Google employee fired for calling out outrage mobs in Google

https://medium.com/@mikewacker/googles-outrage-mobs-and-witch-hunts-b1d8fa9c74d9
Google’s Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts

Guess what Google just did to their employee who wrote this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNbtmAR1_4A
Google Fired Conservative For Calling Out Leftist Outrage Mobs -Timcast, 2019-06-06


Is this behaviour far-left or center-left?
This is the most influential company on the planet which can control what people know is true by nudging their search algorithms, demoting one side and promoting the other. They have everybody's emails and site visits, they have the richest individual profiles of all internet users, orders of magnitude greater than anything Cambridge Analytica did.

Do you think it's a good idea to allow this company to have a self-righteous outrage culture taking over it?


Re-posting the full content of the post by Mike Wacker. And in case he sees this, I humbly request an interview with him.

Google has become a company where outrage mobs and witch hunts dominate its culture. These outrage mobs and witch hunts have become an existential threat not only to Google’s culture internally, but to Google’s trust and credibility externally.

Google has long claimed to be a nonpartisan company, yet like many other tech companies, they also maintain many policies against “hate speech”. How do we reconcile these two apparently conflicting goals? While this statement came from a spokesperson for Facebook, it could just as easily apply to Google, Twitter, and many other tech companies.

We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.

An astute reader will notice that this response does not actually answer the question; it merely shifts it from one point to another. Instead of asking, “Is Google a nonpartisan company?” we instead ask, “Does Google apply a nonpartisan definition of hate speech?”¹

(As for Facebook, we now know that they have a list of “hate agents” that includes Candace Owens.)

So what exactly is the definition of hate speech? Well, let’s just ask the outrage mobs at Google that succeeded. One outrage mob formed when Google sponsored CPAC, and they created an internal petition titled, “Google, Don’t Sponsor Hate.” Another outrage mob formed when Kay Coles James, President of the Heritage Foundation, was appointed to an AI ethics panel, and they created an external petition from a Medium account called “Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate.”

But don’t worry, these outrage mobs are not opposed to all conservatives. They are only opposed to the “hateful” conservatives.

---

These outrage mobs against “hate” have become honeypots for toxic, hostile, and uncivil discourse. While some of their rhetoric is so outlandish that you have no choice but to laugh it, the psychological effects that these outrage mobs have on their targets is nothing to laugh about. Just read this excerpt from Kay Coles James about her own experience with Google’s outrage mob:

In 1961, at age 12, I was one of two-dozen black children who integrated an all-white junior high school in Richmond. White parents jeered me outside the school, and inside, their kids stuck me with pins, shoved me in the halls and pushed me down the stairs. So when the group of Google employees resorted to calling names and making false accusations because they didn’t want a conservative voice advising the company, the hostility was reminiscent of what I felt back then — that same intolerance for someone who was different from them.

I won’t lie, that was a tough part to read. But if you ask the outrage mob, that wasn’t the real problem. The real question was this:

So the real question to this is whether or not we think there’s value in having the Grand Wizard of the KKK on this board.

What sort of alternate universe do you have to live in to think this sort of rhetoric is OK? And what sort of alternative universe do you have to live in where you would turn a blind eye to that rhetoric?

---

As I explained in a previous post, these outrage mobs and witch hunts don’t just target outsiders like CPAC and Kay Coles James. They also target insiders and Google’s own employees. But whether the target is external or internal, the goal of these outrage mobs and witch hunts is the same: to control who belongs at Google.

More importantly, if you can control who belongs at Google, then you can also control what content belongs on Google.

If the people who work at Google — or who feel psychologically safe expressing their opinions at Google — are only the ones who think that CPAC and Kay Coles Jame are hateful, then don’t be surprised if, one day in the future, hate speech is used as a pretext to censor CPAC or Kay Coles James and remove their content from Google’s platforms.

---

In terms of controlling who belongs at Google, these outrage mobs and witch hunts have another tool at their disposal when they target an employee of Google: HR complaints. Few organizations have as much as power to control who belongs at Google as HR does, and if that power is abused, the consequences will be disastrous.

Standing up to an outrage mob or a witch hunt is hard enough when HR doesn’t get involved. It gets even harder when you start worrying about whether HR will discipline you, or even worse, when they actually do discipline you. A few months ago, the Lincoln Network released their 2019 Viewpoint Inclusion Survey Report, and one of the pull quotes from that survey directly captures this experience:

CONSERVATIVE — Employees will interpret your words in the most offensive way possible, then report you to HR based on that interpretation. It’s one big offendedness sweepstakes. When people get in trouble, it’s often based not on what they said, but on how others interpreted their words, regardless of how unreasonable that interpretation is. And there is some evidence HR does have a political agenda. I’ve even seen someone get reported to HR for sharing a National Review article.

One Google employee, who gave me permission to share his story, was once hauled into a meeting with management and HR over some of his writings on company message boards. He was not directly punished in that meeting, but the meeting did carry a strong implied threat of future punishment. Here was one of the issues that was mentioned to him in writing after that meeting:

One Googler raised a concern that you that you appeared to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns, and this made them feel unsafe at work.

Allegedly, Google is a company that supports a freedom of expression, but Google is also a company where you can get in trouble with HR for defending Jordan Peterson’s stance that the government cannot compel speech, including compelling the usage of preferred pronouns.

---

I have heard other stories like this one, but for obvious reasons, most people don’t want to share these stories. Thus, the time has finally come for me to step forward and share my own story, especially on behalf of those who have stories of their own but do not yet feel ready to share them.

At Google, I have been the owner and the creator of the republicans@ mailing list. When I first created that mailing list back in October 2016, my humble ambition was to create a community for Republicans at Google and help make the company a little more friendlier for Republicans. It would suffice to say that my actual experience has thrust me into a much larger role than I could ever have imagined (a topic which I could spend an entire post on).

