Google has feminism

And feminism is cancer. More inside information in Allum Bokhari’s latest Rebels of Google series:

“The worst part isn’t the ‘diversity.’” says Gordon “It’s the “inclusion” – the banner under which they justify dangerous pseudosciences like unconscious bias and microaggressions, and try to make them company policy.”
Ideological conformity at Google, says Gordon, is “far worse” than James Damore’s viewpoint diversity memo indicates.
“Google is run like a religious cult. Conform and carry out the rituals, and you’ll be rewarded and praised; ask any uncomfortable questions or offend the wrong people, and the threats and public shaming will be swift and ruthless. The religion in this case is a kind of intersectional feminism, its central tenets are Diversity and Inclusion, its demonic enemy is Bias, and its purifying rituals include humiliating forms of “training” that resemble Maoist struggle sessions.”
“This might sound crazy to a lot of your readers, but college students should understand, since it’s a similar culture.”
According to Gordon, efforts to terrorize employees over identity politics come from both managers and rank-and-file Googlers.
“The agitation ranges from very subtle (“it’s not OK,” “we cannot stand for this,” “these are shitty opinions”) to quite overt (“this is violently offensive,” “I will not tolerate,” “I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you”).”
“I’ve seen around 20-30 managers agitating this way, each of whom is in charge of anywhere from a few dozen to over a thousand employees. There are some very high-level people who consider the progressive agenda to be more important than the success and mental health of their teams.”
“I can’t categorically say that it goes up to “the very top”. However, as you now already know from James’s unceremoniously quick firing, the top brass are either sympathetic to or afraid of the mob.”

 

Imposters at Google

CG has a theory:

Mr. Damore has managed to spark the largest inflammation of Impostor Anxiety in recorded history.
Impostor Anxiety is not Impostor Syndrome as the Syndrome is associated with failure to recognize actual achievements while those suffering from IA are aware of their diminished ability relative to those around them,
They do not suffer from Dunning–Kruger though it may appear so from the outside sometimes. They are knowingly hiding behind a futile “fake it till you make it” facade that can sometimes carry them so long as resources remain flush.
Sufferers will sometimes mask over their Impostor Anxiety by trying to claim that they suffer from Imposter Syndrome. However this is self defeating as it only amplifies their anxiety due to knowing that at least some people around them know their true skill level, even others who also suffer from Impostor Anxiety and see through the charade.

It makes sense. Just as AA beneficiaries know that they do not merit their places at the universities where they find themselves intellectually overmatched, tens of thousands of the more-recent hires at Google are perfectly aware that they would not have been good enough to get a job there just a few years ago.
James Damore has unmasked them for the inferior employees that they are, which is why they are both panicked and furious.

Government theft

The federal government is literally the biggest thief in the USA. In fact, it steals more than all the private sector thieves combined. It now steals the equivalent of the GDP of Lichtenstein every year. “Rapacious” doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Co je to Alt Pravice?

V zájmu vypracování základů filozofie Alt Pravice, na které mohou budovat i ostatní

