Google’s Diversity Problem


Some Google software engineer wrote an internal memo complaining about the echo chamber at Google, the same jewy anti-White environment which prevails at corporations generally, as well as academia, media, and government.

The author treads cautiously, focusing mainly on sex, barely touches race, and says nothing directly about jews. But the thrust of their argument and choice of words indicates a deeper understanding. The tone smacks of the race-realist HBD-o-sphere. This is someone who is disturbed by the impact jewing is having on their life, and though they have the requisite insight and capacity to figure it out, they instead try to imagine it’s about something else.

Though they can see the bias they’re complaining about is sexual and racial, against White males, they still lamely try to misunderstand the conflict as an abstract “left” versus “right”. They’re upset that the “PC-authoritarians” are replacing “villains” like themselves with non-White “victims”, because “diversity” and “oppression”. They refuse to accept what their own description of the situation means, and try instead to rationalize some way out.

The engineer is likely a White man, or someone who might be mistaken for one, but certainly doesn’t want to be mistaken as arguing in favor of Whites. Like any good “conservative” he’s only trying to signal his enlightened liberal attitude, his willingness to play along with the jewed elite’s language and agenda, if only his tormentors would let him:

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).

He drops a hint about the nature of this tribalism in a footnote, implying the ideology of Google’s senior leadership is akin to the anti-White jewing of the Frankfurt school:

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.”

Perhaps he believes he can dance around the crux of the issue, but these two sentences and the reference to tribalism overshadow everything else he said. Any jew who can read will understand what he’s complaining about, even if he doesn’t. And by downplaying race he only made it easier for Google to ignore it.

Of course, when the “diversity” commissar was hired and her agenda was explained, race was front and center. The Google leadership says Google is too White. Just like Hollywood, or Wall Street, or social science departments. It’s a big big problem, and there’s no mystery why. A ridiculous number of the “whites” are actually jews. They’re all on board with the anti-White agenda. They’d all screech if anyone tried to count the jews as jews.

To understand what’s happening here you need only understand that the racial distinction between Whites and jews is what matters most. That’s the big taboo. Nothing is more “politically correct” than pretending some bit of jewing isn’t jewing. Nothing is more semitically correct than white-washing that jewing by actively shifting the blame for it onto Whites.

28 thoughts on “Google’s Diversity Problem”

  1. (((Yonatan Zunger)))‘s response is classic echo chamber. Long-winded. The critic is stupid. He’s the problem. His co-workers should punch him in the face. The jew would just fire him.

    So, about this Googler’s manifesto:

    If you feel isolated by this, that your views are basically unwelcome in tech and can’t be spoken about… well, that’s a fair point. These views are fundamentally corrosive to any organization they show up in, drive people out, and I can’t think of any organization not specifically dedicated to those views that they would be welcome in. I’m afraid that’s likely to remain a serious problem for you for a long time to come. But our company is committed to maintaining a good environment for all of its people, and if one person is determined to thwart that, the solution is pretty clear.²

    I’m writing this here, in this message, because I’m no longer at the company and can say this sort of thing openly. But I want to make it very clear: if you were in my reporting chain, all of part (3) would have been replaced with a short “this is not acceptable” and maybe that last paragraph above. You would have heard part (3) in a much smaller meeting, including you, me, your manager, your HRBP, and someone from legal. And it would have ended with you being escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you. And the fact that you think this was “all in the name of open discussion,” and don’t realize any of these deeper consequences, makes this worse, not better.

    In a footnote the jew links Tolerance is not a moral precept, where he echoes Marcuse. (((Tolerance))) means no quarter for Whites.

  2. In old mob stories, when they wanted to insert someone into a crime family, one of the best ways to make that person appear trustworthy was to introduce him to the targeted family by setting up a situation where the police appeared to attack him. That’s how they began the most recent phase of this whole operation, with Jewish “radicals” and “men’s rights activists” leading to AmRen, to TRS/Radix, et cetera. And of course, the only redeeming quality the likely-Ashkenazi Trump ever had going for him, besides lying about a milkwater-indirect nationalist agenda, was that the media cooperated in defining him as “anti-establishment and disliked by the Jews.”

