There has been a spate of take-downs of certain YouTube channels. YouTube and the other tech giants are no longer even being disingenuous in their censoriousness. It’s that blatant.
Sometimes they ban the actual channel completely. Other times they “demonetize” them, depriving their hosts of making a living. None of this is good nor can it be justified on First Amendment grounds. More’s the pity that it’s actually Corporate Media being the judge, jury, and executioner of these journalists.
The first real ham-fisted attempt of any significance was last August 8, when Alex Jones’ Infowars was taken down by the three major platforms: Google, Facebook, and Twitter. It happened all on the same day and was so glaringly obvious that even some left-of-center news outlets came to Jones’ defense. Indeed, given that these are monopolies, it’s very likely that they violated anti-trust laws by conspiring to do so (which they clearly did).
Last week it was Steven Crowder, Lauren Southern, and Blonde in the Belly of the Beast and others too numerous to mention here. The bigwigs were too scared to take down internet bigfeet such as Stefan Molyneaux and Styxhexenhammer666 but the latter was put “on notice” (but never given any reason why). They were warned even if they abided by these platforms’ terms of service.
Clearly, something is going on. The Corporate Media is withering on the vine and the Deep State’s tenuous hold on news narratives is falling apart. Thus, they are lashing out in ever more clumsy fashion. YouTube actually “doxed” (i.e. online outing) the creator of a viral video which showed a drunken Nancy Pelosi slurring her words. Facebook did the digging for YouTube/Google and gave up the person in question.
A similar thing happened two years ago when another content creator created a GIF which showed Donald Trump during his WWE days slamming another wrestler onto the mat. (The wrestler had a CNN logo instead of a head.) In the finest expression of defending free speech [snark on], CNN threatened the creator of that ridiculous video with doxing if he didn’t apologize. Shades of Mao Zedong’s show trials.
The outrage generated by Crowder’s banning backfired on YouTube, however, in spectacular fashion. Because of this backlash, the censorship jihad has been temporarily called off. At least that’s the hope of content creators everywhere. Regardless, I will begin today posting some of these producers on Monomakhos. Mainly because I believe in freedom of speech but also because they are some of my faves and I’ve learned a lot from them.
My hope is that I can create some redundancy for these YouTubers which will make it harder for the New Censors to completely eradicate them from historical memory or at least until a newer, more conservative and (ironically) freer-thinking online platform is up and running.
Therefore, I plan to post these videos at regular intervals. Some are political, some are philosophical, and others are religious, but ALL are fascinating (at least to me). I hope that you will think so, as well.
Today’s entry is Robert Sepehr, the host of Atlantean Gardens. Sepehr is an anthropologist who is willing to “think outside the box”. Please let me know what you think.
https://youtu.be/UDgXOnD4HI0
yes YouTube is just terrific for finding the good stuff.
Black Pigeon Speaks has been good for me lately and there was one from him the other day which gave the names of non-google servers, emails and ‘youtube like sites’. Regarding the latter, I unfortunately forget what the names were, but I can tell you it’s in his video “De-Google-ify Yourself”
Another case of widespread ongoing censorship is the banning and deplatforming of anyone questioning gender identity ideology — including the silencing of all those on the left who are questioning it. The banning of the feminist Meghan Murphy, who has filed a lawsuit against twitter, is just one example. Both Steven Crowder and Lauren Southern have done splendid takedowns on the lack of science underpinning gender ideology. I’m part of a nationwide network of parents who are trying to change the systems that failed our kids, all of whom claimed sudden transgender identity — kelseycoalition.org. The parents in our coalition cover the entire spectrum, both politically and spiritually — and most are very liberal. What we all have in common is that we know that the mainstream media, the schools, the universities, and the mental health/medical community are failing our kids because of a non-science-based ideology that is now being reinforced at every level of society.
Wow. I feel for you. The trans stuff is truly frightening. It has ramifications few have yet imagined – certainly not the foolish “feminists” who defend it along with Islam/sharia law – and I congratulate and admire you for taking it on.
And the ironic thing is when the Muzzies take over, their LGBT allies will be the first to be thrown (literally) under the buss.
