, that has happened repeatedly with the other three teams that were working at Harvard, under Harvard president Larry Summers, to create what DARPA and In-Q-Tel wanted the most – a cyber-weapon that could control the minds of anyone that could be lured into it. Facebook was always a military weapon – just like Eric Schmidt’s Google which was incubated in the same fashion that Facebook was. Mark was a patsy, but a ruthless, heartless, cold-blooded non-human patsy. He became this way through the brain-washing he received in his High School years by a DARPA program called TIA that needed a “boy-genius” to be the front man. This scam would make Mark into a global model of the young, cool, irreverent computer geniuses that “rule the world” and lead everyone to a cyber-god of artificial intelligence. Mark was just an unwitting puppet at first – I felt sorry for him.
I remember when I first became room-mates with Mark in our sophomore year at Harvard. We were in Kirkland House, on JFK Street and had to endure Dustin and Andrew. Mark hated them because they prevented us from sleeping together, even though we were in the same room. It was frustrating and kept our relationship secret. Little did I know that the thing that drew me to Mark, a certain openness for listening to anyone, also made him extremely promiscuous with both sexes.
Mark had no morals, conscience, or shame. He also chased women on Craig’s List and would sometimes just disappear to rendezvous with them. He was like a blank slate that simply echoes whatever was happening in his environment. I loved and hated this aspect of his personality but later found out that he, and his brother and cousin, were all the same way due to the brain-washing programs they were subjected to during high school. If certain people spoke to Mark in person or on the phone, he would drop everything and do whatever they told him to do. Certain people had more power and effect over him. I eventually found out, from Mark breaking down and crying, that the brain-washing was permanent and was all part of the “position” these people had promised to create for Mark. He didn’t even know what this “position” was or entailed.
But one thing Mark was sure of, he was only “placed” at Harvard “for a while” until his “position” became available to him. Mark was certain that this promise of a position included a great deal of money and power—aphrodisiacs to an incurable narcissist
I must admit that I came under the power of Mark’s surety that he didn’t need Harvard, a degree, or good grades. Mark eventually dropped out of Harvard at the end of our sophomore year and did become filthy rich and more powerful than he could have imagined. I also admit that I road on Mark’s success to become quite wealthy myself. All four of the members of the club Mark eventually named – “The Fellowship” – became wealthy by no means of our own – we simply knew Mark’s secrets.
You see, Mark could never be faithful to anyone but he loved men more than women. He actually used to hate all women. So, Mark cheated and would want to bring the new “boy” home to me to join in. I was never into that like Mark was. He was abusive but would never admit it, especially to young boys. Eventually, there were three of us that remained lovers with Mark.
Mark always had panic attacks and would break down frequently due to the brain-washing – according to Mark. He would cry about his mother and the “torture” she let “them” do to him. At those times, Mark’s mouth ran on open and he would tell his bed-partners about all the pain and horrible plans these “evil people” did to him. Early on, his doubts and fears almost consumed him at night and he could hardly sleep due to nightmares. Once Mark became filthy rich, he simply used drugs to mask these fears. But if you get him upset by asking about the creation of Facebook, Mark will freak out and have a panic attack because he always messes up the story and looks like an idiot. He can’t stand questions about “how he made Facebook” – because he didn’t. I had to laugh as one of his stupid answers: “I saw that Harvard didn’t have a Facebook, so I made one”, or something close to that. The journalist let him get away with that lie, like they always have.
Mark Greenberg (Zuckerberg) did not write one single line of programming source code for Facebook. Those are lies and propaganda generated by his government, military handlers. Everyone knows that the Winkelvoss twins (Aaron and Cameron) won a $65 million dollar lawsuit settlement against Mark because they knew that their little HarvardConnection (HC) piece was just adjunct code attached to the original stolen source code – which was given to Mark by Professor James Chandler and IBM. That $65 million bit of dirty knowledge was pretty profitable for a couple of cute Harvard Crew rower jocks with no interest in me.
Mark simply had others adjust the code into what was a government-sponsored military weaponization of a cyber-warfare project directed by the President of Harvard, Larry Summers. Even Summer’s himself had his own budding student and staff directory being developed by the Harvard computer staff called “Facebook.” Mark didn’t even create the name!
The Winkelvoss twins had developed their own version in the competition for the government contract, HC, that they changed to ConnectU. Aaron Greenspan was developing  HOUSE System, and Paul Ceglia was working with Mark to modify his StreetFax software into a Facebook too. Mark developed nothing. Absolutely nothing. Even the famous “hacking” of the Harvard systems was not done by Mark himself. Mark was the middleman for those who were the overseers of the “big project”, as it was called.

