Tag: corpocracy

SJW entry point: HR

Dr. Helen reviews a new book about Human Resources and how SJWS use it to converge corporations:

Silicon Valley and the tech industries are the next targets. If you’re a manager at a tech company, we’ll suggest some ways to protect your people from HR and its emphasis on credentials and affirmative action (AA) over the best fit for a position. Corporate leaders need to be sure their HR departments are managed to prevent infiltration by staff more interested in correct politics than winning products. And we’ll show why appeasement of diversity activists is a dangerous strategy that may make your organization a target for further extortionate demands.

The next battlefield after high tech is discretion in hiring–which the activists believe must be limited to force employers to hire any candidate “qualified” for a job as soon as they apply. Only a few radicals are proposing this kind of blind hiring now, but continuing successes in getting firms to bow to their diversity demands will result in a list of new demands. We have already seen Seattle pass an ordinance requiring landlords to rent apartments to the first applicant who qualifies. And similar movements in hiring–supposedly to prevent discrimination by eliminating management choice of who to employ–are coming soon.

Of course, no one who has read SJWs Always Lie will be even remotely surprised by any of this. The good news is that all of this corporate convergence is creating a whole range of new opportunities as the converged corporations begin to pursue social justice objectives rather than serving their customers. It’s not a question of whether SJWs can ruin a company they converge.

Once they’ve entered, it’s only a question of when. And as long as we’re on the subject of SJWs, this probably as good a time as any to mention the latest from Dark Lord Designs.

How rule by banker manifests itself

Bankers selected Obama’s entire cabinet one month before the 2008 election:

The most important revelation in the WikiLeaks dump of John Podesta’s emails has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. The messages go all the way back to 2008, when Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. And a month before the election, the key staffing for that future administration was almost entirely in place, revealing that some of the most crucial decisions an administration can make occur well before a vote has been cast.

Michael Froman, who is now U.S. trade representative but at the time was an executive at Citigroup, wrote an email to Podesta on October 6, 2008, with the subject “Lists.” Froman used a Citigroup email address. He attached three documents: a list of women for top administration jobs, a list of non-white candidates, and a sample outline of 31 cabinet-level positions and who would fill them. “The lists will continue to grow,” Froman wrote to Podesta, “but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.”

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.

This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted.

No wonder Mark Carney thinks he can tell Theresa May what to do, and not do. Given the current political structure, he probably can.

The cuffs are off

Donald Trump has cut himself loose from the Republican establishment and opened fire on Hillary as well as the globalist establishment she serves:

‘Wikileaks has given us a window into the secret corridors of government power,’ he said, ‘where we see a former secretary of state announcing her desire to end forever the American independence that our founders gave to us and wanted us to have. American soldiers have fought and died to win and keep America’s freedom, and now Hillary Clinton wants to surrender that freedom to these open borders, open trade, and a world government.’

‘These Wikileaks emails confirm what those of us here today have known all along: Hillary Clinton is the vessel of a corrupt globalist establishment that’s raiding our country and surrendering the sovereignty of our nation,’ he said. ‘This criminal government cartel doesn’t recognize borders but believes in global governance, unlimited immigration and rule by corporations.’

That is the public statement of a truly courageous leader of a nation. If Americans genuinely prefer to vote for a servant of the corrupt global establishment, they will fully merit their subsequent servitude and the loss of the remnants of their nation.

Social media spies

Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are spying on you for the Federal government:

The ACLU of California has obtained records showing that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram provided user data access to Geofeedia, a developer of a social media monitoring product that we have seen marketed to law enforcement as a tool to monitor activists and protesters.

We are pleased that after we reported our findings to the companies, Instagram cut off Geofeedia’s access to public user posts, and Facebook has cut its access to a topic-based feed of public user posts. Twitter has also taken some recent steps to rein in Geofeedia though it has not ended the data relationship.

Further steps are required if these companies are to live up to their principles and policies by protecting users of all backgrounds engaging in political and social discourse. So today the ACLU of California, the Center for Media Justice, and Color of Change are calling on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to commit to concrete changes to better protect users going forward. Read our letters here and here.

We first learned about these agreements with Geofeedia from responses to public records requests to 63 California law enforcement agencies. These records revealed the fast expansion of social media surveillance with little-to-no debate or oversight.

But as we continued to comb through thousands of pages of documents, we saw emails from Geofeedia representatives telling law enforcement about its special access to Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram user data.

Seriously, even SJWs are going to be clamoring to switch to Alt-Tech social media sites soon. And frankly, even SJWs will be treated more fairly on Infogalactic than most of them are on Wikipedia.

The Restoration of Ricky Vaughn

It will not be happening. Twitter has formally buried his account.

It’s strange, but no one who has participated in targeting me for abuse has ever had their account suspended, let alone deleted. This is why, if you’re on Twitter, it’s time to move over to Gab. Your days are numbered there anyhow. Consider the casualties:

  • Milo
  • Scott Adams
  • Instapundit
  • Vox Day
  • Ricky Vaughn

I guarantee you that every single one of those individuals were more sinned against than sinning. But that is the SJW tactic, to repeatedly hit you, then declare that you are not allowed to hit back. That’s not right.

Hit back. Join #TheDisconvergence. Sign up for Gab. Start using Infogalactic. Start using Brave. We’re going to foxnews these fuckers to oblivion, and you’re going to help us do it. There are tens of thousands of you who have read SJWs Always Lie, so you know what the stakes are. When I wrote about “taking down the Thought Police”, this is exactly what I anticipated.

If you’ve ever rolled your eyes about a biased entry on Wikipedia or censored yourself on Twitter or Facebook because you knew if you exposed what you really think you’d find yourself the subject of an SJW campaign, you’re one of us already. It’s time for all of us to take the offense for a change and let the thought police worry about us.

UPDATE: a skeptic is impressed by the team’s work so far, but is characteristically skeptical about our ability to keep it up. I think we’ll surprise him in the future, as we can certainly work more efficiently and effectively than we have to date.

As an observer of a number of tech startups, I’m impressed with how much he’s done to date with quite modest funding. My crude estimate is that he’s been operating at roughly ten times the normal projected effectiveness in coding and deployment…. I’ve looked closely at three proposals (and seen countless more) to replicate Wikipedia in some fashion that theoretically creates revenue. This is the best thought out, and the best executed to date. He’s spent about a tenth what the next best plan cost, and achieved results about 4 months faster. Technically I should rate that as better than ten times. I’m not sure how you wish me to spin that. Would you like me to lie and say he’s horrible in my judgement?

INFOGALACTIC NOTE: If you’ve requested an account already, please be patient. We want to get you approved and editing, but we’ve had to hold them up while we fix an astonishingly stupid “feature” that would automatically expose your real names. I know that people are skeptical that we can do what we’re planning to do; but trust me, you have no idea how inexplicably insane the tools we’re presently utilizing are. If they worked the way any competent team would have designed them, we’d be halfway into Phase Three already. To date we’ve spent far more time fixing the dysfunctional tools that are available than we have doing anything new, which is why we plan to entirely replace them with tools of our own design.

Seriously, I’ve never seen inside a project where so many obviously terrible decisions were made and baked into the cake. And I was brought in to help fix Age of Conan.

Clearing up the Gab drama

@a of Gab explains what was happening yesterday with regards to Gab:

I want to clear up the confusion about some baseless claims that have been made against myself, the company, @e, and our entire #GabFam earlier today. A few weeks ago we started vetting some potential early investors and senior-level technical employees to help us continue to grow Gab and promote free speech.

We exercised extreme vetting and slowly attempted to build trust, judge character, and team fit. Unfortunately our trust was broken after a toxic attack on our community and libelous falsehoods were sent to the press by certain people we were vetting.

I want to make a few things very clear:

  • The co-founders of Gab are myself and @e. Period.
  • @e and I have completely self-funded Gab by ourselves with no pay for months. 
  • We have not accepted one outside investor. 
  • Our donations Paypal account is a business account and attached to a business bank account. The email address used for the Paypal account is my business email address. I will be updating this to “donate@gab.ai” to clear up confusion. We will be adding much more transparency and value-adds for donors over the next several days. 

We have been attacked by the press. We have been attacked by anonymous trolls. We have been attacked by folks that we trusted and had high hopes for. Each time we have emerged a stronger, more unified community. Thank your for continuing to support us and our mission of putting people first and promoting free speech for all.

I can vouch for @a’s version of events. At the exact same time “certain people” were falsely claiming to have been co-founders of Gab on Gab, there was a concerted script attack on the login page, connected to the page about Gab, which I believe to have been an attempt to edit the page and repeat the same baseless claims there.

