DOJ Invites 24 State AGs to Jeff Sessions Meeting About Breaking Up Google, Facebook

Attorney General Jeff Sessions makes a point while speaking during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

PJ Media, by Tyler O’Neil September 13, 2018:

On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that nearly half of the state attorneys general would be invited to a September 25 meeting with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to discuss whether social media companies are violating anti-trust laws. The DOJ announced the meeting last week, following the congressional testimony of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

“Following last week’s statement, the Justice Department received an increased level of interest from state attorneys general in attending the September 25 meeting on tech companies, competition, and free exchange of ideas,” a DOJ spokesman told PJ Media on Thursday afternoon. Due to this increased interest, Sessions has invited more attorneys general.

“Today, the Justice Department formally sent invitations to a bipartisan group of twenty-four state attorneys general that expressed an interest in attending the meeting hosted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions,” the spokesman added. “The meeting will take place here at the Department of Justice, and we look forward to having a robust dialogue with all attendees on the topic of social media platforms.”

While many state AGs have investigated Google and Facebook in the past — and many investigations are ongoing — a few select attorneys general began mulling the idea of a coordinated investigation earlier this year. Sessions has taken the lead for this event, which originally was only going to include the attorneys general from five states: Alabama, Louisiana, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas.

Many attorneys general have sued Facebook and Google specifically, and not just on the conservative side of the aisle. Rhode Island’s Democrat AG Peter Kilmartin forced Google to surrender $500 million for selling illegal drugs in 2011. Mississippi’s Democrat AG Tim Hood has taken Google to court twice over illegal drugs, pirated movies, and personal data. Washington state Democrat AG Bob Ferguson sued Facebook and Google over records for political ads this summer.

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley perhaps began the latest round of investigations when he announced a broad anti-trust and consumer-protection investigation into Google last November. This April, he subpoenaed Facebook in order to ensure proper protection of private consumer data.

Earlier this week, PJ Media reached out to every Republican attorney general to see if Sessions had invited them to the meeting. Many said they did not receive an invitation, Hawley included. Sources have suggested that the original meeting would be a working group, to discuss these issues in private. If that was ever the goal, it seems that ship has sailed.

Conservatives have long expressed suspicion that Google, Facebook, and Twitter have been censoring their content. Recent events have only underscored those questions, especially since Tucker Carlson reported on a letter in which a Google executive bragged about increasing Latino voter turnout in the 2016 election, thinking it would help Hillary Clinton.

On the other side, this week liberals at ThinkProgress accused Facebook of censoring them when the social media company marked their article as “false” due to a fact-check from The Weekly Standard.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry told PJ Media that investigating Facebook and Google on anti-trust and consumer protection issues “shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

“I’ve got some Democratic AG friends that are concerned about the anti-trust position in the market in relation to the consumer,” Landry said. “The same fundamentals that allow Facebook or Google to control the free market and hurt consumers are the same fundamentals that allow them to suppress content.”

Landry accused social media companies of creating “a virtual fence around the free market.”

“We must work together to ensure that online economic competition operates fairly and transparently, so that Americans can make informed choices and public discourse can flourish,” Jeff Mateer, Texas’ first assistant attorney general, told PJ Media.

Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel — a Christian legal nonprofit considering suing the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for defamation — told PJ Media he had “a telephone conversation this week with a number of attorneys regarding this issue.”

“We’ve actually talked about anti-trust” in regard to social media companies, Staver added. “Even the Department of Justice is talking about anti-trust because of the unfair competition and the monopoly that these companies are wielding, which is far beyond anything that we’ve seen before.”

Chris Gacek, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, compared Facebook’s censorship pattern to that of a court of law. “You have an interior Facebook judicial system, an appellate system, and a Supreme Court of Facebook,” he said. “You have basically a bunch of leftists who are in charge of a company and a business model that no one’s ever seen before.”

Gacek noted that “you probably only need five states” to get involved in pressuring these companies, “and you can really mess these guys up.”

Late last month, a former anti-trust lawyer for President Ronald Reagan, Larry Klayman, filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, accusing them of working in concert to suppress conservative speech online. The suit brings up anti-trust claims, free speech claims, and discrimination claims, adding up to $1 billion in damages.

Facebook and Google can expect some tough times ahead.

