Who Is In Charge of Long-term U.S. Foreign Policy

That is a problem for the United States. Each President can generally set his or her own parameters that sometimes contradict those foreign relations that went before. Occasionally a President may establish a new policy direction such as Richard M. Nixon did in opening up Chinese relations, that persists for several generations. A President may be a trail breaking sled dog behind which the other dogs temporally follow. The dogsled may have no driver, or it could be a hidden groupthink.

For example G.W. Bush normalized relations with Libya, President Obama decided to support rebellion and destruction of the Libyan government, and today there is chaos of a sort in Libya.

While Presidents inherit some traditional relationships such as the Cold War or the trouble with North Korea, sometimes they choose to realistically change the criterion.

Because of the Iranian problems and the wounded pride of the embassy capture U.S. Presidents have selected adversity with Iran rather than something else. President Obama though, briefly tried to change or move toward normal relations with Iran. Some speculate that he was really born in a Muslim nation- Indonesia, and his Hawaiian birth paper was fudged by a friendly doctor there in an era when it was possible to do so. Growing up in Indonesia until age seven when he moved to Hawaii may have made him too sympathetic to Muslims and antipathetic to Christian interests as well as Jewish. So he signed a kind of treaty with Iran that President Trump has repudiated because it would let Iran have too good a chance to develop the infrastructure of nuclear weapons and missiles eventually, legally (meaning with U.S. acquiescence).

Conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones and Prison Planet have speculated about secret long-term formation of U.S. foreign policy that would accomplish the objectives of elite, hidden groups. It is more difficult to access Alex Jones video now because Facebook, YouTube and Apple Pod-casts have banned and deleted his work.

In some respects the lack of solid long-term planning is a strength because it would in theory enable more responsive U.S. leadership to create good foreign policy yet of course it doesn’t work out that way. An example is the project of ending the Cold War without nuclear holocaust. Ronald Reagan envisioned complete nuclear disarmament and did everything he could to realistically move toward that and normal relations with Russia. Gorbachev and Soviet leadership were moving toward normalization to, in stages, and Yeltsin accelerated that.

The Clinton administration working with Russia befitted the rich too far in wresting integral parts of Russia away. The Crimea and Ukraine were lost and formed the basis of a bilateral schism after the end of the Cold War to slowly build its renewal. President Trump sought to move toward more normal relations yet the Democrat Party has done everything they can to move the world toward the hair-trigger of Mutually Assured Destruction and total Cold War again. They hate Vladimir Putin. Hating Russia is a kind of new American tradition that reveals the lack of reasoning concerning what good foreign policy is, or how it should be made.

My best explanation is that a secret group of elitists do desire to annex Russia and Siberia because of its vast natural resources, so U.S. foreign policy will need to be in line with that principle. Finally then it could be said that the capital interests of global plutonomy control much yet not all of U.S. foreign policy.

Where Scientists Will Be in a Century (on Earth)

James Lovelock; inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, predicted in his book The Vanishing Face of Gaia; The Final Warning, that most of the world would be desertified within 200 years. Even Scandinavia may become a barren wasteland and just a few cool spots remain. So within a century Russia or Greenland may be where the world’s scientists congregate.

High Arctic regions of Russia above the rising sea level that will flood much of the Siberian lowlands may be some of the best places to beat the heat. When Greenland stops flooding from ice-sheet meltdown remaining valleys in the mountain shadows will look cool, and not evil to scientific researchers.

Alternatively society may change its structure and homosexuals will congregate in their own nations-maybe Europe, while hetero scientists attracted to Chinese women will move to China from the U.S.A. seeking la femme. Chinese scientists may move to San Francisco and the left coast when it is vacated from homos moving abroad. Harvard and Yale may move too, perhaps to a frontier city in the Hamalayas where some coolness persists in summer.

