|
Sincerely,
The YouTube Team
The
really surprising thing about the message is that it comes after the video
had been up on YouTube for a little more than nine years with no such
restriction. Furthermore, from the
time we made the video right up until we received the notification, it
never occurred to us that there might be anything R-rated about it. You can watch it yourself (on Bitchute if you don’t
want to log in to YouTube) to see what might have moved the wise folks at
YouTube to decide that the video is unfit for anyone who is too young to
vote. I hardly think of myself as
the overly permissive sort, and I really don’t see anything in it that
should be kept away from the eyes of even elementary school children.
And
look at the things you can find on YouTube that aren’t age restricted. She’s
pleasant enough, but I really don’t think bouncy, lecherously filmed
Aicha
Sawaguchi makes suitable viewing for the
pre-pubescent crowd. Or consider
any one of a number of the videos of the bountiful Russian classical
pianist, Lola Astanova. I’m not suggesting, though, that YouTube
ought to slap age restrictions on those videos, as well, especially in the
case of the latter, when it might be what it takes to interest the
occasional young male in serious music.
Actually,
the comparison of ours with the Astanova video
might be the best one to make. Does
that which some might deem offensive for young eyes to see override the
importance of the message? I would
say clearly not in either case, but what does YouTube think there is in “At
What a Cost” that should be hidden from young eyes in the first place?
They
don’t say. They did say that I could
appeal their ruling, which I promptly did.
They just as quickly rejected the appeal, but still without offering
any explanation. One is left to
surmise their rationale by clicking on the “age restrictions.”
Doubtless
they want me to believe that the scenes of “violence” and “disturbing
imagery” are what moved the prim and proper folks at YouTube to make it
harder for people to view the video by making it necessary that they be
logged in before they can view it.
Questionable Motives
You
will have to excuse me for suspecting YouTube’s motives. This is the venue, after all, that has a
slash and burn policy toward anything that might run counter to what the
powers that be want us to think about the awful pandemic that is supposedly
ravaging the world. The examples are
legion, but one need look no further than my July 2020 article, “YouTube ‘Crucifies’ COVID-19
‘Savior’.” It’s pretty clear that for
some devious reason they are trying to steer as many people as possible
into needlessly taking experimental “vaccinations.”
YouTube
is also owned by Google. My June
2021 article was entitled “Google, Tool of the Deep State” for a
reason. There we saw that of the
various search engines, Google stood out in steering readers away from
important sensitive political topics.
Similarly, Breitbart News has found that
Google’s thumb on the Internet search scales has been heavy enough in favor
of the Left as to have had a major effect on the election.
An
indicator of what YouTube is up to with its new restrictions on “At What a
Cost” came shortly afterwards when my frequent video collaborator, Buelahman, informed me that he had received the same
notice for the video “We’re the USA.” (See it on Bitchute if you don’t
want to log in to YouTube.) Yes, it
also has scenes of violence and disturbing imagery, and it had also been up
a long time—in this case more than seven years—without any age
restrictions. More than anything,
though, what it has in common with “At What a Cost” is that it is very
strongly antiwar, and more specifically, it is strongly against American
criminal wars of aggression in the Middle East, wars predicated upon the
obvious false flag events of
9/11/2001.
Now
if your purpose is to convey a strong antiwar message, you can hardly
eschew scenes of blood and gore.
They are the most obvious results of warfare, although we too often
manage to suppress them from our minds when caught up in a tribal frenzy,
encouraged by those with a vested interest of one sort or another in the
orgy of death and destruction. What
we are most curious about is why, after all this time, the Deep State organ
of YouTube decided to put these age restrictions on these two videos.
We
might take a stab at an answer.
Perhaps too many young people have been wising up about our Middle
East misadventures and military recruitment is becoming increasingly
difficult. But what, you might ask,
should our rulers have to fear from a couple of videos that have only had,
respectively, 3,850 viewers in more than nine years and 619 viewers in more
than seven years?
All
I can say about that is that you have to be very gullible, indeed, to
believe those numbers. May I suggest
to you that only YouTube has the real numbers. Why would this corrupt, Deep State organ
share them with the public when, as Middle East war proponents, it is not
in their interest to do so? For a
further elaboration on this subject, see my May 2019 article, “YouTube’s Complete Corruption Revealed.”
In
summary, if one looks at these two now age-restricted videos from the
perspective of pursuit of the interests of the 14 to18-year-old group as
opposed to the interests of the Deep State, these videos really ought to be
required viewing rather than forbidden to them. Wouldn’t you prefer that your sons and
daughters know more about the nature of war rather than less?
David
Martin
September
16, 2021
|