    In this whole much-covered incident, are we merely seeing the birth of a new Moldbug?

    (Good honeypot trick, too. A “just hot” honeypot is only effective on the stupid-stupids; a plausible honeypot for the ordinary-stupids comes with a backstory which explains why she couldn’t possibly go public and/or to the feds, ergo is trustworthy. Like, her pimp is after her, she broke parole, or she can’t get hired at Joogle anymore.)

  3. We Know Who He Is – Cate Huston – Medium

    This is the nature of white supremacist misogyny — they take things that there is only evidence in one direction, and try and put it up for debate again.

    We know who this guy is. We know who he is literally, because word gets around. But we know metaphorically. I doubt any woman or person of color who has worked with this dude was shocked to find out what he really thinks in writing. We know when we work with dudes like that. We know when they do our code review. We know when we find their comments on our performance review. We know.

    We know in the way they treat us, even when other people say we’re reading too much into it, when they tell us he’s like that with “everyone”. We know in the feeling of discomfort. Maybe we don’t discuss it, but we probably do try to avoid being alone with him. We know he holds us in contempt, even when he has not — yet — shown it openly.

    True. My first thought is objective, noting that anti-Whites don’t see that self-righteousness and hostility cut both ways. My second thought, I bet CRISPR can fix this.


    Lehmann edits (((Quilette))). She’d never admit it, but she’s talking about the clash between jew narrative and White science, the structure of prevailing semitically correct taboos versus empirical reality.

    Damore is getting lots of sympathy and support from alt-jews, much like Tuvel and Weinstein. The threat jewing poses to jew businesses (like Google) is overblown. The toxins jews produce mostly hobble non-jew enterprises. The jews carve out whatever exceptions to jewing jews require to continue jewing.

  5. I am always reminded that the PC construct always refers to jews that engage in abhorrent behavior as “self-loathing”, as if those jews really aren’t jews. Laughable.

    They are engaging in abhorrent behavior directly because they are jews, not in spite of the fact that they are jews. They are not “self loathing”, but rather loathesome.

    A similar canard is that ridiculous claim that America is based on “Judeo-Christian” principles, as if a single jew was ever vested in America, or ever signed the Declaration of Independence. Both claims, patently false.

  6. Which part of Judeo Christian values contradict America? Worshiping a rabbi for being oppressed by a white empire? Or welcoming all men as brothers, giving them free food, and forgiving them if they hit you or rape your women? Sounds exactly like America to me.

    The good parts of Christ-worship were not ever related to the Torah or to Rabbi Jesus. What good has been associated with Christianity has occurred only when the people who adopted it were doing something good anyway, then also happened to thank Jesus as part of that. Calling Christianity a positive influence is like thanking Hollywood when a good movie happens to be made. If someone makes a good movie, Hollywood at best can be said to have hoped to make some money off of that movie. It is noxious, offensive, and utterly stupid to credit anything humans do in spite of occupation with the occupation at the time. Might as well thank cancer-values for someone having lived another year.

  7. The so-called “self-loathing” jew is just a less common variant of the more typical iconoclast. Whereas the bulk of jewry heaps all their vitriol on non-jews, out of concern for the jews, the exception is a critic of some facet of jewing, out of concern for the jews.

  8. Google Employee Memo: Read YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki’s Response:

    Yesterday, after reading the news, my daughter asked me a question. “Mom, is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?”

    . . .

    For instance, what if we replaced the word “women” in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles? Would some people still be discussing the merit of the memo’s arguments or would there be a universal call for swift action against its author? I don’t ask this to compare one group to another, but rather to point out that the language of discrimination can take many different forms and none are acceptable or productive.

    I thought about all of this, looked at my daughter and answered simply.

    “No, it’s not true.”

    He who controls the discourse on jewing controls the discourse on race and sex and everything else.

  9. This article is causing Damore-sympathizing alt-jew race-realist/HBD twits to twit.

    Stop Equating “Science” With Truth – “Science” Is One Reason the Google Memo Happened. Here’s the core point:

    Most saliently in the context of the Google memo, our scientific educations almost never talk about the invention of whiteness and the invention of race in tandem with the early scientific method which placed a high value on taxonomies—which unsurprisingly and almost certainly not coincidentally supported prevailing social views. The standard history of science that is taught to budding scientists is that during the Enlightenment, Europe went from the dark ages to, well, being enlightened by a more progressive mindset characterized by objective “science.” It is the rare scientific education that includes a simultaneous conversation about the rise of violent, imperialist globalization during the same time period. Very few curricula acknowledge that some European scientific “discoveries” were in fact collations of borrowed indigenous knowledge. And far too many universally call technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously warmed climate.

    Much of the science that resulted from this system, conducted primarily by white men, is what helped teach us that women were the inferior sex.

    This is a textbook recital of the toxic anti-White jew narrative on “scientific racism”, the ideology Damore complained about and got fired for opposing. Yet the twits who sympathize with him and the scientists whose work he cited are even less willing than he has been to confront the explicit anti-White nature of this hostility, never mind its jew origin.

    No surprise, the author of this narrative-trumps-science screed is Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, a professional jewess who sees her own freakishness as justification to tell non-freaks what they can think or say.

    How to Talk to Minorities, Part 1:

    First things first: it’s a good idea to google someone before you seriously call them out for an infraction against a community. For example, my Facebook profile picture is not of me, and my appearance can be confusing for people trying to categorize me. You might think my name helps, but people often grab the wrong information from it. My name includes Hsu — by marriage. I am not actually Asian American. Prescod is of English origin, which is not a particularly helpful racial identifier. People often assume that Weinstein is my married name (usually a racist assumption), but it’s not, and I am in fact ethnically Jewish. My husband’s last name is Taiwanese. He’s also Jewish, by conversion not ethnicity. You can’t guess that from his name. I am Black, but you can’t guess that from my name either.

    So, if you can, do not assume you know anything about the person’s identity based on their last name or some random profile picture. Many people of color like me have Jewish last names, many Jews have Anglo last names

    . . .

    And as we know, you never know when someone is queer. I’m married to a man. I am still super queer.


  10. Bloomberg interview, Fired Engineer James Damore: I Feel Google Betrayed Me.

    @4:00 After confidently arguing that personality traits do differ by sex, Dalmore is pressed on Wojcicki’s point, that personality also differs by race, and suddenly he caves and backpedals: “That’s a false analogy. She’s trying to lump me in with racists and other bigots. Which I’m not. I’m not a sexist, and I’m not a racist.”

    Damore has previously testified (both in his paper and near the start of the Peterson interview) that Google’s furtive jewed agenda specifically discriminates against White sexually-normal men. His original incoherent critique of that agenda was, “you’re the real racists but I’m on your side”. Now it is the more honest, more sensible, “I’m on your side against the racists”.

    The key point, which best explains what’s happening here, is that jews are racially disctinct from and hostile towards Whites. That is precisely the point Damoresque alt-jewing never presses, because at root it is just more jewing.

  11. In Defense of the Google Manifesto | Areo Magazine:

    I recently read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker. One sentence, pertaining to the idea of social constructionism (everything is controlled by society, and only by changing society can we ameliorate the oppressed — the policies Damore wrote against to a degree), has stayed with me. It is especially relevant in reflecting on the response to the Google memo:

    “This is the mentality of a cult, in which fantastical beliefs are flaunted as proof of one’s piety.”

    The mentality in this case being the belief that men and women are equal in all traits, tendencies, and talents. When people say some (Western) feminists and considerable parts of the mainstream left are anti-science, this is what they mean. Why the cult reference? From Gloria Steinem and congresswoman Bella Abzug’s insistence in 1998 on the very idea of sex differences as “poppycock” and “anti-American crazy thinking,” this meme has carried itself into our discourse and saturated our milieu. There is a blank-slatist belief that only equal representation, 50/50, can cure discrimination.

    Alt-jewing points directly at the mentality of jewing, misdiagnoses it as “human nature”.

  12. Another popular alt-jew take from the jew at Slate Star Codex, Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences:

    Silicon Valley was supposed to be better than this. It was supposed to be the life of the mind, where people who were interested in the mysteries of computation and cognition could get together and make the world better for everybody. Now it’s degenerated into this giant hatefest of everybody writing long screeds calling everyone else Nazis and demanding violence against them. Where if someone disagrees with the consensus, it’s just taken as a matter of course that we need to hunt them down, deny them of the cloak of anonymity, fire them, and blacklist them so they can never get a job again. Where the idea that we shouldn’t be a surveillance society where we carefully watch our coworkers for signs of sexism so we can report them to the authorities is exactly the sort of thing you get reported to the authorities if people see you saying.

    As usual, the jew plays down the jewy anti-White nature of the “giant hatefest”. Not that he disagrees with the jew consensus on “nazis”, he just doesn’t like being mistaken for one.

    This is the world we’ve built. Where making people live in fear is a feature, not a bug.

    That jewy we. So magnanimous. “We did this to ourselves, trust me.” Ha ha, fuck you, kike.

  13. Damore’s hero Haidt, The Google Memo: What Does the Research Say About Gender Differences?

    Damore’s memo does not reject the pursuit of diversity; it challenges the way that Google is currently pursuing diversity–with a heavy emphasis on implicit bias training–and its assumption that gender gaps necessarily show the existence of some form of bias.

    Another tedious alt-jew attempt to ignore the jewy anti-White agenda and pretend that the problem is Damore didn’t provide enough citations.

  14. Anna Wiener, How Silicon Valley’s Workplace Culture Produced James Damore’s Google Memo | The New Yorker:

    His memo shows a deep misunderstanding of what constitutes power in Silicon Valley, and where that power lies. True, Google and its peers have put money and other company resources toward diversity efforts, and they very likely will continue to do so. But today, in mid-2017, men—white men—are still very much in the majority. It is still largely white men who make decisions, and largely white men who prosper. By positioning diversity programs as discriminatory, Damore paints exactly the opposite picture. He frames employees like himself as a silenced minority, and his contrarian opinions as a kind of Galilean heresy.

    The misunderstanding involves jews dissimulating as “white”. Nobody dares to count the jews. Nobody dares criticize their anti-White agenda. There’s the power.

  15. JRxer James Miller, Get ready for the ‘tech alt-right’ to gain influence in Silicon Valley – Business Insider:

    When SJWs in Silicon Valley realize that their ideological enemies are hiding, they might actively search them out. They might become suspicious of the guy who was the first to stop clapping when a new diversity initiative was announced. Even worse, SWJs in human resources might become reluctant to hire those with characteristics correlated with conservatism, such as past military service.

    The anti-White ideology hides in plain sight behind semitically correct corporatese like “diversity initiative”. Numerous jewniversity courses and jewsmedia articles explicitly identify Whites as the enemy. What concerns the alt-jew is the White reaction:

    Business works best if different political tribes don’t seek to crush others when they have a temporary upper-hand. If, however, the right perceived that SJWs are after them, it’s understandable (if regrettable) that they will treat SJWs likewise when they have the power.

    Although the left greatly outnumbers the right in tech, if the right uses stealth tactics and the left doesn’t, the right might eventually gain an advantage in the career-destroying game because they will more easily locate high-value targets.

    Stealthy tribalism might someday threaten stealthy tribalism! The alt-jew take on jewing.

  16. Based Marco Randazza, Outrage over Google memo is misplaced – CNN:

    Cue the outrage and applause machines — depending on which political tribe you belong to. Of course, the outrage machine is calling for him to be tracked down and fired. I take the opposite view, but not because I agree with him. In fact, I mostly disagree with him, though I think he makes some good arguments — but that is beside the point. I categorically oppose the notion that if you have an opinion that deviates too far from that which is considered to be “politically correct,” then the appropriate punishment is that you should lose your job — and preferably not be hired anywhere else, either.

    Categorical opposition to tribalism and PC of unknown origin = based alt-jewing in a nutshell.

    Of course, the blowback against this Google employee is not top-down authoritarianism or orthodoxy enforced by the state. No, in America when you violate the PC code of conduct, a small cadre of people will dust off the outrage machine — and millions of people will fuel it.

    “This (((PC code of conduct))) defined by this (((small cadre of people))) may influence millions but has no influence on the state or its laws, trust me.”

  17. Cynthia Lee, I’m a woman in computer science. Let me ladysplain the Google memo to you:

    The stress of being a minority demographic in a sometimes-hostile environment is not acknowledged as a contributor.

    It’s important to appreciate the background of endless skepticism that every woman in tech faces, and the resulting exhaustion we feel as the legitimacy of our presence is constantly questioned.

    To be a woman in tech is also to always and forever be faced with skepticism that I do and feel all those things authentically enough to truly belong.

    Engineers solve problems. Bitches bitch about their feelings.

    It is striking to me that the manifesto author repeatedly lists race alongside gender when listing programs and preferences he thinks should be done away with, but, unlike gender, he never purports to have any scientific backing for this. The omission is telling. Would defenders of the memo still be comfortable if the author had casually summarized race and IQ studies to argue that purported biological differences — not discrimination or unequal access to education — explained Google’s shortage of African-American programmers?

    Wojcicki’s taunt. Google’s policies are anti-White, favor non-Whites. The explanation is jewing.

    Damore downplayed race, then backpedaled from there. His defenders have avoided the subject completely. It is telling. The pretext for the jewing is that Whites have too much power. It’s a sham. Not a single supposedly powerful White dares to speak up in defense of Whites.

    In the end, focusing the conversation on the minutiae of the scientific claims in the manifesto is a red herring. Regardless of whether biological differences exist, there is no shortage of glaring evidence, in individual stories and in scientific studies, that women in tech experience bias and a general lack of a welcoming environment, as do underrepresented minorities. Until these problems are resolved, our focus should be on remedying that injustice. After that work is complete, we can reassess whether small effect size biological components have anything to do with lingering imbalances.

    The “work” is anti-White jewing. The alt-jewing lends it cover.

  18. Another alt-jew take on Damore. Free speech must apply to all — even those we find offensive | London Evening Standard:

    In all the furore surrounding Damore’s memo, most of the focus has been on critiquing the views he expressed on the differences between men and women, but far less attention has been paid to the broader point he was trying to make: that unpopular views, views that did not accord with the mainstream ideology in the company, could not be expressed. And that this in turn could lead to a monotheistic culture that is not good for business.

    “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,” Damore wrote. By sacking him, Google made Damore’s point for him.

    . . .

    what those who defend Damore’s sacking are really doing is reinforcing something that is increasingly prevalent in our societies: a kind of liberal intolerance.

    . . .

    I heard it a lot in the wake of the killings at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo: “I believe in free speech, but…” and after that “but” came all kinds of things that the supposed defenders of free speech were in favour of censoring because they felt such censorship would better protect marginalised communities.

    The gist of Ginsberg’s argument: I disapprove of what Damore said, but I’ll write an op-ed arguing that it’s bad for the…uh…”marginalised communities” if…uh…we suppress it.

    As with alt-jews generally, the attempt here is to twist and blunt the point. Damore didn’t simply argue leftism is bad for business. He argued that the prevailing “politically correct” presumption of biological equality is factually incorrect. He exposed and questioned existing corporate policies which cite this false premise as justification to disciminate against sexually normal White men. He alluded in a footnote to the source of these policies, the cultural marxism of the Frankfurt school. And finally, when he was fired, the rationale for doing so was the same as this op-ed presents against it: this is what’s best for “marginalised communities”. So in other words, this is just the old, two jews, three opinions about the best way to jew.

    Frankfurt jew Herbert Marcuse wrote Repressive Tolerance in 1965. He described the prevailing mindset of the jewed elite today. Alt-jews try to obscure the jew-origin and jew-serving nature of this mindset even as they serve up yet another variation on it.

    BTW, professional “free speech” jew Jodie Ginsberg collaborates with explictly anti-White jewsmedia jew David Aaronovitch. What a cohencidence!

Comments are closed.