An alt-right scenario is that scientists will seek out a small country with zero taxes and easy citizenship for an exclusive to the rich and scientists tax haven with desirable waterfront properties, fully stocked refrigerators and golf courses, good mobile robotic defense force etc. A nation to keep an eye on for that is Iceland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Vip-PbuZQ the Final Warning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAHZTDQOj2I Too Late to Fix the Earth

It isn't Necessary to Import People to Improve Economy

Researchers say there are three or four true geniuses per million people. That stat applies universally, though some geniuses in poorer countries and those with repressive or corrupt governments may waste a lot of their time in defense or find unsupported health that retards development. The United States can do fine without immigrants; it already has more than 320 million people and the environment suffers with more. The few geniuses that might be lost without immigration to become U.S. citizens could discover the telephone or internet and communicate with people that way.

A better way to advance economics nationally and globally would be to reform the patent legal criterion such that a patent’s exclusivity is limited to three years. After that the inventor-patent owner would get 10% royalties for his or her invention when others produce it.

Without ecospheric economics social sustainability is itself endangered. Present global economic policy is mal-adapted to social sustainability for a number of reasons. Geniuses working to transform global economics into a reformed capitalism with sustainability, liberty and justice for all can do so regardless of citizenship. As President Kennedy said; when the tide comes in, all the ships in the harbor rise

The United States has imported a lot of foreign geniuses, yet if native birthed geniuses were all there was, and they didn’t shift allegiance, except where they would be trimmed by poverty growing up or living as in developing countries where the best chances for expressing genius may be elsewhere than in the native country, the U.S.A. might have fewer geniuses than China or India. It is possible that India’s poverty and China’s political system repress genius somewhat.

The idea about shortening the time for patent exclusivity and just giving royalties to patent holders after three years when anyone with capital could produce the idea is that it would stimulate the economy and get patents to market much faster. Inventors with patents would not be short changed at all. It would for example get generic drugs to the sick at much lower cost quicker, yet still return as much or more than the patenter would have earned by selling the product for-himself. Supply would be greater and demand would be more quickly satisfied.

Alex Jones Infowars Was Mueller's Primary Critic

Alex Jones and Infowars was a prime critic of the Mueller investigation. Now that YouTube has removed all of his videos that element is suddenly absent from the Internet. Jones had innumerable interesting angles and ideas concerning deep state perfidy that were silenced and deleted. Roger Stone was on the Infowars broadcast several times as a contributor; now he is a focus of the Mueller investigation. The public in the midst of a critical point in contemporary history had one side of the square of opposition erased, That wasn't good.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/11/alex-jones-claims-hes-being-silenced-as-bans-push-him-to-alternate-platforms

Don't Send U.S. No Stinking Best or Brightest

Researchers say there are three or four true geniuses per million people. That stat applies universally, though some geniuses in poorer countries and those with repressive or corrupt governments may waste a lot of their time in defense or find unsupported health that retards development. The United States can do fine without immigrants; it already has more than 320 million people and the environment suffers with more. The few geniuses that might be lost without immigration to become U.S. citizens could discover the telephone or internet and communicate with people that way.

A better way to advance economics nationally and globally would be to reform the patent legal criterion such that a patent’s exclusivity is limited to three years. After that the inventor-patent owner would get 10% royalties for his or her invention when others produce it.

Without ecospheric economics social sustainability is itself endangered. Present global economic policy is mal-adapted to social sustainability for a number of reasons. Geniuses working to transform global economics into a reformed capitalism with sustainability, liberty and justice for all can do so regardless of citizenship. As President Kennedy said; when the tide comes in, all the ships in the harbor rise

The United States has imported a lot of foreign geniuses, yet if native birthed geniuses were all there was, and they didn’t shift allegiance, except where they would be trimmed by poverty growing up or living as in developing countries where the best chances for expressing genius may be elsewhere than in the native country, the U.S.A. might have fewer geniuses than China or India. It is possible that India’s poverty and China’s political system repress genius somewhat.

The idea about shortening the time for patent exclusivity and just giving royalties to patent holders after three years when anyone with capital could produce the idea is that it would stimulate the economy and get patents to market much faster. Inventors with patents would not be short changed at all. It would for example get generic drugs to the sick at much lower cost quicker, yet still return as much or more than the patenter would have earned by selling the product for-himself. Supply would be greater and demand would be more quickly satisfied.

Fake Approval Rating or Good One?

