A Professor Against Political Correctness

I first encountered Jordan Peterson on a YouTube video when he was part of a Free Speech event on the University of Toronto Campus. At this event protesters called him all sort of names, they unplugged the sound system and created so much white noise so that the speakers could not talk.

I had seen this type of event happen before, but this time something seemed different. I slowly realized that the things Professor Peterson was saying were articulate and well thought out versions of what I had in my mind.

I had to know more about this person. Thanks to the power of the internet I was able to find hours of video on YouTube. The first ones I arrived at were his videos against Bill C-16 that was being discussed in the Canadian Parliament.

Bill C-16

Professor Peterson made three videos where he addressed his issues with this piece of legislation. The series is called Professor against Political Correctness (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). In these videos he talks about the law itself as well as the doctrine and ideas behind the law and those who are pushing for it.

Little did Professor Peterson know that his three videos on an obscure piece of Canadian legislation would attract global attention. He simply thought the law crossed a line that he would not cross, the codification of compelled speech into law.

In his videos he even says that the act of making the videos could be interpreted as illegal under the Ontario human rights commission. He was told he was overreacting at the time but the University of Toronto sent him a letter telling him that he needed to take down the videos and what he was doing was probably illegal, providing justification for his earlier fear.

This stance brought a lot of attention to Professor Peterson, not all of it positive, and started him on the road of speaking tours and a new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Activist Assault

“This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos.” Said Professor Nathan Rambukkana of Wilfred Laurier University.

The quote was uttered during an interrogation of teaching assistant Lindsey Shepard. She was being reprimanded for playing a video of Jordan Peterson in her university classroom. A video that was played on Canadian TV station TVO, broadcasted to the public and at the time of this writing has been seen close to 1 million times on YouTube.

Before this protesters at McMaster University tried to shut down a talk given by Jordan Peterson by making a lot of noise and using air horns to drown him out. Peterson ignored them and kept on talking, eventually moving the talk outside and giving it there.

More recently a surreal scene took place at a talk at Queens College as protestors interrupted the speech by jumping on stage. Another shouted from the audience, while protestors outside banged on windows and doors. Shouts of ‘lock them in and burn it down’(3:44) could be heard as other protesters attempted to block the door from the outside using trash cans. One protestor, who broke a window, was arrested carrying a garrote.

Along with these protests numerous smears have been made against Peterson in the media. He has been called alt-right, a homophobe, and transphobe to name a few, despite identifying as an English Liberal.

The personification of this assault can best be seen in an interview Peterson did with Cathy Newman on England’s Channel 4. One thing that becomes clear in that interview is that the strawman built up of who Peterson is does not hold up to reality.

Sorting it Out

With all the bad press and protests how do you figure out what Peterson is actually about? Go to the source. He has hundreds of hours of videos on YouTube, from college lectures to personal videos recorded in his home.

You could read his books, Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos or check out his public speaking events.

Jordan Peterson is known to give advice such as ‘clean your room’ imploring people to physically clean their room and in doing so taking control of a small part of their world. Setting it in order so that it is clean, functional, and beautiful. It is a call to set your own life in order before you try to criticize or change the world.

Rule 4 from 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is ‘Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today.’ A call to do something no matter how small to make yourself slightly better than you were the day before. Imagine how much better you would be after a month of doing that every day.

So why has Peterson garnered so much attention? For those who are interested in his ideas he offering them a message of personal responsibility and individuality. For those how see him as alt-right (he is not by the way) they fall into a few different camps. Those who have only heard about him as a transphobe second hand and believe it without checking him out for themselves and those who see him as a threat to their ideological and cultural hegemony.

Yet do not take my word for it, I encourage you to look for yourself. If you are interested in hearing it straight from Jordan Peterson, he has a speaking event at the Keller Auditorium in Portland Oregon on June 25. There will also be a book club conversation about his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos in Beaverton Oregon on June 23^rd.

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

Privilege is a Poisoned Word

You may have seen or heard the word privilege come up frequently. Since this word has reached common usage it is worth taking a look at what it really means and what its use entails.

A Google search of the word privilege brings up this definition “A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.”

This is the common usage that I think most everyone can agree on and the one that will be used going forward.

Check Your Privilege

We rarely see or hear the word privilege on its own. Instead it is often coupled with a descriptive word, such as male privilege or white privilege.

This type of usage changes the meaning of the word in a very dramatic way. Privilege in this context is a pejorative designed to make you feel shame for enjoying a perceived advantage, special right, or immunity.

The subtext is that the only reason you have this privilege is because of the descriptive characteristic attached to the word. So when you are told that you have white privilege, what is truly being said is that you are enjoying or have been granted a special right, advantage or immunity simply because of the color of your skin. Of course this removes or diminishes individual agency, or as former President Barak Obama would say “you didn’t build that.”

This privilege is not granted to you through biology, though it does depend on the biological element of your skin color. Instead society has be built to produce these exclusive benefit to people who have this biological element. Underneath this reasoning is a social constructionist view of the world* which is embedded deeply within the philosophy of Marxism.

Socialist Substructure

As we determined earlier privilege coupled with a descriptor is used as a pejorative. It is not a positive to be privileged in this way because your privilege was not earned. Rather it was given to you by a racistly constructed society.

If you have a privilege based on a certain characteristic, such as your gender, than those who lack that characteristic also lack that privilege. The word privilege creates two groups, those with it and those without. A group that has and a group that has not.

It is simply a rewording of bourgeois and proletariat that replaces wealth (capital) with societal advantages. Professor Jordan Peterson describes this change as a philosophical sleight of hand.

A sleight of hand that simultaneously removes the stigma of socialism due to the human atrocities committed in places like the Soviet Union and China while cloaking it in the language of empathy and classical liberalism.

Your Tribe

Another effect of attaching privilege to a descriptive word is that it creates a group based on that descriptor. If male privilege exist than it applies to everyone who is male. This creates the category of male identity while at the same time creating the family that category falls under. Gender identity would be the family of identities and within that family you have male, female, Trans and whatever gender flavor of the month that is useful in placing people into categories.

The concept of privilege is used to divide people into numerous categories and makes the claim that certain categories have more advantages than others. For convenience sake I am going to refer to these categories as tribes.

By splitting people into these tribes and assigning them certain characteristics (both beneficial and disadvantageous) you diminish the individual by placing the tribe in the place of primacy. The alienation of the individual in this manner will cause people to gravitate toward these tribes.

Once broken into tribes it does not take much to point out that one tribe has more privileges than another tribe. From there it is only a small step to thinking that the only reason they have more privileges is because they took them from you or are actively preventing you from gaining them.

At that point you will see conflict between tribes. A real world modern example of this is when a BLM group tried to shut down a pride parade in DC in 2017 and before that in 2015 in Chicago when they organized using #Blackoutpride.

The Poisoned Word

Privilege is used to attack and shame people in an attempt to divide them and place them into tribes. These tribes have conflict with other tribes built-in, ready to be exploited by anyone who is willing and capable.

The biggest tragedy is the assault on the concept of the individual. An offensive that includes removing individual agency by subscribing to the idea that any privilege you have is unearned and is only a product of a society built to benefit you based on immutable characteristics. It seeks to remove individual identity by placing you into a tribe with preassigned characteristics.

On the surface the word privilege seems fairly harmless, which makes it a perfect vessel for the poison of Marxism to slowly work its way into the culture. The words we use matter.

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.

Man Awarded $1 Million Settlement after Termination for Racist Remarks

Last Friday a judge awarded local man, Adolf Zimmerman, $1 million for race based wrongful termination. Zimmerman, a 48 year old white male, was fired last spring by a local retailer for making racial comments to several customers and coworkers.

Zimmerman told several customers that they could not afford anything at the retailer because of their race and that security would be following them. He also used a variety of racial slurs when speaking to and about minority coworkers. When this was brought to the attention of the owner Zimmerman was immediately fired.

Soon afterward Zimmerman brought a lawsuit against his former employer for wrongful termination. The lawsuit cited several sources, from news articles to peer reviewed university journal publications that stated that white people, and white males in particular, are inherently racist.

Zimmerman’s lawyer argued that “Since racism is an inherent part of white people, terminating my client for racist remarks violates his rights as a protected class under the law.” Race falls under the protected classes outlined in both federal law and Oregon State law.

The judge after deciding the case in favor of Zimmerman made a statement “We must stand up against all forms of racism and discrimination. Diversity is part of what makes our country great and there is no room here for this sort of hate. Let today stand as an example of a victory for social justice for future generations.”

In a statement to reporters Zimmerman said “Today social justice has been served. We the people stand in solidarity against this naked display of bigotry and discrimination.”

Zimmerman told reporters that he plans to start an activist group with some of the money to combat workplace discrimination.

Written By Cody Benson

For No Fact News

A Cody Benson Parody

Man Arrested for Violation of Leash Law, but it’s Not What you Think

Portland Police responded to a disturbance call on Monday in a SE neighborhood. When they arrived on the scene they found 26 year old Tito Barkley urinating on a fire hydrant.

 

The officers approached Mr. Barkley to assess the situation. When they asked what he was doing Mr. Barkley responded by stating that he was just out for a walk.

 

The officers report that he was not slurring his words and did not appear to be intoxicated. The officers asked Mr. Barkley for his license which he produced from a collar around his neck.

 

Puzzled they continued to question Mr. Barkley. It was during this questioning that Mr. Barkley told the officers that he identified as a dog and that they could not arrest him for urinating in public, as it was not illegal for dogs to do so.

 

“I identify as a dog and you have to respect that,” Mr. Barkley told the officers as reported by a witness.

 

The officers arrested Mr. Barkley shortly afterward for violation of the city leash laws, failure to pay county registration fees, and failure to provide proof of rabies vaccination.

 

“We welcome all people here in Portland,” Officer Catcher said in a statement “as long as they follow our laws.”

 

Mr. Barkley is currently on a three day hold to see if his owners can be found before being neutered at Bonnie L. Hayes and being put up for adoption.

Written By Cody Benson

For No Fact News

A Cody Benson Parody

Media Conspiracy or Out of Control Group Think?

The above video is of an interview that was uploaded to YouTube on January 16^th 2018. Cathy Newman, a Channel 4 News reporter, interviewed Jordan Peterson, a professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, who has attracted a massive following by telling people to ‘clean up their room’ and ‘tell the truth.’

After this interview was posted it immediately went viral, the original YouTube video has been viewed 2,900,851 times with 114,597 up votes and 2,417 down votes and 55,324 comments at the time of this writing.

Shortly after this interview, claims were made by Channel 4 that ‘threats’ have been made against Newman and that they were bringing in additional security. It was at this time that the media smear machine went to work, attempting to paint Peterson, through the actions of his ‘followers’ as a sexist, misogynist ‘alt-right’ bigot.

These media outlets are attempting to use character assassination in order to attempt to salvage their narrative, even if they have to mislead to do so.

The Threats

According to Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, Cathy Newman has been on the receiving end of “vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat” and that it is “[A] terrible indictment of the times we live in.”

According to the Independent, security experts have been hired by Channel 4 and they are considering police involvement.

When asked for proof of these threats very little is forth coming. According to The Daily Mail the ‘abuse’ included comments such as ‘RIP Cathy Newman’ and ‘Cathy Newman we know where you live.’

That last statement seem ominous to be sure, but no screen shots or images are provided as proof. They go on to say that more than 500 postings have been made calling Newman a bitch. The Daily Mail also claims that Newman’s 13-year-old daughter found a pornographic mock-up on Instagram of her mother with Dr. Peterson.

They go on to claim that Peterson’s “admirers” attacked Newman by describing her in a comment as the “Low IQ Left Establishment” and saying that she should be “ashamed of such a catastrophic interview.”

The Daily Mail continues saying that critical comments were expected but the death threats have caused serious alarm. Yet they do not provide any examples of these death threats. No quote is mentioned nor a screen shot shared.

The Threats seem to amount to people saying mean things to her on the internet.

The Headlines

These are some of the headlines describing this story. Clearly they are misleading, either for ideological reasons or for clicks.

The Independent says that the abuse was misogynistic and that it is all just a backlash against the #MeToo movement.

 

The Daily Mail calls the interview a ‘row’ and calls Peterson an ‘anti-feminist.’ The interview was tough and could be called a row for embellishment but to label Peterson as an anti-feminist is just wrong and has zero evidence to back it up.

The Sun also calls it a ‘row’ and calls Peterson a ‘controversial academic.’ He covered what makes him controversial in the interview.

Huffington Post states that Newman is threatened after the interview. It is miss leading because it is unclear what kind of threats are made, who is making them, and proof that the threats have actually been made.

The headline does not say allegations of threats, rather they just state it as fact.

The Guardian defends Peterson.

 

The Star simply reports that security has been bolstered.

 

One article analyzes the ‘abuse’ and finds it lack luster and worst against Peterson and his supporters.

 

The Mirror says that Peterson didn’t agree that the gender pay gap is unfair. This is very misleading because what Peterson took issue with was the degree to which sexism determines the pay gap as opposed to other factors such as women’s own interest.

Add Mirror:

 

The Copy and Paste Job

While reading these articles and writing my own I noticed a pattern. A few of the articles used the same phrases and I am not talking about using the same quotes.

Several articles call Peterson a Controversial Psychologist or Professor (The Star, Huffington Post, The Mirror). I first thought that they were just writing along similar lines because they were all writing about the same story.

That is until I came across this line from The Star “Peterson is best known for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender and non-binary people who request them.”

This line jumped out at me because it is misleading and untrue. I also had a suspicion that is had heard it somewhere else. A quick check of my notes showed that I had written down this quote from a Huffington Post article.

Not a similar quote, the exact same quote. I pulled the article back up and started rereading side by side with The Star article. They were the exact same. Not similar but word for word the exact same (below are screen shots of the text from each article side by side).

I do not know if this is just lazy journalism, two media outlets sharing the same article or a collaborative effort by two media companies to push the same narrative. Something tells me it is a bit of all three.

History Repeats

This is not the first time we have seem media outlets all run the same story from the same perspective, pushing toward the same goal with little or no regard for facts or evidence. We have seen this with President Trump over and over again.

It is also not the first time we have seen the Progressive’s push a narrative in an attempt to further their ideology that turns out to be a lie. The recent hijab cutting in Canada that elicited a response from their Prime Minister Justin Trudeau turned out to be a hoax just to name one.

This time they were pushing to smear Jordan Peterson because of his sound defeat of their ‘social justice’ view of the world, which divides everyone into victims or oppressors. They want to distract from one of the big truths revealed in this interview. That Freedom of Speech is a right and should be protected and the ‘right’ to not be offended is nothing more than a thin excuse for authoritarian control and censorship.

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: