Elizabeth Hovde and Oregonian vs Mayor Wheeler, Portland Resistance and Antifa

Elizabeth Hovde did the unthinkable, she dared to tell her truth in a Progressive city. On October 28^th 2018 the Oregonian published her opinion piece titled The Misunderstood Joey Gibson and the backlash was swift and aggressive.

Misunderstood

Elizabeth Hovde’s opinion piece was based off her time spent with a local activist group known as Patriot Prayer and their leader Joey Gibson. The rally opposing Washington gun-control Initiative 1639 took place at Washington State University Vancouver campus.

Ahead of the rally the university chancellor cancelled classes and advised students to remain off campus fearing violence. The Patriot Prayer rally was anything but violent. Joey Gibson even set up a question and answer period so that he could discuss his opinion with those who disagreed.

Hovde wrote what she experienced and submitted it to the Oregonian editorial board for publication. It was published and immediately attracted the attention of some powerful people who condemned her, called for her to be fired and for people to target the Oregonians sponsors in an attempt to shut down the long standing publication.

Journalists and Public Officials for Censorship

It is a strange sight to see writers and journalists offering support for censorship. They of course would deny that is their ultimate goal. This denial would not be a lie, because they would believe that they are not supporting censorship. Yet these same people would celebrate if Hovde's article were taken down and she were fired.

I am reminded of Matthew 7:20 “Therefore by their fruits you shall know them.” While they may not be calling for censorship directly nor do they believe they are asking for that, their actions are going to result in that outcome. As Thomas Sowell once said, “Consequences matter more than intentions.”

Mayor Ted Wheeler, who has attempted to use his position as Portland’s Mayor (and police commissioner) to falsely spread public fear in an attempt to stifle the individual’s first amendments right to freedom of expression, had this to say about Elizabeth Hovde article.

His statement shows that he clearly does not understand what Patriot Prayer and Joey Gibson stand for. Joey Gibson has repeatedly called out white supremacists and neo-Nazi’s and told them they are not welcome at his rallies. The speakers at Patriot Prayer rallies are from different backgrounds and ethnicities. At an event on June 30^th 2018 Patriot Prayer had Asian, Black, Hispanic, male, female, Trans and LGBTQ attendees. Speakers included people of various ethnicities and even a Trans person.

Multnomah County Chair Deborah Kafoury had this to say.

She is stating that the Oregonian ‘complicit’ in stoking ‘violence and hatred’ and that it is ‘unforgivable.’ If you were a supporter of Deborah Kafoury and trust what she has to say, what are you supposed to take away from this statement? She wants you to be mad at the Oregonian and to believe that they are spreading hate and violence.

What sort of response should you have to an individual or organization spreading hate and violence? Naturally you would experience fear and in order to protect yourself from that fear you must oppose the Oregonian.

People like Ted Wheeler and Deborah Kafoury will tell you that in order for them to protect you from this boogieman they must be given more power and authority. Authority over where, when, and how people can protest in Portland. Power over what can and cannot be published in the press.

Anna Griffin news director for OPB and Samantha Swindler video producer, editor, and writer for the Oregonian had this to say about their fellow writer and journalist:

Half Truths and the Weasel Rhetoric of Alex Zielinski

Alex Zielinski of the Portland Mercury penned a response to Elizabeth Hovde and the Oregonian. She starts by mentioning the tragedy of 11 people killed in a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Why? Because she is trying to tie two unrelated events together to make one look worse through association.

She even calls Hovde article The Misunderstood Joey Gibson a ‘love letter to the leader of the Portland area’s own far-right extremist group.’ She even falsely calls Patriot Prayer a ‘militaristic group of far-right provocateurs.’ Patriot Prayer is in no way militaristic, which means advocating or pursuing an aggressive military policy.

She also goes on to mislead the reader about violence at Patriot Prayer rallies. She frames these acts of violence as if they are spontaneous and happen in a vacuum, when in reality there would be no violence if Antifa did not show up and attack people, throw mortars, urine and bricks at crowds peacefully taking part in a permitted march.

Alex also misleads her readers about claims made by Mayor Ted Wheeler that Patriot Prayer members were ‘lugging rifles and ammunition’ to a peaceful protest, which she puts in scare quotes. These claims were refuted by Portland Police. The men with guns all had legal concealed carry permits and 100% cooperated with the police. When asked to leave the guns in a locked container in one truck and the ammunition in a locked container in another truck the men complied with the request. According to Portland Police “No laws were broken, and there was not imminent danger to the public.”

