options in life but will we
experiment with any of them?
organization has its own, unique "culture" regardless of whether the
organization is as small as a family, as large as a nation, or in
between, such as a corporation, sports team, or orchestra. Their
culture sets up a hierarchy; unites the members into a team; provides
them with rules to follow; arranges for social
and recreational activities; and encourages
a certain attitude towards life.
Although many people promote the attitude that we have only
one correct option in life, we actually
have an infinite number of options. For example, if
a business decides to provide cubicles to their
employees, they have an infinite number of options in regards to the
size of the cubicles, and whether they have
any color, plants, or artistic decorations.
||There are an infinite number of ways
of designing and decorating work areas.
The cultural options of a organization are chosen
primarily by the management, but the members influence the culture both
directly and indirectly. They influence it directly
when they make suggestions or complaints, and they influence it indirectly
when they quit the organization because they don't like something about
Organizations have an infinite number of options
available in regards to their culture. However, options are of no
value unless we have the interest in discussing
them, and the courage to experiment with them.
of people who don't take control of their culture will end up
with culture that drifts around through time, but it will
not drift aimlessly. It will drift according to the personalities
of the people in the organization. Furthermore, the people in leadership
positions have the most influence over culture, even if they make no
attempt to influence it. In
other documents I have described this concept in such ways as: an
organization is a reflection of the minds of its members.
group of people with high quality minds will produce an organization
with a more pleasant, more efficient culture even if they don't make
any attempt to do so.
The reason is because our culture evolves to fit our personalities, so
if a group of people are well behaved,
considerate, their culture will develop to fit those desirable
At the other extreme, if an organization is dominated by people who
resist critical analysis of themselves, or who resist experimentation
with their culture, or who are stupid, ignorant, dishonest, violent,
sexually disturbed, apathetic, or paranoid, their culture will evolve
to fit their bizarre personalities. The end result will be that
their organization will be
noticeably more inefficient, chaotic, bizarre, and unpleasant.
is a reflection of its members
The concept that culture evolves to fit the
minds of the
people, and that the leaders have the most influence over it, is most
obvious with small organizations with submissive
members, such as families.
Every family has a unique culture that provides a unique
environment for the members of the family. The culture of a family
develops to fit the genetic characteristics and education
of the people
in the family. For some obvious examples:
• A family that has a member
suffering from Prader-Willi syndrome will create a culture in
which food is under strict
control by the parents, and the child with that genetic disorder has to
follow rules that other families do not have.
The Fritzl and Fowler families are examples of
organizations that are
dominated by people with seriously defective minds. The culture of
those two families evolved to fit the mental characteristics of the
parents, resulting in culture that was extremely unpleasant.
• Years ago Joseph Fritzl
provided an example of how a parents can create a truly
family environment. If you want a new example, in October 2017 the
brother of the
Hollywood celebrity Kevin Spacey claimed
that his father, Thomas Fowler, would rape and abuse
the children, and that their mother was also neurotic and abusive.
At the other
extreme would be a family dominated by a man and woman who have such
quality minds and educations that they are capable of looking
critically at themselves, having discussions about social
issues, and experimenting with changes. Their family would end up
with more appropriate rules, social
activities, clothing styles, work schedules, and
attitudes. They would provide a more pleasant environment for
themselves and their children. Furthermore, their family environment
would slowly improve through
years as a result of the parents occasionally experimenting with
humans are arrogant, we have a tendency to blame our problems on other
people or mysterious forces, but each of us is responsible for our
behavior, and the members of an organization are responsible for the
environment of their organization. We cannot blame other people for our
bad behavior, and we cannot blame people outside of
our organization for the problems of the organization.
Every family has a unique culture because every family consists of
people with slightly different genetic
mental qualities, and each member picked up
slightly different information
during his life.
families get into fistfights with each other on a regular basis, and
others have lots of verbal arguments. Some families have homes that are
neat, and others have homes that are cluttered with toys or litter.
Some families spend a lot of their leisure time eating excessively,
whereas others spend a lot of time watching television,
video games, riding motorcycles on dirt fields, or reading the
Bible, Koran, or Torah.
Since the culture of a family evolves to
fit the minds of the members, we can get an indication of what
type of genetic qualities and education you and your
family members have by observing how you behave and treat one another.
is a reflection of the minds
of the people in it
entertainment businesses are another example of how the culture of an
organization evolves to fit the minds of the people in
During the past few months, a lot men and
women have found the courage to publicly complain about the rapes and
crude behavior of people in those businesses. If the people in the
entertainment businesses were "typical" humans, then all businesses,
sports groups, orchestras, and other organizations would have virtually
the same complaints about rape and abuse, but these problems are not
equally distributed among the organizations. Some organizations have
much more problems with rape, and other organizations have
more problems with
pedophilia, alcoholism, murders, gambling, or drug abuse. Sports groups
have lots of problems with steroid abuse.
