Starbucks Employees are Racist According to CEO

On Thursday April 12^th 2018 two men were removed from a Starbucks after being asked repeatedly to leave by the store manager.

The men asked to use the restroom and were told it was for paying customers only. They were asked to leave and when they refused the manager called the police.

The police arrived and that is when the camera started to roll.

Who Cares?

That video went viral across the Internet and made its way onto mainstream media. Why would anyone care about two people getting being asked to leave a business and when they refused to do so had the cops come and remove them from the premises?

It is because these two men are black. Since they are black, this must have something to do with racism. All other factors, elements or facts are irrelevant and we do not need to wait for the whole story before we act. This still went viral and it is worth looking at why.

A small group of people (activists, useful idiots, media) are so desperate for a story about racism that they more than happy to be willfully blind to alternative reasons as to why this happened.

They are okay with being willfully blind if it means they can 1) feel good about themselves for ‘fighting racism’ (in the most lazy and least risky way) 2) virtue signal about how not racist they are (me thinks the lady doth protest too much) and 3) find meaning in destroying the lives of others they judge as morally inferior (the employees are all racist so they need to undergo unconscious bias training, the manager only asked them to leave because he is racist not because they were trespassing and should be fired).

The truth is the demand for racists/racism far outstrips the supply. When demand is significantly higher than supply that commodity becomes more valuable. What is the value of racists/racism? It sells papers, it gets clicks, and it gets people emotional.

Media Dust Up

The activists, mostly college educated to see racism and sexism everywhere in everything (much like a fundamentalist religious person will see their deity everywhere and in everything), act as outrage manufacturers. They present their product, outrage, to the outrage merchants (the mainstream media) in the hope that it will grow and become a household name.

These outrage merchants can deliver their product directly to your TV, computer or smart phone screen. They are not interested in truth, rather they care about kicking your emotions so that you will pay attention to them.

Currently outrage has never been more valuable, from the outrage industry populated by activists and media elites, to the political arena where outrage is being used as a club against political opponents.

Note: Yes there are justifiable reasons to be outraged but this incident is not one of them. This outrage industry has a real world impact.

Unconscious Bias Training

The CEO of Starbucks Kevin Johnson said in an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday that he was going to have Starbucks employees undergo unconscious bias training, as well as submit managers to additional training as when to call the cops.

This seems like run of the mill training that most companies undergo every year. I am sure most of us have gone through some sort of training similar to this. So why does this matter?

First we have to understand the implications for this training. The CEO of Starbucks is telling all of his 238,000 employees that they are biased, and biased here means racist, and because of that bias they must undergo training to eliminate it.

By the very act of participating you are admitting that you are racist/biased. Most people will go to this training and nod along finding it boring and will find they are not changed personally. But it only takes a small minority to change the culture of a company.

With a few zealous employees driving the culture from the bottom and informing to managers who will enforce company policy from the top, those in the middle and on the bottom will either be forced out of a job (for failure to conform) or will slide farther into the mindset put into place by this training and its enforcement.

It was John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty who said “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (Page 13). Your employer does not have the right to meddle about in your unconscious, they do not own you, it is your mind and you have a basic human right to freedom of thought and privacy. It is an invasion of privacy of the highest order.

By imposing this training Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson might as well be telling his employees, ‘your thoughts are wrong, allow me to training you in what to think, you don’t want to be a racist now do you?’

If you work at Starbucks I would suggest you talk to your coworkers and organize. Submit a statement concerning the training you are being forced to undergo. If management ignores that, I would suggest you protest by whatever non-violent means that would be most effective for your particular location. If that is also ignored I would walkout on the day of the training and find another job somewhere else.

#Starbuckswalkout #Baristarevolt

Part 3: Google's Active Promotion of a Culture of Bias

“Google employees have witnessed multiple instances in which hundreds of “progressive” Googlers would target a single co-worker for harassment, and even potential violence, over a politicized matter, humiliating the person and sabotaging his career.” –Damore v Google Class Action Lawsuit.

The stories and complaints made in the last half of the lawsuit come from sources who wished to remain anonymous. Normally I would have an issue with anonymous sources, but they provide external evidence such as screen shots of conversations to back up their claims.

