Corporate America, Like Our Democratic Leaders, Wants Obedience — White Males Do Not Fit

James Damore, author of a controversial memo that pointed out how conformist Google’s corporate “culture” had become, is now suing the company not for wrongful termination, but for discrimination while he worked there. This strategy enables him to win his case and, despite being likely awarded no real money, having proved his point.

The suit — which seems balanced on the whole, and confined to the factual — reveals what a hostile work environment at Google that Damore had to endure:

According to his filing, Google employs “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others.”

The suit also claims that the “numerical presence of women celebrated at Google” was based “solely due to their gender” while the “presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.”

…To underscore her point that Google’s policies need to be amended, she cited so-called TGIF meetings at Google, telling reporters that during Damore’s tenure, “managers were called out and shamed and mocked if they didn’t have 50/50 gender parity in [their respective] units.” She called the goal “fair” but asked, rhetorically: “How do you get there? Job fairs. Making yourself more attractive. Not by saying, ‘White guy, you can’t have that job because that’s reserved for a woman or [other] minority.’”

Nothing here is surprising. Tech has left the years of innovation behind; Google is messing around with AI and other tech that will mature in a few dozen years, but that is being handled by unwashed geeklings hidden in back rooms. The rest of Google has become as corporate as Monsanto, GM, or Microsoft, and for that, they need obedient little tools to carry out the detailed tasks handed down from above.

As a result, they are turning to women, Asians, and other minorities because these groups tend to be detail-focused but oblivious to the big picture, which means that they will carry out paradoxical or pointless instructions to the letter, which is what administration needs in order to remain in power.

Although this seems like Google is strong, what is really announces is that Google has become weak. It has moved from the youth of a company to old age, mainly because its existing product does not produce enough money, and its future products are not yet realized. This is a company in crisis, and James Damore is bringing that to light for the benefit of all, including Google itself.

Ethnic Ties Are More Important That Alliances With Other Races

Diversity makes people isolated and withdrawn, conditions that go alongside paranoia. Xenophobia, or the pragmatic recognition that other groups want to dominate your group, can also coincide with paranoia. But in the end, ethnic allegiance is more important than cross-racial alliances. We can see this in the case of Donald Trump and John Lewis:

Shortly after arriving in Atlanta, Trump signed a bill that grants Georgia its first national historic park at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site near downtown Atlanta. He signed it shortly after Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, boarded Air Force One.

The measure was long championed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and vocal Trump critic, who praised the bill without mentioning the president.

In theory, Trump is reaching out to another ethnic group, but this is not praiseworthy in the eyes of a member of that group. If he acknowledges the help of a cross-racial ally, he is ceding some power to that other group, so he cannot both recognize the help and maintain his own action in the self-interest of his group. This is yet another reason why diversity will never work, but in the meantime, will make unintentional enemies of us all.

The Grief Exception: Diversity Causes Depression

At The Guardian, buried deep within an article on depression lurks a shocking admission of its causes, including diversity.

Then, as the years and decades passed, doctors on the frontline started to come back with another question. All over the world, they were being encouraged to tell patients that depression is, in fact, just the result of a spontaneous chemical imbalance in your brain – it is produced by low serotonin, or a natural lack of some other chemical. It’s not caused by your life – it’s caused by your broken brain. Some of the doctors began to ask how this fitted with the grief exception. If you agree that the symptoms of depression are a logical and understandable response to one set of life circumstances – losing a loved one – might they not be an understandable response to other situations? What about if you lose your job? What if you are stuck in a job that you hate for the next 40 years? What about if you are alone and friendless?

The grief exception seemed to have blasted a hole in the claim that the causes of depression are sealed away in your skull. It suggested that there are causes out here, in the world, and they needed to be investigated and solved there. This was a debate that mainstream psychiatry (with some exceptions) did not want to have. So, they responded in a simple way – by whittling away the grief exception. With each new edition of the manual they reduced the period of grief that you were allowed before being labelled mentally ill – down to a few months and then, finally, to nothing at all. Now, if your baby dies at 10am, your doctor can diagnose you with a mental illness at 10.01am and start drugging you straight away.

…We act like human distress can be assessed solely on a checklist that can be separated out from our lives, and labelled as brain diseases. If we started to take people’s actual lives into account when we treat depression and anxiety, Joanne explained, it would require “an entire system overhaul”. She told me that when “you have a person with extreme human distress, [we need to] stop treating the symptoms. The symptoms are a messenger of a deeper problem. Let’s get to the deeper problem.”

The grief exception points out that depression cannot be purely chemical because people experience it in response to grief, which is an external stimulus. If grief can cause the effects of depression, then we cannot universally say that those effects cause depression, because that is a cause-effect error. If when it rains, the sidewalk is wet, it does not mean that the if the sidewalk is wet, it has rained; there are other ways in that the sidewalk can become wet.

As it turns out, that is not all. Instability caused by diversity causes people to fear for their future, and this makes them depressed and paranoid:

We all know that every human being has basic physical needs: for food, for water, for shelter, for clean air. It turns out that, in the same way, all humans have certain basic psychological needs. We need to feel we belong. We need to feel valued. We need to feel we’re good at something. We need to feel we have a secure future. And there is growing evidence that our culture isn’t meeting those psychological needs for many – perhaps most – people. I kept learning that, in very different ways, we have become disconnected from things we really need, and this deep disconnection is driving this epidemic of depression and anxiety all around us.

…Professor John Cacioppo of Chicago University taught me that being acutely lonely is as stressful as being punched in the face by a stranger – and massively increases your risk of depression. Dr Vincent Felitti in San Diego showed me that surviving severe childhood trauma makes you 3,100% more likely to attempt suicide as an adult. Professor Michael Chandler in Vancouver explained to me that if a community feels it has no control over the big decisions affecting it, the suicide rate will shoot up.

As time goes on, we are seeing that diversity is destructive to all groups involved and that our attempts to fix the situation only make it worse. Like any other crusade against a condition of life itself, this one is doomed to fail because it has no condition for stopping, thus will continue to accelerate in manic intensity until it self-destructs.

Anti-Diversity Means No More Ethnic Conflict

The Jersusalem Post opines that racial animosity arises from conflicting interests even in neutral, pacifistic, diversity-worshiping America:

Though US President Donald Trump is a philosemite and has proven to be a major ally of Israel, many of the issues that he has advanced – anti-immigration, America First, anti-globalism – are shared by blatantly antisemitic conservative politicians. Indeed, a number of political pundits have noted that, leaving aside Patrick Buchanan’s anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric, there are remarkable similarities between Trump’s campaign and the issues championed by Buchanan during his unsuccessful 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns.

As a result, the supporters of men like Buchanan have shown thrown their support behind Trump and have been emboldened by Trump’s victory. Because Trump is dependent on this constituency for its support, he cannot easily disassociate himself from them or openly criticize them.

The tragedy here is that ethnic interests conflict: the Western European substrate of America wants to have its own nation, and the Jewish people surely need theirs. While Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic, he recognizes the primal rule of nations. One ethnic group defines one nation. Only when two or more overlap do we see the horrors of racial resentment, pogroms, Holocausts and other outward signs of ethnic conflict.

Diversity = Racism

diversity_is_racism

The slogans “diversity is racism” and “multiculturalism is genocide” emphasize the truth of these programs, which are sold to you as a rainbow nation of people of different origins holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” In reality, diversity and multiculturalism are designed to replace a majority ethnic population with a mixed-race one.

Racism

Racism is discrimination against those of another race.

Racism, n. (2) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.1

Multiculturalism is racism against the majority. When leaders who want totalitarian control see a majority population, they realize they have a problem. Majorities have cultures, values, folkways and belief systems. The tyrannical leader needs people who will follow a carrot (ideology) from fear of a stick (political ostracism), and majorities do not do this enough. Therefore, they need to be replaced. The solution is to bring in people from all over the world, then punish those who do not interact, socialize, and conduct commerce with these, forcing the mixing of the groups.

Genocide

Genocide is removal of a race.

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”2

Diversity (also called internationalism, multiculturalism and ethno-pluralism) starts with the happy row of ethnic restaurants and neighbors of different national backgrounds. It ends with those cultures each destroyed as they are assimilated into majority culture, which in turn assimilates majority culture to a new mixed-race group, which then replaces the majority. If you did it with machine guns, people would recognize it as genocide. It is simpler a slower less visible method.