STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
YouTube Stockholm Syndrome – While the UN Takes Over
By Daily Bell Staff - September 06, 2016

YouTube says the demonetization is the result of changes to its notification system, and not a reflection of changes in its policies, it’s unclear why DeFranco and other vloggers are just getting flagged on content now even though many of them have been posting similar videos to YouTube for years. DeFranco and his supporters worry the move could have implications for all YouTube creators. -Vox

Some prominent YouTubers seem to be changing their minds about YouTube’s “new” policy to demonetize various videos.

We’ve viewed some of the material posted over the weekend or Monday and Tuesday and we are reminded of prisoners who contract Stockholm Syndrome – a condition that impels them to justify even the most unreasonable abuses of their captors.

On the other hand, we detect a level of shock from YouTube execs as well. After emphasizing this past week that videos containing obscenities, have sexual references or are  “controversial” are subject to demonization, it seems they were not quite prepared for the backlash.

And now, perhaps, has come the response. Notably, various prominent YouTubers seem suddenly to be making videos that minimize the impact of the current YouTube policy and claim that people can appeal demonization with considerable success. It’s not clear if they are speaking on behalf of YouTube or extemporaneously – perhaps a combination of both.

We learn, for instance, that YouTube’s recent moves at censorship are purely business motivated. Advertisers don’t want to be placed near obscene, violent or controversial material.

This latter point doesn’t make much sense however since YouTube has been accepting advertising for years without seeming conflict or complaints.

It seems obvious to us that the recent YouTube moves are intended to damp “controversial” commentary.

We certainly can understand alternative explanations but none of them seem especially logical to  us, nor do the explain the timing of the announcement.

As we suggested yesterday (here) in our article “YouTube Is Not Private and Its Censorship Is Government Policy,” the sudden concern with content may have more to do with priorities such as Hillary’s reelection campaign than advertisers.

Apparently, Hillary had a significant meeting with top YouTube execs not long ago and YouTube’s sudden proclamations may have as their goal a considerable diminution of “alternative media” commentaries about the election – as well as Hillary’s health, polls and policies.

As we have covered dominant social themes on a regular basis for some 15-plus years now, we believe we can recognize thematic elements when we see them.

What are other evidences of concerted propaganda? Hillary has spoken out recently about the excesses of the alternative media and Trump has begun railing – oddly enough – about the Internet as well.

For Trump, especially, his stance regarding ‘Net censorship seems odd as much of the reputable alt.media remains at least quasi-libertarian and apt to view Donald more sympathetically than Hillary.

And there is this: YouTube’s moves come less than a month before Barack Obama intends to hand control of the Internet over to an international body such as the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

This further confirms our perspective that we are faced not with disparate, censoring events but with a cohesive program of propaganda – an organized, thematic surge.

These are huge programs to put together and the elites running them often seem to trigger political, media, economic and even military elements, so they “fire” all at once.

Prominent vloggers on the ‘Net may feel more optimistic about their captors’ intentions today but we are inclined to believe – as stated at the beginning of the article – this is a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

It seems to us that a cohesive new attack has been launched against the alternative media.

Certain profound truths have emerged as millions of “citizen journalists” comment on websites and in feedbacks about the serial untruths of the status quo – and increasingly elite controllers find such commentaries impossible to combat and equally impossible to ignore.

We don’t anticipate that the Internet commentary will simply be shut down – certainly not in the US for Constitutional reasons – but increasingly, a series manipulative justifications will be launched to damp alternative commentary.

Conclusion: If Obama is successful at handing over the Internet to the UN, it is likely that international third-party elements – dictators and the like – will create considerable pressure to lower the ‘Net’s decibel level and not-so-coincidentally a portion of its of  its truth-telling. We wish we could agree with the more optimistic “day-after” pronouncements of prominent Vloggers, but it could be they are putting the best light on a bad situation.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Rothbard

    The Internet won’t end – we’re always going to have CIA-backed data gathering services (e.g., Facebook). However, the free Internet will come to an end as our slave owners can’t handle too many of their lies being exposed. No one can go on YouTube and check out a recent shooting without also seeing a dozen videos pop-up revealing crisis actors and other fakery involved. All it takes is one click for someone to see the fakery with their own eyes. It used to be only a handful of us who questioned these things – now there are tens of thousands if not millions. They have to put an end to it or their scams will fall apart.