Yet Alex and Mayor Ted Wheeler would have you believe they were on the roof top with sniper rifles. Alex also makes the claim that LGBTQ friends and Muslim neighbors ‘feel they must stay indoors or leave town altogether’ when Patriot Prayer plans a protest. She offers no evidence or proof of these statements but claims them as fact in the hope that you, the reader, sympathize with these terrified characters that she created out of whole cloth.

As Christopher Hitchens once said “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” She also outright lies about Jeremy Christian, framing the man accused of fatally stabbing two men and wounding a third on a MAX train as someone who is a mainstay of Patriot Prayer rallies.

The fact is he was kicked out of the one Patriot Prayer event he tried to attend. Here is video evidence of him being kicked out of the one Patriot Prayer event he attended by Tiny and other Patriot Prayer members.

She again tries to mislead her readers by saying “Every single protest in Portland that ended in violence over the past year and a half was organized by Patriot Prayer.” She makes is sound like Patriot Prayer is going out and committing these acts of violence, but in reality the only reason there is violence at these events is because Antifa shows up and attacks, harasses, threaten and antagonize people who attend.

Antifa even left someone who came to protest Patriot Prayer bloody laying in the street with a wound on the back of his head that would require 4 staples to close. They did this because he was carrying an American flag, a symbol of freedom and liberty. She then goes on to accuse Hovde of “cropping out hateful rhetoric and violence.” Patriot Prayer has offered a $2000 reward for video proof of Joey Gibson’s hateful rhetoric and no one has been able to claim this prize.

Alex ends by condemning the Oregonian editorial board and insinuating that her fellow citizens, who are part of Patriot Prayer, who could be her neighbors, the guy pumping her gas or the mechanic working on her car, are not worth listening to.

Portland Resistance Demands Action or Else

Portland Resistance offered a condemnation of the Oregonian claiming that “giving platform to this message is unconscionable, unethical, and dangerous behavior.” They continue by making a list of demands. The demands include:

1)      Issue a front-page apology to our community for their callousness and carelessness in publishing the “The misunderstood Joey Gibson” opinion piece.

2)      Fire Elizabeth Hovde.

3)      Discontinue the practice of lending fascists a platform to recruit and legitimize their hate.

First they do not represent a community, they were not elected or selected and simply claiming you stand for someone does not mean you actually represent them. You are not entitled to an apology for simply reading an opinion you did not like, grow up.

They then want to destroy the career of Elizabeth Hovde over an opinion piece they did not like. Lastly they accuse the Oregonian of “lending fascists a platform to recruit and legitimize their hate.” A baseless accusation of a paper that has published pieces criticizing Trump, Patriot Prayer, and Joey Gibson in the past.

If you are on the Oregonian editorial board I offer this one piece of advice, do NOT apologize. It will only be taken as an admission of guilt on your part and will make things worse. Stand by your journalistic ethics.

They also threaten that if these demands are not met they “will result in a strategic boycott of Oregonian advertisers, beginning with local companies with progressive leanings and proceeding from there.” Essentially they are threatening to bring financial harm to people who had nothing to do with this opinion piece in the hope that they can force the newspaper to do what they want.

This is a naked attempt to hold businesses and charities hostage so that they can force the press to submit to their will. They justify this use of force by claiming they are opposing “white supremacists.”

It is okay to disagree and I do not want any of the people mentioned to be censored or fired, I would rather their ideas be out in the open for everyone to see. But it is not okay to attempt to shut down, censor, and suppress through the force of social ostracization. It is not okay to hold businesses and charity hostage in an attempt to damage a newspaper who published an opinion piece you disagree with.

I have often disagreed with the Oregonian and probably have disagreements with Elizabeth Hovde, but I stand with their right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

A MAGA hat and My Small Choice

It had been over a week since I placed my order online and I had almost given up hope that my package would arrive. I walked out to the mail box after getting home from work to pick up the mail and there it was.

I pulled the gray bag and the rest of the mail from the box with a little bit of excitement and walked into the house. After letting the dogs out I pulled out my pocket knife, cut open the bag and pulled out the item.

The red cloth hat was clean and bright and across the front in vivid white letters were the words Make America Great Again. I turned it over in my hands, noticed the small American flag on the side and, looking into the mirror, I placed the hat on my head.

As I was adjusting the hat to fit I was reminded of why it took me so long to order a MAGA hat.

