On August 4, I received this rather surprising email:
Hi David Martin,
We wanted to let you know that our team has reviewed your content and we don’t think it’s in line with our Community Guidelines. As a result, we’ve age-restricted the following content:
Video: At What a Cost
We haven’t applied a strike to your channel, and your content is still live for some users on YouTube. Keep reading for more details on what this means and steps you can take if you’d like to appeal this decision.
What “age-restricted” means
We age-restrict content when we don’t think it’s suitable for younger audiences. This means it will not be visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or have Restricted Mode enabled. It won’t be eligible for ads. Learn more about age restrictions.
What you can do next
We realize this may be frustrating news, and we want to help make sure your content is accessible to all audiences. Here’s what you can do:
- Review YouTube’s Community Guidelines and Creator Academy lessons.
- Double check that your content is in line with our guidelines.
- Appeal here if you think we’ve made a mistake.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to us here.
The really surprising thing about the message is that it comes after the video had been up on YouTube for a little more than nine years with no such restriction. Furthermore, from the time we made the video right up until we received the notification, it never occurred to us that there might be anything R-rated about it. You can watch it yourself (on Bitchute if you don’t want to log in to YouTube) to see what might have moved the wise folks at YouTube to decide that the video is unfit for anyone who is too young to vote. I hardly think of myself as the overly permissive sort, and I really don’t see anything in it that should be kept away from the eyes of even elementary school children.
And look at the things you can find on YouTube that aren’t age restricted. She’s pleasant enough, but I really don’t think bouncy, lecherously filmed Aika Sawaguchi makes suitable viewing for the pre-pubescent crowd. Or consider any one of a number of the videos of the bountiful Russian classical pianist, Lola Astanova. I’m not suggesting, though, that YouTube ought to slap age restrictions on those videos, as well, especially in the case of the latter, when it might be what it takes to interest the occasional young male in serious music.
Actually, the comparison of ours with the Astanova video might be the best one to make. Does that which some might deem offensive for young eyes to see override the importance of the message? I would say clearly not in either case, but what does YouTube think there is in “At What a Cost” that should be hidden from young eyes in the first place?
They don’t say. They did say that I could appeal their ruling, which I promptly did. They just as quickly rejected the appeal, but still without offering any explanation. One is left to surmise their rationale by clicking on the “age restrictions.”
Doubtless they want me to believe that the scenes of “violence” and “disturbing imagery” are what moved the prim and proper folks at YouTube to make it harder for people to view the video by making it necessary that they be logged in before they can view it.
You will have to excuse me for suspecting YouTube’s motives. This is the venue, after all, that has a slash and burn policy toward anything that might run counter to what the powers that be want us to think about the awful pandemic that is supposedly ravaging the world. The examples are legion, but one need look no further than my July 2020 article, “YouTube ‘Crucifies’ COVID-19 ‘Savior’.” It’s pretty clear that for some devious reason they are trying to steer as many people as possible into needlessly taking experimental “vaccinations.”
YouTube is also owned by Google. My June 2021 article was entitled “Google, Tool of the Deep State” for a reason. There we saw that of the various search engines, Google stood out in steering readers away from important sensitive political topics. Similarly, Breitbart News has found that Google’s thumb on the Internet search scales has been heavy enough in favor of the Left as to have had a major effect on the election.
An indicator of what YouTube is up to with its new restrictions on “At What a Cost” came shortly afterwards when my frequent video collaborator, Buelahman, informed me that he had received the same notice for the video “We’re the USA.” (See it on Bitchute if you prefer.) Yes, it also has scenes of violence and disturbing imagery, and it had also been up a long time—in this case more than seven years—without any age restrictions. More than anything, though, what it has in common with “At What a Cost” is that it is very strongly antiwar, and more specifically, it is strongly against American criminal wars of aggression in the Middle East, wars predicated upon the obvious false flag events of 9/11/2001.
Now if your purpose is to convey a strong antiwar message, you can hardly eschew scenes of blood and gore. They are the most obvious results of warfare, although we too often manage to suppress them from our minds when caught up in a tribal frenzy, encouraged by those with a vested interest of one sort or another in the orgy of death and destruction. What we are most curious about is why, after all this time, the Deep State organ of YouTube decided to put these age restrictions on these two videos.
We might take a stab at an answer. Perhaps too many young people have been wising up about our Middle East misadventures and military recruitment is becoming increasingly difficult. But what, you might ask, should our rulers have to fear from a couple of videos that have only had, respectively, 3,850 viewers in more than nine years and 619 viewers in more than seven years?
All I can say about that is that you have to be very gullible, indeed, to believe those numbers. May I suggest to you that only YouTube has the real numbers. Why would this corrupt, Deep State organ share them with the public when, as Middle East war proponents, it is not in their interest to do so? For a further elaboration on this subject, see my May 2019 article, “YouTube’s Complete Corruption Revealed.”
In summary, if one looks at these two now age-restricted videos from the perspective of pursuit of the interests of the 14 to18-year-old group as opposed to the interests of the Deep State, these videos really ought to be required viewing rather than forbidden to them. Wouldn’t you prefer that your sons and daughters know more about the nature of war rather than less?