My role as the republicans@ owner has also made me a prime target for the outrage mobs and witch hunts. On March 6, 2019, I was pulled into a meeting of my own with my management and HR. During that meeting, I received a final written warning, and I received a verbal offer of 8 weeks of severance pay if I left the company. That verbal offer of severance was an implied threat of termination. While they never said it explicitly, it was clear that if I didn’t take that offer, they would invent some pretext to fire me shortly thereafter.

(Due to an unexpected series of events, this process was put on hold, but that would only delay the inevitable.)

---

So how do you deal with these outrage mobs and witch hunts?

I seem to be quite deft at navigating that sort of environment, and I seem to know more than most about these sorts of situation. In my senior year of college at Cornell University, I even played a leading role in successfully pushing back against an outrage mob that came dangerously close to kicking a Christian fellowship group off campus.² Yet even with all that expertise and experience, I must admit there are so many answers that I still don’t have.

Trivial or fabricated charges are a dime a dozen. You can definitively refute one charge,³ and you can modify your behavior to avoid another charge, but then a new trivial and fabricated charge will arise to take the place of the old one. On top of that, it is very easy to write these charges in a way where they will look credible to a neutral outsider who has no additional context, even though they would quickly crumble once you were provided the full context.

Thus, I’m not going to rebut every single charge that has been presented against me, but I will highlight a couple of allegations in depth, in order to expose this kangaroo court for the true monster that it is. The intent is not just to rebut individual charges, though I will do that as well. The intent is to demonstrate how the process for producing such charges is so fundamentally flawed and untrustworthy that it compromises the entire process.

---

So, let’s look at the first allegation that I will unveil:

2/9/2019, You received feedback on industry-info@ that your comments were “rude, disrespectful, and intellectually dishonest”

Now first of all, let me state with the utmost confidence that I believe Google HR has consistently enforced their standards against rude, disrespectful, and intellectually dishonest comments against everyone who has taken part in these various outrage mobs.

(In case you couldn’t tell, that was sarcasm.)

What’s really disturbing here is that HR (and my management) has completely abandoned any pretense of enforcing any sort of objective and impartial standard. What matters is not whether I was objectively disrespectful or not; what matters is that someone accused me of being disrespectful by their own subjective standards. Given the crazy subjective standards that some of these activists have, that’s a pretty damn scary reality.

So, you may ask, which activist did this accusation come from? Was it one of the activists who thought that CPAC was hateful? Was it one of the activists who thought that Kay Coles James was hateful? That definitely would be relevant context here, context that was conveniently omitted here.

In this particular case, that accusation came from the person who called Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a terrorist: Blake Lemoine.⁴ On top of that, in the exact same thread where he called me “rude, disrespectful, and intellectually dishonest,” he also doubled down on his comments about Sen. Blackburn.

If someone calls a sitting Republican legislator a terrorist, it probably is not a good idea to treat that person as a credible accuser in disciplinary action against the owner of the republicans@ mailing list.

---

The other allegation I will (partially) unveil has a similar format:

1/22/2019: You wrote in the activists-us@ group: “The definition of ‘Google’s values’ that matters is the one used by Google’s activists, who could only be described as ‘nonpartisan’ in the same sense that the Women’s March could be described as inclusive towards pro-life Jewish women.“ Other members of the group responded that your statement was percieved [sic] as hateful/incendiary/inflammatory. [redacted]

Now normally, I leave the activists-us@ group alone, but in this circumstance, a member of Google’s US public policy team responded to their hate-thread about CPAC, confirming that Google would not be a sponsor of CPAC this year. In my tenure as the republicans@ owner, few things have alienated conservatives at the company as much as the CPAC debate, so in this instance, I decided to go to bat for my fellow Republicans. Thus, I decided to write a response to that member of the US public policy team, even if it meant wading into the activists-us@ group. Here was the full email I wrote:

This decision is a travesty. Few things have alienated conservatives at Google as much as the CPAC debate, and the US public policy team’s decision here will only further that alienation. It’s clear that the demands of the dominant activist tribe matter more than principled pluralism at this company.

With all this talk of respect at Google, I can’t help but come back to the wise words of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. In a paragraph on the topic of intemperate discussion, Mill writes, “The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men.” When the anti­-CPAC petition promoted by activists­-us@ is literally titled, “Google, Don’t Sponsor Hate,” it’s clear that this dark art of polemics is well and alive at Google. The clear undertone of this debate has been that conservatives are both hateful and evil. I’ve had this running joke that Google is full of social justice activists who are dedicated to ridding the world of the evils of Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and John Kasich. That joke takes on a new life of its own when the anti­-CPAC petition lumps Marion Maréchal­-Le Pen and the NRA into the same overly broad, hopelessly vague category of “hate”.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has insisted time and time again that Google is a nonpartisan company, but more and more those words seem like empty words: all talk, no action. Both internally and externally, a narrative has begun to emerge that liberal political activists are calling the shots at Google. It’s really hard to refute that narrative when the US public policy team engages with activists­-us@ “in the spirit of communication and good faith” to inform them that Google has caved to their demands, and that Google will not be sponsoring CPAC this year. Somewhere, a document exists that explicitly defines Google’s values, and perhaps those values could be described as non­partisan, but that definition does not seem to be the one that matters. The definition of “Google’s values” that matters is the one used by Google’s activists, who could only be described as “nonpartisan” in the same sense that the Women’s March could be described as inclusive towards pro-­life Jewish women. Or, to quote a rather prescient headline from David French of The National Review, “In Outrage Campaigns, It’s the Internal Mob that Matters.”

