How’s Socialism Doing in Venezuela?

      No Comments on How’s Socialism Doing in Venezuela?

How’s Socialism Doing in Venezuela?

The Maduro Diet = Starvation

Visit HoaxAndChange.com

Once there was a South American country with a promising future. It had a functioning democracy, a rapidly developing economy, and a growing middle class. All the important indicators, including education, health care, and foreign investment, were pointed in the right direction.

It was far from perfect, but the mood was hopeful ? and with good reason.

But now all that promise is gone. The country is a failed state, a hollowed-out shell of its former self.

Services like power and water are sporadic. The most basic consumer goods, from bread to toilet paper, are in chronically short supply. Crime has skyrocketed. Freedom of the press is almost non-existent. Democracy has been replaced by a virtual dictatorship.

The country is, I’m sorry to say, my beloved Venezuela, a place in which my family has deep roots.

I can tell you what happened to it in one word: socialism.

In 1999, then-candidate for president Hugo Chavez promised to lead the people of Venezuela to a socialist paradise. His theme was “Esperanza y Cambio” ? “Hope and Change.” “Venezuela is a nation of great wealth,” Chavez said, “but it’s being stolen from its citizens by the evil capitalists and the evil corporations.” This wrong would be righted, he assured the voters, if they elected him.

And they did.

To their everlasting regret. 

Chavez drew inspiration from his mentor, Fidel Castro. Like his mentor, he enjoyed giving speeches ? some that lasted as many as seven hours! He even gave himself his own weekly television show where he would spontaneously break into song.

Here’s a rule: When your nation’s leader starts singing on national television, you’re in trouble.

Under Chavez, the government of Venezuela took over industry after industry. The government, he assured everyone, would run these businesses better than private enterprise, and the profits would be “shared” by the people. With great fanfare, he tore up contracts with multinational oil and gas companies and demanded that they pay much higher royalties. When they refused, he told them to leave. They did.

His image was burnished by Hollywood celebrities who flocked to see the great work he was doing ? taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.  Progressive politicians from the US and Europe also praised him lavishly.

Visit HoaxAndChange.com

Here’s another rule: When Hollywood celebrities visit your country to praise your leader, you’re in trouble. When the leader sings on national television and is praised by Hollywood celebrities, you’re doomed.

Socialism always works in the beginning, so people are fooled…in the beginning. It’s easy for governments to confiscate money, but eventually, there’s no more money to confiscate. In the case of Venezuela, I mean that literally: People who could get money out of the country, did. Many left the country altogether ? nearly 2 million, according to Venezuelan sociologist Tomás Páez. The wealth creators continued to create wealth, but they created it somewhere else ? Miami or Madrid and other places around the world.

When Chavez first ran for President in 1999, he said he would leave in two years if people weren’t happy with him. But, like Castro, Chavez never had any intention of giving up power. He died in office in 2013, replaced by his vice president, Nicolas Maduro. Maduro is Chavez without the charisma or the voice.

The country is now a pariah, shunned by the world and isolated. It’s so bad that many international airlines refuse to fly there. People stand in lines for hours just to get food. Sometimes they walk away empty-handed. A recent survey found that 75 percent of Venezuelan adults lost weight in 2016 ? an average of 19 pounds. This national weight-loss program is known cynically as “the Maduro diet.” visit HoaxAndChange.com

Still, Maduro holds onto power. Opposition leaders and journalists who report the truth are jailed.

Venezuela is a cautionary tale.

Once a country goes down a socialist path, there’s no easy way back. And the longer a country stays socialist, the harder it is to reform it. Venezuela has been socialist for two decades.

If you don’t think it can happen here, whether “here” is the United States or Europe or anywhere else, you’re fooling yourself. When people get used to depending on the government ? no matter how poor they remain ? that dependency is hard to break.

That’s why you should never buy the socialist lie. Socialism is a drug. And like a drug, it feels great ? at first. But eventually, it will ruin your country.

