By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | Sept. 24, 2018

Actor James Woods has bashed Twitter’s CEO after he was banned from the social media platform for not towing the socialist line. Woods was banned from Twitter for a tweet he sent out months ago, and he’s taking aim at those who are following in the footsteps of the Nazis and threatening the free speech others.

Woods is refusing to delete the tweet that got him banned:

In the tweet, Woods admits that it is “not likely” that the meme could be real, but Twitter banned him anyway citing the potential to affect the outcome of an election.

“The irony is, Twitter accused me of affecting the political process, when in fact, their banning of me is the truly egregious interference,” Woods said, according to Fox News. “Because now, having your voice smothered is much more disturbing than having your vocal chords slit. If you want to kill my free speech, man up and slit my throat with a knife, don’t smother me with a pillow.”

The email from Twitter said Woods can use his account again if he deletes the tweet but would he would be suspended from the social media platform permanently if there are repeated abuses. Woods told The Associated Press Sunday he interpreted the message to mean he’ll be allowed back on Twitter only if he decides to to say what Twitter wants him to say.




“Free speech is free speech — it’s not Jack Dorsey’s version of free speech,” Woods said, referring to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey.

Woods said if he deletes the tweet, it would force him to watch his step with everything he says in the future, chilling free speech, and so he refuses to do so. In response, the tweet has been making its rounds on Twitter after Sara Miller, Woods’ girlfriend retweeted it so far, it’s been retweeted over 14,000 times since Sunday.

Miller also tweeted the email Woods sent detailing the reason he was banned.

Woods told AFP that he wants open discourse and called the situation a dangerous one for free speech. “I wish this were about an unknown Twitter user so that I could be even more passionate about it,” Woods said. “This is not about a celebrity being muzzled. This is about an American being silenced — one tweet at a time.”


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Paul Craig Roberts | Sept. 22, 2018

My Generation is the last one to have known privacy and to have lived out most of our lives in freedom.

I remember when driving licenses did not have photos and most certainly not fingerprints. A driving license was issued on proof of birth date alone.

Prior to the appearance of automobiles IDs did not exist in democratic nations. You were who you said you were.

The intrusive questions that accost us every day, even when doing something simple as reporting a telephone or Internet connection being out or inquiring about a credit card charge, were impermissible. I remember when you could telephone a utility company, for example, have the telephone answered no later than the third ring with a real person on the line who could clear up the problem in a few minutes without having to know your Social Security number and your mother’s maiden name. Today, after half an hour with robot voices asking intrusive questions you might finally get a real person somewhere in Asia who is controlled by such a tight system of rules that the person is, in effect, a robot. The person is not permitted to use any judgment or discretion and you listen to advertisements for another half hour while you wait for a supervisor who promises to have the matter looked into.

The minute you go online, you are subject to collection of information about yourself. You don’t even know it is being collected.

According to reports, soon our stoves, refrigerators, and microwave ovens will be reporting on us. The new cars already do.

When privacy disappears, there are no private persons. So what do people become? They become Big Brother’s subjects.

We are at that point now.

This interview witth Julian Assange is worth the 53 minutes: https://www.rt.com/news/438968-assange-last-interview-blackout/




This generation being born now… is the last free generation. You are born and either immediately or within say a year you are known globally. Your identity in one form or another –coming as a result of your idiotic parents plastering your name and photos all over Facebook or as a result of insurance applications or passport applications– is known to all major world powers.

Think about Assange for a minute. He has done nothing wrong. There are no charges against him. All charges have been dismissed. But he cannot walk out of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London without being seized by the British police and handed over to Washington whose prosecutorial apparatus intends to prosecute Assange for treason although he is not a US citizen but an Australian and Ecuadoran citizen.

What did Assange do? Nothing but practice journalism. His problem, his only problem, is that his journalism embarrassed Washington, and Washington intends revenge.

Law is nowhere in the picture. The UK is breaking all known laws including its own by the forced detention of Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy.

The US in its determination to get Assange has no law whatsoever on which to stand. It only has raw unbridled power that can operate without law.

In other words, the Anglo-American world is totally lawless. Yet the Russian government holds firmly to its delusion that the US and Britain are countries with which agreementts can be made.

The digital world makes Big Brother’s Memory Hole possible. No need to burn books. Just push a button and information disappears.

As I write Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and so forth are all making non-approved information disappear.

In a digital world, not only can our identities be stolen—indeed, it can be stolen multiple times so that there are many of you at the same time—but we can also be erased. Poof—push a button and there you go. This makes murder easy. You never existed.

As I said before and will say again, the digital world and artificial intelligence are a far worse disaster for mankind than ever was the Black Plague. All the smart people busy at work creating the new world are destroying the human race.


Contributed by Paul Craig Roberts of paulcraigroberts.org

Paul Craig Roberts has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.


SHARE:

Meaning political speech CANNOT be selectively banned.

By Isabelle Z. | Natural News | Sept. 9, 2018

As the internet continues to enable people to bypass in-person social interaction, savvy tech execs are doing their best to make people feel like they are somehow not missing out on face-to-face conversations. In this spirit, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called the platform a “public square” while speaking before Representatives and Senators this week.

Although those of us familiar with actual public squares might find the comparison far more metaphorical than literal, he appeared committed to the idea, repeatedly referring to it as a “public square” and a “digital public square” before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That wording could come back to haunt him, however, as Twitter continues to ban people because of the comments they post to the site. That’s because the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects speech and expression in the public square – even when said public square happens to be under private ownership.

The 1946 Supreme Court ruling in Marsh v. Alabama set the precedent, as Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari points out. It stands to reason, therefore, that as a public square under private ownership, Twitter must protect its users’ First Amendment rights. Moreover, banning speech on the platform that has been afforded constitution protection violates the First Amendment. This means that Twitter should not be the arbiter of what people are allowed to say there, although individual users could decide what they’d rather not see using filters.

Of course, it’s not just Twitter acting this way; they were actually one of the last platforms to ban the controversial radio host Alex Jones after a coordinated suspension was carried out by YouTube, Facebook and Apple a few weeks ago.




After treading carefully initially, Twitter issued a permanent ban to Jones’s accounts as well as that of his show, InfoWars, this week for what the company says are violations of their abusive behavior policies.

In a series of tweets, the official Twitter Safety account wrote: “We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accounts’ past violations,” the company said in a series of tweets.

It appears they also plan to go after those who are affiliated with Jones, tweeting: “We will continue to evaluate reports we receive regarding other accounts potentially associated with @realalexjones or @infowars and will take action if content that violates our rules is reported or if other accounts are utilized in an attempt to circumvent their ban.”

In his speech before Congress – which Jones himself attended – Dorsey said that the purpose of Twitter is to “serve the public conversation.” He said that it must support “free and open discussion” – but apparently that doesn’t apply if you’re a strong far-right voice.

Will social media platforms be held accountable for their conservative bias?

Ultimately, legislators suggested greater scrutiny was in order when it comes to social media companies, with Senator Mark Warner of Virginia calling for an end to “the era of the Wild West in social media.” As allegations of a conservative bias continue – even President Trump has accused Google of silencing conservative voices – Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he planned to meet with a number of state attorney generals to address whether such firms are stifling free speech intentionally.


Contributed by Isabelle Z. of NaturalNews.com


SHARE:

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | Sept. 7, 2018

You have to feel a little sorry for the folks who voted for Trump expecting him to live up to his promise to bring the troops home and stop killing people.

On Thursday Trump cleared up any doubt about his neocon conversion. Once again he made his supporters—or those interested in nonintervention at least—out to be fools, that is to say any principled supporters left after killing thousands in Syria.

The CIA’s favorite newspaper reported:

President Trump, who just five months ago said he wanted “to get out” of Syria and bring U.S. troops home soon, has agreed to a new strategy that indefinitely extends the military effort there and launches a major diplomatic push to achieve American objectives, according to senior State Department officials.

These “American objectives” reflect those of Israel, which has worked diligently to undermine Syria for decades. The first objective is to replace Bashar al-Assad with a malleable client that takes orders from the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Second, Trump—channeling Netanyahu—demands the removal of all Iranian troops in Syria. Both the Russians and Iranians were invited into the country to help al-Assad flight the CIA and Saudi Arabia’s bloody Wahhabi-infused terrorists.

Third, Trump wants more illegal US military outposts in occupied Syria.

It was rumored the troops already in Syria would be brought home by the end of the year, but like all things Trump, this promise was flipped one hundred and eighty degrees.

“The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year,” said James Jeffrey, a retired senior Foreign Service officer who last month was named Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “representative for Syria engagement.” About 2,200 U.S. troops are serving in Syria, virtually all of them devoted to the war against the Islamic State in the eastern third of the country.

Jeffrey said U.S. forces are to remain in the country to ensure an Iranian departure and the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State.

“That means we are not in a hurry,” he said. Asked whether Trump had signed off on what he called “a more active approach,” Jeffrey said, “I am confident the president is on board with this.”

More like a representative for Syria’s destruction and balkanization, based on the Iraq and Libya models.

James Jeffrey is a Bush era neocon who served as George Bush’s deputy national security advisor. He is a former “principal deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State, where his responsibilities included leading the Iran policy team and coordinating public diplomacy,” states his bio at the Washington Institute website.

U.S. policy is not that “Assad must go,” Jeffrey said. “Assad has no future, but it’s not our job to get rid of him.” He said, however, that he found it hard to think of Assad as a leader who could “meet the requirements of not just us but the international community” as someone who “doesn’t threaten his neighbors” or abuse his own citizens, “doesn’t allow chemical weapons or provide a platform for Iran.”

Meanwhile, the US is working to make it so.

The Donald was a little more direct in his response to the elected leader of Syria remaining in office. “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” he said, according to Bob Woodward and his latest book.

Back in May, Israeli Energy Minister and Cabinet member Yuval Steinitz said al-Assad should be murdered. “If Syrian President Bashar Assad continues allowing the Iranians to operate out of Syria, it would be the end of him, the end of his regime,” Steinitz said. “If Assad allows Iran to turn Syria into a forward operating base against us, to attack us from Syrian soil, he should know that will spell his end.”

Of course, if Hillary Clinton had won the election there wouldn’t be much difference. During the campaign, she worked hard to out-do the neocons.

From The Telegraph in 2016:

[James Jeffrey, former CIA and Pentagon liaison] describes a foreign policy more hawkish than that of the current administration. He said there were a “lot of clues” to how Mrs Clinton will behave as commander-in-chief from her time as secretary of state. During that time she championed the intervention in Libya and advocated the arming of Syrian rebels against the regime.

Indeed, there are a lot of clues. Clinton is responsible for killing 30,000 Libyans and the country’s leader, who was brutally raped and murdered. Libya went from one of the richest and most developed countries in Africa to a failed state where competing cutthroat jihadists engage in bloody street warfare. Iraq suffered a similar fate—and continues to do so, as planed—in order to eliminate the risk to Israel and “moderate” (translation: dictatorial) Arab regimes in the neighborhood.

Trump the geopolitical ignoramus is too busy defending his inflated ego and narcissistic personality to be bothered with the finer details and consequences of his decision on Syria, which is in fact a decision made by his national security advisor, John Bolton, and a gaggle of neocons waiting in the wings.

Trump’s love for Israel and his animosity toward Syria and Iran is a product of his Likud-loving son-in-law, who often confers with Netanyahu. Jared Kushner supports the genocide-minded Israeli settlers. He supports the Likud-neocon collaboration to turn the Arab and Muslim Middle East into string of client states with balkanized ethnic and religious minorities engaged in endless sectarian violence, not unlike Iraq and Libya today. If the British gave anything to the Zionists during their “Mandate” in Palestine, it was the conquer and divide strategy. The Israelis turned it into a science.

Trump’s foreign policy hasn’t gone off the rails. It is owned by Israel and the neocons. It’s true, most hate Trump and are actively working to replace him with somebody (Pence) who isn’t suffering from narcissistic derangement, or at least does a better job of hiding it than Trump.

Obama’s strategy in Syria was to hide the truth and pave it over with lies. He is responsible for arming crazed Wahhabi murderers and the sadistic killing of Gaddafi in Libya.

500,000 dead in Syria, 30,000 in Libya, that’s Obama’s legacy.

Despite this, liberals and Democrats love him, same as they respect and fawningly admire the legacy of the war criminal John McCain, who bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam.

Trump’s 180 pivot on Syria is not a surprise. The man has no ideas of his own and was guided hand-in-hand by Jared Kushner into a den of assassins and thieves.

Did we really expect this self-infatuated narcissist to Make America Great Again, bring the troops home, and finally return America to the noninterventionist principles held by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?


Contributed by Kurt Nimmo of Another Day in the Empire

Kurt Nimmo has blogged on political issues since 2002. In 2008, he worked as lead editor and writer at Infowars, and is currently a content producer for Newsbud.


SHARE:

Can We Just Leave Syria Alone?

By Ron Paul | RPI | September 3, 2018

Assad was supposed to be gone already. President Obama thought it would be just another “regime change” operation and perhaps Assad would end up like Saddam Hussein or Yanukovych. Or maybe even Gaddafi. But he was supposed to be gone. The US spent billions to get rid of him and even provided weapons and training to the kinds of radicals that attacked the United States on 9/11.

But with the help of his allies, Assad has nearly defeated this foreign-sponsored insurgency.

The US fought him every step of the way. Each time the Syrian military approached another occupied city or province, Washington and its obedient allies issued the usual warnings that Assad was not liberating territory but was actually seeking to kill more of his own people.

Remember Aleppo, where the US claimed Assad was planning mass slaughter once he regained control? As usual the neocons and the media were completely wrong. Even the UN has admitted that with Aleppo back in the hands of the Syrian government hundreds of thousands of Syrians have actually moved back. We are supposed to believe they willingly returned so that Assad could kill them?

The truth is Aleppo is being rebuilt. Christians celebrated Easter there this spring for the first time in years. There has been no slaughter once al-Qaeda and ISIS’ hold was broken. Believe me, if there was a slaughter we would have heard about it in the media!

So now, with the Syrian military and its allies prepare to liberate the final Syrian province of Idlib, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo again warns the Syrian government against re-taking its own territory. He Tweeted on Friday that: “The three million Syrians, who have already been forced out of their homes and are now in Idlib, will suffer from this aggression. Not good. The world is watching.”

President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has also warned the Syrian government that the US will attack if it uses gas in Idlib. Of course, that warning serves as an open invitation to rebels currently holding Idlib to set off another false flag and enjoy US air support.




Bolton and Pompeo are painting Idlib as a peaceful province resisting the violence of an Assad who they claim just enjoys killing his own people. But who controls Idlib province? President Trump’s own Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, Brett McGurk, said in Washington just last year that, “Idlib province is the largest al-Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11, tied to directly to Ayman al Zawahiri, this is a huge problem.”

Could someone please remind Pompeo and Bolton that al-Qaeda are the bad guys?

After six years of a foreign-backed regime-change operation in Syria, where hundreds of thousands have been killed and the country nearly fell into the hands of ISIS and al-Qaeda, the Syrian government is on the verge of victory. Assad is hardly a saint, but does anyone really think al-Qaeda and ISIS are preferable? After all, how many Syrians fled the country when Assad was in charge versus when the US-backed “rebels” started taking over?

Americans should be outraged that Pompeo and Bolton are defending al-Qaeda in Idlib. It’s time for the neocons to admit they lost. It is time to give Syria back to the Syrians. It is time to pull the US troops from Syria. It is time to just leave Syria alone!


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute


SHARE: