reply to post by Hecate666
A relatively good post, but I do wonder about your masonic name (of a witch, no less!), the satanic number in it, and the masonic avatar you have.
What gives? On a conspiracy forum like this, one could expect (at least if one hasn't been here a lot before) people there to be more enlightened and
aware of those symbols than the brainwashed masses and mainstream, which will embrace anything and everything the PTB will tell them is "cool" or
the "in thing" (and for some reason, death cult skull+crossbones, masonic symbols, satanic numbers and black clothes, zombies, anything that has to
do with demons, hell, goblins, or horror, is increasingly the "in thing", and the masses accept it unanimously without resistance).
Also, you don't seem to understand that although anything can be made "illegal", not everything can be made "unlawful". And that latter is what
really matters, because the first one is optional.
Yes, it's optional, whether you obey the legal system or not. Without your consent, you cannot be governed by a legal system of any kind! So someone
has written some words on a paper, and that somehow gives them authority over you, so that they can decree what you can or can't "have" inside your
hard drive? Besides, nothing on your hard drive is 'real' in the sense, that it's all just magnetic polarities that exist near a surface of a disc
(or multiple discs)!
Why could someone else dictate what magnetic fields or polarities of magnetic fields can exist inside YOUR hard drive? Hmm?
Without your consent, they can't. If I come to your house and tell you that you are not allowed to have pixels on your hard drive, because I typed
such an act or statute on a paper, would you have to give your hard drive to me and confess to a crime, and would I have then the right to imprison
you and take your freedom away? NO, I wouldn't.
Any man or woman or group of men and/or women will not have any more right to dictate anything about your hard drive than I do, no matter -what-
uniform they are wearing, no matter -what- papers they hold in their hands, and no matter -what- they claim they can do.
Unless you give your consent for them to be able to do so. Research "Meet your strawman" for more information.
It's amazing how little people even in ATS still know about this FUNDAMENTAL basic difference between 'lawful' and 'legal', which is so very,
VERY important to anyone who even considers freedom to be a relatively important thing - let alone among those who consider it to be the most
There have been some good comments here, and some really odd, naive and disturbingly corporation-worshipping and trusting ones as well. I guess no one
wants to think that the world isn't safe and just for all, and most people rather just believe that all the 'big brothers' are only serving them
and looking out for them, protecting them and all that.
The 'free' argument ..
On one hand, it's true, that no one has to use youtube. It's very true. One doesn't even have to have a computer! One can live a perfectly rich and
fulfilling life without using a computer, though certain things will be nuisances (like paying bills, using the library search and reserve services,
But on the other hand, youtube is not just one, tiny option among a vast sea of equal-sized options. Youtube is pretty much the -only- place where you
can find certain videos, it's the biggest video site in the world, known everywhere (except North Korea, perhaps) and the amount of all kinds of
content is mind-boggling, and can't be compared to any other site with wisdom.
There's not really a 'choice' here, it's not a choice to either get your favorite food AND a beating, or have to eat gruel and not get a beating.
That is a DILEMMA. Dilemma is different from a choice, because in a dilemma, there are only bad options available.
There are no viable alternatives to youtube, and they are, as a monopoly (or at least having the status of monopoly for all practical purposes),
abusing and misusing this fact to their advantage, to extort private information from people - information, that they should in NO WAY ever even be
interested in, without alarming people to question and suspecting that something awful is going on. But with the sheeple, it's easy..
So the argument is a bit silly - it has nothing to do without it's free, or whether the freeness of it creates an obligation not to complain about it
or not (anything CAN be complained about, no matter how much money has exchanged hands).
And I don't think it's so much a complain, as it is an OBSERVATION, and an ALERT to wake up people so they can see the big picture; something is
happening, and it is NOT for the benefit of the people, on the contrary.
I deleted my account from youtube lately, and most of my accounts from gmail - I plan to not 'register' with them again.