Yvette Felarca/Yvonne Felarca Argues “Bash The Fash” as a Legal Justification to Assault; Communists of r/Anarchism Offer Support for Assaulting Wrong-Think

“Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”

– Squealer, Animal Farm

Yvette, or Yvonne Felarca, went to court to face charges of felony assault and inciting a riot for her role in a riot by Communists in Sacramento back in June 2016. Video shows Felarca punching a man repeatedly, despite him having his hands raised over his head during the assault, and was walking towards police to seek help.

Felarca made a statement with respect to her charges:

“Standing up against fascism and the rise of Nazism and fascism in this country is not a crime. We have the right to defend ourselves.”

That’s right. Beating up someone seeking police protection is “standing up against fascism” and “not a crime.”

Felarca is scheduled to return to teach at Berkeley Middle School at the end of August, because teachers cannot be fired unless they are convicted of a felony.

Yay, public unions!

Various breeds of Communists lurk on reddit, mostly on r/Anarchism. Aside from being revolutionary LARPers and Antifa fanboys.

Why are they worthy of any consideration?

Because they argue that National Socialists are terrible people to whom violence must be done on sight without any protections or due process.

International Socialists on the other hand, are a-okay, despite having engaged in more wars, killed more people, expropriated more wealth, and conquered more land by force of arms than the National Socialists could ever hope to.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 826 points

McCarthyist witch hunts are not a thing of the past! Remember, this is a charge from the protest where multiple people were stabbed by neo-nazis who have not been arrested for the attempted murders: https://torchantifa.org/?p=568

Attempted murders? Try self-defense.

From June 27, 2016

“Neo-Nazis didn’t start the violence at state Capitol, police say”

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

The Communists showed up looking for a fight and are now crying crocodile tears for sympathy when they actually got one? Nah.

/u/AutumnLeavesCascade 170 points

I was an Antifa street medic in Sac and saw the aftermath of the Neo-Nazis stab at least one black Anti-Fascist and one trans Anti-Fascist, they had been chosen specifically as targets of hate, the black man for instance had had the n-word shouted at him by the Nazis and his intestines were hanging out, I provided auxiliary first aid support for him with two primary medics until he could get to the ER. Up to 6 people were stabbed by the Nazis at that rally, I have been doing therapy do help process the level of violence I saw that day. Being 12 inches from spilled intestines in an attempted hate murder will definitely fuck you up.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5770402c/turbine/la-5-stabbed-at-neo-nazi-rally-in-sacramento-20160626/650/650×366
EDIT: I think the above pic is the other black man the Nazis stabbed, since he is closer to the paved area. Here is a full article about the individual I was talking about, not going to post any of the grisly photos just going by the article: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/06/stab-victim-neo-nazi-rally-remains-unidentified/

That’s your own fault. You wander around looking for a fight, and want someone else to feel bad because it didn’t go your way? Not going for it.

Next time, bash your dick instead of the so-called “fash.”

/u/Empiricalknowledge 301 points

400,000 American soldiers died to stop the spread of Nazism. Did we forget the mission of the Nazis is to see most of us dead?

400,000 American soldiers died BECAUSE the Congress of the United States declared war against Germany on December 11, 1941 AFTER the Germany declared war against the United States on the same day.

/u/nuthernameconveyance 186 points

And 60 million Russians.

There are few things more beautiful than one group of socialists killing another group of socialists in large numbers.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 201 points

I wish the liberals would realize that comprehensive anti-fascist arguments are based on the historical study of fascist movements, and are not comprehensively explainable in 1 or 2 sentences on reddit comments.
Here is an interview with someone who explains the full argument, if anyone who doesn’t understand why anti-fascists are against letting nazis publicly organize wants to try and actually understand it, before spouting kneejerk platitudes about non-violence at us like we wouldn’t also prefer non-violence: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/16/antifa_a_look_at_the_antifascist

The principle of actual liberals is “non-aggression” not “non-violence.” We, as liberals, do not attack people for their words. We attack people who have initiated the attack against us, or we can reasonably perceive as an immediate threat.

But it is revealing of what Communists actually think of Liberals, that, despite their excuse of 400,000 Americans dying to destroy Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Empire of Japan, that we are, to their view, a bunch of pacifist pussies and pushovers.

/u/darlantan 90 points
Hey now, it’s not Nazi enabling to want everybody to get along, it’s the good ol’ Centrist way! You guys stop punching Nazis and we all compromise in the middle. We’ll give their platform a voice and let them recruit a little bit, and then we’ll politely ask them to step it back a little bit. Maybe let them kill just the jews, or the blacks, or maybe it’d be fair to just pick a minority at random. See! Compromise is clearly the way.

…or, you know, you can just go shove a Nazi back into their box today and call it done.

Again, Communists conflate “non-aggression” with “pacifism” or, more accurately “martyrdom” and think that Liberals are a bunch of pussies who are unwilling to defend their principles with force. It’s also their ardent hope that Liberals are pussies so that they can forcibly impose Communism on people without them fighting back against them.

I have no problem putting Nazis in a box, so long as there is plenty of room in their for the Communists. Two murderous philosophies that deserve to be buried on top of each other and walk through the gates of Hell arm-in-arm.

/u/Nihht anarcho-communist 1245 points
The riot cops grabbed her by her hair and threw her onto the pavement. They did more damage to her than she did to that Nazi. Not to disparage her, because her actions are absolutely admirable, but she is pretty small and it really didn’t seem like she hurt him much if at all. And she’s the one being charged over this.
Say it with me folks:

MONOPOLY ON LEGITIMATE USE OF VIOLENCE

She does violence to others, but I’m supposed to be upset that violence was done to her, because she’s a female and she’s small, and she didn’t hurt him much if at all.

Nope.

Don’t want to get hit? KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS TO YOURSELF.

How hard is that principle to understand? Keep your hands to yourself. Oh, but I forget myself. Communists don’t operate on principles, they operate on desires, as in “I desire the People’s Glorious Revolution, NOW!” “I desire the wealth of the Capitalists, and the Bourgeosie, and the Kulaks, and the Landowners, NOW!” “I desire absolute power over the nation-state, NOW!”

/u/Hulabaloon 112 points

I’d like to know when it became not ok to punch a Nazi in the face.
They’re fucking Nazis man.

V-E Day, May 8, 1945, when the German government signed the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, giving the Allies jurisdiction to try Nazis for acts committed before and during World War 2, rather than just “punching them in the face.”

Communists are creatures of desire, not reason. They have no respect for the rule of law, or even civilization. “Me want punch Nazi, NOW!” “Me want sleep, NOW!” “Me want woman, NOW!”

Communists are just animals that can lie.

/u/SolidWookie 516 points

If you ever wondered how the Nazis took power just look at how this person is defending them now.

The Nazis didn’t “take” power. The Nazi Reichstag was the duly elected parliament of the German people. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) couldn’t win an election because they were paid stooges of the Soviet Union and everyone in Germany knew it.

Also, the Nazis were really good campaigners.

/u/LothartheDestroyer 437 points

They won an election on rhetoric playing to nationalism.

They won because the opposition wasn’t doing enough to stop the rhetoric.

Half right, but not accurate. The Nazis’ 1930 campaign was based on repudiating Versailles, ending government corruption, increasing jobs, and bringing the so-called money barons of Weimar Germany to heel (especially if those money barons were Jewish).

/u/IAmARantallionAMA 140 points

Wow wow wow what?? You go read a history book! The context for those elections was a Germany wracked by 10 years of street violence, perpetrated by Nazis, and Hitler used the Nazis control of the streets to win the election. Furthermore once Hitler won the election he used the threat of violence to take powers for himself contrary to the German constitution and centralise power in his own political office.

Also are we going to conveniently forget Italy where Mussolini didn’t even need the support of the majority let alone to win an election to ascend to power? He just needed 30’000 marching fascists and he was handed power by the Italian government. Fascists don’t need to win elections, Hitler just used electioneering as a tool, but it wasn’t necessary for his rise. A bit like dictators around the world nowadays use elections despite the fact they don’t need to win them.

Here is another example of a Communist with a fetish for violent revolution and bloody murder. The Nazis did not “control the streets” but the Brownshirts surely fought the Communists for them. Interestingly, the Brownshirts were originally created to protect Nazi meetings from disruption by Communists.

The Nazis winning elections was necessary because the Nazis could not overthrow the Weimar government from the outside without arousing the ire of France and England before it was prepared to fight them, the German Army and the Freikorps would not have stood for another armed overthrow of the government after the Spartacist Rebellion and the Kapp Putsch.

/u/ThisPlaceIsToxic 2 points

Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.”
Kindly fuck off* Nazi Sympathizing Scum.
http://www.snopes.com/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/

/u/LothartheDestroyer 4 points
Wait. Is the fuck off directed towards me?
I hope not.
Because I’m not a sympathizer. It feels strange having to type that out.

This is so wonderful it almost brings a tear to my eye. Socialists having to prove their purity to each other by who can rend their garments, tear out their hair, and denounce “Nazi-sympathizers” the loudest.

/u/mosneagubeat 88 points

Through the very existence and proclamation of their ideology fascists are violent.

Hitting fascists is self-defence, not violence.
Bash the fash!

And when the fascists open your intestines up on the Sacramento pavement, what’s your next move, cupcake?

Also, better dead than red.

/u/Free_Bread 32 points

This is some 3rd grade playground shit
Right, you don’t hit people just because you simply disagree with them. You do attack when they threaten your safety and right to exist

Seriously, do you think we all just go around attacking anybody who disagrees with us? No, because that’d be dreadful. Obviously we understand that concept, and there’s a reason we only advocate for attacking fascists. Despite that we vehemently disagree with liberals, we don’t attack them, and will even work with them.

This isn’t some fine line, it’s as thick as it gets. Once you start advocating and organize to violently remove people from society based on inherent traits like race, ability, or sexual orientation, you will be shut down.

Do you go around attacking anybody who disagrees with you? No. Is that your likely aspiration to do so? Yes. On what evidence do I base that statement? Nearly every socialist revolution of the last 200 years has involved some massive purging of its ideological foes, whether those foes are named “Girondins”, “Whites”, “Kulaks”, “Roaders”, “Bourgeosie”, “Capitalists”, “non-jurors”, etc.

And no, I do not hold the mass murder of people based on their political or social or economic characteristics to be morally superior to mass murdering people based on their race or ethnicity.

/u/clean_void 45 points

advocating for a racially “pure” ethno-state is violence. “it’s not okay to murder people or advocate the wholesale slaughter of others you don’t like” is some pretty basic shit.

Speech is not violence. Speech, by its very nature, cannot be violent. Speech may incite violence, but the act of uttering words is not an act of violence against anyone.

/u/dreamgirl777 23 points

why do people pretend like nazis should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a white ethnostate through genocide?

why do people pretend like Communists should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a proletariat state through mass murder?

MakeGenjiGreatAgain 21 points

Violence against nazis is always okay imo

Violence against Jews is always okay imo – Hitler

Violence against Kulaks is always okay imo – Stalin

Violence against landowners is always okay imo – Mao

Violence against intellectuals is always okay imo – Pol Pot

Violence against infidels is always okay imo – Muhammad

/u/Random_CommieBut 57 points

Dear centrists:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
“nazi’s should be allowed to organize”
“obviously they won’t get violent”
“but muh free speech”
Get fucking real.

Blah, blah, blah, take it to the poetry slam. Communists do not hold freedom of speech to be an idea worthy of defending. They cannot defeat Fascism or Naziism in an exchange of ideas because Communism and Fascism are built on the same foundation (Class Struggle), and in practice result in the same outcomes (absolute state control of the economy, mass murder, deprivation of natural rights).

The Communist does not wish to “bash the fash” because the Fascist is an enemy of the peoples’ freedom. The Communist and the Fascist are rivals in the same industry, tyranny, and they are busy trying to eat each other’s lunch.

This is getting tiresome now, so here’s the archived link to the reddit thread, peruse it at your leisure or desire and remember.

Oh, and remember: Better dead than red.

Berkeley Teacher Filmed Punching Neo-Nazi Arraigned

r/Anarchism

Amanda Marcotte: Male Fragility Is The Root Cause of “Terrorism”

Amanda Marcotte sat down with fellow Feminist shit-shoveller Fiona Helmsley to try and link a fat chick getting hit by a car with “toxic” masculinity. Let’s enjoy.

When author Fiona Helmsley stopped by Salon to talk about her book “Girls Gone Old,” it was shortly after a pack of white supremacists rained terror on the Virginia town of Charlottesville. Helmsley writes about toxic, violent masculinity in her book and naturally, the conversation turned to what that has to do with the events in Charlottesville.

The people who actually bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are responsible for the violence caused by the people who did not (illegal mob of SJWs and counter-protesters)? The legitimate demonstrators are responsible for being pelted with cement-filled soda cans, urine ballons, and glass bottles?

The people who bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are guilty by association for the actions of an unrelated, unassociated schizophrenic man, despite loud insistence that it is wrong to associate Jeremy Christian with Bernie Sanders or James Hodgkinson with MSNBC-junkies?

“It’s your own fault for wearing that short, free-speech skirt, you fucking slut” is answer given when a mob of socialist censors show up intending to do violence.

And the root cause of it all, of all terrorism must be … toxic masculinity.

On the dangers of male fragility:

I think the single greatest threat, and I’ll say to humanity, at the moment is male fragility, and men just not being able to process their feelings of insecurity, their feelings of anger. I mean, when men get mad, they lash out.

You see it in school shootings. You see it in terrorist activity.

Most of the solutions to problems, I think, are simple. You know, like kindness and empathy: The basic things that your mother teaches you. But I think if men could be more honest and reflective about what them feel insecure.

Question: Didn’t James Fields have a mother to teach him “kindness and empathy”? Didn’t he likely have a life full of female teachers to teach him “kindness and empathy”?

This is the feminist narrative: Any act of violence, done by a man, is the result of “male fragility” and “toxic masculinity” which can only be cured by being “kind and empathetic” which are traits inherent in females (have you tried being more like the girls?).

Meanwhile, when a woman engages in violence, as many do, it is because some man made her do it, or she was under stress, or she was mentally ill.

When a man engages in a bad act, it is a result of his inherent male inferiority (toxic masculinity). When a female does a bad act, it is because of outside forces interfering with her natural feminine goodness.

Only by refining the “toxicity” out of men through feminism does a man gain “kindness and empathy” and become New Feminist Man (a beta pussy).

On what men are afraid of:

What they were chanting in Charlottesville: ‘You will not replace us.’ Who is trying? Who is trying to replace you? We’re just trying to make things more of an equal playing field for everyone.

I think it’s just the way that society raises them. Women are raised to have some concern about the way that they look, and they’re encouraged to be more sensitive. A lot of men aren’t.

They were actually chanting “JEWS will not replace us.”

As per the World Jewish Congress:

Your premise is wrong. So I can ignore the rest.

On the performance of masculinity:

And it’s that performance thing, too. Men perform for other men. When you get men alone in a group, it’s always very different than when you get a man one on one. There’s definitely, like the performance of manliness.

It’s also like the scariest thing, for anyone probably. For being a woman, for being somebody who’s gay, for being somebody who’s Muslim, to walk down the street and there’s a pack of guys, because it’s just, you know, the performance of masculinity can be so dangerous.

Even talking about this….Men get so mad when they hear women talk about them this way. They get so defensive.

And yet, women get so mad when they hear men talk about hypergamy, or AWALT, or Feminism, or alpha fucks, beta bucks. They get so defensive.

I guess that just part of the performance of femininity, which I define as making sweeping moral pronouncements against men and offering no proof sufficient to implicate men in general of being what Feminists claim that we are.

Source

Dianne Feinstein Champions the Heckler’s Veto Against Patriot Prayer in San Francisco

Dear Superindendent Muldoon:

As we discussed on our call yesterday, I strongly oppose the Golden Gate Recreation Area’s decision to grant an event permit to Patriot Prayer for an August 26 demonstration at Crissy Field. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Patriot Pray attracts white nationalists and other hate groups to its rallies with the intent to provoke unrest between those groups and counter-protesters. I am alarmed at the prospect that Crissy Field will be used as a venue for Patriot Prayer’s incitement, hate, and intimidation.

It appears that “counter-protester” is the new code word for violent SJW and Communist mobs engaging in illegal activity. Let’s not mince words: Unite the Right’s permit was not intended to cover the mob that showed up to disrupt their demonstration and assault them. Patriot Prayer’s public permit is not intended to cover the SJW and Communist mobs that will appear at their planned demonstration in San Francisco.

Unless the “counter-protesters” (SJWs and Communists) have their own permit, then they have no business being there. Let them stew in their “provoked” state of mind from the comfort of their own homes if they cannot get one.

As you know, Crissy Field is a public recreational area, which draws hundreds of families who enjoy the beach, trails, and picnic areas each weekend. Because of Crissy Field’s open design – with beaches, open grassy areas, and no fences – the proposed demonstration poses very real threats to the public should the protest devolve into racial violence and clashes with law enforcement.

The City of San Francisco can afford millions in public pensions, but it can’t afford barricades? Surely there are hundreds of plastic or metal barricades in storage from the dozens of alternative lifestyle demonstrations that are attracted to San Francisco annually. Is the City of San Francisco that incompetent at crowd control?

And the “violence” previously caused at Patriot Prayer rallies was more of a “political” nature than a racial one, specifically, violence directed by socialists against non-socialists.

While I understand from you that the U.S. Park Police is working with other law enforcement agencies to assess the public safety risk, I believe there is a strong potential for violence during this demonstration. I was mayor of San Francisco for nine years. I know the area well, and I know the very significant challenges an event like this at Crissy Field will pose for law enforcement. In fact, Patriot Prayer’s recent demonstrations in Seattle and Portland both involved physical altercations, resulting in several arrests.

Ah, now we have some meat to cut in to. Let’s look at those “altercations” from Seattle and Portland.

Trump supporters’ rally in Seattle met by counter-protesters at Westlake Park

Still, some anti-fascist and anti-Trump counter-protesters made it to the plaza and surrounded the prayer rally at the plaza. There were speeches and a lot of swearing. Some attending the rally donned protective vests and helmets, and waved American flags or signs with slogans like “Christian Values.”

Leaders and others attending the prayer rally condemned the violence by white supremacists in Virginia, many showing support for President Trump and his vision of America. The counter-protesters weren’t making much of a distinction between the two.

The SJWs and Communists cannot or will not distinguish between “white supremacists” and non-white supremacists? Interesting. It’s as if their politics are dualistic and completely intolerant of anyone outside of their ideological bubble.

Continuing:

“This powerful country needs to be waving high — red, white and blue — and never back down. Why? Because we are the patriots, and we’re going to fight for what’s right,” speaker Tiny Toese, of Vancouver, Washington, told the crowd. “It all comes down to respect.”

All the while, hundreds of counter-protesters booed, yelled expletives and held signs such as “Strength through diversity” from behind a fence separating them from the pro-Trump group. Organizers of that crowd said they were there to stand against hate. A few wore all black and masks.

Antifa? At my “peaceful counter-protests?” Surely not.

Continued and buried in the middle of the story:

Seattle police reported making three arrests: a 40-year-old man for obstruction, a 37-year-old man for assault and a 25-year-old man for assault. Officers also observed some people “infiltrating” the rally at Denny Park carrying ax handles, two-by-fours and balloons containing an unknown liquid substance, according to the Police Department’s online blotter.

When Communists and Antifa show up to commit violence at an illegal counter protest, they have “infiltrated” the illegal counter protest. When some guy from Ohio, unaffiliated with anyone present, crashes into a mob of illegally counter protesting SJWs and kills one, then it is a “violent white nationalist hate rally.”

Got it.

Let’s see what these “mostly peaceful”, illegally counter-protesting demonstrators had on them.

From the Seattle Police Department Blotter:

Seattle Police arrested three men as officers worked to facilitate two planned demonstrations in Seattle today: one in Westlake park and a separate, larger counter demonstration in Denny Park.

As hundreds of peaceful counter demonstrators gathered in Denny Park, police observed some individuals infiltrating the crowd carrying axe handles, two-by-fours, and balloons containing an unknown liquid substance. Still others wore dark glasses, goggles and bandannas to conceal their identity.

Axe handles and two-by-fours of peace.

Some members of the Denny Park counter demonstration tried to circumvent police by running down an alley between 5th and 6th Avenues and Lenora. These individuals tried to use a makeshift shield to force their way past police bicycle line. Police used pepper spray to move them back. There were reports of rocks thrown at officers.

Rocks of peace.

Soon after, some in the crowd lobbed fireworks at officers. Police issued a dispersal order, using pepper spray and blast balls to move the crowd.

Fireworks of peace.

If you click the link to the archived police blotter page, you’ll notice that among the items seized from the arrested are a couple of Communist flags.

I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

Let’s go to the Portland, OR rally back in June.

14 arrested during competing protests in Portland in wake of train stabbing

Police arrested 14 people Sunday and confiscated several weapons during a day of opposing rallies in downtown Portland, Ore.

The crowds in downtown Portland swelled to several thousand as people gathered for a free speech, pro-President Trump rally and an opposing group demonstrating at the Portland Stands United Against Hate Rally near City Hall.

Police detained a large group of protesters and others who were marching after being removed from Chapman Square where a separate protest designated for an anti-fascist group was eventually closed.

Protesters threw bricks, mortars and balloons filled with “unknown, foul-smelling liquid,” according to police. They said only the protesters at Chapman Square had engaged in criminal behavior. The crowds at Terry Schrunk Plaza, where the pro-Trump rally organized by conservative group Patriot Prayer occurred, and City Hall where the counter-protest organized by immigrant rights, religious and labor groups, were not involved, police said.

And who was at Chapman Square? SJWs and Communists, i.e. Antifa? Yep, that is correct. The pro-free speech people, the pro-Trump, were, and this might be a shock, more interested in speaking than fighting. Meanwhile the crowd that giggles about “bash the fash” and strokes their Marxist chodes to “is it okay to punch a Nazi?” were there attack and destroy (hint: If the Nazi didn’t punch you first, or isn’t making a credible threat to punch you, or the federal government hasn’t issued a declaration of war against Nazis, then no, it is not okay).

Dianne Feinstein is terribly concerned about “incitement” and “violence.” And yet, as we see above, the parties being “incited” are SJWs and Communists. What incites them appears to be anyone supporting Donald Trump or free speech (or “Freeze Peach” as they snidely refer to it). And the violence that Senator Feinstein is so worried about originates from SJWs and Communists.

Back to Dianne Feinstein’s letter:

Given this track record, there is a very real potential that Patriot Prayer will use its permit to demonstrate at Crissy Field as a free pass to incite violence. That is not what Crissy Field is about, and I urge you to reconsider your decision to issue this permit in the name of public safety.

Here we come to the crux of the argument: Dianne Feinstein wants to curtail the free speech and and peaceable assembly rights of the Patriot Prayer group to prevent SJWs and Communists from responding to speech with violence. Or, as Harry Kalven called it, the Heckler’s Veto. The Heckler’s Veto, in its precise form, occurs when the government suppresses an individual’s speech on the grounds that the government anticipates a strong negative reaction from another person or group of people.

It seems to fit this situation snugly.

More disturbing is the implication in this letter that the “counter-protesters” (SJWs and Communists) are justified in being incited by words alone to attack the speaker of those words or anyone who voluntary listens to speaker.

The narrative is that your words justify their violence.

U.S. Senators pledge to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Arguing that it should set aside because a group of self-appointed Communist outlaws take umbrage with the content of speech is neither support or defense; it is complicity in the Constitution’s destruction.

Bash the Fash or “Beat Up Anyone Who Isn’t a Communist”

From the January 29, 1942 Home Edition of the Barrier Miner, an Australian newspaper

Anti-Communist Speech Causes Scene

LONDON, January 28.
Seventy-two-year-old Sir James Purves-Stewart, a famous physician, who advocates mercy killing, caused a stir in Anglo-Soviet circles by attacking Communism at a meeting in aid. of the Russian Red Cross at Basingstoke Town Hall.

He referred to “the horrible atrocities of the Bolshevik revolution.” Violent interruptions occurred and some of the audience walked out. A man shouted, “You ought to be speaking for Hitler.”

Alderman Mrs. E. A. Weston, who was, the next speaker, attacked Sir James Purves-Stewart,and said that she was sorry that he had been invited to speak.

Sir James Purves-Stewart later told the'”Evening Standard”, that he was strongly pro-Russian, but anti-communist. He said that there was danger of the Communists getting hold of the Anglo-Russian Public Relations Committee. “I wanted to give a true picture of Russia. There are many things in the Communist State I admire, but also things which never would be accepted by democratic citizens in Britain. I do not believe that the Russians are fighting for Communism. They are fighting for their homes and Holy Russia.”

The chairman of the executive of the Anglo-Russian Publie Relations Committee “(Professor A. V. Hill) said: “Sir James Purves-Stewart was talking irresponsibly. He ought to know better.”

[Sir James Purves-Stewart, among many, other publications, is author of Fix this text”A Physician’s Tour In Soviet Russia,” which was published in 1932.]

Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Because we are seeing this play out again like the latest installment of Dark Souls.

A lot of the same actions took place at this one speech that we see today. Purves-Stewart made valid criticisms of the Soviet Union, of the murders and repression carried out by the Communists against the Russian people in the name of Communism. The Communist response was to try and shout him down (Shut It Down, anyone?), accused him of speaking for Hitler, and wishing that he had not been invited to speak (no-platforming).

All that is required for a Communist to shriek “Fascist!” is to not be a Communist. That’s it. Nothing more. So when Antifa screams “bash the fash!” all they mean is “assault non-Communists.”

The tactics of Communists have not changed for the 70 years.

Jess Phillips and the Tyranny of the Male Feminist

My second-favorite Labour MP (second because there’s Jeremy Corbyn and the heterosexual white males always have to win) Jess Phillips attended the Edinburgh International Book Festival. While there, she had some interesting things to say about “left-wing men.” Compliments? Of course not. This is men we’re talking about. Nope, Jess wanted to complain about how left-wing men are the absolute worst.

A Labour MP has claimed that left-wing sexists are the worst of them all and that men on the left are the “absolute worst”.

Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, accused left-wing men of benign neglect in the fight for sexual equality.

She told the Edinburgh International Book Festival the “well-meaning, left-leaning” men were worse than what someone else said are the “out and out sexists of the right”.

Benign sexism vs. Out and out sexism?

This is going to be better than any Clegane-bowl could possibly be.

She said: “They [the left-wing men] are the worst, the actual worst”. Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

Keep in mind that Phillips is the same woman who wanted to ban men from running for office under the Labour banner until women achieved “parity” with men.

Phillips does a good job exposing two Feminist lies about men and power and the type of man who supports Feminism from a position of power. The first lie exposed is that men in power are in business for their fellow men. This has been untrue since the beginning of civilization. Men in power are in the business of retaining their power, not to help other men.

There is no Patriarchy. But there is an Oligarchy and feminists have proven very useful tools of that Oligarchy to keep men without power from having a chance of getting power of their own. That is what Feminism is and has always been: Females who were part of the Oligarch class, but excluded from being Oligarchs themselves, demanding to become Oligarchs in their own right. To rule over inferior men as they saw similarly situated men do. Feminists became willing servants to tyranny for the promise of power.

These same oligarchical men freely support better female representation in government, in the C-suite, in Hollywood, in universities, in the military, etc. do so at no cost to themselves. They intend for someone else’s ox to be gored, not their own. The female representation in government will, by Phillips own admission, be paid for by excluding men who aren’t already in positions of power.

Ms Phillips told a tale of how a left-wing journalist at the Guardian had told her Harriet Harman was not good for women and that Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way”.

Although it was thought she was referring to Seamus Milne, the Labour Party director of communications, both parties denied this.

The Labour MP said sarcastically: “So yeah, Jeremy Corbyn better for women than Harriet Harman, obviously,

“I remember him in all those meetings, there with his banners for [equality]”.

It might have been Owen Jones. I have no proof of this. However, Jones can hardly be stopped when it comes to fellating Comrade Corbyn’s Commie Cock.

She also said that while left-wing men think they want equality for women, “they don’t think of you on the same level”.

Of course they don’t think of you as on the same level. A beggar is never on the same level as a giver. So long as Feminists run around begging powerful men to give them things, then they are admitting that they are inherently not on their level.

Do for yourself and be treated like an equal, or beg and be treated like what you are.

“When they close their eyes at night and think of amazing people who have changed the world, it’s always some white dude that pops into their head,” she continued.

That…is a strange thing to think about before going to sleep, but this is Jess Phillips we are talking about. However, it is interesting that Phillips is objecting to men THINKING in a way she doesn’t like at the same time she is objecting to men not acting in ways she does not like.

Ms Phillips also added that women are completely missing from Labour Party industrial strategy because it was all about “men with shovels”.

Perhaps women ought to pick up some shovels if they want to be included in a conversation about industrial labor. Oh, wait, that’s not an air-conditioned, C-suite job or a ministerial post where a woman would get to order men around.

She said she is abused on Twitter a lot by “dunder-heided Neanderthals”, and revealed that after her friend Jo Cox MP was murdered she reported all the death threats she received to West Midlands police, and it was “quite a lot”.

That’s what the Block button is for. If a brutish, pussy-grabbing, evil male like Donald Trump can have someone manage his Twitter, you would think that a smart, empowered female like Jess Phillips could get one as well.

This latest spat between Jess Phillips and men in the Labour Party demonstrates the type of men in power that Feminists ally with: Those who already have their boots firmly placed on the necks of the supermajority of men who lack power and are looking for any excuse to press down even harder. The male feminist aspires to benevolent tyranny, to decide when any particular man gets to succeed over any woman.

And that is why Feminists are the Handmaidens of Tyranny.

Source

Bill De Blasio Wants Millionaires to Subsidize the New York Subway System

Today, Hizzoner Bill De Blasio of New York City trotted out his brain trust and union allies to declare “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Oops, that comes later.

De Blasio played that tired old song of “the rich need to pay their fair share”, this time, the rich need to pay for capital improvements to New York subways. It’s the same lame song that has seen an exodus of wealthy citizens to more friendly areas (see Chicago and Los Angeles).

Rather than attempt to excise the rot that caused the problem (MTA mismanagement of resources) De Blasio and company would rather paper over the MTA’s malfeasance with an infusion tax money, taken under sound moral theory of “how could you be so heartless as to deny me your stuff? You have so much and I have so little! If you don’t give me your stuff, I’ll suffer and it will be your fault!”

Here are some examples MTA malfeasance.

June 21, 2017:

Two MTA board members admitted Wednesday that the agency has mismanaged its money — as a top transit official declared that the current subway crisis is “an emergency.”

Board member James Vitiello griped that not enough money has been spent on issues that need to be urgently addressed, like subway maintenance.

“We have taken on projects that have been expensive . . . like Second Avenue Subway or cashless tolling,” he conceded during a meeting at MTA headquarters in Manhattan. I think we’re coming around to seeing we may have done some of that at the expense of day-to-day maintenance.

Members acknowledged the agency is beset with problems — and a chronic lack of accountability. Scott Rechler called the entire MTA system “immensely broken.” “We are at such a point of crisis that it requires approaching it differently,” he said.

In short, the MTA has spent more money on subway photo ops rather than subway functionality.

May 17, 2016:

Tens of thousands of New Yorkers left stranded; 2.5 million pick-up and drop-off times may have been manipulated to show more favorable performance; Less than 50% of one car service’s trips were on-time

More than 31,000 times in 2015, New York City residents booked Access-A-Ride vehicles that never showed up and failed to provide service, stranding thousands of New Yorkers with disabilities, seniors and others who are unable to take mass transit, according to a new audit released today by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. The audit found that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) allowed vendors to act with impunity, failing to monitor and correct problems or improve its Paratransit service.

“Access-A-Ride is absolutely essential for thousands of people to get around New York City every single day, yet this program stranded thousands of people, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and caused untold harm and distress,” Comptroller Stringer said. “We found serious breakdowns in oversight and operations which have contributed to a culture of indifference and neglect by the MTA. After years of mismanagement, it’s on the MTA to take action now.”

Access-A-Ride services are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public transportation authorities to provide a paratransit system for passengers who cannot use public bus or subway services. In assigning Access-A-Ride trips, the MTA delivers service through a network of 16 companies. These companies provide service using MTA Paratransit Division-owned vehicles, such as specially equipped buses and cars, and for hire vehicles that provide transportation to ambulatory passengers through car services.

The Comptroller’s Audit examined Access-A-Ride services for which the MTA paid $321 million in calendar year 2015.

The MTA is paying contractors for services they never performed and then cooking the books to cover up their mismanagement.

May 9, 2011:

Over the years real estate and banking interests have been the most prevalent occupations of MTA Board members. At the Brooklyn Public Hearing for the service cutbacks held in March 2010, a small group of protesters raised signs critical of the MTA’s deal to sell Atlantic Yards for below market value. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed to that effect. But it was hardly the only questionable land deal under the MTA’s watch.

Hudson Yards

Several years ago, the MTA entered into a deal to sell the air rights over the Long Island Rail Road yards near Penn Station. Although fair market value was received in that deal ($2 billion), the MTA has been criticized for the payment terms allowing the developer to hold onto much of the cash for 30 years.

The Sale of its Midtown Headquarters

We can only wonder how the MTA’s latest proposal to sell three adjacent properties at 341, 345, and 347 Madison Avenues will turn out and if it is best to sell these as a single entity as the MTA has proposed, or if a better deal could be struck if the properties were offered as three separate sales? Would a single developer have to pay more if there is increased competition?

Two Broadway

This is not the first time the MTA has thought about vacating its midtown Manhattan headquarters. When 2 Broadway was acquired at the southern tip of Manhattan, the MTA’s original plan called for purchasing that property to enable the MTA to stop the cash drain from its short term leases at 50 separate locations. That was the rationale used to sell the idea to the MTA Board. It seemed to make sense because a property owned by the MTA would have some equity should the MTA ever decide it no longer needed that property, and with real estate values on the rise, the MTA could make a killing.

Don’t ask me how it happened but somehow a purchase turned into a 99-year lease instead. I am not a real estate expert, but I fail to see the advantage of trading 50 leased properties for a single leased property in one of the most expensive areas of Manhattan, especially when the tenant (the MTA) still has to pay the massive renovation cost to adapt the building to its needs. Further, the renovations, over budget and behind schedule, have been the subject of questionable practices, including accusations of mob ties – enough to launch more than one investigation.

Amazing how our so-called public servants seem to find ways to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the people whose interests they claim to service.

June 4, 2010:

On Wednesday, the Empire Center for New York State Policy released payroll data showing over 8,000 MTA employees made over $100,000, including overtime and extra pay, and an overall average pay raise of 2.4%. There’s a searchable database of the employees and their salaries, leading to factoids like “Eleven of the 561 employees who earned more than $150,000 in 2009 were Long Island Railroad car repairmen who earned an average of $167,342 – which was $102,477 over their annual base pay rate of $64,865.” Yup, overtime is costing a fortune.

The NY Times points out, “A Long Island Rail Road conductor who retired in April, made $239,148, about $4,000 more than the authority’s chief financial officer” and “more than a quarter of the Long Island Rail Road’s 7,000 employees earned more than $100,000 last year, including the conductor, Thomas J. Redmond, and two locomotive engineers — who were among the top 25 earners in the entire transportation authority.” (Related: LIRR employees on disability.)

This news comes as the MTA is trying to deal with a $400 million budget shortfall. The MTA released a statement saying the 2.4% wage increases “reflects built-in raises provided under multi-year labor contracts” and says the data does show the “MTA reduced its workforce and held down costs by foregoing management raises.” Plus: “The MTA’s $800 million budget shortfall for 2010 — caused by State budget cuts and deteriorating tax revenues — means there’s much more work to be done. We are in the process of overhauling every aspect of our business, including the elimination of approximately 3,000 positions this year. One key part of this effort is a focus on the work rules, pension padding and management oversight that leads to some of the unnecessary overtime highlighted in today’s report.”

And on perfect cue, the managers will blame the greedy union boys for taking as much as they can carry, and the union boys will blame the managers for being pampered egg-heads who ain’t down with the working man.

Meanwhile, neither side will stop raiding the budget for every dime they can get.

May 21, 2010:

MTA officials are locking horns with the Transit Workers Union over rules governing overtime and sick time. The MTA brass says employees have been abusing the system and costing the Authority $560 million annually; part of that big expenditure was caused by the 25% of bus and subway workers took more than two weeks worth of sick days last year. Now the MTA is assigning a task force to crack down on employees who abuse sick days. Of course, the union is up in arms about it.

“These bureaucrats, they’ve never done a day’s physical labor in their life,” TWU Local 100 boss John Samuelsen tells the Post. “And they would faint if they had to work under the conditions that Local 100 members work under every day.” Speaking to the Daily News, he fumed, “They demean their own workers publicly on a consistent basis, and they fail to acknowledge NYC Transit workers work in some of the most horrific conditions you can imagine. Several bus operators are assaulted every week, subway workers breathe in toxic fumes… We put our lives on the line to move the riding public, and when we get sick, the company tries to portray us as slackers.”

But some high-profile incidents have revealed that some NYC Transit employees have in fact been on vacation while calling out sick. And one subway operator made the equivalent of what he would have earned in five days by just showing up for three days and then working overtime. The MTA says he called out for unpaid sick time the other two days, but because overtime kicks in after each eight-hour shift (not after 40 hours) the operator made his regular week’s pay. And the cherry on top is that his replacement on the sick days was paid time-and-a-half!

MTA officials estimate that the OT belt-tightening will result in $22 million in savings this year, while the Authority faces a $400 million budget shortfall. Next year the MTA will try to save $60 million by reducing overtime, though that will require union consent, so get the popcorn ready.

Not only is the management gaming the system for every dime they can get, the union boys have their hands in the kitty as well, freely dipping and double dipping sick time and overtime.

This is the classic public bureaucracy set-up: Politicians looking for easy answers, managers who are out to enrich themselves and their friends at the public’s expense, and an untouchable union out to scrape up whatever hasn’t been stolen by the first two because, hey, they aren’t going to be the suckers who actually do the right thing when everybody else is doing wrong.

I have to give the Devil such credit as he is due. This is not a problem of Bill De Blasio’s creation. The problem can be traced to Albany and the state legislature’s implicit consent to the MTA board’s effort to put fresh paint on a burning house. De Blasio’s proposed solution is temporary at best. It is a sin tax, and like any sin tax, it lasts only so as the sinner perpetrates the sin, or remains in the reach of the taxing authority.

A long-term solution would involve reevaluating fares, manager pay and decisionmaking, worker pay, and MTA accountability practices. But that doesn’t play well to the champagne socialists and government unions that swept De Blasio into power.

You always dance with the one who brought you.

Full Press Conference:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber With Commentary

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

One guy mistakenly believed that Google’s suggestion box really wasn’t a paper shredder with a funny post-it note attached and had the audacity to actually voice his thoughts. The author has to make the sign of the Cross against the greatest evils of our time: sexism, stereotyping, and exclusion, before screwing up enough courage to actually present an argument.

TL:DR

·Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

But you don’t understand! You are morally impure and they are morally pure! So, when they shame you and harass you and silence you, it’s okay because they have only the best of intentions!

Per the political correctness fanboys and social justice enthusiasts, there are no bad acts. Only bad people. Which is why it is “oppression” and “triggering” when you do it, but it’s “empowering” and “advocacy” when they do it.

·This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

Some might even call them sacred cows.

·The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Silly goose, discussion was never the point, only compliance.

·Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Dear white man, when you win, it because MUH OPPRESSION and TEH PATRIARCHY. When they win, it is because GRRL POWER.

Really, how hard is it for you evil oppressors to understand? It is impossible that you actually succeeded over a woman based on your own merits.

·Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression.

Utopia is just a stone’s throw away if we just give the proper well-meaning philosopher-kings absolute power over our lives.

It might even work out this time, unlike all of the other times it’s been tried.

·Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

BLASPHEMER! Is this evil male daring to suggest that two wrongs actually DON’T make a right?

What disgusting thing will he utter next? That equal treatment does not necessitate equal outcomes?

Will this madness never cease?

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Yeah, gonna have to stop you there. People don’t have invisible biases. They might have unexamined biases. They might have unreasonable biases. They might have unadmitted biases. But to suggest that someone just doesn’t know that they dislike men, or women, or whites, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, is complete nonsense. People will freely admit their biases so long as they believe that the person they are talking to isn’t sitting in moral condemnation of them.

Unfortunately, the political correctness brigade has no other tactic but moral condemnation.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Uh-oh. This cannot possibly end well.

Left Biases

·Compassion for the weak
·Disparities are due to injustices
·Humans are inherently cooperative
·Change is good (unstable)
·Open
·Idealist

The political left’s biases? Oh where to start.

Compassion for the weak: The Left does not have compassion for the weak; they have a disdain for the strong, specifically for anyone who gains anything outside of their oppressor/oppressed framework. It is why certain black men, like Dr. Ben Carson can be freely maligned, despite being “oppressed” as black men, Hillary Clinton, despite being a life-long member of the political and financial elite, can be praised.

Disparities are due to injustices: The Left takes that quote of Honore de Balzac, that behind every great fortune lies a crime, to the extreme that behind every success lies oppression.

Humans are inherently cooperative: The opposite is true; humans are inherently competitive. Humans are only cooperate when their interests are aligned.

Change is good (unstable): Not even remotely true.

Open: ???

Idealist: The idealist imagines he is creating the shining city on a hill when he’s just laying down fresh asphalt on the road to hell.

Right Biases

·Respect for the strong/authority
·Disparities are natural and just
·Humans are inherently competitive
·Change is dangerous (stable)
·Closed
·Pragmatic

Respect for the strong/authority: In the civil society, the strong have a responsibility to use their strength wisely, and authorities have a duty to use their authority justly.

Disparities are natural and just: Disparities are natural. Stephen King will never win a 100 meter dash. Usain Bolt will probably never work in astrophysics. They are both men and each owes the other the civility that comes with being men and the laws of men should regard neither as better or worse than the other.

Humans are inherently competitive: This true. Our first contests were likely for food and sex.

Change is dangerous (stable): Edmund Burke opined on the dangers of change for the sake of change far better than I could.

Closed: ???

Pragmatic: Pragmatism, like Idealism, should be tempered to avoid becoming destructive. Both can lead the holder to certain ruthless calculations that disregard the wills and desires of individuals.

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Holy smokes! Did this guy actually appeal to facts as reason? He’d better start cleaning out his desk.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
· They’re universal across human cultures
· They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
· Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
· The underlying traits are highly heritable
· They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Utopians will never let a silly little thing like biology or evolutionary psychology keep them from creating paradise on Earth, regardless of how many bodies they leave in their wake.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:
· Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
· These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
· Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
· This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
· Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Women are sensitive to their place in any social hierarchy, likely developed because fertile women were so dependent on the labor of others for their survival during significant portions of their childbearing and child-rearing years. So, they’re extroversion and gregariousness and even their neuroticism is a constant effort to maintain the favor of those with power and resources to ensure their own survival and that of their offspring.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Men hunt, women gather. Goes back to our most primitive days. Some men didn’t get to come back from the hunt.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
· Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
· We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
· Women on average are more cooperative
· Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
· Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
· Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
· The male gender role is currently inflexible
· Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
· Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
· A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
· Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
· Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
· Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Diversity for its own sake is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If you have a commitment to facts and reason, it should not matter what the source is. If your best team of programmers is all white men, it shouldn’t matter if their product is good.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

Protect the eggs? Male disposability? This guy…this guy here is dangerously close to ingesting a red pill.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Let’s call “political correctness” by its true name: crude thought-policing. It is motivated by the same idea where kings made it a crime to insult or criticize them. Lèse-majesté has transformed into lèse-victimé.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.

·As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Yep.

Stop alienating conservatives.

· Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
· In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
· Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Never going to happen. Progressives would never deign to sully their pure minds with even the suggestion that someone has a valid reason for holding an opinion contrary to their own.

Confront Google’s biases.

· I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
· I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

And you will run into exactly the same issue that pollsters in the 2016 Presidential election ran into: people are not going to truthfully state their political positions to Progressives who will use the information to harangue them or mock them. Any conservative who has somehow managed to sneak into Google is certainly not going to out himself or herself.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

· These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

· Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
· There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
· These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
· I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Of course there is very little information as to the efficacy forced diversity programs because the reasonable inference is that these programs have not had the desired effect.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

· We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
· We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
· Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

Here’s the problem: The representative viewpoints are already available. The arguments have been argued. The positions have been laid out. But there is no room for dissent at Google.

De-emphasize empathy.

· I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Empathy is a virtue, but it is not empathy that the author’s cohorts want: It’s sympathy. They want you to allow them to emotionally manipulate you into giving them what they want. They want to say “Look at how beautifully I suffer! Oh, look how I bleed! Won’t anyone come save me from these troubles?” and for you to throw all reason to the side and submit to their will.

Prioritize intention.

· Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
· Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Oh, the “speech = violence” trope is far more sinister than the author believes. The “speech = violence” trope gives the party offended by speech license to do actual violence to the offending party and call it self-defense. They will claim that your words alone will justify their violence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

· Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

· We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
· Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
· Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

Source