The reason different organizations have different culture,
problems, and behavior is because every person has unique
genetic characteristics and a unique education, and organizations are
not random selections
of the human population. If we could remove the secrecy that we are
providing everybody, and if we could truly understand the human mind
and our DNA,
an analysis of the organizations would show us that there are significant
genetic differences between the people in different
An obvious example of how organizations have genetically different
people are the sports groups. They
consist of people who have unusually healthy bodies, and who also have
a mind that has a very strong craving to win competitive battles.
As I have mentioned in other documents, I think the
entertainment businesses are attracting people who are perpetually
unhappy due to
some serious genetic mental disorder. I also think that
the entertainment business is attracting a lot of ugly and crude men
cannot attract desirable women, and they want to get into Hollywood so
that they can have contact with women that they would otherwise never
be able to meet.
When those low quality people get into leadership
positions of the entertainment businesses, they gain a lot of influence
over the culture of those
businesses, and they will also be able to determine who gets hired or
fired. Since we have a tendency to hire people who are
similar to ourselves, after many years, the entertainment
businesses become dominated by people with significant mental
problems. This would explain why there are so many people complaining
about rapes, murders, threats, and crude behavior in the entertainment
In February 2018, Uma Thurman found the courage to discuss her
unpleasant experiences with Hollywood directors, and she describes
an incident in which she believes that Quentin Tarantino tried to set
her up to die in a car accident. She survived the
accident, but she ended up with permanent damage to her neck and knees.
||Update 14 Feb 2018: A man
who notified me of some typos also provided links to some interesting
information about Tarantino, such as his explanation
for performing some choking scenes rather than letting actors or
stuntmen do it, and why
he spit in the face of Uma Thurman rather than using simulated spit.
A hollywood director is likely to justify such abusive behavior on the
grounds that he is trying to create realistic scenes,
but we need to pass judgment on when we truly benefit from such
realism, and when the director is either getting carried away with
realism, or simply justifying his abusive behavior.
a more extreme example. Imagine a Hollywood director is creating a
movie in which there are scenes of pedophiles raping children, and the
director actually rapes the child actors because he
wants their crying and screaming to be realistic. How many children
would he have to rape before you came to the conclusion that we don't
benefit from that type of realism, and that he is raping the
children because he wants to do it.
control your craving to behave like a submissive animal when
you encounter a person who is higher in the social hierarchy? If so, do
it, and encourage other people to do it,
Benedict, an actor, said that there were "hundreds of murders" in
Hollywood. The video has been removed from the Internet, but I saved
that section of the audio.
environment is a reflection of the people in the business
Every organization has an infinite
number of cultural options, but the human race is not yet accustomed to
the concept that we can take control of our culture
and determine what our future will be. Instead, we are still behaving
like primitive savages who are oblivious to this issue and allow our
culture to drift about aimlessly. This is resulting in businesses that
have work environments that have some unpleasant qualities.
For example, in my
document about murder rituals, I wrote about two
businesses that require
female employees to wear high-heeled shoes. The people who created
those rules were obviously not interested in
doing research into what type of shoes would be most comfortable and
a woman who has to walk or stand for many hours a day on the
particular flooring of their particular business.
Rather, they were
more concerned with something else, such as mimicking the customs of
similar businesses, or because they thought those shoes would
increase sales by attracting more male customers.
The management of those two businesses seem typical of the
people who rise to the top positions of businesses around the world.
Specifically, most successful business executives seem more concerned
with mimicking other people or making
profit than they are in
creating a business environment that is pleasant for their employees,
or in creating a business that contributes something of value for
free enterprise system is crude, and we should advance beyond it.
Businesses should be serving us; we should not be
serving them. We
should enjoy going to our jobs, and we should be proud
of the work we
do because we should be doing work that is beneficial
to society. We
should not be working at jobs in which we try to
cheat, and abuse one another.
Female employees should not be
told to dress like sex toys in order to attract male consumers. That is
treating women like a piece of bait on a hook, and it is treating male
customers as fish. We would create a more pleasant environment for
ourselves if businesses treated us as friends
as potential sources of profit. Human life should have first priority
in our economy,
not profit or sales.
In order to change our priorities and put human life ahead of
profit, we must develop a better economic system. Nothing will improve
as long as we continue to follow the path that we are on right now.
However, developing a better economic system requires that we provide
ourselves with leaders who have the courage, ability, and desire
experiment with a new economic system and new culture.
An organization is not going to improve if it is
dominated by people who are afraid to experiment with their culture, or
if the people are too ignorant, stupid, or incompetent to experiment.
In order for an organization to improve itself, it requires members,
especially leaders, who can conduct critical analysis of themselves and
their culture, discuss issues, compromise on policies, and experiment
changes. It requires leaders who can work with
and inspire people rather than fight and suppress
seems to resemble North Korea,
not the USA
type of social environment has Google created for its
members? I don't have any firsthand
knowledge of what their culture is, but judging by
the remarks and descriptions of Google that have come out as a result
of the firing of James Damore, it seems to me that the
Google management should be described as abusive, dictatorial,
neurotic, and unacceptable. In this
article, for example, Google managers are accused of making blacklists
of "conservative" and "white" employees.