***

Leaked Google Video Shows Collective Ideology Behind Worlds Largest Internet Influence Agent…

Google is the primary hub through which 90% of all internet activity transpires.  Google controls 75% of on-line ad revenue.  Googles algorithms manipulate the way information travels within the internet; and in actuality, Google can stop and shut down information according to their ideological definition & approval therein.

With unlimited influence, and almost unlimited power over what you are able to see and hear on the internet, Google is ominous.   So when see the leadership of Google crying over their inability to influence the 2016 election; and when you hear them say they will double their efforts to make sure it doesn’t happen in 2018; everyone should be alarmed.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin, CEO Sundar Pichai, Senior VP for Global Affairs, Kent Walker, CFO Ruth Porat and Eileen Naughton, VP of People Operations talk about their horror and sadness over the outcome of the 2016 election.  WATCH RECAP:

Below is the full video, which is also hosted on Brietbart.Com

***

***

***

Also see:

Facebook Lifts Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov’s 9/11 Ban

Front Page Magazine, by Jamie Glazov, September 14, 2018:

[Editors’ note: To best understand why Facebook would ban Jamie Glazov on 9/11 in the first place, pre-order Jamie’s new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE. The book illustrates how the Jihadist Psychopath has, with the help of the Left, successfully built his totalitarian plantation in the West — on which the political and cultural establishment is now enslaved and dutifully following his orders. Jamie outlines the frameworks of this tyrannical plantation and how those who are trapped on it, and yearn for freedom, can best escape.]

Frontpage editors are happy to announce our free speech victory: Facebook has lifted Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 30-day ban on Facebook, apologizing and saying that the block was a “mistake”.

We have no doubt, of course, that no “mistake” had actually occurred in this matter and that the ban has only been lifted because of the publicity that we engaged in — and received.

While it is a positive development that Facebook has lifted the ban on Jamie (for now), this story is crucial to amplify now more than ever, seeing that Facebook, and all of leftist-run social media, is, at this moment, clearly accelerating its totalitarian attack on the free speech of conservatives.

A brief recap of Jamie’s story: on Sept. 11, the 17th Anniversary of the 9/11 terror strike, Facebook’s Unholy Alliance masters informed Jamie that he was suspended from Facebook for 30 days due to his posting of his article, 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad, which Facebook informed him violated their “community standards.” This suggested, of course, that giving advice on how to prevent another 9/11, and all other Jihadist attacks against America, is now against Facebook’s ‘community standards’. (Read the whole story HERE.)

Frontpage and Jamie immediately publicized this tyrannical behavior of Facebook. Then, yesterday, on Sept. 13, Facebook notified Jamie that it had made a mistake and that it was lifting his block.

It goes without saying that this retraction and surrender by Facebook occurred only because of the wide publicity that Jamie’s banning had received. And we are immensely grateful for all the massive support that was given to us across the Internet, including especially from BreitbartPJMediaWorldNetDaily and Thomas Lifson at American Thinker. Leading brave conservative figures such as Michelle Malkin and Laura Loomer also stood up for Jamie, tweeting about his ban — and to them we send our heartfelt appreciation.

Jamie is, of course, no stranger to social media censorship — especially of the insane variety. The Counter Jihad Coalition’s (CJC) Facebook page, which Jamie helped run with CJC President Steve Amundson, was removed a few years ago with absolutely no explanation. The CJC is a human rights and pro-national security group that is dedicated to protecting America and the West from Jihad — and Muslim and non-Muslim people from Sharia oppression. The question remains: why would Facebook remove such a page, let alone in such a fascistic manner — and never explain why?

In April earlier this year, Jamie was suspended from Facebook for posting screenshots of a Muslim’s threat to him on the platform. Then, in May, his Twitter account was temporarily suspended and he was forced to delete tweets he posted which directly quoted Islamic religious texts. His account was suspended for violating Twitter’s rules relating to “hateful conduct.” It is “hateful conduct”, apparently, to reference what Islamic texts themselves say. Indeed, Frontpage’s editor had simply referred to Sahih Bukhari’s texts discussing Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was six years old (7.62.88) and to Qur’anic Suras that mandate the Hijab for women (24:31; 33:59) and sanction sexual slavery (4:3; 33:50).