Ordering My MAGA Hat

During the 2016 Presidential election I was not the biggest fan on Donald Trump and did not consider ordering a MAGA hat. I liked him over Hilary but I was hoping that a third party candidate would be able to make a serious bid this time.

I was wrong, but I was glad that Trump won over Hilary. After the election I would watch the news and see Trump supporters attacked for wearing a MAGA hat. Mobs of people would surround them and shout at them and even a few people were beat up.

I wanted to buy a hat at this time but I also wanted to understand why I wanted to buy one now as opposed to earlier. As I thought about my reasons for getting a MAGA hat it became clear that I only wanted to get one so that I could trigger those who opposed Trump.

This was an unacceptable reason for me. It was not that I was opposed to offending people, in fact I was fine with that. Instead I did not think intentionally offending people for the sake of offending them was a worthy goal. I put the idea out of my head.

As time went on these attacked increased and I heard from my friends that they were afraid to say they were Republican, Conservatives, or a supporter of Trump. They were afraid of losing their jobs, getting attacked physically, or being called a racist.

It was at this time I considered buying a MAGA hat again. I asked myself the same question, why do you want to buy a MAGA hat? This time my answer had changed, it was twofold. One I wanted to buy a MAGA hat as a form of protest against the violence committed against those who wear MAGA hats in public.

The kid who got his hat stolen and a drink thrown in his face by someone who yelled profanities at him. Violent protesters dressed in all black assaulting anyone with a red hat while yelling that they were Nazi’s and racists. Or the father who offered to pay his daughter $100 to knock a MAGA hat off the head of another kid who was minding his own business in the mall.

Events like this made me want to buy a MAGA hat out of protest. The second reason was that I wanted a MAGA hat as a keepsake. Love or hate President Trump his presidency is going to be remembered and I thought it would be interesting to look back in ten years and remember this period in American history.

My First Interesting Comment

I had told my wife when I ordered the hat and when it arrived I showed it to her. She is not very interested in politics, so she was not as excited as I was. I placed the hat in our room and went about my day.

It was about a week later that she saw the hat in our room again and actually read what was on it. It was at this time that I walked into the room and she looked at me, a question on her mind. “Why did you want a Make America Great Again hat, aren’t you just asking to get beat up?”

My reply was one word, “No.”

Of course this line of thinking had crossed my mind before. I thought of this before I started writing about politics on my blog. I thought of this before openly admitting I am a Republican in a deeply progressive state. I thought of this before registering as a Republican. I thought of this when I bought a hat with the American flag on the front and before I attended a Patriot Prayer rally or events held by Jordan Peterson.

Each time I made the choice to do what I believed was right and to not let myself be intimidated or censored, least of all by myself. I am reminded of rule 7 in Jordan Peterson bestselling book 12 Rules for Life: Pursue what is Meaningful (Not what is expedient). It would be expedient to keep my mouth shut as opposed to writing this blog, it would be expedient to just watch the Patriot Prayer rally on YouTube as opposed to attending in person.

I could live a perfectly happy, safe and quiet life if I just simply did and said nothing. Do not get me wrong there is a lot of temptation to follow that path and I do not blame others who make that choice, yet the words attributed to Edmund Burke called out to me, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

I am not under the delusion that my purchase of a MAGA hat is some great blow against evil or some heroic act worthy of remembrance. Rather it was an honest attempt to do what I believed is right. The choice I made was not a choice of if I should or should not buy a hat, rather it was a choice of morality.

I am not saying Trump is moral, we know he is not at times, or that supporting him is the morally correct thing to do. I am saying that it is morally correct to refuse to let other people attempt to silence those they do not like under the guise of combating hate or hate speech.

People should not be afraid to speak their opinions out of a fear of losing their job or their business. People should not be afraid to say what they believe is right and true out of a fear of being socially shamed through the use of labels like Nazi, Bigot, Homophobe, Islamaphobe. People should not be afraid to love their country out of a fear of being physically assaulted for carrying or wearing an American flag.

My wife asked if I was asking to be attacked for wearing a MAGA hat. She immediately realized the implications of that question. She came to the conclusion that a person wearing a MAGA hat is no more asking to be assaulted then a woman is asking to be assaulted for wearing a sexy dress.

In Public

While I have made the choice to buy a MAGA hat, I have not yet worn it out in public. I admit part of me is nervous about wearing it. My wife, who does not like politics and does not pay it much attention, was worried that I would get assaulted for wearing the hat in public.

The threat is real but I know that most Americans do not care or if they do will not say or do anything. I live in Oregon outside of Portland in the city of Beaverton. The people here are not as bad as they are in Portland, but it can go either way.

I have a coworker who has worn his hat around town. He told me the reaction is mixed, some people give him a dirty look or ask him about it and others give him a thumbs up or show support. Again I am presented with another choice.

Do I wear the hat out in public or do I remain safe and silent? The choice is not earth shattering nor is it one that will be remembered as a turning point in history. The greatest events in history are rarely the product of a single choice, but the result of several small choices made by many different individuals.

I will be wearing my hat in public. For those who have been beaten up for wearing it, for those who are afraid to speak their mind out of a fear of the social, physical or financial consequences for doing so. I will also be wearing it for myself because it is more valuable to me to try and do what is right than it is to do what is safe and easy.

The First Amendment is Not Your Right to Freedom of Speech

The first amendment is not your right to freedom of speech. The first amendment is simply a limitation on the government. That limitation is the legal protection to ensure that a government does not suppress your speech.

A popular argument is that since the first amendment only applies to the government, companies like Facebook and YouTube can limit your speech. It is their company and product, they have the freedom to say what is and is not allowed to happen.

That is only partially true.

What is Behind the First Amendment?

Freedom of Speech is a basic human right. Any conversation about rights has to take into account one basic question: where do your rights come from?

Of course the founding fathers in America believed, mostly, that your rights come from God and preexisted government. Atheists have a problem with this idea as they do not believe in the existence of a being known as God.

Yet even an Atheist can find utility in the idea that your rights come from outside of the human sphere. If your rights come from something beyond human authority than the idea follows that no human authority is justified in taking those rights away from you.

The individual’s rights flow from some greater force (call it God or Nature or whatever you like), along with free will, to use as they see fit. Part of living in a civilized society means that as an individual you decided that you are okay giving up part of what makes you an individualistic creature in order to fit into society and to help it function.

Liberty and freedom does not mean the absence of rules and limits, but it means the application of those rules and limits that help foster the greatest amount of freedom for the individual. This is getting a little off the topic of freedom of speech, but it needs to be said.

Freedom of speech is so important in this aspect because it is the method we, as individuals, use to determine what those rules and limits are that guarantee the maximum amount of freedom. Of course this means we need to be free to say stupid, offensive, and harsh things regardless of how it makes others feel.

Throughout history we can find examples of where the truth or what is viewed as right today was seen as offensive. The idea that slavery was immoral was offensive to most of the world at one point. It was also seen as offensive to think that people should have the right to self-determination and should not be tied to the land owned by a lord or king.

In order to say what you think in the pursuit of truth you must be willing to risk being offensive. You also have the responsibility to allow others to be offensive to you in their pursuit of truth.

Facebook, YouTube, and Free Speech

The popular argument is that Facebook and YouTube are their own companies and should have the freedom to do with their service as they see fit. I would agree with that to some extent, a company has the freedom to decide the scope of their business.

I am not entitled to the property or labor of another individual. Yet the right to freedom of speech is a right owned by the individual and that right can be oppressed by more than just the government.

Companies like Facebook need to make a choice, are they going to be a platform (a place where people can speak and thus be obligated to uphold the individual’s right to freedom of speech) or are they going to be a publisher (a place that edits and approves the type of speech allowed).

For a private company there are problems with both. If it is a platform you run the risk of people saying offensive and hurtful things that you and the majority of individuals do not agree with or like, which could lead them to leaving your platform. The benefit would be that you are not responsible for the things other people say.

For example, if I say something hurtful or derogatory over the phone, it is not AT&T’s fault that I said those things while using their service, the individual is responsible for their own actions.

Yet if they are a publisher and have a say in what does and does not gets published than they can be held liable for things being said by users of Facebook. They might be able to keep the outrage police happy for some time but policing one billion users every day will be an increasingly difficult task.

They can hand over more and more freedom but will only get an exponentially decreasing return in security. At some point due to stifling the individual’s free speech, the rise of competitors, and the increase in cost of policing their platform, Facebook will no long be able to function at a profit and will cease to exist.

Note: when I say free speech I do not mean free from all limits, but free speech within the currently established legal limits for speech in a public square.

The Hecklers Veto

The first amendment is a limit on the government is the same argument ‘protesters’ use to shut down speeches on college campuses or political campaign rallies. They apply pressure to event coordinators and location owners in the hope that they will stop people from speaking.