    • Too late?

      • natural human

        Unfortunately, no. It’s not too late. Most people are still vying for a role in Idiocracy The Reality Show now playing at malls and schools and .gov offices near you. If you believe there is real evidence the tiny number of “elite” are actually on the run I would love to see it. Because every time I have the opportunity to explain to a stranger why folks should be concerned I get the same blank stare or derisive Left/Right retort.

        • Simple logic, Yin and yang. No trend continues unobstructed forever. One only needs to read the alternative ‘Net media to see how much is known and how many are sharing their knowledge. Most revolutions, intellectual and otherwise, are pursued by small numbers of people. Not many, for instance, initially supported the American Revolution.

          • Lynn Carroll

            This is so true. I think it was only 10% who were actively involved in actually fighting the war of Independence. England only gave up the fight because it could no longer finance it without their citizens raising hell. Today, we also have only a small minority who are actually involved in trying to take back our way of life. However, it’s is totally different scenario since the majority who are trying to strip us of our rights and liberty are also in charge of the finances.

    • Lynn Carroll

      I agree one thousand percent (if there is such a thing as 1000%). Hillary is finding out the hard way that the internet is open to everyone and anyone who has the brains and initiative to explore it. The government HAS to find a way to restrict its access to the public if it expects to continue flim-flaming the public.

  • Me Again

    Well it seems to me that if your prognostications are correct, the internet reformation is over….

  • Praetor

    The U.N.! Let them try!

    Technology is here to stay. To stop communication they most stop technology, and in the process stop themselves. Only the already brainwashed would be listening.

    Wireless is radio communication, all you need is a transceiver. Radio data has been around, well since the first radio. In 1971 Alohanet was transmitting and receiving metadata, by radio. Wisconsin public radio says, the metadata we are sending includes static and dynamic information. Humans will find a way.

    It comes down to this. The Borg (elites) say, you will be assimilated or else. The Federation (We The People) say, resistance is NOT futile. They loose, no matter what they do!!!

  • deanharrington

    “If Obama is successful at handing over the Internet to the UN, it is
    likely that international third-party elements – dictators and the like –
    will create considerable pressure to lower the ‘Net’s decibel level and
    not-so-coincidentally a portion of its of its truth-telling.”
    The move on the part of government officials to control content on YouTube and other social media platforms plus, Obama’s move to put ICANN under the control of the UN will be followed by Obama’s move or possibly Hillary’s move to turn American security over to the UN as well. Since SOPA was turned down … this is the alternative move by the elite to shut down information flows on the NET. The UN cannot be trust period … it’s simply a tool of a corrupt elite.

  • georgesilver

    Control only really works for the small group of ‘elite’ as long as it is hidden. As soon as people start realising they are being controlled it has less and less effect.
    It only needs a small fraction of the 7 Billion people to wake up and then control by a few hundred is impossible. I have always had a suspicion that Orwell’s 1984 was a propaganda piece to indoctrinate the masses into believing that they will eventually have to submit to authoritarian control. Ants will always find a way around an obstacle.

    • It is easy to follow when others do your will for you and then hate it when they dont. The phrase ‘people are being controlled’ is a shortcut with emphasis on one side of an equation. For have we not a capacity for choice as to what we accept or believe true?

      Are YOU being controlled? Can I accept what you say as ‘true’ – or is it operating a hidden agenda? Well I don’t mean that as a challenge to you – but as an example. I can get a feel for where you are coming from without prejudging against you. But most communications have an alloy of signal and noise – and many prefer the noise in which a hidden sense of self can operate more comfortably.

      I see willingness at work through a currency of hidden self-deceit. Why do we (generally) accept the devil we know? Is it not in contrast to a greater fear? Is that not where we need to be curious?

      Orwell’s book did not insist that people used it to feed their despair. But it did paint a picture of futility that was as open to serve a waking up as to submit to lies – and so enquire with a deeper honesty and persistence as to what is true. But who will seek truth while their illusions are comfortable for them – and who finds the willingness when their discomforts are upon them and triggering conditioned reaction – excepting just enough to get asap back out to play.

      What we tend to DO with any information will be more of what we were already doing. That is if we are already cynical – we will fit it into a cynical or loveless self-justification. And if we are set in vendetta then it will be ammunition or armour for our cause and etc. That is how ‘control’ works, through an unwatched mind.

      But if something disturbs or simply shifts us from the framework of our habitual mind – we have an opportunity to use that break in continuity to open and live out from a perspective of a more integrated sense of self and world. I say ‘we’ but it is an individual freedom that discovers itself in relationship.

      The control that political discussion likes to assign to ‘others’ is not different in principle to what operates in place of our own mind – and that we do have direct responsibility for. For as we accept true – so will we perceive and therefore react – and the onus of that is that your freedom is in your conscious acceptance as to how you are using your mind – and indeed how you define yourself and your mind thereby.

      Willingness will find a way where wilfulness meets opposition, entrapment in polarised conflict and identity in hate.

      7 Billion wake up… to what? A sickening lie from which to seed a new era in blindly righteous hate? Is that waking up? Waking to a negative or sick state is only the first step. If we collectively open to being ‘controlled’ is it not from our fixation in the dynamic of conflict as if IT were the saviour or the means to deliver a true outcome, rather than the device to keep us in the dark. I am not saying that force is never appropriate to standing in defence of integrity. Saying no to dis-integrity in whatever way works. But why give hate the trigger if you know you have a choice.

      I like your line that control – in its coercive sense – only works as an elitism – operating in the dark. But I feel the intra-personal is absolutely vital to recognize – for without recognizing our own – we merely hate our projected shadow – and DO we hate our denied self – just look see! But no one wants to look there – and our mind and world are made to work against looking there – but our mind and world are in any case no longer operating as a very reliable means to hide in. The breakdown of control is fearful because we mask to protect against hate, pain, loss, powerlessness, shame etc etc… as well as to manipulate others through. <>.

      So I see the ‘genie coming out of the bottle’ – with little outward sign of grounded balanced consciousness with which to recognize and embrace the creative opportunity that it is. Who am I and what do I really want?

      Perhaps because a world of ‘private controllers’ seeks to keep the Creative bottled up by warring itself to keep a mind of confusion in which to stay hidden from a ‘game over’ reset on the illusion of controlling Life?

      The Creative may at first appear destructive to any unwillingness for change. How much of our perception is filtering through fearful and distorting interpretation? Is that a reliable source of true information?
      Is our mind our friend? Who watches the mind and feels the truth of it?
      You do – but then you are not your mind as your mind defines you.

      If we do NOT create our self then our mis-perceptions will never be true and cannot ever become true and so the attempt to make them true will sooner or later give way to a willingness to heal or undo a futility. It seems that what works is left after everything that cannot work has been tried and failed. But the important thing is to focus in what works. I find that seeing life in terms of a loveless or evil controlling power denies the moment at hand – the Presence of Life as it is being now. The drama is narrative reality and not direct experience. Letting the story-mind disconnect you form your life is a choice.

      • Lynn Carroll

        WOW, that was quite a lecture! From it I get this: We are all living in our “comfort zone.” We are none of us willing to get out of our “comfort zone” until we decide to sacrifice something that we cherish … our “comfort zone.” I believe that the usurpers of the America we once cherished know this and are taking full advantage of the fact that most people are not going to move out of their zone.
        In sports, the real winners realize that they have been living in a “comfort zone” and will never be a successful athlete until they move out of that loser’s zone of comfort.

        • To some degree yes, through the lens of your current self-definitions that are the judgement-beliefs operating as your comfort zone.
          A majority comfort zone beief is that sacrificing who you really are in favour of who societal conditioning and society itself accepts and respects (or at least doesn’t reject and persecute).
          Or that deliberately inciting division and indeed psyops to undermine the current comfort zone mind break it open to being supplied with a more insidious or simply brutal controlling narrative.
          Sacrificing what is not true of you is not loss – or sacrifice – but a blessed release. However at first a part of the mind will try to STOP you (fear) and pull you back into the false comfort of the lie (guilt) perhaps by diverting your powerlessness, shame and sense of being denied (rage) to point at a false-flagged or handy scapegoat that then gives a confort zone of being aligned in ‘righteousness’ against those bastards!

          Reclaiming the capacity to watch or notice one’s own thoughts, emotional reaction and physical signs of such reaction, ‘sacrifices’ the assertion and freedom of the illusion of control – or of creating and asserting your own reality (and wars and pains thereof).

          The joy of running is a basis to run and focussing wholly in joy accesses qualities and ability of a higher order.
          The definition of joy in winning sacrifices joy by setting AGAINST the fear or indeed hatred of failure.
          If your joy in running lives through you to be the winner – the joy is the same joy and not a passing orgasm that is then followed by a trough.
          The whole basis of “WAR ON ” is a false basis to suck and exploit and evaporate energy or life in the focusing in and on the negative as the basis of one’s power and authority.

          Stretching our comfort zones and meeting challenges is remaining involved, curious and open to learning and change in our lives. True definition of comfort is not the insulation and protection of an ego-narrative substitution for life – but a focused in clear and freely accepted purpose in which we are wholly present. ANY intrusion upon this then shows up as dissonant. The reversal of this is the imposition of a forced narrative to which any questioning or difference is seen or felt to be ‘dissonant’ with accepted or societal reality demand.

          Going for what you truly want is not sacrificial if you truly want it. A divided self wants different and competing things and whichever part ‘wins’ creates a sense of denial and rejection in the other that keeps the ‘dynamic’ of conflict going. If we truly knew what we wanted we would not need to force an outcome and then justify or apologize (rationalize) for it. It comes naturally. Indeed we would be open to what we truly want without insisting that it must come in a certain way and then confusing the terms with our truth.
          The loser that I see is the subjugation to a compulsive drive to be the winner or meet invalidation. Who lives by the sword dies by the sword – ie: what you want over others will be what you judge others using over you.
          Maybe success is not winning over others so much as holding focus through all kinds of inner and outer obstacles or of temptation to give up, to truly be and know the movement of Life being you. Your ‘opponents then are serving you – in fact everything is serving you because the purpose you are aligning in is single and not divided or at war with itself.
          One can also bring this insight to washing dishes. Unconflicted appreciation does not have to have heroic drama to be truly lived and shared.
          To focus the fear-driven thing in winning the light may have its Promethean moment of glory – and then there’s the underside to that story that flips you – which is not a description of any kind of comfort zone.

    • Yes, thanks. Surely he worked for “them.” We’ve written that, too.

    • Lynn Carroll

      Actually, Orwell was a bellwether who was trying to alert the sleeping millions of Americans to what was happening. Most of them were, and are still, too dense to figure out his message.

  • john d

    it is inconvenient for criminals like the Clintons to have negative commentary circling the globe continuously. in order to operate an empire for profit it is not helpful to have that transparency thing going on. we see how nobel laureate Edward snowden and Assange are treated for exposing the crimes committed against all of us by the ruling elite. the good news is that in god’s economy evil will not prevail.

    • Delbert Lloyd

      He won’t win but he will turn lose evil that we can’t even imagine before our Lord puts an end to it.

      • Lynn Carroll

        Don’t you meant “She” won’t win but will turn lose evil that we can’t even imagine . . . ?

    • Lynn Carroll

      Isn’t it interesting how those who throw the light upon the cockroaches making them scatter, are treated as if they are the guilty ones?

  • Who owns or has effective control over those who own the infrastructure and software interface gateways of the Net?
    If acts of terror assert power to control – along with assertion of official narrative – will netizens behave any differently to any other population?
    Are the means to control or deny already in place? Technology has ways of dishing out personalized ‘results’ – of presenting filtered distortions to block and undermine communication deemed threat, and translate or redefine it as support for its narrative control.

    Virtual reality can be micro-managed with AI. All seeming to ‘share’ a world and yet actually all being fragmented from the intimacy of sharing so as to operate the illusion of sharing within which a private agenda runs un-challenged because the desire is for the narrative to be ‘real’ – and the apparent conflicts about it run as the device for hiding the inner denial or blocking of Intimacy or honesty – that must be substituted for and diverted away from for the game of power within limitation to play.

    As I see it – the ‘wild frontier’ of potential for expansion and exploration of possibility is imprinted with or conformed to the same fences and defences that characterize the dominant consciousness model; possession and control, reinforcement and defence – around a sense of separate self, mind or power that acts upon and seeks to unify a sense of conflicting self under a narrative of control.

    Our technology extends and externalizes aspects of our mind – our consciousness – and in the illusion of power we identify it as power, while we are effectively sacrificing the true power of Life that is a truly aligned recognition and extension of wholeness – and not an exclusive identification in a sense of the coercive, manipulative, defensive and combative.

    But technology or indeed any ability, talent or system, is not fixed in a built in purpose, but is serving the purpose you use it for. Using everything for the purpose of restoring and appreciating communication in the most expansive sense of the term, is a reversal of the purpose of blocking or denying and controlling the Communication of Life so as to have the experience of ‘MY will be done” in the sense of a segregative and private or secret ‘mind’ (split into levels of conscious mask or narrative presentation, unconscious or hidden and denied thought and feeling etc).

    The experience of dissonance and disconnect is in itself a symptom by which to recognize an out of alignment with true – and correct it. But the desire to persist makes a narrative of opposition and justified reaction by which to seem a victim of the Other upon which identity-assertion a self is raised against them – as a struggle with Otherness upon which you secretly depend for a sense of separate-self-power.

    Where two or more are gathered in mutually reinforcing shadow play – there is the shadow ‘made real’ for them.

    In computing software code runs instructions upon and through a hardware matrix that can itself operate as a virtual hardware interface that software coded for a different hardware matrix can run within. IE: An old PPC chip Mac could run as an Intel PC via software emulation. But a significant amount of ‘tax’ is inherent to run the hardware emulation – limiting the power to operate the non-native software or being unable to function effectively.

    Interface through which to communicate and experience through bodies is already an externalisation of an inner movement of desire – a Movement of Life – and exclusive identification with body operates a possessive, segregative, private, defensive, controlling mind that becomes conditioned by and adapted to, its (focus in its) environment.

    The fragmentation in dissociation of consciousness sees itself as…
    …read more if you want at:
    http://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/net-freedom-or-netted-control.html

    • Lynn Carroll

      I don’t worry about netizons, they are the quiet, closeted people who dare only to speak from a platform of anonymity, and most of them are afraid of their own shadow.

      • Yes – don’t worry – period!
        No need to resort to put-downs to have faith in self, life and world!

        What the judgement of self-concept rejects or refuses to accept IS our own shadow; the ‘unconscious’ that we think is out of mind but is no less active as a sense of dissonance, denial and conflicted self that blocks awareness of Cause or Authorship – leading to uncertainty and presumption of anonymous creation – a platform from which the delusion of self-creation seems meaningful – is projected onto everyone else, who then fights them for authorship.
        What you believe you have taken must you believe will be taken from you.

  • Sven

    The more they push in one direction, the more something else gives elsewhere.

