Google’s “anti-diversity manifesto”

It’s telling that the first page of Google search results does not yield that actual text of the memo. However, it does appear on the second page, here. I’ll include it at the end of this post.

Also telling is that the manifesto is described as “anti-diversity” when the author emphasizes, repeatedly, that he’s in favor of diversity – and he even makes suggestions for how Google can increase diversity. Here are some of the headers from the Google results for “Google anti-diversity manifesto:”

Google ‘anti-diversity manifesto’ sparks backlash among employees

Google engineer’s anti-diversity manifesto sparks outrage

Google employee’s anti-diversity memo goes viral, prompts response

Google employee’s anti-diversity manifesto sparks outrage internally

A Google engineer’s anti diversity manifesto has caused an uproar

Google engineer’s anti-diversity ‘manifesto’ angers employees

A Googler’s Anti-Diversity Screed Reveals Tech’s Rotten Core

Having read the manifesto, I thought it was rather tame, and very polite and innocuous, even from a “Diversity” point of view. Here it is:

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.

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.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • 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.

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.

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.

Left Biases

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

Right Biases

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Posted in examples of propaganda, feminism and men's issues, nurture vs. nature and I.Q., shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Leave a comment

Just got back from the 2017 Amren conference

… and you may be asking yourselves: What took me so long to write about it? The answer is that I took a detour to New Jersey on the way home.

As for the conference, I don’t think I can do better than this attendee in describing it. It was the first Amren conference where I felt out of place – for being too old. A majority of attendees were twenty-somethings.

It was also the first conference where antifa protesters were allowed to enter the actual hotel and harass us. I’m not sure what the law is in Tennessee, but infringing on another’s personal space, for the purpose of harassment, might be an offense.

That being said, here are some photos of the antifa protesters outside the hotel, and inside:

That last one was photographing me.

Somebody must have told those antifa that our conference was based on hate. Yes, we’re critical of some non-white groups – but no more so than the Establishment Left is critical of whites. Personally, I don’t think those antifa have any clue what they even mean by “hate.” I hope that their behavior doesn’t discourage people from attending future Amren conferences; on the contrary, it should serve as motivation to be even more active.

As for the speeches, the ones that stand out in my mind were delivered by Jared Taylor John Derbyshire. Derbyshire spoke of the history of race-realism and that of race-denialism. He made it clear that race-denialism has no future. Advancing science will see to that. Taylor’s first speech, which I particularly liked, consisted mainly of letters he has received from non-whites across the globe encouraging him to keep up his work. When this speech becomes available on YouTube, I encourage y’all to watch it. It’s a short one.

The first speech, delivered by Helmuth Nyborg, dealt with the correlation between colder climates and higher IQ’s. I wasn’t terribly impressed, partly because these concepts are old-hat for pretty much all of us, and partly because he avoided the obvious issue of the Inuit (if cold climates make for high IQ’s then the Inuit should be smartest of all). It fell to Mr. Taylor to pose that question, and even then, Mr. Nyborg didn’t answer it until prodded a second time. His answer lacked depth; he claimed that inbreeding depressed their average IQ. I think there’s more to it than that – and, in fact, the Inuit DO have a higher average IQ than other Native Americans.

One speaker was a no-show: Serge Trifkovic. I asked Mr. Taylor, at the very end of the conference, if he’d heard what happened to Mr. Trifkovic, and it was still a mystery. He was to speak about “Islam and the Third Invasion of Europe.” I hope the Muslims didn’t get to him.

You’ve probably already read about the incident where one of the attendees was attacked by antifa, and suffered injuries. I was hanging out by the lake at the time, heard shouting and caught the tail end of it. I saw two or three men ganging up on one man, striking him and pushing him down the hill into the lake. As security was treating him, one of the officers asked me to speak to the man in order to arrange something for his dog. In the end, the hotel staff found a solution.

If you want to help the victim, who also has legal troubles due to the incident, you can donate here. I’ve already done so.

Posted in activism, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 3 Comments

What is the true meaning of jihad?

If you look up “What is the true meaning of jihad?” on Google, you’ll have to do a lot of scrolling before you reach any source that offers a generally non-peaceful interpretation of this word. Did Google manipulate the results? You be the judge.

Typical is the interpretation of The Islamic Supreme Council of America:

WHAT JIHAD IS

  • The Arabic word “jihad” is often translated as “holy war,” but in a purely linguistic sense, the word ” jihad” means struggling or striving.
  • The arabic word for war is: “al-harb”.
  • In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), “jihad” has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
  • If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents – such as women, children, or invalids – must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
  • Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: “This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad,” which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment…

I’m not an expert, but the second bullet point seems problematic to me; Arabic is full of synonyms and near- synonyms. To imply that jihad cannot mean “war” because “al-harb” means war is ridiculous. As for the other bullet points, I’ll let an ex-Muslim explain the problem:

A word can mean many things to different people, depending on the context, but I’d like to add a different angle to this, one that most people are probably not aware of.

If I’m not mistaken, Hebrew has an equivalent to the word “jihad.” It can be found in the Bible (Genesis 49:19). When Jacob blesses his son Gad, he says:

גָּ֖ד גְּד֣וּד יְגוּדֶ֑נּוּ וְה֖וּא יָגֻ֥ד עָקֵֽב׃

Transliterated: Gad gedud yegudennu, wehu yagud ‘aqeb

“Gad will be attacked by a band of raiders, but he will attack them at their heels.”

Typically, when Arabic and Hebrew share a word, Arabic has the more archaic form. The root for “jihad” is “jahd.” It’s easy to see how the “h” could have fallen away over time, leaving the two-letter root “gud.” Modern Arabic “j” is the same as the Hebrew (and older Arabic) hard “g.”* Like the Qur’an, the Torah is a violent book; few would interpret the word “attack,” in this verse, figuratively (except, perhaps, the Kabbalists, but that’s a different matter).

* Many Yemenite Jews pronounce the Hebrew “g” as “j” and many modern Arabs (such as the Egyptians) pronounce the Arabic “j” as a hard “g” to this day.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, language, Muslims | Tagged , | 5 Comments

A White Man Deliberately Plowed a Van into Worshippers

When Muslims plow vans into crowds of people, we’re told that “a van plowed into pedestrians…”. The attackers are described as “assailants”:

At least six people died and three attackers were killed in multiple “terrorist incidents” Saturday in London after a van plowed into pedestrians on London Bridge and assailants went on a stabbing rampage at nearby Borough Market, police say.

In those, all too frequent incidents, we never find corporate-controlled news sources starting their articles with “A Muslim plowed a van into crowds…”.

But when a Native Brit does the same to Muslims, MSN begins its article thusly:

A white man deliberately plowed a van into worshippers near a north London mosque, the Muslim Council of Britain said on Monday, citing witnesses and video from the incident which left several people injured.

“It appears that a white man in a van intentionally plowed into a group of worshippers who were already tending to someone who had been taken ill,” the Muslim Council said in a statement.

Could you imagine an article, from MSN, Yahoo, ABC, CNN etc. starting with “a black man murdered/raped/assaulted…”? It would never happen.

The MSN article continues:

It said the incident was the most violent manifestation of islamophobia in Britain in recent months and called for extra security at places of worship as the end of the holy month of Ramadan nears.

Okay. Got it: When non-Muslims attack Muslims, it’s called “Islamophobia.” Here’s a follow-up question:

What do we call it when Muslims attack non-Muslims?

As pundits, from both the right and left, continue to condemn this recent attack on Muslims, I think it’s time to ponder the nature of equality.

Thanks to disastrous immigration policies, Western European countries have been transformed into “Diverse” societies, composed of many different ethnic groups. What will be the long-term consequences of a status-quo where only certain groups must live in fear, while others do not? If we were to allow Muslims to terrorize non-Muslims, but never the other way around, what would be the consequences over decades and centuries?

Nature has an answer to infection. It’s called leukocytes. Look it up.

 

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, Muslims, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 3 Comments

Donald Trump: America’s third black president

Don’t we love it when animals seem to act like humans? We see videos of lions adopting baby antelopes, or dogs teaching babies how to crawl and we get warm, fuzzy, feelings of how these animals are “just like us.”

This is how leftists look at blacks. Subconsciously, they expect blacks to be poor, crime-prone and vulgar. So when they encounter blacks who behave normally, and are successful, they’re overly impressed.

President Clinton was considered “America’s first black president” because he kowtowed to the Congressional Black Caucus. President Obama was America’s second black president because his father was black. President Trump is America’s third black president because the Leftist establishment has set low expectations for him.

Hence we find Stephen Colbert praising him for doing what any sitting US president would do after the recent attack on members of Congress. He said:

So I just want to say thank you to the congressional leadership and to the president for responding to this act of terror in a way that gives us hope that whatever our differences, we will always be the United States of America. Thank you for that.

There are many reasons to be grateful to President Trump; he’s trying to save our civilization. But it’s hard to imagine ANY sitting US president failing to respond similarly.

Posted in politics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Qasim Rashid’s answer to a critic of Islam

A Muslim lawyer was posed a question by a “white supremacist.” The lawyer, one Qasim Rashid, believes that he delivered a powerful answer:

White supremacist asks Muslim lawyer why there is no ‘Christian ISIS,’ gets schooled

Rashid gets harassed on the internet by anti-Muslim a-holes on the regular. One of them, who was likely quite proud of this “hot take,” asked him “Where’s the Christian version of ISIS and every other religion then?”

Rashid replied with thousands of years of receipts known as World History.

Rashid proceeds to list every atrocity, or imagined atrocity, committed by whites in the past. He lists the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the near annihilation of the Australian Aborigines and many Native American tribes, the Spanish Inquisition etc.

Let’s not get into the argument that some of those deeds were committed IN SPITE of Christianity, not because of it. Generally, the Church preferred converting native peoples rather than exterminating them. Instead, let’s focus on the more obvious point:

All of the listed crimes occurred long before any of us were even born. Most of us are aware that the Church was responsible for heinous crimes – IN THE PAST. It’s likely that the person who posed the question was asking about a “Christian ISIS” TODAY, not one that existed centuries ago. The question was, to spell it out more clearly, “Where IS the Christian version of ISIS…” not “Where WAS the Christian version of ISIS. We live in the present, and we worry about the future; there’s nothing we can do about the past.

But Rashid does list some current-day atrocities, such as the “Lord’s Resistance Army” in Uganda. This is what we are supposed to consider “modern-day Christianity.” While ISIS can cite any number of Islamic writings to justify its practices, can the Lord’s Resistance Army cite credible sources for its practices from Christian literature? I’d really like to know, but I suspect that the answer is “no.”

Rashid also mentions Christan militias in Central African Republic, and this is a good place to ask: Are ALL modern Christian atrocities the work of Africans? Shouldn’t we take race into account?

“Of course not!” he would reply. After all:

In America white supremacists, who are self-described Christian, are the single largest terror threat to American security, that’s according to the FBI and 392 police agencies…

This last claim is a difficult one to either prove or disprove, as definitions of “terror” vary widely, as do definitions of “white” and “supremacist.” According to Snopes:

Deaths from Muslim extremism vs far-right extremism

A major April 2017 report by the Government Accountability Office tracked incidents of far-right and Muslim extremist violence, and concluded the following:

Between 12 September 2001 and 31 December 2016, there were 23 fatal “Radical Islamist Violent Extremist-Motivated Attacks,” resulting in a total of 119 deaths in the United States. In the same time period, there were 62 fatal “far-right violent extremist-motivated attacks”, leading to 106 deaths.

Just two events account for more than half of the 119 deaths resulting from Muslim extremist attacks: the December 2015 San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 people, and the June 2016 Pulse night club attack, which killed 49 people.

According to the University of Maryland’s START consortium, between 12 September 2001 and 2016 there were 31 fatal “Islamist extremist” attacks, leading to 119 deaths.  In the same time period, there were 89 “far-right extremist” attacks, resulting in a total of 158 deaths.

So both data sources agree that far-right extremist attacks are far more common, but they differ on the total number of deaths, with one source concluding that Muslim extremist violence has killed slightly more people (119 deaths, as opposed to 106), and another concluding that far-right extremist violence has killed significantly more (158 deaths, as opposed to 119).

According to START, Muslim extremist violence killed seven times more people than far-right extremist violence between 1990 and 2016, despite five times fewer fatal attacks.  However, this period included the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the attacks of 11 September 2001, the two deadliest terrorist incidents in American history. When those outliers are removed from the figures, according to START, far-right extremist violence caused 272 deaths between 1990 and 2016 — more than twice as many as the 130 deaths from Islamic extremism during the same period.

So whether Muslim or far-right extremists have killed more Americans depends on how you measure such incidents and which source you use. And sorting through attacks and placing them in the categories of “terrorism”, “violent extremism” or “hate crimes” can sometimes be extremely complicated.

But when it comes to extremist violence perpetrated by refugees, the numbers are unequivocal. In the four decades between 1975 and 2015, only 20 individuals who arrived in the U.S. as refugees either attempted or carried out a terrorist attack – resulting in three deaths. And, of most relevance to President Donald Trump’s proposed immigration ban, all three of those killings were perpetrated by anti-Castro refugees.

Not a single death has resulted from terrorist activity by a Muslim extremist refugee.

Even taking this at face value, there is a glaring problem with this analysis: It takes into account ONLY American deaths in America – and ignores the fact that Muslims account for only 1% of Americans (according to the Huffington Post). Obviously, this is going to impact the frequency of Islamic attacks on American soil.

Leftists love to cite the (supposedly) low number of American deaths due to Islamic terrorism as evidence that Islam does not pose much of a threat to us. It’s interesting that, when it comes to this particular statistic, they seem to be concerned only with the welfare of Americans.

If we compare this with the activities of leftist charitable organizations, such as The Clinton Foundation or Save the Children, we see that when it come to other matters, the focus is decidedly global. The Clinton Foundation website states:

We operate programs around the world that have a significant impact in a wide range of issue areas, including economic development, climate change, health and wellness, and participation of girls and women…

Because of our work, nearly 35,000 American schools have provided kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; more than 150,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania are benefiting from climate-smart agronomic training, higher yields, and increased market access; working with partners, more than 8.5 million trees and tree seedlings have been planted to strengthen ecosystems and livelihoods; over 600,000 people have been impacted through market opportunities created by social enterprises and health and wellbeing programs in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa; through the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, over 11.5 million people in more than 70 countries have access to CHAI-negotiated prices for HIV/AIDS medications; an estimated 85 million people in the U.S. will be reached through strategic health partnerships developed across industry sectors at both the local and national level; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative community have made more than 3,600 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 435 million people in more than 180 countries.

Nobody can accuse the Clinton Foundation of being primarily concerned with Americans; their emphasis is clearly a global one.

The Save the Children website states:

In 2016, Save the Children reached more than 157 million children, including more than 56 million children directly. We worked in 120 countries, including the United States, where we reached 683,000 children.

Their efforts are also global.

Yet when it comes to the victims of terrorism, these same people appear to be blind to the suffering of the victims of Islamic terrorism worldwide; it’s only the ones in America who seem to count.

The whole point of preventing a mass influx of Muslims into the United States is so that we do not become like Western Europe, North Africa or the Middle East, where attacks are far more frequent. Leftists are like a doctor who, tending to a young patient who has begun smoking, tells him, “You have nothing to worry about! Any adverse affects won’t develop for a long time. Keep smoking if it makes you happy; it’s only a little bit of smoke after all.” Of course, by the time the patient is diagnosed with cancer or emphysema, it will be too late.

The time to worry about Islamic terrorism (and the other ill effects of having a large Muslim population) is right now, when they only constitute a small proportion of our population. If we wait until they grow to 10% or 15% of our population, it will be too late.

Rashid makes the claim that ISIS is the result of Western bombings in the Middle East. If being bombed sows the seeds of terrorism and extremism, then I’d like him to explain to us why none of the non-Muslim countries, bombed by the U.S., are hotbeds of terrorism.

Rashid implies that ISIS is not truly Islamic. I’ll let David Wood explain why this is not so:

 

 

Posted in Muslims | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Portland Free-Speech rally

While I support President Trump’s efforts to “make America great again,” I’m not exactly a gung-ho Trump supporters. But yesterday’s rally was primarily about free speech, so I was inclined to attend. When I learned that Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler was trying to get the federal government to cancel the rally, that clinched it for me.

Leftist media outlets repeatedly characterized the event as “Alt-Right” or “far-right.” In fact, it was anything but that. The organizer, Kyle Chapman, had announced:

NAZI, KKK, IDENTITY europa, or ANY OTHER White Nationalists will not be allowed into the Patriot Prayer Trump Free Speech Rally tomorrow.

During the rally, two men were holding signed that said “Diversity is code for white genocide.” The organizers grabbed the signs (from me, as it turned out; I was holding one momentarily), threw them to the ground outside on the sidewalk, and made it clear that such messages were not allowed at the rally.

Mr. Chapman repeatedly told us that “skin color doesn’t matter. Ethnicity doesn’t matter…” and that “we’re all united because we’re Americans.” In fact, the opening performance, after his introductory speech, was a traditional Maori dance and chant, which everybody was encouraged to join. He also made sure to have a transexual deliver one of the speeches. She mocked the antifa, by wearing a kerchief on her face and showing a communist flag – which she then trampled under her feet:

pro26

So, despite numerous claims to the contrary, this was NOT an Alt-Right event – and the organizers didn’t seem to get the memo that no matter how much you try to show leftists that you’re as inclusive, and tolerant, as they are, you’ll never win; they’ll still call you a Nazi. However, I did mingle among the crowd, telling people that whites must stick up for themselves. That whites have a right to exist, and must defend it. People were open to that message.

Here are some photos from the rally:

Pepe the frog was there in force, as were Kekistanis. I spent a lot of time chatting with a Jewish man who sported a kilt and a Kekistan cape. He was part of a group that included some motorcyclists who had volunteered to help with security. He, and some other Jews, told me they’re part of a group called the “Jewish Alt-Right.”

The antifa counter-protesters were holding a large sign that seemed to say something in Hebrew. I couldn’t make it out from our location, so I walked around and into the antifa crowd (I was wearing neutral clothing) in order to get a better view:

pro10pro11

It’s not Hebrew, but Yiddish. I don’t actually know enough Yiddish to translate it. I asked each one of the masked protesters what the sign says. None of them knew; they told me:

We were given the sign, and told to hold it…

Hmmm… At that point, they rolled it up. I think they felt rather silly, though I’m sure they still got paid.

Counter-protesters, including antifa and SWJs, freely entered the rally to verbally confront us. Nobody harassed them, and they were in no danger. Had somebody wandered into the leftists camp wearing a MAGA hat, they would have set upon him like a pack of wolfs. Given this scenario, which is the more tolerant crowd, the leftists or the pro-Trumps?

One of the motorcyclists told us that a couple of black guys entered the rally looking for a fight; they had been told this was a KKK rally. When the cyclist told them the truth, they completely changed their tone. I did see them wandering around, and I got the impression they might actually vote for Trump in the next election. Incidentally, we did have pro-Trump blacks, several Hispanics and some Asians. I chatted with one Asian man, who wanted to keep a low profile due to his profession. He came to show his support for free speech.

There were a few hundred of us. If not for the fear of losing one’s job, being socially ostracized or being harassed, there would have been several thousand. The media likes to portray our relatively small numbers as evidence of a lack of support in the community. As a matter of fact, it’s not due to a lack of support, but rather to the atmosphere of fear created by the Establishment Left.

Here are some more photos of the counter-protesters:

The only swastikas were to be found among the leftists. Yes, they threw tampons (with fake blood on them) at us, or at the police. As for the two large black spiders they left behind, I’m not sure what they symbolize, but one of my new Jewish friends was able to pick it up after the end of the rally. It sat on the table later on, when we were dining together:

spider

It will make a nice conversation piece.

Some of the antifa took to throwing stuff at the police. On our side of the protest, there was nothing but respect and gratitude toward the police.

Posted in activism, freedom of speech issues, politics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | Tagged , | 7 Comments