One thing we know for sure is that, despite this lifting of Jamie’s ban, Facebook and the leftist totalitarians in other social media venues and in the culture at large will continue their unrelenting effort to suffocate dissent and conservative voices. On Facebook, many brave conservative truth-tellers continue to be censored in myriad ways; these individuals include Anni CyrusBosch FawstinMark Lutchman and, of course, Diamond & Silk. The case of #WalkAway leader Brandon Straka is especially disturbing: he was recently banned by Facebook for thecrime of announcing that he would be interviewed by Alex Jones. Prager U has had its videos mysteriously disappear off of Facebook and then, only after vociferous protest, re-appear.

Facebook is, of course, just one terrain of this leftist brownshirt-style assault on free speech. Everyone knows by now, for instance, what has happened, in the most Orwellian sense, to Alex Jones and InfoWars on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Leading scholar of Islam and JihadWatch.org Director Robert Spencer, meanwhile, is not just a target at Facebook, where his referrals are down 90% from what they once were; he has been banned by Patreon at the behest of MasterCard — and MasterCard has yet to respond to his lawyer’s letter. GoFundMe has also banned Spencer because of a smear by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hate machine.

Speaking of Mastercard, the David Horowitz Freedom Center just recently won a major battle with the credit card, defeating well-financed leftwing groups that are trying to run the Center out of business and suffocate free speech in America. The Freedom Center emerged victorious, but it is clear that leftist hate groups such as the SPLC and Color of Change.org are preparing new attacks against the Freedom Center and other conservative groups and individuals 24/7.

To be sure, the Left’s attacks on the David Horowitz Freedom Center continue unabated: just recently a hit piece in the Washington Post smeared a stand-up noble gentleman like Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Republican Ron DeSantis, libeling David Horowitz in the process. The article stated falsely and maliciously that Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend, that DeSantis had attended, was somehow “a racially charged event” — a vicious lie that Frontpage has exposed and for which the Washington Post is still to apologize and issue a retraction. (To learn why David Horowitz is one of the central targets of the Left, make sure to watch this video).

Thus, we clearly gauge that there is no disgusting and venomous level to which the Left will not stoop in its destructive agenda. Yes, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov has had his ban lifted at Facebook, but this is clearly only a brief reprieve for him on that platform — and it is only, obviously, a very tiny space in the Stalinist Left’s war on America and on everything on which it stands.

At this dire moment, we all need to amplify our voices in defense of free speech. And we need to adamantly defend all the truth-tellers at the very moment they come under attack. We also need to contact our representatives and to call for a Congressional investigation into this pernicious assault by the fascist Left on our liberties.

The battle for America — and for the West — is on.

[Editors’ postscript: Please make sure to FOLLOW Jamie Glazov on Facebook as well as on Twitter (@JamieGlazov) to strengthen his social media strength in the face of the Left’s vicious war on free speech. Thank you!]

Facebook Bans Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov on 9/11 – For Posting on How to Prevent Another 9/11

Front Page Magazine, by Jamie Glazov, September 12, 2018:

[Editors’ note: To best understand why Facebook would ban Jamie Glazov on 9/11 for his article on how to best prevent more 9/11s, pre-order Jamie’s new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE. The book illustrates how the Jihadist Psychopath has successfully built his totalitarian plantation — on which many in the West are now enslaved and dutifully following his orders. Jamie outlines the frameworks of this tyrannical plantation and how those who are trapped on it, and yearn for freedom, can best escape.]

Facebook’s Unholy Alliance masters are, without doubt, accelerating their totalitarian suffocation of free thought and expression. it is no surprise, therefore, that Frontpage’s editor, and host of The Glazov Gang, was suspended from Facebook for 30 days yesterday, on September 11, after posting his article, 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad. Glazov believed that the article was more relevant and urgent than ever due to the skyrocketing Jihadist stabbings in Europe — and to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 that was approaching the next day.

But it appears that daring to give suggestions on how our civilization can stop Jihadist attacks and another 9/11 is against Facebook’s ‘community standards’. Frontpage’s editor posted a screenshot of the reprimand that Facebook sent him and then tweeted about it. (See Below).

The article itself outlined nine ways in which Jihad can best be countered. The steps include:

1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment, 3. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups, and 5. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign.”

Glazov’s advice also involves the promotion of supporting moderate Muslims — a move that is, clearly, horrifying to Facebook’s masters and therefore also violates their “community standards.”