Some report that Donald Jr posted a fake approval rating for the President.

https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-jr-photoshopped-screencap-instagram-trump-approval-a6053e82a66f/

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/401232-trump-jr-shares-fake-trump-approval-rating-on-instagram

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/08/10/trumps-approval-hits-50-percent-in-a-doctored-poll-graphic-shared-by-his-son/?utm_term=.31cefac84ff9

The Washington Post and the site above report that Don Jr inflated the approval rating 10 points. Instead of 50% its 40%. Yet the Gallup Poll reports 45% making the WP's article a half truth.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx

I read somewhere that one poll reported a 49% approval rating and that makes the WP report 90% fake.

Newsweek reported on a Rasmussen poll that showed (Aug. 2nd) the rating is 50%. That is what Donald Jr. said it was, and that makes the WP article 100% false.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-approval-rating-obama-higher-1054927

Even so; here is a line graph (an economical bar chart) that shows the approval rating for the President from some subjective opinion poll that I made with an online chart maker..

MSN and Alt-Right Gab

Social media giants have recently been targeting supporters of Donald Trump and conservatives flr not using toady speech. MSN threatened to take down and alt-right site named GAB for letting a poster write something NAZI replicant about liquidating Jews. Because inciting violence in certain contexts is illegal MSN had little choice about pulling thr plug on GAB if it allowed such violations of law to occur.

That is reasonable enough. The Internet is not a sanctuary for crimes. Taking down Alex Jones web sites for breaking the fine print in corporate policy for users is something else. They allow content to go on sometimes for years then take it down when it will do the most damage. Hate speech is a subjective term. When certain language is merely incidental and the natural vernacular that occurs in the English language it is a hard thing to deny someone free speech. Not even the Obama administration would be seeking to prosecute posters for using words like fag, queer, scum or whatever in a politically disapprobative paradigm in regard to hiomosexual marriage laws or whatever.

The Internet giants and the Apple corporation have taken web page down for the language because their leadership is sometimes queer, and they descry pejorative appellations applicable for-themselves. Some of the majors should rethink their use of lawful language they have classified subjectively as hate speech. Big queer brothers as minders do crimp civil liberties, and that may be their intent.

The Future if China Wins the Trade War

If China wins the trade war they will build a great brick block wall on the Mexican border. Mexican restaurants will start selling Chinese pork fired rice all over America. A tofu salesman that corners the soy futures market will become a vassal President of Beijing as a puppet. The United States will not be great again. Democrats will be promoted in proportion to their willingness to wear Mao suits and quote from the little red book.

In the United States today the Democrat Party is an honest toady of the most rich accomplishing whatsoever they want on the street to end the U.S.middle class and replace it with subjects of plutonomy. That will all change if the Chinese prevail in the war of trade tariffs: Democrats will become toadys of the Chinese Communist Party and seek to serve in the Chinese navy as toadys.

What is the Logic of New Sanctions on Russia?

The rationale for new sanctions on Russia isn't evident to me. One sanctions in order to correct something or to get something, rather than nothing. The new sanctions were punitive rather than a lever to exact a concession, as is usual in diplomacy. Russia cannot release some jailed homo or something the administration might desire in exchange for a repeal of the most recent sanction.

The reason for the sanction said the administration was the use of a nerve agent in Britain that killed an individual. No proof was given that Russia was to blame, yet even if they were, could they resurrect the dead to end the sanction?

There are more than six nations that have the particular nerve agent in question, so it is not necessarily Russia responsible for the death. In fact the premise of innocent until proven guilty seems lacking here. Democrats have that policy toward President Trump, but that is no excuse for passing the unsupportable blame on Russia. That does harm to the U.S.A. as well as the cause of international justice.

Maybe the President is just trying to appear patriotic for PR purposes. He should however be more concerned with upholding the principles of justice.

The Berlin and Other Government Walls

The Berlin Wall divided two different political frontiers. As Hadrian’s Wall and Offa’s Dyke were built to keep opposition forces at bay, the Berlin Wall kept capitalists and their agents out as well as forcing their own people not to venture outside the communist world where they could be contaminated by Elton John and Pink Floyd.

Defense walls are one of the most ancient products of government. Jericho had a wall since fallen to ruin thousands of years ago. North American aboriginals never used stone defense walls, except for one excavated a few years ago in North Dakota that protected a city long gone. They were an exception to the rule. Signs of fatalities existed at the wall.

Communism was totalitarianism or for some, a socialist version of anocracy. It was a form of government disliked not only by many of its subjects, capitalists hated it too. Soviet and communist frontiers were designed to defend against clandestine and conventional invasion. The Wall was simply one element in the great ideological war between Marxism and the Free World.

Not all East Berliners were non-communists. Communism had some popular support I would guess. When the 1993 White House in Moscow conflict occurred between Yeltsin’s tanks, the public and those supporting the Supreme Soviet in the White House, there was residual though not overwhelming support for communist government as theoretically it provided food to the starving as well as Dachas for the elite party members.

There have been other walls or dividing barriers placed between rival political and social cultures in modern times. One that springs to mind is the zone of rubble and junk dividing Turks and Greeks at Cyprus. The Israelis have built a wall to keep out Muslim suicide bombers, and famously, the demilitarized zone and barriers existing between North and South Korea have existed since the 1950s.

United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus - Wikipedia

If governments and citizens of nations have no issues with one another, and if there would be no difference if a wall existed or not, in the absence of a wall, walls generally are not built.

European housing, especially in Italy, is notable for the defensive-like architecture with interior courtyards for security, that existed in pre-contemporary eras. When law enforcement was not so good, people needed to defend themselves against a world of wandering criminals, gangs and so forth.

Pros and Cons of The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs was controversial. It had its supporters and opponents politically. It resulted largely from narcotics flooding the U.S.A. and the damage that caused to U.S. society. Stopping importation and sales of narcotics was a worthwhile though challenging task. The issues of arresting the flow of narcotics and what to do with those arrested are, and were, different issues.

Mass incarceration of drug offenders as well as other criminals doesn’t have a great record for effective correction. That is more of a social and governance design problem difficult to correct itself. An ineffective corrections system, or one regarded by some communities as unjust or racist, creates social issues and substantial problems for-themselves.

Crack cocaine and meth apparently are quite addictive. Users get involved with other crimes-sometimes violent, to support their addiction. A culture of corruption develops; individuals fail to act like responsible citizens, neglect the book-work, and are a kind of hippie-yippee-wiseguy subculture. They often die early even outside of prison.

There is no question that a war on drugs should exist. It is a matter of how the war should be waged; that is, how can the problem be addressed socially and governmentally. It is a social challenge to have so many millions of citizens pursuing decadent and socially destructive activities.

The illegal drug sales phenomenon fuels organized crime. Some Latin American nations may be near narco-states heavily influenced by drug traffickers. Some of those nations are challenged to have civil order free of the on-the-street adversity of the presence of organized crime. Drug gangs have replaced the social niches formerly occupied by guerrilla armies in the region, to a certain extent. In the United States television and movies employ drug users that have political influence and choose to pursue agenda that can be destructive to traditional national values. The wrong people end up with a lot of cash.

National values can always use upgrades. However it isn’t credible that dope users would generally be the source of solid, innovative, intelligent thought about how to improve society.

Nope; 2018 Isn't the Year for World War IV

The Cold War was World War III considering that millions died and it was quite globally diffuse. World War IV won’t occur soon. The major nuclear powers are too powerful for total war. The historian Arnold Toynbee wrote about that in his 1974 book ‘Mankind and Mother Earth’. A knockout blow to win a war between heavyweights has tech too large to use. Lesser powers would not be allowed free reign of the world to war either because of the harmful effects on the economy and ecosphere and would be terminated swiftly.

The best chance to get an equivalent or better amount of global destruction and death that a conventional World War IV would cause is anthropocentric ecospheric damage through economic methods, yet that takes time beyond 2040 to develop. Other than that if one hopes for a true W.W. IV they would need to be content with some rogue planetary biological sneak attack that is democidal.

Issues with F.I.D.E. and Government Restructuring

Why is it that F.I.D.E. can't be a web-based transparent agency with transparent processes for official business? A systems analyst and web designer with some accounting and networking consults should be able to construct a working, practical template fairly easily. One could still have a President, yet especially anything financial ought to be publicly transparent on-line.