SJWs are not the only entryists. Startups, in particular, are often targeted by predatory investors and pseudo-entrepreneurs. And sometimes they are successful. See the history of Facebook for the most notorious example.

Converged beyond belief

A few weeks ago, it became apparent that AirBnB was fully SJW-converged, as they announced plans to try to keep homeowners from being able to discriminate with regards to who was permitted to stay in their homes. But they’re even worse than one might imagine:


Airbnb ‏@Airbnb
We believe in a world where you can #BelongAnywhere. Today there are millions of displaced refugees in need of belonging somewhere.


Airbnb ‏@Airbnb 13 hours ago
We stand #WithRefugees — the millions who have had to leave everything behind, including their homes.

What a creepy pro-invasion image. HERE COME THE DEVIL ZOMBIE PEOPLE! And they’re going to STAY IN YOUR HOUSE! I’ve never used their service before, but taking this stance guarantees that I never will. If you Belong Anywhere, you belong nowhere, to no one.

Convergence at AirBnB

What a pity the stock is not public, because it’s time to short AirBNB. They are no longer in the business of providing connecting people who need places to stay with people who have places to rent, they are now converged and in the business of social justice:

Airbnb has been under fire lately for instances of racism and discrimination exhibited by some hosts on the home-sharing platform. In order to combat that, Airbnb is making several positive changes to the platform and its company policies, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky sent in an email to hosts and guests this morning.

This includes guaranteeing short-term bookings for people who have been discriminated against, deemphasizing the use of user photos, blocking out availability if a host claims a space is taken when it really isn’t and working to increase the number of Instant Book listings, which don’t require hosts to approve specific guests, to one million by the beginning of 2017.

“Discrimination is the opposite of belonging, and its existence on our platform jeopardizes this core mission,” Chesky wrote. “Bias and discrimination have no place on Airbnb, and we have zero tolerance for them. Unfortunately, we have been slow to address these problems, and for this I am sorry. I take responsibility for any pain or frustration this has caused members of our community. We will not only make this right; we will work to set an example that other companies can follow.”

Airbnb’s issues with racism date back to at least late last year, when a Harvard study showed that renters with black-sounding names were less likely to receive a booking through the site. Then, in June, an Airbnb host in North Carolina canceled a booking on a black person and sent her a slew of racist insults. Shortly after that incident, Chesky said that racism is not allowed on the platform and Airbnb permanently banned the host.

Later that month, the Congressional Black Caucus urged Airbnb to take further action in addressing the issues of racism and discrimination on the company’s platform, citing how Title II of 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in places like hotels and motels on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

Today, Laura Murphy, former head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington D.C. office, laid out Airbnb’s game plan for tackling instances of racism and discrimination on the platform. Airbnb has been working with Murphy since June to ensure that the company is doing everything it can to fight racism.

“Even as the institutions have been invaded and coopted in the interests of social justice, they have been rendered unable to fulfill their primary functions. This is the great internal contradiction that the SJWs will never be able to positively resolve, just as the Soviet communists were never able to resolve the contradiction of socialist calculation that brought down their economy and their empire 69 years after Ludwig von Mises first pointed it out. One might call it the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence; no man can serve two masters, and no institution can effectively serve two different functions. The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function.”
– from SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

How PACs murdered the Tea Party

Keep the demise of the Tea Party in mind as the Alt-Right grows in popularity. Many, if not most, of these PACs are little more than scams with a political brand.

The Tea Party movement is pretty much dead now, but it didn’t die a natural death. It was murdered—and it was an inside job. In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme that transferred tens of millions of dollars from rural, poorer Southerners and Midwesterners to bicoastal political operatives.

What began as an organic, policy-driven grass-roots movement was drained of its vitality and resources by national political action committees that dunned the movement’s true believers endlessly for money to support its candidates and causes. The PACs used that money first to enrich themselves and their vendors and then deployed most of the rest to search for more “prospects.” In Tea Party world, that meant mostly older, technologically unsavvy people willing to divulge personal information through “petitions”—which only made them prey to further attempts to lighten their wallets for what they believed was a good cause. While the solicitations continue, the audience has greatly diminished because of a lack of policy results and changing political winds.

I was an employee at one of the firms that ran these operations. But nothing that follows is proprietary or gleaned directly from my employment. The evidence of the scheming is all there in the public record, available for anyone willing to look…. According to Federal Election Commission reports between 80 to 90 percent, and sometimes all the money these PACs get is swallowed in fees and poured into more prospecting. For example, conservative activist Larry Ward created Constitutional Rights PAC. He also runs Political Media, a communications firm. The New York Times reviewed Constitutional Rights’ filings and found: “Mr. Ward’s PAC spends every dollar it gets on consultants, mailings and fund-raising—making no donations to candidates.” Ward justified the arrangement by saying Political Media discounts solicitations on behalf of Constitutional Rights.

Let that sink in. Ward takes his PAC’s money and redistributes it to his company and other vendors for more messaging and solicitations, but suggests critics should rest easy since the PAC gets a discount on Political Media’s normal rate. Constitutional Rights PAC may be extreme but it’s hardly an outlier.

POLITICO last year reviewed the activity of 33 conservative PACs for the 2014 cycle. Combined, they raked in $43 million dollars, according to the POLITICO report. Of that, $39.5 million went to overhead including $6 million to entities owned by PAC operators; candidates got $3 million. Another report analyzed 17 conservative PACs from the 2014 midterm. It came up with different numbers than POLITICO, finding that the bottom 10 PACs in terms of the ratio of spending to actual candidate support received $54,318,498 and spent only $3,621,896 supporting candidates.

Don’t even think about supporting any big-money Alt-Right PACs that come into being in the next 2-5 years. If the real Alt-Right figures want your support, we’ll not only request it directly, but we’ll do so for specific purposes and projects whose progress you can track for yourself. We don’t play the “overhead” game.

Debunking Snopes

A number of people have referred to the Snopes “debunking” of the Hiroshima-Detroit comparison, failing to realize that a) it doesn’t address blacks at all, and, b) I wrote my post in the first place because the supposed debunking was so feeble.

Here is an accurate summary of the Snopes argument.

1. The picture is not of modern-day Hiroshima.


the next image in the set supposedly depicts modern-day Hiroshima — except that it doesn’t. It’s actually a snapshot taken from the Landmark Tower Sky Garden in Yokohama, Japan

That’s true of the pictures to which Snopes was referring. It’s not true of the pictures I used, which one can see is clearly of past and present Hiroshima. Furthermore, Hiroshima is in very good shape today, as Snopes itself admits. One down.


2. The picture of modern Detroit is only of one building.

the thing to note about the use of this image to portray Detroit as a locus of Hiroshima-like devastation is that all we actually see is one long-abandoned, crumbling building. It doesn’t make the case.

That one picture doesn’t conclusively prove the case, but it correctly demonstrates the actual case intended. Detroit’s population is now 36.7 percent of its 1950s peak and is now 83 percent black. 95 percent of the whites who resided there in 1950 have left. The city filed for bankruptcy in 2013. “aerial photos reveal the tiny urban island that is left – a clutter of high-rises surrounded by empty housing plots now covered in grass.” Two down.

3. The picture of Navin Field is from the 1930s, not the 1940s.

Lastly, we’re shown a photo supposedly depicting Detroit in its mid-1940s heyday — except that it was taken in the mid-1930s

So what? That only makes it that much more clear how advanced Detroit was, and how far Detroit has fallen since. This is petty pedantry, as the relevant point is still demonstrated. Three down.

4. It was the Democrats fault, but it wasn’t only their fault.

Did Democrats and Democratic policies play some role in the fall of Detroit? Surely they did. Every Detroit mayor since 1962 has been a Democrat, after all. But Republicans held the seat for the 12 years prior to that, from 1950 through 1961. The Packard plant whose hollowed-out remains were displayed above closed its doors during that time. Whatever blame is to be allotted to politicians must be shared by both Democrats and Republicans on the national level, as well.


Here is a tip: when you admit that the case being made is correct, even in part, it is not a debunking. Four down. There is not one single effective point that was made in this so-called “debunking”.

The ironic thing about those responding to my modified Detroit-Hiroshima comparison with “Snopes says” is that I rebutted the cuckservative “Democrat policies” explanation for the difference between the two cities more effectively than Snopes did by pointing out that if Democrats are responsible for the decline of Detroit, Hiroshima should be even worse, because it was ruled by Socialists for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

Are there other factors that have contributed to the decline of Detroit beyond the fact that 478,112 blacks moved into the city between 1900 and 1960? Certainly. But that doesn’t change the fact that if a city has a choice between being hit by an atomic bomb or acquiring 774,485 new black residents, the available evidence strongly indicates that the former will prove vastly preferable to the latter in the long term.