Google Punishes Other Employees

After experiencing harassment and discrimination due to being conservative, male, and Caucasian and providing evidence to Google HR, Google HR made excuses for the Progressive activists.

The waving away of this misconduct ensured that nothing was done about the problem. In August 2015 a Google employee raised this issue of race and gender discrimination/harassment with Urs Hölzle, a Senior Vice President.

This resulted in a targeted campaign of harassment and threats of blacklisting directed at the Google employee, which management did nothing to stop. Instead several members of management made statements that had the effect of encouraging an “unambiguous social pecking” of political dissidents.

On August 14^th 2015 several Google employees raised the same issues of gender and racial discrimination with two other Senior Vice Presidents in an email entitled “Concerns regarding intimidation and blacklisting.”

On August 19^th 2015 in retaliation for the Google employee’s ongoing attempts to end political discrimination at work, his HR Manager and Director issued a Final Written Warning letter. At no point did Google retract or repudiate the threats and attacks aimed at the Google employee.

Examples of the comments that elicited punishment included the following:

These statements are in no way disorderly, disruptive, derogatory name-calling, abusive or profane, intimidating or coercive. Instead they stand in stark contrast to hostile postings aimed at conservative, male, and/or Caucasian Google employees.

The Final Written Warning issued even repudiated Google’s policy: “We strive to maintain the open culture often associated with startups, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.”

Ironically, the Google employee had provided ample evidence that Caucasian males who challenged certain assumptions behind the so-called “social justice” agenda were routinely and unfairly branded as “racists,” “sexists,” or “bigots,” and targeted for severe written abuse and career sabotage.

The next step after a Final Written Warning is termination.

Google Allows Workplace Harassment of Trump Supporters

In October 2016, a Site Reliability Manager, became aware that a Google employee was a supporter of President Trump and held socially conservative views. These two individuals did not work together, but had become acquainted through the company’s social mailing lists.

In March 2017 the manager scheduled a meeting with the Google employee’s manager in an attempt to sabotage the employee’s annual performance review.

The manager falsely accused the employee of participating in an illegal “doxing” campaign and also suggested that the employee was involved in illegal workplace discrimination. Both were absolutely unsupported.

In a later meeting with his manager the Google employee faced allegations of doxing which the manager said was concerning. The employee provided evidence that the claims were false and concocted, but his name and reputation were already besmirched.

Further compounding the issue in March 2017 the manager, posted on a political mailing list visible to all 80,000 employees to brag about his meeting with the Google employee’s manager for the purposes of harassing and undermining him.

In this conversation the manager made additional politically motivated threats toward members of the “conservatives@” mailing list community at Google. The manager threatened to call Employee Relations to comb through the mailing list archives to nitpick old posting for Code of Conduct violations.

Employee Relations at Google does not mediate disputes or offer advice. Instead they are tasked with investigating employees for policy violations and building a case for discipline.

The manager also threatened to apply Google’s politically intolerant and legally questionable employee handbook speech code to communications taking place between friends off the clock on non-work forums.

The manager’s threats were reported to Google HR, who replied that the manager had “crossed the line.” However, Google never made the manager retract his threats or apologize for his sabotage attempts.

The same manager in August of 2017 directed threats of litigation and termination against unnamed employees who spoke to outside bloggers in support of Damore and his memo. Google, once again, did nothing to stop this.

Conservative Parenting Styles Not Welcome

Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including but not limited to furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality (see photo for plurality).

The only lifestyle that was not openly discussed on internal forums was traditional heterosexual monogamy. In March 2017, Google HR strongly suggested to a Google employee that conservative and traditional parenting techniques were unwelcome at Google.

Google HR was responding to a post that was made replying to a request for conservative parenting advice. The post stated “If I had a child, I would teach him/her traditional gender roles and patriarchy from a very young age. That’s the hardest thing to fix later, and our degenerate society constantly pushes the wrong message.”

Google HR response “We did not find that this post, on its face, violated any of Google’s policies, but your choice of words could suggest that you were advocating for a system in which men work outside the home and women do not, or that you were advocating for rigid adherence to gender identity at birth. We trust that neither is what you intended to say. We are providing you with this feedback so that you can better understand how some Googlers interpreted your statements, and so that you are better equipped to ensure that Google is a place in which all Googlers are able to reach their full potential.”

