As soon as Watson began focusing his attacks on Islam, his videos started getting hundreds of thousands of views, and he started frequenting somewhat mainstreamish kosher conservative media.
Brandon Martinez / Non-Aligned Media
The idea that Islam is being shielded by the ‘Western establishment’ and the ‘regressive left’ is the new Ziocon disinformation narrative that people like Milo Yiannopoulos, PJ Watson, Alex Jones, Ezra Levant, Steven Crowder, Stefan Molyneux and a slew of other kosher conservatards are pushing hard. What we’re seeing is a gaggle of entryist Zionist Jews and their opportunistic Shabbas Goy fellow travelers infiltrate all levels of right-wing dissent, feeding their constituencies the misleading narrative that the ‘liberal media’ and the PC left won’t criticize “Islam” – imploring them to stop what they’re doing and immediately start focusing criticism on Islam – when in fact that critique has been aired out incessantly across all major media for the past 16 years. Whether or not some college-age SJWs and feminists are talking about Islam is irrelevant to the fact that it is in no way taboo or an underdog endeavor to harshly rebuke the Muslim religion in the Western world; indeed the opposite is true.
If it were truly taboo to criticize Islam or Muslims in the West as these charlatans contend, then how does Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Pam Gellar, Robert Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Douglas Murray and the whole Ziocon anti-Islam brigade get huge air time on all the major networks year in and year out on both sides of the Atlantic? Fox News is the anti-Islam channel. Europe, Canada and Australia have their equivalents. If there was a taboo around Islam, Fox would be off the air already. Western prime ministers and presidents continue to deliver speeches singling out Islam and Muslims for attacks all the time, albeit adding in some caveats so as to not give away their full-throttle, war-hawk intentions towards the non-coopted parts of the Muslim world.
The great Troy Southgate weighed in on Facebook:
Since 2011, Paul Joseph Watson has made quite a name for himself with his droning videos about Islam, mass immigration, political correctness and silly teenagers, but his highly reactionary and virtually unlistenable rants merely focus on the effects of international capitalism and not on the actual causes themselves. This inability (or unwillingness) to confront the bigger picture is not helped by his frequent dismissal of organised Jewish power in the realms of business, finance, government and media. In his own words, “Jewish people aren’t really that present, you don’t notice them anywhere.” This statement, coming from someone who admits to being strongly in favour of capitalism itself, is either very naive or downright deceitful. Watson’s modus operandi is to act as a pressure-valve for right-wing dissent and it is precisely for this reason that we should trust neither him nor Infowars in the slightest.
Sean Jobst added:
Also, in the context of American politics, InfoWars/Jones/Watson/Molyneux have basically become the misinformation campaign arm of the Trump campaign….misleading people who are waking up to Jewish/Zionist power and economic facts, and misdirecting them into wrong directions. They boast about challenging the PC climate, but won’t touch any of the greatest taboos in society.
Here in Canada former Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood up in parliament and condemned Islam as an “anti-woman culture.” Other Western leaders have done the same. There’s a controlled left-right paradigm, so the leftist wing of the media won’t attack Islam as much but will uphold all the false-flag terror myths, maintain that ISIS is an organic group with no state support, etc. We basically have the Jewish Left and the Jewish Right acting in concert to control both sides of the discourse, steering their sheep followers in the wrong directions. The J-left will put the bullseye on ‘White privilege’ for example, whereas the J-right will focus invective on Islam in a generic way. Then there’s more elaborate forms of controlled dissent like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein who will criticize the status quo of the US-Israeli war machine but vehemently deny the more sinister workings of the Zionist Power Configuration. It’s a sophisticated ruse.
Within the storm of disinformation about Islam and Muslims promoted by the media, politicians and neocon pundits (which usually begins with the blood libel of 9/11), there are obviously still some valid criticisms to be made of the religion, especially the more rigid fundamentalist practices surrounding issues like adultery, rape, apostasy, homosexuality, women’s rights and the tendency on the part of some Islamic sectors to seek a merger between mosque and state. These points can be aired in a reasonable and proportional way that doesn’t lead into neocon polemicism and which doesn’t seek to stir up malevolent rage towards average Muslim people, as most of the manic anti-Islam punditry of the Ziocon right-wing is explicitly aiming to do. Certain regimes in the Muslim world do open themselves up to major criticism for how they handle both domestic and foreign affairs, especially those which are allied to the West and Israel, but even those which are not. The mistreatment of homosexuals, women, minority faiths and atheists are all valid points of criticism, even if this gets misused by militarist Zionist psychopaths who have no actual concern for the victimized people they are ostensibly vouching for.
But those who use such critiques to lobby for intervention and increased pressure on Islamic countries in the form of economic embargo are wrong. Ultimately, it is not up to Westerners to decide how Islamic societies are run or what their laws should be. On the down side, a liberalization of the Muslim world would inevitably unleash a plunderous wave of vulture capitalists looking to swoop in and Americanize these conservative societies, degenerate their cultures, and bring them into the Western fold of consumerist dregery, which ultimately serves Zionist interests. If Iran, for example, were to revert back to a Shah-style absolute monarchy where Islam was basically forbidden and secularism mandatory, you would quickly see Iranians succumbing to degeneracy (sex, drugs, gambling, pornography, consumerism, etc.), which would diminish their will to resist Zionism and weaken their steadfast support of the Palestinians. As it stands now, Islam is the moral compass that binds Iranian society together. A “liberal” Iranian regime would most likely link arms with Israel and the US, turning its back on Palestine and other righteous causes. But, as in the case of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, a religious theocracy does not guarantee a principled foreign policy, so it really depends on the leaders and their personal outlook.
Amidst anti-Zionist discourse there is room to be made for a more focused critique of Wahhabist/Salafist Islam, both its rancid sectarian Takfiri doctrines (which has generated at least some of the head-chopping, mass murdering freaks of Boko Haram, ISIS, al-Nusra, etc.) and the fact that it has essentially become a coopted attack dog for Zionism. The Gulf regimes have shown their true blue and white Zionist colours these past few years. The royal families of the Gulf and their putrid, backwards version of Wahhabi Islam should receive a good lashing in the public square, but that should be accompanied by a flurry of jabs at their true masters as well.
Donald Trump, for example, will condemn the archaic and repressive nature of those Gulf regimes but not the fact that they serve the US/Israeli agenda and do its bidding. So he’s giving us a half-ass critique that ignores the domineering American/Israeli role in directing the actions of those regimes on the foreign policy end. He will point to Hilary Clinton’s financial ties to those regimes in a retarded effort to portray her as “pro-Muslim” (as if she cares about the masses of average Muslims living under those despotic monarchies), yet says nothing at all about her substantial Zionist backing and support, her fanatical support of and pandering to Israel, her unashamed warmongering Zionist rhetoric towards Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, her Zionist motives for the regime change operations in Libya and Syria, and so on. The fact is that those Gulf regimes are just as Zionist coopted as Hilary is, which should be the main point of attack against both them and Hilary. Trump won’t draw attention to these things because he is ultimately a form of Zionist controlled opposition, a steam valve release for the retard right-wing of the decrepit United Snakes of America.