Suspended by Zuckerberg for comparing NATO expansion to Operation Barbarossa in a private message
I am banned "for 24 hours" from Facebook over something I sent to a real life friend via PM - a PRIVATE message - for "violating community standards" IN A PRIVATE TEXT TO A IRL FRIEND!!!
We were discussing the similarities between Barbarossa in 1941, and the NATO enlargements, the attempted color revolutions in Belarus and Kazakhstan and the coup in Ukraine today.
I wrote that what Dolfo had long planned for the Soviet Union was well-known to Churchill, FDR and Stalin long before, since he laid it out in that book he wrote in jail (afraid to name it here) which was published in the mid-1920s. The behavior of the US, France and the UK prior to the signing of the 1939 Soviet non-aggression pact with Germany cannot be properly understood without facing that fact as context.
With this discussion, I sent my friend an English-language translation copy of that book (although she speaks German as well as English, I speak only English, and that, not well) and I referred her to the proper pages (pages 551, et seq., of the edition I sent) for our discussion.
About 20 minutes later, I received an obnoxious screen informing me that I was being disciplined in some undisclosed way for violating one or more of their "community standards" as follows:
You recently posted something that violates Facebook policies, so you're temporarily blocked from using this feature. For more information, visit the Help Center. To keep from getting blocked again, please make sure you've read and understand Facebook's Community Standards. The block will be active for 21 hours more. If you think this doesn't go against our Community Standards let us know.
I was unable to "let them know" because their bot rejected my reply. They used the word "terrorism" in their list of possible offenses being alleged and adjudicated, with sentence having been determined, imposed and executed, all contained in the accompanying the notice of violation, and with no opportunity for a stay until a determination was made after hearing a defense ex post facto.
The obvious irony is that I was showing how what the US Government is doing today, with the cover provided by toadies like Zuckerberg, et al, is the same actual terrorism that "Der Fuehrer" promised in the early 1920s and performed in 1939, et seq., which resulted in 30 million dead in the Soviet Union back then, and which will probably kill even more people around the world if they do it again now.
So for discussing that in an effort to try to stop it, they throw words around like "terrorism".
I followed their "objection" procedure, to the extent I could follow that objectively incomprehensible jumble of bullshit and newspeak, and sent them this in their "complaints" widget, but it was refused.
"First, I object to your monitoring my private communications as a violation of my civil rights. If this is a condition of use, then you are not a common carrier and are not exempt from liability for other torts or damages that may rise from use of your messenger.
"But as to the 'violation' claimed, this use was to communicate what that maniac planned for the USSR and his views of its lands as Germany's legacy, which was followed by the murder of some 25-30 million Soviets and which is indistinguishable on a map from the policies of the US and NATO. I insist upon the right to have this discussion on any platform that operates under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution and will pursue enforcement of that vigorously."
PLEASE - spread the word, and even copy and paste what I wrote above, with or without attribution as you choose.
We were discussing the similarities between Barbarossa in 1941, and the NATO enlargements, the attempted color revolutions in Belarus and Kazakhstan and the coup in Ukraine today.
I wrote that what Dolfo had long planned for the Soviet Union was well-known to Churchill, FDR and Stalin long before, since he laid it out in that book he wrote in jail (afraid to name it here) which was published in the mid-1920s. The behavior of the US, France and the UK prior to the signing of the 1939 Soviet non-aggression pact with Germany cannot be properly understood without facing that fact as context.
With this discussion, I sent my friend an English-language translation copy of that book (although she speaks German as well as English, I speak only English, and that, not well) and I referred her to the proper pages (pages 551, et seq., of the edition I sent) for our discussion.
About 20 minutes later, I received an obnoxious screen informing me that I was being disciplined in some undisclosed way for violating one or more of their "community standards" as follows:
You recently posted something that violates Facebook policies, so you're temporarily blocked from using this feature. For more information, visit the Help Center. To keep from getting blocked again, please make sure you've read and understand Facebook's Community Standards. The block will be active for 21 hours more. If you think this doesn't go against our Community Standards let us know.
I was unable to "let them know" because their bot rejected my reply. They used the word "terrorism" in their list of possible offenses being alleged and adjudicated, with sentence having been determined, imposed and executed, all contained in the accompanying the notice of violation, and with no opportunity for a stay until a determination was made after hearing a defense ex post facto.
The obvious irony is that I was showing how what the US Government is doing today, with the cover provided by toadies like Zuckerberg, et al, is the same actual terrorism that "Der Fuehrer" promised in the early 1920s and performed in 1939, et seq., which resulted in 30 million dead in the Soviet Union back then, and which will probably kill even more people around the world if they do it again now.
So for discussing that in an effort to try to stop it, they throw words around like "terrorism".
I followed their "objection" procedure, to the extent I could follow that objectively incomprehensible jumble of bullshit and newspeak, and sent them this in their "complaints" widget, but it was refused.
"First, I object to your monitoring my private communications as a violation of my civil rights. If this is a condition of use, then you are not a common carrier and are not exempt from liability for other torts or damages that may rise from use of your messenger.
"But as to the 'violation' claimed, this use was to communicate what that maniac planned for the USSR and his views of its lands as Germany's legacy, which was followed by the murder of some 25-30 million Soviets and which is indistinguishable on a map from the policies of the US and NATO. I insist upon the right to have this discussion on any platform that operates under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution and will pursue enforcement of that vigorously."
PLEASE - spread the word, and even copy and paste what I wrote above, with or without attribution as you choose.