Near the end of January, this
news article reported that Damore was having trouble finding
employment. Is it because he has been blacklisted?
Is it because there are lots of other companies who are
secretly conspiring with Google to discriminate against
conservative white people?
The descriptions of the Google social environment remind me of the
descriptions of life in communist China and Russia, and of life in
Korea today. The Google management seems to be treating employees in
a manner that is similar to how the communist dictators
their citizens. For example, the employees of Google seem to be as
frightened to disagree with their leaders as the citizens of
communist nations, and rather than encourage critical analyses,
discussions, and experimentation, the Google executives seem to be demanding
USA provides the Google employees with freedom of speech, but they seem
to be too intimidated to use it. They seem to be under pressure to
worship their leaders and their company's culture, just like
Koreans. It makes me wonder, how abusive can the Google management
become before the employees complain about the management? What if the
CEO were to demand that the employees refer to him as "Dear Leader"?
Would the Google employees submit to that?
seems to be encouraging hatred
article from the Federalist claims that some
of the Google employees were
encouraging hatred of Nazis, and even providing advice on how
to properly punch a Nazi.
The people who get their information from Jewish sources have
been convinced that a Nazi is an evil creature that should be arrested
or killed, but after I learned more about the Nazis, the world wars,
and the Holocaust, I have come to the conclusion that the Nazi party
was a fraud created and/or manipulated by
For example, the Nazi philosophy supposedly came from Alfred Rosenberg,
who I suspect was a Khazarian Jew, not a German or a Russian.
Regardless of what race he was, the Nazi philosophy was not created
by Adolf Hitler or the German people.
The neo-Nazi parties of today are even more fraudulent, as I have
described in other documents, such as this.
I think the Jews were using the Nazi movement to create anger
and fear of Germans, instigate
a war, and drive Jews from Europe and down to Palestine so that they
help with the creation of Israel. (I have some information
if you are unaware of how the world wars were intended to create
Americans and Europeans were tricked into the world wars, and even
though many decades have passed, most Americans and Europeans are still
allowing the Jews to promote anti-Nazi propaganda and collect Holocaust
The Google management did not
fire the employees who were passing around the
messages about how to punch Nazis.
Police and military personnel often have to use violence, but most
organizations have no justification for encouraging
hatred or violence among their members.
Businesses should fire the violent
employees, not the employees who discuss issues in a peaceful
I would describe the environment of Google to be
disgusting, obnoxious, and crude.
I would say that it is equivalent to
allowing employees to promote such concepts as, How to punch an asshole.
Incidentally, the Nazi groups are infiltrated
by Jews who are manipulating their members, so the
Nazis are foolish puppets also.
The messages that encourage the punching of Nazis are similar to the
propaganda posters of North Korea that encouraged the hatred of
In the propaganda poster
to the right, American soldiers are pounding a nail into the
head of a North Korean woman. The North Korean leaders promote that
propaganda in order to incite hatred of Americans.
The North Korean people should be disgusted that
they are being deceived by their government.
What is the difference between the North Korean
leaders inciting hatred of the USA, and the Google management
allowing employees to incite hatred of Nazis, or hatred of
James Damore, or hatred of other people who disagree with their
I would respond that the Google management is just as
disgusting as the North Korean government.
When a government encourages its citizens to hate other nations, they
are hurting themselves and the world because nothing
is going to improve from hatred. Something improves when we critically
analyze it, discuss the issue, and experiment
Likewise, when the management of a business encourages their employees
to hate and punch the people that they disagree with, they are
hurting themselves and society. The business will not improve itself,
or society, by encouraging fistfights or hatred.
Ideally, we would set standards for management so high that the only
people in leadership positions were those who were encouraging
discussions, compromise, research,
friendship, cooperation, teamwork, and experiments. Ideally, all of the
people in leadership positions would be trying to reduce
fights, not encourage them. Our leaders should be
encouraging friendships and cooperation.
The only people who benefit from fights are people who are trying to take
the group. For example, by encouraging the employees of Google to hate
James Damore, the Google management can eliminate a competitor
without anybody complaining, and the foolish employees will assist in
helping the management remain in control of the company and suppress
For another example of how violence can help a crime network, if a
crime network can cause violence to become extreme, as it
becomes during a
war, they will be able to murder their opponents
noticing because they will be able to disguise their murders as deaths
as a result of the
war. They can also steal items
without people noticing.
should not be forced to accept people
Some people are promoting the philosophy that
businesses, sports groups, and other organizations should be forced to
follow quotas when hiring people in order to make the organizations
more "diverse" and "fair". Many people also want to force our nation to
accept refugees and immigrants almost at random.
These people believe that a stable organization can be created by a
group of people that have been selected almost at random because they
follow the philosophy that the human mind is like a piece of clay, and
that it will adapt to whatever its environment is. These people don't
worry about the compatibility of the members
because they believe that people will automatically adapt to the
organization and one another.
By comparison, I believe that human behavior is a combination of our
genetic characteristics and our environment, and since we cannot change
a person's genetic characteristics, in order to create a pleasant and
stable organization, we need to give the organization the freedom to discriminate
against who they want as a member. They also need the freedom to evict
the members that they regard as misfits. This will allow every
organization to select people who are compatible.
However, in order to make wise decisions, the organizations need access
to information about other people's lives, and they must also
be free to pass judgment on a person's behavior
and mental qualities. Organizations cannot make wise decisions about
who to bring into their organization if people are allowed to be
secretive or deceptive.
Furthermore, we cannot expect an organizations to deal
properly with these issues if we promote the attitude that it is cruel
or unfair for people to pass judgment on one another.
|The people who
whine about being judged should be told to shut up.
In order to allow organizations to make wise decisions about their
membership, we must eliminate secrecy so that we
can do a good job of judging one other, and
we must put an end to the attitude that passing judgment on people
is cruel or detrimental.
Every organization should
routinely pass judgment on which of their members are behaving
inappropriately, and whether those employees need to be restricted,
evicted, given a different job within the organization, or provided
with more training.
Business leaders regularly pass judgment on whether their employees are
properly, but nobody is yet applying this concept to the people in
leadership positions. Our leaders are free to do whatever they please
without any consequences. This attitude must be eliminated
in order for us
to improve our world. The people in leadership positions need to be
performance reviews on a regular basis just like everybody else.
The Google management passes judgment on which of
their employees is
promoting the proper opinions and behaving correctly, but the Google
employees are frightened to pass judgment on
the behavior of their
managers. This ridiculous situation must change. We
must be allowed to
pass judgment on our leaders. We must advance beyond the medieval
attitude that peasants should worship their Kings.
How do we
determine who is behaving properly?
there is no answer book to life to tell an organization who they should
accept into their organization, or to tell an organization
how to determine which of their members is behaving inappropriately,
and what to do about the badly behaved members.
when a male employee seems to deliberately bump into a female employee,
management reprimand that man? Or should he be fired?
Or should he be
moved to a department where he works only
with men? Or should he be given some type of counseling?
Or should he be sent to some other business where there are no female
employees? Or should he be evicted from the city?
management of every organization is on its own to figure out how to
deal with such issues. The end result is that every organization makes
slightly different decisions about who among us is disruptive,
and what to do about it.
The Google executives
have apparently come to the conclusion that the people who are behaving
inappropriately are those who oppose "diversity", and those who are
racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, extremist, bigoted,
chauvinistic, prejudiced, narrow-minded, one-sided, homophobic, and
of other adjectives that I would describe as vague and meaningless.
Those adjectives are not serious, scientific descriptions of human
attitudes. Rather, they are insults, similar to
calling somebody a
doo-doo head, smegma breath, or butt hole.
My recommendation is
to regard people who use those adjectives as "insulting" us, not
"expressing their opinions" about us, or "passing judgment" on us.
I suggest we raise standards for people in leadership positions to the
point at which people are regarded as intellectually
leadership when they use those adjectives. Our leaders should provide
sensible reviews of our job performance. We should not
tolerate leaders who accuse us of being anti-diversity, a
or a butt-hole.
of the problems with allowing leaders to fire, reprimand, punish, or
criticize people for being anti-diversity, extremist, bigoted, or
prejudiced is that it intimidates
the employees; it creates fear
among them. The reason is because those adjectives are so vague that
they can be applied to anybody, and that causes
every employee to
wonder if somebody is going to accuse them of being one of those
adjectives. There is no way you can defend yourself
of being homophobic, narrow minded, extremist, or racist. You cannot
prove you are not
an "extremist" when nobody can adequately explain what an "extremist"
By comparison, when an employee is fired or reprimanded for
an understandable reason, such as when he steals something from the
business, or when he routinely fails to complete his tasks properly,
the other employees will understand why he is being
reprimanded. They will not be in fear of somebody accusing them of the
James Damore was fired simply for expressing an opinion that
the Google management disagreed with. However, the management did not
show any evidence that Damore was disruptive to the
organization, or to society. Damore could argue that he was beneficial
to the organization because he was encouraging discussions, research,
and a diversity of opinions.
When a manager is allowed to fire an employee without a
explanation, it is likely to cause the other employees to
become worried that they might be fired for no sensible reason, also.
It will cause them to regard their manager as a lunatic
rather than a leader. It will create a miserable
Many of the Google employees are
more educated and intelligent than the average person, so I had
initially expected many of the employees to point out that the
firing of James Damore is irrational, undesirable, and destructive, and
most important of all, unacceptable. I expected
them to do something to improve the situation, such
as force the management to re-hire Damore, or to force the management
However, instead of inspiring the world by standing up to the
abusive Google executives, I was surprised to find that they had chosen
remain silent, or submissively support
the management. Instead of impressing me with their intelligence and
shocked me with behavior that resembles inanimate puppets that are
prancing around on a stage.
lot of the Google employees are submissive because they are in the USA
on an H1B visa, and are worried about
being deported. Or perhaps a lot
of the Google employees are typical, apathetic sheeple
who don't care
about being abused. Regardless of why they are so submissive, it makes
me wonder about such issues as:
• How abusive can the
Google management be before the employees complain
about the abuse?
• Google has lots of employees who are far above average intelligence
and education, and since people with such intelligence and
education are allowing an employee to be fired
for what is essentially
being insulted as a "butt hole", how abusive could the management be if
the employees were only of average intelligence, or
Would the Google offices resemble the factories of the 1800s in which
the employees were treated only slightly better than the animals?
•When we discover a person behaving in a manner that we
regard as abusive or dishonest, we should not
assume that we caught him doing the only
abusive act in his entire life. It is best to assume that he is regularly
behaving in that manner.
Therefore, rather than assume the firing of Damore is the only time
Google executives behaved in an atrocious manner, we should wonder if
they have been abusive to other people, also. For
example, are any of
the Google executives involved with the criminals who conducted the
9/11 attack? Are any involved with a
members of an organization must be compatible
Another issue that every organization
must deal with is compatibility. An
organization will be more pleasant when the members are so compatible
that they enjoy
one another, and are capable of working together as a team.
At the other extreme are organizations in which the people dislike one
another, in which case they work together only out of obligation or
The only sensible way of forming a
compatible team is to eliminate secrecy so that the management can
choose people who will be compatible with one another. And then the
management needs to regularly review the members of the team so that
they can identify and deal with the people who are reducing morale or
disrupting the team.
However, my philosophy contradicts that of
the Google management and many other people who promote the attitude
that businesses can hire people almost
at random, and hire people according to quotas, and then force all of
the employees to be compatible through punishments, threats,
rehabilitation programs, and ridicule.
Most people follow the philosophy that human
behavior can be controlled
through rewards, punishments, and psychological programs. This
is why every nation is trying to stop shoplifting, murder, litter, and
other bad behavior with those techniques.
No society has yet been willing to accept the possibility that this
philosophy is a failure. An interesting example
that is happening as of February 2018 is that some states in the USA
legalized marijuana, but Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General for
President Trump, is supposedly trying to find a way to force
those states to make it illegal. He believes
that by making it illegal, he will be able to stop people from using
marijuana. He is an example of how "conservatives" are unable to look
critically at themselves or their policies, or experiment with changes.
President Trump doesn't seem to be as afraid of changes
Sessions, but even Trump wants to follow some of the existing
drug policies rather than experiment with changes.
For example, in October 2017, the White House posted this
document on their website in which President Trump announced a public
health emergency. The document refers to the abuse of opium-like
substances as an
"opioid epidemic," as if drug abuse is caused by a living creature that
is spreading from one person to the next. In reality, none of
us need to worry about that epidemic getting into our city and
infecting us. Trump will not protect us from that
epidemic, either. He is just wasting his time and our tax
money on a policy that has been failing
for every nation that implements it.
Google executives also promote the popular attitude that human minds
are like pieces of clay, and that they can manipulate our
opinions by rewarding, firing, punishing, blacklisting, and
They also believe that they can change our attitudes towards
life with psychological training programs. This
article claims that "employees
are required to go through training for ethnic, racial, and sexual
diversity." What kind of training
programs are they? Are they truly sensible? Or are they more similar to
the rehabilitation programs of the communists, or in the movie 1984?
The Google executives are trying to force their employees to believe in
and support "diversity", even though they don't have a clear
of what diversity is, or who benefits from it. For example, the Google
executives cannot explain how many women,
people of other races, midgets, dwarves, homosexuals, transgenders, and
people with cleft palates
organization needs before they can
claim to be "diverse".
Furthermore, Google executives cannot explain whether it is acceptable
for certain departments within a business to be
primarily women, and other departments to
be primarily men, or primarily midgets, or primarily elderly people.
Should every department have the same diversity? Or is it acceptable
for some departments within a business to be more homogeneous?
Who is going to suffer if some businesses, or departments within a
business, have lots of midgets, and
others have none? Who is going to suffer if one business or
is dominated by men, and another is
dominated by women? Will children, or society, be harmed if daycare
centers are restricted to women only?
What about sports groups; should they be forced to
be more diverse,
also? The basketball teams, for example, are discriminating against
short people and non-athletic people, and they are dominated
by black men. Should we force them
to accept short people, women, midgets, handicapped people, cripples,
elderly people, and blind people?
How do any of us benefit by forcing organizations to be a
random mixture of people? Why should diversity be enforced when nobody
can explain what it is, who benefits from it, or who suffers
lack of it?
Why do the Google executives enforce a policy of diversity when
nobody can explain what diversity is or how we benefit from
it? I do not think it is because the Google executives truly
believe that they are helping our society, or helping their
organization, or improving the lives
of their employees. I think it is because they are secretly working
with the Jewish crime network, and they are imposing this policy in
order to break down our society.
Is Google promoting diversity
||Can Google truly claim to be promoting diversity
when they fire people who disagree with them?
would respond that a company has more diversity
when they have members who are encouraged to be creative,
discuss issues, and have different opinions.
firing people who disagree with them, Google is creating a stagnant,
group of frightened and submissive puppets, not a diverse
group of humans.
would say Google is practicing the same disgusting policies as the
communists in Russia a few decades ago, which is to
suppress creativity and independence,
and create a horde of
submissive, intimidated, and
frightened slaves who follow orders with no concern
for the effect they
have on their own life, or the lives of other people.
Google is not encouraging creativity,
experimentation, discussions, critical analyses, or suggestions for
Google is not creating a team of humans who enjoy
one another, work together for the benefit of the group, or inspire
Rather, Google is pressuring their employees into behaving like
peasants, sheep, or barnyard animals.
Imagine if the
Google executives did not approve of garlic, pizza, pork, or tofu, and
imagine that any employee who ate those foods was fired,
blacklisted. Would any of the Google
employees care? Would any of them
complain? Or would they be silent, obedient sheep who changed their
and conformed to the idiotic rules?
What is the difference between firing an employee who has a
difference of opinion about the genetic
characteristics of men and women, and firing
an employee for eating garlic, pizza, pork, or tofu?
In either case, the organization is getting rid of any person with
independence and creativity, and leaving behind a group of submissive
puppets who will allow themselves to be abused.
organization must enforce rules of behavior
In order for a group of people to form an
organization, they need a hierarchy, and they need rules to follow, and
they need some type of law enforcement system to
deal with the people who refuse to follow the rules.
I am not criticizing Google for setting rules for
the employees to follow, or for firing employees who violate the rules.
Every organization must set rules, and they must
remove or restrict the members who will not follow the rules.
My complaint about Google is that they are imposing rules that I
regard as abusive and irrational. Actually, as I mentioned earlier, I
would go even further and describe their rules as a deliberate, diabolical plot
to break down our society. I suspect the Google executives are members
an international Jewish crime network, and they are trying to encourage
fights between men and women, and between different races. I think they
are imposing "diversity" in order to break down our friendships.
When people are randomly mixed together, it is difficult for us to form
friendships and marriages. Diversity even makes it difficult for
employees to have lunch together because some
people will refuse to eat
pork; some people will be speaking a language that the other employees
do not understand; some people will want food with high levels of
capsaicin; some people will want to pray to some god before eating
while others pray to a different god; and
people will want various types of vegetarian meals.
When people are forced to mix together at random, it results in a lot
of awkwardness, loneliness, resentment, arguments, bitterness, and
anger. And I think that
is what the Google executives want;
specifically, they are encouraging diversity in order to destroy
that their Jewish crime network can get control of us. I
regard the Google management as crime network members,
not as business executives.
encouraging disgusting behavior
The diversity programs that the Google
executives put their employees through remind me of the
way the Romper Room
television program created the "Do
Bees" to influence the behavior of children. The Do Bee
concept was based on the attitude that children will improve
their behavior through psychological programs.
That concept is accurate to a certain extent because young children are
extremely submissive, and they have a natural tendency to
mimic adults. Therefore, when children are among well behaved
adults who are encouraging good behavior, some of the children
are likely to pick up the good habits of the adults.
The "Do Bee" program encouraged sensible behavior, such as
encouraging children to clean up after themselves and control their
temper. That program may have inspired some children
to exert some self-control and become more polite and responsible.
The Google executives are treating the adult
employees in a similar manner as Romper Room treated four-year-old
children. The Google executives have created what we could describe as
a "Google Do Bee
psychological program" that is intended to alter
the opinions and attitudes of the employees.
||However, whereas the Romper Room Do Bee
program was intended to encourage appropriate
behavior from children, the Google Do Bee program encourages
the employees to turn
off their creativity and curiosity, and behave like
submissive, mindless puppets.
Actually, the Google Do Bee program is worse
than that because it is encouraging fights and hatred.
For some examples:
||• The program promotes the concept that
some of us are benefiting from
"white male privilege", and that we should have that privilege taken
away so that we are treated equally.
• The program claims that genetics has so little influence
behavior, and over the differences between men and women, that people
who express such a belief should be regarded as detrimental
to the organization, and they should be fired and blacklisted.
• The program encourages employees to hate and fight with
The employees who believe the Google Do Bee program are fools.
They are not helping to protect the world from
Nazis, and they are not helping to make people more
equal by opposing "white male privilege", and they are not
improving life for women simply by denying the genetic
differences between males and females.
businesses are using Google's blacklist?
from the Federalist has a quote from a Google employee about how Google
needs to work with other businesses to ensure that the undesirable
people, such as James Damore, have trouble getting jobs. In case it did
not occur to you, a blacklist has no value unless other businesses are
willing to secretly join in on the discrimination
of the people
on the list. This ought to make you wonder, if Google has created a
blacklist, they are likely to have found other businesses to secretly
discriminate against the people on the list. Which other businesses are
working with Google?
And are they also compiling their own blacklists,
and sharing them with other businesses?
Imagine if every business in the US,
Europe, and Japan were to cooperate with Google and secretly use the
blacklists. It would result in certain people having a very difficult
time getting jobs, but those people would never realize that they were
blacklisted because the businesses would be doing it secretly.
If a group of businesses were to discriminate against Jews,
most Jews would have a temper tantrum. However, when conservative white
men are discriminated
against by Jews and Indians at Google, most
white conservative men remain
silent and submissive, like stupid sheep. They are as silent about the
discrimination by Google as they are about
the lies about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the world wars,
and the Apollo moon landings.
As I have pointed out in other
documents, the conservatives have lots of guns, and they frequently
boast about their bravery and courage, but they
are not brave or courageous. They have guns
because they are frightened,
not because they are willing to
use them. The conservatives are like sheep
that follow one another. They are not explorers,
and they are easily intimidated, manipulated, and abused.
it is acceptable for the Google executives to discriminate against
conservative white men, then it is acceptable for the rest of us to
discriminate against Jews, people from India, vegetarians, Catholics,
or whoever we don't like. Conversely, if it is wrong for you
and me to discriminate against people we don't like, then it should be
Google executives to discriminate.
Imagine if every business
in the world were to behave like Google. Imagine every
creating blacklists of people that they don't like, and firing people
who have a difference of opinion. Would you want to live in that type
If every business were to behave like the Google executives,
the world would
become worse, not better. Therefore, we should
classify the Google executives as unacceptable as
leaders. They are not inspiring productive
behavior. Rather, they are behaving like arrogant, selfish, abusive,
the Google “diversity programs”?
has created "diversity programs" to provide employees with a more
appropriate attitude towards life. I have no idea what happens at these
programs, but James Damore said
that after he attended one of them, he found it to be "secretive" and
Businesses are doing their employees a favor by providing
them with educational programs because the
programs can help the employees become better at their jobs,
their jobs more safely, or learn skills to allow them to do other jobs.
A business could even go further and provide educational programs to
help their employees deal with marital problems and home maintenance. A
business could also offer some health programs to
employees about the dangers of hitting their head while playing sports,
and to provide information about cooking, food, and
Educational programs are valuable, but the dilemma that every
organization faces is that there is no answer book to tell us
what is a useful educational program, and
what is nonsense. The end result is that every
organization comes to a slightly different conclusion on what a proper
For example, when a group of religious fanatics create an organization,
they promote the attitude that a proper education comes from
studying the Bible, Koran, or some other religious document. When a
group of vegetarians creates an organization, they regard a
proper education as one in which the eating of meat is regarded as
disgusting and unacceptable.
Google has created diversity programs to "educate"
their employees, but
it is a personal opinion as to whether the people who "graduate" from
those courses are more educated than the rest of us. My opinion is that
the people who believe what those programs are teaching should be
regarded as fools who have picked up propaganda.
I would be embarrassed to have a diploma from one of those Google
courses, not proud of myself.
A similar issue, or we could describe it as the
same issue expressed in different words, is that the management of an
organization should be actively involved in suppressing nonsensical,
destructive, and stupid opinions.
For an obvious example, consider the ignorant but arrogant employees
who think they know a lot about a particular subject, but who give
advice to other employees that is technically incorrect or
potentially dangerous. The management of an
organization needs to watch over the employees and ensure that all of
them are promoting opinions that are sensible, safe, and productive.
The management needs to suppress idiotic, foolish, and dangerous
All business executives and military leaders seem to be aware of this
concept, and they are applying it on a regular basis, but no government
is applying this concept. Governments around the world are allowing
their citizens to promote all sorts of nonsense
without any consequences. We justify this as providing the people with
freedom. However, our governments should
make better decisions about when we are providing people with
"freedom", and when we are providing them with the opportunity to
abuse, deceive, harm, or manipulate other
For example, during the 1800s, American businesses had the freedom to
put morphine into their pharmaceutical products. Eventually many people
came to the conclusion that this freedom was harmful to society, not
beneficial, because it was allowing incompetent and abusive people to
produce useless and dangerous drugs, and to cause people to become
addicted to their products.
I suggest that our government go much further than restricting the use
of morphine. For example, why should we have the freedom to sell or
promote astrology? Where is the evidence that astrology is helping to
improve our society, or helping anybody's life or relationship?
I think that allowing people to have the freedom to promote astrology
is allowing people to make a living by deceiving and abusing one
another. It also encourages people to believe whatever they regard as
entertaining rather than look for scientific evidence to support their
Furthermore, women seem to be much more interested in astrology than
men, and that reinforces the attitude that women are intellectually
inferior to men. The Google executives are promoting the attitude that
we can improve the image of women by participating in their diversity
programs, and by firing and tormenting the men who claim women are
genetically less intelligent, but that is not going to improve the
image of women. Women
are going to be regarded as intellectually inferior as long as they
continue to promote stupid opinions, such as astrology.
Every person is responsible for his image, and every group of people is
responsible for the image of their group. Organizations and individuals
with unpleasant images frequently blame other people for their bad
image, but they are responsible for their image.
For thousands of years women have been regarded as intellectually
inferior simply because all throughout history they have repeatedly
demonstrated intellectual inferiority. Women are responsible for their
reputation of being less intelligent, not men. If
women want to be regarded as having the same intelligence as men, then
they must start making remarks that are equally intelligent.
Rather than pretend that men and women are a unisex creature, I think
we would do more to improve relationships between men and women
by developing a better economic system because our
system is allowing people to make a living by exploiting and abusing
Allowing people to promote astrology is encouraging people to waste
their time on useless activities, and encouraging other people to
believe in nonsense and look like idiots. Astrology is not helping any
of us. It would be better if everybody was contributing something of
value to society, and if everybody was encouraged to base
their opinions on scientific facts.
However, getting rid of astrology requires providing ourselves with
government officials who have the
emotional ability to tell the people who believe in astrology that
they are intellectually inferior to those of us who
regard astrology as
nonsense, and they should accept the opinions that are based on
scientific facts, even if they don't understand or like those opinions.
Furthermore, this concept should be applied to other nonsensical
beliefs. For example, we have almost no restrictions on the type of
religion people can create, or the amount of money they can collect
from their religion. I don't think society benefits from that type of
freedom, either, which is why I have been suggesting that religion be
restricted to personal beliefs rather than organizations.
To summarize the concept of this section,
the leaders of every organization should regularly watch over their
members and suppress the people and opinions that are dangerous,
idiotic, or nonsensical. The leaders should ensure that the people are
encouraging productive, respectable behavior and attitudes.
The managers in businesses will regularly pass judgment on
which of their
employees has the intellectual and emotional ability for certain
jobs, and we should provide ourselves with a government that
follows that same policy.
Our government officials should be passing
judgment on which citizens are unfit for leadership positions, unfit
for voting, and unfit for certain types of jobs, such as policeman,
teacher, and doctor. The government officials should not be afraid to
tell a person that he is
unsuitable as a voter, dentist, or business leader.
Everybody claims to support free speech, but we also want to
prohibit slander and false information. Organizations benefit
tremendously when they suppress false and
destructive opinions. The dilemma that all organizations face is that
there is no answer book in life to tell us which opinions
or destructive. Therefore, it is up to the people in every
organization, especially the leaders, to figure out for themselves
which opinions to suppress.
Obviously, different groups of people are going
to come to very
different conclusions. For a few simple examples:
• The religious fanatics come to the
conclusion that everybody who disagrees with their particular opinions
is promoting false and destructive opinions.
I am not complaining that the Google management fired
promoting a detrimental opinion. My complaints about the Google
management is that they are making absurd decisions on
are beneficial and which are detrimental.
vegetarians regard everybody who eats meat as promoting a cruel or
• The Jews whine that the people who discuss the Holocaust,
the 9/11 attack, and other events are spewing hatred, Holocaust denial,
anti-Semitism, and idiotic conspiracy theories.
• The people
who believe in astrology claim that the critics of astrology are
spewing nonsense and false information.
However, I do not think the Google
management is making those stupid decisions by mistake, or because of a
mental disorder. I
believe that they are
trying to suppress certain people and opinions because they are
trying to break down our nation in order to help an
crime network get control of us.
I think the Google executives are behaving just like the Jews who are
trying to stop us from investigating the Holocaust and the 9/11 attack.
The Jews claim to be suppressing discussions about
those issues in order to protect us from crazy
conspiracy theories or anti-Semitism, but they are
trying to suppress investigations because they don't want us to
discover that they have been lying to us, instigating wars, abusing us,
murdering us, kidnapping us, and cheating us.
promoting the philosophy of the aliens in “They
My interpretation of the movie "They Live" is
that it is exposing the Jewish crime network's attempt to take control
of our world. In that movie, aliens from another planet, which
represent the Zionist Jews from the Khazarian area of Russia, get into
leadership positions of our media, government, businesses, and other
organizations, and they fool many of the humans into joining them in
what they claim will be the creation of a better world for everybody.
The aliens treat the humans as animals. The
humans are encouraged to behave like mindless puppets who obey
authority without question, and who never think for themselves.
The image to the right shows what the television looks like to somebody
who can see the aliens for what they really are; namely, an ugly race
of creatures who are promoting mindless obedience.
The image below shows what the city's signs and advertisements look
like when somebody is capable of seeing through the propaganda.