Who Has the Widest Censorship Reach in Human History?

Aerial view of Silicon Valley at dusk, with a portion of the San Mateo/Hayward Bridge visible, as well as Foster City, including the California headquarters of Gilead Sciences, Visa, and Conversica, California, July, 2016. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images).

Clarion Project, by Shireen Qudosi, October 17, 2018:

When tech companies take measures to crush the very dialogue they once needed to grow — reaching a point where they have amassed the widest censorship reach in human history — it’s time to sit down and have a serious conversation about Silicon Valley.

Professor Noam Chomsky, linguist and co-founder of cognitive science, has long claimed that America is a nation run by corporations. That assertion was well supported nearly a century ago by the rise of America’s elite class — its first millionaires who, soon after amassing their fortunes, turned to investing in elections to help shape favorable policies.

While corporations and their elites have long-shaped public policy by funding one candidate over another, the questions for our generation are:

  • Are we now also directly overseen by corporations themselves, whose billionaire founders have created innovations that allow for policy to bypass government rule?
  • Are the unelected leaders of billion-dollar tech industries in Silicon Valley now the very people that determine how societies are shaped?
  • And if so, are we reaching a crisis point in human civilization where the widest censorship ability in human history is not at the hands of any fascist government, but those of a handful of tech overlords swayed not by the First Amendment, but by personal politics and profit?

Freedom of speech, a right granted to us by the First Amendment of the Constitution, is something guaranteed to us by our government. It is not guaranteed to us by private corporations.

Yet, we — as a society — have become reliant on social tools like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for our “free speech” needs. We have become reliant on Google to authenticate and rank the relevancy of that speech. But the fact remains there is no obligation for these companies to uphold the same standards of free speech that we are guaranteed by our government.

Silicon Valley has come to develop its own standard for “free” speech, one that is subjective and heavy-handed. It has become a reality in which views it dislikes are either censored or “shadow banned” (where a user’s post is blocked from appearing in other people’s news feeds).

Take the most recent Silicon Valley scandal concerning a leaked Google memo, The Good Censor. It’s an 85-page admission that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have pivoted away from free speech and “towards censorship” of those whose opinions they disapprove of (largely political conservatives).

This follows a previously leaked Google memo identifying the social media giant as an ideological echo chamber.

After only days in the news cycle, The Good Censor story only yielded about 540 Twitter mentions, which is impossible given the fact that Twitter has 336-million users worldwide, with 68-million users in the United States alone.

The Google memo was leaked to the conservative news outlet Breitbart, which broke the storyYou can decide for yourself whether it was a coincidence that this was shadow-banned.

Meanwhile, post after post promoting misogynistic and extremist rhetoric of Islam’s religious right continue to be promoted. For example, while Twitter shut down right-wing fringe journalist Alex Jones, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Twitter page is not only standing tall, it’s verified.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist operation with chapters across the world, including well-nested front organizations in the United States with agents openly spewing the same hate and propaganda you would find in the caves of Kandahar.

And it’s not just Twitter. Facebook does the same thing. Take another example. Pages that support and promote female genital mutilation (FGM) are left standing while pages belonging to critics of this horrific practice are often silenced.

To be fair, there are a couple of (less sinister) reasons why this is happening (reasons that are also part of the problem):

  1. Social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube rely on artificial intelligence and algorithms to red-flag content. A video directly attacking FGM can raise flags for content on child abuse, whereas a video promoting FGM might be far more discrete in how its message is communicated.
  2. Once content has been red-flagged, it is nearly impossible to reach an actual human being with whom to discuss the issue. On the off chance you do, you’re likely at the mercy of a millennial already well-sculpted into a narrow ideological worldview, passionately fueled by their band-wagon causes with little interest or awareness of nuanced conversations that involve hard facts about life beyond their ideological echo chamber.

Unless billions are invested into multiple counter platforms to break Silicon Valley’s monopoly on regulating and policing speech, the truth is the only real power we have is to break our dependency on technology and return to real-time, real-life connections.

Ultimately, the power is ours.

In some Utopian fantasy, Muslim reformers like myself (and other alternative voices) would have the opportunity to sit down with Silicon Valley tech giants and have an honest conversation with them to help them understand a reality they won’t ever be able to assess through artificial and social intelligence alone.

Until that time comes, I invite you to walk away from social media with me and return to building real relationships with individuals, rather than feeding the beast that technology has become with more of the life-blood it needs to continue to grow and crush opposition voices: our data.


The Creepy Line movie is streaming on Amazon Prime

Also see:

Stunning 85-page Google memo ‘The Good Censor’ leaked to Breitbart

American Thinker, by Thomas Lifson, October 10, 2018:

If you are not worried about the power of Google to shape debate and elections according to its leftist political bias, you’re not paying attention.  I congratulate Breitbart.com for the scoop, and I urge everyone – I am looking at you, President Trump and Congress – to read and ponder the fate of the Republic unless this company is defanged, most likely by antitrust action, but possibly also via civil courts.  Breitbart is mum about how it came to possess the memo, but I do recall that Google is being sued over its dismissal of James Damore for insufficient adherence to its own ideology, and the discovery process in that lawsuit is almost certainly underway.

You can download and read the entire memo here.  If that is too great a time investment, then read Allum Bokhari’s introduction and summary here, including:

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable. …

[T]he 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

The briefing labels the ideal of unfettered free speech on the internet a “utopian narrative” that has been “undermined” by recent global events as well as “bad behavior” on the part of users. …

It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers.  “This free speech ideal was instilled in the DNA of the Silicon Valley startups that now control the majority of our online conversations,” says the document.

The briefing argues that Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are caught between two incompatible positions, the “unmediated marketplace of ideas” vs. “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility.”







The Creepy Line is available on Amazon 

@Censorship: Twitter Bans 10 Conservatives Accounts Won’t Give Reason

Please share this like crazy so my friend and tech adviser Tanya Grimsley can back up and running!!!

The Lid, by Jeff Dinetz, October 3, 2018:

At approximately 9 pm eastern on October 2, ten conservative twitter accounts owned by ten different entities were suspended by Twitter.  When the account owners contacted Twitter to get the details of what they supposedly did wrong and appeal the punishment,  no reason was provided. Instead,  the “bluebirds of punishment” sent them notices that they were permanently banned.

Eight of the accounts booted by twitter were connected to websites; two were personal accounts:

 Twitter Account: Owner

  1. @constitutionNat: Constitution.com
  2. @theEagleRising: Eagle Rising.com
  3. @flagandC: FlagandCross.com
  4. @RedrightRepub: SteadfastHerald.com
  5. @GreatAmRepub: AllenWestRepublic.com
  6. @Army4OurRepub: GreatAmericanRepublic.com
  7. @luvGodnCountry: Personal Account For Tanya Grimsley
  8. @bb4SP:  BB4SP.com
  9. @deplorableNews : DeplorableNews.com
  10. @ BarracudaMama: Personal Account For Alicia Luke

The first seven of the accounts above had never received any warning or punishment by twitter. The bottom three were suspended about six years ago but never received any warning that they were close to being in trouble.

The suspension notices were sent to their owner’s emails at the same time., Below is one example:

Read the email carefully, do you notice that after the support team email says “Specifically, for” there is a blanks space?

In other words, they were suspended for violating Twitter rules but apparently, which particular rules are not for their consumption. Perhaps those roles are kept a safe with the formula for Coca-Cola, and Col. Sanders chicken recipe.

None of the accounts or the websites are particularly controversial. Perhaps Twitter wouldn’t tell them why they were banned because the only Twitter rule violated was breathing oxygen while conservative.

But still, these ten accounts soldiered on; they contacted Twitter support to ask why and appeal their suspension.  The below is an example of Twitter support’s response:

Translating their response into English, “We’re not going to tell you and because you asked you are permanently banned.”

The email from the bluebirds of punishment says “repeat violations.” How can they expect people not to repeat violations if they weren’t told what the violations were in the first place?

Here’s the real truth, they didn’t have time to repeat. The person who owns @luvGodnCountry told me that as soon as she received the suspension notice, she appealed. Precisely four seconds after she filled out the form below and sent it to Twitter the second notice appeared telling her that she was forever banned.

Some of you may remember a story posted here about a professor from Georgetown University who tweeted:

Ms. Fair was suspended from twitter…not permanently.

Do you want to be fed only one side of each story? With censorship such as this, Jack Dorsey’s social media company is controlling the information you get, preventing you from making your own intelligent decision by limiting the data you have to consider.

Everyone, both conservative or liberal should be concerned. It’s like the novel 1984. Twitter (and Facebook too) is acting like Oceania, in this case, ruled by liberalism. They have become like the “Thought Police,” persecuting anyone who exhibits independent thinking outside their particular point of view.

Don’t start screaming about the First Amendment they are privately owned and aren’t beholden to those free speech provisions.

A few weeks ago the head of Twitter Jack Dorsey, was interviewed by CNN’s Brian Stelter:

Hey Jack, do you know why people don’t believe you? Because it’s not true! And the ten accounts your people booted out of Twitter on Tuesday is proof.

Liberals might ask “why should I care?”  Well, my big government friends, one day a conservative will invent the next big social media thing. And you will be the censored ones. You will have to work twice as hard to promote your websites or have a conversation with a friend from a distant country outside America (like California). You will have to work harder because while the facts you present are truthful, the opinions expressed but do not agree with the social media’s senior management.

Racism, Xenophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination – Oh Dear! (ODIHR)

OSCE Debra Anderson is interrupted for “islamophobia” while asking to protect secular law in the USA

The Center for Security Policy and it’s allies have been giving some serious push back to threats against free speech at the this year’s Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. Participants are 56 countries, which includes Europe, Central Asia and North America, as well as large and small NGO’s from the area. Why should you care? Because statements and recommendations from these conferences heavily influence political decision-making and so it is quite an influential organisation.

The following are some of the highlights starting with an OSCE official laying out their agenda. Please also see my recent post on the conference:

Center Highlights Speech Restrictions At International Conference



See text pdf: Free Speech Under Fire Parts 1-3, Clare Lopez Interventions at OSCE













Did Marxists Invent the “War on Hate?”

A Cato Institute forum reveals the radical origins of the Left’s “War on Hate”

Capital Research, by Jacob Grandstaff, November 30, 2017:

Far-left fanatics on college campuses may claim to support new social theories in their pursuit of social justice, but they’re often chasing Marxism by another name.

On November 28, the Cato Institute hosted a policy forum in Washington, D.C., that drew a line connecting the communist Soviet Union with the modern Left’s doctrine of “intersectionality,” the social theory responsible for much of the fanaticism afflicting American college campuses.

The intersectionality theory holds that there are formal categories of hate—sex, race, class, etc.—and they overlap into institutionalized oppression.

The forum, entitled “Marxist Origins of Hate-Speech Legislation and Political Correctness,” featured the American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Christina Hoff Sommers and Cato Institute Senior Fellow Flemming Rose. Over the course of the forum, the scholars revealed how Western intellectuals rebranded Marxism as social egalitarianism, minimizing its economic elements, after the USSR lost moral credibility in the West at the beginning of the Cold War. But Marxists never relinquished their animosity toward the so-called “bourgeoisie.”

Sommers jokingly began her address by thanking the Cato Institute for providing a “safe space” for freedom of expression.

“When future historians look back and try to understand what the hell happened to American campuses in the second decade of the 21st century,” she said, “they are going to find the real culprit to be a theory; and it’s called intersectionality.”

The intersectionality theory dates back to the 1970s (though it wasn’t coined until 1989), and the beginnings of “privileges” in ethnicity and gender. For instance, theorists might argue that a white woman is privileged by her race, but disadvantaged by her gender. Minority women “would be in double jeopardy” – disadvantaged by both their race and gender.

Although the theory began with a focus on black women, the number of apparently “victimized” groups quickly multiplied. Sommers said she attended a feminist conference which divided the women based on their “grievances and healing needs.”

There were groups for black women, Asian women, Jewish women, fat women, gay women. None of the groups proved stable. People started quarreling, and so there was, like, a black lesbian group—the Jewish women started a fight—some wanted to celebrate their religion, others wanted to overcome it. There was just this continuous process of mitosis.

I eventually ended up bonding with a group of lesbian separatists.

“I wasn’t a smoker, but I needed a cigarette,” she said to audience laughter, “And they smoked!”

Sommers, who regards herself as a classical “equity feminist” contrasted her feminism, which grew out of the Enlightenment, to this new form of feminism, which she said “came straight out of Marxism via the Frankfurt School, via French philosophers, and maybe a little of the self-esteem movement.”

“If you’re committed to this theory, you’re not going to worry about niceties like free expression,” she added. “You’re on an urgent mission to dismantle a lethal system of oppression.”

Sommers also reminded the audience of a recent incident at Reed College, where a group of students protested and shut down a class because the lesbian professor’s teaching of the ancient Greek poet Sappho was insufficiently intersectional. She recounted another experience at Oberlin College, where “30 women and a therapy dog fled to a safe room” to escape her presence.

“I feel bad for that dog,” she added.

Sommers pointed out that the main difference between Bolsheviks and intersectionalists is that the latter don’t have the power to put people in prison. If they did, though, they would likely put her in prison, as well as many other dissenters.

Too many textbooks and professors indoctrinate students to believe that levels of oppression exist in society, based on marginalized identities. This leads to so-called “microaggressions,” supposed slights made by the upper echelons of the intersectionality food chain against those at the bottom to remind them of their inferior status. This creates an environment where all students, regardless of their gender or ethnicity, can now feel equally oppressed because the possibility of victimhood mitosis is endless.

Sommers marvels at how most students “don’t seem to flinch” when they hear professors damning the United States as an imperialist, oppressive power. “I might be paranoid,” she said, but she suspects students hear this theory in high school and become conditioned to believe this when they arrive at college. During the question and answer session, a mother from Alexandria, Virginia, confirmed that indoctrination does begin in high school, noting that her children’s school heavily emphasizes the theory of intersectionality – marketing it as a celebration of “diversity.”

Sommers said that defeating this Marxist-inspired theory will require liberals to combat it because most of the criticism so far has come from conservatives. “But there just aren’t that many conservative professors,” she lamented.

 Back (from) the USSR?

Cato Senior Fellow Flemming Rose drew a compelling comparison between the USSR’s crackdown on the dissension it called “hate speech” and “fake news,” and the modern trend in Western democracies to censor free speech online. He noted that “every liberal democracy, except [the] United States, has hate speech laws on the books, and the global trend is toward a tougher application of these laws.” He recounted how the basis for these hate speech laws’ spreading to Western democracies began with Stalin and the Soviet Union’s supporting them through the United Nations after World War II.

Rose pointed to Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the UN’s Covenant of Political and Civil Rights (1966). “The Soviet Union defeated the Western countries in the wording of Article 20, Paragraph 2,” he said, “and the repercussions of that defeat can still be felt in the West.” The fundamental disagreement between the democratic West and the communist East centered on how far the criminalization of speech should go. The U.S. and its allies supported language that mirrored the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. In the end, however, the Soviets won, and the final draft’s language advocated the criminalization of any speech that constitutes “incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” Rose noted that the Western democracies that have enacted Soviet-style hate speech legislation of their own, have done so since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Although their intentions may be more noble than the intentions of the Soviet Union, the European states that sixty years ago found hate speech laws dangerous and arbitrary have today become active proponents of such laws.

Addressing the crackdown on “fake news,” Rose pointed out that Vladimir Lenin began the censorship of media on his second day in power. Lenin’s justification? The press was owned by the wealthy class and their wealth allowed them to “poison people’s minds and sow confusion through slanderous distortion of facts.” Rose said that the Soviet experiment should give anyone “cause for pause” when it comes to using censorship to eliminate supposedly “fake news.” He pointed out that the Soviet penal code mandated sending violators of the media crackdown to labor camps.