Google Support for Antifa

In May 2017 one Google employee discovered and reported several offensive postings attacking Trump supporters and Caucasian males to Google HR.

Google HR responded in June 2017 by stating “Thanks for your time the other day and sharing your response. We have reviewed the threads that you sent us and do not find them to be attacking traditionally conservative views, but more extreme, “alt-right” views that seem to teeter into discrimination and possibly incite violence against certain groups of people.”

Google has never made any such comments regarding posts supporting violent vigilante organization, Antifa, or other extreme leftist/anarchist organizations. A large number of Googlers have set their corporate profile pictures to Antifa insignias.

 

Blacklisting

In August 2015 Adam Fletcher, a L6 SRE Manager, Jake McGuire a L7 SRE Manager, and Nori Heikkinen, a L6 SRE Manager all publicly endorsed blacklisting conservatives as well as actively preventing them from seeking employment opportunities at Google.

Fletcher even categorized conservatives as “hostile voices” and states that “I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.”

Read the conversation for yourself.

 

Google’s management-sanctioned blacklists were directed at specific Google employees who tactfully expressed conservative viewpoints. In one case, Jay Gengelbach, a L6 SWE Manager, publicly bragged about blacklisting an intern for failing to change his conservative views. He was supported in his choice by other employees.

 

Kim Burchett, a L7 SWE Manager, proposed creating an online companywide blacklist of political conservatives inside Google.

 

On August 7, 2015 another manager, Collin Winter stated “I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.”

He was referring to a Google employee who raised concerns of harassment and discrimination to Urs Hölzle. Paul Cowan, another manager, reshared Winter’s threat to express his agreement with it and indicated that he also participated in blacklisting conservatives.

Cowan stated: “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly) [a blacklist]. If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit.”

On August 14 2015 a small group of employees complained to Senior Vice President of Google HR, Laszlo Bock and Senior Vice President of Legal David Drummond that and alarming number of individuals were calling for generic firings “if they express[ed] certain opinions on sociopolitical subjects.”

Google took little or no action regarding this complaint, made clear by the fact that the blacklisting posts remain live on Google’s internal corporate network. Google ignored most cases, and occasionally “coached” the worst offenders.

The primary purpose of these blacklists and suggested blacklists was to encourage and coordinate the sabotage of promotions, performance reviews, and employment opportunities for those with conservative viewpoint.

Google Supports Blacklists

At a TGIF all-hands meeting on October 26, 2017 an employee directly asked executives about the appropriateness of keeping political blacklists. Kent Walker, the Senior Vice President of Legal, dodged the question rather than repudiating the practice of blacklisting.

On September 8^th 2017 a group of conservative employees met with Paul Manwell, Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s Chief of Staff, concerning the ongoing problems of politically motivated blacklists, bullying and discrimination at Google. This meeting was in direct response to the company’s handling of the Damore situation.

The employees shared their own experience with discrimination and asked management for three major reforms.

First, clarity around communication policies, recommending that Google publish a clearer statement on what is acceptable and unacceptable employee communication, and that any and all complaints about communication be adjudicated through “a documented, fair, transparent, and appealable process.”

Second, protection from retaliation, asking leadership to make a public statement that conservatives and supporters of Damore would not be punished in any way for their political stances.

Third, that the company make it clear that the hostile language and veiled threats directed at Damore and his supporters were unacceptable, and in the interest of making Google a healthier environment for employees of all political stripes, the managers and VPs who made such statements should retract them.

None of these reforms ever took place.

In October 2017, diversity activists at Google indicated they had met with VPs Danielle Brown and Eileen Naughton in order to ensure that they would be able to continue blacklisting and targeting employees with whom they had political disagreements.

On October 22^nd, 2017 a conservative employee asked HR to put him in contact with leadership to discuss targeted political harassment. Employee Relations acknowledged this request on October 31 2017. On December 22 2017 Employee Relations indicated that they would not be following up on his concerns and considered the matter closed.

Google Blacklists Conservative Authors

On August 20 2016, Curtis Yarvin, a well-known conservative blogger who has reportedly advised Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, and other members of the Trump administration, visited the Google office to have lunch with an employee.

Yarvin’s presence tripped a silent alarm, which alerted security personnel to escort him off the premises. It was later discovered that other conservative personalities, including Alex Jones and Theodore Beale, are on the same blacklist.

When asked by an employee if it was possible to removed writers from the blacklist Google HR refused to help and instead reconfigured the internal system so that it was no longer possible to see who was on the blacklist.

Intimidation of Conservatives with Threats of Termination

One Google employee, referring to two conservative Googlers, stated “maybe we should just try laying of those people. Please.”

Many Google employees resorted to name-calling, and one called conservative Google employees that reported discrimination to Google HR “poisonous assholes.” They also stated that they knew who the “assholes” were and that they could be easily replaced.

 

Several conservative employees reported this to Google HR, but Google HR replied that this was not a policy violation.

Discrimination against Caucasian Males

On April 4^th 2015 a Caucasian male posted a comment about a “Diversity Town Hall” meeting in which the management stated that affirmative action was impractical from a legal standpoint.

Liz Fong-Jones, an L5 SRE Manager, responded that she “could care less about being unfair to white men. You already have all the advantages in the world.”

 

Dozens of other employees joined in to insult and belittle the Caucasian male. They received hundreds of “upvotes” from other Googlers showing their approval.

 

The Caucasian male employee’s own manager replied to chastise him and to promise he would be punished for his apostasy.

 

Fong-Jones doubled-down in a follow up conversation stating that the “benefit to everyone as a whole” justifies discrimination against white men.

 

When Fong-Jones was reported to Google HR, HR responded that Fong-Jones was responding “to some pretty insensitive comments from other colleagues and reacting to an environment that we know have been less than friendly to women and minorities at times.”

They also claimed that her behavior was taken out of context and excused her comments. It was only after matters escalated that Google HR took “action” which, they claim, ranged from “coaching to warnings.”

Chris Busselle, a manager in the Search organization, urged other Googlers to engage in discriminatory practices. In an April 9^th 2017 message Busselle suggested that employees should leverage Google’s influence to have “cheesy white males” removed from speaker lineups at conferences.

When the G+ post above was reported to Google HR they replied “Regarding your concern about Chris Busselle’s G+ post, we have reviewed and do not find that it violates our policies. You may of course feel free to provide him feedback about his post.”

Google Does Not Understand Logical Arguments

A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and Males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts, as seen below.

 

According to the lawsuit, Burchett continued to make hiring and promoting decisions at Google and was not reprimanded by Google, even though Burchett’s posts were reported to Google HR and to the Senior Vice President of Legal in a formal complaint.

In another example a Google employee reported an offensive post from an employee in the Developer Product Group. The post stated “If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with fuck-all as a result!”

When a Google employee presented this to Google HR stating it was in violation of the Google Code of Conduct and was creating a hostile workplace that targeted Caucasians, men and individuals over the age of 40.

Google HR responded “Given the context of the post and that [the employee’s] main point is to highlight that it is helpful to have diverse perspectives, it doesn’t appear that the post to [sic] violates our policies.”

The employee responded to Google HR by replacing the term “40-something white men” with “women” and asked how that was not a breach of conduct. Google failed to respond.

Google’s “Diversity” Policies

Charles Mendis, an Engineering Director, informed his team that he was “freezing [headcount]” to reserve future open positions for diverse candidates. Mendis stated, “For each position we have open work on getting multiple candidates including a diversity candidate.” He continued “Often the first qualified candidate is not a diversity candidate, waiting to have a few qualified candidates and being patient is important.”

This discrimination against Caucasians and males was not only allowed at Google but supported and actively encouraged. The lawsuit relates the story of a Google employee who had worked at the company for nearly a decade without incident.

As soon as Googlers learned he supported conservative ideologies, he lost his transfer to a different team (that was almost assured before), received a poor performance rating (his second ever, the first due to bereavement leave) and was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

These are only a handful of the examples of illegal and discriminatory conduct at Google. Other employees may be able to point to innumerable other examples and a compilation of posts and memes from Google’s internal message boards have been included with the lawsuit as Exhibit B.

These claims made in this lawsuit appear to be clear evidence of discrimination against Caucasians, Men, and Conservatives. Yet that is for a court to decided and in the coming weeks we shall see how this lawsuit unfolds.

