Tara McCarthy on What Really Happened In Charlottesville

Listen to “What Really Happened In #Charlottesville?” on Spreaker.

Posted in Activism, New Media, Social Justice Warriors, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Elite Media Monoculture, The Ruling Class | Comments Off on Tara McCarthy on What Really Happened In Charlottesville

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 | Comments Off on Burning Books

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 | Comments Off on The End of History

Stefan Molyneux on the Google Memo

Posted in Activism, Education, Feminism, Political Correctness, Technology, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Ruling Class | Comments Off on Stefan Molyneux on the Google Memo

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 | Comments Off on The Rebels of Google

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 | Comments Off on James Damore’s Google Memo Full Text

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 | Comments Off on The End of Pop Culture

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 | Comments Off on Seven Republicans Betray Their Country (Again)

Black Pigeon Comments on Lauren Southern

In this video Black Pigeon comments on the reasons why Lauren Southern’s funding source, Patreon, pulled her account and shut her down. The story should come as no surprise. On line organizations such as Patreon often have a strong SJW contingent that is not shy about violating the rights of conservatives if it will advance the leftist agenda. They are willing to censor those on the right by shutting down their sites and cutting off their funding if they have the power to do so. In this case, Ms. Southern has been doing important work on the continuing immigrant crisis situation in Europe. The Elite Media Monoculture which is also dominated by the left does not want this sort of information and news to be widely circulated and so we get the effort by Patreon to shut her down, along with other bloggers on the right.

Posted in Activism, Communism, Immigration, Marxism, New Media, Political Correctness, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Elite Media Monoculture | Comments Off on Black Pigeon Comments on Lauren Southern

SJW’s Are Targeting Conservative YouTube Video Bloggers

A swarm of hate-filled SJW’s have recently been targeting conservative and right-leaning video bloggers on YouTube including Bre Faucheux and Tara McCarthy. They can do this because YouTube has a mindless policy wherein if a video receives a certain number of complaints it will be automatically shut down. The communist left is using this to silence speech that goes against the leftist narrative. And of course, it goes without saying that the alt-right is becoming more and more effective at getting out their message. YouTube and other video platforms are a very effective way to sidestep the legacy media and reach a large audience of people who are hungry for an alternative view on the events of the day and the state of society in the current year. This is naturally a threat to the left and so they are taking action to shut down “wrong-think” that is prohibited in their ideology.

Posted in Activism, Communism, Conservatism, Education, Fake News, Marxism, Political Correctness, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Elite Media Monoculture | Comments Off on SJW’s Are Targeting Conservative YouTube Video Bloggers

Alex Jones With Stefan Molyneux

Posted in Activism, Conservatism, Democrats, New Media, The Culture War, The Deep State | Comments Off on Alex Jones With Stefan Molyneux

He Fights

Evan Sayet at Townhall.com brings us this essay in which he points out what many people at the grass-roots level on the right have known for years; the left plays by a different set of rules than does the Republican establishment. The Republicans in the beltway are obsessed and focused on their image in the media and their “decorum”; a decorum which is lacking on the left. It is this mindset that is responsible for the Republican establishment losing for decades and they continue to do so because they will not fight. They consider it beneath them.

And it is for this reason that the grass-roots have abandoned the establishment and declared them irrelevant and out of touch. Instead, we elected a fighter; Donald J. Trump.

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.  We tried statesmanship.  Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?  We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?  And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.  I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.  I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.  Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s.   To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.  It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war.  While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end.  Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

Posted in Activism, Conservatism, Democrats, Fake News, New Media, Political Correctness, Republicans, The Culture War, The Ruling Class | Comments Off on He Fights

NPR Interview With Milo

Here we have a video of the NPR interview with Milo Yiannopoulis that turned out to be so reasonable and went so well that the elites at NPR decided to spike the whole thing so that their listeners would not actually have an opportunity to hear it.

Former Breitbart Senior Editor MILO flew to New York specifically to take part in an extensive interview with NPR about his bestselling book, DANGEROUS. During the July 10 interview, which MILO has provided exclusive footage of, the host stated that the interview would be going live the next day. MILO was then reportedly contacted by an NPR producer that clarified that the interview would be published the following week.

When the interview was still not published, leading MILO to question why it had not gone live, he was reportedly informed that a short version of the interview would be published “sometime in August.”

When asked for comment, MILO said, “It’s perfectly obvious from the constantly shifting deadline from NPR producers and the line of questioning from the host that they were expecting a low-rent troll — someone who would assure the broadcaster’s ossified audience that anyone sympathetic to the President must be a redneck or an idiot.”

“What they got was me: an articulate, New York Times bestselling author in complete command of his material,” he noted. “If America were finally to hear a provocative, intelligent, fabulous but eminently reasonable gay free speech crusader who leans to the Right — yes, I’m still talking about myself — it would be devastating to the Left’s speech codes and dedication to political correctness and identity politics. So NPR did the only thing they could in the circumstances to protect the narrative: they nixed the interview.”

Posted in Conservatism, Fake News, Political Correctness, The Angry Left, The Culture War, The Elite Media Monoculture, The Ruling Class | Comments Off on NPR Interview With Milo