Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘google’

Dot-Com 3.0 Empires Revealed To Be Inept And Declining

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

The personal computer age really kicked off in the mid-1980s when the machine became both affordable and effective for everyday tasks with the rise of programs like WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and dBase. In 1987, the internet opened up to commercial use, but it was only in the early 1990s when graphical operating systems became fast and complete enough that it started to take off.

In the mid 1990s, the Dot-Com 1.0 boom/bust bubble began, with a few salty entrepreneurs launching websites of a dubious nature with no real business model. It was unclear where the money would come from, other than selling tshirts and mugs. In the late 1990s, Google standardized the search engine and advertising format, and shortly afterward, the Dot-Com 1.0 bubble burst.

After a few years of digital recession, the market kicked back into play with Dot-Com 2.0, which introduced the idea of web applications instead of sites, meaning that just about everything was executed through interpreted languages and web sites acted more like programs on your home computer. This revolution fizzled more than busted, but was lagging by the mid-2000s.

In 2007, the Dot-Com 3.0 revolution launched with Web 2.0 application-style sites mated to new mobile technology and social media, introducing a new approach: content was no longer as important as interaction with other people. For the last decade, this market has been kicking around and has produced a few huge winners while everyone else follows their lead.

It owes its longevity to a simple reason: it controls the narrative. Like big media before it, the Dot-Com 3.0 world quickly took over how most people find news and as a result shapes their understand of the issues. As a result, the bursting of the Dot-Com 3.0 bubble has lagged but, as tech companies reveal their alliance with globalist interests, people no longer see the internet as a Wild West where the truth can be found, but another “managed garden” for giant monopolistic corporations.

Now the quest appears to take down these large monopolies, and simultaneously, to figure out what will replace them. For the latter, some have proposed nationalizing social media and search so that they are treated like utilities, while others hope for new market-based solutions. But for the former, competition is heating up.

Leaping into the fray comes a new breed of critic with a new approach to criticism:

“I think people are understanding just how poorly structured these institutions are, how sloppily they were built,” Lynn tells The Hill. “It’s not just a matter of the fact that these people have too much power, it’s also that they are sloppy in the use of their power.”

…“Perhaps the most pressing thing of all is that Google, Facebook and to certain degrees also Amazon have captured the flow of information and ideas between citizen and citizen,” Lynn said.

“Our ability to communicate freely with one another in this country, which is the primary basis for being able to protect our democracy, is now threatened in very real ways today,” he added. “This is not a theoretical threat; this is a threat that exists today.”

When our communications occur in private spaces, they can be regulated by the companies that own those spaces, which is why many are calling for the nationalization of social media. But what about when Google deprecates conservative search results or outright blocks them? What happens if Amazon starts removing Right-wing books? We know they want to, so it is only a matter of time until they do.

These large companies admit they have such filters in place. The only problem is that, while they are excellent at removing conservative and un-PC search results, they are less adept at filtering out mostly contrafactual and speculative “news” which has a negative effect when most people rely on social media for news:

In the crucial early hours after the Las Vegas mass shooting, it happened again: Hoaxes, completely unverified rumors, failed witch hunts, and blatant falsehoods spread across the internet. But they did not do so by themselves: They used the infrastructure that Google and Facebook and YouTube have built to achieve wide distribution. These companies are the most powerful information gatekeepers that the world has ever known, and yet they refuse to take responsibility for their active role in damaging the quality of information reaching the public.

Criticizing their search results will only give these companies more leeway to filter out sites that disagree with the mainstream narrative, and soon the internet will be as controlled as television was back in the 1960s when you had three VHF channels and another two fuzzy UHF ones to give you a viewport on the world.

Leftists Want to Keep the Term “Hate Speech” Ambiguous

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

If you want total control, your subjects must enforce your rules upon themselves. You can achieve this condition by being inconsistent in your enforcement, which motivates them to use wide margins to edit their own behavior, at which point arbitrary enforcement can keep them in a state of sublimated panic, unwilling to even bring up any reference to hot button issues.

Google, as part of its Leftist agenda, is attempting to impose this type of control through its vague terms of use:

Our Community Guidelines prohibit hate speech that either promotes violence or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes. YouTube also prohibits content intended to recruit for terrorist organizations, incite violence, celebrate terrorist attacks, or otherwise promote acts of terrorism. Some borderline videos, such as those containing inflammatory religious or supremacist content without a direct call to violence or a primary purpose of inciting hatred, may not cross these lines for removal.

So what is “hate speech”? Their definition of “hate speech” is as nebulous as their agenda:

Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:

  • race or ethnic origin
  • religion
  • disability
  • gender
  • age
  • veteran status
  • sexual orientation/gender identity

There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered to be hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but if the primary purpose of the content is to incite hatred against a group of people solely based on their ethnicity, or if the content promotes violence based on any of these core attributes, like religion, it violates our policy.

Then notice the insertion of more vague terms in their vague content policy:

Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don’t support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line.

The first question we might ask is, “What is hatred?” Does this mean simple dislike or criticism, or is this limited to the type of Protocols of the Learned Elders of Dublin type paranoid conspiracy thinking that leaves no possible conclusion for the reader except that a final solution to the Fenian Problem must be undertaken?

Next, we need to ask, “What is inciting?” This is another weasel term, in that encouraging people to think critically about a topic could be seen as inciting them on some level. It also could be retroactive; if someone does something rash after reading something reasonable, it can easily be inferred that this material was inciting something-or-other.

Finally, and this is because we are dealing with Leftists, “What is violence?” We all know about encouraging assault, genocide and rape, but is it violence when a group is relocated? Since some will resist, it might be. To condone violence might be as simple as saying, “I think the races should be separated in order to avoid further violence.”

Despite all of the friendly language about free speech and fine lines, these rules are deliberately vague and designed to allow Google maximum leeway in removing material that its censorship team — probably not highly paid, and probably career Leftists — find offensive. So far, they have used it to remove a number of music videos from their search results, merely for having bad associations or bad topics.

