Google Diversity Row: A revealing storm

Spread the love

Originally posted 2017-08-08 14:28:50.

One of the world’s most valuable companies, Google, has found itself splattered all over the internet this week because of a leaked internal memo.

The ‘Google Diversity Document’

The document, written by a senior engineer, addresses cultural issues within Google in terms of staffing and proposes that the innate differences which we know to exist between males and females should be taken into account and used in a positive manner to assist the company and benefit everyone.

My rant on the subject.

You’d have thought the Ku Klux Klan had taken over the boardroom. The hysterical, loony SJW Left, alongside more ‘respectable’ feminists and their poodles have soaked everyone in sight with festoons of vituperative drivel. How dare anyone suggest there are innate differences between men and women? Don’t you realise it’s not Politically Correct to say such things?

Political Correctness

Of course; and Political Correctness always trumps facts. Women, you see, always think in terms of power. This is not because they are oppressed but because they are constantly seeking ways to control society. Women always seek to control the space they live in. It was women who made humans settle, women who stimulated civilisation, because they wanted a nicer, safer place to bring up their children; and as they gained these spaces, they took control of them.

Now Feminists want to extend that control over the whole of society. This is not about equality; that has been granted for fifty years and more. There is no area, in the West, where women are not the legal equals of men. But that is not enough for Feminists. They do not wish to share power; they want total control. They want to call the whole of society their space and to drive masculinity out of it.

The one thing that hinders feminists in their aim of global domination is these pesky, stubborn, intransigent, curmudgeonly men. If only they could get rid of men, then they can have the world to themselves.

Men are bigger, stronger and think in terms of sex

The only problem is, men are bigger, stronger, more target-oriented, more responsive and better in emergencies than women. And men think in terms of sex. Yes, that’s right, trait characteristics in men impede the feminist intention to control society according to their own trait characteristics — which they deny the existence of.

The trouble is, women need men. This is not just to make babies; if that were the only purpose, human society would be like a beehive in reverse, with one male in the middle, kept to service legions of women and cause them to be with child.

This is actually a dream of many feminists; they should watch the closing moments of the film Dr Strangelove to see the deep irony of it.

The Warrior-Defenders

There is another reason why men are vital. That is because men are bigger, stronger, and better at fighting than women. And so if you get rid of masculine men, you open your society to hostile takeover by other groups of masculine men, who covet the wealth you have accrued — as well as wanting to fuck the women.

In other words, humans are not best seen as ‘hunter-gatherers’ but perhaps as ‘mothers-warriors’. The function of big, strong, aggressive, target-oriented men is to ensure the safety and security of the home group, where women attend to  the immediate responsibility of having and raising children.

It is axiomatic that there is only one purpose for any individual in any species of living thing and that is the reproduction of its genes. We humans have the complex social structures that we do because they WORK. They are the most efficient way available for us to reproduce and pass forward our genes. Innate differences in trait characteristics between men and women are essential to our success — and we are a very successful species.

They are also essential to our survival. Think about that. We cannot remove evolved trait characteristics, because they are innate; and even if we could, logic tells us that this would mean a decline in the success of the species.

Humans have evolved the trait characteristics we have, the social models we live by and the innate differences between men and women that are called gender, because these are vital to our survival as a species. You do not fuck with Evolution; and yet that is what we are doing, in what Camille Paglia calls the greatest social experiment humanity has ever tried. And she’s right: but it’s an experiment with no clearly predicted result and there is a real possibility, unless we turn back the tide, of societal collapse.

Civil War

That means civil war. That means uncontrolled groups of men killing and raping. Syria in Europe. In the USA. And those who will suffer the most will be those who always suffer the most when the dogs of war and the hounds of hell are unleashed: women, children and old people. The weakest. The least able to defend themselves.

We have men because we are strong. Because we look the hounds of hell in the eye and say: You shall NOT pass. Not as long as I stand here. Society needs the protectors, the real men, the masculine, hard to control ones. Yes, the warriors. Since Eannatum of Lagash unleashed his dogs over four thousand years ago and even before, the weak and defenceless have needed the strong. Do not think that your political philosophy will protect you, if you do away with the warriors prepared to fight and die for you.

The destruction of Feminism might be in its successful application. But the cost of this experiment might be the collapse of the most advanced culture the Earth has ever seen. Feminism is the agent of death.

The Google Diversity document links

I give you links to the Google diversity document here. These are hosted on my site and are not censored. Please download and redistribute them. My thanks to and for these.




Original pdf (large)

Google Doc as a Word Doc

Please remember, I depend on your donations to maintain this site. Just the price of a pint would help a great deal. Or just buy some books!

3 Replies to “Google Diversity Row: A revealing storm”

  1. “Women, you see, always think in terms of power. This is not because they are oppressed but because they are constantly seeking ways to control society.”

    No. Women (of which I am one) and men are complementary, and by and large get on fine in the real world, with neither group trying to dominate the other.

    The feminists talk a load of bull about the “patriarchy” but the above is just a mirror image of that. People are trying to divide us on all this nonsense about identities, and set us against each other. We shouldn’t go along with that.

    1. Sorry, no. Women’s best chance of success in evolutionary terms is the protection of their children. Women are limited in how many they can have and rear to maturity, and childbirth, without modern medicine, is extremely dangerous. So women constantly (and reasonably) seek control (power) over first, their own reproduction, since for them, choosing a good mate is paramount. This extends over the space they live in — so that male aggression in particular is removed and with it the risk of violence, accidental or otherwise to children. As women move out of the Home Group Space and into the broader society they take these objectives with them, and this leads them to try to gain power over that society in the same way as they do over the Home Group. So, although the impetus is evolution and reproduction, this is expressed as a desire for power.

      Men’s best evolutionary bet is to impregnate as many fertile women as possible. They have no need to participate in the rearing of children, in order to reproduce; in fact it mitigates AGAINST their evolutionary best bet. Men are motivated to have sex, but in a society where women have power over their bodies, this is only available under the rules defined by women, so they are required focus on one particular woman. (This is why men are always checking girls). Further, in order to secure mates, men are required to compete with each other, because women, with power over their reproduction, are choosy. Money, status, authority — for men these are all sexually-motivated concerns. Success in them improves their chances of sex and so of reproducing.

      So, while both are rooted in the need to reproduce genes, men think in terms of sex and women in terms of power. Simple. I’ll be doing more on this.

      The consequence of this is that women and men are indeed complementary, as you say. Women have evolved strategies of cooperation and long term group planning, while men have evolved strategies of competitiveness and rapid action. These, together, are what make Homo sapiens so successful.

      The problem today is that feminists deny the root of this, which is an innate, evolved, human nature, which is largely sex-specific and known as ‘gender’ This denial they have borrowed from Marxism. As women, in the West, have moved out of the Home Group and begun to penetrate the broader society, they begin to demand the same power as they have within the home group, and this is why we see the massive hostility towards masculinity. If their political orthodoxy were to be dispensed with and everyone accepted that men and women ARE NOT THE SAME, then I don’t think there would be a problem; we’d accommodate it and move on. The problem is in Leftist denial of the existence of innate trait characteristics that are evolved and constitute what we call gender. Any time somebody says ‘gender is just a social construct’ they are denying both science and reality.

      However, the Left, and that includes feminists (in fact we can argue that Cultural Marxism is just feminism in new clothes) know fine well that if we say, ‘well it’s just nature, let’s forget about it’ then they cannot achieve the revolution they seek. And we need to stop that kind of thinking before it is too late.

  2. “There is another reason why men are vital. That is because men are bigger, stronger, and better at fighting than women”

    I would add that men are far better engineers (explorative tinkerers) and logicians (systematizers) than women, that is, better suited to deal with the harsh realities of the material world, and more able to transform it by creating machines and all kind of systems (from roads to legal codes, math…) thanks to a way of thinking that is prevalent in men but rare in women. Men are also the source of almost all innovation, thank to the male individualist spirit – to innovate you have to go against the herd – , and greater variability of men in most variables, from extremes of personality to intelligence – most retards are men, but most geniuses are men too. Men are civilization builders, and we are also responsible for its maintenance, doing all the dangerous, hard, dirty work to keep the infrastructures and transportation going on.

    Under a meritocracy men are always going to represent around 80% of all STEM positions and women the remaining 20% (mostly in fields/positions where is more contact with living things or management, for example there are more women doing user interface development – close to the more human related part of software development – than backend development, there are even less dealing with servers, networks, hardware and so..) The only way to change this is by state coercion and forcing women to do work they are not interested in.

Leave a Reply