By Paul Dowling
“The continuing unfair treatment of Israel by the UN, the unrelenting hatred spewed by the Arab leaders and the Arab street against Jews and Israel, and the almost obsessive focus on the Israeli Arab conflict as being the core problem for all of the world’s ills only serves to remind us of our role as being the canary in the mine. . . . History repeats itself and the dire consequences of ignoring past incidents are already apparent in our current world. The Jewish people are a special nation in God’s scheme of things so to speak. We may not enjoy our role of being the canary in the mine but there we are. Proclaiming the fact that we are is, however, a necessary measure not only for our self-preservation but for the sanity and salvation of much of the non-Jewish world as well. I realize that it may no longer be politically correct to view ourselves as being special and different. But that is nevertheless our fate, our challenge, and our badge of pride. So let us hope and pray for the good fortune and life of the canary—and for the mine as well.” —Berel Wein, referring to the erstwhile practice of coal miners to take canaries into the mines with them as a poison gas early-warning system, since the smaller canaries would die first, ahead of the miners
“This is an assault on all of us; an assault on humanity. This evil anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us. It will require all of us working together to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world. This scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored; cannot be tolerated; and it cannot be allowed to continue.” —President Donald Trump, a conservative philo-Semite, on the slaughter of Jews at Tree of Life (or L’Simcha Congregation) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 27, 2018
Readers should be warned that this article will link to upsetting imagery on Facebook, to illustrate the fact of Facebook’s anti-Semitism. Use of such imagery is only intended to serve the necessary purpose of giving evidence for the serious claim of anti-Semitism. Sensitive readers should avoid clicking Facebook links, to avoid unwelcome imagery.
The Evil Anti-Semitic Attack on the Jews Found on Facebook’s “F*ck Israel” Page
Anti-Semitism is potentially deadly. A pervasive atmosphere of Jew-hatred makes the slaughter of entire Jewish communities (like the unfortunate mass murder that occurred in Pittsburgh) much more likely than when a climate of tolerance and philo-Semitism is the order of the day. Facebook has, unfortunately, chosen to nurture the former, not the latter. In a day when Facebook is banning philo-Semitic and conservative speech, the social media giant is also promoting an air of unfiltered anti-Semitism and statism. Click on the following link to see a disturbing image from a Facebook page called “F*ck Israel”: https://www.facebook.com/F.israel99/photos/a.268331286530140/813645681998695/?type=3&theater. The display of a picture depicting a terroristic hand holding a dagger in the shape of Israel and plunging it into the heart of a bloodied baby lying in a pool of blood with a typewritten caption saying “free palestine” has been allowed to stay up for years now (since March 27, 2014, according to the time stamp of the posting), with Facebook’s permission. A cursory examination of the page makes one wonder if the page’s Jew-loathing founder monitors the page, since some interlopers to the page (apparently in protest) have also published pro-Jewish messages, while some others have published anti-Muslim sentiments as well. (Perhaps something happened to the person who originally put up the page.) The point is that negative images depicting Jew-hatred are allowed to stay up, while conservative and libertarian pages expressing love of America, the Constitution, God, or Israel are the ones being banned. Thus, it is safe to say that there is nothing wrong with this image of a murdered Jewish baby in Facebook’s weltanschauung—the way it sees the world.
Banning Conservative Speech
Facebook is demonetizing (https://www.breitbart.com/local/2016/11/16/google-facebook-to-defund-conservative-sites-as-fake-news/) and banning conservative news sites. Such moves are being cheered in the Leftist media world, by such freedom-haters as the people who run Buzzfeed (https://godfatherpolitics.com/buzzfeed-calls-for-destruction-of-all-conservative-media-starting-with-fox-news/), a popular leftwing media outlet. Western Journal has published a list of 559 political pages and 251 accounts deleted by Facebook (https://www.westernjournal.com/facebook-purge-list-pages-deleted/). If you are reading this article as a newcomer to Godfather Politics, but used to enjoy perusing Eagle Rising, please note that Eagle Rising is one of the news sites banned by Facebook. This author has literally written hundreds of articles for Eagle Rising (https://eaglerising.com/author/paul-dowling/) but has now lost Eagle Rising as an outlet for publishing his news stories, opinion pieces, and political analyses. Facebook has, thereby, stolen this Jewish author’s right to speak freely through the news site of his choice, even as it uses an Internet paid for, in part, by this author, as well as every other American. How many have not even noticed this is happening? Indeed, freedom dies in the dark.