Given all the hateful, incendiary, and inflammatory rhetoric that was deployed by the outrage mob against CPAC, it is beyond belief that this email was the one that got punished. For example, the person who accused me of being incendiary was also the same person who compared black conservatives who spoke at CPAC to Jews who spoke at a Holocaust denial conference.

But on the bright side, at least we now know the definition of “hate speech” that Google HR uses: anything that Google’s activists perceive as hateful. And to explain just how insane that standard is, at one point, I asked one of these activists if I had correctly summarized their views: “So to be clear, Google can’t fund groups that espouse pro-­life views, and if Google does, then ‘How do we expect women to work here?’” Their response: “Correct.” (There was one non-activist who pushed back against that claim, but none of the activists pushed back against it or even seemed to be remotely bothered by it.)

Now that doesn’t mean you can’t espouse pro-life views at Google. You are still free to espouse pro-life views so long as activists don’t perceive those views to be hateful, incendiary, or inflammatory. Just remember that some of these activists also think that women can’t be expected to work at Google if it donates to groups that espouse pro-life views.

(As for the second part I redacted, debunking that part would require additional context and would require me to publish many more emails as relevant context. While publishing those emails would certainly be advantageous to my position, here I have opted to redact that second part instead of debunking it. I think I’ve already made my point by now.)

---

As I said before, I’m not going to cover every trivial or fabricated allegation made against me, but it should be pretty clear by now that this final written warning is a political witch hunt.

Surely, my management and HR will try to claim that problems with how I conduct myself in the course of the work as a software engineer also factored into this final written warning, but if that was the real problem, then why would they even have brought my political viewpoints into this matter in the first place? That’s what their real problem with me is here.

The manager who took part in this final written warning also once told me that my “Googleyness” was more important for my career than the actual work I did. Now, I can finally confirm what he meant by that…

I have long suspected that political bias has impaired their judgment of my work — that I have been judged for who I am, not for what I do — but up until this point, there has been a lot of smoke, but no smoking gun. Now, I have that smoking gun, though to be honest, I am a little surprised that they delivered it to me in writing and on a silver platter.

---

Now that we have several examples of what Google HR considers to be policy violations, let me also provide an example of what is not considered to be a policy violation.

After the outrage mob against Kay Coles James had succeeded, a Google employee posted the op-ed that Kay Coles James wrote for the Washington Post on Google’s industryinfo@ mailing list. You can imagine what the reaction was like from most of the employees who participated in that thread.

I myself didn’t want to get drawn into an extensive debate on that topic, but I did want to state my views and express support for Kay Coles James. Thus, I decided to write this simple post:

To be clear, had the council still existed with Kay Coles James on it, James should have felt welcome during council meetings to express the views she expressed in her tweets, including her views about the Equality Act.

https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108768455141007360

https://www.heritage.org/gender/heritage-explains/the-equality-act

https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497

https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1100488434500685824

As usual, Blake Lemoine replied in a thoughtful and respectful manner:

Yes. Everyone is clearly aware of your opinion that Google should be open to discussing whether trans women are actually women. Everyone is aware that you think that the viewpoint that trans women are actually men invading womens’ spaces is one which should be open for discussion.

Everyone is aware of your tolerance for bigotry.

Oh, and yeah. My comment was essentially a restatement of one of James’ tweets and the document to which it linked. She believes and clearly stated that she believes trans women are men invading womens’ spaces. She said many other things too. Some of which were reasonable. But when you say that you believe that ideas she expressed in those tweets should be welcome at Google then you are literally saying that womanhood of your trans female coworkers is a topic which should be a topic for debate on Google’s ethics council.

At this point, another Google employee made a heartfelt plea that we should be more respectful towards religious minorities at Google. Of course, Blake Lemoine only doubled down after that:

Bigotry is not a religion. This is despite the fact that bigots have regularly tried to wrap their bigotry in holy robes.

As for whether everyone is entitled to their own “understanding” of who is a man, who is a woman and who is a person, sure. Understand things whatever way you want. I have no problems with what people believe in their heart of hearts. That’s not what this conversation is about though. This conversation is explicitly about which ideas are welcome in a Google ethics committee for the purpose of shaping company policy.

If someone wants to influence Google’s policy with their ideas that their trans co-workers are really men invading womens’ spaces then they aren’t welcome here. If anyone personally believes that then that’s their perogative. I’m sure that supporters of a white ethnostate can be quite effective at building server infrastructure. I don’t think their beliefs should impact their employment here one way or another. It’s when they start trying to effect change within the company on the basis of those beliefs that I think they should be shown the door.

If you think black people aren’t people you can either keep it to yourself or GTFO.

If you think that trans women aren’t women then you can either keep it to yourself or GTFO.

Google’s corporate policies are crystal clear on that.

---

At this point, I was extremely tempted to report Blake for being “rude, disrespectful, and intellectually dishonest,” but I didn’t do that.

Nowadays, I normally don’t like to report anything to HR.⁵ I certainly don’t want to be part of the problem when it comes to frivolous HR complaints. In this instance, though, Blake crossed another line that is objective, clear, and viewpoint-neutral: he started making employment threats, not just against me, but against entire classes of Google employees. I did report him for that.

And of course, HR determined that Blake had not violated any of Google’s policies. For obvious reasons, I pushed back against that, but even an HR manager would not budge. I was honestly shocked at how HR tried to rationalize his clearly unacceptable behavior.

---

If left unchecked, these outrage mobs will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow down to their agenda. Anyone who stands up to them will be hounded until they either shut the fuck up or they “get the fuck out”. Furthermore, Google HR has clearly shown that they function as an accessory to these witch hunts.

As I said before, once you control who belongs at Google, you can control what content belongs on Google.

---

[1] Even the part about violence poses potential problems. While most everyone would agree that actual violence is bad, the definition of violence itself has been subject to concept creep. More and more, we’ve heard claims that speech is violence, and the outrage mob against Kay Coles James was no exception to that trend. Thus, it’s important that your definition of violence doesn’t endorse this notion that speech is violence.

[2] But back then, in theory I was nothing more than the conservative columnist for The Cornell Daily Sun, though in practice my role was much more than that. Today, in theory I am nothing more than the owner of a social mailing list [republicans@] at Google, though in practice my role is much more than that. It’s an eerie parallel that I have definitely noticed.

[3] On one occasion, through some clever cross-examination, I was able to catch my management in a lie. Here, HR did not respond by directly acknowledging that lie. Instead, they responded by saying they would capture my feedback and questions in an addendum. This tactic appears to be a fairly common one. In other words, they won’t act on a lie, but they will allow you to write an addendum to create the perception that they acted on a lie.

[4] At the time she was called a terrorist, Marsha Blackburn was serving in the House of Representatives. She would later be elected to the Senate.

[5] Believe it or not, when I first arrived at Google, I tended to blindly trust Google HR in a way that was extremely naive and for which I rightly deserved to be criticized. It suffices to say that I’ve since abandoned that naivety.

Deepfakes : who do you think is going to use this tech?

Quiz : Who do you think the deepfakes tech is going to be used on : 

The people who are dominant and can instantly post refutals and have everyone know it wasn't them; or the people who have been systematically deplatformed on non-proven charges and have no way or reach to make their side heard to the general public?

Some weapons are designed for oppression; not for fair fights. Deepfake tech is one such weapon.

Do you think this tech will be used on people who have a "good reputation" in the mainstream that the viewers will instantly question it, or do you think this tech will be used to reinforce and propagate negative impressions of dissenters already being slandered by the MSM?

https://www.infowars.com/age-of-deep-fakes-algorithm-lets-video-editors-add-change-or-delete-speech/

Let's not be so hard on Columbus folks

Imagine wanting to travel to India,

Landing up at the wrong place on the other side of the planet,

And then meeting people who are facially almost identical to the original Indians you were hoping to meet.

If you wanted proof that God has a sense of humour, this is it.

God really played a long joke on old man Columbus - we shouldn't be so harsh on him. Had I been in his place I'd have been sure these were "those" Indians too.

Especially considering that there's an entire swathe of oriental-type faces separating India and the Americas, it's seriously uncanny how two completely separate lands ended up with similar looking people who apart from looks don't have anything else in common like myths or customs or foods.

The collapse of law and order in the UK

The British judicial, legal, police systems have collapsed. It's a free-for-all now. Milkshake-throwing will be normalized and then replaced by Acid and police won't prosecute while Guardian and BBC journalists keep on laughing at the matter and inciting violence openly; Police will escort violent mobs carrying stones and scissors several kms to bring them within striking range of peaceful election rallies and then blame the victims for what happens to them; Anyone who speaks their mind will have their voices cut off on social media and then be jailed under highly subjective "hate speech" laws that never get applied on the people actually doing it; Journalists will be prosecuted for causing "mental trauma" to convicted pedophiles; and now political prisoners will get poisoned while in custody. This is the world we get when the Left and the Globalists decide to join ranks. This is what happens to a society whose mainstream decides that feelings are more important than facts; that superficial display of diversity is so important that all else is to be sacrificed at its altar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6_6WitHlK0

Left and right differences

Left and right differences

My own take : The Left has clear origins and can be traced to sources like Marx and post-modernism and specific opinions like the State being in charge of everything, or principles like equality of outcome. The right, on the other hand, has been whatever the left says they reject or when people speak out rejecting policies of those on the "Left". 

So if the Left says biological men should be allowed to use ladies bathrooms or compete in womens sports if they just declare themselves transgender, and if I oppose this new policy created by the Left, then I'm automatically "right wing" in that regard as of today.

 

So, what is "right wing" appears to change from place to place and time to time. It's more of a {NOT-Left} thing.

For example, The "right wing" in the US has been leading the anti-GMO fight whereas leftists seem to be catching up only after organic food became a buzzword for folks in Silicon Valley and New York. But that stand has been claimed by the Left in India as a leftist stand. 

Opposition to forced vaccination is seen as far-right in the US, whereas in India the same anti-GMO leftists are strongly pro-forced-vaccination, and the topic isn't even in the conversation amongst BJP folks. At my alma mater Swaraj University, they're self-described Left and they're very against forced vaccination. So it's confusing.

"Conservatives" in the US include women flashing bikinis, celebrating heterosexual sex, wearing whatever they want and refusing to accept the Hijab or Burka as a legitimate choice made by Muslim women.

But we may not be able to say the same about "Conservatives" in India. 

That said, I don't think our right-wing folks are as oppressive towards women as our Left paints them to be - I don't see dedicated BJP-supporting people restricting their daughters the way my impression of them was. But that may just be city folks - I don't know properly.

In the US itself, the "right" was associated with war-mongering from Bush's time. But the left that were pointing fingers there fell silent after Obama did even more war than Bush and specifically when he took the drone bombing to unprecendented heights and destroyed Libya and then Syria. Imagine 5 billion dollars a month pumped into Kashmir by Pakistan - that happened in Syria and the huge supply of weaponry and resources mysteriously stopped as soon as Obama left the White house. It's open to speculation but there was certainly something fishy about the whole thing. And today the majority of Conservatives that are labeled far-right are consistently anti-war. In fact, Infowars folks were labeled as liberals in Bush's time because they opposed war, and then got labeled right-wing in Obama's time when they called out his wars. Even prominent anti-war left media like The Guardian has turned into war-mongering since Syria (because of which I do not trust them any more). But when talks about bombing Venezuela or Iran start then again the Left are mysteriously anti-war again. And I still find it funny that the Left in USA hate Russia so much.

Also, my opinion about where Hitler and Nazis fell in left vs right is now that they were actually Left wingers - their ideology and policies implemented included several aspects like the State being everything and people owing their existence to the State and massive tracking etc. There's folks pointing out that at the time they said they were Left, and everybody agreed they were Left. Branding them as far-right seems to have been a post-war sleight of hand pulled off by Marxist history book writers. This is of course uncomfortable for folks who go around calling people Nazis today.

And then there's the matter of almost 100 million people being slaughtered by Socialist/Communist regimes (honestly I don't know the difference) since the end of WW2, in "peacetime". I've spent a lot of time in leftist circles and I'm now questioning why no one ever mentioned anything about Cambodia where a communist government killed off 25% of the country's population. In percentage terms that's the worst genocide in human history. When I asked a prominent leftist about this in Pune recently, he replied that haan haan he is fully aware of it all but no relevance. 

I then found this article that digs into what the most prominent leftist intellectuals in the world including Noam Chomsky were saying while the Cambodian genocide was happening, how they treated the refugees that escaped from it, and in the years after it became accepted fact : 

https://quillette.com/2018/07/15/devastation-and-denial-cambodia-and-the-academic-left/

Devastation and Denial: Cambodia and the Academic Left

And that I found troubling. I can't gel with folks who are so desperate to hide something. Have a differing opinion on something? That's fine. Hide a huge thing entirely and hope nobody finds out? That's dangerous. Especially when they tout such sky-high morals for themselves. That makes me ask what else are these people hiding.

Jon Rappoport's WordPress.com blog taken down

Well, that sure breaks many links on my blog! 

SJW bastards aren't even leaving  WordPress.com blogs alone. This guy has written impressively AGAINST wars, against big pharma, against giant corporations. SJWs now support wars, support big pharma, support giant corporations. The Marxism / socialism tag is just an illusion. But hey, Jon had pointed that out also eloquently. Perhaps that was explains why they were so keen in getting rid of him.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jon Rappoport
Date: Tue, May 14, 2019, 07:24
Subject: THEY TOOK DOWN MY BLOG, PART 2

THEY TOOK DOWN MY BLOG, PART 2 (To read about Jon's mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.) by Jon Rappoport I say, "Dear Parents, All over the world they are injecting your children, from the day of their birth, with poisonous chemicals and germs, and they're calling it a miracle.  But it isn't.  It's devastating." And then, someone somewhere behind a curtain who's hidden his name-badge in his underpants says, "Censor that man.  Cut off his expression.  He has no right to say what he's saying." The Soulless Ones are at it again. Many of you now know that, last Saturday, WordPress took down my blog without warning or notice.  After 10 years---boom.  Gone.  We are in the process of restoring the blog through "other means."  Meanwhile, my home page at NoMoreFakeNews.com is still up, and you can let others know to go there to sign up for the email list to receive my articles in their inbox on a regular basis.  You can also order products at that same home page. I strongly suspect that my articles criticizing vaccines triggered the censorship move.  The justification would be: well, we must protect the health of the public and your influence could be quite negative in that regard, etc.   Information, evidence, opinion are all now subject to the preferences of "those in charge," who of course "only have the best interests of The People at heart."  Sure.   The reality is: when there is something called official science, then unofficial science must be trampled on and stamped out---the word "official" tells you that authorities are pushing lies down on people's heads and those lies must be maintained and never doubted.  Unofficial science becomes dangerous.  It contains repressed truth.   I've learned that first-hand over the past 35 years working as a reporter.  All my major investigations have been "unofficial," and in every one of those cases, there was someone standing in the middle of the road behind barricades shooing people away and warning that there was nothing OFFICIAL to see by going farther. THE RIGHT TO HAVE AND EXPRESS AN OPINION OR VIEW OR FINDING are under attack.  Structures that would enable persons to express an opinion publicly are censoring certain voices.  They don't have to give a reason.  They just do it.   They might say a writer "violated community standards."  What community, and what standards?  Oh, the ones they make up and pretend exist.  Those communities and standards.  Or perhaps "the community" they're talking about is some collection of goody two-shoes robotic idiots they've convinced to form an organization and make a so-called mission statement in line with official truth.  Blank minds, blank stares, earnest faces. The age of rational argument and debate, if it ever existed, appears to be over.  Now it's just FIND THE CONTRARY VIEW and silence it. Of course, I'm not the first person to be censored recently.  And I've noticed that the black-listing hasn't worked.  Those independent reporters and analysts and editorialists and activists are still talking and writing.  I'll do the same. You can help.  Spread my articles any way you can.  Get others on my email list.  Consider ordering my three MATRIX collections. Get in touch with WordPress and let them know how you feel and what you think.  Refuse to obey the Law of Silence. There is a WE here.  It isn't a collection of dumb know-nothings.  It's many individuals who happen to have arrived, separately, at a similar place: the crossroad where a choice is made for justice and against surrender.   If you're not already there, get there.  If you're there, make your presence count. The game isn't lost.  It isn't over.   It's never over. Use this link to order Jon's Matrix Collections. Jon Rappoport The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.

No More Fake News, Encinitas, Encinitas, CA 92024 Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by info@nomorefakenews.com in collaboration with Try email marketing for free today!

Fwd: Another Censorship Blow for Vaccine Safety

Cutting off the legs of whistleblowers and new discoveries under the guise of "protecting" people from "dangerous" ideas. The fascists of the 21st century march on as liberals, academia, media and technocrats cheer blissfully.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Vaccines Revealed
Date: Sun, May 12, 2019, 17:57
Subject: Another Censorship Blow for Vaccine Safety

Hi, just a reminder that you're receiving this newsletter as a free bonus to thank you for requesting more information from Revealed Films. Don't forget to add support@revealedfilms.com to your address book so you don't miss all the valuable content we will be sending your way in the weeks to come! You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails. Nikhil, Charles Buckowski once said, "Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others." That's exactly the case when it comes on the censorship of vaccine information, and 2019 has seen a massive increase in censorship of the topic of vaccine safety... In the last few months, we've seen Google, Pinterest, Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, and even Etsy limit or even eliminate access to vaccine safety information... But the censorship hasn't ended at keeping articles and videos off popular public media; now we are seeing an all-out attack on even the production of vaccine safety information. Many documentaries (including the Vaccines Revealed docu-series) depend on crowdfunding to support production costs. Sites like Kickstarter, GoFundMe, and Indiegogo allow producers to raise the funds they need to get a project going…and they give like-minded people an opportunity to be a part of the project by supporting it financially... These crowdfunding sites are vital to groups that want to produce content but are not backed by large corporations…which means that in particular, whistleblowers who are trying to get facts out to the public rely heavily on this sort of funding... Last week, Indiegogo announced that they would no longer allow fundraising for projects that address vaccine safety. This follows GoFundMe's March 2019 decision to censor vaccine information. This is a serious blow to anyone who produces content related to vaccines, and it sets a terrible precedent. Big Pharma has experienced some blows lately, with a case against the makers of Gardasil facing fraud, deceit and negligence charges that have made it past the safety of the government's vaccine court and into an actual court of law... That, combined with an increase of pushback from parents concerned with the safety of vaccines and a slew of recent vaccine failures and injuries, has caused Big Pharma and its supporters to lash back... They are running scared, and as the demand to keep transparency in vaccine safety and efficacy accessible to the public has increased, so has media censorship. The internet (as of now, anyway) is still an open forum for the distribution of information and the sharing of opinions. Even if big media sites censor vaccine information, there are still avenues to share the truth... But attacking the ability of like-minded people to work together and contribute to the production of a documentary is introducing a new level of censorship, and what's happening should raise alarms to anyone who is concerned about the right to free speech. To staying informed, The Vaccines Revealed Team PS This is a proven immunity booster… which everyone can benefit from – whether you decide to vaccinate or not… Revealed Films 1776 Suite 4-217 Park City, UT 84060 Tel: (833) 738-3456 Facebook The sender of this email receives compensation when products and services featured herein are purchased.

What conservatives can do about censorship by tech giants

THIS is an executive order that Trump can make and it can't be hijacked by the Dems: "Turn over ALL the digital content of everyone you have banned". That's a civil rights / decency measure that the liberals can't have much ammo against. And if it turns out they deleted shit without things being proven either way, then it amounts to destruction of evidence.

In an abusive relationship the victim must demand reparation and smooth separation. Not to be let back in. Smooth separation for banned conservatives amounts to the tech Giants handing over all their data, contacts, posts.

What the media means when they call someone a Divisive figure

When the media calls someone a "Divisive" figure,

What they really mean is,

This person has put forth ideas that dissent from the status quo pushed by the mainstream and their elite puppet masters. This has led to statistically significant numbers of people starting to think for themselves and question the status quo.

Before this person came along, there was much lesser dissent and so the population was unified in being indoctrinated by the mainstream media. Now, more and more people are waking up to this indoctrination and rebelling against it.

So there is a transition stage here : where significant portion of the population is still eating out of their hands, but more and more folks are now slipping out of their control. These dissenting parts of the population naturally aren't "unified" under their spell anymore.

And hence, the person is a "divisive" figure, in that he or she has managed to help several people break the mainstream's spell and start thinking for themselves.

So it's supposed to be a good thing. For us. But it's not good for the mainstream. Hence their negative spin on it.

Who are the "divisive" figures of our times? Let's see...

Alex Jones

Tommy Robinson

Katie Hopkins

Milo

Sargon of Akkad

Count Dankula

Jordan Peterson

Ben Shapiro

Dave Rubin

Candance Owens

Charlie Kirk

Sidney Watson

Paul Joseph Watson

Laura Loomer

Brittany Pettibone

Blonde in the Belly of the Beast

Ayaan Ali Hirsi

Imam Tawhidi

Maajid Nawaz

Yasmine Mohammad

Steven Crowder

Some Black Guy (he's a youtuber)

Brandon Tatum

Mike Adams

Liz Wheeler

Pewdiepie

Donald Trump

Bolsonaro

Matteo Salvini

Marie Le Pen

and many more. Many who may even have been silenced by the jealous mainstream long before they came to my attention. Heck, it's an emergent phenomena : you get rid of one, and soon enough there's more.

And over in India,

Arvind Kejriwal

< there may be more but I'm not in touch with the going-ons here.. but definitely Kejriwal's been continuously labeled a "divisive" figure >

Very "divisive" these people are. Sure. And they're even divided amongst themselves - most of these folks don't agree with each other. But that's more a symbol of independence and diversity of thought than being lost. Their core concepts are clear - way more clear than anything the media has dished up to us.

Through the extremely rough and serially slandered, lied-about and in many cases violently treated ( and even encouraged so by supposedly "responsible" and "nonviolent" media leaders) reception they have received from the mainstream media, through this very experience, we catch a glimpse of the little man behind the curtains who's pulling the levers. (reference to: Wizard of Oz).

I'm extremely happy that these people exist. More power to them and prayers for their safety in the midst of nonstop onslaught by powerful elites who prefer them dead.

Now another question I'd like to put forward. Some food for thought if you will.