Visit HoaxAndChange.com

Just like it ruined Venezuela.

I’m Debbie D’Souza for Prager University.

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

President Trump – Presidential Address to the Nation on Afghanistan

President Trump – Presidential Address to the Nation on Afghanistan

Terrorists take heed –  America will never let up until you are dealt a lasting defeat.

0 – 00

The President –  Vice President Pence,

0 – 03

Secretary of State Tillerson,

0 – 05

members of the Cabinet, General Dunford,

0 – 10

Deputy Secretary Shanahan,

0 – 13

and Colonel Duggan.

0 – 16

Most especially, thank you to the men

0 – 20

and women of Fort Myer

0 – 22

and every member of the United States

0 – 24

military at home and abroad.

0 – 28

We send our thoughts and prayers

0 – 30

to the families of our brave sailors

0 – 33

who were injured and lost

0 – 34

after a tragic collision at sea,

0 – 37

as well as to those conducting

0 – 39

the search and recovery efforts.

0 – 43

I am here tonight to lay out our path forward

0 – 45

in Afghanistan and South Asia.

0 – 50

But before I provide the details

0 – 52

of our new strategy,

0 – 54

I want to say a few words

0 – 55

to the servicemembers here with us tonight,

0 – 59

to those watching from their posts,

1 – 02

and to all Americans listening at home.

1 – 08

Since the founding of our republic,

1 – 09

our country has produced a special class of heroes

1 – 14

whose selflessness, courage,

1 – 17

and resolve is unmatched in human history.

1 – 21

American patriots from every generation

1 – 24

have given their last breath on the battlefield

1 – 28

for our nation

1 – 30

and for our freedom.

1 – 33

Through their lives —

1 – 36

and though their lives were cut short,

1 – 40

in their deeds they achieved

1 – 42

total immortality.

1 – 45

By following the heroic example of those

1 – 49

who fought to preserve our republic,

1 – 52

we can find the inspiration

1 – 54

our country needs to unify, to heal,

1 – 58

and to remain one nation under God.

2 – 04

The men and women of our military operate

2 – 07

as one team,

2 – 09

with one shared mission,

2 – 11

and one shared sense of purpose.

2 – 15

They transcend every line of race,

2 – 19

ethnicity, creed,

2 – 20

and color to serve together —

2 – 22

and sacrifice together —

2 – 25

in absolutely perfect cohesion.

2 – 29

That is because all servicemembers

2 – 32

are brothers and sisters.

2 – 36

They’re all part of the same family;

2 – 40

it’s called the American family.

2 – 43

They take the same oath, fight for the same flag,

2 – 48

and live according to the same law.

2 – 53

They are bound together by common purpose,

2 – 56

mutual trust,

2 – 57

and selfless devotion to our nation

3 – 00

and to each other.

3 – 02

The soldier understands what we, as a nation,

3 – 06

too often forget that a wound

3 – 09

inflicted upon a single member of our community

3 – 14

is a wound inflicted upon us all.

3 – 19

When one part of America hurts, we all hurt.

3 – 25

And when one citizen suffers an injustice,

3 – 28

we all suffer together.

3 – 32

Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty

3 – 35

to one another.

3 – 37

Love for America

3 – 38

requires love for all of its people.

3 – 43

When we open our hearts to patriotism,

3 – 46

there is no room for prejudice,

3 – 49

no place for bigotry,

3 – 51

and no tolerance for hate.

3 – 55

The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad

4 – 00

deserve to return to a country

4 – 02

that is not at war with itself at home.

4 – 07

We cannot remain a force for peace in the world

4 – 11

if we are not at peace with each other.

4 – 15

As we send our bravest

4 – 16

to defeat our enemies overseas —

4 – 19

and we will always win —

4 – 21

let us find the courage

4 – 23

to heal our divisions within.

4 – 27

Let us make a simple promise to the men

4 – 29

and women we ask to fight in our name that,

4 – 32

when they return home from battle,

4 – 35

they will find a country

4 – 37

that has renewed

4 – 39

the sacred bonds of love and loyalty

4 – 42

that unite us together as one.

4 – 45

Thanks to the vigilance and skill

4 – 48

of the American military

4 – 50

and of our many allies throughout the world,

4 – 54

horrors on the scale of September 11th —

4 – 59

and nobody can ever forget that —

5 – 02

have not been repeated on our shores.

5 – 06

But we must also acknowledge

5 – 08

the reality I am here to talk about tonight –

5 – 11

that nearly 16 years after September 11th attacks,

5 – 15

after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure,

5 – 20

the American people are weary of war

5 – 25

without victory.

5 – 28

Nowhere is this more evident

5 – 30

than with the war in Afghanistan,

5 – 32

the longest war in American history —

5 – 36

17 years.

5 – 38

I share the American people s frustration.

5 – 42

I also share their frustration

5 – 46

over a foreign policy

5 – 47

that has spent too much time, energy, money,

5 – 51

and most importantly lives,

5 – 53

trying to rebuild countries

5 – 55

in our own image,

5 – 57

instead of pursuing our security interests

6 – 00

above all other considerations.

6 – 04

That is why, shortly after my inauguration,

6 – 09

I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis

6 – 12

and my national security team

6 – 15

to undertake a comprehensive review

6 – 18

of all strategic options in Afghanistan

6 – 21

and South Asia.

6 – 24

My original instinct was to pull out —

6 – 29

and, historically, I like following my instincts.

6 – 34

But all my life I’ve heard

6 – 36

that decisions are much different

6 – 39

when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office;

6 – 43

in other words,

6 – 44

when you’re President of the United States.

6 – 48

So I studied Afghanistan in great detail

6 – 51

and from every conceivable angle.

6 – 55

After many meetings, over many months,

6 – 59

we held our final meeting last Friday

7 – 02

at Camp David,

7 – 03

with my Cabinet and generals,

7 – 06

to complete our strategy.

7 – 10

I arrived at three fundamental conclusions

7 – 12

about America s core interests in Afghanistan.

7 – 16

First, our nation must seek an honorable

7 – 20

and enduring outcome

7 – 22

worthy of the tremendous sacrifices

7 – 25

that have been made,

7 – 27

especially the sacrifices of lives.

7 – 32

The men and women who serve our nation

7 – 34

in combat deserve a plan for victory.

7 – 38

They deserve the tools they need,

7 – 40

and the trust they have earned,

7 – 43

to fight and to win.

7 – 45

Second, the consequences of a rapid exit

7 – 50

are both predictable and unacceptable.

7 – 55

9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history,

7 – 59

was planned and directed from Afghanistan

8 – 03

because that country was ruled by a government

8 – 07

that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists.

8 – 11

A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum

8 – 15

that terrorists,

8 – 16

including ISIS and al Qaeda,

8 – 19

would instantly fill,

8 – 21

just as happened before September 11th.

8 – 26

And, as we know, in 2011,

8 – 30

America hastily

8 – 33

and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq.

8 – 38

As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back

8 – 42

into the hands of terrorist enemies.

8 – 46

Our soldiers watched as cities

8 – 48

they had fought for,

8 – 49

and bled to liberate, and won, were occupied

8 – 53

by a terrorist group called ISIS.

8 – 57

The vacuum we created by leaving too soon

8 – 59

gave safe haven for ISIS to spread,

9 – 02

to grow, recruit, and launch attacks.

9 – 07

We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake

9 – 11

our leaders made in Iraq.

9 – 15

Third and finally, I concluded

9 – 18

that the security threats

9 – 19

we face in Afghanistan

9 – 21

and the broader region are immense.

9 – 25

Today, 20 U.S.-designated

9 – 28

foreign terrorist organizations

9 – 31

are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan —

9 – 34

the highest concentration in any region

9 – 39

anywhere in the world.

9 – 41

For its part,

9 – 42

Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos,

9 – 49

violence, and terror.

9 – 52

The threat is worse because

9 – 53

Pakistan and India

9 – 55

are two nuclear-armed states

9 – 58

whose tense relations

9 – 59

threaten to spiral into conflict.

10 – 03

And that could happen.

10 – 05

No one denies that we have inherited

10 – 07

a challenging and troubling situation

10 – 10

in Afghanistan and South Asia,

10 – 13

but we do not have the luxury

10 – 15

of going back in time

10 – 17

and making different or better decisions.

10 – 20

When I became President,

10 – 22

I was given a bad and very complex hand,

10 – 26

but I fully knew what I was getting into –

10 – 28

big and intricate problems.

10 – 31

But, one way or another,

10 – 32

these problems will be solved —

10 – 35

I’m a problem solver —

10 – 37

and, in the end, we will win.

10 – 41

We must address the reality of the world

10 – 44

as it exists right now — the threats we face,

10 – 49

and the confronting of all of the problems

10 – 52

of today,

10 – 54

and extremely predictable consequences

10 – 58

of a hasty withdrawal.

11 – 01

We need look no further than last week’s vile,

11 – 04

vicious attack in Barcelona to understand

11 – 09

that terror groups will stop at nothing to commit

11 – 13

the mass murder of innocent men,

11 – 17

women and children.

11 – 19

You saw it for yourself.

11 – 21

Horrible.

11 – 23

As I outlined in my speech

11 – 25

in Saudi Arabia three months ago,

11 – 27

America and our partners are committed

11 – 30

to stripping terrorists of their territory,

11 – 33

cutting off their funding,

11 – 35

and exposing the false allure

11 – 37

of their evil ideology.

11 – 41

Terrorists who slaughter innocent people

11 – 43

will find no glory in this life or the next.

11 – 49

They are nothing but thugs,

11 – 50

and criminals, and predators,

11 – 52

and — that’s right — losers.

11 – 56

Working alongside our allies,

11 – 58

we will break their will, dry up their recruitment,

12 – 02

keep them from crossing our borders,

12 – 04

and yes, we will defeat them,

12 – 07

and we will defeat them handily.

12 – 10

In Afghanistan and Pakistan,

12 – 12

America’s interests are clear –

12 – 15

We must stop the resurgence of safe havens

12 – 19

that enable terrorists to threaten America,

12 – 22

and we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials

12 – 25

from coming into the hands of terrorists

12 – 28

and being used against us,

12 – 30

or anywhere in the world for that matter.

12 – 34

But to prosecute this war,

12 – 37

we will learn from history.

12 – 39

As a result of our comprehensive review,

12 – 42

American strategy in Afghanistan

12 – 44

and South Asia

12 – 45

will change dramatically in the following ways –

12 – 50

A core pillar of our new strategy

12 – 53

is a shift from a time-based approach

12 – 57

to one based on conditions.

13 – 00

I’ve said it many times

13 – 02

how counterproductive it is

13 – 03

for the United States to announce in advance

13 – 06

the dates we intend to begin,

13 – 08

or end, military options.

13 – 11

We will not talk about numbers of troops

13 – 15

or our plans for further military activities.

13 – 19

Conditions on the ground —

13 – 21

not arbitrary timetables —

13 – 24

will guide our strategy from now on.

13 – 28

America’s enemies must never know our plans

13 – 31

or believe they can wait us out.

13 – 34

I will not say when we are going to attack,

13 – 38

but attack we will.

13 – 41

Another fundamental pillar

13 – 43

of our new strategy

13 – 45

is the integration of all instruments

13 – 47

of American power —

13 – 49

diplomatic, economic, and military —

13 – 53

toward a successful outcome.