If you look at these rules by their terms only, it becomes clear that any criticism of these protected groups — races, ethnic groups, sexes and the insane (mentally disabled) among them — is now on the chopping block, or at least will be if Google decides it is according to their interpretation of these fuzzy boundaries.

The real agenda behind this latest move is to allow Google to hide anything conservative tinged-from its search, and by demonetizing such videos, discouraging their production. For some time there has been a cottage industry in making realist videos and receiving the “monetization,” or share of the advertising revenue, from those videos. That is Google’s real target.

Part of the problem here is that “hate speech” is such a vague concept that it almost cannot be defined. This broad brush includes both deranged threats of violence, and principled and reasonable criticism of Leftist policies. In order to protect the latter, Google has designed rules potentially designating all non-Leftist thought as the former.

Democracy’s Google Problem

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Trust the United Nations to say that the world not as the world is.

They tell us that democracy is barely breathing in Venezuela. The only thing slowing its breathing is its constant gorging at the trough. Democracy is eating Venezuela like a buffet after the Oakland Raiders arrive. French President Macron accidentally and egregiously told the truth about what was happening over there.

“The generalised and systematic use of excessive force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protesters and perceived political opponents indicate that these were not the illegal or rogue acts of isolated officials,” the report said. The extent of the violations “points to the existence of a policy to repress political dissent and instill fear in the population to curb demonstrations at the cost of Venezuelans’ rights and freedoms”, it (Macron, I presume) added.

The Unelected Cucking Caudillo of the UN (UCCUN) then held forth on what a democracy should do when bad things happen to people who protest election results.

“The government must ensure there are prompt, independent and effective investigations of the human rights violations allegedly committed by the security forces,” as well as by pro-government groups and armed protesters, Mr Zeid said.

But what if a good, solid working majority of the voters get off on the “the generalised and systematic use of excessive force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protesters and perceived political opponents?” If Antifa forms a government in the US or Great Britain, wouldn’t they want Nazi-punching inaugurated as an Olympic Sport?

The flaw in democracy is the flaw in human individuals amplified by groupthink, hive-mind and committee mentality behavior. Once a majority of We The People (WTFP) wants your sorry posterior dirt-napped, you are going down. Democracy demands it — and no emperor, king or dictator is as cruel a master as the mob. Ask Jesus and Socrates.

And if you don’t believe that the will of the people is perverse, puerile, perverted, pusillanimous and frequently in accordance with the true spirit of Mordor, then you need to get your ass off the couch and meet more of the fine folk in your neck of the woods. So democracy in Venezuela delivers. It’s the product Macron’s mom, oops, I mean his wife probably instructed him to object to.

Joel Kotkin gives us the #Cuckservative version of the same sort of whinge. He tells us that President Trump damaged democracy and Silicon Valley will finish it off.

The Silicon Valley and its Puget Sound annex dominated by Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft increasingly resemble the pre-gas crisis Detroit of the Big Three. Tech’s Big Five all enjoy overwhelming market shares—for example Google controls upwards of 80 percent of global search—and the capital to either acquire or crush any newcomers. They are bringing us a hardly gilded age of prosperity but depressed competition, economic stagnation, and, increasingly, a chilling desire to control the national conversation.
Jeff Bezos harrumphs through his chosen megaphone, The Washington Post, about how “democracy dies in the dark.” But if Bezos—the world’s third richest man, who used the Post first to undermine Bernie Sanders and then to wage ceaseless war on the admittedly heinous Donald Trump—really wants to identify the biggest long-term threat to individual and community autonomy, he should turn on the lights and look in the mirror.

Now, as America’s version of the democratic Visigoth Holiday threatens to wind on down, even Matthew Yglesias over at Vox started to take notice. Journalism’s extra from the set of Eyes Wide Shut ponders with furrowed brow that a company that owns over 80% of its market and maintains a fleet of offshore cruise ships to house its illegal immigrant workforce, might just be exerting a wee tad bit of influence over Matthew’s beloved Democratic Party.

All businesses lobby on behalf of their interests, and in recent years that lobbying has increasingly expanded to include more focus on things like think tanks and other aspects of the “deep” influence game. Google has been especially an especially aggressive player at deep influence. The Wall Street journal reported in July, for example, that they’ve spent millions of dollars subsidizing academic research that backs Google policy positions, often mapping out the thesis to be proven and then shopping to find the scholar to do the work. Google’s money, not always disclosed, has backed donations to think tanks across the ideological spectrum as well as more prosaic forms of influence peddling like campaign contributions. What makes Google somewhat unusual for such a big company is that it’s fairly closely aligned with the Democratic Party. Dozens of people moved from jobs at Google to jobs in the Obama administration, and vice versa, over its eight-year span.

We’ll walk Matthew through a gentle black-pilling here and let him see how The Matrix really works. Google finds it refreshingly pleasant and surprising that the Democrats are so willing to align themselves with its long-term corporate strategy. They find it particularly surprising how benign their acquisition of this old and once-proud political monopoly of coercion has actually been. There have been occasional hiccups along the way, but then again, what Megacorporation hasn’t had to spin-off or terminate a few unprofitable divisions.

And yes, dozens of people have moved back and forth between Google HQ and their subordinate Obama White House. It was a high-risk acquisition, that Obama White House, and somebody had to fly out there and provide a bit of technical expertise. So democracy has been surprisingly effective for Goolag, Crapple, Zuckerface, et al, but all good love affairs come to an end. Google owns politicians the way Wall Street money managers own positions in Walmart or Caterpillar.

They hope that they know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and never let those positions have any normative influence on their beliefs. Perhaps, as President Trump LBOed their butts out of DC and the EU decided to tax them as perhaps a rainy-day fund in case the Brexit actually leaves the building, Google thinks their democracy position is reaching its shelf life and smells like last Thursday’s delivery from the milkman. So as Google begins to think it has a democracy problem — and democracy wants to think itself potent enough to even solve a Google problem — something will have to be done.

