“Don’t Be Evil” is Code for “Be Anti-White”

based_caucasianJames Damore vs. Google: Class Action Lawsuit | Bias | Complaint

James Damore (“Damore”) and David Gudeman (“Gudeman” (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views … (ii) due to their male gender and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race

5. Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination—Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.

6. Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so.

8. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings.

27. Damore’s immediate supervisor was Cristian Tapus (“Tapus”). Tapus reports to Chuck Wu (“Wu”), Senior Director of Engineering for Google. Wu, in turn, reports to Ari Balogh (“Balogh”), Vice President of Engineering at Google. Balogh reports to Sridhar Ramaswamy (“Ramaswamy), the Senior Vice President of GPI and Ads. Ramaswamy, in turn, reports to Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google), who ultimately reports to Larry Page (CEO of Alphabet).

Google’s Diversity And Inclusion Summit

36. Google defined “diverse” individuals as women or individuals who were not Caucasian or Asian.

Specifically, Damore mentioned that it seemed like Google was elevating political correctness over merit.

There he asked questions about whether Google looked at viewpoint diversity with respect to hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as a workplace. The answer he received was that Google only looked at demographic diversity (gender and/or race) when making hiring and promotion decisions—not at viewpoint diversity.

48. Damore ended his memo by addressing the problem in a constructive manner by advocating that Google should treat employees and potential hires as individuals, not members of tribes

60. At the in-person training, entitled “Bias Busting,” Google discussed how biases against women exist in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace. The training was run by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google, and there were approximately 20 Google employees present. Damore disagreed with this one-sided approach. When Damore verbalized his dissent and his concerns with the one-sided presentation, other employees, including managers, laughed at him derisively. They considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of disparagement.

66. After Damore’s memo went viral outside Google, Damore began receiving multiple threats and insults from his coworkers

67. On August 3, 2017 George Sadlier (“Sadlier”), a Director at Google, sent out a mass email condemning James’ essay as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest” and promising an HR investigation into Damore. Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against Damore. Subsequently, On Friday, August 4, 2017, Damore received a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google in Sadlier’s organization, which stated, “You’re a misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

72. Wu told Damore he was being terminated for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

80. On or about August 20, 2015, Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), an L7 SWE Manager, drafted and published a document on a Google-employees only website, entitled, “Derailing.” This document discussed how individuals might attempt to silence someone’s opinions or distract from someone’s point of view. The document was aimed at Caucasian males, and conflated marginalization with white male privilege. The document essentially claimed through examples that any response but agreement to a statement about bias, prejudice, or privilege was a “derailment.” Reductio ad absurdum, the thesis of this document is that on this one particular set of topics, the left-wing political frame of systematic bias, must always dominate, and the receiver must accept that frame, and its associated worldview, in their response. 81.

Gudeman read this article, and disagreed with its premise, as did many other employees. Gudeman left a comment stating his belief that men “need to understand that [Caucasian males] are the victims of a racist and sexist political movement and it is not their fault.” 82.

Gudeman went on to state that “the point of this document is to disallow any defense at all that a man might make when some woman complains about bias. There is no defense. The woman is always right. The man has no alternative but to submit to her superior moral position. We have a word for that attitude, it’s called ‘sexism.’”

85. Gudeman compared this document to that which “slave owners would have written for their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters,” in order to point out prejudices involved with the document

87. Ironically, other Google employees began to “derail” Gudeman’s point of view. Under the guise of advocating for an open dialogue, Burchett merely reported Googlers that disagreed with the thesis of her document, as Gudeman did, to Google management as being “un-Googley.” This further exemplifies the one-sided and flawed mindset of Google—that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong and hateful

93. On November 10, 2016, in response to many Google employee posting on different Google-wide forums regarding their fears about the new administration, Gudeman wrote that anyone “who believes President Trump will be out to get minorities, women or gays has absorbed a lot of serious lies from their echo chamber. And the echo chamber is entirely one sided. You can’t watch TV or go to movies without being constantly confronted with the leftist world view. Leftists can go their whole life never being exposed to the conservative world view except in shows written by people hostile to it.”

94. Gudeman also stated in response to another Google employee that “[i]f you truly think Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis [sic], or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled, then you are so badly out of touch it borders on delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but are saying them anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.”

101. Gudeman had another conversation with another Google employee on November 10, 2016, where he complained about being a conservative and a Trump supporter. Gudeman pointed out that “Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google. Googlers feel comfortable slandering them in a public forum and assume there will be no consequences.”

111. The Final Written Warning itself repudiated Google’s own policy: “We strive to maintain the open culture often associated with startups 2, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.” Ironically, the Google employee had provided ample evidence that Caucasian males who challenged certain assumptions behind the so-called “social justice” agenda were routinely and unfairly branded as “racists,” “sexists,” or “bigots,” and targeted for severe written abuse and career sabotage.

156. Liz Fong-Jones (“Fong-Jones”), an L5 SRE Manager at Google, repeatedly discriminated against Caucasian males.

166. On November 15, 2015, a Google employee complained to Google HR regarding a highly offensive post from an employee in the Developer Product Group. The post stated:

“If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with fuck-all as a result!” (emphasis added.)

167. The Google employee stated that this statement was a violation of the Google Code of Conduct, and was creating a hostile workplace environment as it targeted Caucasians, males, and individuals over the age of 40.

168. Google HR responded: “Given the context of the post and that [the employee’s] main point is to highlight that it is helpful to have diverse perspectives, it doesn’t appear that the post to [sic] violates our policies.”

169. Perplexed, the Google employee responded to Google HR by replacing the term “40-something white men” with “women” and asked how that was not a breach of conduct. Google failed to respond.

170. Google’s lack of response and engagement evidenced Google’s biases and its inability to even recognize them when someone pointed them out. As demonstrated above, Google allowed individuals to insult and discriminate against political conservatives, Caucasians, and males with impunity.

171. A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!” Further in the thread, Burchett highlights the divisiveness of her original post by noting that it was not fair even to talk about women when “POC” or “people of color” weren’t getting enough airtime in the discussion.

Here is a glimpse into the orwellian culture inside Google and similar tech corporations, which is in turn a reflection of the language and attitudes long incubated in academic weapons labs and dispensed by corporate media. The “diversity and inclusion” mask for the “anti-racist” agenda is slipping, exposing the anti-White racial animus which has always driven it. At it’s very root the “diversity” double-talk at Jewgle is anti-White, just as it is in most jewniversities and the jewsmedia. These institutions are so anti-White because they are thoroughly jewed.

Is there a single Google manager who explicitly identifies themselves positively as a White man? Has anyone ever counted the jews? Damore and Gudeman don’t claim to have done so. It is only for the purpose of this lawsuit that they now claim to be White, and what’s more, to speak for the interests of Whites as a legal class. Previously Damore minimized the importance of race. In his memo and in interviews immediately after his termination he made a point of disavowing “racism” and advocating individualism.

Damore’s memo was primarily concerned with opposing attitudes and policies he perceived as potentially punishing him for being a man. Beyond that he and his most vocal supporters have put special emphasis on ideology, complaining that they are “punished for their heterodox political views”. Their view on race is not heterodox, it’s passe. They prefer the older, less blatantly anti-White “anti-racism”. They won’t say it, but the problem is that version isn’t semitically correct enough any more. No doubt Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google, as Gudeman so knowingly puts it. What goes unsaid, even in this suit, is that the hatred is more racial than political, that it is so freely expressed because “Trump supporter” is understood to mean White.

The suit would have more value to Whites if Damore or Gudeman had been fired for saying something like “jews will not replace us” or “it’s okay to be White”. That would have made the who/whom nature of the hostility more plain. As it is Google’s lawyers can point at statements made by the plaintiffs themselves to make their case that race didn’t have anything to do with their terminations. And after all, they’ll argue, Google can’t possibly be anti-White because its management is stacked with (((fellow Whites)))!

Unfortunately, Damore, Gudeman, and their lawyers are not really trying to challenge semitical correctness. Like Weinstein at Evergreen or Bakke at UCal, they’re looking for some shekels for being mistaken for White.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

19 thoughts on ““Don’t Be Evil” is Code for “Be Anti-White””

  1. Probably, and Gudeman too. But as with Weinstein and Bakke, nobody on either side wants to call attention to jewing – it would give the whole game away.

  2. “Has anyone ever counted the jews?”

    “Why is it forbidden to count Jews, one by one, even for a holy purpose”,
    the CALIFORNIA JEWISH VOICE, February 15, 1957, gave the answer:
    “This restriction is found in the Talmud (Babli Yoma 22b) where it is written
    that it is forbidden to count Jews even for a mitzvah.”

    –Quoted in R.H. Williams: The Ultimate World Order, 1957, p61

    TJB. They’re just playing the pea under a shell game. It’s natural and instinctive.

    All is well. Good to know there are some things one can rely on in this phony foment of a world.

    Like the following:


    Theresa May is a rabid White-hating crypto-Jewess LARPing as a White woman Prime Minister. Unfrock the fraud!



  3. Lots of twits about this today: BREAKING: Twitter Engineers To “Ban a Way of Talking” Through “Shadow Banning”

    It’s a glimpse into Twitter’s corporate culture, where non-Whites disparage and scheme to suppress “rednecks” and “Trump supporters”.

    As with Damore and his supporters, Project Veritas’ take is to go along with the game, to pretend the crux of the matter is ideological bias, even though non-White/anti-White nature of the hostility is right there, staring them in the face.

    There’s no need for lawsuits or undercover videos to understand what’s going on, who’s driving the agenda.


    The jews openly organize as jews to control what everyone else can say and do. They aren’t merely doing this on the internet, or from the political left against the right. They’re doing it everywhere, from every direction.

  4. I’ve seen Clints name around but Ive never heard a word from him. So I gave this a go… complete bs. It was a bit odd though not surprising, Jan Irvin didnt correct anything he said. Typical antiWhite pro jew bs. Jan is probably afraid of the sheckle shut down.

  5. Clint Richardson could be just bullshitted. His take is nothing new. He may just spread manure without really understanding anything. He may yet be well-meaning, even if he’s overdosed right now on his own crap.

    The crap is everywhere. It’s right vs left at surface – so think how pervasive it must be at bottom.

  6. Tan wrote: ‘Mainstream “conservative” pundits help advance this jew agenda in their own way by dutifully ignoring the racial nature of the hostility.’

    But why do you put the quotes around ‘conservative’ when he only wants to maintain the racial status quo? Do you assume conservatism is pro-White? Or antisemitic? It’s neither. It’s pro-status quo – it’s CONSERVATIVE.

  7. Nick, I write “conservative” for the same reason I write “liberal” – to indicate that the term represents an identity without substance. While I agree with your point, the reason I have trouble writing either term without sneering is that today’s self-identified conservatives espouse values they themselves would have called liberal a decade or so earlier.

  8. Right. I had not noticed that you also put quotes around liberal, likely because I am acutely concerned that pro-Whites are clearly being led down a right-wing dead-end as it seems to me, where we must obviously be beyond right and left.

    Revilo P Oliver


    CONSERVATISM, when that word was first used in a political sense, correctly implied the maintenance of existing governmental and social institutions and their preservation from all undesirable innovation and substantial change. In Europe and the United States, however, the term has now acquired a quite different and linguistically improper meaning: it implies the restoration of political and social institutions that were radically changed and subverted to produce the governmental and social institutions that now exist.

    Strictly speaking, therefore, ‘conservatism’ has come, paradoxically, to mean reaction, an effort to purge the nation’s social and political organization of deleterious accretions and revolutionary changes imposed upon it in recent times, and to restore it to the pristine state in which it existed at some vaguely or precisely defined time in the past. The persons who now call themselves conservatives, if they mean what they propose, are really reactionaries, but eschew the more candid word as prejudicial in propaganda.

    ‘Conservative’ is a tricky word to use. It isn’t used in present-day French politics. I guess Americans who call themselves conservative would like to make America White again, but won’t say so openly. A big part of the problem is that many organizations that used to be conservative have been hijacked by careerists. The membership is still conservative, but the direction now works for the Jews. There may still be a few conservatives among the official leaders, but they won’t lead or speak up. And the membership doesn’t fully understand that the new direction works for the Jews, who work to annihilate the White race.

  10. ‘Liberalism’ is hard to define too. In French politics, you use the words right/left instead of conservative/liberals. I think it amounts to the same thing. A liberal is a leftist.

    I have a new theory about the leftists. We know that leftism refers both to a psychological mindset, and to a set of political orientations that are usually set by the Jews, thanks to their control of the media and the political institutions.

    The Left is supposed to be compassionate but foolish, while the Right is hardheaded and pragmatic. The Left is feminine. It won’t be swayed by stats, but may be swayed by the sad story of a particular man. Some people on the Left also have a problem of pathological altruism.

    Depending on different people’s opinions, left-wing means different and contradictory things: pro-state, pro-worker, pro-migrant… (maybe even pro-free-market?) But the Jewish-dominated institutional Left is above all pro-invasion and anti-White.

    My theory is that the liberals are less remarkable by their compassion than by their strong instinctive loyalty to authorities, legitimate or not. They have a stronger than average obedience-to-authority instinct, even though they may see themselves as rebels. They feel virtuous, not because they are incredibly altruistic, but because they slavishly obey their masters and love denouncing the dissidents.

    The idea that the picture of a dead Kurdish child on a beach could make people agree to the invasion of White countries by third-worlders doesn’t make any sense. If the leftists were moved by compassion and altruism, they would oppose the invasion of their own countries by third-world rapists. I think what really explains their behavior is their compulsive obedience to what they identify as figures of authorities. They keep trusting ZOG even though ZOG is dedicated to their destruction.

    It isn’t just about the third-world invasion. We know that the leftists are less likely than us to reject the phony modern art produced by the likes of Picasso. It would be absurd to think that they are drawn to modern art because they have compassionate souls. The truth is that they are lemmings. They are willing to support any crazy policy as long as it is supported by the government, the media and other authority figures.

    It means we should always put on a suit and tie, or a scientist’s white lab coat before addressing any leftist.

    In order to test my theory, I’d like to see if the leftists can be made to embrace race-realism and reject modern art if a race-realist government comes to power and succeeds in expelling the Jews and becoming the new authority figure. My guess is that by the end of the 1930s, most German leftists had become very supportive of Hitler.

  11. I miss Tanstaafl’s podcasts. I’m in no way saying he doesn’t have better things to do, just saying I miss them.

    Have been musing about whether there’s a format that would see him at his best, & take some of the unnecessary load off of him. The best I could come up with is if he could find a host worthy of him (Tan has done many collabs, but I don’t think we’ve yet seen that host), who would animate him but not try to equal & overpower him, & then otoh some kind of a production guy (maybe same person) who would take the production load off, like how Tan used to do “Driving Miss Caroline”.

    Given the nature of things as they seem to be, a high-frequency release is probably out of the question, but heck, I’d take an hour a quarter if I could get it. A half hour a month would be heaven, well-received, & possibly candidate for inclusion into some growing distribution networks, but I already feel I’ve overstepped my bounds. Anyhow, we all struggle on.



  12. Parenthetically, having someone else moderate the comments & respond to or at least filter feedback might up Tan’s joy:pain ratio, as I surmise he probably gets more pain that joy from performing that function.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>