Soros And Bezos Led Push To Ban Jones On PayPal Succeeds | Teddy Stick

Soros And Bezos Led Push To Ban Jones On PayPal Succeeds

Soros (pictured) played a big role in what PayPal has done to Jones, according to sources.

Alex Jones has just confirmed that PayPal has moved against him.

The popular payment processor has banned Infowars following “a comprehensive review of the Infowars site.” The claim, right before the mid-terms, is that the news organization violated PayPal’s “acceptable use policy” when it “promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions.

Many people believe that such devious censorship should spur conservative voters, especially given that the move was allegedly linked to billionaire currency manipulator and leftist, George Soros.

Yet, PayPal is a private company. Other pundits have pointed out that in the case of Facebook, YouTube, and other sites which have attacked Jones, such domains are the new public square. If that is true, then those same people could argue that PayPal is equal when it comes to modern banking and payment making.

The only reason given for the ban was “hate” in that there was no specific example of a violation delivered to Infowars. However, off the record, the fact that Infowars reports on the antics of some facets of Islam and their stance on transgender children in schools was part of the reason for the ban.

If this is factual, “at what point is every major institution going to allowed to hamper the growth of businesses and others who they don’t agree with,” asks many people. Others ask, “shall we reach a day when Islamic sites are banned for some of the things that they say, or does it only apply to conservatives?”

One of the details that lend a powerful dose to the stance of Jones, as some experts see it, is that the InfoWars Store was banned, and that particular page contains no political content whatsoever.

It is also noted that just weeks after Right Wing Watch, a George Soros-funded group, “published an article demanding that PayPal terminate its agreement with Infowars for “egregious violations of the platform’s own terms of service,” it happened. To some people’s way of thinking, this is a clear sign that Jones may not have the right to speak freely, but Soros has the power to demand (and get) virtually anything.

For those who say that Jones has broken the rules as PayPal defines them, then so has Soros. His group, according to the Daily Caller, violates copyright rules as defined by various platforms by uploading whole videos “without any pretense of fair use,” yet their YouTube accounts remain intact.

People For the American Way owns Right Wing Watch, and they are “funded by George Soros’ Open Society Initiative.

Now that Jeff Bezos, (who some in the media has shown to be quite abusive to his workers at Amazon) owns the Washington Post, they too seem to some observers to have amassed a lot of power. Only two weeks ago, the “Amazon” Post called for PayPal to take these very actions. The paper had even gone so far as to say that PayPay “left intact key elements of his  [Jones’] moneymaking machinery — digital storefronts” after big-tech firms banned him.

Alex Jones, love him or hate him, isn’t breaking any laws. He is, as defined by the companies, breaking their rules (though they have yet to say just how). Still, many readers and followers of the host wonder if this isn’t market censorship prohibiting them from easily purchasing perfectly legal items as they wish and how they wish (ie, via PayPal).

The Bezo’s owned paper also talked about how a “high rate of sales” was generated for InfoWar due to PayPal.

The debate about this topic will surely rage like California wildfire on social media, but to those who detest Jones, many are asking only one question: If this can be done to Alex Jones today, who can it be done to tomorrow, or furher down the road.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is believed by many to have been cheated by the establishment left, after all.

As Alex Jones fights for his networks very survival, some Constitutional scholars would find it quite prudent for these fundamental questions to be answered, in spite of the “rules” of some companies.