Banning Free Speech in the Public Square Is Un-Constitutional
This banning of free speech in the virtual public square is un-Constitutional, since the Internet that Facebook uses is not Facebook’s private creation, but an information superhighway created to facilitate the free exchange of information in a virtual public square funded by taxpayer money. Facebook cannot, therefore, claim that as a private company it gets to decide what is and is not published on a publicly-facilitated, Internet-dependent platform. To use a Constitutional analogy, Facebook is not any different from a businessman running a booth on a New York City sidewalk who believes he has the right to govern the speech of everyone else on that sidewalk. As well as the Free Speech and Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) should serve to prevent the banning of Jews, Christians, libertarians, and conservatives from the virtual public square when it comes to free speech rights. Just how far should Facebook be allowed to go in abolishing the Constitutional promise of Equal Protection that was signed, sealed, and delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King and his fellow marchers during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s?
Is Facebook a Publisher?
Facebook has long argued that it is a tech company, neutral and non-discriminatory in what is published on its platform. As a neutral, non-censoring entity, Facebook has thus enjoyed important legal protections against lawsuits, since Facebook was supposedly not responsible for the content of anything being said. Facebook risks losing such protections, if, at any point, it becomes an actual publisher, choosing what content can and cannot be posted.
Facebook has found itself in a California courtroom of late. According to a report in The Guardian(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit), “attorneys for the social media company presented a different message from the one executives have made to Congress (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HTae-X757g), in interviews and in speeches: Facebook, they repeatedly argued, is a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment. . . . The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a ‘malicious and fraudulent scheme’ to exploit users’ personal data and force rival companies out of business.” The problem is that Facebook is now claiming that its status as a “publisher” allows it to discriminate with respect to content, due to First Amendment protection. So what is Facebook? A publisher with the right to decide what content is allowed on its site, while at the same time being exposed to lawsuits? Or a tech company that is immune to suits, since it does not discriminate with regard to content and is therefore not responsible for what is stated on Facebook’s social media platform? It really cannot be both things at once. One thing is certain, however: Mark Zuckerberg is intentionally speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
But Zuckerberg, Since He Is a Jew, Cannot Be Anti-Semitic, Can He?
There do actually appear to be self-loathing Jews who, even as they claim to be pro-Jewish or pro-religion, are actually anything but. Take, for example, George Soros, who helped the Nazis confiscate property from the Jews in Hungary, as a precursor to sending them off to the death camps, earning him the moniker among many in the Jewish community of “Kapo” (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo), as a result of his having acted no better than the Jewish collaborators who mistreated Jews on behalf of the Nazi guards in the concentration camps.
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, during World War Two, George Soros’ successful lawyer-father knew that serious problems were in store for the Jews, so he divided his family, bought them forged documents, and bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros into his home as his godson. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were rounded up and sent to their deaths, George Soros accompanied his godfather in confiscating property from the Jews and even looked on as many were being deported to camps, per his own testimony on 60 Minutes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Id0-Lsyr0). Viewing the entire interview with Kapo George Soros (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSyczwuTQfo) will illustrate why so many Jews are flabbergasted by Soros’ admission that he has never felt guilty for having participated in Hitler’s Final Solution, even daring to say that his true character was formed during that time of his life, having learned from the experience that he could be a mere spectator to events, even while being involved in them, claiming they would have happened anyway, so his help in carrying out the Nazis’ agenda really means nothing. A Jew without a conscience, it might be argued, is less than a Jew. It is therefore with ease that Soros funds the destruction of the Judeo-Christian West by paying for the erasure of national borders (https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263873/george-soross-open-border-foundations-joseph-klein) that would allow for societies based upon justice and the rule of law—justice being the highest value in Judaism—to be replaced by an unjust multi-culturalism that values, in the name of diversity, the oppression of women, the genocide of Jews and Christians, and sexual predation of children. Among other forms of anti-Semitism, think of doctrinaire Islam, according to the words of the Koran and the Sunna of Muhammad (https://www.amazon.com/Teach-Children-Truth-About-Islam/dp/1530128749/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr).
Zuckerberg, it would appear, is only a younger version of Soros. He is an incredibly wealthy person of Jewish heritage who fails to promote the justice-based values of Judaism. And it would appear, through his support of policies that actually allow multiple “F*ck Israel” pages to exist, Zuckerberg, in all actuality, sponsors more than a fair amount of anti-Semitism himself.
Zuckerberg’s Sponsorship of Anti-Semitism Will Ultimately Come Back to Bite Him
Zuckerberg, sadly, is responsible for a great deal of anti-Semitism. Can Zuckerberg seriously claim to be a Jew, if he has forsaken the values of Judaism? By the same token, can Soros still make that claim? The truth is that Jew-hating Leftists, from Germany’s National Socialists to America’s Democrat Party, will never care whether Zuckerberg ever threw in with them or not; these anti-Semites will still forsake him in the end, even if he has helped their cause.