  1. Alt Pravice je politickou pravicí, v chápání tohoto výrazu jak v americkém, tak i v evropském kontextu. Socialisté nejsou považování za Alt Pravici. Progresivisté nejsou považování za Alt Pravice. Komunisté, marxisté, neortodoxní neomarxisté a neokonzervativci také nejsou Alt Pravice.
  2. Alt Pravice je alternativou k tradičně pravicovému hnutí ve Spojených státech, kde jsou nominálně definovány 10 Principy Konzervatismu podle Russela Kirka, ale ve skutečnosti přešly směrem k progresivismu. Alt Pravice je také alternativou k libertarianizmu.
  3. Alt Pravice nezaujímá obranný postoj a odmítá koncept čestné a zásadové porážky. Je to pokroková filozofie útoku, v každém smyslu slova. Alt Pravice věří ve vítězství cestou vytrvalosti a v setrvání v harmonii s vědou, realitou, kulturními tradicemi a poučení z historie.
  4. Alt Pravice věří, že západní civilizace je vyvrcholením lidského vymoženosti a podporuje své tři základní pilíře: křesťanství, evropské národy a řecko-římské dědictví.
  5. Alt Pravice je otevřeně a uznávaně nacionalistická. Podporuje veškerý nacionalismus a právo každého národa na jeho existenci, homogenní a nezměněný invazí cizozemců a imigrací.
  6. Alt Pravice je antiglobalistická. Oponuje všem skupinám, které pracují na prosazení ideálů globalizace nebo jejích cílů.
  7. Alt Pravice je proti rovnostářství. Odmítá představu rovnosti ze stejného důvodu, proč odmítá myšlenku jednorožsců a leprikonů (skřítků), zatímco poznamenává, že rovnostářství neexistuje v žádné vědecky zpozorované, legální, materiální, intelektuální, sexuální nebo duchovní formě.
  8. Alt Pravice je vědecká. Akceptuje současné závěry vědeckých metod, zatímco si je vědomá toho, že a) tyto závěry podléhají možnému budoucímu přehodnocení, b) věda podléhá korupci a c) takzvaný vědecký konsenzus není založený na vědě, ale demokracii a je tudíž vlastně nevědecký.
  9. Alt Pravice věří, že identita > kultura/společnost > politika.
  10. Alt Pravice je proti panování či nadvládě kterékoliv etnické skupiny nad jinou, zvláště pak v jejich svrchované vlasti okupovaného lidu. Alt Pravice je také proti tomu, aby kterákoliv nerodilá etnická skupina dosáhla přemrštěného vlivu v jakékoliv společnosti díky známostem, tribalismu anebo jiným způsobem.
  11. Alt Pravice si je vědomá, že různorodost + blízkost  = válka.
  12. Alt Pravici je jedno, co si o tom myslíte.
  13. Alt Pravice odmítá volný mezinárodní obchod a volný pohyb obyvatelstva, které mezinárodní obchod vyžaduje. Prospěch obchodování v rámci národa nemůže být brán jako důkaz výhod mezinárodního obchodu.
  14. Alt Pravice musí zajistit existenci bílé populace a budoucnost pro bílé děti.
  15. Alt Pravice nevěří v všeobecnou nadřazenost jakékoliv rasy, národa, lidu nebo lidského poddruhu. Každá rasa, národ, lid a lidský poddruh má své unikátní silné a slabé stránky a tudíž má svrchované právo na život bez cizích vlivů a to v rámci své národní kultury, kterou upřednostňuje.
  16. Alt Pravice je filozofií, která si cení míru mezi různými národy světa a je proti válkám, které vedou k vnucení hodnot jednoho národa na druhý. Je také proti snahám o vyhlazení jednotlivých národů cestou válečného konfliktu, vyhlazení, imigrace nebo genetické asimilace.

Souhrn: Alt Pravice je západní ideologií, která věří ve vědu, historii, realitu a práva genetických národů na existenci a samovládu za účelem prosazení vlastních zájmů.

When smart guy meets smarter guy

The result often looks like road kill, because far too many smart guys, and girls, rely upon nothing more than bluffing and credentials, which only serve to intimidate the midwits and prevent them from noticing that they haven’t actually backed up their arguments.

This is straight out of The Autism Spectrum Handbook For Winning Online Arguments, 3rd Ed. and it shows a common weakness of the inadequately socialized: they are rarely satisfied with anything other than a FLAWLESS VICTORY in a discussion despite the relative rarity of said victories. I think it probably goes back to when Zunger was the smartest kid in his classroom and he could easily demolish any argument with a list of pre-memorized facts and figures, seasoned liberally with the I’m-smarter-than-you-and-you-know-it attitude. Many people, including both commenters and authors at this blog, have fallen prey to that temptation, because most people of above-average intelligence have, at one time or another, been the smartest person in the room. Of course, to be the smartest person in your Ohio State Classroom you probably need to be a 95th-percentile intellect, while to do the same at Stanford maybe you’re one in a thousand — and that means there are still more than seven million of you out there.

1.I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect, and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.
This “I’m not enough of an expert to explain why I’m right but I’m enough of an expert to know I’m right” business is a smart-guy boilerplate response. It can be ignored. There is plenty of scholarship out there that shows innate differences between men and women in nearly any category of which you could readily conceive. Here is just such a paper, which should appeal to Mr. Zunger because it is both a front-page Google result and a product of Stanford….
It’s plainly obvious from Zunger’s essay that the primary function of Google, as he currently understands it, is to cooperate and collaborate for the social good. It has nothing to do with writing good software or effective software. Anybody can do that now. Code doesn’t matter.
Mr. Zunger is a very smart man, and he is a scientist to boot. But here’s the thing about modern scientists: they are only trained focus on very small things. The days of the Victorian gentleman chemist are past us now. All of the big ideas that could possibly come to a classically-educated man relaxing on the Louis-Quatorze-era chair in his family estate’s library have been discovered. Today’s science is done by putting laser-like attention on finite areas of effort.
The problem with Google, and the problem with other modern software houses, is that they have decided to put their laser-like attention on things other than quality of product. They focus on diversity, social good, various arcane theories of user-interface design, and other things that have nothing to do with writing effective code. Unsurprisingly, they aren’t very good at doing any of those new tasks — and because they’ve abandoned the things that they used to do well, the foundations are slipping out from underneath them.
Today’s Google home page is a slow-loading mess compared to what it used to be, loaded with buggy features and featuring plenty of bugs. Browser-dependent, hugely bloated, more like the old Excite! homepage than anything a Google user would have enjoyed a decade ago. It’s simply not very good anymore. That should worry the people at Google. Fixing that should be a priority above “social good” or “diverse teams”. They should hire the smartest people and have them write the best code. Period. That’s what Google is supposed to do. Whenever Google does that, it succeeds. Whenever they try to change the world, it’s a ridiculous failure.
Which brings me to the funny part. From what I’ve read, Mr. Zunger’s primary accomplishment at Google was…
wait for it..
Google Plus. Which is
a) utter garbage
b) currently serving a user base that is 74% male.

I think one of my biggest advantages as a debater is that I grew up with a best friend whose IQ exceeds mine. I could not say anything without him playing devil’s advocate, and promptly ripping to shreds any baseless posturing or unsupported assertions.
Zunger’s empty posturing is remarkably common among the cognitive elite, particularly the professionals, who are frequently inclined to opine about matters on which they are not sufficiently informed. That, of course, is why they are so defensive when called out; they realize that the whole edifice will come crumbling down if deference is not paid to them, thereby allowing them to avoid their bluffs being called.
Smart people usually construct their arguments to impress midwits and normal people. Smarter people construct them with an eye to hypothetical critics who may be smarter than they are.

In defense of the dark lord

John C. Wright reminds everyone that we are on the same side:

In any case, I wanted to take the opportunity to calm frazzled nerves, and to emphasize in how few matters Vox Day and I disagree.
First, we both voted for Chuck Tingle for a Hugo Award. Love is real!
Second, we both support a permanent ban on further immigration into the United States, but would settle reluctantly for a fifty year ban. We both would prefer immigrants, if they must come, to be from civilized nations, and persons who clearly offer more to the nation than the likely burden their coming imposes.
Third, we both believe Mohammedanism is incompatible with Western Civilization. Koranic Law allows neither for the Rights of Man nor any republican form of government.
Fourth, neither of us believes coerced integration of the races is desirable nor possible. There is nothing wrong with a man seeking out his own kind.
Fifth, we both regard the ‘open borders’ and ‘New World Order’ and ‘One World Government’ type talk as treason against the United States and against the West.
Sixth, we both think feminism is cancer. Woman are happier and society is healthier when brides are young, and families are large.
Seventh, we both reject the strategy embraced by GOP politicos and pundits that noble defeat is better than crass victory. The Culture War is real, it is a war, and our side has suffered decades of humiliating defeats. A gentleman does not use the Marquis of Queensbury rules with a guttersnipe, a cur, a blackguard, or when facing a mob.
Eighth, we both call Western Civilization, the legacy of the Christian religion, Roman law, and Greek philosophy, the peak of human glory. It is worth defending; indeed, it is the only thing on this world worth defending. Everything else is cruelty, fatalism, superstition, and injustice.
Ninth, we are both nationalist, and both anti-globalist: there is no moral wrong with a nation existing nor with a nation prioritizing its own interests.
Tenth, he and I both believe that every race, nation, people, tongue and tribe has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. We both reject the subjugation of one ethnic group by another.
Eleventh, he and I hold similar views on war: imposing democracy by force, or imposing conversion by the edge of the sword, is both cruel and foolish.
Finally, he and I are both Christians, which means, we are both beloved sons of God living in a universe whose Creator has fashioned objective laws of logic, objective imperatives of morality, objective standards of truth and beauty, and also fashioned the human soul to crave and seek and be able to find these things.
The insane atheist world of moral subjectivism and cultural relativism, of deconstruction, postmodernism, and nihilism, he and I both see to be the work of darkness.

