diversity

James Damore was the man who sent a memo in Google in which he suggested that maybe the low participation of women in tech areas was because women in general had less desire to work in those areas. For this he was sacked.

Now for purposes of this article I am not so interested in whether he was right or wrong. I am interested in how he was treated. I think how James was treated in this matter reflects a far deeper malaise within our culture; that malaise is a lack of love and concern for others. If we really want to create a better society, with less conflict, hatred and violence, then we really need to consider deeply why people are punished and to what end.

Do people and organisations in our society seek to punish others as revenge? Or to ‘silence’ them? Either motive is selfish and destructive. Revenge as a motive is just pure hatred and selfishness. Silencing people on the other hand is what organised churches used to do to heretics, and what despots like Stalin did to dissenters. Both were monsters. Do we really want such monsters around today?

So what should be the purpose of punishment? In a system of love any punishment or similar consequences for actions should have the intention of helping the person at fault. The aim of criminal punishment should be to reform offenders, only the unreformable should be exiled, or otherwise separated from their community, for the safety of the community. In all other cases every effort should be made to educate and assist the person towards improvement.

So how did Google act in the case of James? They acted as any despot would, they sought to silence James by sacking him and ‘exiling’ him from Google’s community. Why would they do this? Well I would suggest firstly because they have no love for James, or perhaps anyone else. Think about it – if someone in your family wrote something like that – would you exile them? Punish them with the loss of their income? Only a family with no love for their children would treat their child like that – fully grown or not. Now Google I suspect also had selfish reasons for wanting to get rid of James – and it is a fact that selfishness in its worst forms is a lack of love for others. Google, and the tech area in general have had a bad reputation in relation to the treatment of women. In light of this it seems that Google are seeking – at least some claim they are – to signal the ‘virtue’ of the company for purely profit oriented motives.

When someone, or some organisation, picks on someone like this it is encumbant on others to speak in defence of the victim. Particularly when the victim is an individual. Groups have the benefit of many voices and mutual support, but individuals are vulnerable, and so need others to defend them. Without us supporting each other in this way we have the ‘law of jungle’; the strong can victimise the weak. Such an action as Google’s is a bully’s action. And unless we can stand against such behaviours civilisation means nothing; it is not an adjective we can apply to our society. But yet we see the absence of love and human support for others again and again – we see it with the treatment of refugees, we see it with the treatment of the homeless, and we see it with many individuals: Damore, Assange, Snowden and Manning.

I ask again – would a loving parent treat their own child like this? Would they stand by and watch others treat their child like this? Or would they have patience and tolerance in regard to their perceived faults and transgressions? Then how can we stand by and allow other people’s children to be treated this way?

Watch James explain what happened on youtube.

You can read James' memo here and also Google's public response.
Here's The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally At Google ( it is not actually not quite in full - diagrams and hyper links to his references have been removed. The actual complete document is available here).

If you are interested in the argument about whether he was right or not, here is New York Times article on this.

The term 'diversity' is being used as a euphemism for chaos and social disenfranchisement in mass people movements which are politically packaged as both positive and inevitable, much as slavery was in the 18th and 19th century. UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson has said that 'the refugee crisis in Europe has created fear and hatred among local residents, which should be combated by bringing to light the positive contributions of migrants to creating a diverse society'.[1]

See also: The phoney « refugee crisis » (7/9/15) by Thierry Meyssan | VoltaireNet and other articles about the European refugee crisis.

The Numbers

"The number of international migrants reached 244 million in 2015, an increase of 41 per cent compared with 2000, the United Nations says in a report. The report published on Tuesday, the latest biennial revision of migration trends, found that the number of people who had moved to another country - voluntarily for economic reasons or because of conflicts - had risen by 71 million since 2000."[1]

The influx into Germany and which is overflowing to the rest of Europe amounts to an invasion because permission was not sought from the ordinary people who bear the impact on jobs, housing, social and natural environment of these colossal numbers of people. At the same time the immigration flows are the result of wars that European leaders and global commerce are inflicting on the sending countries.

Imposed mass immigration compromises self-determination and democracy

Talk of 'diversity' as if different ethnicity/religion is the only feature of the problem of mass immigration to Europe is to ignore the sheer numbers of people seeking work and housing. Such huge changes in demand form the greater part of economic and social impact and the resultant hardship and inconvenience is an affront to citizens who were not consulted.

Talk of 'diversity' in the face of this huge and largely irrevocable change to numbers and composition of society has the effect of further reducing the scope of citizen input into self-government (which is a kind of cooperative population management). Self-government involves cooperative apportioning of work and housing as well as supporting infrastructure within a society defined by its membership (citizens). It is usually managed through long established civil legal and institutional processes only available to citizens or visaed immigrants.

How a population evolves is a traditional and anthropological prerogative of its members, not commercial 'stakeholders' or global political players. A sudden redefinition of membership without consultation is a fundamental problem.

War and mass migration: Criminal role of the press and governments

When external forces produce massive population changes, this is usually referred to as war. Whilst we do know that US-NATO members have a long history of and a current responsibility for the wars in the Middle East that are producing much of these mass migrations, it is difficult to pinpoint what organisations and people are really behind the manipulation of numbers in Europe through open-door policy. This is because they hide behind rhetoricians like the UN Deputy Secretary, national leaders such as Merkel, and a pro 'diversity' corporatised and syndicated global media that obviously has interests in labour market, weapons manufacture, international trade and the transmission of power through chaos. In fact, apart perhaps from Putin's Russia, most of us do not know who is in charge of nations anymore; policies seem to be influenced from many transient global hats.

The mainstream press have had a criminal role along with EU and European governments in suppressing discussion of the numbers involved and manufacturing an apparent consent to them against real citizen feelings. In tandem these actors have consistently talked up US-NATO roles in wars that have caused these population disruptions in the Middle East. These arrogant attitudes and manipulations of perception have caused chaos, suffering and death.

Diversity doesn't nail it

'Diversity' is a non-sequiteur in the face of western warmongering overseas and manipulation of European population numbers and institutions to reduce wages, inflate housing prices, and generally place pressure on established social gains and citizens rights.

Unfortunately many commercial ventures use the UN as a respectable umbrella for advancing their own selfish interests. Any organisation may register as a UN member on a variety of bases and the UN attracts government, property and banking lawyers, ideological entities with strong links to business and government, such as the Australian Multicultural Foundation, and a variety of businesses in various guises looking for opportunities. (See http://www.unaavictoria.org.au/our-partners/. Associated projects are often described as 'development' initiatives but they are about taking over land and resources, changing local laws, exploiting and disorganising workforces in the sending and receiving countries.

The people behind some of these trends are so craven that they do not seem to think twice about provoking and stoking protracted wars and genocides, except to justify them with flimsy excuses.

Left-right conflicts growing

Another aspect of these problems is a growing division between 'left' and 'right' in population politics as reported, endorsed and incited by the mass media. In a strange way it is reminiscent of the setting for the rise of fascism in Germany. In those days the right (the Nazis and the Italian fascists) were encouraged by big business and the mass media as a means of combating the 'left' or the rise of communism. The communists were for the uniting of workers against exploitation and war but the fascists were for exploitation and pro-war. Today we have a situation where groups identified by the mainstream press as 'left' and 'anti-fascist' are coming into conflict with groups identified as 'right-wing'. Counter-intuitively the left-wing, as presented by the mainstream press, seems to think it is okay to have disorganised mass immigration and has almost nothing to say against the wars producing these population movements. The right-wing seems to be the only voice criticising US-NATO involvement in wars in the Middle East, and they are definitely against uncontrolled mass immigration. At the same time, the center left and center right that control most governments and are aligned with the mass media encourage mass migration and encourage war. That leaves unrepresented people of a center left or center right disposition who are neither in favour of war or mass migration. This is a glaring omission and one senses that it is deliberate on the part of the mass media that claims to represent public opinion globally.

NOTES

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/nthamerica/2016/01/13/244-million-international-migrants-in-2015.html#sthash.xwREuHUA.dpuf

#otherArticles" id="otherArticles">Appendix: Other Articles about the European Refugee crisis

Why Illegal Migrants are Good for Turkish Business? (21/12/15) | New Eastern Outlook, Refugees as "Weapons" in a Propaganda War (21/11/15) by Eric Draitser | Global Research, The Flood of Refugees into Europe: "The New Slave Trade" (8/11/15) by Peter Koenig | Global Research, Merkel Overwhelmed: Chancellor Plunges Germany Into Chaos (4/11/15) | sputnik News, The phoney « refugee crisis » (7/9/15) by Thierry Meyssan | VoltaireNet, Refugees as Weapon – and Germany shifting Alliances? (17/7/15) | Global Research.

Two thousand “Temporary” Foreign Workers ---Chinese miners---are coming to extract coal from northeastern British Columbia, Canada, close to three First Nations reserves who suffer unemployment rates over 70% !

'Diversity' drives down wages in Canada

Two thousand “Temporary” Foreign Workers ---Chinese miners---are coming to extract coal from northeastern BC, close to three First Nations reserves who suffer unemployment rates over 70% !

Government and industry tell us that we don’t have enough trained workers of our own. But maybe the real problem is that our workers are not trained to accept substandard wages for hard, dangerous work, that neither government nor industry has taken a serious inventory of our labour needs or resources, and that they are gripped by a quick-fix mentality that looks overseas rather than investing in the training of our own people, particularly of native youth.

Development: What's the big hurry?

And there is another elephant in the room. The primary question. Why the mad rush to “develop”, mine, drill and transport every resource in sight? Whose agenda are we following? The long term needs of Canadians, or the shareholders of foreign corporations and revenue-hungry debt-addicted governments? What becomes of the extra millions we import in a generation, when the ‘gold rush’ is over?

Nothing so permanent as a "temporary" worker

These miners are being brought in as “Temporary” Foreign Workers. A labour category whose numbers have tripled in just six years. But as the saying goes, there is nothing so permanent in Canada as a “Temporary Foreign Worker”. The trade union establishment, in fact, wants to smooth their transition into formal immigrant status. This reflects the ambition to “bring them into the union”, rather than to protect Canadian workers by demanding their expulsion. One often gets the impression that unions care more growing their dues-paying membership base and about exploited temporary workers than about the jobs of Canadians that those workers have displaced. Whatever happened to the ancient understanding that the best friend of the working man (or woman) is a tight labour market?

Canadian Political parties addicted to ethnic votes

Until recently, it was the cross-party consensus that Canada should have a ‘tap on, tap off’ immigration policy. That is, Canada would open the gates wider when times were good and foreign workers were needed, but close them when times were tough, as they are now. That consensus was blown apart two decades ago when the Mulroney government dramatically jacked up immigration quotas to unprecedented levels, motivated not by economic considerations but by political ones. Namely, the desire of the Conservative government to woo ethnic voters away from the Liberal Party by expanding immigration. Since then, successive governments have kept up that unwarranted intake for fear of chasing ethnic voters away into the embrace of the opposition parties eager to capture their loyalty.

Canada needs stability, not boom and bust

The truth is, we don’t need to dig up and ship out our resources at breakneck speed. We don’t need to follow the classic boom-and-bust cycle that has cursed our resource economy for a century. And we don’t need to recklessly import millions of foreign workers to pursue that kind of roller-coaster economic model.

The aim of public policy should not be to get rich quick, but secure economic stability over the long haul. The word “sustainable” has been abused beyond meaning. But nonetheless, it applies here. It should be clear that a sustainable economy is better than one that rises like rocket, and then crashes. A sustainable economy for a sustainable population level.

Tim Murray,

October 27, 2012

Attention: This an urgent message to the entire country to assist in the search for and recovery of journalistic integrity, impartiality and independence in our state broadcaster.

The real CBC was last seen on a playground in the 1970s. Witnesses reported seeing a suspicious red van in the vicinity, driven by the immigration lobby.

Missing are journalists like Doug Collins, George Jonas, Douglas Fisher, Larry Zolf, and Danny Finkleman. People who had a unique take on the world they saw and were not afraid to say it to an audience who chose not to take offence at what they heard. That was an era when “diversity” was not a buzzword but a reality. When there was a diversity of thought and expression, a fuller range of opinion that stretched from one end of the political spectrum to the other. A Canada where it was not considered to be a constitutional right for any citizen in a robust democracy “not to be offended” . A Canada where we didn’t care about how you “feel”, but what you thought.

Now that old and bold Canada is gone, as are journalists of the fearless calibre just mentioned. Taken in broad daylight, right under our collective noses, almost without witness.

http://img4.prosperent.com/images/250x250/dm61q01mhxuli.cloudfront.net/images/m123/image2/gc7068.jpg

Missing----Objective Investigative CBC Journalist

The abductors left a hollow look-a-like behind as a decoy to fool listeners into believing that the former standards of independent investigative journalism still resides in this make-believe shadow of what once was. But upon closer inspection, it is apparent that this not-so-cheap imitation is just a billion- dollar money pit and mouthpiece for the political class and the cheerleaders of mass immigration. It’s mandate is not, as one might assume, to represent every strand of opinion in this grand multicultural tapestry, but rather to project Canadian “identity. An identity which they apparently believe is simply a microcosm of the United Nations. Their determined goal is to give a microphone to the “Immigrant” Voice, The Voice of Minorities, New Canadians, the marginalized, the unheard----or rather the talking heads who are paid to lobby in their name. (If ordinary New Canadians were given that chance, they might say politically incorrect and unscripted things----like they did when they voted for Rob Ford. Can’t have that! )

Their mission is to reflect “diversity”, the diversity of groups, of ethnicities, races and genders---but not of thought and thoughtful Canadians. The Canada that listeners will see in this CBC is a rainbow of faces but not a rainbow of conflicting ideas. Let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend---as long as they fall within the narrow spectrum of politically acceptable speech. Every Canadian of course, is entitled to an opinion. They are just not entitled to have it aired on this cool version of the CBC.

The “Friends of the CBC” are befriending an imposter. A propagandist. A cheerleader for the state religion of “Multiculturalism”. The old CBC, the CBC we knew and loved is not here. This CBC, CBC Pravda, is a shell of its former self. Canada most definitely does not “live here”.

If anyone has seen something suspicious, or something that looks like it could be an independent-minded journalist cowering in the back of a camper, van or truck or trunk in shackles or behind the curtains of a cabin set in the woods, please phone 1-800-REALCBC or email [email protected].

Any tip that leads to the arrest and conviction of the Growth Lobby for kidnapping will be rewarded. You claim must first be authenticated by a certified crypto-zoologist able to recognize an investigative journalist from the CBC archive of old photos and broadcasts recorded 40 years ago.

In the meantime, if we can speak into the camera, we want to say this:

Ol’CBC....Baby.....If you are still alive and you can hear us, can you please, please somehow tell us that you are alright? Please, please come home, do you hear? We really miss you. We all really miss you and we all really love you, just as you were when we last remembered you--when you were young and fearless. And to those who have abducted you----if you are watching this----we will pay any ransom. We will even make a donation to “The Friends of the CBC” so that they can fight to keep the government from cutting funding and depriving the political class and the growth lobby of their reliable voice.

Don’t let anybody tell you that we don’t care about you, or don’t want you back. We are not hostile to the concept of public broadcasting, in fact, we really like the PBS and NPR model down south. We are just hostile to the concept of a taxpayer-funded institution using our tax dollars to push one ideological vision. The vision of compliant Canadians willingly embracing their own cultural, economic and demographic displacement. We just don’t want to keep subsidizing a rogue corporation intent on shaping public opinion to fit the PC mould. We only want to promote a national conversation on taboo issues, not a vehicle to manufacture consent. We know that the debate on the important issues we care about has been declared “CLOSED”, but we still hold onto this quaint notion that is the people, not their “representatives” who should determine what can be discussed. Maybe we’re naive, but we still think it is our right to re-open any forbidden topic and have it aired on the broadcasting corporation we pay for.

Tim Murray, July 28, 2012

The most effective way to conquer and colonize a people is to strip them of their identity as a people, as a distinctive culture and as a sovereign nation, and to delegate the wet work to a Puppet Intelligentsia. Like the Jews (Kapos) of the Warsaw ghetto whom the Nazis appointed to manage an orderly genocide, this contemptible class of rootless cosmopolitans, with media collusion, then set to work in convincing a new generation that they are part of a greater whole, a noble international enterprise, an empire, and that allegiance to the land of their forefathers is parochial, anachronistic, selfish and ‘nativist’. No sooner did we throw off the shackles of our infantile self-image as British ‘subjects’ when now, we are intoned to become “citizens of the world”. But we are not citizens in a global participatory democracy, but the passive consumers of global capitalism. In the name of diversity were are seeing what is left of our identity tossed into a global blender, with the left is calling it international workers solidarity. Face it. What we are witnessing is an invasion, and multiculturalism is just a useful smokescreen.

Pandering to the people vs.

Pandering to the Growth Lobby How typical of the New York Times. One would think this was written by the CBC.

Instead of discussing the dangers that Islamic fundamentalism poses to western democracies who have opened their doors to mass immigration from Islamic countries, this journalist focuses on the restraint of Sweden's Prime Minister in responding to the recent bombing attempt by an Iraqi-born terrorist. ("Sweden's Near Miss" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html ). Note how he characterizes those who oppose this policy:

"......the misleadingly named Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim party of the extreme right."

"Center-right politicians elsewhere in Europe — France and the Netherlands, for example — have been quick to pander to similar xenophobic parties and their supporters."

This is the standard analysis of PC journalism. "Anti-immigration" is conflated with "anti-immigrant" and those who would defend national sovereignty and the cultural heritage of their own country are "xenophobic" and of the "extreme right".

By what measure of inverse reasoning do the politically correct regard politicians who defer to theopinions of the electorate as somehow "undemocratic"? How is bowing to public pressure seen as "pandering", but bowing to the pressures of cheap labour employers for open immigration as "statesmanship"?

Most governments are puppets of the growth lobby. Rather than confess their collusion with the Ponzi population agenda, these puppets dress it up as a noble act of responsible statecraft. They call it "tolerance", a respect for "diversity", "the rule of law". Whose law? The law of the people, or the law of their so-called "representatives"?

Wars are fought with euphemisms

Political wars, like those fought by armies, are waged and rationalized by the use of euphemisms. It is critically important to frame the battle in terms that will win public support. The Japanese did not define their aggression in 1941 as a naked grab for oil in the Dutch East Indies, but as a project to establish a South East Asian "Co-Prospertiy Sphere". The Bush administration, similarly, did not describe the war against Iraq as a war to secure oil supplies but as a war against terrorism. The annals of colonial conquest are replete with this kind of spin. What is even more advantageous for the invader though, is to convince those who have been invaded that their subjugation is in their own interests. If the conquered can believe that they are actually being "liberated", then the task of exploitation is rendered so much easier. A proven technique is to reward the ruling class of the conquered territory with junior-partner status for their valuable role in helping to manage and channel popular dissent along ineffectual paths. The Vichy regime was a classic case in point. The Romans also were masters of this technique. Nothing works better than to install a puppet regime that allows the locals the illusion of independence.

The Puppet Intelligentsia

That is precisely what "The New Class" is. A puppet intelligentsia. They are that coalition of "progressive" globe-trotting politicians, academics and journalists who, as a badge of membership in the "Those who know better Club", sneer at anti-immigration sentiments, which they characterize as nativist, bigoted and parochial. Their role is to "educate" the masses to accept and embrace the invaders as the vanguard of a new world order. The national culture, as such, must be discredited as an anachronism, and instead the people must be encouraged to shift their allegiance to a distant entity. Citizens must be made to feel proud to be mere cogs in an Empire, and be content with the reputed rewards that colonial status brings. In Canada now, that process of mental assimilation is half-way complete. Left-wing hypocrites who once celebrated Canada's growing independence from Britain, and once fretted over growing American influence in the 60s and 70s, now see Canada's "great multicultural project", as Green Party leader Elizabeth May calls it, as our distinctive mission in the world. It is a belief that has been preached daily for decades in classrooms and newsrooms without challenge, and the dividends of this relentless and rootless cosmopolitanism are now evident. Most readers polled by the National Post in 2008, in fact, voted to make "Canada---Home to the World" our national slogan. We are not to be credited with having our own home-grown culture. Instead, we are merely a mosaic of imported cultures, a United Nations in microcosm. It is a globalist vision, espoused by people who purport to be opposed to globalism. In fact, they share the corporate dream of a world without borders. Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Lennon all "come together right now", if you will pardon the use of Beatles' lyrics.

Multiculturalism is a smokescreen

The truth is, mass immigration is a profoundly and extremely "right-wing" project, and, to use Dan Murray's description, the cult of multiculturalism can be likened to the "artillery" which softens up our lines before the shock troops mount their attack. A good metaphor, but another comes to mind. The Canadians who landed on Juneau Beach in Normandy gained their beach-head by laying down smoke to conceal incoming tanks. The cant about tolerance and diversity can be regarded in the same way. It is just a smokescreen for the invasion, a fog which conceals the prime corporate objective to drive down labour costs and expand the number of consumers. But the Green-Left cannot see through it. Perhaps it is because green NGOs are blinded by corporate donations. The irony is, one day they will wake up and realize that when the smoke has cleared, the net result will be a displaced and pauperized indigenous workforce, and a Tower of Babel where people cannot mount a challenge to their exploitation because of their ethno-cultural divisions. They will cease to be citizens and exist only as consumers. The only common culture will be the culture of money. Some diversity. A rainbow of faces but a conformity of thought and behaviour.

Canada--home to the world. Or will it be "Attention Walmart Shoppers"?

Welcome to the original multicultural paradise, the one that serves The New Class across the world as a model and template for national suicide and global integration.

Tim Murray