Now Google properly evaluates ROI on democracy based on how frequently their paid politicians win and then how well they behave and stay bought once in office. If they get Hillaried, or if their protégés/catamites defect to Bernie or The Donald, then Google has a dilemma on its hands. They can double-down on the information control and politician-buying, or they can cut their losses and divest. They can be Amerikan and start moving all their jobs to China.

Democracy, on the other hand, has two options of its own to deal with their Goolag problem. We’ll describe these options as Roosevelt I and Roosevelt II.

  • Roosevelt I (AKA The Tedster) involves dusting off an old law known as The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and hammering the crap out of the Silicon Valley Oligarchs. Break their companies and make them spin off tentacles the way Judge Green dismembered AT&T. This would lead to something akin to the regional Baby Bells and a briefly less efficient Internet. After that, innovation will kick in and Google and Twitter will seem about as advanced as old, early 1990’s brick cell phones. If democracy beats Google, this is how I’d want it all to go down.
  • Roosevelt II (AKA Evil Amerikan Emperor) involves making the Internet into some sort of giant TVA. Theoretically, at least, nationalization of social media would make Goolag, Faceberg, Twatter, et al, have to work around the First Amendment in order to censor, say Baked Alaska. They would be licensed public carriers rather than private enterprises. But what if democracy goes into end-stage demotic decline here as badly as it has in Venezuela? Well, then the voters would demand “The generalised and systematic use of excessive force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protesters and perceived political opponents.” Twitter’s Memory Hole Committee wouldn’t keep the people waiting. They’d be GLAAD to get cracking on that one pronto. The Roosevelt II option would only make the Internet more Orwellian than it already is.

So if you beat Google with democracy, you get totalitarianism. If you democratize Google, you get authoritarianism. Only smashing Goog-hole or smashing democracy — or ideally, smashing both Goolag and mob rule — will resolve the issue in a favorable manner for the commonweal of the society. Is there any conceivable chance that we can embrace healing power of and on this one?

Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Presaging compupocalypse films like War Games and Hackers, and possibly prescient about the problem of Silicon Valley, Colossus: The Forbin Project revealed to us the problem of too much logic, following in the lines of Frankenstein, the only book mentioned in the film. The questions it raises remain relevant to us today.

Dr. Charles Forbin, a brilliant scientist, creates a massive computer which can teach itself through heuristics, making it nearly self-aware. Designed to be so logical and omniscient that it would prevent attacks on the United States, this machine is given control of the American nuclear stockpile and access to television, radio, and telephone signals.

It quickly detects that the Soviets have made a similar machine and interfaces with that machine, forming one giant digital brain that quickly asserts control, aided by video cameras and its ability to process public information and make conclusions from it, determined to save humanity from nuclear war. But the humans will not like its methods.

Presaging other omniscient computer overlords from books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and later television programs like Person of Interest, Colossus: The Forbin Project plays into our fears of being illogical in a world where some of that illogicality is not only necessary, but pleasurable. If we did everything right according to a genius calculator, we might have fewer problems… but also might lose our souls.

The film starts slowly, which usually indicates an unfinished ending because it never gets to the meat of the story, and for book-readers, that might well be the case. We want to learn more about this machine and what it knows. That does not translate well to the screen, however, and so the screenwriters did their best to make an interesting film where half of the dialogue is between a digital voice and increasingly irate scientists.

Where this film triumphs is in the character of the computer: literal, logical, and relentless. Revealed to us through teletypes and computer screens for the most part, the machine develops the rudiments of a personality, which drives the story along like a mystery. Aided by some truly magnificent sets, excellent acting and many subtleties in the human characters, the movie picks up the pace and becomes engrossing.

As we stagger into the twenty-first century with a similar battle where logicality seems too unrealistic, and yet human illogicality is too animalistic, this movie raises questions that will return repeatedly in the future. It may be possible, it hints, to be too logical, and the end result of that will be a type of existence we will find appalling.

While the headlines are full of attempts by Google, climate change scientists and the media trying to force us to do what is “right” even though it is clearly wrong in the bigger picture, the staggeringly brilliant and unrelenting machine from Colossus: The Forbin Project may well be a metaphor for our time and the challenge to us to exceed it.

Deleted By Google’s Blogger Service, Alternative Right Rises Again

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Originally hosted on Google’s blog service, the former Blogger.com/Blogspot.com, Alternative Right was mysteriously deleted over the weekend as part of big internet media’s purge of Alt Right sites. Fortunately, it has arisen again from the ashes, and you can view it in its new location now.

How You Know You Are Living in a Soft Totalitarian State

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

Conservatives struggle with a fundamental problem: our ideals are perennially unpopular, at least until things get so bad that people are desperate enough for a solution that they turn to matured wisdom.

As long as the proles — the 90% of any society who belong to the category of people who need to be told what to do — have fat enough paychecks, beer, bread and circuses, they are perfectly content to ignore any long term problems. In fact, they delight in not just ignoring them but shaming anyone who notices them as a “loser,” because this makes them feel more powerful.

With the fall of Berlin, conservatism was not just marginalized by its relative unpopularity, but actively under assault for any area where its ideas overlapped with those of the National Socialists. This caused the “winners” to immediately drop those ideas, and the “losers” to hang on to them, perhaps with the disclaimer that they could be implemented differently.

Only fifteen years after the end of the second world war, America and Europe were already swinging hard to the Left, mainly because post-war prosperity guaranteed that people would be entirely unconcerned about any long-term consequences. As the saying goes, while there’s food, the peasants party, and then only worry about what to do when they wake up the next day to find themselves hungry.

Since that triumph of the Left, conservatives who speak honestly and realistically have been essentially a persecuted minority, with those who speak taboo truths finding themselves facing the terror of public opinion which seeks to deprive them of jobs, housing, friends and family:

“The thought of getting outed as ‘white supremacists’ to our employers and possibly losing our jobs is a horrifying prospect,” the user Ignatz wrote. If forced to choose between a rally, which could bring him unwanted exposure, or supporting his white family, he says he would choose the latter.

…”But, by and large, people are scared because of the exact same reasons you’d expect,” says Hankes. “It’s hard to get a job, hard to make a living, hard to have a normal social life when all your friends and family know you believe in ethnic cleansing.”

This means that we are living in a soft totalitarian state. Like regular garden-variety totalitarianism, soft totalitarian controls people by regulating what methods and ideas they can be exposed to. However, soft totalitarianism adds a wrinkle: We The People, in our endless quest for social acceptance, do the enforcing instead of government.

That extends to corporations and others who achieve their success and wealth through being popular. Consumerism, as it turns out, is a form of democracy; whatever the largest group of people purchases, wins, and so a market or competition is set up in which companies compete to be the most popular. Inevitably, that spills outward from value and quality of their products to public image, which then swings Leftward as all things do when left up to a mass of people, mainly because that mass chooses the lowest common denominator, which is always simple social sentiments instead of complex critical thinking.

In a soft totalitarian state, government uses freedom as a weapon, knowing that most people are short-term thinkers and therefore both selfish and oblivious to long-term consequences, and that in groups, people always choose a mediocre option in order to keep the group together because only a few people understand the task and have a sensible take on it, anyway. The more freedom and fewer restrictions, the more emboldened the mob becomes to engage in bad behavior, and as a result, the more it fears anyone who wants actual standards, morals, customs, values, culture, heritage, religion or purpose. The mob is the weapon.

In any democratic state, the mob takes over because it creates a market for liars. These actors go on stage, make promises they know are untrue, collect votes and then drive out anyone else. Like the Chicago “political machines” of the 19th century, they then rig the system so no one else can win. As Plato noted, they invariably import foreigners who, as people alienated from the majority, always vote for strong protectors, and so keep the actors in charge.

Their problem is that, as conductors of the masses, they must find a way to motivate an increasingly selfish and sluggish group of very distracted people, most of whom are lost in solipsistic ego-drama and attention whoring, in order to stay in power. To do this they must create vivid images like we would find in comic books of exaggerated good versus evil, with the underdog always winning because most people see themselves as an underdog, if for nothing else to justify their selfish behavior and excuse their failings, claiming oppression and therefore a “right” to take what they secretly believe is theirs, or to simply not contribute much. Politics becomes a hybrid between a circus and a football game, with constant distractions to keep the crowd interested, and then narrow characterizations to channel them into one opinion or another. This is one of the many reasons that democracy is immoral and dishonest.

Many have misunderstood this characteristic of democracy. They see how democracy acts against white people, men, Christians and intelligent people, and assume that it has singled these out for some purpose of its own. In a realistic assessment, what it is doing is forming a pretext. Democracy is the political system of equality; equality is only valuable to those who need it, which are the ones who could not succeed without it. If there are one hundred students in a class and a test comes back where grades are worse than usual, it is not the kids with As who are claiming the test was not fair. Equality creates an inherent victim narrative where those who are not successful claim to be equal, which means that the only reason they are not doing as well as the successful is that they have been victimized, oppressed or discriminated against by some force… and there is no one to blame except those who are successful. This is why all equality movements consist of taking from the successful and giving to the less successful. The war against successful groups — including white people in lands founded by white people — is a pretext for the seizure of wealth and power, followed by redistribution of the same.

You might wonder, why does this equality of power not threaten those in power? The answer is that equality is entropy. If everyone literally has the same amount of power, nothing will get done; this is why all known anarchist communes have perished, even those below Dunbar’s number, the mythical amount of people that one can personally know which allows — in theory — any political system to work. As a result, the equal crowd will always turn to a leader or protector, and who better to do this than the person who just gifted them with wealth and power taken from those who succeeded more than the herd? This creates a cycle where politicians gain power by stealing, then give it to the people, who give it back in exchange for more, and so taxes always go up, more rules are created so there can be more fines, more fees are charged to those with more wealth, and educational systems are designed to bore the intelligent and delight the idiotic.

Soft totalitarianism consists of this cycle. In the circus part of the cycle, the politicians provoke outrage in the herd about some target that can be easily destroyed. The mob, which like all groups with no individual power and full anonymity, loves to destroy, and this whets its excitement like a guillotine or race riot. Then comes the football game part of the cycle, where the crowd is encouraged to view itself as intelligent and morally upstanding for supporting blue team over red team. Finally, the politicians deliver the flashpoint: the other team victimized us, and thus we are justified in destroying them. By any means necessary. They are against our values. They threaten us. They must be destr– errr, defeated, wink wink.

We are now caught in that cycle. The Left whipped up the circus by calling the Alt Right “racists,” and there has been no greater sin according to American herd politics since 1945, so people were ready for violence. The cops created the football game by encouraging violence. Then, after one potentially mentally unstable person panicked and in trying to escape, crashed into another car which then killed one person and injured nineteen, the herd was told that it was the victim. There was the dog whistle! The crowd rushed off to smash the bad team, and the corporations, desperate for attention because it is the only thing keeping them relevant in an anarchic society with no values, used that as a pretext to wage war against the Alt Right.

In the past twenty-four hours, we have seen:

  • The Daily Stormer website being removed from GoDaddy and then invalidated by Google.
  • Amazon dropping author Billy Roper’s book The Ice Path because of complaints.
  • VDARE, Counter-Currents and others being deplatformed by Paypal.
  • Discord deleting the thriving Alt.Right chat server.
  • Numerous accounts deleted on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram.