If this is the mainstream media's concept and spin on Divisive Figures,

Then might there be similar play behind the "Unifying" Figures that they keep propping up? 

Victim cards for Indian students in Western Universities? But they're mostly rich!

Open message to people in Western Universities :
The median Indian student you'll meet there is coming from an elite upper-caste family and has never had to struggle for anything in life and their family has oppressed other people to amass the wealth to send their child abroad.

There are exceptions but the majority are just rich kids who wanted to have lots of sex. They get a "culture" shock after reaching US because.. 

wait for it.. 

for the first time in their lives they have to cook and clean for themselves and they do not have servants at their disposal anymore. 

And when you ask them why they're so stressed, they're ashamed to tell you the real reason,

So they shout out the "structural racism" excuse. 

So please stop handing out victim cards to Indians in the US, folks. Please stop telling the next generation of our oppressor class that they're victims. They're not. The ones who have really struggled, do not need the victim card anyways and will make it on their own steam.

TTAC Presents: 'Eastern Medicine: Journey Through Asia'. free online screening

https://shar.es/amAuPz

-Nikhil

The absence of gratitude

What I find missing in this whole mass immigration phenomenon of recent years, which was there till one or two decades ago, is gratitude. 

Both the possession of it in the incoming peoples, and the expectation to see it in the incoming peoples from the hosts' side. 

If a person had genuinely fled horrible circumstances, he/she would be grateful to their host country and thus would go the extra mile to comply, fit in, not make overt shows of own culture or religion, not throw rocks at ambulances, learn to communicate effectively (you don't need to learn the whole language; hand signs and basic words are enough, dude and now you have smartphones), to earn their keep, etc etc. I'm not talking about rubbing your nose in the ground : that's submission. What I'm referring to is gratitude and extra decency that comes from that sense of gratitude. Any people can still keep their pride and their identity intact whilst simultaneously displaying gratitude and decency to their hosts.

There's no way a grateful person would do ANY of the things that we see coming out of the present generation of immigrants to the West (by the way, anybody out there that STILL believes they're all Syrian refugees only as was heavily marketed to us?). I have grown up in an Indian expat family in Saudi Arabia while my Dad was working there. We had our differences with the locals especially in personal values, but we always had this feeling that we've gotten a decent shot at something way better, so let's make the most of it and let's tread carefully in front of our hosts; let's not do anything that may offend our hosts in any way, because at the end of the day, this is their home. 

We never expected the host population to "not offend" us - that wasn't even in the picture. If we received hospitality (and, newsflash : You receive hospitality precisely when you're not demanding it.), and we really did and I will always fondly remember the great Saudi hospitality despite all my disagreements with the Saudi Arabian culture, their foreign policies etc, we were grateful for it. It's not something to expect; it's a bonus.

And we weren't even refugees - we were just there for the better opportunities (not free stuff : better opportunities. There's a difference, mate!). 

You know what it indicates when you don't see gratitude in the immigrants - whether you call them "refugees" or "economic migrants"? It indicates that there are other reasons besides pressing circumstances or better economic opportunities. It indicates the presence of Entitlement instead of Gratitude. 

<-- Bit more serious digression -->

There was a collective aspect to this too. We clearly had a group identity as an expat population, and with that came group responsibility. If there was a case of one of ours doing something terrible, then that was a blot of all of us and that automatically put all of us at risk. Therefore we had a collective obligation to ensure someone from our group doesn't screw up. But do I see that in the recent immigrant populations of Europe, Canada now? No. I know that there will always be "one-off" incidents, but when thousands upon thousands of cases pile up in a very short amount of time, and when you go into the actual details of these cases and see the statements made by the people around the place, you start to see the common patterns : First and foremost there is an absolute absence of gratitude, not just in the criminal but in the whole surroundings. A thousand men have to think of European women as fair game for one of them to go ahead and commit a gruesome rape. It's never a solitary spike : it's always a bell curve. 

5 years ago I would not have believed these kinds of things could happen in Europe. That was where you went to get away from this madness. So many blood-curdling gruesome rapes, rape+murders, gang rapes, gang-rape-games, violent crimes, random on-street violence, organised gangs grooming and raping thousands of girls outside their community (by the way, along with white British girls, Sikh girls have also been a large victim group of the grooming gangs of UK), and the default line is "don't look at me, I didn't do it!" and the corresponding "how dare you blame the whole group, you're such a racist" from the noble valiant Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) who have no idea that their over-protectiveness towards their designated protected class has only empowered the criminals amongst that class instead of actually helping anybody. Perpetual victim mode is the perfect crucible for breeding irresponsible and outright pathological behaviours : because as long as you think of yourself as a victim, you can do anything you want without any accountability whatsoever.

Where's the sense of responsibility? Had there been even an iota of Gratitude, we would have seen a radically different set of responses and actions. We would have seen, by now, with the spate of horrible crimes, neighbourhood squads formed amongst immigrants to catch their miscreants and strictly discipline them (because they're taking the whole group down with them!) or hand them over to the local police. Instead, what we see is the migrant groups creating no-go zones where police, and even firefighters and ambulances are attacked, where they shelter their miscreants (and by miscreants I mean rapists and murderers and even terrorists) from legal accountability and where they openly declare that this area is not Sweden or Germany or <host country> anymore and their own traditional customs and laws apply here. If there was even an iota of Gratitude present, none of this would ever have happened; nothing like this could even begin to happen. The fact that this has indeed happened, indicates not just absence of gratitude at individual level, but more troublingly, absence of gratitude and presence of entitlement in its place at a population-wide level.

Apologies; I didn't want to bring in more strong language here, but there are serious things happening in our world that our mainstream media as well as our intellectual class living on nirvana steroids is hyper-actively making sure you never find out about. There's a reason they are on such a desperate overdrive to censor everyone who doesn't agree with their narrative : they are mortally afraid of what will happen when the population finds out about what they've been covering up.

<-- End of bit more serious digression -->

In hindi we have a phrase "Sir pe bithaa ke rakhaa hai" that literally translates to "putting the other on top of your head". And the moral of that phrase is that if you do too much hospitality and the opposite person doesn't have gratitude in them, then you're going to get abused. I am seeing that phrase coming to life at a continental level today.

We're seeing a toxic mix of entitlement on one end and white guilt on another causing abnormally high hospitality, which fuels more entitlement in turn. 

It would be great if we could return back to gratitude, people : immigrants must show it, and hosts must expect it. Hospitality needs to be conditional on gratitude. I won't comment about other sectors here, but in this case for sure, unconditional loving is only breeding entitledness and abuse. And even the entitled folks aren't happy by the way so the SJWs' goal for making sure everyone is happy is pre-screwed by design : the perpetual victim mode guarantees absence of happiness from one's life.

What sparked this post : This article: https://quillette.com/2019/03/20/the-attractions-of-the-clan-an-interview-with-mark-weiner/

And more importantly the comments below it.

Disclaimer : My family has long back moved back to India; got no dog in this mass immigration fight at present and I can sit from afar and observe. If we were still staying there I wouldn't be comfortable saying any of this, so please recognise that there can be more people feeling this stuff but not able to express it.

Addendum:

Related video, and one that brought me hope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAPfHeqKtC4

Egyptian President Al-Sisi: People in Our Countries Should Not Expect the West to Welcome Them

Some more Indian proverbs on Gratitude and exploitation of hospitality:

"Tu maan na maan, main tera mehmaan" >> Irrespective of what you feel, I'm your guest and you have to serve me

"Ungli dikhayee toh haath nigal gaye" >> (Literal) gave a finger and (they) swallowed the arm

"Deraa maand ke baith gaye" >> effective and applicable translation: Got in without consent, dug in and have no intentions of leaving.

Should RBI be independent?

Forwarding an opinion piece my an MP from Odisha. I'm relating this with the Federal Reserve problem in the US. There's no absolute thing as "independence" for institutions: Either they are accountable to the people via elected representatives, or they are accountable to a private oligarchy that can and usually does have vested interests that go against the best interests of the people. 

An independent CBI, as is widely talked about in the Indian political dissent discourse, is another red herring for me: that would make it an intelligence agency that is truly rogue and can any day start undertaking clandestine assassinations of emerging people's leaders, whistleblowers, journalists etc with no place for the population to go to to stop it. Many times the cure being advocated for is much worse than the original problem.

I had a similar problem with one of the Jan Lokpal movement's core demands too : "Independent". Where effectively all destructive decision making powers, without any constructive ones, are put in the hands of a tiny tiny group of people. Thought up by "perfect" people in their own image, assuming that they will always find "perfect" people to fill the post. Sorry, but no. 

In much of this I see a cop-out, a running away from a difficult collective responsibility. First we put rotten leaderships in power, and then we demand that all the institutions they are corrupting, be made "independent". Going further and further down that road leads to a situation where the people of a nation will have absolutely no say in how it is run - everything will be controlled by an elite class that can any day be corrupted. This is precisely what Europeans are rebelling against right now. It's not a sustainable path to go on. The more realistic solution is the more difficult one we were running away from : voting wisely.

How to lessen the burden and scope of disaster here? Simple : Decentralization of executive powers. As a federation, India is at this point way too centralized. Even at state level there's way too much powers vested in the hands of the State and way too less in the hands of panchayats and municipalities. Many municipalities are still practically run by the state government only.

On the other hand the idea that centralizing everything more and more will solve all problems, is a technocrat's (and I'll add, a Marxist's too) fantasy. Corruption will be there whether you centralize the decision-making or decentralize it. But what you destroy with centralization, is the people's ability to conquer corruption. You destroy the feedback mechanism. With decentralization, corruption is localized. The corrupt guy has only limited scope to do harm. When we centralize things, one person does something terrible and we all die. That's what happened under communism.

Perhaps using technology to efficiently share information between empowered stakeholders is what we could aim towards instead of using it to centralize authority.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Baijayant 'Jay' Panda

A pushback is underway, globally, against the tenet of central bank independence

Baijayant 'Jay' Panda Should RBI be independent? A pushback is underway, globally, against the tenet of central bank independence By Baijayant "Jay" Panda, The Times of India - December 18, 2018 Views Personal   With the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) seeing its third governor in just over two years, there is renewed debate about its independence. This is a debate worth having, but not on narrow partisan lines. Instead, it is instructive to examine central banking's history and its present day challenges. Modern politics, governance and even economics often resonate with the dilemmas faced by nations millennia ago, with relevant lessons from the Roman republic, the Mauryan empire and the like. But central banking is different. Central banks are a construct of modernity for which there is no specific ancient wisdom. The first one, formed exactly 350 years ago, was Sweden's Riksbank, followed by the Bank of England (1791). Both were joint stock companies, aiming to lend funds to and buy debt from government. Others soon followed, including in the US and France. This was progress from an earlier era of large merchants financing the sovereign. For example, the famous Rothschild family not only financed European rulers, but also profited heavily from a continent-wide courier network and its ability to get information ahead of others on the latest developments in markets and battlefields. Read more Baijayant 'Jay' Panda's former TOI opinion pieces  Our mailing address is: *office@bjpanda.org*   Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

360 degree photo embed theta test

First 360 image #theta360 - Spherical Image - RICOH THETA

test

360 degree photo embed theta test

First 360 image #theta360 - Spherical Image - RICOH THETA

test