They do this by falsely labeling people alt-right or neo Nazi, getting local papers to publish stories spreading these false claims, and if that does not work protests will be organized and violence with be threatened.

In Portland Oregon threats of violence were used to shut down a local annual parade. Protesters disrupted a talk at PSU by James Damore by damaging sound equipment. Protesters silenced speaker Christina Hoff Sommers as well at Lewis and Clark Law School.

It is true that the first amendment is only a limit on the power of the government. Yet the right that this limit protects supersedes government.

Individuals have a right to free speech and it does not matter if it is the tyranny of the tyrant, majority or minority that is trying to oppress that right, it is still the suppression of a human right whose oppression should be odious to all freedom loving people. 

Man in UK Convicted for Being #GrosslyOffensive

A Scottish YouTuber who goes by the name Count Dankula has been found guilty in a UK court for a joke video he posted.

He is currently facing jail time.

The Video

The video in question was created by Count Dankula, Markus Meechan, in 2016 as a prank on his girlfriend, who was always telling him about her cute pug.

The joke was that Meechan would teach the dog to raise its paw to Nazi phrases as if it were giving a salute. As he stated in the video, he wanted to make the cute dog into the least cute thing he could think of, a Nazi.

Being a YouTube personality Meechan uploaded a video of him training the dog to his channel. The video was viewed over 3 million times and has been put in a suspended state by YouTube as offensive content.

The Verdict

This video landed Meechan in hot water with the UK authorities under the Communications Act of 2003. This lead to charges being filed against him and a court case that has lasted two years.

On March 20, 2018 a guilty verdict was handed down. It stated that Meechan was guilty of being grossly offensive (#grosslyoffensive) and he will be sentenced on April 23, 2018.

This means that being offensive in the UK is now illegal and you could face jail time. Since anyone can be offended at any time by anything it means it is up to those in power to determine what is and is not offensive.

A situation has developed in the UK that would seem laughable if it were not so horribly true. The police refuse to investigate and bring to justice Muslim grooming gangs for fear of appearing racist but will gladly send someone to jail for an offensive video on YouTube.

It is a dark day in history when your government ignores young girls and women being abused, raped, tortured, sold into sex slavery and in some cases killed because the perpetrators of those crimes have a specific minority status (some might call it privileged), but the full weight of the law needs to come down hard on someone posting a ‘grossly offensive’ joke on social media.

I am thankful that I am in the US but my heart goes out to the citizens of the UK and I stand with them in their fight for free speech.

#grosslyoffensive

#Liberalist

The Return of Antifa

I am going to start this off by saying that this is my opinion and that I hope I am wrong about this return.

With midterm elections drawing near and as winter ends and spring quickly approaches the protest season will resume in full swing. We will see a reemergence of the group known as Antifa.

Who is Antifa?

Antifa is short for Anti-fascist, something that I think most people can agree with. But as Shakespeare said, “What is in a name?”

They claim they are fighting Nazi’s and defending the community against fascism. This can be seen as a noble cause, no one wants to live under fascism or Nazism. The truth of this group is far uglier than this noble sounding claim.

Matthew 7:20 says “Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” I am not a deeply religious person but this is sound advice. What kind of fruit does this Antifa tree bear?

November 10^th 2016, $1 million in damage in Portland Oregon.

February 2017 $100,000 in damage in Berkeley California.

September 2017 $600,000 for security to protect Ben Shapiro in Berkeley California.

Antifa throws M-80s at Trump supports in Berkeley California.

Antifa distribute weapons at Ben Shapiro speech in Utah.

A time line of Antifa violence in the first eight months of 2017. The list included January 20^th Inauguration Day, March 4^th March for Trump, and May 1 May Day in Portland Oregon.

Through these actions one of two things is clear. Either they do not care about fighting fascism and are using it as a cover to commit politically motivated acts of violence, or they have extended the term fascist to include classical liberals, never Trump Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Trump supporters, the Republican Party, and anyone who disagrees with them.

Capture the Flag

March 5^th 2018 at London’s King’s College a dialogue was set up between Yaron Brook, Chairman of the board at the Ayn Rand Institute, and Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) a Youtuber and Liberalist.

During the talk members of Antifa stormed the building, forced their way past security and into the room where the conversation was taking place. They attempted to take the microphones away from the speakers and pushed members of the crowd.

A few fights broke out and the protesters were pushed out of the room, but only after pulling the fire alarm and setting off smoke bombs in the building.

This caused the talk to be cancelled and was seen by Antifa as a victory. The conversation moved a few blocks away and was continued without interruption.

During the scuffle Antifa lost their flag, which was proudly claimed as a trophy by the speakers and those who came to hear them talk.

See video, media response and firsthand account here.

“Lock ‘em in and Burn it Down”

Also on March 5^th 2018 Jordan Peterson was scheduled to speak at Queen’s University. Protesters showed up to harass people as they tried to enter the venue. You can even hear someone say, “Lock ‘em in and burn it down.”

During the speech protesters banged on the windows to try and disrupt the event. They even broke an old stained glass window simply because they wanted to silence someone they did not like.

A couple protesters made it inside and onto the stage with a sign. Peterson, showing his capacity for limitless patience continued on with the talk.

Also on March 5^th 2018 in Portland Oregon a talk at Lewis & Clark Law School was also interrupted by protesters when Christina Hoff Sommers (the factual feminist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) was invited to speak.

They walked into the room, chanted, sang, and generally made noise, denying Sommers, who has a PhD in Philosophy from Brandeis University and is the author of several books, including Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, the ability to talk and denied the students who came to listen to her the chance to hear what she had to say.

Nine student groups signed a letter in an attempt to get this talk shut down. In the letter they called Sommers a “Known fascist” and said that she was there to “encourage what we believe to be an act of aggression and violence toward members of our society who experience racial and gendered oppression.”

The groups are The National Lawyers Guild, Lewis & Clark Student Chapter, Minority Law Student Association, Women’s Law Caucus, Immigration Student Group, Jewish Law Society, OutLaw, Lewis & Clark Young Democratic Socialists of America, Black Law Student Association, and the Latino Law Society.

These groups openly believe that a 67 year old feminist is a “known fascist” and out to get people in society.

The Protest Season

There is an idea going around that maybe Antifa and the radical protesters have calmed down in the recent months. That maybe this is a sign that they have given up. On the surface this would appear to be true.

But talking with and listening to people who have reported and dealt this behavior before they explain that protests always die down during the winter months. That it will pick up again come spring and summer.

If the protests and Antifa action we have seen this month alone are any indication we are in store for a long summer full of these ‘activists.’ Antifa may come back, but I hope I am wrong.

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

Problematic Words

Note: This is by no means an exhaustive list, nor are these definitive definitions. Rather these are my observations to which I welcome discussion and dissenting opinions. I also use the term Progressive to describe those on the Far Left. You can replace the word Progressive with Ctrl Left, Alt Left, Far Left, authoritarian Left, and liberal (as far as liberal means American liberal/Democrat that is far to the left). I try to distinguish those on the extreme left from those who are more center left or those on the left that do not fully understand the ideology that has a hold of them. Remember that words matter and to never yield linguistic ground to those you disagree with, for if you use their definitions than you are playing their game and even if you win, you still only win their game. Words are the ground the culture war is being fought and you do not want to fight a battle on the ground your enemy has selected.

People of Color – This is simply just a fancy way of saying anyone who is not white. It is a way of excluding someone based on skin color that is hiding behind a mask of compassion. It is also discriminating against the ‘People of Color’ by assuming that all people who are not white have the same experiences and desires. This is why you see such vitriol directed toward ‘People of Color’ who defy the norms being forced on them by Progressives.

Ally – This is the term used to describe people who are white or male that support those who are not. Again this is a way to separating white people, men and white men in particular from other groups. It carries connotations that while you might support Progressive ideas you cannot fully become part of the group, simply because of immutable characteristics determined at birth. It also implies that you do not get to call the shots but need to be submissive to those who call you an ally or you will lose that status and become an enemy.

Islamophobia – This word is simply a cudgel to beat people into submission. It is used to brand those opposed to the Progressive party lines as someone driven by hate of someone else. It is curious that there is no corresponding word for other religions, no Christophobia, no Buddaphobia, and no Hinduphobia. The closest thing is Anti-Semitism which usually takes the form of racism. Criticize the Bible, put a crucifix in a jar of urine and burn the American flag and all is fine, but criticize Islam or draw a picture of Mohammed and you’ll be branded an Islamaphobe and probably have riots of Muslims that are excused by mainstream media as justified outrage. It also holds back those Muslims who seek to reform the religion away from the violent fundamentalism prevalent among terrorist groups. It also keeps those Muslims seeking changes in a system of oppression.

Racism – The Progressives are trying to change the meaning of the word racism to mean Power + Privilege. This is so they can justify racist acts by simply denying they are racist. If someone lacks power or privilege then they cannot be racist from this perspective. They are in essence absolving themselves from the sin of racism in their core ideology.

Privilege – This word simply means someone who is doing better than someone else. Of course the Progressive will attribute this success to systemic racism and unconscious bias as opposed to sacrifice and hard work. Again white straight men are the most privileged regardless of everything else, the poorest white male is more privileged than the daughters of former president Barak Obama. This word is also used as a slur against those who disagree with the Progressive ideology.

Unconscious Bias – This is the idea that people are inherently racist/sexist/homophobic etc. No scientific test has been developed to accurately determine Unconscious Bias and if you are asked to attend Unconscious Bias training I would recommend refusing to attend or recording it and sharing it with the world. No one regardless of intention has the right to force you to alter your unconscious, do not allow them access to the deepest areas of your mind, that is your and yours alone.

Systemic Oppression – This is the idea that any given system is set up to oppress certain people. While this might be true in that a hierarchy of competence will exclude the incompetent. The Progressive will generally be referring to a specific company or government agency keeping out ‘people of color’ and women. This is often cited as the reason for the need of equality of outcome.

Equity – This one has been hotly debated but when put forward by a Progressive it means that everyone ends up with the same in the end. While this might sound good on the surface the only way this is possible is through the use of force. It pushes aside hard work, talent, competence, and sacrifice. This means when the Progressive looks at any structure or system and do not see parity within that structure with society (50/50 men and women for example) than it is not equal and that is due to Systemic Oppression.

Intersectionality – This is the Progressive attempt to rectify the idea that a straight white woman has more privilege than a straight black woman. It is a way of organizing society and determining levels of oppression. Almost like a caste system, with white straight cis able-bodied men on the bottom (have the most privilege) and black queer Trans disabled woman on the top (has the least privilege). The interesting thing about intersectionality is that taken to its logical conclusion you end up with individuality. Meaning that no two people are going to intersect in the same way.

Hate Speech – This is just censorship hiding behind the mask of compassion. Since what is considered hateful is subjective it leaves it to those in power to determine what is and is not hate speech. Of course to the Progressive the only thing that is real in the world is power, so they can justify the use of it to do what they want.

If I left anything out please leave it in the comments below and I’ll do another post adding to this one.

Social Justice Utopia: A Brief Story

The police lights flashed in the neighborhood as two police officers stood over a man on the ground in handcuffs with a gag over his mouth. The younger officer motioned to his more experienced partner who was writing down some notes on a pad. The older officer looked up to see a woman approaching and put his pencil in the binding of the pad and placed the notebook in his pocket.

            “I’ll handle this rookie,” said the older officer stepping forward to meet the woman.

            “Why are you arresting my husband?” She demanded

            “Please stay calm. May I ask your preferred pronouns?” The officer said in a calm deep voice.

            Her eyes narrowed on the officer and she slowly said “She/her.”

            “Thanks you. Now this is your partner?”

            “Yes this is my husband.” She said her emphasizing the word husband and fixing her eyes on the officer.

            “I have not asked for his pronouns yet so I’ll have to take your word for it for now.” The officer said. He reached into his pocket and produced his notebook. “I have a few questions to ask you if you do not mind.”

            “I mind,” She said “But I assume I do not have a choice.”

            “You have a choice,” the officer said “We are only here to help.”

            “Yeah my choice is cooperate or end up like my husband there.” She pointed to the man in handcuffs on the ground. The cuffed man moved a bit and tried to look at her but the younger officer put his foot on the man’s back.

            “Do not resist, Hate Speaker.” The young officer said pushing his foot down on the man’s back. The young officer looked up at the woman to find fire in her eyes that startled him a bit. He lifted his foot and regained his composure by placing his hand on the gun on his hip.

            “Look at me miss,” the older officer said, “Is your husband a part of any hate group such as The Republican Party, The Sons of Reason, the Free Speech Movement, or the First Amendment of the Constitution Truther’s also known as the F.A.C.T.?”

            “No.” She said nothing more.

            “You know it is a crime to lie to a police officer correct?” The older officer said while writing something down.

            “I am aware.” She said steel in her voice.

            “Just making sure. Is your husband currently or has he ever been associated with infamous Hate Speech outlaws like Ben Shapiro, Carl Benjamin A.K.A Sargon of Akkad, or Jordan Peterson?” Her teeth clenched and she shook her head no. The officer wrote something in his notebook.

            “Why do you have a gag over his mouth? Can’t you take that thing off?” The woman asked looking between the two officers.

            “It is on for everyone’s protection.” The younger officer said his eyes narrowing as he looked down at the man on the ground. “He has already committed felony levels of Hate Speech, we would not want anyone, including you, to be harmed by the things this Nazi says.”

            “Nazi!? He is not a Nazi.” She said a growl in her voice.

            “That is for a Social Justice Tribunal to decide miss.” The older officer said. Her face dropped and tears started to come to her eyes. The young officer watched her for a moment and then dropped his eyes down to the man on the ground. His face contorted into one of rage and he started to kick the man in handcuffs. People started to gather around to watch.

            “You damn Nazi,” the young officer yelled as his put a boot to the ribs of the man, “See what your straight white cis patriarchal oppression is doing, you have hurt this woman here and now she is crying.” The woman looked shocked. A cheer came up from the crowd and people started to shout “No Nazi, No KKK, No Fascist USA.” The older officer stepped over and got between the man on the ground and his partner.

            “Keep calm, we have to follow the law.”

            “Why?” The young man asked forcefully “This is what the people want, this is Social Justice and why should we not stop these Nazi cockroaches now?”

            “He needs to go in front of the Social Justice tribunal and they will decide his fate.” A boo rose up from the crowd.

            “He is a filthy Nazi and he should be shot now.” The young officer said and put his hand on his holstered gun. The older officer looked him right in the eyes and shook his head no.

            “You are going to get into trouble, partner, we need to do this by the book.” The older officer said. The young officers narrowed his eyes at his partner.

            “Are you sympathizing with the Nazi?” The young officer said loudly. His partner’s eyes went wide.

            “Alleged Nazi.” The woman said stepping up next to the older officer. “That is for the tribunal to decide.” The young officer turned and stomped off toward the police car. “What exactly are you charging my husband with? What has he done?”

            “First degree spewing of directed Hate Speech, Second degree bigotry, and felony Hate Speech violation.”

            “What exactly did he say?” The woman asked

            “He told his friend he was throwing the football with quote “you throw like a girl.” The officer started to write in his note book again. “He started to call us Fascist and Racist when we pulled up. He said that we were only arresting him because he was white. That reminds me, I need to add aggravated assault of an officer.”

            “Assault? He hit you?” The woman asked surprised.

            “No but he called us names and my partner and I were hurt by his words, that is assault.” She could do nothing but watch. The older officer called his partner over and the two picked the man up off the ground and took him to the cop car. The crowd surrounded the officers and were screaming at the man. One person punched him in the face and the crowd cheered him as if he were a returning hero. The officers did very little to stop this but the older officer finally put him into the car. The woman with tears streaming down her face approached the car.

            She sucked in a giant breath of air and screamed, “Stop it you animals! He is a human—”

            A shot rang out and the woman was knocked on her back. A moment of silence fell over the crowd as the light fled her eyes a pool of blood form on the ground underneath her. The man in the back of the car started to thrash around pulling at the handcuffs until his wrist started to bleed and chewing at the gag trying to get it out of his mouth. The young officer put his gun back in his holster and got into the car with his partner.

            “What was that!” The older officer demanded.

            “She called the crowd animals, clearly relating the People of Color in the crowd to monkey’s. It was violent Hate Speech and we had a crowd to protect, I could not just let her hurt all those innocent people. Now call it in and let’s get this Nazi to the Facility of Rehabilitation and Social Justice.” The older officer put a call in on the radio for someone to come and collect the body and drove away.

            “You did not need to shoot her. She was a person.” The older officer said on the way to the Facility. The younger officer eyed him.

            “You are starting to sound like you have sympathy for her. She was a Nazi that was all I needed to know.”

            “That is not for you to decide, that is for the tribunal to determine.” The young officer just looked out the window and ignored his partner the whole way back. They booked the man, broken and bloody, into the Facility of Rehabilitation and Social Justice and then went to file their reports.

 

The man was found guilty of Nazism, Hate Speech and Promoting Genocide and was executed later that week. The older officer had two Antifa agents show up to his home and arrest him for Nazi sympathy and for two accounts of Failure to Denounce. The younger officer was promoted to captain and had a reporter write his story. He was given a medal for his bravery in the line of duty and for fighting systemic oppression in the police force.