September 3, 2017
If you’re young, you may not remember when the establishment left was ostensibly against multi-national corporations.
I sort of do, from the time I was a teenager. I remember it was something appealing about leftism – that they claimed to oppose global domination by a small group of the super-rich, who had become super-rich almost exclusively by scamming people.
Now, of course, we are in a different world. It has been a long time since the left and multinational corporations have had any kind of direct conflict with one another, given that their agendas have so much overlap. Mass immigration is the most obvious: both leftists and multinationals want to turn the world into a mixed-race cesspit of soulless, rootless, cultureless consumers of mass-manufactured products.
Feminism is another nearly as obvious example: corporations like the concept of women working instead of being mothers, as it drives down the cost of wages. In a world where have the population was at home with children, wages would be twice as high by default.
The rest of the hyper-sexualized, pervert culture also go along with the corporate desires, given that it is purely base materialism.
With the Google shut down of freedom of speech, however, this partnership between the left and multinational super-capitalists has entered a new phase. Now, leftists are openly and publicly defending and supporting the most powerful, greedy people on earth against an oppressed, silenced minority.
Take the super-liberal site Quartz, which has published a gushing article praising the moral integrity of Google and claiming that people should be “disturbed” by any opposition to this trillion dollar supernational corporate entity which has made its fortune mainly on privacy invasion.
The alt-right and its predecessors have long antagonized Silicon Valley for its views and practices, but it wasn’t until James Damore that they truly mobilized to take down one of its companies. No sooner had the former Google software engineer been fired for penning and circulating a manifesto titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” did the alt-right co-opt his narrative.
Overnight, whether or not he was in on the coordination, Damore became their Silicon Valley mouthpiece. They whisked him on to an interview with prominent alt-right YouTuber Stefan Molyneux. They carefully focused his brand as an unjustly persecuted truth-teller with an image of him wearing a Goolag t-shirt, photographed by Peter Duke, who’s known for shooting portraits of the alt-right. They used his story as a springboard to launch a Breitbart News series called the “Rebels of Google,” featuring Q&As with former and current Googlers who are alt-right sympathizers. They even called for national marches across Google’s campuses, though the organizers postponed them (paywall) after Charlottesville, citing threats from “alt-left terrorists.”
It is no accident that the alt-right chose Damore’s firing as their catalyst. This was not the first time accusations over a tech giant’s censorship of their views sparked outrage within the movement. Breitbart News has vigilantly tracked Facebook’s “war on free speech” since the 2016 US election campaign. Gab, a “free speech” social media platform popular among the alt-right, was created in response to Twitter’s censorship policies. But more than any other tech giant in the Valley, Google is synonymous with progressivism.
Though Google has been mired in unflattering headlines as of late, it has long enjoyed a reputation of being one of the most inclusive and progressive companies in Silicon Valley. Early in its history, the company pursued (what were at the time) radical policies to engender an employee-centric environment: internal diversity initiatives, diversity-conscious hiring practices, flexible work hours, liberal maternity and paternity leave policies.
Today, in an industry roiled by diversity and sexual harassment issues, Google preserves its benevolent reputation. Externally, its community-based initiatives—Girls Who Code and Made with Code to promote women in STEM; CODE2040 to foster black and Latinx tech talent—solidify its image as a force of good. Internally, its culture is considered by many as the safest haven for minorities in tech. As I heard over and over again from minorities who worked at Google or Silicon Valley at large, no place in tech is actually good for women and people of color, but Google is as good as it gets. It’s really trying.
“Apple, Amazon, companies like that, first and foremost, they’re businesses in the eyes of the public,” Carlile says. “Google is more of a symbol than it is a business”—a symbol of radical idealism, staunch optimism, and unrelenting positive change. That Google maintains this reputation in spite of turning its fortune from harvesting, parsing, and, in many ways, exploiting people’s data is only further testament to how deep its symbolism runs.
That is the only sentence in the article which says something negative about Google – and it is praising with feint damnation.
This is what makes it the perfect target for the alt-right. For the predominantly young, internet-savvy branch of white nationalism, bred within the underground meme-ridden culture of anonymous discussion forums like 4chan, few things feel more powerful than the subversion of benevolence, authority, and political correctness.
And there you have it: we are the subverters of authority.
The entire leftist brand was based on the alleged subversion of authority, and they have abandoned that in its entirety, instead praising authority and silencing those who question it.
This is why the whole thing is doomed to implosion: leftism was a system designed to destroy. Something built to destroy cannot rule.
Their tactics to push white nationalist ideas into the mainstream stem from this philosophy: Find the benign, the benevolent, the mundane and “corrupt” it with associations of fear and hatred. This is how Pepe the Frog, a children’s cartoon, became a symbol of white nationalism. This is also why alt-right protesters chug milk at rallies to assert white superiority. In online forums where the alt-right thrives, the reappropriation of such symbols to troll and demoralize proliferate.
The coordinated attacks on Google neatly follow the same pattern. By brandishing Damore’s manifesto as proof of Google’s “authoritarian” overreach and evoking Big Brother-like descriptions of groupthink, the alt-right begins to pervert a once-benevolent symbol into a disturbing one. Working at Google requires suffering through “constant abuse, sneers, insults and smears from people who detest that you disagreed with them,” details one article in Breitbart’s “Rebels of Google” series. “If the company continues along its current authoritarian route, as exposed by the firing of viewpoint diversity advocate James Damore, the personal data of ordinary users would be put at risk,” writes another.
Note that Quartz gives to response to that claim. It is just a statement of fact.
This company is pushing a radical, revolutionary political agenda. Pushing it straight down people’s throats, using barbarous methods we thought ended with the Middle Ages. And we are to expect them to be benevolent with our private data?
The strategy is working. Mainstream media outlets have begun to adopt the same language. In a Fox News segment aired a week after Damore’s firing, commentator Tucker Carlson described Google’s statement on the incident as “perhaps the most Orwellian statement written since Orwell himself finished 1984.”
A New York employee, Lauren, said that the way Google and its employees handled the situation only reminded her of why she loves working there. Based on her conversations within the San Francisco engineering and startup communities, Carlile agrees: “It doesn’t seem to have had that much of an impact on how people see Google or, if there is such a thing, the general culture of Silicon Valley.”
But ultimately, it’s the public’s, not the Valley’s, perception that matters. The public is spooked; Google is suspect. And because Google acts as a guardian to Silicon Valley’s ideology, to question Google is to question it all.
Google was not prepared to fight this fight. Though it has faced legal scrutiny before, such as with the gender pay discrimination case brought by the US Department of Labor and the anti-trust charges (paywall) in Europe, never has it handled such a wide PR scandal. What the company saw as a logical response, firing Damore, played directly into the alt-right’s playbook and blew up in its face.
Google has since scrambled to clean up the mess. On multiple occasions, spokespeople have emphasized the company’s staunch support for freedom of expression and “strong policies against retaliation, harassment and discrimination in the workplace.”
They are declaring their support for free speech in response to questions as to why they are engaged in the most brutal censorship and political silencing campaign since the Bolshevik revolution at least, and arguably because of the scale of it being enlarged by technology, the most extreme censorship program in all of human history.
What do you call that, other than “Orwellian”?
After the cancelled all-hands, Pichai spoke at a girls’ coding event hosted by Made with Code. But the tech giant is having a hard time sweeping the incident under the rug. Last week, Damore’s hiring of prominent Republican lawyer Harmeet Dhillon provoked a fresh wave of media scrutiny.
Two weeks after the memo was first released, I called a close friend who had worked as a software engineer in Silicon Valley, though not Google, to ask her thoughts about Damore and the suddenly apparent alt-right sympathizers working within the company. Was she surprised? I asked. Not really, she admitted. She had never really bought into Google’s and the Valley’s pristine veneer. But “this is a strong reminder,” she added, a reminder that there is ugliness lurking in the dark.
The Alt-Right is “lurking in the dark” because we have been forced into the dark.
But I was born in the dark. Molded by it.
And I am going to lead a charge against this system of political repression and silencing. I will do it by myself if I have to.
The Biggest Target
What we are witnessing is an end-run around the First Amendment.
The only way you are ensure freedom of speech in this era is if you are:
- Fortunate enough to have been an early investor in Silicon Valley, or
- A government
The internet was supposed to be a people’s revolution, allowing people to freely exchange thoughts and information. And it was indeed that. It accomplished its goal.
The problem is, the results were not what the rulers of this world wanted the results to be.
Instead of embracing racial diversity, people studied biological race differences.
Instead of embracing homosexuality, people learned of the threat that these monsters pose to children.
Instead of embracing feminism, people learned of the truly diabolical nature of female biology.
Free exchange of information leads to the truth and the truth is poison to this system of lies.
What we must do is force government intervention. We do not have any other choice. Under the government, you have a system of recourse. These corporations are accountable to no one, and they will push for their own interests, and their own interests are in silencing individuals who question them.
And Google is the biggest target. Everyone is afraid of this company. This is a company more powerful than any company, than any government, in all of human history. Everyone knows, when they are told of its power, that it is an existential threat to the people if it is allowed to continue as it is, unregulated.
In truth, the domain registry system, like the telephone number system, always should have been controlled by the government. That is the natural way for this to have been done. It is simply a strange quirk of history that it ended up in the hands of private companies.
However, those who wish to silence speech are capitalizing on the fact that it is run by private companies, and using that in their war against wrongthink.
In response to the libertarian argument, now being adopted by leftists, that no one has any rights on the internet because the internet is entirely controlled by private companies, Black Pigeon recently gave this argument: “fuck off – please, just fuck off.”
This argument only exists because it is convenient. Nothing about these people who are coming against us is honest, and they do not function honestly.
In America 2017, a small Christian-owned mom and pop cake shop can be shut down by the government for refusing to build an anal sex cake for a “gay marriage,” but the an industrial complex of multinational technological monopolies is allowed to come together to silence a single individual because his political speech is deemed to be offensive.
This is not the reality that anyone wants to live in, other than those actively pushing for the complete destruction of human civilization.
People with wrong political ideas have already been banned from Airbnb and Uber. This is banning people from sleeping in a warm place or moving freely. Because soon, with our current trajectory, these two companies will have monopolies on lodging and taxis. And they will be able to literally ban you from having a place to live or moving freely in the way that GoDaddy, Google and others in that oligopoly have banned me from being able to have a website.
And then, when you do not have a place to sleep and you cannot move freely, how long is it before you are banned from the grocery store – say, Whole Foods, owned by Amazon – or restaurants because of your politics? How long before you are left wondering if you will starve or freeze to death first, because “private companies have a right to decide who they do business with”?
Of course, you can say that being banned from buying food is far-fetched. I don’t really believe that it is, but you could say that. But surely, it does demonstrate the fact that the argument of “a privately owned monopoly or oligopoly can refuse business to anyone they want on any grounds” is absurd, does it not?
And to a civilized society, the right to free political expression is as important as the right to eat. Because, as I have just explained, the loss of the ability to take recourse when you are being oppressed leads to more oppression.
And that is why I am arguing that the rule of law be applied against Google, against Facebook, against all of these monopolies. I do not necessarily believe that they need to be outright nationalized – though this would be preferable – but I do believe they need to be regulated, and forced to conform to the law of the land.
That way, if you are injured by one of these parties, you will have the option of due process under the law, rather than simply being unpersoned and wiped out in the way that I have been.