Google Blackmails Conservative Site

Pajama Media brings us this article describing how Google sent a threatening letter to a conservative site demanding that they pull one of their articles, or Google would cut off their Google generated ad revenue. This kind of activity is a direct violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Google should be broken up by the government right now to put a stop to this sort of blackmail activity and to send a clear warning to other leftist corporations that anti-trust violations will not be tolerated.

On Tuesday evening, Google sent a conservative website an ultimatum: remove one of your articles, or lose the ability to make ad revenue on your website. The website was strong-armed into removing the content, and then warned that the page was “just an example and that the same violations may exist on other pages of this website.”

“Yesterday morning, we received a very bizarre letter from Google issuing us an ultimatum,” Shane Trejo, media relations director of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Michigan, wrote on The Liberty Conservative. “Either we were to remove a particular article or see all of our ad revenues choked off in an instant. This is the newest method that Big Brother is using to enforce thought control.”

The ultimatum came in the form of an email from Google’s ad placement service AdSense. The email specifically listed an article on The Liberty Conservative’s site, stating that the article violated AdSense’s policies.

Posted in Communism, Corruption, Democrats, New Media, Political Correctness, Social Justice Warriors, The Culture War, The Ruling Class | Leave a comment

Who’s Really a Minority?

Here is an interesting video from Red Ice TV that makes the argument that whites are when seen in a global context, the true minority population on the planet. For while the world population is over seven billion, only about 750 million of those people are descended from European stock. Everyone else is what we have tended to call “minority.”

Posted in Education, Fake News, Immigration, Phenocentrism, Science, The Culture War, The Ruling Class | Leave a comment

The Media In Eclipse

John Nolte at Breitbart has written a lively essay on the declining fortunes and influence of the Legacy Media and how they are reacting to their accelerating loss of power. And reacting to it they are. Nolte begins by pointing out that the entire establishment was on deck in the 2016 election in order to stop Donald Trump from winning the election. There was no effort that they did not make in the service of their goal of getting Felonia von Pantsuit over the finish line.

As a 25 year media-watcher, I have never seen anything close to the propaganda campaign the national media launched to defeat Donald Trump last year. It was 24/7, it was coordinated across every news outlet, it was all-hands-on-deck. And Trump still won. Which can only mean that the media’s influence has eroded to a point where, despite hurling every kitchen sink available, they suffered a humiliating loss last November.

Before I get into the grit of the nit, it is important to keep in mind that our media is nothing more than the communication branch of the Democrat Party. When you look at everything the media does — the lying, the campaigns of personal destruction, the fake news, the focus on stuff like Melania’s shoes — this explanation is the only one that makes sense. The media is a full-blown leftwing political operation run, for the most part, by former Democrat operatives like Jake Tapper, George Stephanopolous, and Chuck Todd, as well as those related to Democrat operatives.

Donald Trump’s win in November of last year was not just a political earthquake; it was a cultural one as well. For it signaled that not only is the political power of the Democrats and the left on the decline, so too is the power of the Legacy Media. There was a time when the Elite Media Monoculture controlled the content and terms of the debate and nothing got through that wall of power that was not approved by them. But that has all changed because of the digital technology that we all enjoy today.

Computers, tablets, cell phones and the Internet make it possible for people of like mind to find each other and to share their knowledge, understanding, and experience. Through blogs, chat rooms and social media conservatives and others on the right have been able to organize and work together to advance their own ideas and, perhaps even more importantly, to pull back the curtain on the left and show them for who and what they are. Through the Internet, we offer observations and commentary that the Legacy Media does now allow or deign to publish.

And those views have spread far and wide on the right until now virtually every rank-and-file member of the right understands the situation we are in, what we are up against and knows what we have to accomplish to win our country back from the left. There are few on our side who do not understand the goals and tactics of the enemy. And knowing that means that the Legacy Media has lost their power to influence the outcomes of events both political and cultural. As Nolte explains, this decline in the left’s power is the reason they are lashing out to silence the voices on the right using whatever power they still have.

At this point, pretty much every conservative position on abortion, homosexuality, border security, the police, affirmative action, immigration, terrorism, etc., has been labeled as hate speech by the establishment left and many in the media. Moreover, the holding of these beliefs makes you an automatic member of the “alt-right,” which aligns you with white supremacists.

Now that this phase is in place, now that mainstream conservative and Christian beliefs have been toxified as hate, whether they are already aligned with the media or because they have been bullied by the media into joining the cause, the mega-corporations that now control our primary means of communication — the public square that is the Internet — are instituting a wave of  censorship.

Hiding behind the media’s absurdly expanded definition of hate (or fake news), America’s Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, advertisers, and Web servers are blacklisting conservatives, banning populists, and outlawing their ideas. People are being disappeared from the public square or, out of fear of being disappeared, they no longer feel comfortable to speak freely.

While this wave of censorship has already caused some short term disruptions, in the end, I don’t think it will succeed in stopping the right. The Internet is so big and so diverse a medium that those on the right will soon find ways to adapt and redeploy their assets. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are big, but they are by no means the entire Internet and their reach only goes so far. The conservative right will quickly adapt and find other venues to get their message out. The Elite Media Monoculture’s attempt to regain power and silence their critics is doomed to fail, just as every socialist experiment in history has done before.

Posted in Communism, Democrats, Election, Fake News, Marxism, New Media, Social Justice Warriors, The Angry Left, The Culture War | Leave a comment

Antifa is a Domestic Terrorist Group

From the comments over at Anonymous Conservative, a great blog you should have on your list comes the following information for all right-leaning activists.

Let’s get Antifa labeled as terrorists, official white house petition here:

For those who don’t know what antifa is, it is a far-left domestic terrorist group (only considered so in 1 state, for now) that is part of the alt-left and promotes killing cops, destruction of private property, anti-white racism, open borders, islamic terrorism and the implementation of communism thru means of violent revolution.

Read more here:

Please share to all burgers! Share it everywhere and with everyone!

“If someone shows up to a protest, thinking they will just bang heads there using phalanx tactics and go home, and somebody else is viewing the protest as an opportunity to gather intel on those who show up, so they can be dealt with later at a convenient time of their choosing, one side has an immense battlefield superiority over the other. One side will be followed home, ID’d, watched and monitored, and die, and they will likely never even see what happened to set the stage for their demise.

If Antifa starts setting up intel cells, running surveillance, following people home from protests, gathering IDs, cataloging vulnerabilities, and creating detailed files on the right, we will have a steep learning curve to catch up, and we will probably lose people in the process, because the US government is not getting involved or protecting anybody these days. They are too busy cataloging everything they can on everyone, and preparing their own control of their battlefield at the collapse.”

Alt-left far-left domestic terrorist death squads are being trained.

Help defund Antifa branch “Redneck Revolt” here:

Let’s also get to the bottom of the problem and get George Soros what he deserves for financing violent domestic terrorist groups:
Sign and share please!

Posted in Activism, Communism, Democrats, Marxism, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Deep State, The Ruling Class | Leave a comment


In recent days we have seen the left, in a variety of different situations and contexts, use its power for the purpose of silencing dissenting voices across the Internet. If we had any doubt that modern corporations had been converged into leftist strongholds, at least at the top management level, that doubt has been removed. Companies such as Facebook, YouTube and Google already have a reputation for censoring Wrongthink™ whenever they can do so without negative repercussions. Now we are seeing the same Stalinist tactics used to remove offending thought from the Internet so that we, the rubes out in Fly-Over-Country will not be able to see it.

This is being accomplished by the process of denying platforms to those who hold different or dissenting views. The first case in point is Gab, the free speech alternative to Twitter. Gab has been offering an app that can be loaded on a smart phone allowing the user to post content as one would do with other social media outlets. But the powers that be decided to remove the app from Google Play Store and Apple so that ordinary non-elites would no longer have access to it.

“This should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention. The Silicon Valley ideological echo chamber is real,” Gab CEO Andrew Torba wrote in an email to Breitbart Tech. “They have chosen to not support a free and open internet.”

“The alt tech revolution has begun,” he continued. “We ask developers who believe in our mission of free speech and individual liberty for all to rise up, speak out, and build free speech friendly products against the totalitarianism occurring in the tech industry.”

The social network previously extended a job offer to James Damore, a former Google employee who was fired from the company after he published a viewpoint diversity manifesto.

Gab has also been rejected from the Apple App Store on numerous occasions, with the company citing “objectionable” user content, despite the fact that flagged posts could also be found on social networks such as Twitter, which are readily available on the store.

On Thursday, Gab raised over $1 million in public investments, hitting the maximum amount allowed by regulations.

Meanwhile, over at Return of Kings, Matt Forney has posted this article that details some of the groups and individuals who have been ousted by the mandarins of Silicon Valley.

Over the next few days, PayPal and Facebook announced a major crackdown on right-wingers. Facebook has banned the pages and personal accounts of numerous right-wing personalities and sites, including American Renaissance, Christopher Cantwell, Pax Dickinson, and the Traditionalist Worker Party. PayPal has also banned Cantwell, Richard Spencer, Jason Kessler, American Renaissance, VDARE, and countless others from using their services, cutting them off from a vital source of funds. In the latter two cases, AmRen and VDARE were banned even though neither they nor their leadership had any involvement with Unite the Right.

In an age of social media and the internet as our primary medium of communication, the denial of a platform is effectively the newest form of censorship. The fact that it does not come from the government does not render it less harmful or less a violation of one’s civil rights. If a baker can be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, the mandarins of Silicon Valley should have no right to censor views of conservatives just because they don’t like them.

Sadly, this attack on the right will likely continue because the left does not know when to stop and because the left has always opted for silencing their opponents rather than having a real debate. The left does not debate anyone really since they believe they are in sole possession of the truth and that all others are not simply mistaken but evil. And one does not deign to debate with such sub-humans as us.

Posted in Activism, Democrats, Economics, Fake News, Marxism, Social Justice Warriors, Technology, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Elite Media Monoculture, The Ruling Class | Leave a comment

Tara McCarthy on What Really Happened In Charlottesville

Posted in Activism, New Media, Social Justice Warriors, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Elite Media Monoculture, The Ruling Class | Leave a comment

Burning Books

Some might think that I exaggerate when I and others argue that the left is determined to erase our American history and replace it with something that normal patriotic Americans do not recognize. Well, here we see some of the communist/Antifa thugs destroying a piece of that American history.

Posted in Communism, Democrats, Education, Political Correctness, Social Justice Warriors, The Angry Left, The Culture War | Leave a comment

The End of History

Over the weekend communist/leftist “antifa” and “black lives matter” agitprop groups staged another violent attack on protesters, this time in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia. The protesters were there to express their displeasure at the prospect of historical monuments and statues, in this case one of General Robert E. Lee, being removed from public view.

The protest groups had applied for permits which were granted and then subsequently revoked, while the antifa and BLM groups apparently were not required to have permits at all and were given effective free rein by the city government and governor, both dominated by Democrats who, it seems, want only the antifa side to be able to advocate their view. Moreover, the police in this situation seem to have been given orders by the state to allow the leftists to attack the protesters at will with no adverse consequences.

Predictably the various leftist groups lashed out violently at the protesters and there was a great deal of fighting which culminated in a car being driven into antifa and BLM supporters by one individual who is now under arrest. Naturally, The Elite Media Monoculture is focusing on this person in order to avoid having to deal with several other inconvenient issues that are at the heart of incidents such as this.

(And for the record, I am not a supporter of socialists, national or otherwise or of the KKK who are no better than antifa. But they do have 1st Amendment rights whether you like them or not.)

The first is of course the left’s desire to erase traditional American history from the books and replace it with a more politically correct version, which is what the protest was originally about.

More and more it is understood among the regular American people that the left is trying very hard to tear down Western Civilization generally and America in particular. One of the ways that the left does this is by rewriting or erasing our history. There are plenty of examples of the left doing this, for example in the old Soviet Union where photographs of people would magically disappear and be replaced by others in which certain offending individuals were no longer present. This methodology is used because if you erase a nation’s history, you can then replace it with one more suited to advancing the leftist agenda. That is why the history of the south, and particularly of the civil war is a target of the left. Robert E. Lee is a large part of that history and so must be removed from the history books. A newer version of America’s history can then be manufactured to replace the old one so as to push along the leftist dream of transforming the country.

And the second is that the violence that is being perpetrated in these incidents has originated primarily from the left and is being directed against those who represent, more or less, traditional America and her values. If the protesters had been Tea Party members, the attacks on them would doubtless have been just as violent and hysterical. We know from experience that any pro-American activism by virtually any group has been met with fervent and violent assaults by the left.

And in the last decade we have seen a troubling rise in violence from the left directed against the majority of regular patriotic Americans who, for the most part, are deeply unhappy with the direction of the country and the cultural and economic rot that has been perpetrated against them by the left in their irrational quest to remake America into some sort of socialist utopia. During the eight years of the Obama administration we saw plenty of rioting and attacks on regular people as well as law enforcement personnel. Since the election of Donald Trump the violence and hysteria against the American people has escalated even more with riots in places like Berkeley, attacks on individuals posted on Facebook and a mass assassination attempt against Republican congressmen at a baseball practice to name just a few.

The left has been ratcheting up their violent attacks on traditional Americans and there is no reason to think that will change anytime soon. We are in a low-level civil war for the future of the country that will be played out an a number of different contexts; social, media, economic, political and cultural.

My view is that traditional America as making a comeback and will eventually win this fight, but it will not be easy and it will not be quick. This is going to be a long process in which we gradually de-legitimize the left and remove any moral standing they have in the eyes of the public. Events such as this one shine a clear light on the actions and motives of the left. And when Americans are given the truth, they have traditionally come to the right conclusions and taken action to correct what’s wrong. This time will be no different.

Posted in Activism, Communism, Democrats, Education, Marxism, Political Correctness, Social Justice Warriors, The Angry Left, The Culture War | Leave a comment

Stefan Molyneux on the Google Memo

Posted in Activism, Education, Feminism, Political Correctness, Technology, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Ruling Class | Leave a comment

The Rebels of Google

Over the weekend there was a major kerfuffle at Google regarding a memo discussing the subject of diversity and inherent sex differences affecting career selection preferences. In other words, men and women tend to be better at different things due to biological and genetic hard wiring that is impervious to social conditioning. The memo in question was written by one James Damore. The memo also discussed the atmosphere at Google in which those who don’t automatically accept the Social Justice Narrative can find themselves the target of workplace harassment and may potentially suffer the loss of their jobs.

The full text of the memo can be found here.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

One can’t help but point out that the author has unwittingly named the difference here between r and K sensibilities. But I digress. Official Google TruthSpeak was quick to respond.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.”

Naturally the Social Justice Warriors are furious that anyone might be engaging in WrongThink.

Posted in Activism, New Media, Political Correctness, Social Justice Warriors, Technology, The Angry Left, The Culture War | Leave a comment

James Damore’s Google Memo Full Text

Update: Apparently Gizmodo stripped the links from the original text before they put it up on their site, thus removing any references or attribution from this document. Then they complained that it had no scientific support. As VoxDay says, “SJWs ALWAYS LIE.” The text below has been updated to included the original references.

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion


  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
    • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
    • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
  • Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. [2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices:

Left Biases Right Biases
Compassion for the weak Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are due to injustices Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently cooperative Humans are inherently competitive
Change is good (unstable) Change is dangerous (stable)
Open Closed
Idealist Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
    • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
    • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
    • This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on [4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
    • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
    • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do.
    • This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education.
  • Women on average are more prone to anxiety.
    • Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
    • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
    • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology [7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ [8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap [9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner [10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness [11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.


I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

  • De-moralize diversity.
    • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
  • Stop alienating conservatives.
    • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
    • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
    • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
  • Confront Google’s biases.
    • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
    • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
  • Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
    • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
  • Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
    • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
    • There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
    • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
    • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
  • Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
    • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
    • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
    • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
  • De-emphasize empathy.
    • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
  • Prioritize intention.
    • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
    • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
  • Be open about the science of human nature.
    • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
  • Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
    • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
    • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
    • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.


[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.


Posted in Political Correctness, Science, Social Justice Warriors, Technology, The Angry Left, The Culture War | Leave a comment

The End of Pop Culture

A long time ago when I was a student at the Art Institute I remember going to see an exhibit in the museum of art from China. Students of the school were allowed free access to the museum during normal hours and we could see anything we liked that did not require a special ticket. This was not a display of ancient paintings and art objects that were centuries old, but rather a collection of newer work originating from contemporary Communist China under Mao and the “Cultural Revolution.” The works were uniformly creepy and had that artificial atmosphere of saccharine socialist realism that is hard to miss once you have seen it.

Before Socialism

After Socialism

In this blog post from Wasteland and Sky, we take a look at the collapse of popular culture now that it has been taken over by Social Justice Warriors. In virtually every area that you can name from Hollywood to music to comics to literature the culture has been degraded by the influence of the left to such a degree that normal people are tuning out in droves and the creative classes have run out of ideas that other people would be interested in that don’t involve left-wing politics.

Comic sales are cratering, and insiders are busy giving awards to each other and refusing to acknowledge the problem. Then there’s the media refusing to report on any of this and pretending everything is just a-okay. Diversity & Comics has since been assaulted by Marvel writers and editors online telling him that only certain fans are welcome to buy and read their comics. This is not how a functioning business or service is supposed to operate. These people are shrinking the industry deliberately.

But it goes further than comics.

Marvel Studios have been seeing some rough times recently. Spiderman Homecoming tied with Amazing Spiderman 2 as the lowest opening weekend in franchise history. This is bad for several reasons. The first being that Sony made the deal with Marvel to stop Spiderman’s popularity from waning. It hasn’t worked. Whether you’re a fan of Homecoming or not, that’s a worrying trend. Pair that with the yawns the new trailers for Inhumans and Thor: Ragnarok got, and the trend is solidifying.

