My Brush with French (and World) “Press Freedom”

My Brush with French (and World) “Press Freedom”

by DC Dave


April 2013 was an exciting month for me. We had discovered a terrific country music singer who had agreed to perform my parody of Patsy Cline’s hit, “I Fall to Pieces” and on April 6 BuelahMan, my video collaborator, put it up on his web site.

It is entitled “Falling to Pieces for Israel,” and, to my mind, it was the best thing that we had yet done together. Later in the month, I had the opportunity to take my first river cruise in Europe, on the Saone and Rhone Rivers in the south of France. I took my laptop with me to avail myself of the WiFi service that was available on the cruise boat.

I was still a bit excited about our success with the video and eager, should the opportunity arise, to share it with anyone I thought might be interested. The WiFi worked quite well generally, but when I attempted to view “Falling to Pieces for Israel,” I was greeted with this message: “This video is not available in your country.” At no time when I was in France was I able to see it.


I thought of that experience as I read the January 14, 2014, article by George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley, “France Follows Freedom of Speech Rally with Crackdown on Free Speech,” which begins this way:


Jonathan Turley

This weekend I wrote a column for the Washington Post on the crackdown of free speech in France. The column suggested that, if the French really wanted to honor the dead at Charlie Hebdo, they would rescind the laws used to hound them and threaten them with criminal prosecution for years. (Indeed, at least one surviving journalist expressed contempt for those who now support free speech but remained silent in the face of past efforts to shut down the magazine). Now, however, news reports indicate that the French government is doubling down on criminalizing speech in the name of free speech after the massacre. France has reportedly made dozens of arrests of people who glorify terrorism and engage in hateful or anti-Semitic speech.

To be sure, my very first thought when I saw that our video that speaks dramatically to the control of the United States Congress by the state of Israel was that we had run afoul of French laws limiting what that country deems to be “hate speech,” no matter how factual the material we were presenting might be. As powerful as Zionist control of the United States is, it is not yet so powerful as to prevent the sort of expression that is represented by “Falling to Pieces for Israel.” In the United States you can’t be sent to prison, as you can in France, for publicly looking critically into any facet of the story that the German government during World War II mainly gassed to death six million Jews in “extermination camps” and disposed of the evidence through wholesale cremation in an assembly-line-like fashion, either. I was disappointed, but not completely surprised, then, when I found that people in France were deprived of the opportunity to experience our video.

My indignation was dampened somewhat, though, by my first conversation with a Frenchman about the matter. It happened when we were on our bus from our hotel in Avignon to the airport in Marseilles, from which I was to fly back to the States. I was seated next to one of our guides and took that opportunity to complain to him about it. His explanation, in defense of his government, was that French copyright laws were stronger than those in the United States and because we used the tune upon which others had a copyright, the video was likely suppressed in France for commercial rather than political reasons.

Before I had my first song parody published on the Internet, “Obama, the Song,” I had assured myself that U.S. law protected parodies against charges of copyright infringement quite thoroughly—more than most countries, in fact—and so I was put off at the time from publicly charging France with knuckling under to the Israeli lobby. Had I encountered the copyright argument earlier in the trip I would have immediately gone to check “Obama, the Song” to see if it was also blocked, but I had no further opportunity to go online before leaving the country.

LizDillingIf someone reading this article happens to be in France, I would appreciate it if he or she would let me know if “Obama, the Song” is blocked and if “Falling to Pieces for Israel” continues to be blocked. That would go a long way toward settling the question of why I couldn’t expose anyone else to our great discovery, Liz Dilling, the singer, and to her rendition of our song when I was in France.

In the meantime, I have come across some evidence against the “copyright protection” argument. Last year I went on a second European river cruise, and this one took me through the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. In each country I was eager to see if the message, “This video is not available in your country,” would turn up when I tried to watch “Falling to Pieces for Israel”. It did not. I might as well have been at home watching it. I am under the impression that one of the things that the European Union has accomplished is to make laws generally more comparable among the various member states. If so, France would definitely be quite an anomaly when it comes to parodies and copyright infringement. The first two of the countries in my 2014 trip are EU members. My bet is that it is simply a case of French, U.S.-puppet-state pro-Israel censorship.

Even if copyright law is the excuse, it is likely a politically freighted excuse. Take the situation in Canada, for example. This is from Wikipedia.

Under Canadian law, although there is protection for Fair Dealing, there is no explicit protection for parody and satire. In Canwest v. Horizon, the publisher of the Vancouver Sun launched a lawsuit against a group which had published a pro-Palestinian parody of the paper. Alan Donaldson, the judge in the case, ruled that parody is not a defence to a copyright claim.


What with the known subservience of the Canadian government to Zionist interests and the country’s notorious hate speech laws, one can’t help suspect that power politics had something to do with how that ruling came down. A powerful pro-Palestinian medium of protest was thereby silenced under the force of Canadian law. One can’t help thinking that the ruling would have been different had the roles of the players been reversed.

U.S. Censorship More Subtle

mainstream_mediaIn the United States the government doesn’t censor political expression using the law. The First Amendment of the Constitution makes it particularly difficult for it to do that, and it doesn’t have to. The news might not be controlled by the law, but from my own experience, I can say with confidence that the evidence is overwhelming that it is controlled. One need look no farther than my most recent article specifically addressing the subject, “The Great Suppression of 2014.” Before that he could go to “The Forrestal Murder and the News Media,” and before that to “The Kennedy Assassination and the Press.”

North Carolina Republican Congressman Bill Hendon learned how the control works back in 1981. This passage is from my review of the book that he wrote with Elizabeth Stewart, the daughter of a missing prisoner of war, An Enormous Crime: The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia:

Hendon, along with fellow freshman Congressman, John LeBoutillier (R-NY), had the life-changing experience of being present when Air Force Brigadier General Eugene Tighe, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), testified to Congress on June 25, 1981, some eight years after all of the POWs had supposedly returned to the United States. The two new Congressmen were members of the House POW/MIA Task Force, before which the testimony was made, and LeBoutillier was also a member of the task force’s parent committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Tighe, as DIA director, was, as they say, “the horse’s mouth,” when it comes to whether any POWs remained in Southeast Asia.

Tighe…stunned those in attendance by testifying in open, public session that he was “absolutely certain” that American POWs were still being held captive in Southeast Asia. He also called for a renewed effort by the Congress and the administration to get the prisoners home ….

“[Hendon] and I were just totally blown away by Tighe’s testimony in public session that the men were still alive,” LeBoutillier later said, “We knew, of course, that they were [alive], but this was the director of defense intelligence testifying to the fact before the U.S. Congress in open session. I’ll never forget it ─ ‘absolutely certain. ‘ “  LeBoutillier went on to say that he and Hendon were sure Tighe’s statement “would be big news the next day, not just on the Hill, but all across town and, via the media, all across America.”

To the congressmen’s surprise, however, Tighe’s statement did not appear the following day in the Post or any of America’s other major newspapers. Not, to their knowledge, the next day. Nor the next, or the next, or the next. Nor was there any buzz about what the general had said in the halls or on the floor of the House. Perplexed, the two congressmen contacted senior members of the task force and the Foreign Affairs Committee to see what they had planned in response to Tighe’s testimony. The two congressmen’s message to the senior members was a simple one: “Tighe told our committee last week he was certain U.S. POWs are alive. Nothing happened. No press, no follow-up strategy sessions by the task force or the full committee, nothing in Armed Services, nothing in Veterans Affairs, nothing on the Senate side and, as far as we can determine, nothing downtown. What the hell is going on?”

To a man, the senior congressmen replied that other than holding additional hearings and issuing additional press releases, there was really nothing more in the short term that Congress could or would do. (p. 220)

It was all up to the executive branch, they said, and indicated that it was just too politically dangerous a topic for them to explore further. Tighe, they observed, was set to retire in a matter of weeks and had nothing to lose. As for themselves, no one wanted to stick his political neck out far enough to have it chopped off by the folks who were running the show.

Those who were running the show, it is abundantly obvious, were also controlling the press.

The Kindle Blackout


How far this “private” control of information can go was brought home forcefully, and shockingly, to me from another of my experiences involving international travel. Upon the recommendation of an online contact, I had purchased the Kindle edition of the bombshell book, Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold, by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave. Why I call it a bombshell is well summed up by this excerpt of the review by Publishers Weekly:

The Seagraves, bestselling authors (Lords of the Rim, etc.), contend that Japan systematically looted the entire continent of Asia during WWII, seizing billions in precious metals, gems and artworks. Further, according to the authors, from war’s end to the present, the looted treasure, used by President Truman to create a secret slush fund to fight communism, has had a malignant effect on American and Asian politics. The Seagraves assert that the Japanese imperial family, along with Ferdinand Marcos, every American president from Harry Truman to George W. Bush, and numerous sinister figures on the American hard right have been tainted and in many cases utterly corrupted by the loot.  Postwar efforts to recover and exploit the treasure, according to the Seagraves, involved murders, dishonest deals and cover-ups…

The “entire continent” part is a bit of an exaggeration by the reviewer, of course. The looting, which apparently far surpassed anything the Nazis did, naturally extended only to those Asian countries that the Japanese occupied, but that was quite a large area, and it involved quite a bit of gold.

CloudIn 2013 I had the opportunity to visit some of my old stomping grounds in South Korea on a two-week tour. I had put Gold Warriors in my book queue to read during the trip. I began reading while waiting for my flight at Dulles Airport. Once in the air I was distracted for several hours by two or three inflight movies and didn’t pull out my Kindle to resume reading until about the time we approached Japanese air space. Gold Warriors was GONE. It had been there for several months after I purchased it from Amazon, and it was there when I started the flight, but now it was nowhere to be found.

Once in my hotel in Seoul, I checked the Kindle again, and Gold Warriors was still missing. I used my laptop to check my Amazon account to see if I still owned the book and confirmed that I did. I then used the Kindle to request that it be re-sent to me, and I did it on several occasion during the two weeks, but it never showed up. I was never able to share any of the explosive information in the book with anyone in Korea during my stay there.

When I got back to the States virtually the first thing I did was to look for the book on my Kindle, and there it was as if it had never gone away. Naturally, I couldn’t wait to continue reading, and it quickly became evident to me why the “controllers” would not want this sort of information spread around among American vassal states in Asia. I also proceeded to buy several paperbound copies of the book to give as Christmas presents to friends.

I also couldn’t help but wonder if there might be some connection between the apparent blacking out of the Kindle version of the book in Asia and the $600 million contract that Amazon has with the CIA to provide “cloud computing services” and the decision of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to bail out the Graham family by at least lending his name to the purchase of the now massive money-losing Washington Post.

YouTube Hijinks?

youtube_google_big-brother_logoWith all this evidence that Bezos and Amazon are in bed with the CIA, I am certainly made more receptive to the claims by many that Google and Facebook are no more than fronts for U.S. intelligence, as well. I have never had anything to do with Facebook, but Google is another matter. In 2006 Google purchased YouTube for $1.65 billion, so anyone who puts a video up on YouTube is dealing with Google now.

What that means is that, if they should choose to use it, Google now has the power to determine, with its posting of the number of hits that a video receives, which videos “go viral” and which ones, insofar as anyone outside Google knows, hardly even get off the ground. Considering the importance of the bandwagon effect, is it really plausible that our controllers would resist the temptation to use that power?

This brings us back, in conclusion, to the subject of my videos. On July 11, 2012, I posted the video of Mark Lentz’s very powerful antiwar, anti-neocon anthem, “At What a Cost.”

Lentz is a first rate musician and his message could hardly be stronger. The message should resonate in particular with veterans of our endless wars in the Middle East and with the members of the U.S. military and their families. That’s the problem. For the longest time YouTube’s viewer count for “At What a Cost” has been stuck right around where it is as I write these words, at a piddling 2,866. I find that number really hard to believe. It might show some small bounce from people reading this article, but something tells me that our controllers will never let us see it crest even the 5,000 mark.


David Martin

January 20, 2015


Note By BuelahMan:

If interested, you can view the entire collaborative collection of DC Dave/BuelahMan videos here:

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

15 thoughts on “My Brush with French (and World) “Press Freedom”

  1. I want to add that I have had my share of YouTube censorship issues (even before Google bought them). But it has been much worse since.

    I had two channels shut down in three years. The first channel only contained videos of me ranting, yet I was accused of copyright infringement three times. This was after many years, hundreds of thousands of views, hundreds of subscribers and thousands of comments.

    The censorship happened when I became more Jew-wise and did a few videos about it. Anyone that doesn’t believe that Hasbara Trolls haven’t been active in their pursuit to shut down critical channels are either ignorant or covering up for the tribe.

    The second channel was even bigger with one re-upped Auschwitz video having hundreds of thousands of views and thousands of comments on it alone. It was shut down for inappropriate content, when I re-uploaded a Jewish scumbag and his girlfriend belittling Christians over funeral practices.

    On the last channel, Jews went so far as to set up a Facebook page with the sole intent of shutting down my YouTube channel (and sadly, it must have succeeded).

    Its why I called it JewTube, for the Jewish Hasbara Trolls have an open avenue to shut down critical channels. And it is virtually impossible to counter the claims made by them. There is no human interaction and the only recourse is a button to push and hope for the best. The trolls can lie about ownership or copyright infringement or “inappropriate content”, etc. Frankly, I am surprised that the current channel is still up and running (if history is any yardstick, it will be attacked when it becomes visible enough).

    And another thing is that these vile bastards are allowed to say anything and everything in comments (which is one key reason I now do similarly when addressing them on videos). Accusations, calling for death, hoping cancer kills me, etc. (on and on with their whiny bitching).

    Even though I have been very careful not to infringe or put “inappropriate content” or do anything that the censors might dislike or use as a rationale for deleting/censoring my channel, I think it may happen again. If you are interested, you may want to download the above videos and save them or re-up them (just give Dave and I some credit for the creation).


    • The “Suzanne” who e-mailed me conformed pretty closely to the hasbara troll definition. They ask a lot of questions but don’t answer any themselves, says the article to which you link. This is from my exchange with her:

      ” Now that I have answered your questions I would appreciate it if you would explain yourself a bit more. Who are you and why do you find it odd that I should have done so much research on James Forrestal and his death? If you are interested, I have a rather longish piece I have put together called ‘My Biography.’ I’ll send it to you if you give me some significant facts about yourself.”

      She responded promptly, but with nothing about herself, and so I told her nothing more about me. You can read all of our email exchange in “Conversation with a Zionist over James Forrestal’s Murder” at For the most part they leave me alone, though. I think they’ve learned that it’s not safe to take me on publicly. Someone should have warned Marinka Peschmann.


  2. Who would have thought that France has more restrictions on speech than Occupied Germany? But of course there always has been a strong totalitarian left in France- from the Reign of Terror to the épuration sauvage of 1944-4?.


  3. The French (and German, and Belgian and Austrian, and on and on and on) neo-eunuchs of Europe had their free speech rights castrated a long time ago, compliments of “the usual suspects.” Now they spend their days and nights cowering in fear of any implication they might be anti-Semites or (gasp!) Holoco$t deniers, like me. I have just about zero respect for these phony baloney cowards.


  4. B’Man this piece is wonderful. I was raised up listening to Pasty Cline and the parody was heart wrenching! 🙂

    Your experiences only reaffirm my own sense of knowing that the controllers are desperate to keep the truth hidden from the public’s eyes anyway they can. France. What a pity. It was bad enough in the days of the “revolution” and it’s just gone downhill ever since. Hopefully Sorel and Dieudonne will save it from itself.

    Thanks for the plug as well. Much appreciated. I will not post this article on my Facebook page and to my Facebook group Radical Press News Wire. I know that it will be well received there and elsewhere.

    Stay free!



    • Thank you, Arthur! I think of you often and the plight/fight you are in. You are an inspiration for those of us who understand how difficult it can be elsewhere that have enacted draconian laws that Canada and other places have enacted. We still have freedom to espouse these views without threat of jailtime and huge fines (at least for now).

      But as Dave (and myself) point out, the censorship is rampant from the sycophantic companies (of course owned and run by Jews) like Youtube. Even many alternative sites censor anything that points out the real problem.

      You keep up the good fight for freedom, Sir!


  5. It looks like we’re going to have to do an update of Liz’s video:

    I’m taking suggestions for the next song to do a parody of.


  6. Just go to starbucks and try to read some iranian, just go to the Rest Places at the I80 in Ohio and Indiana and try to read some altermedia news (from David Duke) and so on. You don’t have trouble read extreme leftist sites at these places (I checked).

    Censorship is creeping in everywhere.



  7. Pingback: Hillary Clinton Does Putin Impersonation | Fig Trees and Vineyards
  8. If someone reading this article happens to be in France, I would appreciate it if he or she would let me know if “Obama, the Song” is blocked and if “Falling to Pieces for Israel” continues to be blocked.

    I can view both on French and German vpns.


    • Thanks for the report. It’s good news, I guess. It does not mean that the failure of “Falling to Pieces for Israel” to turn up on YouTube in France for the week that I was there was just some temporary glitch, with no political motivation., though. It’s possible that it was only unblocked in France after I wrote the article exposing what I took to be censorship. Something similar to that happened at the Miller Center of the University of Virginia with respect to the JFK assassination. Here’s what they had up as of April 29, 2008:

      “On November 22, 1963, the President and the First Lady journeyed to Dallas on a campaign trip. Accompanying the Kennedys in the motorcade through the city were Governor John Connally and his wife, Nellie. As it moved through Dealey Plaza, the presidential limousine was fired upon. Governor Connally was wounded; President Kennedy who was hit twice, was killed. Kennedy was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he died soon thereafter.

      “The shots had been fired from a nearby warehouse and some hours after the assassination, police arrested warehouse employee Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was a mysterious former Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union, had recently been in Cuba—he had championed Cuban causes—and then returned to the United States. Two days after the arrest, while being transferred to another jail, the suspect was himself slain by Jack Ruby, a Dallas nightclub owner. Ruby was tried and convicted of murder in Oswald’s death. He died of cancer in January 1967, while awaiting a retrial in prison.

      “The dramatic course of events led many to wonder whether a conspiracy was afoot. A commission to investigate the assassination, established by President Lyndon B. Johnson and headed by Supreme Court chief justice Earl Warren, determined that Oswald had acted alone. In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that there were at least three shots fired, not two as the Warren Commission had claimed, though it drew no other firm conclusions. It did affirm, though, that Oswald had fired all three shots, two of which hit Kennedy. A plethora of conspiracy theories about Kennedy’s assassination have proved, nevertheless, an enduring phenomenon.”

      And here’s what I had to say about it in an article published on that date:

      “Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with such an important event as the Kennedy assassination knows that the Warren Commission concluded that three, not two, shots were fired in Dealey Plaza that day. The Miller Center also more closely resembles a Jay Leno interviewee than a Jeopardy contestant with its statement that Oswald had “recently been in Cuba.” There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that that is true.

      “Perhaps more important than its blatant errors is how the Miller Center misleads its readers about the conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The committee might not have drawn any other firm conclusions than that Oswald fired three shots, but they did conclude that it was highly likely that there was a conspiracy and that at least one more shot was fired by someone else. The Center’s impressive array of scholars and experts could hardly have sounded so dismissive of all those ‘conspiracy theories’ had they been honest enough to tell us that even this House committee, proclaiming the government’s last word on the subject, thought that a conspiracy was probably behind Kennedy’s killing.”

      To my surprise, the obvious factual errors that I pointed out about that supposed Oswald trip to Cuba and the two shots fired in Dealy Plaza according to the Warren Commission remained unchanged for several years, in spite of my pointing them out online. I checked it a few months ago, though, and they had finally fixed those obvious bloopers. They had left the implication that the only real difference between the Warren Commission and the House Committee investigation was just a minor one about the number of shots fired. You can read their most recent statement here:

      That is not to say that the House investigation was much better than that of the Warren Commission. Here is what I have to say about it in another article:

      “Just when the congressional investigation that began so promisingly in 1976 was beginning to get some results, it was gutted and turned into a sham by the congressional committee. What was exposed was not the conspiracy behind the murder of our courageous national leader, rather, it was the true allegiance of the men and women who are supposed to represent the American people.”


You Got Something To Say? Please keep your maw respectful and gab on topic.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s