Of course they will. Maybe I’ve said this here already, but the Gay-Moslem alliance reminds me of the Hitler-Stalin alliance of 1939. Stalin allied with his erstwhile enemy only to have the latter turn on him two years later.
Exactly.
Nor should we forget, that Islam/Sharia brings a civilizational “balance” to cultures which have run amok. There are no massive women’s marches wearing pussy hats or gay “pride” parades in Moslem societies. Minorities likewise are kept “in their place” without any trouble, etc.
The irony…
Thank you for sharing and for your efforts, Mrs. DK.
Mr Dk. My professional life was in mental health and like u i am deeply concerned at the sociologically, rather than scientifically formed understanding of these issues. I saw this happen with mental health initially.
What I find amusing is that for those people, sexual orientation is totally fixed very very early on, which i basically agree with actually, yet gender identity is as fluid as a flowing river, and can be changed at will. Amusing that one!!
Yes of course social issues affect health, physical and mental, for good and bad, but does not have the overwhelming proponderant influence.
A good youtube video compared the end of the 1984 movie to a boy in Scotland kicked out of class, and recording his conversation with his teacher, for saying there are only two sexes. In 1984 the main actor is being tortured because he wont tow the party line that 4 fingers are really 3, and this Scottish boy is being kept out of class and ridiculed by his teacher for not saying there are 3 or more genders. It’s all very striking.
But look. I wonder if all this junk science will be useful to some in the run to antichrist. The idea entered my head just 5 mins ago as I listened to a talk between a talk radio host and a climate change denier scientist. The latter said that sooner or later it will be obvious that ‘science’ was wrong about climate change, and this will really scandalize the faithful. The void left in people by no Christianity and no science could be ripe for exploitation.
Regressivism certainly has a way of suppressing the conditions it worked hard to create in the first place. We see that now in its backlash against loose living and so something similar against science might also be expected
Good to know there are people like you involved in this fight; it’s an important one.
Facebook et al. are private enterprises. Thus, there is no free speech or First Amendment issue. Radicals from both ends of the spectrum are free to create their own platforms.
Private but so is the Electric Company. Both are monopolies and thus subject to the rigors of anti-Trust legislation. Zuckerberg is especially mendacious because he wants it both ways: to be both a platform (public trust/monopoly which is exempt from anti-Trust legislation) and a publication (which allows him to pick and choose what and who he wants to publish).
What’s especially egregious is that as a “publisher” he rolled over for the gov’t and gave up the name of the person who made that hilarious Nancy Pelosi video.
That is the point. Today we have public monopolies with total power
Mr. Zaris, you are technically correct. They have the “right” to do what they do, but should they? The real issue is the amount of power they have because of the market dominance. The vertical and horizontal integration is actually beyond anything that the old “Ma Bell” had. The social media and telecommunications industry should be reinged in by anti-trust law, except no one has the guts or the will to go that route. The big data/social media conglomerates simply dominate too much of the market — especially when they collude as they do. That alone should be an anti-trust case.
The Republicrats are really bad in this area. Many have never seen a business too big. Trying to regulate them as public utilities will only make the matters worse. One would think that the democrats would be better but they are all in on even more integration, aka socialism. In there world, it is quite likely that an NSA spin off will be the data/social media company.