For my part, I do not concern myself in the slightest with what John thinks. As with Martin van Creveld and Steve Keen, he is one of those rare talents who is to be cherished for that talent alone; everything else is noonday shadows in comparison.
And don’t forget, John showed himself to be loyal even before we were acquainted. As writer and editor, we know each other in a manner that is uniquely, and and at times even alarmingly, intimate. It’s hard to describe to someone who is not a novelist, but to write fiction is, to a certain extent, to bare the soul, especially to those who know how to read deeply and see the individual revealed in the textual creation.
John is a better man than I am. I admire and respect him, and not only for his incredible literary talent. I do not expect anyone to agree with me about all things, indeed, I do not know anyone who does, including myself from only a few years ago. Remember: the man who is a failure always manages to find disagreement with others, but the man who is successful will always find a way to find common ground with his friends and allies.

History and the limits of SJW dishonesty

Don’t bother looking for the limits of SJW stupidity or dishonesty. You will not find them. In an astonishingly inept attempt to defend the BBC and “historian” Mary Beard, one English SJW actually put forward the following defense, accompanied by a screenshot.
Dave Tooke‏ @burstdrum
I answered your question. Even though it was a straw man. No one ever said mixed race families were typical (majority) of Roman Britain.
Dave Tooke‏ @burstdrum
The BBC cartoon did not say “typical”. It merely suggested one such family as possible. Which it was.
This was the screenshot attached to the second tweet.

In fairness, the SJW was undermined by the dishonesty of the BBC, which is the more significant aspect of this little story. You see, this was how the video was described 5 days ago, before BBC “historian” Mary Beard tried to school Paul Joseph Watson and was caught bullshitting by NN Taleb. Emphasis added.
Original BBC Two description
Life in Roman Britain is shown through the eyes of a typical family nearly 2000 years ago. The Romans bring towns to Britain, and also roads, forts, and Hadrian’s Wall, to keep out the Picts. The father is supervising the building of Hadrian’s Wall, while the son manages to lose his father’s special military scarf, or focale. This incident is used to explore Roman beliefs and religion, food and entertainment.

Current BBC Two description
Life in Roman Britain as seen through the eyes of one family nearly 2000 years ago. The Romans bring towns to Britain, and also roads, forts, and Hadrian’s Wall, to keep out the Picts. The father is supervising the building of Hadrian’s Wall, while his son manages to lose his father’s special military scarf, or focale. This incident is used to explore Roman beliefs and religion.
You see, with SJWs, it’s Fake News and Fake History all the way down. You can NEVER trust anything they say. Because – all together now – SJWS ALWAYS LIE.

Breitbart is on it.