This is the problem that the creative fields face. Leftism and Political Correctness ruins whatever it touches. Not just politics but certainly in the humanities as well until, ironically, they come to lack any humanity at all. True art is a problem for the left because at its root the left does not believe in the soul. And the human soul and its nature are what art is all about. Even a simple landscape is a reflection of the philosophical views of the artist and reveals our relationship with nature. But if we are nothing but a collection of chemicals then nothing else is important either. And because the left cannot see the world without the lens of politics everything is reduced to an agenda item.

Posted in Communism, Democrats, Feminism, Hollyweird, Marxism, Social Justice Warriors, The Angry Left, The Culture War | Leave a comment

Seven Republicans Betray Their Country (Again)

At The American Thinker, Patricia McCarthy writes about the failure of the Obamacare repeal at the hands of Cuckservatives who pose as Republicans when they are running for re-election and need your vote.

Yesterday, seven Republicans in name only – Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nev.), John McCain (Ariz.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Lamar Alexander of (Tenn.), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) – voted not to repeal major portions of Obamacare, Obama’s dreadful legacy that has, for millions of Americans, virtually destroyed the health insurance industry and access to their actual health care.  Only members of Congress were allowed to keep their doctors and keep their plans.  That was the promise Obama made to every American.  It was a lie.

These seven senators have betrayed their party and the people who elected them.  Betrayal is common among people without conscience.  Yes, McCain has demonstrated prodigious conscience in the past, but no more.  He long ago became a tool of the left.  That is what the word “maverick” means when applied to John McCain.  It was Arthur Miller who wrote that “betrayal is the only truth that sticks.”  And stick it does.  Not one of these people should be re-elected.

In opposition to the most basic of conservative principles, those seven senators are wedded to the welfare state and to expanding it, despite the fact that the nation is trillions of dollars in debt.  They obviously oppose the conservative tenet of personal responsibility, as they are promoting increased dependency among Americans, the notion that persons other than themselves should pay for their medical needs.

These senators claim to be representing their constituents, but they are not. They are self-serving sops for the left and the lobbyists who fill their coffers.  They are sell-outs.

Betrayal is always an inside job.  With the exception of Collins, long a lefty RINO, these senators all voted numerous times to repeal the deadly bill that has bankrupted thousands of businesses, sent doctors into early retirement, and left millions with no insurance at all.  And then there are the costs for those who did fall for the trap and enroll: they now cannot afford their premiums or their deductibles.  Everyone knows this, including those seven senators who betrayed those of us who elected them.  Do they care?  Not one bit.  They are happy to condemn the rest of us to the progressive dream of single-payer, the kind of system that rations care in the cruelest possible way.  It’s the kind of system that makes people wait months and years for needed care or denies it altogether in the name of rationing or fairness.  There is nothing fair about it; it’s sadistic.  But it will never affect them, so who cares?  They have nothing to lose.

Meanwhile, the Club for Growth is urging President Trump to repeal the regulations that allow congress to pretend to be a small business allowing them to be exempt from the Obamacare law that affects all of the rest of us.

On behalf of millions of taxpayers who are members and supporters of our organizations, we urge you to direct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to rescind the Obamaera rule (78 Fed. Reg. 60653-01) that allows Congress to masquerade as a small business in order to force taxpayers to pay for their health insurance.

This ongoing fraud improperly allows Congress and its staff to avoid the pain the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is inflicting on millions of other Americans. When Congress was debating Obamacare, the American people demanded that Congress subject themselves and their staff to the new system they were imposing on their fellow Americans.

Those demands worked, and before Obamacare passed the Senate in 2009, Section 1312(d)(3)(D) was included. That section requires members of Congress and their staff to buy health insurance through an Obamacare exchange, and unlike an earlier proposed version does not authorize an employer contribution toward their premiums.

The provision was set to take effect in 2014, causing panic on Capitol Hill. Members of Congress and their staff were desperate to keep their taxpayer-funded, gold-plated health care rather than go into Obamacare and pay their own way, as the law required.

After a meeting with Senate Democrats in March 2013, then-president Barack Obama personally committed to illegally exempt Congress from this provision of Obamacare. And he did. Obama directed OPM to issue a rule purporting that Congress, which has thousands of employees, is a small business and therefore: “the DC Health Link Small Business Market administered by the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority, is the appropriate SHOP from which Members of Congress and designated congressional staff will purchase health insurance in order to receive a Government contribution.”

Posted in Conservatism, Cuckservatives, Obama, Republicans, The Culture War, The Deep State, The Ruling Class | Leave a comment