Inside the Internet Censorship Conspiracy
In August 2019, the oligarchs of Big Tech scored a major win against free speech in America with the banning of popular YouTube star James Allsup. At only 23 years old, the affable and telegenic Allsup had a following of nearly half a million subscribers. His videos had almost 100 million views on the platform, yet he was banned without so much as a warning.
The banning of Allsup by YouTube on August 28 was a direct outcome of what has been described as a “hit list” put out by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) less than two weeks earlier. Titled “Despite YouTube Policy Update, Anti-Semitic, White Supremacist Channels Remain,” this article was an open call to censorship, appealing to YouTube’s recent policy changes further restricting free speech. But this “hit list” was only a small part of a plan set in motion by the ADL years before.
YouTube Changes Agenda-Driven
The latest tightening of censorship from YouTube was announced in a June 5, 2019 post to the company’s official blog titled, “Our ongoing work to tackle hate.” In the name of “protecting the YouTube community” from “harmful content,” this blog post outlined the methods the company has been using in recent years to mold the perceptions of its viewers:
This work has focused on four pillars: removing violative content, raising up authoritative content, reducing the spread of borderline content and rewarding trusted creators. Thanks to these investments, videos that violate our policies are removed faster than ever and users are seeing less borderline content and harmful misinformation. As we do this, we’re partnering closely with lawmakers and civil society around the globe to limit the spread of violent extremist content online.
What is deemed “violative” and “borderline” content does not, of course, refer to content which violates U.S. federal or state law. YouTube is referring only to content which violates their own corporate policies. That means YouTube – which accounts for over 73% of the global market share in online video platforms and counts 2 billion monthly active users – is a private business entity setting speech and expression policy for billions of people on the planet.
As a corporation, YouTube is answerable to no group of voters, representative body or people’s assembly. Its corporate masters can implement any policy they choose based on their own backgrounds and prejudices. As a global monopoly, YouTube can abuse or ignore the human rights of their content creators and viewers, while being responsive only to shadowy interest groups like the ADL, operating behind the scenes.
Singling Out Ideology
The blog goes on to describe how YouTube made “more than 30 policy updates” in 2018 alone, dealing with “hate speech” based on consultation with unnamed “experts.” It then brags about the implementation of policies which were widely denounced as censorship, such as disabling recommendations, comments, and the ability to share videos. The YouTube censors boast: “This step dramatically reduced views to these videos (on average 80%)….”
Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.
YouTube is now singling out one ideology by name as banned completely from the platform: National Socialism. No censorship of communism, despite the nearly 100 million souls killed by that ideology in the 20th century. No censorship of Muslim beliefs, despite the millions enslaved or killed in Islamic wars of conquest. And certainly no censoring videos promoting and glorifying liberal capitalist ideology, in spite of millions killed by atomic bombs, incendiaries, agent orange, napalm, or white phosphorus in the past century alone.
YouTube will also not be removing videos promoting or glorifying Zionism, even though Israel was founded by violent terrorist extremists alleging their superiority “to justify discrimination, segregation and exclusion” on racial and religious grounds.
What do these partisan, inconsistent policies tell us about the corporate masters of YouTube and their agenda? And how do NGOs like the ADL end up shaping and controlling political speech policies of the social media giants of the world?
A Web of Influences
Understanding the web of influences behind the online crackdown of counter-cultural and political dissident voices is not easy. Corporate shareholders, boards, company owners, executives, as well as the hidden donors to powerful NGOs, cannot be identified or held accountable as easily as public officials. Nevertheless, it is possible to tease out a remarkably consistent common agenda among all the forces behind the online war against free speech: they are 1) neoliberal, and they are 2) Jewish.
Among mainstream neoliberal publications, one of the loudest voices advocating the abolishment of free speech is Vox, the self-described “general interest news site for the 21st century,” known for “explaining” the news. Vox is regarded by many as being same kind of party-line mouthpiece for neoliberalism as Pravda was for communism in the old Soviet Union.
Vox was founded by two Jews, Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias, and pursues an invariably pro-Jewish minority agenda on all subjects from foreign policy to freedom of speech.
Globalism’s Party Line
In 2019, Vox acquired the technology news website Recode, which has become a leading platform for championing and rationalizing the latest censorship crackdowns by Big Tech.
In June of this year, Recode published a major interview by Senior Correspondent Peter Kafka with YouTube’s CEO, Susan Wojcicki. Wojcicki publicly expounded on the biggest changes regarding “hate speech.” Wojcicki is also Jewish, with an Ivy League education and a net worth of almost $500 million. She was one of the founders of Google, along with two other Jews: Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
Wojcicki matter-of-factly explained to Kafka how, as a “global company,” YouTube already implemented speech restrictions based on European countries which have “really strong” hate speech laws. She benevolently described how YouTube’s artificially imposed restrictions –gaming the system to promote certain viewpoints and suppress others – reduced views of certain videos by over 80%. She then doubled down on the justification for increased censorship, once again identifying the Holocaust as an event which cannot be questioned on YouTube.
