I WROTE in the edition of the ‘Jewish War on Free Speech’ of 25/07/2018 (1), published at Semitic Controversies, that the building pressure
has been counter-signaled – to my surprise – by Mark Zuckerberg this week after he rejected demands that he actively censor so-called ‘Holocaust Denial’ from Facebook. Zuckerberg’s argument was simple enough in that while he believes that ‘Holocaust Deniers’ – see how the use of weasel words is meant to make you believe they are inherently evil people – are wrong, they are not ‘intentionally doing so’ and thus it is better to allow relatively free discussion rather than simply censoring it as ‘wrong think’. (2)
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Mark Zuckerberg is genuinely interested in free speech, but rather because Facebook is facing the beginning of a crisis with users abandoning the site. (3) To enforce yet another draconian ban and kicking yet further users from his website is hardly in Zuckerberg’s business interests in such a situation.
Yet, the Jews have been shrieking like bats out of hell across the political spectrum that Zuckerberg is ‘enabling Holocaust Denial’, (4) is actively putting ‘Holocaust Denial’ at the top of search results (5) and/or that he is ‘anti-Semitic’ himself. (6)
Despite this and claims that Zuckerberg’s executives at Facebook want to censor all ‘Holocaust Denial’ on the social media platform (7), Zuckerberg has strongly defended his position and refused to cave in (8) as has his sister Randi. (9)
Zuckerberg’s reasons are obvious enough and are driven by his business priorities, but yet one has to wonder: what are the Jews afraid of?
Those who fear discussion fear the truth.
It is gratifying to be able to reveal that further evidence has since emerged that, in the days following my article, shares in Facebook tumbled a whopping nineteen percent in one day following a significant slowing of its growth, and whipping one hundred billion dollars off of Facebook’s value. (10)
Zuckerberg directly tied this slowing growth – as I predicted was the case – to the ‘increased security measures’ that have been demanded – primarily by Jewish organizations as well as those affiliated with the state of Israel – and somewhat implemented by Facebook. (11) It is therefore not difficult to see the truth of my contention that Zuckerberg was afraid that increased censorship of the political right would result in the slowing and possible reversal of Facebook’s growth as well as declining profitability.
This, despite bold assurances by mincing soy-boys – such as the BBC’s ‘North America Technology Reporter’ David Lee – that:
Facebook is worried that banning InfoWars would provide fuel to the fire that it silences right-wing voices. It’s not wrong – it would create outrage in some quarters. But for how long?
The social media platform has helped create a lightning-fast news agenda that moves on at an alarming pace. The dramatic stock price hit it suffered in the wake of its biggest crisis, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, has been wiped out.
This too would pass – pretty quickly, I’d wager. More damaging, long-term, will be Facebook’s failure to take the scourge of fake news seriously. (12)
The reality on the ground however doesn’t mesh with Lee’s ideologically-driven fantasies, as is pointedly demonstrated by the fact that he uses the example of Alex Jones – whom he states has two million followers on Facebook – (13) but then thinks that angering two million users – or even say just five hundred thousand of them – by unceremoniously booting Jones off of Facebook wouldn’t impact Facebook.
This is typical of the arrogant out-of-touch attitude common to the liberal Jewish elite – many of whom are pleased to claim to be ‘principled conservatives’ – across the western world. They think that the plebs will just carry on consuming no matter what said elites do to them, because… well… dopamine.
The reality is that this will – and has – trigger anger across the Internet; if there is one thing that the unfiltered discussion board that is the Internet is united about, it is that governments and corporations will not decide what can and cannot be said or discussed. Only the users will do that.
What wins on the Internet is not ‘Fake News’ – as the Left is pleased to claim – but rather a facility of facts. You can have the facts and lose – which is incidentally your fault for losing with a winning hand – but if you facilitate people engaging with those facts – and thus your case — then you will win.
This is what people like David Lee ignore about people like Alex Jones: the latter is extremely adroit at presenting his facts, even if the Internet in general doesn’t take him particularly seriously. Whatever you may think of Alex Jones – and I view him as an amusing snake oil salesman, personally – the fact is that he has the common touch, unlike David Lee.
Or, for that matter, the horde of emotional hand-wringing institutional rags – such as Deutsche Welle, (14) the Daily Mail (15) and the Sun (16) – and leftist politicians – such as Paul Packer in the United States (17) and Yvette Cooper in the UK (18) – as well as Jewish hacks like Jeffrey Salkin. (19)
The simple fact of the matter is that the bourgeois snobbery of the liberal Jewish elite concerning what the goyim shall – and shall not – be able to talk about will backfire and already has as shown by Facebook’s declining growth, profitability, and popularity.
One of the few sane voices in the media on this subject has been Danish editor Flemming Rose, who argued in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post that censoring ‘Holocaust Deniers’ would turn them into ‘martyrs’ and backfire massively. (20)
Rose, who cites Deborah Lipstadt as an ‘expert’, instead advises combating ‘Holocaust Denial’ with debate and facts – which, as a ‘Holocaust Denier’ myself, I welcome – , but doesn’t know enough about the topic to know that the reason the Jews want to make ‘Holocaust Denial’ illegal is not because ‘Holocaust Deniers’ can be ‘refuted with facts’, but rather that the Jews can’t win because we have the facts and the proponents of the ‘Holocaust’ don’t.