Nasim Aghdam: Victim of YouTube’s cyber-bullying?

Did YouTube's vicious cyberbullying blow up in the company's face?


Watch the censored YouTube video in which Nasim Aghdam explains herself:

By Kevin Barrett, VT Editor

Yesterday I clicked on a YouTube video and got what looked like an error message. It informed me that I had been assessed one strike against me due to violating YouTube’s content guidelines. Two more strikes and my channel would be deleted, along with hundreds of videos that had cost me thousands of hours of work. Meanwhile, the offensive video—an interview with former CIA Clandestine Services Officer Robert David Steele—had been removed.

I appealed the decision (in one short sentence—YouTube not only refuses to tell you which guideline you have allegedly violated, but only gives you a few dozen characters to make your case!!) I said “no violations! Robert David Steele’s interpretation of the Las Vegas shooting is controversial but newsworthy.”

Here is the deleted interview—please listen and let me know in the comments section how it could possibly have violated any YouTube content guidelines.

Robert David Steele ran a false flag operation for the CIA. He cannot describe the details, since they are still classified. As a former false flagger turned whistleblower and founder of the OSI (Open Source Intelligence) movement, he is the kind of expert that all journalists should consult when writing about a possible Gladio B operation like the Las Vegas shooting. Whatever he has to say about such an event is newsworthy and should be publicized.

But MSM “journalists” don’t do journalism any more. Now YouTube wants to make sure that independent media people like me can’t do it either.

Just minutes after learning that my YouTube channel was in mortal danger, I heard about the shooting in YouTube’s headquarters in San Bruno, California. An angry YouTuber, Nasim Aghdam, had shot up their offices, wounding three people before she was killed  by police.

Aghdam, like me and so many other people, had been targeted by the YouTube cyber-bullies. As an independent media person whose content offended powerful special interests, Aghdam was apparently censored by YouTube, killing traffic to her site and destroying the business she had worked so hard to build.

When a bully targets someone, that person essentially has two choices: fight back or die (spiritually, morally, etc. if not physically). I know Jesus allegedly said to turn the other cheek. But in the real world, that usually doesn’t work with bullies.

The best way to fight back is with heart, mind, and words, maintaining the self-control necessary to wage a strategic war against the bully over the long term. That’s what I’ve been doing (for 15 years now) about the bullies who blew up the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, and the Constitution, on September 11, 2001.

Another way to fight back is to just go off on them—violently, physically. That is what I did to the two guys who bullied me when I was a teenager. In both cases I got sick of putting up with their BS and accepted their challenges to fight. The first one started crying when I landed a hard punch in the vicinity of his ear. The second one quit after suffering a black eye. Thankfully, neither one was permanently injured. (After growing up, I learned there were some very good reasons NEVER to punch people. See

The possibility that a bullying target might go off on the bully—I mean, REALLY go off—is a deterrent to bullying. I hope the YouTube cyberbullies learn their lesson from the martyrdom of Nasim Aghdam. Youtube MUST return to a fully content-neutral policy: ending its “strikes,” reversing its vicious and unconstitutional attempt to demonetize the alternative media, and only removing material if there is a strong prima facie case that it violates the law.





We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


  1. If I had a lot of videos on Youtube and they gave me a “strike”, I would immediately download ALL my videos to thumb drives for back up. Then to hell with Youtube.

  2. I think one of the things that is catching up to youtube is libel and slander. The folks who want their names to come up clean in searches have leverage over youtube to purge anything, and also are the only ones who have the time to vet everything and run it down. I’m not saying this is the main thing, but it is a factor. I recently heard a case of a banker who’s name was being disparaged, and he fought for a year before the content was removed. But, in the first few minutes of Steele’s talk, he suggests Eric Prince “has offered to kill domestic enemies of Trump”. Prince is definitely the kind of guy who runs around cleaning up the internet after himself.
    So that would be my suspect number one on that video. Steele doesn’t come off as an ex agent, the way other better sources do. I don’t hear other ex agents say things like that.

    • perhaps you should begin to think about a change to another platform be4 all your content is lost for ever ?

  3. Well, given that Robert David Steele is a fraud, a disinfo op, then one reason for Youtube to delete a video featuring him is to give him false credibility.

    • He’s right on most things, wrong on a few (including some very important current issues). Not sure how that makes him a disinfo op.

      Here at VT we sometimes think we’re the perfect that’s the enemy of the good. And while yes, we are usually better than the competition, let’s try to keep some humility and goodwill towards others who may not share our outlook on everything.

    • That’s how an effective disinfo op works – they mix in a small bit of disinfo; if they spouted only disinfo, it would be too obvious and the op wouldn’t be effective.

      Gordon agrees with me about Steele, he’s a pretty obvious op if you analyse what he says.

    • Steele doesn’t check out. Seems to be a plant like Assange, Pilger, Shamir, Blankfort and armies of other “useful idiots.”

    • My red flag for Steele was the “too good to be true” interview with Kevin Barrett about the alleged sealed indictments that Trump was going to use to take down the Deep State, and how defensive Steele was (yelling “Come on Kevin”) when asked to tell more about them.

Comments are closed.