At this point, we see a fundamental problem with the internet: once entirely owned by the government, it now is mostly in the hands of private businesses, and they are prone to do whatever reduces the number of complaints coming in while also giving them headlines that appease the Left, because the Left are the primarily media consumers and especially of social media, where they are most active in both finding news and regular use:

Overall, consistent conservatives are somewhat less likely than consistent liberals to get government and political news on Facebook or Twitter, primarily because they are somewhat less likely to use the sites in the first place. About half (49%) of consistent liberals (and a similar share of those with mixed ideological views) say they got news about government and politics in the past week from Facebook, compared with 40% of consistent conservatives. And while 13% of consistent liberals say they got political news on Twitter in the past week, just 5% of consistent conservatives (and 8% of groups in between) say the same.

Rather than expand to an audience which is less interested in spending its time clicking around, perhaps because it has more important things to do, the media is doubling down on its existing audience, mainly because the fortunes of the dot-com boom are fading and since statistics count warm bodies, it is essential to these companies to get as many warm bodies in the door as possible.

This means that private companies are in control of public spaces where these private companies derive benefit from making “safe spaces,” which means removing all non-Left-wing content. That realization prompted calls to regulate social media as a public utility:

Bannon’s basic argument, as he has outlined it to people who’ve spoken with him, is that Facebook and Google have become effectively a necessity in contemporary life. Indeed, there may be something about an online social network or a search engine that lends itself to becoming a natural monopoly, much like a cable company, a water and sewer system, or a railroad. The sources recounted the conversations on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give the accounts on record, and could face repercussions for doing so.

…Under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission moved forward on a plan to regulate internet service providers as utilities, barring them from slowing down traffic to a site in order to pressure it into paying higher fees. The Trump administration is pushing to reverse that move, which complicates Bannon’s message.

…Silicon Valley’s liberal cultural politics puts it at odds occasionally with more conservative, rural Trump voters. Facebook was confronted by a backlash over its news curating during last year’s presidential campaign. With insiders claiming there was an anti-conservative bias, Facebook pulled its live team off the project.

If you can imagine a town where the only public spaces — churches, pubs, parks, streetcorners and any other place where more than a handful of people could gather — were owned by a company that forbade discussion of certain topics, you can see the risk in allowing private companies to control what has become a public space that has displaced other means of mass communication. This causes concern for the removal of free speech through methods that soft totalitarianism pioneered:

This brings me to the heart of my argument, today free speech no longer hinges on the government telling people it cannot say certain words. Earlier this year the Supreme Court affirmed that “hate speech” that bogeyman of inferior minds is protected speech. Rather, what’s happened is that the concept of “corporate social responsibility” a buzzword for social justice taught in business schools across the US, has been used to deplatform and deny the right the opportunity to participate in the arena of ideas simply because they control the medium, or media, through which the message must travel.

Technology has put the spirit of the First Amendment in a difficult position. Pedants all over the internet will tell you that censorship is only censorship when the government does it, private companies can censor all they want. They can refuse to do business with an individual.

Totalitarianism is a government banning ideas and behaviors; soft totalitarianism is a raging mob that destroys anything which disagrees with the idea of the mob itself, which is that everyone is accepted and wealth and power should be redistributed to them. This is what mobs have always wanted, an excuse to destroy and loot, and resembles a slow-motion riot more than intelligent political change. With social media, soft totalitarianism has found its ultimate weapon.

For the Right to survive this, it will need to create its own internet from the ground-up based on explicit principles of freedom of speech. A good start would be decentralizing, or abandoning centralized sites like Facebook and Google, to instead user a smaller network of blogs, news sites, search engines and chat rooms that are too numerous and too unknown to become targets. Eventually, the wires and servers themselves could be furnished, presenting a space of actual net neutrality not just in its mechanics but in its refusal to allow any host to prioritize traffic from any other, because that would in itself be a form of proto-censorship of this public-private space.

We are living in a soft totalitarian state. As Plato wrote, democracy always collapses this way and leaves behind tyranny. People are loathe to realize that what most of us want, in any group, is usually wrong, mainly because a mob has no accountability and people act through social behavior instead of logical thinking. If humanity is to survive into the next century, it is essential that we come to awareness that the crowd is evil and our only salvation lies in creating a hierarchy where the smartest, not the mob, are on top.

СССР, Inc.

Monday, August 14th, 2017

товарищ, nobody should emulate the late and unlamented CCCP. Even modern Communists won’t admit that The Stalin State was really Communist. So why do it? Well, there is the ego-bracing power that rulers get to wield in these banana republics where Lysenko’s biological theories kill all the banana trees.

If you want ego on Roger Clemmons Juice, go check your typical corporate CEO. If you want ego gone A-Rod, check out your typical SWPL/SJW. Cross-breed the two, create a SJW CEO, and the dickhead genes merge and mutate. They converge, and you get an adorable little Sauron. There can be no God but El Hombre on His Throne of Skulls at Corporate Headcutters. It should surprise no one that these types tend to follow the path of Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hugo Chavez, killing any who fail to praise their works and oppressing the best so that the terror of the rest keeps everyone in line.

Starting with Lenin’s NKVD, these types take the scene-policing a bit too far. When this happens at the modern, converged corporation, it gets carried out by The HRKGB. Just as the ideological inquisitions forced Soviet citizens to see the world as the world was not, the rise of the HRKGB renders really original sports networks into ESPN. The new idea of music television gets degraded into MTV.

CNN has taken this to some epic heights. Their infamous doxxing of HanAssholeSolo was particularly late 80s Soviet when they outed the wrong hole. Like the boobs and idiots of the Politboro that couldn’t quite hold their vodka as well as Boris Yeltsin, CNN has yet to learn. Here’s their latest debacle at The CNN People’s Collective:

Jeffrey Lord, a prominent political analyst on CNN for the past two years, known for his passionate defense of Donald J. Trump, during the campaign and now as president, was fired on Thursday, August 10 after he used the words “Sieg Heil!” in a tweet. On Thursday morning, Lord was engaged in a strident Twitter exchange with Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, the far left group that targets conservative media programs, hosts, and analysts. Lord had written several articles in American Spectator (published August 9 and August 10) critical of Media Matters, dubbing them Media Matters Fascists (MMF) for their latest attempt to suppress a conservative program, Sean Hannity’s nightly Fox News show…

CNN, of course, only aspires an ascent to the hypocritical peaks of PC Kilimanjaro recently obtained by the Kultists of Goolag. Leftists always lie, and Google’s CEO of Diversity Fascism Sundar Pichai uses that as an a model to reach that conclusion. The recent firing of James Damore over egregious free speech from the cubes was bad enough. It’s mischaracterization of what Damore said that even made David Brooks of The New York Times don his rarely-worn and linty Konservative Kolumnist Kostume to decry the painfully obvious agitprop.