This is part three of a three part series outlining the lawsuit brought against Google by James Damore. I have provided links to part one and part two if you want the full story.

Part one: Behind the Scenes of Google's Monstrous Culture of Bias
Part two: Google's Culture of Bias REVEALED

I have included a few examples from Exhibit B below:

 

Part 1: Behind the Scenes of Googles Monstrous Culture of Bias

The Google Memo went viral around the world and sparked a debate around discrimination in the work place. Recently James Damore, the author of the memo, has filed a class actions lawsuit against Google.

The following is the information from the first 16 pages of this lawsuit followed by a short authors note.

Who is James Damore?

James Damore is the author of the now famous (or infamous) Google Memo titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.

Before working for Google Damore attended the University of Illinois where he received a Bachelor’s of Science in Molecular Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. He went on to attend Harvard University and received a Master of Science in Systems Biology.

While he was employed at Google, Damore received the highest possible rating on two separate occasions on his performance review, one of which included his most recent review. He received approximately eight performance bonuses, was never disciplined or suspended and was promoted to Senior Software Engineer.

He did not supervise employees nor did he assign work and he had no ability to hire or terminate anyone. Since his memo was leaked and his termination he has gained notoriety, fame among the Free Speech crowd and infamy among the Progressive/Social Justice crowd.

In the Name of Diversity

Google holds weekly company-wide meetings called “TGIF meetings” to discuss topics involving Google. On March 20, 2017 Damore attended a TGIF meeting entitled “Women’s History Month.”

This meeting was led by Ruth Porat, the Chief Financial Officer of Google, and Eileen Naughton, the Human Resources Director of Google. In this meeting individual departments were called out and shamed if they were comprised of less than 50% women. Departments that comprised more than 50% women were applauded and praised.

Porat and Naughton also announced that when looking at people for promotions or for leadership opportunities that Google would be taking into account gender and ethnic demographics.

They followed that with a statement that Google’s racial and gender preferences in hiring were not up for debate because this was morally and economically the best thing for Google.

Diversity and Inclusion Summit

This summit took place in June of 2017 and was attended by Damore because to Google a “commitment to diversity and inclusion” was an important factor in promotion to leadership. At this time Damore was on a path toward leadership.

The summit was organized by Google’s senior vice presidents and other members of Google’s leadership team, including Ari Balogh, Vice President of Engineering at Google and Sridhar Ramaswamy, Senior Vice President of GPI and Ads.

In this summit presenters discussed policies designed to prefer categories of people (women, and certain but not all ethnic minority groups). These policies included things such as providing extra interviews and putting applicants into a more welcoming environment based on their race or gender.

They also discussed putting ‘diverse’ individuals into high priority queues so that they were more likely to be hired and hired faster. ‘Diverse’ in this situation was defined as ‘women or individuals who were not Caucasian or Asian.’

Damore, troubled by these statements and policies spoke with Google HR member Meghana Rao who stated she had received similar complaints in the past from employees with conservative views and stated that “some of the political things at Google were a problem.”

In a breakout group Damore asked if Google looked at viewpoint diversity when making hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as a workplace. He was told that Google only looked at demographic diversity when making hiring and promotion decisions.

The Google Memo

It was after this meeting that Damore decided to write the Google Memo. Damore made no attempt to hide the memo but instead published it publically within Google so he could gain input and edits from coworkers.

He shared it in several groups within Google including CoffeeBeans (a group that discusses various issues at Google), the Women at Google Program, the Code of Conduct team, and Google HR.

Along with the memo Damore questioned the legality of diversity programs such as “Women Who Code” “BOLD” (an internship program offered only to women and underrepresented minorities), and “Stretch” (a class Google offers exclusively to women).

The sources he used to back up his memo were the Wiley Online Library, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Quillette, The British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, and The Atlantic. When the memo was published in the media these citations were left out or ignored in an attempt to attribute the conclusions directly to Damore himself.

The Code of Conduct Team responded by referring Damore to Google HR. None of Damore’s claims about illegal hiring practices were investigated or pursued by Google HR, other than terminating his employment.

The Women at Google group responded by stating their goal: 50% representation of women at Google.