Sometimes it can be useful to go about restructuring organizations so they function well. The Russian Federation has challenges like that. They have a Super-President with extraordinary powers as well as a constitutional government and partly elected officials. They too could upgrade and will need to do so in order to provide a good example of a transparent on-line democratic system of governance.

If Alpha-Zero or Stockfish were as poorly organized as F.I.D.E. they would have a rating about 1150 with annual blunders eternally recurring and hyper-dimensional one way communications to aliens.

I discovered a free college course about Russian Governance and Public Policy from St. Petersburg State University via coursera.org that has hundreds of free college courses from around the globe, and learned of something of the nature of challenges that Russia has today.  

https://www.coursera.org/learn/political-governance-russia/home/welcome

Political Governance and Public Policy in Russia Course On-line

For those interested in Russian governance and public policy as they are today, from a Russian professorial point of view as taught at St. Petersburg University for Coursera (where there are hundreds or thousands of free college-level courses from Universities around the world), this course of six weeks length is starting soon.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/political-governance-russia/home/welcome

It is incredible that the 'professionals' at state and elsewhere in government can't ever work things out so they work smoothly- even after all the work Reagan put into it. Maybe they should learn more about Russia today; as should the public, since the media isn't trustworthy at all- nor several of the major internet platforms.

The United States rates an 8 of 10 score on the polity series of democracy vs dictatorship in nations with more than a half million people. Russia got a 5 rating, like Ukraine. Canada got a 10 as did the U.K., though it has a technical royal aristocracy lurking in the background, while Canada has legal dope and homosexual marriage indicating that the polity authors may approve of sin as tests for democracy. Maybe corporatism and Internet tricks to provide content before being banned, purged or expropriated is part of the reason the U.S. is not rated a top-notch democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series

Polity IV

Blitz Chess (3M) E26-Nimzo-Indian-Defense-Saemisch-Variation-5...c5-6.e3

I played black in this Nimzo-Indian.

Start of Universes paradigm 1 (video)

A philosophical paradigm of the start of Universes read from my science fiction novel Pieces of Eight.   http://www.veoh.com/watch/v141893416Nzf6Ezkb

Everything Wrong With Casino Royale in Twelve Minutes or Less

The Instant Historical Revisionism Power of Apple, Facebook and YouTube

When major video content platforms take down content posted by the public that has been viewed and linked in many other webpages because they have banned it as using hate speech, they in effect create instant historical revisionism. Deleting from the present the historical content of producers with divergent political points of view from the most rich corporations such as Apple is something even people with a minor in history don't like.

I don't like big gaps in the history of what went before as if it never existed. All of Alex Jones' old content should remain and a ban if it must be used should apply to new stuff. Then reality would be keep with a semblance of integrity. To simply cut it out and erase very influential elements of social reality is evil. 

The Congress should expropriate funds going to NPR and reallocate them to start a new public back-up of posts content that would keep a permanent record of items posted on social media that the posters want backed up. Then history could at least be conserved, and people of the future could get some idea of the true social media content of the past rather than sanitized versions allowed by Apple, YouTube and Facebook.

https://www.garycgibson.us/2018/08/vast-l-wing-conspiracy-takes-down-r.html

Alex Jones' Internet platform was under real and solid attack. He has had his political shows taken down from Youtube, Facebook and Apple podcast. Fundamentally those corporations are under the sway of homosexuals that hate anti-homosexual  political positions. Jones is a prime supporter of Donald Trump so the Democrat corporations have good reason to pull the plug on political opposition. It is Mussolini's political philosophy of corporatism in action. When President Obama's Supreme Court allowed hate speech and hate crimes legislation  to become law the corporations were armed with an example to emulate useful in killing free political speech and opposition points of view. Corporate wants shit eating mutts for sycophancy in the media.

Alex Jones reports on an important side of current events and social structure the establishment usually ignores. The 1% concentrating wealth is not an illusion. The Democrat Party is deaf, dumb, blind and stupid these days in working as hard as they can to destroy the heritage of national independence and self-reliance so far as possible. They are shop stewards working for the rich as leaders of a company-owned union. The broadcast media is owned by that 1% establishment- it isn't imaginary.