The irony of a small clique of rich, powerful Jews – representing the ethnic interests of barely 2% of the American population – effectively banning all speech criticizing Jewish power, seemed to be lost on all concerned.
Relentlessly Promoting Censorship
Recode’s entire narrative can be interpreted as an ongoing Jewish effort to reverse the strongly libertarian ethos of the original (non-Jewish) pioneers of Silicon Valley.
Aside from Peter Kafka’s interview with Wojcicki, which was a continuous stream of uncritical flattery and softball questioning, Recode regularly reports news of online censorship in terms of self-evident justification. Rather than questioning YouTube’s totalitarian practices in the libertarian spirit of a free and open internet, Recode signaled only impatience that YouTube was “finally” doing something about it.
In a recent article about Milo Yiannopoulos titled, “What happened to the formerly fearsome right-wing media troll?” Kafka openly celebrates that since 2016: “platforms that gave many of the trolls a home, namely Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube… have kicked them off their service entirely. And despite promises to create new platforms that would challenge the big tech companies, trolls who have been ‘de-platformed’ have found it hard to reconstitute their followings in new locations.”
Says CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy:
The only time I ever hear about Milo these days is when people talk about how de-platforming him actually reduces reach. And there’s always the talk of, well, if you take them off this platform, they’ll just move somewhere else. We haven’t really seen that happen in a big way yet. Sure, some of them do eventually move to a platform like Telegram or Discord or whatever it may be. But we haven’t seen it happen in a way that would really [matter]. You know, [Yiannopoulos] had millions of followers on the main social platforms, now he’s probably reduced to a few thousand.
This development is cheerfully reported by the Jews at Vox and Recode without the slightest hint of self-doubt. The Orwellian implications of powerful elites silencing popular dissident voices, while artificially promoting official narratives, do not seem to bother these self-anointed gatekeepers of the internet.
They even reach levels of totalitarian doublethink which would make George Orwell blush, confidently assuring that “YouTube’s CEO says it’s ‘more important than ever’ that YouTube remains open to anyone” – even as online censorship ratchets up to an unprecedented degree.
A Hidden Power
Recode’s most revealing interview to date was published November 2017, a few months after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, with new ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt. This interview revealed the ADL’s hidden hand behind the war on free speech.
Along with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the ADL often plays the role of the unnamed “experts” cited by technology companies engaging in censorship. Unlike the SPLC, the ADL is an explicitly Jewish organization, described on Wikipedia as “an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States.” Founded in 1913 to defend the convicted child murderer and Jew, Leo Frank, this shadowy organization continues to advance the interests of Jews without the slightest concern for objective justice or truth.
In the United States, the ADL enjoys 501(c)3 tax status as a charitable non-profit organization. Even though this should prohibit the ADL from engaging in politics, the organization routinely takes political positions and influences the outcome of American elections, most notably favoring Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.
While enjoying all the benefits of US law, the ADL also acts more or less openly as an Israeli fifth column. The organization shares innumerable connections with the Jewish state, unfailingly supports Israeli interests in the United States, and targets political leaders who criticize Israel. The ADL has also long been suspected of spying for Israel, and was investigated by the FBI, until the investigation was suddenly and mysteriously dropped.
The ADL also shares New York offices and employees with a separate entity called the Anti-Defamation League Foundation, which “helps support the mission of the ADL by providing funds and by managing the endowment and assets held by the Foundation.” Both entities are extremely well-funded, employing about 400 employees who were compensated over $35 million in 2016, and the ADL Foundation manages over $100 million in assets for the ADL. Of course, the sources of the organizations’ formidable resources remain murky and obscure.
Embracing Corporate Tyranny
Jonathan Greenblatt took over as CEO of the ADL in 2015. Unlike his buffoonish predecessor Abe Foxman, Greenblatt’s leadership has been marked by a strong emphasis on technology and internet censorship.
In his interview with Kara Swisher of Recode, Greenblatt stated his motivation in wanting to become CEO of the ADL: “…the next CEO of ADL…should be thinking about search, and social, and tech, and innovation, and income, and business.” He admitted he had no background in law, nonprofits or civil rights. But he knew how to manipulate business interests behind the scenes, especially in the world of social media and search engines.