The whole arena of “rights” is confusing and a maelstrom precisely because of the atomization of a community understanding of morals, ethics, accountability and a real commitment to free speech. Of course, almost no one can stand totally free speech. There will always be and should be constraints
Take 2b since the blog apparently ate take 1. Great googly moogly, there are enough bones to pick here for a family of raccoons who had a cement mixer full of catfish park under their tree. *pauses, looks at heavens, occasionally shaking head and taking pipe in and out of mouth*
So, there are a couple major points to hit here, taking them in order. The musical accompaniment is, of course, a perfectly appropriate song by Dire Straits. You know the one. 1) YouTube is not a monopoly and they do not owe you fame and fortune (money for nothing and checks for free) George Michalopulos wrote”None of this is good nor can it be justified on First Amendment grounds.” Ah yes, the fourth branch of American government, the executive, legislative, judicial and youtubal. George Michalopulos wrote”Indeed, given that these are monopolies, it’s very likely that they violated anti-trust laws by conspiring to do so (which they clearly did)” Reaction to a bad news story or expose is not a conspiracy. It’s like claiming there must have been a conspiracy because all the Subway franchise owners took down their posters of Jared at the same time. So no, nobody was violating anti-trust laws about collusion. And YouTube isn’t even a monopoly. Now, one can make an argument that there are anti-trust problems with elements of YouTube parent Google’s business division, or with elements of Facebook’s business model, however that doesn’t change the fact that there is nothing stopping you from putting online streaming video on the internet without YouTube. It isn’t like the 20th century when radio or television bandwidth was a limited commodity and required expensive infrastructure to utilize. George Michalopulos could easily host his vlogs on his website without using YouTube. It would take a bit more setup work, and it would cost him a tiny amount of money instead of being free. But it isn’t like he has to use YouTube or he can’t deliver video content to the internet. If it were, *that* would be a monopoly.In essence, what the complaint *really* is, is that a private company owes a bunch of external people access to their platform to post content and be paid by said company five, six or seven figures a year in compensation. And if said private company doesn’t wish to host said content, or wishes to decline to cut producers of said content in on advertising revenue for ads it plays along with their content, it isn’t a free market business decision, but Maoism. What a joke. 2) So You Think You Can Dox (in which George Michalopulos perpetuates a false narrative) George Michalopulos wrote”YouTube actually “doxed” (i.e. online outing) the creator of a viral video which showed a drunken Nancy Pelosi slurring her words. Facebook did the digging for YouTube/Google and gave up the person in question.” There are two things in this statement which are incorrect, making the entire shebang totally compromised.
A) YouTube didn’t “dox” anybody, nor were they given the info to do so by Facebook.
B) The viral video wasn’t actually of a drunken Nancy Pelosi, but a doctored video of Pelosi edited to make it appear as if she were drunk. Now, as to A), while YouTube didn’t “dox” anybody, The Daily Beast did run a story about the guy that created the video (https://www.thedailybeast.com/we-found-shawn-brooks-the-guy-behind-the-viral-drunk-pelosi-video). Considering the guy was linking his real identity to the sites associated with the original dissemination of his fake video so he could make money off it, it wasn’t exactly a doxxing of some anonymous individual. Facebook didn’t identify the individual to The Daily Beast, although they did corroborate some of what The Daily Beast had already learned.
Even with all these circumstances, there was some discussion in news circles as to whether The Daily Beast article was warranted (i.e. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/daily-beast-drunk-pelosi.php), but the *actual* facts of the matter are far, far different than what George Michalopulos claims. Not that anyone should be surprised. As to B, I have to wonder why George Michalopulos omitted that the video was a doctored fake? Is he so emtombed in a cocoon of fact-free right wing noise that he didn’t even *know* the video was fake? Or does it just make a better story if he leaves that part out because he doesn’t like Nancy Pelosi? Somehow if it had been an edited Trump video I think he would have found it pertinent. Perhaps George Michalopulos can clear the air on this most curious omission. 3) A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany (that ain’t working, that’s the way to do it) One of the more delightful parts of this work by George Michalopulos is that he literally uses Alex Jones as the poster child image for the essay! George Michalopulos wrote”…Corporate Media being the judge, jury, and executioner of these journalists. The first real ham-fisted attempt of any significance was last August 8, when Alex Jones’ Infowars was taken down” I’m not actually sure Alex Jones would appreciate George Michalopulos referring to him as a martyred journalist considering Alex Jones is currently arguing in court essentially that he is strictly an entertainer not anything like a journalist and nobody should take anything he says seriously. Alex Jones is doing this because, in order to make a buck, he hawked conspiracy theories to his large audience that included claiming that parents of