Which brings us to Pichai, the supposed grown-up in the room. He could have wrestled with the tension between population-level research and individual experience. He could have stood up for the free flow of information. Instead he joined the mob. He fired Damore and wrote, “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the memo. Damore wrote nothing like that about his Google colleagues. Either Pichai is unprepared to understand the research (unlikely), is not capable of handling complex data flows (a bad trait in a C.E.O.) or was simply too afraid to stand up to a mob.

In the end David gets it wrong. He becomes the same lovable cuck the NYT sought out for its carefully regulated, neutered and vaguely conservative “contrary” opinion. What Brooks ultimately demands is that the lemming SJWs turn on the head SJW Pichai and deplatform him the way Damore was deplatformed. Lying about the head liar ought to solve everything wrong at CCCP, Inc. It worked wonders when the USSR replaced Kruschev with Brezhnev with Andropov with Gorbachev. Just find a nice blame toilet and everyone can go back to feeling comfortable as they ride down to hell in their bucket-like cubicles.

That in turn reveals the truth of the Soviets, the French Revolution, and every other grand screwup in humanity since the dawn of time: we can blame the leaders at the top, but we created them, by wanting safety and security more than we wanted goodness, sanity, health, normalcy, balance, order, beauty, hierarchy, purpose, virtue and meaning. Our scared little animals selves took over, and to protect us from our fears, we created an empire of lies. The only way to end that is to stop being afraid and to start demanding good instead of (illusory) safety, of which political correctness is but one of many varieties.

The real solution to all of this is to emulate James Damore. Prepare the bomb-shelter. Tell the truth. Eat the consequences. Move on to a new and more alive life outside of CCCP, Inc. All men die, some even get to truly live. Damore has shown us a hard, rocky path leading to greatness in a Lilliputian Age. We all need to tell CNN, ESPN, MTV, and Google what history told the Soviets: you are unrealistic liars and you fooled us once, but not again, and so now it is your turn to fall.

His Name Was James Damore

Tuesday, August 8th, 2017

Organizations that alienate their people will eventually get betrayed. I shed no tears that it just happened at Google. A young, promising engineer at Google, via Harvard, wrote a memo that ripped the lid off the Hades that is the Human Resources Diversity Policy at any typical major corporation.

The Pharisees, Seduccess and Diversity Matrons at Google did what SJWs do in this situation and wheeled out the guillotine. The predictable and morally vacuous condemnation of his views came from their EEOC apparachik Danielle Brown.

After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore’s views and reaffirmed the company’s stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News. “We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,” Brown said in the statement. “We’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.”

We get the groundwork for deplatforming James Damore laid by a gormer Google rngineer named Yonatan Zunger. In it, he hides the SWPL/SJW panic attack behind dismissive and disingenuous pseudo-logic. Here’s what little meat he has to put on the bone.

What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful. You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs, and that they’re only being kept in their jobs because of some political ideas. And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company, causing other people to get up and say “wait, is that right?” I need to be very clear here: not only was nearly everything you said in that document wrong, the fact that you did that has caused significant harm to people across this company, and to the company’s entire ability to function.

Let’s address this SJW zampolit idiocy line by line.

  1. “What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful.” Since when is having an opinion the Diversity Matrons don’t like stupid and harmful. James Damore believes what he believes and just said it. If he’s wrong and stupid, please blow it away. Prove him objectively and clearly wrong. Show us the evidence that allows you to conclude the Harvard Engineer is an idiot. I don’t like Harvard much. I’d enjoy seeing one of them fornicated and fed to the worms. You bring the evidence that supports your belief in Mr. Damore’s intellectual inferiority, and I’ll get my popcorn ready.
  2. “You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs, and that they’re only being kept in their jobs because of some political ideas.”
    1. This is not entirely the truth. They are kept in their jobs by massive legal leverage. There was a non-political reason for Damore’s defenestration as well.

      The memo and surrounding debate comes as Google fends off a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Labor alleging the company systemically discriminates against women. Google has denied the charges, arguing that it doesn’t have a gender gap in pay, but has declined to share full salary information with the government. According to the company’s most recent demographic report, 69 percent of its workforce and 80 percent of its technical staff are male.

    2. What Zunger really fears is the idea that a large block of people would actively and intellectually resist all of these laws and call for their repeal. Right-wing websites are the least of Google’s problems. Right-wing customers, investors and entreprenuers are more of a clear and present danger to SJWtopia.

      Still, some right-wing websites had already lionized the memo’s author, and firing him could be seen as confirming some of the claims in the memo itself – that the company’s culture makes no room for dissenting political opinions. That outcome could galvanize any backlash against Alphabet’s efforts to make its workforce more diverse.

  3. “And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company, causing other people to get up and say “wait, is that right?” Ultimately, good little SWPLs and SJWs are trained to fear the alternative to Diversity Matron Culture. They fear Freedom of Association. They care too much about being part of a like-minded crowd. They fear being excluded and hate anyone who questions the value of being invited into the clique. These fears go to the core of his concern over the memo legitimizing crimethink. There are questions Yonatan Zunger and his ideological clones just don’t want to be allowed in so-called “Corporate Culture” or “Polite Society.”
  4. “I need to be very clear here: not only was nearly everything you said in that document wrong, the fact that you did that has caused significant harm to people across this company, and to the company’s entire ability to function.” I got ready for the open dishonesty when Yonatan needed to be very clear.
    1. If nearly everything in the document was wrong, you would be laughing your butt off at him. There is a YouTuber named Cynthia G who claims all White People are Evil White Albanoids and cheers every article she can find that talks about low White birth rates. She is nicknamed “Synthetic G” and laughed about on channels all over YouTube. So go ahead, Yonatan. Make fun of James Damore and see if anyone laughs with you instead of at you.
    2. If this harms Google’s ability to function, than it must be the truth. If the truth hurts Google, than it obviously must be destroyed. Similar angst erupted when John Derbyshire offered a non-Black version of “the talk.” So why hasn’t Derbyshire been rendered as utterly risible as Synthetic G? Nobody has sat down and logically dismantled him yet. The Diversity Matrons had to exile him. The truth burns. It’s like acid to the iniquitous. If the truth hurts Google, then Google has it coming.

His name was James Damore. He saw the truth in its hideous eloquence and spoke forth in an inspired burst. It will be a manifesto for Freedom of Association and a culture of competence. Otherwise it will be the elegy of Dot Com Version 3.0. How long? Not long. James Damore had to speak or the very stones would cry out.

As Google Fires Damore, The Left Loses Its Victimhood Card

Monday, August 7th, 2017

Bloomberg News has confirmed that Google has fired James Damore, the author of a memorandum praising diversity but criticizing political correctness and diversity quotas:

James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” A Google representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Google followed the typical pattern of criticizing the memorandum, encouraging the buildup of rage against it, talking about how the controversy hurt them, and finally dismissing the writer for failure to groupthink, abruptly confirming all of his accusations about the instability and dangers of political correctness.

Witness the timeline. First, the press attempts to establish a backstory suggesting that this is an event like several others, which despite being unproven are cited as fact, and are used to associate criticism of diversity with actual bad behavior:

The imbroglio at Google is the latest in a long string of incidents concerning gender bias and diversity in the tech enclave. Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick lost his job in June amid scandals over sexual harassment, discrimination and an aggressive culture. Ellen Pao’s gender-discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 2015 also brought the issue to light, and more women are speaking up to say they’ve been sidelined in the male-dominated industry, especially in engineering roles.

Note that some of this is simply lie; saying that someone “lost his job in June amid scandals” implies a causal relationship, when in fact Kalanick was fired for something else entirely.

Next, the company begins to assemble a hive mind:

Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” But he didn’t say if the company was taking action against the employee.

…After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore’s views and reaffirmed the company’s stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.

…Following the memo’s publication, multiple executives shared an article from a senior engineer who recently left the company, Yonatan Zunger. In the blog post, Zunger said that based on the context of the memo, he determined that he would “not in good conscience” assign any employees to work with its author.

With this setup, it was clear that only one outcome could occur, and this was the outcome that James Damore surely anticipated when he decided he would rather take his Harvard degree and work for a non-neurotic company instead, and decided to go out with a bang and gain himself an audience among realists rather than just fade away. He is now a celebrity and has the ability to write further on these topics and get paid well to do so.

The reason that this was predictable is that firing someone for wrongthink is not rare, but Typical Leftist Behavior. They always do this. As Hunter Wallace writes about AirBnB, another private company, choosing to deny accommodations to people attending the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, the Left have become the Establishment:

The Left now believes that all their old slogans like “non-discrimination, “non-violence,” “tolerance,” “free speech,””civil rights” and “equal rights … those things only belong to them now. The so-called “civil rights organizations” spend most of their time these days engaging in blacklisting, no-platforming, encouraging job discrimination and getting events and hotel reservations cancelled. Ironically, they have changed places with their old segregationist foes and have come to embrace their tactics.

Back in the 1960s, “civil rights activists” argued for opening up public accommodations to everyone. Today, *woke progressives* argue for just the opposite and high five AirBnb when it engages in housing discrimination. They cheer on violence, censorship, intolerance, blacklisting (which they used to call McCarthyism) and riot over free speech and freedom of assembly. They demand that Christian bakers and florists cater to gay weddings though. That’s “civil rights” now.

When the Left was starting its takeover of our civilization, it played the victim card by claiming it was being censored, oppressed and persecuted. This enabled it to gain sympathy among the oblivious middle classes, and made it a story that fit into the Enlightenment™-era narrative which says that individual humans are oppressed by any restraints on them like, you know, social order, moral and behavioral standards, and any values system which leads to a hierarchy.

With the end of WWII effectively destroying any political system but liberal democracy, and the fall of the Soviet Union removing any reminder that Leftism needed to be limited, the Left has run free throughout the West, and now that they are in positions of power, they are still playing the victimhood card but are actually victimizers. “The Leftist cries out as he strikes you!”

With one of the top companies in the world acting on behalf of Leftism, however, that victim card no longer has any credit on it. In fact, it has become clear to people that just like in the French Revolution and Soviet Union, Leftism has accelerated to full domination and subjugation mode. We have reached totalitarianism not through the Right, but through the Left.

As noted by renowned political thinker Samuel Huntington, this process is part of the rejection of ideology and its replacement with natural orders like tribe, faith and caste. People have now seen the end results of Leftism, and that liberal democracy always goes that way, and so now they seem themselves as the victims and the Leftists — including lapdog government, media and corporations like Google — as the oppressors.

Affirmative Action Is Ready To Fall

Sunday, August 6th, 2017

As predicted by Samuel Huntington, with the fall of the Soviet Union all restraints on Leftism also fell, and it assumed its final form: a controlling, manipulative, lower-caste revolt designed to remove all sense, sanity, goodness, decency and normalcy from the West. As a result of that, a cultural wave has arisen which rejects not just Leftism but ideology in general.