Rose compared the Soviet crackdown with the modern sentiment of modern European Union leaders. Germany’s Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, said in defense of his country’s crackdown on Facebook earlier this year that “defamation and malicious gossip are not covered under freedom of speech. . . . Anyone who tries to manipulate the political discussion needs to be aware of the consequences.” Italy’s antitrust chief Giovanni Pitruzzella said, “Post-truth in politics is one of the drivers of populism and it is one of the threats to our democracies.”

“Soviet censors would have applauded this kind of argumentation,” Rose said.

Rose credits utopianism for the push for hate speech laws, saying, “They believe if we eradicate hate, then eternal peace will arrive, and everything will be great.” Although hate is not a very constructive emotion, it sometimes “makes sense.” He noted that he recently learned that the emotions of hate and love are so close linked in the brain, that eradicating hate could also eradicate love.

One such organization that seeks to eliminate hate from society through suppressive, bullying tactics is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). CRC has closely covered SPLC’s recklessness in labeling right-of-center groups who do not conform to its views of social justice as ‘hate groups.’

“Conservative writers have observed that to be called a “racist” today is akin to the label “Communist” in the 1950s,” wrote CRC Senior Vice President Matthew Vadum. “Indeed, the SPLC’s tactics are hard to distinguish from those of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was also a fan of guilt by association.”

While straining at gnats to find intersectional oppression in Western society, the SPLC attacked J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. On SPLC’s website Tolerance.org, Colleen O’Brien wrote in 2004,

In J.K. Rowling’s world, half-blood means ‘half magic.’ But the term—reflecting a dichotomy between magic/powerful and mundane/helpless—implies a hierarchy. This ‘magic’ hierarchy directly resembles racial hierarchies.

On Lord of the Rings, Andrea Lewis wrote,

Almost all of the heroes of the series are manly men who are whiter than white. They are frequently framed in halos of blinding bright light and exude a heavenly aura of all that is Eurocentric and good. Who but these courageous Anglo-Saxon souls can save Middle Earth from the dark and evil forces of the world?

Lewis contrasted this with the movie The Matrix, in which “(Lambert Wilson) with his French accent; the dread-locked, very British albino twins (Neil and Adrian Rayment); and the Oracle’s evil counterpart, the Architect (Helmut Bakaitis), a rather stuffy and pompous white guy with white beard and white suit who reeks of imperialism.” [Parentheses in original.]

Vadum noted that Lewis believes that “art should be a slave to politics.” “To my African American female eyes,” Lewis wrote, “the biggest difference between ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Matrix’ isn’t swords vs. automatic weapons, or low-tech vs. high-tech. It’s the patriarchy of the past versus the Rainbow Coalition of the future.”

But money, not theory, reigns supreme for the SPLC social justice warriors in their Montgomery, Alabama Poverty Palace.

The SPLC prides itself on using the law to fight hate groups. But CRC discovered that the organization’s 2015 salary expenditure outpaced its legal services 328 to 1. Its base salary for officers, directors, trustees, and key employees in 2015 was $140,000, in a state where the mean salary for religious and education directors, including private school principals, was $40,820 in 2015.

The SPLC takes advantage of people’s goodwill,” said Sommers – all to raise money.

“The SPLC even attacked my friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an extremist,” Sommers said, all because Ali sheds a light on violent Islamic extremism. (The Somali-born Ali is a noted critic of Islam, and a former member of the Dutch parliament living in the U.S.) In an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Why is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals,” Ali stated, “You will look in vain for the S.P.L.C.’s “Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.” No such list exists.”

CRC’s Chase Paulson has noted that the SPLC refuses to label Antifa, a movement that has had ties with Muslim extremists and communists, a hate group. SPLC president Richard Cohen instead called them “wrongheaded,” telling the Washington Examiner that “[t]here might be forms of hate out there that you may consider hateful, but it’s not the type of hate we follow.”

A glance at the SPLC’s website reveals why: the only type of hate that concerns the SPLC is the type that fits the theory of intersectionality.

Also see:

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!]