Yeah, this diversity debacle doesn’t promise to die down anytime soon:

Numerous individuals alleged to be members of Google’s management team have been caught bragging about forming blacklists to impact the careers of colleagues with different political beliefs.
In a series of screenshots from 2015 onwards provided to Breitbart News by a verified Google employee, individuals described as left-wing Google management employees can be seen discussing the ways they punish their colleagues both inside and out of the company.
“While Google appears to be doing very little to quell the hostile voices that exists inside the company, I want those hostile voices to know: I will never, ever hire hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit of technically excellent or whatever,” declared former employee Adam Fletcher in a post on Google’s internal, staff-only Google+ network: “Internal Plus.” “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.”
“You’re being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google,” he continued. “You might not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social consequences.”

Nothing new to readers here, but Breitbart has considerably more reach than I do. However, Allum Bokhari’s interview with a rebel Googler, “Hal”, is illuminating:

Hal: Witch hunts are a well-known cultural problem at Google. The company is currently facing a Federal complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board in April for interfering with employees’ legal right to discuss “workplace diversity and social justice initiatives.” The complaint alleges that Senior Vice President Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-level employees who raised concerns about the company’s practices. The trial is set for November.
Several managers have openly admitted to keeping blacklists of the employees in question, and preventing them from seeking work at other companies. There have been numerous cases in which social justice activists coordinated attempts to sabotage other employees’ performance reviews for expressing a different opinion. These have been raised to the Senior VP level, with no action taken whatsoever.
Allum Bokhari: What’s it like to work in such an environment? Do you think it damages employee output?
Hal: A lot of social justice activists essentially spend all day fighting the culture war, and get nothing done. The company has made it a point to hire more people like this. The diversity gospel has been woven into nearly everything the company does, to the point where senior leaders focus on diversity first and technology second. The companywide “Google Insider” emails used to talk about cool new tech, but now they’re entirely about social justice initiatives. Likewise, the weekly all-hands “TGIF” meetings used to focus on tech, but now they’re split about 50/50 between tech and identity politics signaling.
For conservative employees, this is obviously demoralizing, but it is also dangerous. Several have been driven out of the company or fired outright for sharing a dissenting view. Others have had their promotions denied or suffered other forms of deniable retaliation. Most of us just keep our heads down because we can’t afford to lose our jobs.

Google takes a stand

It’s a bold move by Sundararajan. We’ll see how it works out for him. It was inevitable, because SJWs always double down, but the irony of Pichai Sundararajan, a high-caste Tamil Brahmin, firing an employee for expressing his belief in biological inequality, is practically off the charts.

Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo that ascribed gender inequality in the technology industry to biological differences. James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, confirmed his dismissal saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes,” in an email to Reuters on Monday. Damore said he is exploring all possible legal remedies.

As I observed after reading the Google CEO’s memo, Damore was doomed because Sundararajan had to mollify his insane SJW employee base, which right now is dancing and celebrating its own inevitable demise. Damore will be fine; he’s better off out of the SJW-converged madhouse and has already been offered jobs by Gab’s Andrew Torba and WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange. But Google will not be, because this is a clear signal to the key engineers in Search and AdWords that it is Time To Go.
DH, who is one of the Dread Ilk’s expert data guy’s, explains.

All of Google is kept afloat by one thing only. Adwords. They have no other significant source of income after a decade or more of trying to diversify. Every other business is borderline trivial when compared to AdWords. All the moonshots have failed. All the R&D has failed. It’s. All. AdWords.
The money-making core of Google is a tiny speck of its workforce, a tiny core of people who make AdWords work. The fear is not that 2/3 are SJWs, it’s that one or two or three of the key engineers, who are working on the next version of Search and Adwords, who are actively fighting and hardening against existential threats to the product, might walk, or even just do a slightly less great job.
Google is actually a very fragile company. They are ripe for disruption from a new player, or alternatively, to be drained from a few deep pocketed rivals. The entire bubble of online advertising stems from a belief that is often irrational that online advertising is effective at certain definitions of cost effectiveness.

In other words, as the AdWords model fails, which is already happening, Google’s massive market cap is going to rapidly decline with it because all of its other businesses have failed to find traction. The company has observably entered the ideological death spiral that is the inevitable result of the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence.