New video: The Vision of Ezekiel -- and the sudden proliferation of "warning banners" on social media!

I've just published a new video entitled "The Vision of Ezekiel -- and the sudden proliferation of warning banners on social media!"

In it, I express my annoyance at the fact that YouTube has recently slapped a "warning banner" beneath my 2017 video which explores the evidence showing that the famous First Vision of Ezekiel (in Ezekiel chapters 1 and following) is not describing a literal event but rather setting forth a subtle and sophisticated description of the heavenly framework of the celestial mechanics underlying the motion of the stars and the visible heavenly bodies in our solar system including sun, moon and planets -- celestial mechanics which also form the foundation for the system of metaphor underlying the world's ancient myths (including those in the Bible).

That 2017 video, entitled "Astrotheology of the Vision of Ezekiel: Wheels within Wheels," now has a banner underneath it which reads: "FLAT EARTH: The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disc. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze . . . " 

That "Flat Earth" banner is itself linked to a Wikipedia article which spews a bunch of nonsense about ancient cultures around the globe and their purported belief in a Flat Earth, apparently holding Wikipedia up as an authority on the subject.

My 2017 video about the celestial foundations of the metaphorical Vision of Ezekiel has absolutely nothing to do with the Flat Earth distraction -- in fact, the video itself features animation (intended to help the viewer understand the celestial mechanics of the earth-sun relationship and the motion of the sun through the background of stars, along the ecliptic path) which clearly shows a spherical earth. 

Additionally, I am on record with blog posts dating back to 2015 in which I demonstrate abundant evidence which anyone can use to satisfy himself or herself that we are indeed standing upon a spherical planet and not upon a flat plane or disc -- see for example "The invisible kraken: Evidence that the earth is not flat."

In fact, as I have stated on more than one occasion, not only do I not believe in a "Flat Earth" but I am also not inclined to believe in "Flat Earthers" -- in other words, I have suspected from the beginning of the sudden appearance of the Flat Earth movement that the whole operation is a campaign designed to confuse people and to discredit (using guilt by association) other voices who are legitimately questioning conventional narratives about a host of important subjects, such as the official storyline surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001. 

Certainly at this point there are sincere individuals who have been tricked into adopting the Flat Earth arguments, but I suspect that the leaders of that Flat Earth campaign are for the most part not sincere and are playing a role as disinformation agents, which is a demonstrated tactic that can be shown to have been deliberately used in order to infiltrate and try to discredit legitimate movements of the people in previous decades.

By affixing this warning label entitled "Flat Earth" to my video, the helpful busybodies at YouTube (or their algorithms) imply that the content is associated with the Flat Earth disinformation campaign, thus discrediting it and discouraging visitors from watching my work.

More disturbing, however, is the larger pattern which has emerged just in recent weeks and months, in which such "warning labels" with links to "authoritative" websites propagating the party line are now popping up on all sorts of content posted by individuals to the various social media platforms, including but not limited to YouTube (owned by Google), Instagram (owned by Facebook), Twitter, and others. 

I myself have recently had a similar "warning banner" attached to an Instagram post announcing to those who might be interested the publication of my article, "Star Myths: Rediscovering Humanity's Deep History," in New Dawn Magazine issue 185.

Even worse, the same cast of social media companies are also now taking down content questioning important recent events, and they are doing so at a new aggressive pace which is different from previous years. 

My own video, which I made on 07 January 2021 (immediately following the disturbing events of 06 January 2021) examining some extremely suspicious aspects of the January 6th operation, was almost immediately removed from YouTube -- as if any questions about an extremely important event which had taken place not even 24 hours earlier are now forbidden, and the official storyline must be accepted without any critical examination. 

Interested viewers can still find that video which I made (follow this link to the blog post for links and discussion), but they cannot see it on YouTube, and it was subsequently removed in short order from other social media platforms on which I attempted to publish it including Vimeo and others. 

There is a reason why the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights declares its opposition to the abridgment of freedom of speech and associated freedom of the press -- rights which do not originate with the US Constitution itself but instead which are inherent to all men and women everywhere and which cannot be legitimately denied or destroyed. 

The recent increase of censorship across social media platforms thus marks a very disturbing trend which should alarm men and women of good conscience everywhere. Apologists for censorship always chime in when such alarms are sounded to point out that companies such as Google or Twitter or Facebook (and its subsidiary Instagram) or Vimeo are all private corporations, and that because of this fact the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution have no authority over their decisions of what to publish and what to censor -- but this is a false and flawed argument.

First of all, private entities are not entitled to violate human rights simply by virtue of the fact that they are private corporations and not governments. Private restaurants cannot refuse to serve patrons based on race or ethnicity or religion, for example.

Beyond that argument, however, companies which can legitimately be viewed as part of a "free press," a category which is absolutely essential for the expression of ideas and issues within a free society, are explicitly covered by the First Amendment, and their operation cannot be infringed upon by organized suppression of discourse, including by government agencies. 

It should be obvious to any observer that the sudden recent campaigns to suppress all discussion of issues surrounding important topics such as the January 6th event or the safety and advisability of the experimental emergency-use biologics which are being given the label of "vaccines" even though they are themselves fundamentally different in operation and intent than anything which has previously been called a vaccine, cannot be the product of independent decisions by all the various social media companies acting on their own without co-ordination. 

The subject is even more pressing because the older and more established media outlets such as the major newspapers and television studios already speak with the same voice on most subjects, making the newer social media platforms important outlets for the expression of critical thought and analysis which calls the conventional narrative into question. Thus, the recent proliferation of "warning banners" -- as well as the sudden ramping up of outright censorship and de-platforming of dissenting voices -- across numerous popular social media platforms is all the more disturbing.

Readers should be aware that as important a voice as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was recently completely censored by Instagram, which terminated his account in February of 2021 without prior warning. See this article published in Global Research on 11 Februaryfor more about that egregious act of censorship and "de-platforming."

Who is behind this recent amplification of censorship and crackdown on dissenting opinions? 

This subject is something about which we should all be deeply concerned, not to mention outraged -- and we should demand that these abridgments of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press be addressed and corrected immediately.