Canceling biology

Richard Dawkins certainly never saw this coming. I warned him, and everyone, that post-Christianity is not compatible with science, indeed, that Christianity was not only necessary for scientody, but is arguably necessary for a functional scientistry as well. Now we’re learning that even the history of science is being canceled:

A university has been slammed by academics for putting Charles Darwin on a list of ‘racist’ scientists as part of a guide to ‘decolonise’ its biology curriculum. 

Sheffield University has created a handbook for students and lecturers in its science department to help ‘tackle racial injustice’ by ‘reflecting on the whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science’.

As part of the guide, the department created a list of 11 ‘problematic’ scientific figures – including Darwin – whose views ‘influenced the type of research they carried out and how they interpreted their data’. 

An explanation next to the 19th century naturalist’s name says that Darwin ‘believed that his theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others’.

With the exception of James Watson, the list of problematic scientific figures reads like a who’s who of atheist heroes. Atheists have falsely claimed that science and Christianity are incompatible for decades, but what they’ve learned in just three short years is that it is science and social justice which are totally incapable of coexisting.

Ronald Fisher

Known for: Pioneered the application of statistical procedures to the design of scientific experiments. He was a Professor in the Eugenics department at University College London.

Sheffield’s view: He believed that races differed ‘in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development’.

One of his works, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, ‘endorses colonialism, white supremacy, and eugenics and discusses his belief in the higher and lower genetic value of people according to their race’.

Carl Linnaeus

Known for: Formalising the modern system of naming organisms

Sheffield’s view: He applied his system of classification to position human races, with white Europeans at the top, and black, indigenous, and other people of colour groups gradually descending his hierarchy.

James Watson 

Known for: Proposing the double helix structure of the DNA molecule with Francis Crick

Sheffield’s view: The 93-year-old has previously made outwardly racist public comments about the innate inequality of people from different races, particularly with regards to intelligence.

Thomas Henry Huxley 

Known for: Supporting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and proposing connections between development of organisms and their evolutionary histories.

Sheffield’s view: Huxley’s belief that ‘no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes, that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man’ was used as justification for segregation. 

Francis Galton

Known for: Coining the term ‘eugenics’, he was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences.

Sheffield’s view: He was obsessed with a eugenic ‘utopia’ in which the genetic elite were encouraged to breed, segregated from the sterilised underclass. It has been said that his work ‘invented racism’.

Karl Pearson

Known for: Pioneering work in mathematical statistics and creating a methodology to identify correlations.

Sheffield’s view: He believed strongly in racial segregation and that races other than his own were inferior. 

Alfred Russell Wallace

Known for: Co-developing the theory of natural selection and evolution with Charles Darwin, something Darwin is most often credited for.

Sheffield’s view: He carried out all of his field observations in a colonial environment. In a similar concept to the ‘Wallace line’ separating biological realms, he drew a boundary line between what he classified as different ethnic groups in the colonial Dutch East Indies.

Henry Walter Bates

Known for: Expeditions of the Amazon rainforests where his studies led him to propose the idea of mimicry in unrelated animal species. 

Sheffield’s view: Like Darwin and other explorers, he travelled and collected specimens from colonial South America and was a proponent of colonialism in the Amazon.

Julian Huxley

Known for: Supporting the theory of natural selection, he also worked for the Zoological Society of London and was the first director of UNESCO. His brother was the writer Aldous Huxley.

Sheffield’s view: He was a prominent figure in British Eugenics Society and believed that the lower classes were genetically inferior and should be prevented from reproducing and even sterilised.

JBS Haldane

Known for: Introducing the ‘primordial soup theory’, which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life.

Sheffield’s view: He published a book in 1924 describing the use of in vitro fertilisation for eugenics purposes. 

How dare you talk back to Starbucks!

Starbucks is threatening to flounce away from Facebook because communication runs both ways:

‘Starbucks is in the process of evaluating their organic presence on FB, and whether they should continue to have a presence on the platform at all,’ a Facebook employee wrote to their colleagues earlier this week. ‘Anytime they post (organically) in regards to social issues or their mission & values work (e.g. BLM, LGBTQ, sustainability/climate change, etc.) they are overwhelmed by negative/insensitive, hate speech related comments on their posts.’ 

The Facebook employee said that Starbucks was having problems moderating the avalanche of hate speech, and was unable to disable comments on their page. 

It’s great that people refuse to let a wicked coffee company lecture them about how good is evil and evil is good. But it would be even better if people would stop buying coffee from them.

The essence of SJW

Titania McGrath distills it down to a 180-proof level as she takes on the evils of institutional racism in Britain:

The government’s new “Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities” has issued a report intended to gaslight us into believing that we are not living in a fascist state. My lived experience tells me otherwise, and that is surely far more reliable than “facts” or “evidence”.

As critics have noted, the report makes the astonishing claim that racism no longer exists in the UK. I mean, it doesn’t technically say that (it actually says that “racism still exists in the UK” and “has no place in any civilised society”) but we all know what the report’s writers were secretly thinking.

Anyway, the substance of the report is beside the point. Unless it confirms everything that I have already decided is true, it has absolutely no value whatsoever and all copies should be destroyed.

So brave. So stunning. So necessary

SJW Wars

The Dark Herald answers the question that literally no one in the sane universe is asking at Arkhaven: Who Will Be the First Openly Gay Star Wars Character?

A stupid question to be certain but one that SJWs are demanding an answer to. And Disney will absolutely provide that answer.  There is zero doubt in my mind that past a certain point, one of the senior executives at Fort Mickey will start demanding it.

During the run-up to the Rise of Skywalker, there was a big Stan campaign, #SWRepMatters on Twitter to try and get Finn and Poe out of the closet and into each other’s arms.  Sadly, for the deranged malignantly repulsive fifteen-year-old girls on Twitter, Rose had stolen a kiss from Finn, and since she is underrepresented, this forever cucked poor Poe.  

I don’t make up these rules, I just shake my head in horror at them….

Who will it be?

Think about it. The SJWs at the LucasFilm Story Group may indeed be on borrowed time.  If their Slay Queen Kathleen has fallen then they are on their way out.  Leftie or not, no one in Hollywood with half a brain will keep that clown circus on the payroll.  Consequently, they will try to do as much damage to the brand and set it in stone before they are shown the door.

What character would most damage Star Wars by making him Gay? It’s obvious when you think about it.

He’s almost certainly right. And if he’s correct, this would accomplish the ultimate goal of the Devil Mouse, which is to absolutely corrupt all things utterly.

Past as prelude

Americans and Brits living in their respective surveillance societies would do well to learn from the East Germans, whose Stasi were a precursor to today’s social media thought police:

1) They Were Gaslighting before It Was a Thing

The Stasi were prolific gaslighters. In the 1950s, repression was brutal, physical torture. Early in the 1970s, eager to be accepted on the international stage, the East German Secret Police had to get more subtle. The aim of Zersetzung (a repurposed military term meaning disintegration or corrosion) was to “switch off” any activist individuals and groups who might threaten the Party. Police collected medical, school, and police records, interviews with neighbors and relatives, and any other evidence they could get and would then customize a direct hit on an individual’s mental health.

If someone looked like he might challenge the Communist Party’s legitimacy or control, the Stasi systematically destroyed his life. They used blackmail, social shame, threats, and torture. Careers, reputations, relationships, and lives were exploded to destabilize and delegitimize a critic. Some forms of harassment were almost comical: agents spread rumors about their targets, flooded their mailboxes with pornography, moved things around in their apartments, or deflated their bicycle tires day after day. Others were life-altering: Individuals labeled as subversives were banned from higher education, forced into unemployment, and forcibly committed to asylums. Many suffered long-term psychological trauma, loss of earnings, and intense social shame as a result of Stasi lies.

2) They Were (Almost) Everywhere

The Stasi had 91,000 employees at its peak—roughly one in every 30 residents was a Stasi agent. More than one in three East Germans (5.6 million) was under suspicion or surveillance, with an open Stasi file. Another half million were feeding the Stasi information. This level of surveillance and infiltration caused East Germans to live in terror—you really never knew if you could trust anyone—though most had no idea of the scope of these activities until after the Berlin Wall fell.

3) They Kept a Crazy Amount of (Meticulous) Records

Stasi files laid out together would cover about 69 sq. miles. Recording detailed personal information on a third of the populace required a tremendous amount of paper. More pages of printed text were generated by the Stasi than by all German authors from the Middle Ages to WWII. Thousands of citizens were targeted as anti-government “trouble makers,” their homes were searched, phones and cars—if they were lucky enough to have either—were bugged, their letters opened and copied, and their movements secretly filmed or photographed. Every document went into a personal Stasi file. So far, hundreds of millions of files, 39 million index cards, 1.75 million photographs, 2,800 reels of film and 28,400 audio recordings have been recovered from Stasi archives. Millions more were shredded before they could be made public.

The deplatformings and ritual denouncings of today are the modern equivalent of the Zersetzung. Remember, everything you do is now recorded and will be used against you, so don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Basecamp doesn’t quite get it

One of the Basecamp founders explains why they bought out their SJW employees:

This was the second such discussion in a few months that had to be closed out following an acrimonious devolution that pitted employees against each other, and stressed these complicated power dynamics between managers and reports, all on a company-wide stage that invariably pulled everyone into the spectacle.

Together with other acrimonious debates and inappropriate discussions with roots in societal politics on our internal communication systems, this formed the context that led to the recently announced changes. After going through repeated, worsening incidents like this, we took a hard look at why we kept doing this, and kept getting the same unproductive, unhealthy results.

I’ve read some opinions on all of this that charge that facilitating these kinds of discussions, however acrimonious or uncomfortable or unresolved, is actually good, because a lot of life right now is acrimonious, uncomfortable, and unresolved, so work should reflect that. I can’t get behind those arguments. As I wrote in the segment posted from our internal announcement of the changes, all of that, inasmuch as it does not directly relate to the business, is already so much of everyone’s lives all the time on Twitter, Facebook, or wherever. Demanding that it also has to play out in our shared workspaces isn’t going to lead anywhere good, in my opinion.

But more so than just whether I think that’s productive or healthy, a significant contingency of Basecamp employees had been raising private flags about this as well. Finding the discussions to be exactly acrimonious, uncomfortable, unresolved. Yet feeling unable to speak up out of fear that they’d have an accusatory label affixed to their person for refusing to accept the predominant framing of the issues presented by other more vocal employees.

Which gets to the root of the dilemma. If you do indeed strive to have a diverse workforce both ideologically and identity wise, you’re not going to find unison on all these difficult, contentious issues. If you did, you’d both be revealing an intellectual monoculture and we wouldn’t be having these acrimonious debates.

So if that is something you want, I continue to believe that a diverse workforce _should_ be something that you want, you have to consider what guardrails to put on the internal discourse. My belief is that the key to working with other people of different ideological persuasions is to find common cause in the work, in the relations with customers, in the good we can do in the industry. Not to repeatedly seek out all the hard edges where we differ. Those explorations are better left to the smaller groups, to discussions outside of the company-wide stage, and between willing participants.

It’s a good start. But it’s not sufficient. The problem is that a diverse workforce is at the very least inefficient and less productive, no matter what sort of lipstick you attempt to put on the pig. And it will eventually become a disaster if you aren’t prepared to actively screen out the infestants determined to converge your company. 

Of course, it’s much better to maintain professional standards that attempt to keep SJW employees in line, but sooner or later, it will become clear that doing so simply isn’t possible. Especially if you haven’t gotten rid of your HR department.

Mailvox: that’s not a victory

That’s a fatality! A reader of Corporate Cancer writes to tell of her experience fighting back against, and roundly defeating, a pair of infesting SJWs.

Just a note to thank you both for your book Corporate Cancer and for the constant refrain on your blog to never apologize and to embrace the conflict. With the help of your writing, I’ve had a complete victory over an SJW-infiltration campaign, albeit at a small and very local level.

I’m a board member of an organization that provides a direct, well regarded program to help families in our rural community gain a financial toehold. In the time that I was away from the board on maternity-leave, a Boomer-SJW and a GenX-SJW, so stereotypical they could be caricatures of themselves, took over the board and made great efforts to redirect the program so that it would primarily benefit single white women like themselves, instead of our target group of young families. We were on the verge of having our bank pull out and the entire program dying as a result. A banker friend on the board had been complaining to me about it all year, but didn’t have the tools to lead a counteroffensive.

In my first meeting back on the board, Boomer-SJW and GenX-SJW pressured the board into passing a vote that was a blatantly illegal act of self-dealing, in favor of their SJW-oriented vision. It also became clear that GenX-SJW had A LOT of time on her hands and was making up problems for herself to spend months solving. 

Corporate Cancer and a search of your blog for relevant posts, gave me the framework to explain to Banker what was happening. I was able to pull out a copy of Rules for Radicals and show Banker that GenX-SJW was applying about five of the rules to purposefully derail our organization in favor of her vision, that she likely had training in how to do this, and was doing it on purpose. Banker was astounded. We were able to build an anti-SJW coalition that included our executive director, treasurer, and vice president.

Following the advice in Corporate Cancer to kill them with the rules, I sent out a lengthy email holding up the illegal vote against our bylaws and state laws, and asking the board to rescind the vote and conduct it legally. 

I promptly received an email, copied to the whole board, from Boomer-SJW about how she was too upset to even consider my arguments because my email was so mean that she had been crying since receiving it. I “replied all” to the entire board with a one liner saying “Regardless of your feelings on the matter, the action is still illegal and needs to be rescinded.” 

She followed up, to me alone, with a long wall-of-text email about her feelings and how she had been crying for three days and how mean I was by “sea-gulling” her (apparently this means, swooping in and “crapping” on someone’s head). She insisted that I owed the whole board a public apology for being mean.

At this point you happened to have a week of posts about not surrendering, never apologizing, and embracing conflict that could not have been better timed for encouraging me to stay the course. After consulting with the ED and Banker, and laying out a six-month plan with the Banker to “trigger” the SJWs into quitting, I re-read many of your posts on these topics, and found the courage to pen a response including lines such as “If you think that a homeschooling mother three taking six hours of her Sunday to provide you with over $1500 of free legal advice is “crapping” on you – I can’t help you with that,” “I will not apologize. I have done nothing wrong and am not in the business of issuing insincere apologies,” and “I’m also a sensitive person – in this case sensitive to our board deciding to take illegal action that harms our beneficiaries.” 

She stopped telling me about how much she was crying.

From there, I launched a campaign to take away GenX-SJW’s biggest pet projects by outsourcing them to a specialist attorney, effectively sidelining her. Throughout, I maintained a calm, professional demeanor, and expressed my bafflement that Boomer-SJW and GenX-SJW were so emotional about it all. I reassured the board president and the executive director that I wasn’t upset, wasn’t taking it personally, and was not at all considering quitting. 

And the drama seriously escalated, with GenX-SWJ losing her mind in Zoom meeting – head in hands, pulling at her hair, accusing everyone on the board personally of corruption for not giving her what she wanted, and declaring our employees to be derelict in their duty because in their shoes she would do more [magically impossible things, like having our bank recruit other banks to fund us] “BECAUSE I’M AN ACTIVIST!” In private conversations afterwards, the employees and other board members were actually using the words “mentally unwell,” “unstable,” and “needs help.”  She followed up with an email making mountains out of mole hills, and appointing all of the work of fixing it to herself, or else she would quit. I’m not privy to what actions the board president took, but the next communication was her resignation letter.

Left on her lonesome, Boomer-SJW and her feelings didn’t know what to do with themselves, and she resigned just a month later. All-in-all our six month counteroffensive only took four months to come to completion, and really only three actions: holding them to the rules, not apologizing, and focusing on deliverables and deadlines to be performed by the most competent person available. 

To the best of my knowledge, GenX SJW is devoting her newfound freetime to “Conversations about Decolonization” and Boomer-SJW is “Working on Climate Change.”

Our meetings are back on track, our program is focusing on our intended beneficiaries, we have a competent lawyer helping us, and we’re getting ready for our phase-two roll out. We’ve cut both the meeting times and the number of committee meetings in half and are getting twice as much work done. 

All of which is to say thank you – for providing the framework, vocabulary, and encouragement that helped me excise the cancer from our organization. In terms of real-world impact, your writings and blog posts on this topic have helped keep [families] on the path to homeownership, when the project would otherwise be dead.

Excising social justice at Basecamp

 A few smart corporations are finally beginning to grasp that convergence is corporate cancer that will destroy their businesses and are actively attempting to surgically remove the SJWs that infest them. Basecamp has taken a strong anti-social justice stance that might just turn things around there:

1. No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account. Today’s social and political waters are especially choppy. Sensitivities are at 11, and every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant. You shouldn’t have to wonder if staying out of it means you’re complicit, or wading into it means you’re a target. These are difficult enough waters to navigate in life, but significantly more so at work. It’s become too much. It’s a major distraction. It saps our energy, and redirects our dialog towards dark places. It’s not healthy, it hasn’t served us well. And we’re done with it on our company Basecamp account where the work happens. People can take the conversations with willing co-workers to Signal, Whatsapp, or even a personal Basecamp account, but it can’t happen where the work happens anymore. Update: David has shared some more details and more of the internal announcement on his HEY World blog.

2. No more paternalistic benefits. For years we’ve offered a fitness benefit, a wellness allowance, a farmer’s market share, and continuing education allowances. They felt good at the time, but we’ve had a change of heart. It’s none of our business what you do outside of work, and it’s not Basecamp’s place to encourage certain behaviors — regardless of good intention. By providing funds for certain things, we’re getting too deep into nudging people’s personal, individual choices. So we’ve ended these benefits, and, as compensation, paid every employee the full cash value of the benefits for this year. In addition, we recently introduced a 10{3549d4179a0cbfd35266a886b325f66920645bb4445f165578a9e086cbc22d08} profit sharing plan to provide direct compensation that people can spend on whatever they’d like, privately, without company involvement or judgement.

3. No more committees. For nearly all of our 21 year existence, we were proudly committee-free. No big working groups making big decisions, or putting forward formalized, groupthink recommendations. No bureaucracy. But recently, a few sprung up. No longer. We’re turning things back over to the person (or people) who were distinctly hired to make those decisions. The responsibility for DEI work returns to Andrea, our head of People Ops. The responsibility for negotiating use restrictions and moral quandaries returns to me and David. A long-standing group of managers called “Small Council” will disband — when we need advice or counsel we’ll ask individuals with direct relevant experience rather than a pre-defined group at large. Back to basics, back to individual responsibility, back to work.

4. No more lingering or dwelling on past decisions. We’ve become a bit too precious with decision making over the last few years. Either by wallowing in indecisiveness, worrying ourselves into overthinking things, taking on a defensive posture and assuming the worst outcome is the likely outcome, putting too much energy into something that only needed a quick fix, inadvertently derailing projects when casual suggestions are taken as essential imperatives, or rehashing decisions in different forums or mediums. It’s time to get back to making calls, explaining why once, and moving on.

5. No more 360 reviews. Employee performance reviews used to be straightforward. A meeting with your manager or team lead, direct feedback, and recommendations for improvement. Then a few years ago we made it hard. Worse, really. We introduced 360s, which required peers to provide feedback on peers. The problem is, peer feedback is often positive and reassuring, which is fun to read but not very useful. Assigning peer surveys started to feel like assigning busy work. Manager/employee feedback should be flowing pretty freely back and forth throughout the year. No need to add performative paperwork on top of that natural interaction. So we’re done with 360s, too.

6. No forgetting what we do here. We make project management, team communication, and email software. We are not a social impact company. Our impact is contained to what we do and how we do it. We write business books, blog a ton, speak regularly, we open source software, we give back an inordinate amount to our industry given our size. And we’re damn proud of it. Our work, plus that kind of giving, should occupy our full attention. We don’t have to solve deep social problems, chime in publicly whenever the world requests our opinion on the major issues of the day, or get behind one movement or another with time or treasure. These are all important topics, but they’re not our topics at work — they’re not what we collectively do here. Employees are free to take up whatever cause they want, support whatever movements they’d like, and speak out on whatever horrible injustices are being perpetrated on this group or that (and, unfortunately, there are far too many to choose from). But that’s their business, not ours. We’re in the business of making software, and a few tangential things that touch that edge. We’re responsible for ourselves. That’s more than enough for us.

Of course, the SJWs are trying to hold their ground, utilizing the popular “you are the problem” defense, complete with a nuclear MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. quote. Damn, they really aren’t pulling any punches, are they? What’s crazy is that this tactic actually works in some corporate circles instead of simply getting the lunatic fired for insubordination.

Jason and David, I believe that your recent company policy changes are both terrible and redeemable. But to be redeemable, you first must recognize that you are a BIG part of the problem. That you too perpetrate the myth that some people deserve to oppress and repress others. Once you hold yourselves publicly self-accountable, then the next step is transparency. Show us all the warts along with the unblemished skin. And from there, we can go about healing Basecamp.

Cancelling history

This attack on historical artifacts in the British Library is being portrayed as a mere “relabelling” of history, but it is obvious that this is little more than a precursor to eliminating it entirely.

Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales are to be relabelled in the British Library to explain how it once came to be owned by a slave-trading family.

The relabelling of the collection is part of the institution’s ‘anti-racism action plan’ which was put in place after the Black Lives Matter protests last year, internal documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph reveal.

It will see an overhaul of all 210 items in the library’s public-facing Treasures Collection which includes invaluable literary artefacts such as Shakespeare’s First Folio, some of which have links to the slave trade in their history.

Labels will explain how the item came to be in the country and if it has at any point changed hands via dubious means, i.e. being ‘taken, captured, seized or looted’.

For the case of Geoffrey Chaucer’s manuscript of The Canterbury Tales, written between 1387 and 1400 – before the Portuguese started the Atlantic slave trade – it will be explained how the book came to be owned by the Harley family of slave-traders around 300 years later.

The family became wealthy through the exploits of Robert Harley (1661 – 1724) who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, established the South Sea Company in 1711 and was connected to plantations in Barbados, Antigua and Surinam.

The South Sea Company was responsible for the transportation of around 64,000 enslaved Africans between 1715 and 1731 to Spanish plantations in Central and Southern America.  

First they label your history bad. Then they revise it. After that, they eliminate it. Then they eliminate everyone with glasses.

They always seek Zero History.

Scrabble converges

There is literally no activity or organization that will not be converged, unless it actively and aggressively resists convergence:

Expert Scrabble players have blasted the game’s owner as ‘virtue signalling’ and ‘woke’ after it banned 400 derogatory terms as playable moves. 

Racial slurs including the ‘n-word’, insults against the elderly and homophobic terms were removed from Scrabble’s official online words list following worldwide anti-racism protests in the wake of the death of American George Floyd.

Scrabble’s owner Mattel said it made the change to make it more relevant culturally following global unrest last year.

But Scrabble grandmaster David Webb said the move has been interpreted as ‘virtue signalling’.

Offensive terms including the ‘n-word’ were removed from Scrabble’s official online words list following worldwide anti-racism protests in the wake of the death of American George Floyd. 

The exact list of banned words has not been released.

Of course it hasn’t. The objective is to be able to administer the rules on a subjective basis, thereby granting the converged authority more power and flexibility while allowing them to avoid ever being held accountable to an objective standard.