Remember, all socialism is on the Left, from National Socialism (in Germany) to Soviet Communism (in Russia) to Democrat Progressivism (in America). And it is the socialists of America’s Democrat Party that Zuckerberg is striving to appease, just as Max Naumann, of the Association of German National Jews (Der Verband nationaldeutscher Juden), strove to appease the National Socialists (https://eaglerising.com/21256/american-jews-are-making-the-same-mistakes-nazi-jews-made-80-years-ago-and-they-may-again-pay-the-price/). Naumann’s organization was comprised of Jews who supported the Nazi Party, including its agenda of book burning and censorship. Zuckerberg’s Facebook does the same, as the social media platform is responsible for the virtual “burning” of more books and articles daily—through its socialist policies of censorship—than the Third Reich ever burned in its entire existence. And, just as the Nazis were having none of Naumann’s helpfulness, anti-Semitic Democrats, many of whom now openly support the likes of Louis Farrakhan, will likewise ultimately reject Zuckerberg. It is sobering to know that—even though Naumann had fought against the Jewish boycott of German goods, and had issued a statement saying that Jews were being treated fairly under Hitler—on November 18, 1935, he was arrested by the Gestapo and sent off to a concentration camp.
Zuckerberg Would Do Better to Embrace Judaism, Not Socialism
What is Mark Zuckerberg, if not a high-tech book burner? Being the cyber book burner that he is, Zuckerberg is much worse than a mere Nazi sympathizer; for it is he who daily permits the high-tech book burnings and who likewise allows the persecution of Jews in a weaponized virtual town square that holds the potential to create such great harm to many, on the taxpayer-created Internet that his Facebook employs for its own business purposes (https://eaglerising.com/61966/a-pleasure-to-burn-social-medias-virtual-book-burners-sponsor-a-cyber-bibliocaust/). It is ironic, in light of the fact that Zuckerberg and Soros have both behaved anti-Semitically, that many of their detractors have been accused of being anti-Semites for having criticized them (https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271794/anti-semitic-media-fights-anti-semitism-daniel-greenfield and https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/271951/anti-semitic-media-corp-accuses-jews-anti-semitism-daniel-greenfield), including the writer of this article. So, who is anti-Semitic? The Jewish writer of this article, who believes in the God of Moses and who seeks to live by the 613 commandments of the Torah? Or Zuckerberg and Soros, who would prefer the role of aiding and abetting an agenda that would please Pharaoh or Hitler? For that is what anti-Semitism ultimately entails—the destruction of Jewry and of Israel.
America on the Line: When Will Facebook’s Anti-Semitism End?
Zuckerberg also allows Farrakhan—an avowed Jew-hater and enthusiastic supporter of his fellow anti-Semite, Barack Obama (https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/01/25/obama-farrakhan-photo-released-13-year-media-cover/)—to have a Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/7Nationofislam/). Farrakhan is known to have posted to his Twitter account (https://twitter.com/LouisFarrakhan/status/1052304476923719680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1052304476923719680&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpost.com%2FDiaspora%2FFarrakhan-compares-Jews-to-termites-says-Jews-are-stupid-569627) these words: “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.” So, what happens to termites? They are exterminated, of course. Therefore, Farrakhan’s statement is nothing less than a veiled claim that Jews need to be exterminated. While Facebook supports this Jew-hatred, it bans pro-Israel and philo-Semitic speech as practiced by Eagle Rising, iPatriot, and other Judeophilic media sites. While Godfather Politics is, despite its love of Judeo-Christian culture, still being allowed a presence on Facebook at the time of this writing, the news site is likely living on borrowed time, at risk of suffering the same fate as Eagle Rising or InfoWars (https://eaglerising.com/61390/facebook-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars/), since there is no end in sight for Facebook’s ongoing censorship of philo-Semitic speech.
When will Facebook’s anti-Semitism end? In a political environment where anti-Semitism is on the rise, there is no telling. But if Facebook is now admitting that it is a publisher, some people harmed by its promotion of anti-Semitic philosophy and imagery may well demand justice of Facebook in a court of law. Another possibility might be the enactment of a government rule that any use of the public’s Internet to make money disallows prejudice and discrimination, per the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the Internet, built by the tax money of all Americans, is the basis for one’s business model, no discrimination should be allowed—not against Jews, not against Christians, not against conservatives or libertarians. Not against anybody. This, after all, is America. Not Nazi Germany. Or is it?
As President Trump, a true lover of the Jewish people, has said, “This scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored; cannot be tolerated; and it cannot be allowed to continue.” Jews are indeed the proverbial canary in the coal mine of civil society. If the canary dies, it is a serious warning to Americans that they are well on the road to losing their free civil society—unless the warning is heeded in a timely manner. Facebook’s social media culture of anti-Semitism is undeniable; the canary has already died! Are enough people awake to this reality? Can America be saved? Americans must wake up to reality before it is too late, for only by acting to save the Jews can they save themselves as well.