    • Lynn Carroll

      So what does that have to do with anything? You are only stating the obvious and that does nothing to solve the problem of liberalism that desires nothing more than a gradual and total control of all of our lives. Obviously, you have never had to do without freedom or liberty yet. But it’s only a matter of time. Never having yet experienced it, you don’t miss it. Keep voting for liberal clowns like Clinton and Pence and it won’t be long before you experience what the lack of liberty and freedom really means.

  • Gladstone

    demonization: (noun form of) to turn into a demon or make demonlike
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/demonization?

    demonetization: to divest {(noun form of)}(a monetary standard or the like) of value. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/demonetization?

  • Samarami

    “…we are faced not with disparate, censoring
    events but with a cohesive program of propaganda
    – an organized, thematic surge…”

    No disagreement, except I’m convinced that the “organized, thematic surge” began much further back in history than most of us are prone to want to grasp. “Stockholm Syndrome”, for instance, is a term for what is supposed to have been recognized and named after a rather uneventful robbery/hostage event in Sweden in 1973, involving merely a few “victims”. And, indeed, the name did originate with that event. But the “syndrome” had been recognized as a gambit in the science of rulership long before the building of the Mongol empire. Genghis and previous khans understood that natural human complex long before a few psychologists created the meme in 1973 — that the syndrome only referred to a handful of hostages.

    It points to us all. Correct that. I can’t speak for you or anybody other than me. It points to me and my nature. Deep down I crave to be “…led in the path of righteousness…”

    This strays somewhat from the topic, but it’s exactly why I had to come to see why I should abstain from beans only a little more than 50 years ago, when I could have seen that during the previous 32 years.

    We have to live and we have to learn. The internet reformation is bringing many more individuals along in the learning side of life.

    This November will be interesting — not because of who “wins” (whatever that might mean to you), but just what percentage of the serfdom will wake up and cease participation in the system that enslaves them. I don’t know if there will be any reliable figures, but it seems the consensus that 60% of “eligible voters” historically participate in that system during “presidential election years”. I won’t be one of them. Sam

    • Lynn Carroll

      Hey Sam, you remind me of the “dropout” generation of the 70’s. If you won’t vote to keep America strong, then why do you want you want to live in a country that will be run by those who hate America? If you don’t vote, you are giving in to the “enslavers” who have already chained more than half of America in the velvet chains of welfare. Wake up America!!!

      • Samarami

        In order for me to remain free I must be myself — an individual. “America” is a brainless abstraction — an utterance of collectivism. I am not collectivist.

        I do not “hate” you — or anyone around me that I know of. I try not to “hate” anybody.

        As to voting, I like the way my friend, Mark Davis, phrased it:

        When you go into the voting booth,
        the only meaningful significance
        that your action will have
        is to show that one more person
        supports the state.

        ~Mark Davis

        From Be Free, by Mark Davis July 10, 2005.

        http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis_m/davis1.html

  • Bluebird

    I am not at all optimistic about the future of anything on the internet. For some years now I have used Startpage as my home page. In case some may not know of it, it does not record your IP address. It says you are logging in from different surrounding areas. One day I opened my browser and got a message it would no longer be allowed and was given the option to use Google as my search engine or continue with the search engine.
    Keeping Startpage lead to other problems. I use Facebook to connect to family and close friends. Only about 40 contacts. After sharing or “liking” a few articles from the Daily Bell, LRC, and The Rutherford Institute, I was blocked from posting. After inquiring why, it was because my computer had malware and they needed to protect my friends. Later I was told I liked and shared too many things that people found offensive. Then they started asking if it was me every time I signed on and it gave a different location. After changing browsers, still blocked and now get a standard “Thank you for your feedback. We will use it to improve our newsfeed” reply. Move along…
    Will one day we search for Daily Bell and other alt news pages only to find they are not to be found? I think so. This will spread; nothing moves backwards. You will read what you are force fed or stay in the dark. Total control of what you hear has happened in other places. With the UN taking control, it will likely become worldwide very soon. It will be lonely for those who don’t believe….

loading