This made Greenblatt especially suited to an age when trillion-dollar technology corporations top lists of the richest companies in the world, and when income inequality in the United States reaches historic levels. Whereas the old ADL operated under a mask of far left “civil rights” advocacy and supposed championing the underdog, the new ADL under Greenblatt is more than comfortable with robber baron oligarchy ruling the country. This makes sense in an era when Greenblatt’s fellow tribespeople include five of the top ten wealthiest individuals living in the United States.
Naked capitalist tyranny is the most effective modus operandi of this tech-savvy, modern ADL, and Greenblatt has been instrumental in the change. The ADL recently announced a major new hire in tech industry veteran Dave Sifry to head up their “Center for Technology and Society,” signifying a renewed focus on the realignment from civil rights advocacy to direct corporate control over society.
Silencing Resistance to Exploitation
In a press release over the summer titled, “ADL and Partners Counter White Supremacists Online Through Google Search,” no attempt was made to conceal this bona fide Jewish conspiracy to mold minds and control free thought.
The ADL announced a partnership with Google-backed startup Moonshot CVE and an organization called the Next Gen Foundation, which uses a so-called “venture philanthropy model” to blend private sector capital with nonprofit advocacy.” What this translates into is billionaire Israeli and Jewish-American businessmen shoveling obscene piles of cash into Jewish organizations using the benefits of US tax law to professionalize the war against free speech in America. The process works like this: a rich Jew makes millions by charging high interest rates on loans to American debt slaves. When his tax bill falls due, he gets a write-off by donating huge amounts to nonprofits run by other rich Jews, who take the money and use it to silence the ability of the debt slaves to complain.
In this way, American Jewry survives by exploiting the productive classes of American labor, while dodging the tax burden of wealth to contribute to the nation’s common treasury. Instead, those resources are redirected to organizations which directly impede the ability of the exploited masses to cast off their exploiter, or even freely discuss what is happening. It’s a classic survival pattern of the successful parasite, as researcher Eustace Mullins established in his definitive work, “The Biological Jew.”
Search Engine Results Manipulated
The Next Gen Foundation, Moonshot CVE and ADL follow this parasitic model by directly attacking the immune response of their host society via information control. The methods of Moonshot CVE are described as follows:
…using data-proven techniques from digital capacity building to counter-messaging campaigns, to effectively respond to violent extremism online. Moonshot CVE is currently using artificial intelligence (AI) to deduce vulnerable people online by the kind of videos they watched, Facebook pages liked or Twitter accounts followed. Using AI, exceptional pattern-deducing abilities can pick up those clues and help us identify people at risk.
The greatest accomplishment of this conspiracy has been use of the “Redirect Method,” which was developed by Jewish researchers at the RAND corporation for use against Muslims in the Zionist “war on terror” in the early 2000s. By conflating foreign-born Islamic militants with white Americans who hold dissenting political viewpoints, establishment elites are able to justify turning the huge, bloated war apparatus against their own citizens.
The Redirect Method can be simply understood in this basic chart, put out by the ADL. In a free and open internet, one could search for a question or subject and find whatever information was most relevant, or most viewed by other users. Thus in the “marketplace of ideas,” popular or informative search results naturally rose to the top, while useless search results and fake news fell in popularity.
The Redirect Method blatantly hijacks this natural and democratic process of information flow by artificially manipulating search results to promote establishment narratives which pose no threat to neoliberal or Jewish power. The same elites who would decry this as extreme censorship in China, openly call for governments to do more to censor right-wing dissident free thought in the West.
Financial Blackmail to Compel Censorship
In Greenblatt’s 2017 interview with Recode, he outlines one other strategy which has perhaps been more effective than any other: the indirect ADL targeting of shareholders through financial blackmail to bend tech companies to their will.
Greenblatt tells Kara Swisher the story of how the ADL managed to muzzle Twitter, which once described itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party” and was hailed for giving a voice to political dissidents during the 2011 Arab Spring. Five years later, after the populist uprising which led to the election of Donald J. Trump as US President, Twitter was openly embracing a policy of banning and censorship against American political dissidents.
As it turns out, the ADL was behind this change. From the conversation between Greenblatt and Swisher:
GREENBLATT: And I’ll tell you a story. Last year with Twitter, I heard from people … you know, journalists, broadcast and print, who would interview me and then afterwards they would say, “I’m worried about the anti-Semitic abuse being launched at me.” I said, “What do you mean?” So we organized a task force to look at this last year and we pulled some sample Twitter data. We found millions and millions and millions of anti-Semitic messages. Tens of thousands of messages directed specifically at Jewish journalists. And when this story broke, Twitter initially wasn’t willing to listen to us. But if you remember how their M&A talks got derailed last year when Disney pulled back and Salesforce pulled back.
SWISHER: Derailed is a kind way of putting it.
SWISHER: Nobody wanted to buy them.
GREENBLATT: And part of the reason they said was concern about the liability on the platform. I think in part that was because of the report that we released. And so here’s what happened there. Twitter realized this is no longer a stakeholder issue, it’s actually a shareholder issue. And this is what my own experience in business …
SWISHER: Explain the difference between them.
GREENBLATT: A stakeholder issue is where a small group of activists expresses a concern and it’s a marginal issue and you deal with it out of the CSR office. It’s kind of nice to have. A shareholder issue is when you deal with it out of the investor relations office and it’s an absolute must because if your share price is going down, that suddenly gets the board’s attention and gets your shareholders’ attention in a different way.
What Greenblatt is explaining in not-so-veiled terms is that the ADL realized that dissident, counter-cultural political ideas were gaining in popularity, and no appeal to the broad masses of voters, citizens or social media users (stakeholders) could stop them. So the ADL shifted from a policy of appealing to the majority, to strong-arming the handful of big money men behind the corporations into acquiescing.
Strong-Arming Corporate Decision Makers
In this case, Greenblatt alluded to the time Twitter Inc was briefly put up for sale in 2016. At that time, both the CEOs of Disney and Salesforce had the opportunity to acquire Twitter for near $10 per share, but both passed. At the time it was wondered, why did Salesforce’s mergers and acquisitions (M&A) target List exclude Twitter? Disney recently claimed it was Twitter’s general “nastiness” that “didn’t feel Disney” enough.
This claim is belied not only by Greenblatt’s boast from 2017, but also by the facts. SalesForce CEO Marc Benioff comes from a wealthy and influential Jewish family from the San Francisco area, with a net worth of over $6.5 billion, and was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Bob Iger, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney company, comes from a Jewish family in New York and served as head of ABC before taking over from Disney’s previous Jewish CEO, Michael Eisner. Iger also co-chaired a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016.
The Walt Disney company itself has undergone a radical transformation under Jewish control, from once being a beloved American animation company created by a visionary patriot, to a global engine of anti-traditional leftist propaganda. Disney is now classified as “an American diversified multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate” and is listed as Number 2 on a list of The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media.
The $60-billion-per-year Disney media juggernaut – transformed by Jews from a company which once told beautiful tales based on European folklore to promoting Wakanda and the Jewish-American Princess – owns and controls ABC, ESPN, Marvel, Vice, Pixar, Lucasfilm and the History Channel, among many others.
Even if Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey possessed the moral fortitude to resist to such tactics, he would face a shareholder revolt if he dared to stand up to combined financial and media power of these Jewish oligarchs, organized by the ADL.
Missing in Action: Anti-Corporate Left and Libertarians
Only ten years ago, one can recall a time when restrictions on free speech and civil liberties were actively opposed by civil libertarians such as the followers of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Also, activists on the political Left such as Ralph Nader once warned against the power of corporations to control American life.
Today both these forces are gone from the scene, either marginalized and forgotten, or co-opted by the new neoliberal ruling consensus. In the second decade of the 21st century, only the Alt Right and its affiliated networks and activists are left to stand up for the basic rights and freedoms of the American people, as well as stand up to corporate power.
When faced with irrefutable evidence of literal “Jewish conspiracy” hiding in plain sight, the neutered and useless forces of American conservatism can likewise only pretend not to notice.
James Allsup spoke up for the white working class, and that was his crime. As a popular content creator on YouTube, he was able to eke out a humble living off the ad revenue from the site, like other YouTube stars. When YouTube “demonetized” his videos months ago for political reasons, he was still able to support his wife and young child through advertisements on his channel. By deplatforming him, YouTube and the ADL reduced his audience of almost a half-million, to barely a few thousand on alternate video-sharing platform BitChute. No libertarian, leftist or conservative was willing to stand up for Allsup. He vanished from YouTube without so much as a murmur from these cowards.
The Red Pill and the Future
The ADL has had great success in the short term with its new policy of resorting to banning dissident voices, manipulating search results and using economic blackmail. But in the long run, this policy will backfire. The recent reversal by top YouTube star PewDiePie to donate to the ADL, after a massive fan backlash, proves the people are on the side of free speech against Big Tech censorship and Jewish oligarchic control. Even Vox was recently forced to report the results of recent polls, where overwhelming majorities of Americans on both the Left and Right favored breaking up the Big Tech monopolies.
Taking the “red pill” is such a clichéd meme, at this point, that the implications of this phrase from the 1999 film “The Matrix” are sometimes forgotten. But in the year 2019, the lessons and narrative of that film are even more relevant for our current struggle. As the hero character tells his oppressive technological overlords at the end of the story: I know you’re out there. I can feel you now. I know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone, and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world without you. A world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible.
Source: National Justice