From the president of Harvard, to the “PayPal Mafia”, National Venture Capital Association, In-Q-Tel, DARPA, NSA, CIA, DIA, to the worst patent thieves in America: James Chandler, Hillary Clinton, David Kappos, Robert Mueller and the rest of the Big-Tech group. Mark is just like the other fake front-men chosen to represent the numerous other social media companies.
Eric Schmidt was the poster child for the Silicon Valley geniuses who ran corporations that are basically exempt from prosecution as the facade for military-weaponized companies that are always funded by the same evil bankers—Fidelity Investment, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, BlackRock, JPMorgan, HSBC, Accel Partners, Kleiner Perkins and the rest of the Silicon Valley venture capitalist who always make a killing from companies who get no-bid government contracts. These companies, like Facebook, are just an excuse for black-ops experiments to control the enemy – and Mark doesn’t know who the enemy is. Mark’s lack of a moral compass made him the perfect patsy for the new “military experiments on U. S. citizens.”
I believe now, since Mark was well-aware of the evil intentions of the government, that he has committed crimes of many types with the clear, pre-meditated intention of harming every user of Facebook. That is why Mark let Facebook be used to manipulate elections, he has no moral core. I personally saw the “template” that Hillary ordered that uses Facebook to manipulate voters to win elections for her. Given the amount of election interference by Big-Tech in 2016, I became a reluctant believer in miracles.
I have seen the truth concerning the supposed “Russian Interference” and can tell you that it was all made up and, in fact, was the exact opposite of what the media reported. I have seen so many illegal actions of Facebook that I am indeed complicit with the crimes. That is one of the reasons I must remain anonymous. But I assure you, if I testified, Mark and I would be locked up along with the other members of the Fellowship as well as many, many other Facebook employees.
It is due to the truth that is currently coming out in the media that I feel I can reveal what I witnessed so that Mark and the “U. S. and British military controlled” Facebook can be charged with criminal activity instead of simply being hit with anti-trust charges that will only split Facebook into many subsidiaries – which would simply make Mark even more rich.
Then, the poor suckers who believed in Facebook will be left holding the bag – an empty bag of a gutted Facebook worth little or nothing. Mark will simply rebrand and go on with multiple companies that will be just as big as Facebook. He will escape unscathed, protected again by his military handlers who, by the way, were insider traders from the beginning of Facebook and will be allowed to buy into the new companies from the beginning also.
Once again, the use of taxpayer dollars goes to private corporations run by stooges and controlled by non-Americans. Yes, I just called Mark a stooge because he actually has no clue what he is doing – at all. Just ask him to write a simple program in any code he would like – he can’t, he is a fraud and always was.
Though I will not tell you who the members of Mark Zuckerberg’s “Fellowship” group were, I can point out that all of the original members of Facebook knew from the beginning that it was a military project for cyber warfare mind-control. Everything done from the beginning was an experiment to see just how far a social media platform could go to “conquer the enemy” through behavioral manipulation with electronic warfare. The idea that Mark wanted to connect all college students in America was a novel idea that was far from the true intention of mind-control of every user in the world.
Free platforms like Google, Gmail, Facebook, and the rest were confidence tricks to get users to experiment on. My old buddy, Sean Parker, an early member of Facebook has “confessed all” to the media and specifically told the truth that Facebook was meant as a cyber-drug to create and control addicts – digital addicts. As Sean said, we knew from the beginning it was harming every user and that is why we never let our friends or our children use these systems – it harms them tremendously and was the original intent of the media. Mark and I were told by representatives of DARPA that that was the intent of Facebook from its inception.
The U. S. Patriot Act allows the military to consider every American a possible terrorist or enemy warfighter until proven otherwise. Every person on the Internet, which was also created by DARPA, is considered a cyber-terrorist and the military sees it as their job to create systems to surveil, target, disarm, and aggressively remote control the user. I hated the idea from the first time I heard of it. Personally, I have never used Facebook and don’t let anyone I love use it.
Mark would use patriot arguments, like the ones mentioned above, to justify his participation in this black-ops CIA operation to the Fellowship. We argued with him, but to no avail. Mark basically believed anything his “controllers” told him. We would sometimes convince him that the project was “dead wrong”, but all it took was one phone call from “above” and Mark went back to his scheming. It was truly pathetic to see that Mark had no freedom but was told what to do. He was also so poorly organized and such a muddled thinker that he couldn’t get anything done: homework, schoolwork, project work, nothing. So, there was always clean up to be done after Mark, especially when the company got big. Clean-up would include stupid stuff like paying others millions for “stealing” their code, making stupid statements every time he opened his mouth, or the lack of attention he gave to the running of the company.