People are turning back to the time-honored and functional traditions. These have two aspects: first, they work, and second, they point toward something that is morally good, or virtuous. Traditions aim toward a union of man, God and nature on the same parallels of understanding, with the idea of suppressing natural human hubris and raising our consciousness of the world beyond us.

Although it was not clear at the time, the election of Barack Obama was the “Berlin 1945 moment” for liberal democracy, Leftism and ideology, all of which converge on the same end result. As was apparent to anyone with an IQ over 120 and a sense of history, Barack Obama trashed the USA at the same time Left-leaning politicians in Europe like “ex”-Communist Angela Merkel trashed Europe.

Not surprisingly it was those higher echelon voters who drove Trump into the presidency, not so much from financial concerns, but because they realized that their society was being destroyed. They realized that people make bad decisions in groups, and so liberal democracy always moves Leftward, and that any Leftism is a toxic path to a Soviet-style ultra-modernist society.

Last week, Donald Trump broadened the Overton Window by attacking the sacred cow of the Left and their means of replacing us, affirmative action. This has prompted much response, blunted by the supposed replacement of Jeff Sessions, who initiated the attack on affirmative action in academia.

Over the weekend, a viral memo from Google began circulating which criticized affirmative action:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

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

  • 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.

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 and 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 principles 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 learn 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 [sic] 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 leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

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 require 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 extend 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 [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[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 employees 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.

There is quite a bit to like in this mini-manifesto, which tackles the essential problem with diversity and political correctness: they originate from the Leftist ideology of equality, and aim to achieve it by “inverting” society or making it so that the lower echelons are ranked highest, which makes everyone else a beggar for the approval of these castes.

In its place, the manifesto proposes a different form of equality commonly known as meritocracy, or the idea of making people jump through hoops to gain approval, instead of merely doing it by mob rule. While this is a good start, any institution will inevitably be corrupted and shift the goal posts to reward those who are rote memorization fans or otherwise obedience and successful within a narrow scope, but not necessarily effective at life.

Google learned that meritocracy by academia and “brainteasers” did not work in the past [2013]:

Google has admitted that the headscratching questions it once used to quiz job applicants (How many piano tuners are there in the entire world? Why are manhole covers round?) were utterly useless as a predictor of who will be a good employee.

“We found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time,” Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, told the New York Times. “They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.”

In addition, the article is confused about the nature of conservatism, which is that which emphasizes those things which are both time-proven and oriented toward virtue. It is a classic American confusion to see conservatism as that which resists change and wants to revisit the past; conservatism recognizes the continuity of the past, and the need for reality-based (not test-based, academic, or money-based) standards which affirm both competence and moral character.

The core of it however is a rejection of ideology, which consists of philosophies based on how reality “should” be versus how it is, in particular the patterns of nature. That core can be seen here:

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.”

In other words, this is a shift to the Right: the writer wants a reality-based standard that emphasizes best results, or qualitative improvement of the way the world works, instead of trying to make the world work a different way.

Quite a bit of thought went into this memo, and it may be that Google itself leaked it. The company has faced increased criticism for the failure of its diversity programs and other accusations of discrimination, and since it cannot seem to hire women and minorities fast enough, and make them succeed enough, to defend against these, it is clear that in the future it will get beaten around the head with more legal and possibly regulatory action. Having a revolt in the ranks allows Google to gracefully back down from these commitments. If someone from the Trump administration reached out to them before this memo and proposed it as a solution, that would not exactly be surprising either.

In the meantime, affirmative action and similar programs (civil rights, anti-discrimination, disparate impact, unofficial quotas) are increasingly being revealed as exploitative:

British A-level students are being “discriminated” against by many of the UK’s top universities as they recruit more lucrative overseas applicants instead, often with poorer qualifications, a Sunday Times investigation discloses.

The former education minister Lord Adonis said the findings were “seriously alarming”, attacking elite universities for “crowding out British students” and “betraying their mission” to widen access. Some pupils with top A-level grades were being turned away.

Half the top-flight Russell Group, including Oxford and Cambridge, and 23 of The Sunday Times’s top 50 universities have cut British undergraduate numbers, often substantially, since 2008. Across all universities British undergraduate numbers have also fallen since 2008, even though UK applications for university rose by 17% in that time. Numbers of non-EU students, who pay as much as four times the fees charged to British and EU ones, have increased by 39%.

This comes on the heels of news that American industries may also have overplayed diversity to the point of nearly excluding the founding group of the nation in preference for the new foreign Leftist voters, as exemplified by the ideological success story that is Harvard’s diversity program:

Of the freshmen students admitted to Harvard this year, 50.8 percent are from minority groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and Native Hawaiians. That’s up from 47.3 percent last year, according to the university.

…Last year, the US Supreme Court, in a 4-to-3 vote, decided that college admissions officers could continue to use race as one of several factors in deciding who gets into a school. The decision surprised university officials and disappointed those who had hoped to end race-based admissions.

But the ruling does require universities, if they are challenged, to show that they had no choice but to use race to create diversity on campus and that other factors alone, such as family income or an advantage to first-generation college students, couldn’t create a similar mix of students, said Vinay Harpalani, a law professor at the Savannah Law School, who specializes in affirmative action.

As the cultural wave turns against ideology, the viral knowledge spreads that diversity, affirmative action, civil rights, and anti-discrimination laws are part of a systematic campaign to transform America into a majority-minority society and replace its founding Western European group. This empowers government and ideologues, but has also wrecked America.

In the future, people will speak out about how diversity also causes people, because the majority of them marry and reproduce based on who is nearby, to outbreed and thus is a type of “soft genocide” which hopes to replace an ethnic population with a mixed-race, cultureless group dependent on ideology.

This cultural wave is now appearing in many places at once, readying the fall of not just affirmative action, but all policies based on “creating equality,” since those invariably end up taking from the thriving to give to the flailing, and in doing so invert society, creating a bias in favor of incompetence and political obedience as if in emulation of the Soviet state.

Recommended Reading