children killed in school shootings weren’t really parents, and that it was all a hoax. This has resulted in some of those bereaved parents literally having to try and live off the grid and go into hiding because they are subject to continued death threats, stalking and harassment. So, George Michalopulos, put on your empathy hat for a moment. You want to talk about doxxing? Let us hypothetically suggest one of your children was killed in a shooting a couple years ago. You have just moved for the fourth time, but people keep fining your new address and phone number and send you threatening letters and voicemails. Are you going to be happy that one of the primary perpetrators of your misery is able to globally publish garbage on mass media platforms without consequence or accountability? Infowars wants to claim they are really just like the Weekly World News, except they also want to sell you dubious nutritional supplements. But unlike Bat Boy, there is a real human cost to padding Alex Jones bank account. I hope those parents take every penny he has. George Michalopulos should too. Now, as for the rest of the crowd George Michalopulos is hand-wringing over, what a sad collection of grifters and garbage opinionators to go to bat for. For some of them, whether or not they actually believe what they peddle is irrelevant, I don’t know if in his heart of hearts the likes of a race hustler like Stefan Molyneaux internally matches his public material. But he certainly makes a nice living not being knowledgeable about anything in particular but pulling in cash from those sweet sweet George Michalopulos views. Steven Crowder? For when Matt Walsh is too intellectual and prudish for you and you need something a bit dumber and more vulgar? Really? If someone behaved like Crowder on here towards a Monomakhos regular one would *think* George Michalopulos would tell them to shape up or show them the door. But if Crowder does it on YouTube, and uses a big audience to focus ire, pulling in cash the whole while, George Michalopulos cries censorship if YouTube decides maybe that isn’t appropriate for their platform. George Michalopulos wrote”Today’s entry is Robert Sepehr, the host of Atlantean Gardens. Sepehr is an anthropologist who is willing to “think outside the box”. Please let me know what you think.” I think promoting a guy who seriously argues that Atlantis was a real historical advanced civilization is a better self-own than any critique of you I could possibly deliver.
Interesting that Sepehr has apparently also promoted the idea that white humans are actually a different species from non-white humans. I guess that is “thinking outside the box”.
You Yanks do have a problem with race. Let me let u into a secret. I have met ignorant low class white scum with the value of a cess pit. And White saints. I have met asians and black etc people equally of less value than a cess pit, and Also met Saints. And black Green yellow and green and in between, just plain ordinary. I’ve also met the odd guerrilla, FAR NICER!!! Have a lovely day folks.
I have also in my life met Christ. He was Jewish I recall.
Please stop with the term “Yanks” . You insult a large number of us who came from the South. I thought you Brits were supposed to come to our aid. Oh, well. Hold your whisht, as the Irish say.
Solitary Priest
On our nation’s birthday
We are all Yankee Doodle –
regardless if you are into lobster or frog gigging
I’m greek,with a touch of Welsh on my late father’s side. !! But point taken. However from my perspective the Uk, France, european powers with exception of imperial Russia, which later sold u Alaska for a song , were in high heaven over the break up of the union and their prospects of getting back to the american continental land grab. UK in 1863 I think, almost went to war against Union , and whose ruling class ( as opposed to the workers) were strongly pro confederacy . Makes perfect sense.
A confederate victory, or stalemate, would have opened USA up again to european influence and grab.
A confederate state based on slavery would have been retarded and leaving it’s white working class to treck across the border to northern factories and out west. Would have brought enduring instability.
In turn, I apologize for the term “Brit”. But since you are part Welsh, you undoubtedly know that they are the original British. In Brittany, France, the name lives on. The Bretons did come to continent from Cornwall. In fact, my Southern ancestors were of Scottish and Welsh descent, so we have that in common.
I submit, however, that slavery in the South would have ended without a bloody civil war. World opinion would have forced it to end. It might have hung on until the 1880’s , as it did in Brazil. I’m not excuding slavery by any means. I just a little bit under the collar when the Confederate flag is compared to the Nazi swastika. And I might point out that slavery continued in the North during the Civil War. Also, there were actually free blacks in the South who owned slaves themselves.
Solitary priest. You are correct re Britain and slavery. I was,albeit badly, making same point re slavery. As serfdon in imperial Russia up to 1861, it is not economically viable. Let alone the morality of it.
And slavery was really only the excuse for war overiding economy and CLASS. . Keeping posting Best wishes
Russian serfdom is a lesson in the dangers of emulation. Boris Gdnov thought he was being “modern”, bringing feudalism from the west.
Take 2c since the blog apparently ate take 1. And upon trying again it keeps eating all my line endings turning everything unto a unbroken wall of text. Apologies if anyone actually had to wade through the deleted attempts at legible formatting.
Great googly moogly, there are enough bones to pick here for a family of raccoons who had a cement mixer full of catfish park under their tree.
*pauses, looks at heavens, occasionally shaking head and taking pipe in and out of mouth*
So, there are a couple major points to hit here, taking them in order. The musical accompaniment is, of course, a perfectly appropriate song by Dire Straits. You know the one.
1) YouTube is not a monopoly and they do not owe you fame and fortune (money for nothing and checks for free)
George Michalopulos wrote”None of this is good nor can it be justified on First Amendment grounds.”
Ah yes, the fourth branch of American government, the executive, legislative, judicial and youtubal.
George Michalopulos wrote”Indeed, given that these are monopolies, it’s very likely that they violated anti-trust laws by conspiring to do so (which they clearly did)”
Reaction to a bad news story or expose is not a conspiracy. It’s like claiming there must have been a conspiracy because all the Subway franchise owners took down their posters of Jared at the same time. So no, nobody was violating anti-trust laws about collusion.
And YouTube isn’t even a monopoly. Now, one can make an argument that there are anti-trust problems with elements of YouTube parent Google’s business division, or with elements of Facebook’s business model, however that doesn’t change the fact that there is nothing stopping you from putting online streaming video on the internet without YouTube.
It isn’t like the 20th century when radio or television bandwidth was a limited commodity and required expensive infrastructure to utilize.
George Michalopulos could easily host his vlogs on his website without using YouTube. It would take a bit more setup work, and it would cost him a tiny amount of money instead of being free.
But it isn’t like he has to use YouTube or he can’t deliver video content to the internet. If it were, *that* would be a monopoly.In essence, what the complaint *really* is, is that a private company owes a bunch of external people access to their platform to post content and be paid by said company five, six or seven figures a year in compensation.
And if said private company doesn’t wish to host said content, or wishes to decline to cut producers of said content in on advertising revenue for ads it plays along with their content, it isn’t a free market business decision, but Maoism.
What a joke.
2) So You Think You Can Dox (in which George Michalopulos perpetuates a false narrative)
George Michalopulos wrote”YouTube actually “doxed” (i.e. online outing) the creator of a viral video which showed a drunken Nancy Pelosi slurring her words. Facebook did the digging for YouTube/Google and gave up the person in question.”
There are two things in this statement which are incorrect, making the entire shebang totally compromised.A) YouTube didn’t “dox” anybody, nor were they given the info to do so by Facebook.B) The viral video wasn’t actually of a drunken Nancy Pelosi, but a doctored video of Pelosi edited to make it appear as if she were drunk.
Now, as to A), while YouTube didn’t “dox” anybody, The Daily Beast did run a story about the guy that created the video (https://www.thedailybeast.com/we-found-shawn-brooks-the-guy-behind-the-viral-drunk-pelosi-video). Considering the guy was linking his real identity to the sites associated with the original dissemination of his fake video so he could make money off it, it wasn’t exactly a doxxing of some anonymous individual. Facebook didn’t identify the individual to The Daily Beast, although they did corroborate some of what The Daily Beast had already learned.
Even with all these circumstances, there was some discussion in news circles as to whether The Daily Beast article was warranted (i.e. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/daily-beast-drunk-pelosi.php), but the *actual* facts of the matter are far, far different than what George Michalopulos claims. Not that anyone should be surprised.
As to B, I have to wonder why George Michalopulos omitted that the video was a doctored fake? Is he so emtombed in a cocoon of fact-free right wing noise that he didn’t even *know* the video was fake? Or does it just make a better story if he leaves that part out because he doesn’t like Nancy Pelosi? Somehow if it had been an edited Trump video I think he would have found it pertinent. Perhaps George Michalopulos can clear the air on this most curious omission.
3) A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany (that ain’t working, that’s the way to do it)
One of the more delightful parts of this work by George Michalopulos is that he literally uses Alex Jones as the poster child image for the essay!
George Michalopulos wrote”…Corporate Media being the judge, jury, and executioner of these journalists. The first real ham-fisted attempt of any significance was last August 8, when Alex Jones’ Infowars was taken down”
I’m not actually sure Alex Jones would appreciate George Michalopulos referring to him as a martyred journalist considering Alex Jones is currently arguing in court essentially that he is strictly an entertainer not anything like a journalist and nobody should take anything he says seriously.
Alex Jones is doing this because, in order to make a buck, he hawked conspiracy theories to his large audience that included claiming that parents of children killed in school shootings weren’t really parents, and that it was all a hoax. This has resulted in some of those bereaved parents literally having to try and live off the grid and go into hiding because they are subject to continued death threats, stalking and harassment.
So, George Michalopulos, put on your empathy hat for a moment. You want to talk about doxxing? Let us hypothetically suggest one of your children was killed in a shooting a couple years ago. You have just moved for the fourth time, but people keep fining your new address and phone number and send you threatening letters and voicemails. Are you going to be happy that one of the primary perpetrators of your misery is able to globally publish garbage on mass media platforms without consequence or accountability?
Infowars wants to claim they are really just like the Weekly World News, except they also want to sell you dubious nutritional supplements. But unlike Bat Boy, there is a real human cost to padding Alex Jones bank account.
I hope those parents take every penny he has. George Michalopulos should too.
Now, as for the rest of the crowd George Michalopulos is hand-wringing over, what a sad collection of grifters and garbage opinionators to go to bat for.
For some of them, whether or not they actually believe what they peddle is irrelevant, I don’t know if in his heart of hearts the likes of a race hustler like Stefan Molyneaux internally matches his public material. But he certainly makes a nice living not being knowledgeable about anything in particular but pulling in cash from those sweet sweet George Michalopulos views.
Steven Crowder? For when Matt Walsh is too intellectual and prudish for you and you need something a bit dumber and more vulgar? Really? If someone behaved like Crowder on here towards a Monomakhos regular one would *think* George Michalopulos would tell them to shape up or show them the door. But if Crowder does it on YouTube, and uses a big audience to focus ire, pulling in cash the whole while, George Michalopulos cries censorship if YouTube decides maybe that isn’t appropriate for their platform.
George Michalopulos wrote”Today’s entry is Robert Sepehr, the host of Atlantean Gardens. Sepehr is an anthropologist who is willing to “think outside the box”. Please let me know what you think.”
I think promoting a guy who seriously argues that Atlantis was a real historical advanced civilization is a better self-own than any critique of you I could possibly deliver.Interesting that Sepehr has apparently also promoted the idea that white humans are actually a different species from non-white humans. I guess that is “thinking outside the box”.
Nate Trost, I read both take 1 and take 2. Thanks. I wonder if George will respond.
So, dudes, why not start your own social net? Conservatives in the 1980s thought Ted Turner was their guy, then in the 1990s they thought Cap Cities ABC would do the trick, then Rupert Murdoch. They all failed us but competition is great. Set up your own satellites and beam free wi-sat to your supporters. Messrs Bannon and Scaramucci should put their Goldman Sahcs money where their mouths are.
Hopefully this is interesting to others and not just me (because of what’s happening in my part of the world, where a famous rugby player has been sacked for putting a Bible quote online). As it happens, a similar case has just ended in England, where the court found in favour of the accused. I think this is really big news, and could provide for a lot of guidance, in similar cases, in the future.
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/world/englands-version-of-israel-folau-wins-his-case
It is interesting. I had no idea people in the UK would fire someone for quoting Bible verses on Facebook! That’s crazy.
“That’s crazy”
Too right, Gail
Not just in the UK. In Canada a few years ago a gentleman took out an add in a newspaper that was simply a scriptural reference, not even quoting the words themselves. The particular scriptural reference was one in which homosexuality is criticized. The man got fined under Canadian law for an offensive publication.
The Disreputable Gladiator the isolated one who fights alone.
“In a free society we should welcome open and honest debate.”
Concerning the preposterous editorial written by George Michalopoulos: The Scandalous Nature of the Word “Archon” for a Christian Organization I thought I’d squelch a few of the many misnomers penned. There are too many errors, dozens of distractions and tangent ramblings to consider, but here it goes.
[Monomakhos Editor: Duplicate content deleted due to space constraints. See commenters previous post directing readers to his blog where content can be displayed.]