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!

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.

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.”

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.