No doubt, Glazov’s consistent campaigning on behalf of Muslim women and girls in his efforts to protect them from FGMHonor Killings and other Sharia barbarities, has gained him the anger and hatred of Facebook’s guardians — who are clearly on the side of the Sharia enforcers and oppressors of Muslim women and girls.

Glazov is no stranger to censorship on social media — especially of the insane variety. In April earlier this year, he was suspended from Facebook for posting screenshots of a Muslim’s threat to him on the platform.

Then, in May, his Twitter account was temporarily suspended and he was forced to delete tweets he posted which directly quoted Islamic religious texts. His account was suspended for violating Twitter’s rules relating to “hateful conduct.”

It is “hateful conduct”, apparently, to reference what Islamic texts themselves say. Indeed,  Frontpage’s editor had simply referred to Sahih Bukhari’s texts discussing Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was six years old (7.62.88) and to Qur’anic Suras that mandate the Hijab for women (24:31; 33:59) and sanction sexual slavery (4:3; 33:50).

Glazov has also attempted to write to Facebook to ask what it is specifically that violates Facebook’s “community standards” when a person gives advice on how to best defend American lives from Jihad. But when he tries to send his inquiry, a Facebook announcement appears telling him that his “request” cannot be processed. It appears, therefore, that when you are languishing in the Facebook Gulag, not only are you imprisoned without understanding why, but there is also no way and no one to ask about your fate.

Islamic blasphemy laws are here — and coming to a neighborhood near you.

We ask everyone to get involved. Please go to Facebook and click on the blue question (“?”) mark on the top-right corner of your Homepage. Then select “Report a Problem” at the very bottom of the box and go to the “General Feedback” section and write in to request that Jamie Glazov’s ban be lifted. You can also do that on Facebook HERE and HERE. Also protest on Twitter: @facebook and @fbnewsroom — and directly to Mark Zuckerberg@finkd. And please spread the word and report this outrage to all the media you can.

And make sure to FOLLOW Jamie Glazov on Facebook as well as on Twitter to strengthen his social media strength in the face of this censorship: @JamieGlazov.

Thank you so much!

Wall Street Journal Runs Editorial from Erdogan—World’s Biggest Jailer of Journalists

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan meets with media in Ankara on March 22, 2017. (Kayhan Ozer/Presidential Press Service, Pool Photo via AP)

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, September 11, 2018:

One-third of all journalists jailed worldwide sit in the prisons of Turkey’s Islamist autocrat, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

So it’s startling that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has opened up its opinion page to him today.

Remarkably, this comes after Turkey imprisoned WSJ reporter Dion Nissenbaumfor two and a half days in December 2016, refusing to allow him to contact his colleagues or his family and later deporting him.

Then in October 2017, the Turkish regime convicted WSJ reporter Ayla Albayrak in absentia on charges of publishing “terrorist propaganda.”

And just today the Erdogan regime arrested another Western journalist:

Today’s Erdogan op-ed follows another New York Times op-ed by the Turkish dictator just a month ago — published on the same day the NYT editorial board questioned whether Turkey was still an American ally:

The bizarre love affair of the American corporate media continues as 169 journalists sit in Turkish prisons:

This has earned Turkey the title of the world’s largest jailer of journalists:

But Erdogan has not been content with just jailing journalists.

Since the so-called “coup” attempt in July 2016, Erdogan associates have taken over many of Turkey’s newspapers.

Just last week one of the few remaining independent newspapers, Cumhuriyet, had a new board installed, which promptly sacked the editor-in-chief and prompted the resignations of more than a dozen of its reporters.

And Erdogan doesn’t hesitate to show his contempt for media criticism, such as comments he made just two weeks ago:

When called out by the international media for jailing journalists, he’s defended his actions by saying that they’re not journalists but terrorists:

Not content to limit his attacks on the media to just Turkey, Erdogan’s regime has used a number of avenues to attack journalists abroad.

Just a few days ago Gissur Simonarson was notified by Twitter that one of his tweets reporting on the attacks by Turkish troops operating inside Syria had been proscribed by Turkish courts:

Turkish hackers have also targeted American media personalities, in some cases hijacking their Twitter accounts:

It was reported this past January that social media death threats targeting Belgian journalists had come from IP addresses assigned to the Turkish embassy in Brussels.

