Breitbart has published a leaked internal document from Google entitled “The Good Censor” that says the company plans to move away from the “American tradition” of free speech and toward a European model that values “dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.”

They claim that the election of Donald Trump, along with the rise of the right-wing in general, make free speech impossible, and that the old values of Silicon Valley have to be abandoned, and a new authoritarian control mechanism forced on people.

The 85-page internal briefing states that Google and other major platforms “control the majority of online conversations” and have made a “shift towards censorship” because they disagree with the current direction of global politics.

Along with the election of Donald Trump, they cite the rise of AfD in Germany. They also mention that using an aggressive censorship model makes their product more viable in China.

The paper claims that unlimited free speech is a “utopian narrative” that cannot stand in the face of recent political events and the “bad behavior” of their own users.

They mention that all the major platform initially promised free speech, but it is something they just can no longer do.

Google responded to Breitbart after the leak, downplaying the document and saying it is not company policy but simply a briefing they commissioned.

The paper also states that Google, its subsidiary YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are no longer neutral platforms, but “editors” and “publishers.” This is problematic for them, as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act draws a sharp distinction between “neutral platforms” and “publishers.” Effectively, if these companies are publishers and not neutral platforms, than they are responsible for any and all content published on their platforms.

Despite the fact that Google claims the paper is not company policy, it certainly had a lot of money spent on it and its “layers of research.”

These “layers” included expert interviews with MIT Tech Review editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer, and academic Kalev Leetaru. 35 cultural observers and 7 cultural leaders from seven countries were also consulted.

Along with the money spent, it also appears to be completely in-line with what Google is doing already. Though they and other tech companies have repeatedly claimed that they do not censor, that they do not regulate content based on political bias, no one who has been involved with these platforms believes it.

Pontin, when interviewed for the paper, told them that it was going to be problematic that they are censoring right-wing personalities while allowing left-wing personalities to do the exact same thing right-wingers are getting punished for:

[Richard] Spencer doesn’t get to be a verified speaker; Milo gets kicked off, but I know plenty of pretty abusive feminist users or left wing users, expressing themselves in exactly the same way that the right is being penalized for, who are permitted to perform certain kinds of speech.

Furthermore, the paper shows a loathing for “have a go” commenters being able to compete with “authoritative sources,” and says that the company is already down-ranking certain content and promoting other content based on its authoritativeness.

This is possibly exactly what Trump needs to start making moves against this evil company – and all the rest of them.

This is the most important fight we are facing right now. If we had had in 2015-16 the kind of censorship we have in 2018, I don’t even know if Trump would have won. And clearly, their goal is to make sure that Trump can’t win anymore.

90% of conversations today take place online. The idea that any private entity at all should be able to control all of that is absolutely insane. There is no argument for that.

We need an Internet Bill of Rights that ensures our freedoms.

All we ever asked for was fairness in representation, and they are openly saying that we cannot have that. The only reason is that they are political companies. And you cannot be a monopoly on most forms of modern speech and also be a political activist organization. That goes against all the standards of freedom that America represents.

Furthermore, it simply demonstrates, without any question, that these people on the left are afraid of an open marketplace of ideas because they know that their own ideas will lose in such an open space.

Here is the full document.

The Good Censor – GOOGLE LEAK by on Scribd

The looming Jew female Laura Loomer, known for allegedly raping Lauren Southern, tried to interrupt the congressional hearing of Twitter’s @jack and Facebook’s @jew, and was shut down by an auctioneer, Congressman Billy Long.

It’s a very funny clip.

I of course actually do agree with Loomer – these companies have to be regulated.

But this bitch just has to make everything about herself. She and her Jew boss Ezra Levant of The Rebel Media have attempted to corporatize legitimate political dissent by turning it into a circus show.

This hearing was not about Laura Loomer.

It was about Alex Jones.

And the Big Guy did get a chance to confront @jack.

Gloriously.

As we reported yesterday, Jones has completely taken over Washington, DC, and is forcing the entire city to submit to his will.

He went on a rampage, attacking absolutely everyone in that corrupt cesspit other than Donald Trump – our only ally.

He confronted the gay Cuban bath-houser Marco Rubio. This queer sonovabitch pretended to be going to a hearing about ALEX JONES without knowing who Alex Jones is.

And he went right for the throat of the CNN shill fake news policeman Oliver Darcy.

If you want to see the eyes of a rat…

Just look at this guy’s eyes, man.

That is who will ruin your life.

Alex was promptly then banned from Twitter for having complained about censorship.

These people are celebrating all of the goddamn place at having successfully fully silenced Jones from every outlet.

The Atlantic published a piece just dancing around.

From it:

After previously claiming that bans from Twitter and Facebook would only make him “stronger,” Jones saw traffic to his website plunge after the bans took effect, a sign many have taken to mean that de-platforming extremists is an effective solution for curbing their influence. Twitter is a particularly valuable platform for Jones because it allows—allowed—him access to the mainstream media, and to new customers for the web store that makes up a great deal of his revenue.

Ending free speech is a successful solution for curbing the influence of people who disagree with the mainstream media. 

That sums up what is happening here: the media is literally involved in a conspiracy to silence any and all independent voices – while at the SAME TIME claiming that Donald Trump is “attacking the First Amendment” by saying that they lie.

How can they be this bold? 

I hope Alex Jones just stays in DC and holds press conferences in the lobby of the Congressional building every single day.

LIVE on #Periscope: Lol Alex Jones at the Senate https://t.co/b2kHvY960C

— Will Chamberlain 🇺🇸 (@willchamberlain) September 5, 2018

He can just film his show from there. Every day. Until we get regulations protecting our speech.

Here is the full hearing.

THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS TO BE USED IN THE INFOWAR! READ IT TWICE!

After pinning a tweet about Google political manipulation, Trump was asked by a journalist if he wanted the company subject to “government regulation.”

Trump initially said “we’ll see” and then added “we don’t want regulation, we want fairness.”

Obviously, there is no way we are going to get any form of fairness without regulation. Trump knows this.

However, the word “regulation” has become bait for cuckservatives, who use libertarian arguments to defeat their own stated agendas because it is “values” and “principles” to lose while smugly saying you’re the real winner because you protected your values and principles.

Meanwhile, in reality, the only values of any value are: “losing is just losing” and “winning is just winning.”

The J-left obviously understands this. When dozens of corporations which together control 99.999999999999% of the internet colluded to attempt to make it impossible for me to even use the internet, the left argued that it was okay because they are private corporations and can thus do whatever they want.

That is, the selfsame people who forced small family-owned Christian bakeries out of business for refusing to bake homosexual wedding cakes were using a libertarian argument in defense of the most powerful corporations that ever existed on earth.

This is not because they don’t have “values” and “principles” – clearly, that is one thing that leftists do have. It is simply that they measure them by how much they win, how far they are able to push their agenda, not by ideological abstractions.

Part of their agenda is silencing the opposition, because they know that they are incapable of arguing their agenda successfully in an open market of ideas. It is a part of their value system that the opposition should be silenced, and they do not care if they have to engage in contradictory reasoning in order to push that value system.

“Never Regulate Anything” is Not a “Conservative Value”

If you ask an average conservative what “conservative values” are, they will probably say:

• Christianity
• Traditional families
• No abortion
• Freedoms

Attaching “the ability of multinational corporations to abuse the population” onto this value system was a Jewish trick, in the same way it was a Jewish trick to attach support for Israel and Israel’s wars onto Christianity.

Yes, “massive government” is objectively negative. However, so is “no government.” There have to be rules protecting the public from abuse, and these rules need to be enforced most aggressively against the biggest companies. Having a lot of legislation is not the answer – in fact, the more legislation you have, the easier it is for Jew lawyers to figure out a way around it. A simple rule that natural tech monopolies must respect free speech, as they are the de facto public square, is not communism. It is not communism anymore than outlawing child molestation and heroin dealing is communism.

And by the way, libertarians support abolishing the age of consent and legalizing all drugs. That is where the contradiction lies in mixing libertarianism with conservatism – no conservative would support legalizing sex with children or heroin dealing, yet it is the ultimate end of the logic the cuckservatives are employing when they say that all government regulation is planned economy communism.

Trump succeeded in tearing away “free trade” from conservatism because the people had seen that this alleged “free” trade led to them not having jobs and being poor. When cuckservatives like Paul Ryan and the cuckservative publications like The National Review that support him came out and said it was against conservative values to regulate international trade, they were able to hear what was actually being said: “you have to be poor because of an ideological abstraction that has nothing to do with your life or reality in general.”

People outright rejected the cuckservative attempt to keep them in poverty for the benefit of multinational corporations, both because they did not want to be poor AND because they for the first time took a hard look at the concept of “free trade” and realized they have no particular reason to be devoted to it.

It was like Morrissey said: “burn down the disco, hang the DJ, because the music they constantly play says nothing to me about my life.”

We need to do the same thing with internet regulation. And I don’t think it is going to be very hard, because like with trade, people have seen the real world effects of losing freedoms on the internet.

Clearly, what Trump is doing right now is attempting to get the issue discussed widely, to wait for the cuckservative response, and allow for it to be crushed by the appropriate pundits, at which point he can act. The left knows that they themselves cannot directly oppose regulation on the grounds that it is wrong to regulate private companies – this is the “bake the cake, bigot” crowd.

With the tech companies, the Democrats have made this huge scandal out of alleged Russian memes on Facebook, which means that they too should be supporting regulation. To be sure, I am not bothered by the idea of the regulations including a section which says that people paying for advertisement as foreign citizens and/or agents of a foreign government must disclose this. In fact, that is probably sensible. And a lot more ads are going to be forced to read “paid for by a citizen of Israel” than “paid for by a citizen of Russia.”

So the Jews are going to rely on a “right-wing” defense of the tech companies. Thus far, no one on the left has come out with an argument against tech regulation, while the National Review and Wall Street Journal, both traditional cuckservative platforms, have sent out a barrage of autistic screeching about how any form of regulation would amount to a planned economy.

This is something we can easily fight.

And the time to fight it is now. Trump is getting the ball rolling. We just have to kick it.

And the way to kick it is by forcing the point that they are using libertarian arguments, and that libertarians ultimately believe that there shouldn’t be any government at all. Ask them if they are also against regulating sex with children and heroin distribution. If they say “no,” tell them they are meddling in the economy by regulating the ability of entrepreneurial pimps to sell sex with children and innovative drug dealers to distribute heroin, that this is communism, that they shouldn’t be supporting a planned economy.

Just keep pressing those points, and tell them that they appear to not believe in the rule of law. Because at the same time as the cucks have pushed deregulation on people with an authoritarian personality, they have not tried to dismantle the “I believe in the rule of law” meme. And the rule of law either exists or it doesn’t, and for it to exist, you have to have a government. The reach of the government has to be based on common sense, not an abstract principle.

It is common sense that:

• It should be illegal to have sex with children
• It should be illegal to distribute dangerous, addictive drugs
• It should be illegal for monopolistic tech companies to decide what people are allowed to say and think

That is what we mean when we say “the rule of law.”

#StopTheBias pic.twitter.com/xqz599iQZw

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2018

Trump has officially pinned a tweet about Google bias with the hot new hashtag #StopTheBias.

The video is just about how Google stopped celebrating the State of the Union address when Trump was elected. But this is obviously intended to be symbolic of the larger move by Silicon Valley to control the political narrative.

Trump has recently tweeted and spoken quite a bit about internet censorship, and the need to regulate the tech industry to prevent this.

The entire media is controlled by the ruling establishment. And yet, their primary objective is shutting up me and Alex Jones – people with only a tiny fraction of a fraction of their money and reach. And the media itself – while claiming that it is a violation of the First Amendment for the President to criticize them – is playing a pivotal role in silencing the opposition. All of the main outlets now have employees devoted to hunting down and hounding anyone who disagrees with the establishment.

A typical – perhaps archetypal – example of this is an article in the New Yorker by Talia Levin, a fat Jew female, where she actually documents her quest to attempt to get the companies providing me infrastructure to shut down the Daily Stormer.

Earlier today, we published a piece about the Jew journalist Jared Holt, who worked to get AJ shut down and is now attempting to get 4chan shut down by urging people to mass complain to their infrastructure providers.

We may have a First Amendment in this country, but this coordinated attack on anyone who disagrees with the establishment by the tech industry and the mainstream news media has effectively nullified it.

Trump appears to be trying to get a discussion started on this topic before he takes legal action. We need to support him. We need to be out there backing up his agenda everywhere we still can speak.

This meddling by the tech companies is already affecting the elections. In 2016, we saw the power we have in our words – what a few thousand guys with Twitter accounts can do to the narrative of the establishment. And now that power has been stripped from us.

An FCC ruling would free all of us. We would all get Twitter amnesty, and I would be able to normalize my infrastructure.

And if Trump does this, we will serve him with our freedoms. He is the hero of this story. We are simply supporting characters.