An aggressive campaign is underway by the tech giants to blot out all non-PC views from the internet. If you express a non-PC view or counter-narrative view, are you safe? Do you have backups in place?

This is just the latest deluge expanded from a trickle that began earlier this year. The internet has long been viewed as a truly neutral public square in which anybody can say anything and if you don’t like it, find another site to frequent. Used to be that these businesses took a neutral viewpoint in which you can do and say what you want, as long as it doesn’t break any laws in the land of that business.

That is now being replaced by SJW executives and employees taking over the internet gatekeeper companies and making it their mission to police all speech coming through their infrastructure. Doesn’t matter if it is totally legal, they’ve decided that any word or image that makes an imaginary special snowflake feel offended must be banned, lest the fragile snowflake start melting into salty tears.


On June 21, Patreon abruptly terminated Lauren Southern’s account. I don’t follow her in particular, other than our review of her insightful and entertaining book, but was aware that she was a rising figure in the hard right. You can view her side of the story in the Youtube video below (for now).

Briefly, she was growing via journalistic activity, perhaps a young WND of InfoWars in the making. But she got involved with a group which Patreon decided was a threat to human life, but she believed to be saving lives. It was a group aimed at stopping the human trafficking of illegal immigrants across the Mediterranean into Europe. You can probably guess where the narrative lands on that. Stopping those wonderful destabilizing diversity tokens who just want freedom (and welfare) in first-world-Europe? Evil. Stopping the human traffickers moving illegal immigrants across the sea at great risk of life to their slave cargoes? Evil.

And so Lauren’s entire income stream from supporters via Patreon was killed in a moment and she was left scrambling for alternatives before the lights go out.

Doesn’t seem right if so many people want to give her money for what she does. It’s like the public school teacher in California I knew years ago, who made such an impression in her first year that students and teachers defended her to the administrator who decided to fire her without cause. But the pleas fell on deaf ears and the remaining teachers were commanded that none were permitted to so much as write this teacher a letter of recommendation for a new job, otherwise it would make the administrator look bad for having stupidly fired such a great teacher.

PayPal, GoFundMe, YouCaring, and more Patreon

Here’s a Buzzfeed article that gives a good summary of various censorship actions of these funding platforms to silence views they have decided to disagree with. For those not familiar with Buzzfeed, it’s on the ideological spectrum at about the same point as Huffington Post so they celebrate all the cancellations and say good riddance. Ignore the spin and you’ve got a pretty good hitlist of how the censorship has been going on all summer.

Your Money’s No Good Here

I recently mentioned the problem with the reaction to private racist views of Donald Sterling (who in public was extremely generous to races he didn’t want to personally hang out with). We strongly disapprove of racism here, but at the same time believe in traditional American freedom of speech. The problem with the public response to Sterling is that notable personalities went as far as to say that all America ought to agree to reject Sterling’s money and make him starve to death no matter his wealth.

That attitude is still going strong with CEO Marcus Lemonis saying he doesn’t want Trump supporters shopping at his business anymore. I can only hope the Trump-supporting majority of America takes him seriously and completely tanks his business as a result of his foolish and un-businesslike political posturing.

PayPal Again

On August 21 PayPal is back with more suspension of accounts.

The offenders? Two organizations working to warn you of the Islamic Extremist activity in the world at large and invading the USA.

The proof? They were on the SPLC list of “Hate” organizations. And we all know SPLC never ever ever lies nor has an ideological axe to grind, right?

Google and Youtube

There is a “hateful” video or webpage behind this door.
– sincerely, Google.

Google owns Youtube, and on August 24 implemented their proposed policy of cracking down on hateful and objectionable content (defined as anything which their SJW employees feel offended by).

Basically, any video Google employees or their AI algorithms flag as objectionable will have all advertising revenue stripped and blocked, comments shut off, warnings plastered on the start of the video, embed codes and sharing links disabled (short of direct web address links which they don’t have the power to shut off), and the videos will not pop up in any search results, recommended viewing lists, or related video lists.

So basically, if Google doesn’t like your video (or their new AI accidentally flags your video for bogus reasons) then they are doing everything in their power to make sure that no one will ever find it, other than those who were provided with a direct web link.

On August 31 Google stepped it up a notch by beginning to demand that various websites delete “objectionable” content from the internet or have all Google-generated ad-revenue immediately shut off. The Google ad-platforms (DoubleClick or AdExchange) have become so widely used across the internet that most sites rely on them for ad revenue. The equivalent effect would be like all major US banks announcing that either you remove politically incorrect content from your business, or else they close your accounts and bar you from receiving money via a bank. (And in today’s nationalized and globalized economy, that is a death sentence for all but the local business).

As for the accuracy of the Google hate-speech algorithm, on September 1, a leftist site reported how they had been incorrectly flagged because old news articles on their site that pointed out that Dylan Roof was motivated by white supremacy were flagged as white supremacist hate speech and ordered to be deleted or suffer financial loss. The leftist site is completely anti-racism and got flagged as racist simply for mentioning racism as a motive of their opponents. While deleting the offending articles was no great loss, any future flags on their content will make them a “repeat offender” and cause permanent loss of all Google ad-revenue. And there is no appeal or correcting the record.

Amazon and The Legal Angle

On August 27, lawsuit was filed because Amazon kicked a bunch of major Christian charities and ministries off of AmazonSmile because they are listed by the SPLC as “hate” groups. Most likely, their secular sin is defending the traditional and biblical view of marriage and sexuality.

Serves you right for having a conscience, you Judgy-McJudgerson, you!

But this is where it gets interesting. If a Christian cake-baker or florist or photographer or wedding venue or T-shirt maker can be compelled to provide their services to events violating their conscience, then the same argument applies to Amazon’s business offerings.

The strongest argument in favor of these Christians is that they are being asked to provide business services that profanes something they consider sacred. It would be like me finding a Muslim Artistic Photographer and saying he MUST provide his services for a Koran-burning event or else suffer crippling fines and legal consequences. This isn’t simply a matter of personal preferences, but a violation of the very things the individuals consider sacred and inviolable.

The Christians are losing their cases because the courts are reasoning that by virtue of providing a “public” offering of business, they therefore forfeit any and every right to discriminate in what and to whom they provide their business service to. Basically, today’s legal interpretation is that one must check their conscience and opinion of sacred things at the door of the public square, and be open to any and all debasement requested of you in the public square without the slightest conscientious objection.

But if this applies to the Christians, it also applies to Amazon’s “public” offering of business. If one must check their morals and conscience at the gate of the public square, then so must Amazon. But if Amazon has the right to discriminate in who they offer their services to, then Christians have that right as well.

The next few years of legal results will be interesting to see if the rule of law still applies, or if it is now open season on discriminating against the Christians whose moral code provided the foundation of our country and all of Western Civilization.