What explains the ongoing love affair between the American media and dictators around the world? What would compel a media outlet to give space or airtime to a brutal dictator who holds one-third of all journalists jailed worldwide in his prisons?

That’s a good question for the editors at the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Twitter Flags Saying ‘Islam Is NOT a Religion of Peace’ as Possible ‘Hateful Conduct’

The logo of social network site Twitter reflected in a pair of glasses. Twitter says it suspended more than 375,000 accounts for violations linked to the promotion of terrorism in the last six months of 2016. Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire URN: 30627884

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 6, 2017:

A few weeks ago I noticed that the hashtag #ConfessYourUnpopularOpinion was trending on Twitter. So I thought I would have a little fun, posted the tweet below, and forgot about it — until this weekend, when I received this email warning me that the tweet was being evaluated for possible violation of Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy”:

Dear Twitter user,

We are writing to inform you that certain content on your Twitter account @jihadwatchRS has been flagged, for possible violation of Twitter’s hateful conduct policy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175054), specifically:

We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it.

If it is determined that the flagged content does not violate our hateful conduct policy, Twitter may still withhold content in France if the content appears to violate the laws of France.

For more information on our Country Withheld Content policy please see this page: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222

If you believe we have contacted you in error, please reply to this email and let us know.

Sincerely,

Twitter

“We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it,” said Twitter.

All right. Let’s do that.

I could quote violent passages from the Qur’an, but those might be waved away with the dismissive and erroneous claim that the Bible contains similar exhortations to violence. Let’s focus instead on what Islamic authorities say — because one should get the impression that Islam is not a religion of peace from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib).

Shafi’i school

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University — one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world — as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy stipulates about jihad that:

[T]he caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.

It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only:

… provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions. ( ‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that ISIS, et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked.

The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that?

“ [N]othing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school

A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons. From the call to Islam:

… the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.

However:

“[I]f the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes:

[I]n the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school

The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed:

[S]ince lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam.

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice,sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee is an assistant professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes 12th century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:

Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.

Nyazee concludes:

This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation [of non-Muslims].

All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent.

It would be illuminating if Twitter produced some quotations from Muslim authorities they consider “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslims who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent and not a “Religion of Peace.”

Are they all hateful “Islamophobes”?

Is Twitter going to drop this tweet, and probably soon enough ban me altogether, for telling unwelcome truths? Have at it, you simpering millennial totalitarians with your horn-rimmed glasses and your lattes. Before too long, the evil that you are enabling will turn its attention to you.

Two New Totalitarian Movements: Radical Islam and Political Correctness

Gatestone Institute, by A. Z. Mohamed, August 23, 2017:

  • The attempt in the West to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s diseased society.
  • The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by George Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil — of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.
  • Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals.

Political correctness (PC) has been bolstering radical Islamism. This influence was most recently shown again in an extensive exposé by the Clarion Project in July 2017, which demonstrates the practice of telling “deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them in order to forget any fact that has become inconvenient” — or, as George Orwell called it in his novel, 1984, “Doublespeak.”

This courtship and marriage between the Western chattering classes and radical Muslim fanatics was elaborated by Andrew C. McCarthy in his crucial 2010 book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Since then, this union has strengthened. Both the United States and the rest of the West are engaged in a romance with forces that are, bluntly, antagonistic to the values of liberty and human rights.

To understand this seeming paradox, one needs to understand what radical Islamism and PC have in common. Although Islamism represents all that PC ostensibly opposes — such as the curbing of free speech, the repression of women, gays and “apostates” — both have become totalitarian ideologies.

The totalitarian nature of radical Islamism is more obvious than that of Western political correctness — and certainly more deadly. Sunni terrorists, such as ISIS and Hamas — and Shiites, such as Hezbollah and its state sponsor, Iran — use mass murder to accomplish their ultimate goal of an Islamic Caliphate that dominates the world and subjugates non-Muslims.

The attempt in the West, however, to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s view of a diseased society.

These rules are not merely unspoken ones. Quoting a Fox News interview with American columnist Rachel Alexander, the Clarion Project points out that the Associated Press — whose stylebook is used as a key reference by a majority of English-language newspapers worldwide for uniformity of grammar, punctuation and spelling — is now directing writers to avoid certain words and terms that are now deemed unacceptable to putative liberals.

Alexander recently wrote:

“Even when individual authors do not adhere to the bias of AP Style, it often doesn’t matter. If they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform. A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words ‘pro-life’ changed to ‘anti-abortion,’ because the AP Stylebook instructs, ‘Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.’ It goes on, ‘Avoid abortionist,’ saying the term ‘connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.’

“Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist. ‘People struggling to enter Europe’ is favored over ‘migrant’ or ‘refugee.’ While it’s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees.”

To be sure, the AP Stylebook does not carry the same weight or authority as the Quranic texts on which radical Islamists base their jihadist actions and totalitarian aims. It does constitute, however, a cultural decree that has turned religious in its fervor. It gives a glimpse, as well, into the intellectual tyranny that has pervaded liberal Western thought and institutions.

The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil — of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.

As far back as 2003, the Middle East Forum reported on the findings of a study conducted by the American Textbook Council, an independent New York-based research organization, which stated:

“[Over the last decade], the coverage of Islam in world history textbooks has expanded and in some respects improved…. But on significant Islam-related subjects, textbooks omit, flatter, embellish, and resort to happy talk, suspending criticism or harsh judgments that would raise provocative or even alarming questions.”

Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals. The relationship between the two must be recognized for what it is: a marriage made in hell.

A. Z. Mohamed is a Muslim born and raised in the Middle East.

Tech Blacklisting of Counterjihadists Is What Muslim Brotherhood Seeks: Sabotage by Our Hands

Ein Fachbesucher testen am 22.08.2017 in Köln (Nordrhein- Photo by: Oliver Berg/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

PJ Media, by Ben Weingarten, Aug. 22, 2017:

When one thinks of the embodiment of “hate,” modern-day jihadists are perhaps without equal.

They murder those who refuse to submit to their totalitarian theopolitical belief system in the most vile and horrific ways, from stabbings and shootings to beheadings, bombings, and vehicle crashings.

They revile non-believer “infidels,” from Jews and Christians to atheists and gays, and mercilessly persecute all who fall under their clutches.

They engage in sex slaverymass rape and pillaging.

But when today’s sophist Left thinks of “hate,” it focuses its sights not on jihadists, but on those who forthrightly discuss the jihadist threat, among other advocates of non-leftist views.

That is the sad reality in light of the emerging story of the blacklisting of such individuals and organizations by major technology platforms.

The most notable early casualty is Robert Spencer, who headlines a list of other opponents of the global jihad.

Spencer has dedicated his life to exposing Islamic supremacist ideology and the goals, tactics, and strategies of its peaceful and violent foot soldiers. He has published several bestselling books, and through his Jihad Watch website catalogues daily the global jihad’s advance and the tragic aiding, abetting, and enabling of the movement by Islamophiliac dupes, useful idiots, and fellow travelers.

For his long rap sheet of thought crimes, he’s paid a physical price. In May of 2017, Spencer was poisoned by a leftist while in Iceland to deliver an anti-jihad speech.

Now he is paying an economic one.

The online payment system service PayPal has booted Jihad Watch from its serviceunder the guise of a user agreement violation, meaning that its financial supporters can no longer easily contribute to the site online. These contributions support Spencer’s public appearances and website operations.

This comes on the heels of a campaign in which the purported “independent, non-profit,” but heavily leftist-funded investigative journalism website ProPublica blasted out an email to various groups and individuals – including Spencer — fingered by the Leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and American Defamation League (ADL) as “hate” or “extremist,” asking them to in essence prove their innocence while simultaneously chilling their efforts.

It bears noting that the SPLC has previously lumped in conservative nonprofits of all stripes with neo-Nazis, effectively smearing its ideological adversaries.

The questions posed by ProPublica’s Lauren Kirchner included:

1) Do you disagree with the designation of your website as hate or extremist? Why?

2) We identified several tech companies on your website: PayPal, Amazon, Newsmax, and Revcontent. Can you confirm that you receive funds from your relationship with those tech companies? How would the loss of those funds affect your operations, and how would you be able to replace them?

3) Have you been shut down by other tech companies for being an alleged hate or extremist web site? Which companies?

4) Many people opposed to sites like yours are currently pressuring tech companies to cease their relationships with them – what is your view of this campaign? Why?