The Ire and Corruption of the Social Justice Kings’ Hand: A Googol of Reasons to Consider Trust-Busting

Like the Sherlock Holmes story of the dog that never barked, a caper where a dog's silence outed a thief by revealing him as someone the dog knew well, you can always tell who is supporting the Social Justice Kings of the media by looking to whom they refrain from barking at [*1]. A dog is loyal to his owner.

Setting aside the question of whether the human or the dog is the real master in this comparison, the absence of barking is curious. As the Social Justice Kings controlling global media play their role as activists for the Left [*2], their relative silence on regulating or trust-busting a too-big-to-fail type corporation accused by the EU of controlling 92% of the market there (and 64% in the US) [*3], while on its way to being the first trillion-dollar company [*4], amidst mounting evidence of self-dealing and black-listing [*5], is likewise curious.

Too-big-to-fail corporations have little to fear of regulation since regulatory boards are naturally co-opted by their own minions [*6], allowing the corporations to effectively write their own rules. Their greater vulnerability is trust-busting. And the degree to which these corporations play the role of the Social Justice Kings’ Hand is, perhaps, the degree to which they are immune, since the Right is principally against trust-busting [*7]. And what better way to relax the barking of the Social Justice Kings than to assist in their advancement by muting their enemies?

Enter the new Right alternative media, which played an extensive role in providing a counter-narrative to that controlled by the Social Justice Kings for the people to consider, perhaps a distal cause in the Left’s worst defeat since 1922 in the 2016 U.S. elections [*8] and the June 2016 Brexit vote in the U.K. [*9]. Impressively, this alternative media prevailed and prevails despite intense molestation by the Social Justice Kings' Hand. Despite Google (owned by Alphabet Inc.) doctoring search results [*10] and coordinating with Hillary's campaign as alleged by Julian Assange of Wikileaks [*11], despite Youtube (owned by Google) censoring or gaslighting conservative channels [*12] by "age-restricting" or hiding them (i.e. Louder with Crowder [*13] and Prager University [*14]), despite Facebook doctoring its algorithms to censor right-wing voices [*15] or attempting to outright no-platform them [*16], despite Wikipedia curating entries to favor the leftist ideology [*17], despite Twitter outright purging a multitude of voices on the Right [*18] or throttling them [*19], the Social Justice Kings couldn’t quash the counter-narrative voices, which ultimately got messages out to the people in 2016.

And the Social Justice Kings vowed: Never Again [*20].

The attacks from their Hand are coming in stronger, if a little sloppy in execution. Jordan Peterson recently had all his google accounts stripped from him [*21], but, unlike Twitter’s double-down over their controversy deplatforming Milo Yiannopolous [*22], Google backed off their scorched-earth attack on Jordan the next day amidst media pressure. They recently tried to remove Infowars from search results [*23] but backed off under the guise of plausible deniability via the old it-was-a "rouge contractor" excuse. And evidence of civil war within Google is mounting [*24], as they recently fired an employee for sharing the infamous "Google Manifesto," (a relatively tame critique of diversity hiring practices), revealing the toxic Social Justice culture within [*25].

And the Social Justice madmen running the Google asylum tire of this game of whack-a-mole. The censorship games will get decreasingly subtle absent an effective competitor or some type of regulation [*26].

So why is there such convergence in large entities toward the leftism of Social Justice? Vox Day provides thorough analysis of this matter [*27]. Suffice to say, the academic Left has demanded it since 1861. One of their most famous political philosophers, John Stuart Mill, first advocated it in his infamous word-salad: “Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge [*28].” And this clarion call has echoed and amplified into the 21st Century.

But how can such large organizations withstand this convergence without destroying themselves? They stand to benefit from large regulatory apparatuses that keep out competition [*29] so as long as profits are still privatized (and full-blown communism among the Left is out of vogue). They can afford merit-avoiding diversity programs and the regulatory red tape that goes along with it [*30]. And the Pareto Principle suggests 80% of the value in an organization stems from 20% of its talent [*31]. While frustration among that 20% is noticeable, if the talent of that 20% is concentrated strong enough, a company like Google can afford to deal with a blatant non-merit based hiring scheme [*32] to satisfy the Social Justice Warriors infiltrating the 80%. And even if many in that 20% leave (concentrating that 20% to fewer people, endangering them of burn-out), Google (like many other corporations, i.e. Amazon) doesn't have the cash-flow problems of a small business or even a need to turn profits every quarter or year for that matter to stay afloat [*33]. The decay is slow and can be counter-acted by currying favor among regulators ala "net neutrality [*34]."

When the Left gain enough power again, they’ll have no problem dismantling large corporations that benefit the Right or oppose their ideology. Articles by the Left strategizing it are replete in the media [*35] while the Right largely scoffs at the thought [*36]. Is it any wonder corporate conglomerates kowtow to the Left? After all the support Google, Facebook, and Twitter gave and continue to give the Left, do you really think the Democrats in the U.S. would have trust-busted them if they got into power? Large corporations are keenly aware that conservative precepts dictate a philosophy of leaving businesses alone. They play both sides with their donations to some degree but actively support the Left when it comes to policy and media [*37]. Better for Google to act as the Social Justice Kings' Hand than face the consequences leading to a trust-bust from the incessant barking.

So, how do we deal with it? One option is to keep building platforms to counter our creeping black-listing. Infogalactic (replacement for Wikipedia) [*38], Castalia House (publisher alternative) [*39], Gab (Twitter alternative) [*40], Minds (Facebook alternative) [*41], and Hatreon (Patreon alternative) [*42], among others, are all relatively new platforms strongly against censorship of any kind. But if Google decides to outright no-platform alternative media, will these new platforms eventually rise to carry the old voices (and hopefully some new ones) high enough to make a difference? How long would that take? With the push of a few buttons, Google, Facebook, and Twitter could purge most of us. And Social Justice Warriors in their midst are clamoring for them to pull the trigger and figuratively execute all of us.

Perhaps it’s time to let the Hand of the Social Justice Kings know we’re open to the leftist precepts of trust-busting. And if not outright dismantling this abusive monopoly, Whitehouse Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has argued Google is a public utility of sorts and should be regulated as such [*43]. An electric company can’t cut the power to people with differing political viewpoints, because power companies have government enforced monopolies over geographic areas as utilities since electricity is a necessity, so they say (even though we survived without it for the first 20,000-or-so years of humanity). If people’s ability to obtain information via the internet is also a necessity (since the goalposts for Maslow's hierarchy of needs continuously move upward), as the Left commonly argues [*44], perhaps we should co-opt the narrative and activate anti-trust laws to protect people's access to information. Regulation ala Steve Bannon's idea is less desirable, because (1) power ebbs and flows between the parties (as our enemies have expressed a much stronger desire to use that power) and (2) Google will simply buy in its own regulators with donations. Therefore, trust-busting is a more plausible alternative.

The particular strategies and likelihood of success in levying U.S. anti-trust action against Google are far too complex to give proper analysis here. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is ruthlessly vague in its language, outlawing "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade" and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize [*45]." Sparing readers a word-salad slog through the academic legal morass of confusing justifications and exceptions for the rules interpreting this, to trust-bust or not essentially comes down to the opinion of the judge deciding the case. And the mounting evidence of Google's monopolization of the channels of information dissemination along with its use of this monopoly to quash dissenting points of view, make an interesting case to bring before a judge. The greatest strategic obstacle to trust-busting comes down to the bias of both parties of judges. A Republican judge is susceptible to the laisse-faire pleas of Google's lawyers. A Democrat judge, normally keen on trust-busting, is susceptible to looking the other way since Google has buttered the Left's bread.

And, of course, you can hear the old guard of the Right gasp for air as they fall to their fainting couches. "Mercy good sir! Google is a private business. They should be free to discriminate against whomever they like." When the Social Justice King's hand is planning to have you (figuratively) assassinated, relegating yourself to noble defeat as opposed to fighting back isn't honorable. It's cowardly. Dare we say cuckish.

For now, the Social Justice Kings' Hand is merely slicing some of the snakes off our medusa head of counter-narrative personalities as opposed kill-switching all of us. But if we don’t show them we’re willing to play the same trust-busting game of the Left, one day there'll be no alternative voices but a corporate conglomerate controlling all speech to the benefit of leftist political parties in nations of receding sovereignty, all converging toward Social Justice.

Don't think they won't do it. The six-shrinking-to-five large corporations controlling over 90% of the media will be fine [*46]. The press is largely immune to trust-busting rules anyway (thankfully Google is not a "media" company) [*47], further incentivizing leftist media to conglomerate to destroy the Right. And if a few hundred or thousand smaller voices on the Left get quashed in their process of destroying us, that's a risk they're willing to take. The Social Justice Kings are perfectly willing to cut off their nose despite their face. Who wants to smell their own shit anyway?

[*1] https://www.dangerandplay.com/2017/02/11/where-are-the-reince-priebus-hit-pieces/
[*2] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/john-podesta-emails-wikileaks-press-214367
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12063
 https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php
[*3] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/international/european-union-google-antitrust-case.html
[*4] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/21/gene-munster-the-1-trillion-market-cap-chances-for-amazon-apple-or-google.html
[*5] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/business/international/european-union-google-antitrust-case.html
[*6] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-30/it-s-normal-for-regulators-to-get-captured
[*7] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust
[*8] http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/14/nyt-dems-slowly-realizing-obama-led-them-into-a-cultural-dead-end/
[*9] http://www.partiantisioniste.com/en/news/the-challenge-of-alternative-media-en.html
[*10] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/08/former-google-employee-there-are-efforts-to-demote-anything-non-pc-from-search-results/amp/
Also, to favor Hillary Clinton in the 11/2016 election (as Snopes apologists doth protest too much over the thought) http://freebeacon.com/politics/here-are-10-more-examples-of-google-search-results-favorable-to-hillary/
[*11] https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/9/google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign-assange-c/
[*12] http://libertynews.com/2017/05/censorship-absolute-proof-that-youtubes-adpocalypse-is-now-only-targeting-conservative-youtubers/ 
[*13] https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/restricted-youtube-targets-louder-crowder/
[*14] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/11/youtube-muzzles-pragerus-conservative-content-grou/
[*15] http://nypost.com/2016/05/09/liberal-lies-feed-facebooks-censorship-of-conservative-content/
[*16] https://www.infowars.com/facebook-kills-beloved-pro-trump-account-in-latest-free-speech-crackdown/
[*17] https://www.heartland.org/topics/infotech-telecom/Wikipedia/index.html
[*18] http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/303295-how-facebook-twitter-are-systematically-silencing-conservative
[*19] https://ageofshitlords.com/heres-how-twitter-is-silently-censoring-you
[*20] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/leaked-memo-soros-funded-media-matters-working-facebook-twitter-kill-pro-trump-articles/
[*21] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/1/jordan-b-petersons-youtube-account-locked-during-b/
[*22] http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/19/breaking-milo-suspended-twitter-20-minutes-party/
[*23] https://medium.com/@Cernovich/google-admits-cernovich-had-another-scoop-agrees-to-stop-censoring-infowars-cernovich-accepts-40f61c260a0f
[*24] http://www.eutimes.net/2017/08/google-turns-sjw-fires-engineer-for-talking-abut-genders/
[*25] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/google-fires-viewpoint-diversity-manifesto-author-james-damore/
[*26] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated
[*27] Vox Day, Social Justice Warriors Always Lie (Castalia House) 2015
[*28] https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-big-five-fully-converge.html
[*29] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/davies-and-mccarl-how-big-business-benefits-regula/
[*30] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/10/19/lift-the-regulatory-burden-on-small-businesses
[*31] https://infogalactic.com/info/Pareto_principle
[*32] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/11/googler-internal-project-white-asians-likely-succeed/
[*33] http://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-business-it-still-doesnt-make-money-investors-dont-seem-care-1513368
[*34] https://www.wired.com/2015/02/google-net-neutrality/
[*35] A simple google search reveals many more examples. Salon is perhaps the boldest. http://www.salon.com/2014/08/17/how_to_wreck_the_gop_in_3_easy_steps/
[*36] http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/23/new-era-trust-busting-target-google/
[*37] http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
[*38] https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
[*39] http://www.castaliahouse.com/
[*40] https://gab.ai/home
[*41] https://www.minds.com/
[*42] https://hatreon.us/guidelines/
[*43] https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/
[*44] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html
[*45] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
[*46] https://theinternationalreporter.org/2016/10/25/att-time-warner-merger-to-expand-corporate-state-control-of-media/
[*47] http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/08/07/newspapers_dont_need_anti-trust_immunity_110323.html