Mark was always a mess and the Fellowship, as well as Larry Summers’ squeeze Sheryl Sandberg — those soul-less megalomaniacs deserve each other — helped the handlers control Mark, were always picking up the broken pieces and trying to glue them back together. But this time, Facebook and Mark cannot be fixed.
Many of the original Facebook players and the Fellowship have been paid off in huge bribes to keep us quiet. CIA secrecy agreements grow on every plant at Facebook, but the Facebook insiders are turning against Mark anyway for many good reasons. The board of directors wants him fired. Mark’s British controllers sent Baron Richard Allen to rein Mark in, but he failed miserably. Even Sir Nick Clegg, x-deputy prime minister of Britain was sent to shut Mark up, but to no avail. Even the second-in-charge of Britain couldn’t stop Mark and his non-stop stupidity. Mark opens his mouth, it cost the company billions. Mark testifies, and everyone finds out that he doesn’t know a single thing about “his” company.
Mark knows nothing because he doesn’t do anything and hasn’t really shown up for work since the beginning. Mark seems to be allergic to work and can’t stand meetings unless he is “announcing” something. He is the worse manager in history, and everyone will tell you the same if asked. We all “play” like Mark runs the company, but that is not true. Mark can’t run himself effectively, let alone Facebook. That is why he was failing at Harvard and was going to be kicked out for bad grades, even after I did much of his work for him.
I can honestly say that, at this point, there are no “insiders” who have any faith in Mark to run the company, or to even speak in public. We believe that even after Larry Summers, the father of Facebook, who planted Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook to shut Mark up and stop revealing that Facebook is the tool of the Democrat agenda for globalism, cannot fix the company. This is one of the points I am most angry about. Mark has become, over the years, no friend of America. In fact, he hates America and rants on about how proud he is to avoid U. S. taxes and to cheat the American people – whom he considers to be animals.
Mark believes he is a higher being – above human beings. He now believes it was all his work that made Facebook. He is completely deluded by his own propaganda, which is nothing but lies. It is because Mark is now a danger to himself and the world that I must tell the true story of how Facebook and social media have become the enemies of Americans and the world.
Mark was shocked when he received an acceptance letter from Harvard, before he had applied. No test scores, interviews, or pre-requisites were required. His government “programming” had made his acceptance a given. Harvard wanted Mark, and Mark did what he was told. So, when the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, called Mark into his office early in his freshman year, Mark was not so surprised. He knew he would have to pay the piper. Summers asked Mark to start a group to work on the social media project – a supposed competition among teachers and students to win a government contract.
The ostensible goal was to create a social directory and Harvard where people could share in small groups. The real intent was to create a social network to manipulate the world. Mark liked the idea but was too lazy to do anything about it. He stuck his nose into the others’ camps to see what they were doing, but he himself just talked about it with good programmers and made them promises—thus, numerous lawsuits ensued from those promises.
Larry Summers continued to call Mark into his office for updates, so Mark just lied. Occasionally, others would be in the office with Larry Summers, but one person stood out and showed up at many more meetings in the future. This man was obviously the person in charge of this project. His name was a former Harvard Law Professor James Chandler. He boasted that he was one of the top idea people for DARPA and that he had actually developed lower level programming languages for the Army. He pretended to be interested in me, but I could tell that was a political act. Guys like me can just sense these things.
Over time, it came out that Summers and Chandler had much bigger plans for the social media project and had some outside sources of help to complete the project. Mark found it odd that Summers, Chandler, and eventually Sheryl Sandberg did not put much pressure on Mark to produce but were interested in everything Mark was learning from spying on the other groups for almost two years.
One day, Mark was called to Summers office in Massachusetts Hall to meet a most unusual man. His name was Andrew Marshall and he was the head of the Naval Intelligence Net Assessment Office. Mark was terrified of Marshall from the beginning. Marshall had Mark sign a government secrecy agreement, and other security agreements before he told Mark the ultimate military nature of what the Harvard Facebook project entailed. Mark, and Harvard, were simply being used as incubation think tanks as a cover for a military project that needed a corporate face. Professor Chandler said he had discovered the source code that would accomplish the seemingly impossible task of making a social directory “scalable” to billions of people.
Chandler droned on as Harvard professors like to do about how Harvard academic elites were the best choices to do the early testing because of their superior intellects. He explained that this scalability dilemma was not being solved by the military’s usual Microsoft, IBM and Oracle go-to military intelligence suppliers for reasons that were over my head. He said they had found a company who had solved the problem but was not willing to be used by the military as a black-ops project against Americans and the rest of the world.
Chandler and Summers had selected Mark as their front-man to lie and claim that he had written the source code for scalability. Chandler explained that the government had seized the source code from an inventor and his company for use in the DARPA Harvard Facebook project. He explained in very flowery intellectual property theft language that Mark may get sued by the inventor, but that DARPA would shield him. Mark told them he was willing to take that chance.
Mark knew full-well that the people who had brain-washed him had a big plan and his part was simply to do as they told him to do. But now, Mark was getting scarred because James Chandler was a member of the president’s National Security Team, a top national security and patent lawyer, and a truly mean, ugly and frightening black man who could easily turn on you like a pit bull.
Larry Summers had those same elitist bully traits, and was the president of Harvard and an economic world leader. Mark felt he was being groomed and protected by some very powerful people. But it was Andrew Marshall, the one they called “Yoda”, who scared the pants off Mark. After Mark had been “read into” the plan by Summers and Chandler, their boss wanted to meet Mark to make sure that he could be trusted to be part of this overarching evil plan to manipulate all of cyber space as if it were a war arena.
Andrew Marshall did not like Mark at all. I witnessed it myself when I was asked to attend one of Andrew Marshall’s Highland Group forums as a major executive for Facebook, along with Mark. Every time Mark opened his mouth, Marshall would stare at him until Mark would shut up. Marshall indicated in this meeting that Mark himself was the biggest problem with the Facebook operation. Mark was so happy when Andrew Marshall died not long ago. Mark now takes his orders from Marshall understudies Dick O’Neil and James Baker who run Highlands Group. Chandler also worked for Highlands Group and directed numerous operations working directly with Andrew Marshall and James Baker.
The Facebook operation also coordinated their activities with Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the group that gathered around Hillary Clinton’s patent thefts. Every Facebook insider, who was there from the beginning, know these things to be true but would never speak of it for fear of retaliation and possible death. We are speaking about a theft of literally many trillions of dollars in intellectual property, trade secrets, patents, designs and stolen programming source code.
Mark bragged for two years about being able to write the source code for the Facebook platform, but he did not produce a single line of code. For two years, all the Fellowship heard were promises of a break-through at any moment. We heard one excuse right after the other. We learned later it was because the inventor had run into some R&D roadblocks that needed sorted out first. Mark continued to spy on the other groups working on the Harvard Facebook student and staff directories, made many promises to everyone involved, but did not follow through. Mark kept promising he was going to just “sit down and write the code”, as if it was no big deal.
His meetings with Summers, Chandler, Marshall and others continued and Mark always came back encouraged. Then, one day Mark got terribly excited about hacking a fellow student at Harvard because he had some part of the Facebook program. The particular student was an upper classman named Max McKibben who lived next door in Winthrop House, literally 100 feet from our Kirkland House front door. Mark got the best hacker to come to our room and use a special “school” computer to hack into McKibben’s personal Harvard email account to steal several white papers on an invention just like the one Chandler had described. This white paper described EXACTLY what Mark had been talking about for two years and now a Harvard student had a full description of a program that could do the same thing.
It was on October 28, 2003 that Mark returned from Summers’ office and announced: “Let the hacking begin.” That hacking stole the white paper that had been sent to the son of Michael McKibben, the owner of Leader Technologies and the real inventor of scalable social media. Michael had sent his son Max the white papers written to describe the new invention. When Mark learned that Chandler was Michael’s patent attorney, the theft finally put a name to the target Chandler had talked about in vague terms.
Chandler had requested that Michael write up a detailed explanation of the system and how it worked. Once Mark showed the stolen white papers to Chandler, Chandler confessed that he already had a complete evaluation copy of the source code as Michael’s patent attorney, that he was using a spy tactic called “strategic deception” in pretending to help Michael and Leader Technologies file patents, while he was secretly providing Michael’s invention code to DARPA’s IBM Eclipse Foundation cyber-warfare partners.
Chandler told Mark that IBM Eclipse was preparing Michael’s program, as they spoke, to give to Mark for the Facebook launch at EclipseCON ’04 in San Francisco right after the Harvard January Reading Period. He said the plan was to transfer all of the NSA’s LifeLog data as soon as possible to the Facebook platform as well. He also told Mark that he would be moving to Silicon Valley after the term was over, and that the next phase of the plan for him would happen in California. Dustin and I went with him that summer, but I decided to return to Boston and graduate. That was a sad separation, but I was happy he got rid of his Craig’s List girls. The few that I actually saw looked like sad street urchins.
Chandler had not seen Michael’s white papers yet and was eager to have them. Mark sent him the hacked copies. Chandler said with the inventor’s first-ever public write-up, and the source code, the Highlands Group and the IBM Eclipse Foundation now had what they needed to prepare the platform for Mark to launch thefacebook, later shortened to Facebook, at EclipseCON ‘04 in February.
I now realize that Chandler took the stolen source code from Michael McKibben and Leader Technologies and gave it to the IBM Eclipse Foundation who turned around gave it out as “open source”, the most lucrative intellectual property in history, to all of the social media giants as open source code without charging a penny.
What I am telling you now is a composite understanding of what I knew early on in the Fellowship group of Mark Zuckerberg and what I have learned up to this time as a core insider of Facebook to this very day. It is not only Mark who needs to pay for his crimes, but many others also. IBM Eclipse Foundation plays like they are moral, honest, and philanthropically gave away intellectual property to other companies who essentially became monopolies with the stolen programming source code. This is laughable and I told Mark when he was being told this information by his handlers that the plan would never work because anyone can see through such stupidity. But to this day, beside Facebook insiders and the Fellowship group, no one has ever told me that they suspected the IBM Eclipse Foundation or the Highlands Forum are corrupt.
The bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it.
Mark Greenberg (Zuckerberg) did not create Facebook. Facebook is a governmental monopoly doing the most advanced virtual behavioral modification on the planet with stolen and modified patents, intellectual property (IP), and trade secrets from inventors who were not remunerated for their inventions. I personally knew this, even when it was happening. I felt sick about the whole thing and this led to many, many arguments between Mark and me. The other members of the Fellowship felt the same way I did. Eventually, Mark had to buy all of us off with large sums of money over the years.
We have not spoken up before now, but I personally cannot hold my silence any longer. I must speak out openly about the criminal surveillance Mark does through Facebook because it gets worse every day. Mark’s handlers tell him to allow more surveillance even though security breaches, selling customer data, allowing for spying by CIA, NSA, DIA, GCHQ, MI6, Five Eyes, lying to Congress, meddling in elections, allowing everyone access to Facebook data, censoring conservatives, being a platform for the Democrat party, and many other charges have been brought against Facebook in other countries and America. Mark will not listen to me or anyone else about stopping the insanity. I believe he is unstable and not fit to run Facebook.
When I saw the $1.5 billion from George Soros and the Atlantic Council bring in the AI system (some built by the Cambridge Digital Forensic Research Laboratory) used in Europe to stop free speech, I had had enough. It was then that I knew Mark was truly being used by evil forces and that even he couldn’t stop it. He seemed to have a death wish to destroy Facebook and reveal some of its evil intent. This was ruining the company I was trying to help run. There were no other avenues that I could take the company down that would deter Mark from the total destruction of Facebook. Mark had been told to win the country for Hillary, or kill the company trying. He was making astounding mistakes that showed the truth of the evil foundations of Facebook.
Our secrets were gushing out like blood from a slaughtered pig. I kept talking to Mark, trying to change his mind, but he became more insane and impossible to talk to. Mark gave up control of the company to a crowd stumbling over themselves to take personal credit for Facebook’s “turnaround”, including Highlands Group, DHS, DoD, Naval Intelligence, SERCO, Crown Agents, IBM  Eclipse Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Google, Alphabet, Schmidt, Sandberg, Thiel, Hoffman, Breyer, Louie, Ketterson, Goldman Sachs, Blankfein, Dimon, Microsoft, Gates, Allen, Thompson, Balmer, Ozzi, Nadella, Milner, Obama, Pritzker, Hillary, Kutcher, Bono,  Soros, Lamont, the Queen’s men Richard Allan and Nick Clegg, and the rest of the gang who are eager to clean up Mark’s messes. I could see that Facebook was on its last leg but I couldn’t understand why Mark would kill the company.
Then, one day I realized what Mark was doing with the obvious crash-landing of Facebook. He was being told that he would get a “deal” with the government charges against the company and would not have to pay billions in fines. The deal would be like the government’s deal with Standard Oil when they were charged with anti-trust, monopoly issues. They were made to break up into seven different companies – all of which became as big or bigger than Standard Oil itself. Splitting up the monopoly made the owners seven times richer.
That is what Mark is doing. He wants Facebook to be broken up instead of answer to the crimes it has willingly committed. Corporations can simply go bankrupt, dissolve, crash and burn, or do what Google did when it created a new company called Alphabet who is now called the Mother of Google and is worth even more. How a child becomes the parent is a new one for me. Eric Schmidt showed Mark exactly what to do and please remember that Eric Schmidt was also Mark’s mentor and the first person to invest hundreds of millions in Facebook before it went public. Eric Schmidt made billions off of his insider trader knowledge from the Highlands Forum investment in Facebook. Britain’s offshore banks feed them all with endless money laundering and “deal flow” as long as the Queen gets her cut. All us insiders know this global money game is totally rigged to perpetuate this evil power. I don’t want to go to my grave knowing that I didn’t do something to atone for my sins in perpetuating these lies.
I believe that Mark is doing everything in his power to get President Donald Trump deposed, just as he did everything he could to try to help get Hillary elected. If Trump continues, the globalist lose. Mark is a true globalist; he is not an American anymore. Mark essentially does not have a plan for Facebook, he simply does what he is told and always has. Mark has made no decisions on his own – not one. This current decision to destroy Facebook from the inside out is nothing more than Mark’s handlers using Mark in their last hours of power. Trump will win 2020 and Facebook will die. The only question left is whether Trump will charge Mark Fakerberg with the crimes he committed.
I, for one, want Mark in jail along with his handlers. I have personally been threatened and intimidated by these Big-Tech monsters since I met Mark Zuckerberg (Greenberg) – a person who truly does not even know his own name or who he is and yet is one of the richest people on earth. Mark did not earn nor deserve a single penny he has been given. Mark is a card-board cut-out who has lost his way and is completely delusional at this point.
As a Facebook insider I demand Mark be fired and all assets taken from him due to his non-stop lying to stockholders and Facebook users. The Board of Directors, underwriters and institutional investors all know about the secret government contracts that have been propping up the company since the beginning, but most average shareholders do not.  It is a government-owned and operated military psy-ops weapon that has gotten out of control and been used for treasonous purposes and for seditious actions against the American people.
After she got sick of the lies, Mark’s former speech writer Katherine Losse described in her 2004 book The Boy Kings that Facebook has stolen personal data and sold it, created a “dark” profile on every user and sold it to everyone who would pay the price, created secret files of compromising photos, allowed all government agencies to access all user data, breached every user agreement, lied continuously to all users, built in back-doors and zero-day programs for the military, and many other unethical, immoral and illegal activities. Did Mark Zuckerberg (Greenberg) willing and with intent allow these criminal activities to go on unchecked on Facebook? – You bet he did. And he is still doing it and getting worse every day. Like other Facebook insiders, I want no part of this squelching of free speech or illegal surveillance activities or the purposeful experimentation on users to develop new and better means to electronically control, manipulate, and imprison people.
I have stood against Mark’s immoral and evil actions since our freshman year at Harvard. Nothing has changed, except that Mark has gotten worse and his handlers have become so demanding that they are condemning Facebook to the trash heap and creating the circumstances for Mark to become even richer and more insane. His next projects include a system much like what Eric Schmidt has created for China, a social credit system that controls the freedom of every American.
When Facebook is broken up, the new companies will have the Eric Schmidt “Dragonfly” social credit system built in. Mark wants to be like Eric and control the world from a digital Ivory Tower and oversee the depopulation of the earth. These maniacs believe they are “above the human race” and are actually higher beings sent to the earth to control the masses. From my experience, these attitudes are extremely prevalent with Silicon Valley tech giants — and they make me sick.
The time has come to simply end the fake social media experiments and call them governmental black-ops projects. I personally know most of these cyber tech-lords and I can testify that they do not possess the tech skills they claim founded their companies. They are simply tech thieves, like Mark Zuckerberg, who need to pay back those they stole from and be put in jail for their crimes. I personally am willing to testify without immunity and suffer whatever consequences I deserve for knowing these things and never bringing them forth until now. I know that the corruption is so great in Washington D. C. that I would not stand a chance of bringing forth this information without being squelched, killed, or silenced like I have seen done to others.
I suggest that the new Attorney General simply read this letter, investigate and then ask Mark Greensberg to program a single line of coherent code. When he cannot, lock him up.

– End of Insider’s Account –

See also:



2019-05-07 "Texas is Doing Something about Social Media Censorship of Conservatives" by Dr. Eowyn,



There is a new, unprecedented, and very toxic phenomenon in U.S. politics.
Privately-owned businesses have become blatantly partisan and willing to lose customers and profits by discriminating against and outright banning conservatives. See, for example:



Among those corporations are the information tech giants — social media and WordPress — which have been censoring conservatives, including this blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM), for some time now. See:

The latest social media censorship took place four days ago on May 2, when Facebook and Instagram, with no warning, banned a number of so-called “far-right extremists,” including Alex Jones, InfoWars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Laura Loomer, ostensibly for “safety” reasons to remove individuals who promote “hate and violence.”
But as Clash Daily points out, neither Facebook nor Instagram cited how or what the “far-right extremists” had posted that violated their “community rules” or “terms of service,” which makes their banning and take-down entirely arbitrary.
As usual, President Trump did some huffing and puffing with this tweet:

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

Instead of empty threats, Texas is doing something about the social media censorship.
The Texas Tribune reports that on April 25, 2019, in an 18-12 vote, the Texas State Senate approved SB 2373, a bill that would hold social media platforms accountable for restricting users’ speech based on personal opinions.

SB 2373 was introduced by state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), who said the bill applies to social media platforms that advertise themselves as unbiased but still censor users. In the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing, Hughes said:

“Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content. Basically if the company represents, ‘We’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.”

CJ Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas, spoke at the hearing in support of the bill. He said Facebook has shut down 16 of the organization’s local groups and did not explain why. Grisham said Open Carry Texas is a conservative gun rights platform and is “routinely targeted” for pushing gun rights on Facebook.
Opponents to the bill maintain SB 2373 violates a federal law that protects social media platforms under a “good Samaritan” policy that allows them to moderate content on the platform however they want.
Harvard Law School lecturer Kendra Albert, who specializes in technology law, said the federal law would likely preempt SB 2373 because “The federal law contains what we would call a ‘subjective standard. It’s based on whether the provider thinks that this causes problems, whereas the Texas bill attempts to move it to an objective standard.” Albert said it would be difficult to determine what is “objectively” offensive, which is why the federal law leaves it up to social media platforms and their users to determine what is offensive. Sometimes there’s not a particular reason why content is removed; it’s flagged by an algorithm.
But Sen. Hughes, who’s an attorney, says he and several other lawyers had looked over the bill and agreed that SB 2373 wouldn’t contradict the federal law because the bill would apply the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, which protects consumers from bad or misleading actions in the trade industry. Users on social media platforms who believe they are censored for their views would be able to file a consumer complaint with the Texas attorney general. The attorney general could then decide whether to bring a public case against that social media platform.
Texas isn’t the only state that is doing something about social media censorship. As an example, lawmakers in California filed a bill that would prohibit anyone who operates a social media site in the state from removing content from the site based on the political affiliation or viewpoint. But given the dominance of Demonrats in the California state legislature, that bill is unlikely to pass.


Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military



2018-03-16 "Facebook, YouTube, Twitter desperately support Internet Censorship" by Jack Mullin,



I lost my facebook privileges again, for 7 days, because I posted an article showing  how two of the Media Promoted student cheerleaders for gun control, supposedly from Parkland High School, were actually cousins, both of which appeared to have already graduated from High School in California.  This article also resulted in the The Government Rag Facebook channel being taken down too.
Facebook removed my posts from everywhere it had been shared and presented me with a notice saying information in the article I referenced, contained “disputed” facts which have been ‘fact checked’ at

Arguments from Authority and the Fact Check Swindle, and and other ‘fact’ checkers are propaganda platforms and gatekeepers for the political left which ‘still’ has control of the mainstream media, social media and many disinformation sources in the alternative media. is funded primary by an organization called the Annenberg Foundation, founded by the late Walter H. Annenberg, which is now a typical globalist foundation working diligently to maintain the paradigm of slavery American’s have endured since at least 1913.
According to their website The Annenberg Foundation “is proud to support the arts, community, education, global issues, and development of nonprofit organizations.” Looking at the projects Annenberg funds or endows, we see millions going to leftist, anti white institutions like Harvard University, the University of Southern California, Penn State, and the Center For Public Broadcasting. In 2012, Annenberg began a ‘collaboration’ with CNN to create what it called “Annenberg Alchemy for the Top 10 CNN Heroes.”  I think we all know CNN routinely creates and airs FAKE News, but, do we see  ‘disputing the facts’?
The Annenburg Foundation funded the “Chicago Annenberg Challenge” for which Obama sat on the board of directors; it was that certified Obama’s fake birth certificate as real.  I think this ‘FACT’ alone speaks volumes about the agenda of



Facebook is supporting the mainstream media’s Appeal To Authorityfallacy, a psychological tactic first creating an authority, using certifications or education levels (like PhD) or by titles of distinction,  such as Next they have check the ‘facts’ on some topic of concern and produce authoritative findings, which are almost always in support of the financially endowing establishment and its environment at large. Finally, complicators, disguised as third parties, (Facebook,) refer to the pronouncements of the ‘authorities’ as the ‘facts.’

“Every man dies. Not every man really lives” *  

People do not need and in fact are harmed by ‘authorities’ who read and interpret our reality.  People are here, in this world, to learn, interpret, and THINK for themselves. Transferring through abrogation of our birth right to live our own lives, is a form of slow suicide, a wasting and in spiritual terms a dead-space in place of life.  For those seeking to control and collect (collectivism)  the lives of others — you are parasites, vampires – a menace to humanity.

Paradigms Lost

We are living in fantastic times, if you are among the 99% that is.  For ‘Limited Time Only‘, people have a window of opportunity to take back their world; a chance to throw off the chains and throw out, perhaps forever, their enslavers.  The world is controlled by highly functioning, genetically preserved, lineage of psychopaths, operating in an accordance to a cult hierarchy, which claims dominion over all the people of the Earth by asserting their own Appeal to Authority; they are God’s chosen people. This cult is comprised of a small number of people who, through trickery and deception and tightly controlling essential human resources, knowledge and information, maintain control over the rest of the people of the world.
The energy source of this control is the Central Banking System and its strict control over the issuance of credit (currency.) Currency being analogous to electric current in an electrical circuit; it is currency which flows through the financial system encountering resistance (interest and fees)  which is the means of stealing; transferring the energy (wealth) of those using the currency to those causing the resistance.
Central Banking is based on usury; the creation of currency from nothing, including no effort, and ‘lending’ this fiction to governments.

Central Banking is the Bane and Chain of humanity. 

Never before has there been a time when mankind stood so close to removing the power and influence of this small group of mentally ill people who have successfully enslaved mankind, off and on, for thousands of years.  Never before has there been a chance to change the Paradigm of Life;  life without pathological narcissism driving its core.  War, deception, payments, interest, insurance, fees, lawsuits, taxes, surveillance, voyeurism, sadism, these are the keywords of the paradigm of slavery.
With the invention of the Internet and its wide scale adoption beginning in the 1990s followed by the invention of blockchain technology in the past 10 years, mankind now has the means to expose the deception in which they have become mesmerized and the technology to replace, forever, the paradigm of middlemen as resistance, which has enslaved the world for millennium.

The time has come to fight back –

1.     Dump the enslavers platforms. Replace as soon as possible all of your accounts with the middlemen of political correctness and censorship. Dump Facebook, Twitter and with extreme prejudice Youtube.  Many platforms exist to replace these gatekeepers of the deceivers.  Steemit is a possible choice for both Facebook and Youtube and Steemit (using a crypto-token as its payment system) even pays you for building audience share.

2.    Fight Back. Call these people out. We must force them to end the fake reality being streamed as news and information in mainstream media, Hollywood and peddled as History. Turn Off, for good, the mainstream media channels of mind control including CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NPR, NBC, MSNBC and others.

3.    Stand firm against the deceivers obsessively and compulsively trying to disarm Americans.  NO BODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK. It is time to stop them from traumatizing the people with terrorism disguised as news and safety.  We will not be disarmed by FAKE shooting events.

4.    Learn about and Support Crypto technology.  Demand that people be able to use any currency they want. End the monopoly of legal tender and the slavery of Debt Based Currencies. Refuse to let these psychopaths dictate what you will use as currency and where you will save your currency. Refuse to let them box you into a Central Banking peeping Tom swindle – institutionalized larceny.

5.    GET ANGRY.  Our lives are being taken away. Our time is devoted to nothing but paying interest to pirates.  Central Banking/Finance is the cause of all wars – sons and daughters dying for nothing but banker profit and larceny.  Central Banking is responsible for almost all of the misery on the planet — Stand Now For the End of the Central Bank — in America it starts with the End The Fed campaign.  Have no fear –  there is no longer any need for Central Banking or even BANKs.

6.    Spread this word. The banksters are working around the clock to block your access to the new technologies. The banksters are working to start a war which will change the subject for a long time. It is this cult of psychopaths, Orthodox Jewry’s Zionist/Communist agenda, which has destroyed the US financial system and using  document/contract fiction, transferred all American wealth to themselves.

The banksters/enslavers will soon cause the final financial collapse of the US Dollar and Bond Market, resulting in a massive credit crisis, followed by hyper inflation and the potential death of millions of Americans. It will be followed by the attempt to rebuild it all again, this time in China or the Far East.
We must ensure, no matter what suffering has to be endured,  Central banking and the colossus of evil funded by this monster (including the total domination of the mainstream media, education, legal and financial systems) , will never be accepted again.

  * quote attributed to William Wallace



"Limited-Hangout" Censorship


2016-07-14 "Proof `Project Censored' and are limited-hangouts" by Dr. James Fetzer,

We all know that PROJECT CENSORED advertises itself as an important medium for exposing stories that have been suppressed by the mainstream media. It was therefore stunning to me when, in the wake of the suppression of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), I belatedly learned that news of the book’s banning by had not made it to their notice.


This was huge news in the conspiracy research community, where I would make dozens of interviews and where many articles would be published about this extraordinary event. During my lifetime, the case that seemed to me to come the closest was the suppression of “The Pentagon Papers”, which revealed the evolution of our involvement in the quagmire known as Viet Nam. Here is a sampler of some of the articles that were published about it: 
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, “CENSORSHIP SHOCK: bans investigative book NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK because it disagrees with government version of what happened”
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, “Amazon is the new Ministry of Truth: An interview with Jim Fetzer, editor of the Sandy Hook book BANNED by"
Glenn Candy, BeforeItsNews, “New Photos Prove Sandy Hook Staged: Amazon freaks out!”  
The Government Rag, “Amazon Suppresses and Bans NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK” 
And there were many more, where it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that PROJECT CENSORED could have missed the news that something rather stunning had taken place. I have already assumed that an organization dedicated to exposing censorship would be paying attention to what is going on, especially in relation to research on controversial subjects such as this:
“Nationwide media blackout on amazon ban of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK”,  
“Windows on the World” (UK), 
“Nationwide Media Blackout on Amazon’s ban of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY  HOOK”,
“Amazon suppresses and bans NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK”, 
“Five most important books of 2015 that have been vilified, attacked or outright censored”,
“Removed article on SANDY HOOK BOOK BAN has been found” 
“ does not ban 19 other books about Sandy Hook” 
So when I discovered that PROJECT CENSORED had not so much as extended an “honorable mention” to the suppression of NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), I wrote to Peter Phillips to make an inquiry about it. His response was about as excited as a yawn: 

I have since been informed by someone who knows him that Peter accepts the official account of Sandy Hook, which may provide a partial explanation. But whether or not you agree with the contents of a book that has been banned, its occurrence is so unusual and striking that I find it impossible to avoid the inference that they ignored it because that is their role. Were PROJECT CENSORED on the job, they would have been all over this. 
They instead appear to be a “limited hangout” conducted to create the impression that they are functioning as an intellectual watchdog, when something closer to the opposite is true. The same appears to be the case with Alex Jones’, which initially published about the ban but then removed — and eventually even scrubbed — their archives of any trace.


InfoWars Article On Sandy Hook Book Ban Scrubbed — Even From Google Cache

Posted by Guest Post

Date: December 10, 2015

By: “Barry Soetoro, Esq”

After 1 month of strong sales, Amazon suddenly banned the new book, Nobody Died At Sandy Hook. The book was pulled from, then deleted from customers’ Kindles.

After Amazon pulled the book, Alex Jones’ InfoWars noticed – and published this article exposing Amazon’s book ban. Here’s a screenshot of the article:

To draw attention to their article, InfoWars tweeted a link:

But within hours after that article was published, InfoWars suddenly deleted it from the Web. The InfoWars article simply vanished – without explanation.
This left onlookers wondering who removed the InfoWars article – and why.
Fortunately, some web services save copies of material. Thus, the deleted InfoWars article was recovered – in its entirety [Editor’s note: but I don’t have it so I am substituting one of many interviews I have given about all of this] – from a copy stored by Google Cache.

[YouTube video deleted with the following message:]
Video unavailable
The video is no longer available because the
YouTube account associated with this video has been

As folks reacted to this curious censorship (by Amazon; then by InfoWars), the Google Cache copy of the InfoWars article was suddenly deleted as well – replaced with this“404 Error” message.
[Editor’s note: Barry Soetoro, Esq., has highlighted what has to be the reason took down their article in such haste, which is that photo credit was given to the CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE:

So, we have:

1. Amazon banning Nobody Died at Sandy Hook while continuing to sell 19 other Sandy Hook books.
2. InfoWars writing and publishing an article about Amazon’s banning of that book
3. InfoWars suddenly deleting their own article the same day it was published
4. InfoWars (or some other party) asking Google Cache to remove all traces of the deleted InfoWars article by scrubbing the cached version from Google servers.

All that effort makes no sense – unless the government is hiding something. Why ban the book to begin with? Why delete the InfoWar’s article about the book ban? Further, why scrub the article from even the cache, so that there is no longer even a trace of the article on the Web?

The State Police Photo

Was InfoWars ordered to delete their article because it includes this picture credited to the Connecticut State Police – showing police preparations at Sandy Hook Elementary School BEFORE the alleged massacre happened?

Look at that photo: that’s not how folks behave at a “school massacre” where 27 people lay dead in pools of blood. Why is CT Chief Medical Examiner Wayne Carver casually lounging outside the school, while 20 kids presumably lay inside, freshly murdered? Why is everyone relaxed like they’re enjoying a break on a movie set?



Indeed, some believe the CT State Police photograph was taken during preparations – before any windows were broken – the day before the hoax “went live.” That same photo — and more — is in the banned book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook. InfoWars nobly trumpets that “there’s a war on for our mind” but InfoWars is fighting that war on our behalf. So why, then, has InfoWars joined the nationwide blackout on Amazon’s banning of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook? Even the FBI agrees that nobody died at Sandy Hook – since the FBI’s own crime report shows “ZERO” murders in Newtown CT during 2012:

Why Censor The Book?

If Nobody Died at Sandy Hook is “nonsense,” why doesn’t the Regime simply ignore it? Why get the book removed from Amazon (and Barnes & Noble); get an article about the censorship taken down from InfoWars; and then SCRUB the already-removed InfoWars article from Google cache?
The answer is clear: Nobody Died at Sandy Hook is “over the target,” and that’s why it must be taken down. Sandy Hook, the “biggest school shooting in US history,” was a carefully planned hoax to steal your guns, take your freedom, and terrorize your children.
Eric Holder even announced his plan to subvert the US Constitution on CSPAN (video) – by “Brainwashing people” against guns.
The Sandy Hook “shooting” hoax is that treason, foisted on unsuspecting Americans.
To overcome this Amazon/InfoWars censorship, the banned book has been made available as a free PDF: Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.
If you haven’t seen a documentary on the Sandy Hook hoax that repeatedly was taken down from YouTube, watch it now: We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook.
Also see these interviews with James Fetzer (co-editor of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook):

[VIDEO] James Fetzer Interview: Sandy Hook (AMAZON) book ban

[VIDEO] Amazon & Infowars Censor Sandy Hook BOOK!
[YouTube video deleted with the following message:]
Video unavailable

The video is no longer available because the
YouTube account associated with this video has been

Barry Soetoro, Esq is the pen-name of a syndicated columnist focused on Fake Shootings and State Terror. Recently, Barry explored the Newtown CT “massacre” and the background of “Barack Hussein Obama.” [Editor’s note: Where I have done what I can to make this complete, missing some key parts.]

For all the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook hoax, click here.

To read/download the banned book in PDF format, click here: NobodyDiedAtSandyHook.

If you want a hard copy (sure to be a collector’s item!), Fetzer found an alternative printer/distributor for Nobody Died at Sandy Hook — Moon Rock Books. Click here. Check it out and let others know. The pdf will remain available to the public for free.


Additional References

2020-07-16 "'Secure Tolerance': The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 1" by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.(Occidental Observer) Thu, Jul 16 2020; see also Part 2 and Part 3.
2020-05-23 "Altcensored Helps Catalog the Videos YouTube Doesn’t Want You to See: Alternative tech is rising." by Didi Rankovic(Reclaim the Net) Sat, May 23 2020




The Cowpens Flag, one of many circular star patterns used by "American Whigs" (or "Patriots")

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.