A good Canadian philosopher named John Sauls published a book on corporatism in contemporary society in 1999 named The Unconscious Civilization. I don't believe he has written another book on that topic since. I recall him writing someplace that he had a family to take care of. Corporatism can shut anything down just like Muslim theocracy, imperialism and communism can.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/08/06/alex-jones-show-removed-other-infowars-content-services/912742002/

https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/06/facebook-removes-alex-jones-pages/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/apple-pulls-alex-jones-infowars-podcasts-for-hate-speech.html  Apple the Trillion dollar corporation removed most of Alex Jones' podcasts; that's corporatism at work and a reason why the government should have some kind of citizen back-up venue to let publishing remain permanently even when public corporate platforms disappear.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/notes.html quote from note #7 "Adaptation to the niche of political entrepreneurship consists of becoming a better predator in a game where the predators make the rules. Politicians learn to cooperate, to be sure, but mainly with fellow predators. An evolving political order is increasingly dominated by corporatism (more pejoratively known as crony capitalism, where politically favored CEOs acquire the power to regulate their competitors), which is entrepreneurship of a destructive kind. Boettke 1995 articulates the theory of public choice implicit in Hayek."

SPLC appears to have left a semblance of neutrality and objectivity these days being so far removed from the 1960s and later when there were actually numerous groups perping violence that required tracking. SPLC could include CNN and the Washington Post these days and possible the Governor of New York on the list of extremists if they wanted to be objective. Throwing in powerful political bullshit in with the genuine articles degrades the credibility and reputation of SPLC. They aren't Elie Wiesel Inc.

I wonder about the Southern Poverty Law Center being an extremist organization using words and target listings of individuals in the attempt to socially marginalize them. Alex Jones, Bo Gritz and Gary Demar all made the list with Alex Jones being listed first on the list of 129 extremist individuals. American individuals should be free from organizational social terrorism.

Sure the Southern Poverty Law Center includes numerous people that probably deserve being listed, yet I suppose they also omit numerous people and  organizations including ANTIFA, because they are leftist or communist.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/notes.html

https://www.infowars.com/

Use Coefficients of Positivity as Well as Adversity With Russian Diplomacy

Instead of just placing the same old sanctions on nations that have dubious value and leave things as they are or worse in some cases, politicians should be expected to open new fields of co-operative endeavor with any nation with new sanctions that comprise a positive coefficient. Creatively accomplishing new and positive items politically is more challenging for propliticians than sanction. Sanctions don't require imagination while positive joint ventures does. Coefficient of positivity as well as adversity may exist concurrently.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-us-sanctions-vladimir-putin-unacceptable-nerve-agent-uk-sergei-skripal/

If President Trump bungles the Russia gambit to develop positive and prosperous relations and reducing nuclear tensions in our lifetime, he will have left a big gap where forces a doom may poor through in the security wall of the nation.

Vast L Wing Conspiracy Takes Down R. Wing Conspiracy Theorist

Hillary Clinton basically got the polarity reversed in panicking about a vast right wing conspiracy. It was a vast left wing conspiracy with the help of the most rich corporation on Earth that took down the leading right wing conspiracy theorist rather than vice versa. The richest corporation on Earth; Apple, led by an egregious homosexual, were quite unwilling to allow a critic of homosexual marriage to continue to say what he thought.

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1026495668263837696   ...

Paul Joseph Watson‏Verified account @PrisonPlanet Aug 6

"Apple, Spotify, Facebook and now Google (which owns YouTube) - all within 12 hours of each other."

Alex Jones will survive the Apple, Facebook, YouTube slaughter, yet his proplits were probably trimmed. If Bilderburgers orchestrated the purge it may be that they are not yet done. Defenders of the purge issuing apologetics will obfuscate the salient points of corporatism and concentrated wealth controlling free speech. They believe they can demand ass-kissing from everyone, and that none can use any terms about their political favorites except those deemed politically acceptable by the 1%, Bilderburgers, Illuminati or whoever the co-conspirators are.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/aug/07/why-infowars-alex-jones-was-banned-apple-facebook-/

https://www.infowars.com/the-attack-on-infowars-is-deep-state-cyber-warfare/