ASK yourselves: why is it that western leaders, so-called mainstream media, and self-appointed leftist elites devolve into full-on panic mode and frenzied action when Muslims are the target of an attack by non-Muslims (as opposed to when they slaughter one another for hegemony), even though the number is minuscule in comparison to their attacks on non-believers, infidels? Similarly, why are umpteen excuses proffered for Jihadi terrorists, often ascribing “mental illness“ or economic deprivation as trigger points, in contravention of the true lightening rod, the bloody Koran, Islam’s holy book? 

BUT never mind….

IN reality, aside from the well-known privilege of über rich Osama Bin Laden, the most infamous Islamic Jihadi (for the record, countless barbaric Mohammedans are richly endowed), the fact is that the recent slaughterers in Sri Lanka are members of the Y.M. Ibrahim family; Jihadi spawn of a local millionaire and a spice-trading tycoon! Say it ain’t so….

SO, in light of what is true and what isn’t, it is beyond urgent to expose the absolute linkage between the actions of those who shield Islamic terrorists and the attendant knock-on effects – as both dovetail with “selective” outrage, vis-à-vis victimology. In other words, the question becomes: why do western poohbahs get their shorts/panties into knots when Muslims are killed, suddenly, “laying down the law”, yet, when Christians and Jews (and other minorities) are bloodied they stand mute as to the streaming of this and that carnage by Allah’s Muslim Terrorists? Why is this?

SOCIAL media giant executives could be jailed and their companies fined billions of pounds if they fail to quickly take down violent and terror-related content.

Australia could become the first country to introduce prison terms and fines if firms fail to speedily remove terror videos like the Christchurch massacre live-stream.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is set to introduce the new bill to Parliament next week after the slaughter of 50 people at two mosques was broadcast live on Facebook.

The proposed new laws would cover “abhorrent violent material”, such as videos that showed terrorist attacks, murders or rapes.

The Australian government will seek to put two new sets of offences in the criminal code.

It will be a criminal offence for social media platforms, which as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, not to remove abhorrent violent material quickly.

The speed of the removal would be determined by a jury.

POSSIBLE THREE YEAR JAIL-TERM

This would be punishable by three years in jail for Australian or overseas executives or fines that can reach up to 10 per cent of the platform’s global annual turnover.

Google’s parent company enjoyed revenue of $US136.8 billion (£104.88) during 2018, meaning technology companies could be liable for billions of pounds if successfully prosecuted.

Platforms anywhere in the world must notify the Australian Federal Police if they become aware their service is streaming abhorrent violent conduct that is happening in Australia.

The laws will also give the eSafety Commissioner the power to issue notices that bring this type of material to the attention of the social media companies.

As soon as they receive that type of notice, the companies will be deemed to be aware of the material and the clock starts ticking for the hosting platform to remove the material or face penalties.

The laws will still ensure that news media can report appropriately on events which are in the public interest, without showing the violent material itself.

TACKLE HATE ONLINE

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Attorney-General Christian Porter were left unimpressed after a meeting with social media companies earlier this week, called in response to the live-streaming of the killing of 50 people in two New Zealand mosques.

“There are many actions we need to take to keep Australians safe in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, and our government has been getting on with that job,” Mr Morrison said.

“Foremost among these is to recognise how social media platforms are being weaponised by terrorists.

“Big social media companies have a responsibility to take every possible action to ensure their technology products are not exploited by murderous terrorists.”

After the Christchurch attack, Facebook revealed it had removed 1.5 million copies of the video of the terrorist atrocity in the first 24 hours after the shootings.

SEE WITHIN: Facebook’s Crackdown On ‘CONTROVERSIAL’ PEOPLE….’UNRELIABLE’ News Outlets….Hmm….FREE SPEECH!

INCONTESTABLY, New Zealand’s Christ Church is western leadership’s collective rallying cry, their line in the stand, if you will – not the continuous streaming of Jihadi incitement and its aftermath, that is, the slaughtered bodies of Christians and Jews (and other minorities) for years on end! To wit, it is more than fair and reasonable to ask: are some lives “worth” more than others? If so, why?

YES, as per the leveled charges, it is this very danger to western civilization which brings the discussion straight back to a mandatory “proof in the pudding” calculus – as such, much heavy-lifting had to be done to finally expose Facebook’s enabling of Islamic Jihad!

IN this regard, until the publication of BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad (September 2016), the social media giant and kingpin had never been subjected to a full-on spotlight – in contrast to hagiographies written about its wunderkind CEO; the t-shirt wearing, PC addicted billionaire, an alleged tax-dodger to boot, namely, Mark Zuckerberg. As such, its deeply disturbing underbelly warranted an airing, so to speak – that which had yet to factor in its dead to rights privacy violations, on a scale heretofore unseen in the corporate arena! Yes, a mega-bucks federal probe, a reckoning, is coming.

INDEED, according to Pamela Geller (one of the book’s endorsers):

“In this age of social media, Facebook has become an extraordinarily powerful gatekeeper of information and a severely irresponsible one, relentlessly censoring conservatives and voices of freedom, and running interference for the left and Islamic supremacists, most notoriously in blocking criticism of Europe’s suicidal immigration and refugee policies. As Joe Newby and Adina Kutnicki show in this unique and essential book, we can’t get word out about any serious initiative these days without Facebook, but Facebook is wholly in thrall to the left. In BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad, Newby and Kutnicki reveal the shocking truth of just how deep the corruption goes and details a cohesive and workable plan  for how defenders of freedom can gain and preserve a voice on this essential media platform.”

THAT being established and recorded for all time, it should go without saying that Facebook (in tandem with twitter/youtube/google) is on board with the streaming of terror related videos. Similarly, as already proven, western leadership only took notice of the effects of mass murder after Christ Church was streamed. Again, why is this? Rhetorical.

AND regardless of all the protestations to the contrary, Facebook (in tandem with twitter, et al.), via its calculated streaming, is part and parcel of the very same  censorship ascribed to by leftist power-brokers. The proofs are beyond manifest….just connect the dots.

BESIDES, admitted or not, it is within the underbelly of the very same (selective streaming) social media behemoths that the piggybacked danger of censorship  (ratcheted up through the deployment of political ‘thought police’ coupled with ‘link banning’), has its home.

ALAS, this is precisely where leftist politicians and the lock-step media serve as the PC police and lend cover for assorted self-appointed elites – be they in academia, legal circles, cultural centers or like-minded echo chambers. No doubt, punishing conservatives who refuse to toe the line is swift and hammer-like –  akin to living in a gulag and in need of “re-education.” No kidding.

RESULTANT, consider the hell on earth meted out to conservative students all across today’s “enlightened” college campuses – for daring to think for themselves and for speaking their minds – as one and the same. Know that there are so many exhibits to illustrate, it would take more than one book to catalog them. Indubitably.

• BY extrapolation, with all the powerful entities invested in shielding Mohammedans, is it any wonder that Facebook feels emboldened enough to unveil new weapons in jihad to silence conservatives and further infringe upon free speech? Asked and answered.
• IS it any wonder why Zuckerberg is so smug about the upcoming U.K. online speech rules?
• AND is anyone still shocked that Facebook – during Israel’s recent election, and with bold-faced arrogance and infringement – interfered with a Zionist, right-wing candidate by shutting down his page, “while they do nothing about terrorists“, as attorney Itamar Ben-Gvir rightfully and forcefully protested the censorship against his views? 
• MORE revealingly, why exactly would Facebook and related platforms really want centralized censorship, as evidenced within – notwithstanding their gobbledygook about safety concerns and beefed up online security? Hogwash.

BUT there is an upside, that is, if Senator Ted Cruz garners enough support from the shameless, ideologically-bent, pay-for-play, “do nothing” Congress for his recent proposal to rein in the censors of our time. Its basis is targeted and remedial. Intrinsically, it will finally squash “Silicon Valley’s censorship practices: regulation, antitrust, and the policing of big tech’s fraud.” He dutifully exposed the aforementioned during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, as did a few other stalwarts.

MOST significantly, the Conclusion of BANNED (as excerpted and written in 2016, page 149) is inordinately clear: “The alternative is far too horrible to imagine, as Facebook now seeks to essentially control the Internet. If you think things are bad now, just wait five or ten years. Shiver the west’s timbers.”

WELL, it looks like the time-frame allotted by yours truly (and co-author Joe Newby) was far too generous.

POSTSCRIPT: by the way, it is now backed up by a most recent analysis (May 2, 2019) from Breitbart’s tech expert here. Regardless, we documented (in 2016) Facebook’s real goal: total control of the Internet!!

Through algorithm changes and the prioritization of so-called “authoritative sources,” Facebook has spent the last two years positioning itself to control the news you see on your feed. Now it’s taken control of the news you share with your friends too. Post a link to a disapproved website? It’ll be deleted. Post it again? You’ll likely be banned.

This is a formula not just for banning websites, commentators, and political figures, but for banning all their supporters as well……

NEWSFLASH: ‘Click-Gap‘, what ‘s that??