I am at war with my censors, and every platform ought to be warned; I take no prisoners!
I spoke to a friend yesterday, someone with a truly kind heart and a gorgeous nature. Because of how wonderful a human she is, everyone has taken and taken from her. I hear this story repeated over and over again. Still, as always with any sad story of a human hitting rock bottom, the only way is up. We are living through historic times, and we are all on our backsides looking for help.
We really need to stand up for each other again. We have to learn to trust each other again and become resistant to the use of trends as a mechanism to kettle us into battles we cannot win.
They are creating rational agents of the general population. They are programming us via paid influencers who become faux digital heroes for the masses. This is happening on every platform. The only response should be for us to become irrational actors. Individuals who unite under one goal: fight oppression. The oppression is happening in real time. I could go out to march against Digital IDs and try to become the face of a campaign which should have been waged 20 years ago, or I can fight oppression more effectively.
Those in charge don’t care if you protest. They won’t change course. They may give up a concession or two, but the digital panopticon they’ve already designed requires Digital IDs to work, and, even more pertinently, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION DO WHATEVER THEY’RE TOLD TO DO! Sorry to shout, but I find it all a little maddening.
If they had introduced Digital IDs at the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic, most of those who are marching against Digital IDs now would have consented. The reason for this: those who control the influencers control the world. Those who influence the influencers control politics, they control protest movements, they offset the consequences of genocidal holocausts, and they tell everyone what to think. It is as simple as that. We live in cultures where the majority rules, and that has been transferred ad hoc into the digital world. The social media companies decide who they want to rise, and in doing so, they also decide who to suppress and censor. Mao and Stalin must be laughing until they’re redder than the pits of hell in which they reside.
For me, the suppression of journalism has had real-world consequences. I’m an old-school investigative journalist. I love to find the information which the rich and powerful don’t want within the public arena. I live to scrutinise and analyse. It is what drives me every day. I wake up and I don’t even need to motivate myself; the question I need to ask is already there on the tip of my mind.
The Fight
I realised recently that I had been keeping evidence of my ongoing censorship for the past six years. The first interim injunction from a Berlin Regional Court was processed in late 2019. Since then, another four interim injunctions have been used as a tool to remove my articles from YouTube, Rumble, Vocal, Substack and probably other platforms, too. Each of these interim injunctions is supposed to lead to a court case for defamation; however, that hasn’t happened.
The woman who finds my journalism so dangerous is an Epstein associate named Nicole Junkermann. She is extremely wealthy, very powerful, and she clearly believes that the laws don’t apply to her. Of course, she might be right. After all, she met her husband, Count Brachetti Peretti, at the Gstaad Palace, and their child was baptised in the Vatican; it’s not like they can rationalise the life and times of regular folk. She is from a hyperconnected and influential elite who have friends in high places. One of Nicole Junkermann’s Legal Counsel at NJF Capital is Ben Avigdori, who is described on the company’s official website as the “ex-CEO of the Rothschild Foundation. He was Chief Advisor to the late Lord Jacob Rothschild from 2020-2024.” These are the big boys, for sure.
I have to fight for my right to be a journalist, and I intend to make a big impact.
Although my number one nemesis has revealed itself to me, the real enemy of journalism is the platform that bows to its demands, often illegally. For instance, Rumble did not receive a valid DMCA notice when it removed three of my Junkermann article readthroughs without informing me. The DMCA notice was unsigned; it came from an anonymous, supposed “Legal Representative of Nicole Junkermann” They did not supply evidence of copyright claims, they did not use the official legal terminology required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and they failed to inform me directly afterwards. Not only were my videos sanctioned for ten months, but when they returned them, no circumstances had actually changed. Rumble Video didn’t only throw their own policies and guidelines out the window for the benefit of a business associate of its initial investor, Peter Thiel, but it also disregarded its legal obligations. Both NJF Capital and Rumble Video appear to believe that they live by different rules than the rest of us. They’re not the only ones.
Initially, Substack appeared to perform a little better than Rumble Video; however, they have also fallen for the same basic legal pitfall. They didn’t bother to check if the accusations were valid. In Substack’s case, NJF Capital’s Michael A. Oakes had sent a detailed request to have four of my posts, a collection of articles and videos, removed for DMCA and defamation. Substack responded to the DMCA request rather than the defamation allegations—some platforms receive legal exemptions as long as they don’t act as a publisher/arbiter of truth. The DMCA rules mean that a valid request sees the content pulled down for 10-14 days and only reinstated if no legal action has been taken. But this should only occur if the DMCA Takedown Request is valid.
On this occasion, Nicole Junkermann’s representative supplied detailed allegations and a folder of images they claimed were in the articles. However, only one article had one of the offending images within, and it was a carefully cropped, transformative image allowed under Fair Use. Under the DMCA legislation, the Substack Team should have refused the false and vexatious attempts to censor public interest journalism. They should have verified the claims were correct and then acted. They should not have simply removed the content without investigation. The takedown was Substack bowing to SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) tactics, and that’s the biggest problem. Substack and Rumble Video both responded with knee-jerk reactions. They didn’t consider what was legally right or legally wrong; their first port of call was to yield to censorship.
YouTube have been the toughest nut to crack so far. Google’s video-sharing platform has been reinstating banned accounts recently, but the YouTube leopard never changes its spots. I currently have eight videos on YouTube geo-blocked because of Junkermann’s claims of defamation, yet I am given zero right to respond. YouTube has no response mechanism for false defamation claims. In fact, in the United States, YouTube don’t act on defamation at all. As mentioned earlier, if YouTube takes the role of an arbiter of truth, then it becomes a publisher under the law and can face legal consequences itself. I have been trapped in an email loop with YouTube’s inept legal team, who have totally ignored my many legal requests for all of my personal information, which they’ve processed. I have now written to them via snail mail, with a legal request for DATA. If YouTube continue to ignore its legal obligations, then I will complain officially to the entities in the US and UK. They included legal entities that have the power to fine YouTube up to 4% of its global turnover for ignoring DATA requests and its GDPR obligations.
The system is built to be complex. I also have to request my DATA from NJF Capital, the Berlin Regional Courts, and a few other related organisations. However, regardless of how difficult they make it, I am going to jump through every hoop required of me to get real change.
I will not be kettled into ill-fitting protest movements which are carefully controlled by the same influencers who are making millions from this system. To make the most impact, I have to do the unexpected; I have to fight the fights that no one else wants to fight. Why isn’t Tommy Robinson, David Icke, Russell Brand or their ilk litigating against the likes of YouTube or Rumble? There are two main reasons: they make money from these platforms, and they benefit the most from the status quo. It’s as simple as that. One of these guys should have already fought against those with all the power to censor; instead, they get paid at the end.
I need your help! I’m going full throttle, and it’s not easy. Taking a subscription out on Substack, becoming a Patreon, using Buy Me A Coffee, or KoFi are ways you can help me survive. I don’t want to destroy or boycott these platforms. I want to change them. I may be pissing in the wind; however, now and then the wind changes direction.
NEWSPASTE 