His purpose in developing the memo was to promote discussion among Google employees regarding “diversity and inclusion.” He ended the memo saying:

 

Bias Busting

In July 2017 Google held another Diversity Training that consisted of an online course followed by an in-person training. The in-person training was titled “Bias Busting” and was focusing on biases against women in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace.

Approximately 20 Google employees were present at this training ran by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google. When Damore verbalized his dissent during the training other employees, including managers, laughed at him derisively and considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of disparagement.

As feedback to this training Damore submitted his memo. It was at this time that is started circulating wider within Google and eventually was leaked by an unknown Google employee to either Vice Motherboard or Gizmodo. This selectively quoted and misinterpreted version went viral across the media and around the world.

Threats

On August 4^th 2017 Rao and another Google HR member called Damore into a meeting. They explained that while they could not ask him to take down his memo because it was protected political speech, they still thought it was in his best interest to do so.

Damore understood this as a threat from Google with termination for internal speech about workplace issues. Namely the issues of Google’s gender and race quote programs and its dismissal of unpopular (conservative) political viewpoints.

These were not the only threats Damore received. On August 3^rd 2017 George Sadlier, Director at Google, sent out a mass email condemning Damore’s essay as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest” and promising an investigation into Damore.

Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against Damore. On Friday August 4^th 2017 Damore received a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google who is a member of Sadlier’s organization, which stated, “You’re a misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

 

When Damore forwarded this email to Google HR they suggested Damore work from home until things cooled down.

Other employees took it a step farther and suggested not only that Damore be terminated but that those who shared his views or supported him should also be terminated.

 

These practices were not only allowed but rewarded by Google. The Google Recognition Team allows employees to suggest fellow employees for “Peer Bonuses” typically awarded for outstanding work above and beyond an employee’s job duties.

A Peer Bonus was not only suggested but reviewed and considered appropriate and approved to proceed by the Google Recognition Team for “speaking up for googley values and promoting [diversity and inclusion] in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is [Damore’s Memo].”

Colm Buckley, a high-ranking SRE (Site Reliability Engineer) Director, on August 5^th 2017 stated his intention to stifle political dissent within Google.

 

Due to this environment Damore filed a complaint the morning of August 7^th with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). After this massive companywide approved, promoted and accepted attack on Damore Google made the decision to terminate his employment.

At 6pm on August 7^th Rao and Chuck Wu, Senior Director of Engineering for Google, called Damore to let him know of their decision to fire him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” When Damore attempted to explain why his termination was unlawful, Rao stated that this was Google’s final decision and that there would be no discussion.

This information was drawn from the first 16 pages of the class action lawsuit filed against Google by Damore and other employees. It not only shows the incredible bias at all levels of Google but also the acceptance of discrimination as long as it is against approved groups.

Authors Note: This is part one of three focusing on this lawsuit. The second part will focus on the termination of David Gudeman and the third part will look at the potential class members that may also be included in the lawsuit. Feel free to share this post anywhere and everywhere, I strong believe this information needs to be known and I doubt that Google is the exception rather than the rule, but only time will tell.

Written by Cody Benson

The Normalization of Bigotry

The letter above is from the City Club of Portland and is signed by the President of the Board of Governors for that organization, Lisa Watson. In this letter she is rejecting research done by volunteers for City Club at the expense of volunteer time and energy simply because of their skin color.

“As part of the Board of Governors’ standard review of the research process, it came to our attention that every member of the committee was white. While we have no doubt that the committee members entered into this research project in good faith and with all best intentions, it’s clear that an all-white committee makes our research vulnerable to significant and substantive racial bias.”

What Lisa Watson is saying is that they are rejecting this study because it might be compromised by racial bias. Yet the criteria for making that assertion is based on racial bias. That a group of white people cannot do something effectively because they are white. You can read the full article and letter here.

Dear White People

This is not the only article that attacks white people. The New York Times published an article titled Can My Children Be Friends With White People? In this article the author, Ekow N. Yankah a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshive University says that white people cannot be trusted and he will teach his children to mistrust white people.

Mistrusting a group of people based on skin color is racist. Teaching children to mistrust people of a certain skin color is racist. As a professor he is not only teaching his own children not to trust white people but teaching other people’s children that white people are not to be trusted.

He does give a pass to white people who go and protest and do what he likes, essentially saying that the only white people you can be friends with are the ones who will do what you want.

Almost one year ago on December 25^th 2016 George Ciccariello-Maher an Associate Professor at Drexel University tweeted out saying “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.” He followed that tweet up with a clarifying tweet saying “To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”

He tried to play it off as a joke aimed at criticizing and mocking the alt-right idea of white genocide. Yet if you turned the statement around and replaced white with any other skin color that would get you fired on the spot. Ciccariello-Maher was placed on administrative leave on October 11^th 2017 after blaming the Las Vegas Shooting that left 59 people dead on a system that favors white males.

Sally Boynton Brown, the Chairwoman of the Idaho Democratic Party, said in a speech while running for Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair that “My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt. My job is to shut other white people down when they say, ‘Oh, no, I’m not prejudiced; I’m a Democrat; I’m accepting. My job is to make sure [white people] ‘get’ that they have privilege.” (Read the article here or watch the video here)

Sally Boynton Brown said this among cheers. She also said “I am from Idaho, we are so white” as if being white were something bad to be. That white people need to be ‘schooled’ so that we can move forward as a country.

This is someone who holds a political office in the Democratic Party. Someone who was seen as enough of a leader that she thought she had a chance to win the DNC chair position.

There are several articles like this. Sargon of Akkad a well known YouTuber made a video that does a great job of explaining this narrative here.

Every Narrative Needs a Villain

News media, universities and the political left are trying to build up white people are a sort of monolith. That is because the far left and the Democrat Party focuses on the rights of groups as opposed to the rights of individuals. (See my previous post on that here).

They need people to fit into groups so they can then claim to be fighting for those groups. To fight for a group you must be fighting against something. You cannot fight against the government because there are virtually zero laws that discriminate based on race or gender. Also you do not want to fight the government if you are running for office because you will be the government if you get elected.

Instead you make the government the answer, with you as the elected official of course, and you point to something else as the problem. The ‘problem’ a lot of media outlets and universities are pointing to is white people.

To be fair there have been some horrible white people and there still are horrible white people. Yet to pretend that this is exclusive to white people is to deny context, reality and history.

Exclusionary Tactics

The term People of Color (POC), which is often used in the media and by Progressives is a term designed, consciously or unconsciously, to exclude white people. Think about the term, who is a person of color? Anyone who is not white of course. So when a Progressive says there is racism against People of Color what they are really saying is that white people are racist.

To the Progressive white people cannot be part of the group, they can only be allies. Being an ally means doing everything that the Progressives say is right without question, you can see that in this video here. It also means that you can help the group but you can never truly be part of the group.

By redefining racism and using terms like POC and ally the Progressives are actively creating fault lines among people in order to divide them into groups to get them on their side. At times this turns against them and you get groups like the Alt-Right, who believe in a lot of the same ideas as the Progressive left, just on the white people side.

Why?

The activists, journalists, media pundits, university professors, and anyone else with a Progressive bent to them will tell you they are doing this to help POC, to destroy systemic racism that is at the foundation of Western Civilization or some other flowery way of saying they are helping people.

That is what they will say they are doing, and it might even be what they believe they are doing, but I am reminded of a quote from the bible Matthew 7:20 “Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

So what kind of fruit is being produced by this Progressive tree? Has it fed the hungry, made suffering less for humanity or has it caused people to turn out in the street and destroy things? The fruits I have seen produced are riots in the street, people being attacked for defending freedom of speech, and division being created along any sort of identity lines that people associate with. POC versus white, LGBTQ versus straight, rich versus the poor, men versus women, Republican versus Democrat, and the list of this sort of fruit goes on and on.

The roots of this Progressive tree is Post Modernism growing in the soil of Neo-Marxism. Post Modernism boils everything down to power, if someone is more successful it is because they have more power, while Marxism boils everything down to oppressor versus oppressed. In this ideology if you are doing better than someone else, it is not because you are more competent but rather that you have more power and are using that power to oppress others.

Combine this with the idea of group’s rights and group identity and taking the data that on average white people are doing well, you will find the justification for the hatred of white people. Terms are developed and words redefined to separate white people from others. This is done so that people can manipulate others into doing what they want so they can possess power to make the world a better place.

I just wonder how many bodies they will need to stack up in their attempt this time.