13 – 56

Someday, after an effective

13 – 58

military effort,

14 – 00

perhaps it will be possible

14 – 01

to have a political settlement

14 – 03

that includes elements

14 – 04

of the Taliban in Afghanistan,

14 – 07

but nobody knows if or when

14 – 10

that will ever happen.

14 – 12

America will continue its support

14 – 15

for the Afghan government

14 – 17

and the Afghan military

14 – 19

as they confront the Taliban

14 – 22

in the field.

14 – 23

Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan

14 – 26

to take ownership of their future,

14 – 28

to govern their society,

14 – 31

and to achieve an everlasting peace.

14 – 35

We are a partner and a friend,

14 – 37

but we will not dictate to the Afghan people

14 – 40

how to live,

14 – 41

or how to govern their own complex society.

14 – 45

We are not nation-building again.

14 – 48

We are killing terrorists.

14 – 51

The next pillar of our new strategy

14 – 54

is to change the approach

14 – 57

and how to deal with Pakistan.

15 – 01

We can no longer be silent about

15 – 03

Pakistan’s safe havens

15 – 04

for terrorist organizations,

15 – 07

the Taliban, and other groups

15 – 09

that pose a threat to the region and beyond.

15 – 13

Pakistan has much to gain

15 – 15

from partnering

15 – 16

with our effort in Afghanistan.

15 – 19

It has much to lose by continuing

15 – 22

to harbor criminals and terrorists.

15 – 26

In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner.

15 – 30

Our militaries have worked together

15 – 32

against common enemies.

15 – 34

The Pakistani people have suffered greatly

15 – 37

from terrorism and extremism.

15 – 40

We recognize those contributions

15 – 43

and those sacrifices.

15 – 45

But Pakistan has also sheltered the same

15 – 48

organizations

15 – 49

that try every single day to kill our people.

15 – 54

We have been paying Pakistan billions

15 – 58

and billions of dollars at the same time

16 – 01

they are housing the very terrorists

16 – 04

that we are fighting.

16 – 06

But that will have to change,

16 – 09

and that will change immediately.

16 – 11

No partnership can survive a country’s

16 – 14

harboring of militants

16 – 15

and terrorists who target

16 – 16

U.S. servicemembers and officials.

16 – 19

It is time for Pakistan

16 – 21

to demonstrate its commitment

16 – 23

to civilization, order, and to peace.

16 – 27

Another critical part of the South Asia

16 – 30

strategy for America

16 – 32

is to further develop

16 – 33

its strategic partnership with India —

16 – 36

the world’s largest democracy

16 – 39

and a key security

16 – 40

and economic partner of the United States.

16 – 43

We appreciate India’s important contributions

16 – 47

to stability in Afghanistan,

16 – 49

but India makes billions of dollars

16 – 52

in trade with the United States,

16 – 54

and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan,

16 – 58

especially in the area

17 – 00

of economic assistance

17 – 02

and development.

17 – 04

We are committed to pursuing

17 – 05

our shared objectives

17 – 07

for peace and security in South Asia

17 – 10

and the broader Indo-Pacific region.

17 – 13

Finally, my administration

17 – 15

will ensure that you,

17 – 17

the brave defenders of the American people,

17 – 21

will have the necessary tools

17 – 23

and rules of engagement

17 – 24

to make this strategy work,

17 – 26

and work effectively and work quickly.

17 – 29

I have already lifted restrictions

17 – 31

the previous administration

17 – 33

placed on our warfighters

17 – 36

that prevented the Secretary of Defense

17 – 38

and our commanders in the field from fully

17 – 41

and swiftly waging battle against the enemy.

17 – 46

Micromanagement from Washington, D.C.

17 – 48

does not win battles.

17 – 51

They are won in the field drawing upon the judgment

17 – 54

and expertise of wartime commanders

17 – 58

and frontline soldiers

18 – 01

acting in real time, with real authority,

18 – 04

and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy.

18 – 09

That’s why we will also expand authority

18 – 12

for American armed forces

18 – 14

to target the terrorist and criminal networks

18 – 17

that sow violence

18 – 18

and chaos throughout Afghanistan.

18 – 22

These killers need to know

18 – 24

they have nowhere to hide;

18 – 25

that no place is beyond the reach of American

18 – 29

might and Americans arms.

18 – 31

Retribution will be fast and powerful.

18 – 36

As we lift restrictions

18 – 37

and expand authorities in the field,

18 – 40

we are already seeing dramatic results

18 – 42

in the campaign to defeat ISIS,

18 – 45

including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq.

18 – 49

Since my inauguration,

18 – 50

we have achieved record-breaking

18 – 53

success in that regard.

18 – 55

We will also maximize sanctions

18 – 58

and other financial and law enforcement actions

19 – 01

against these networks

19 – 02

to eliminate their ability to export terror.

19 – 07

When America commits its warriors to battle,

19 – 10

we must ensure they have every weapon to apply

19 – 13

swift, decisive,

19 – 15

and overwhelming force.

19 – 18

Our troops will fight to win.

19 – 21

We will fight to win.

19 – 24

From now on, victory will have a clear definition –

19 – 29

attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS,

19 – 32

crushing al Qaeda,

19 – 34

preventing the Taliban

19 – 35

from taking over Afghanistan,

19 – 38

and stopping mass terror attacks against America

19 – 41

before they emerge.

19 – 43

We will ask our NATO allies

19 – 45

and global partners

19 – 46

to support our new strategy

19 – 48

with additional troop

19 – 49

and funding increases in line with our own.

19 – 53

We are confident they will.

19 – 55

Since taking office, I have made clear

19 – 58

that our allies and partners

19 – 59

must contribute much more money

20 – 03

to our collective defense,

20 – 06

and they have done so.

20 – 09

In this struggle,

20 – 11

the heaviest burden will continue to be borne

20 – 14

by the good people of Afghanistan

20 – 16

and their courageous armed forces.

20 – 19

As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised,

20 – 23

we are going to participate

20 – 25

in economic development

20 – 27

to help defray the cost of this war to us.

20 – 32

Afghanistan is fighting to defend

20 – 35

and secure their country

20 – 36

against the same enemies who threaten us.

20 – 39

The stronger the Afghan security forces become,

20 – 42

the less we will have to do.

20 – 45

Afghans will secure and build their own nation

20 – 49

and define their own future.

20 – 52

We want them to succeed.

20 – 54

But we will no longer use American military

20 – 57

might to construct democracies

20 – 59

in faraway lands,

21 – 01

or try to rebuild other countries

21 – 03

in our own image.

21 – 04

Those days are now over.

21 – 07

Instead, we will work with allies and partners

21 – 10

to protect our shared interests.

21 – 12

We are not asking others

21 – 14

to change their way of life,

21 – 16

but to pursue common goals

21 – 17

that allow our children

21 – 19

to live better and safer lives.

21 – 22

This principled realism

21 – 24

will guide our decisions moving forward.

21 – 27

Military power alone will not bring peace

21 – 30

to Afghanistan

21 – 31

or stop the terrorist threat

21 – 33

arising in that country.

21 – 35

But strategically applied force

21 – 37

aims to create the conditions

21 – 39

for a political process

21 – 41

to achieve a lasting peace.

21 – 44

America will work with the Afghan government

21 – 48

as long as we see determination

21 – 51

and progress.

21 – 53

However, our commitment is not unlimited,

21 – 56

and our support is not a blank check.

22 – 01

The government of Afghanistan

22 – 03

must carry their share

22 – 06

of the military,

22 – 07

political, and economic burden.

22 – 11

The American people expect to see

22 – 12

real reforms,

22 – 14

real progress, and real results.

22 – 17

Our patience is not unlimited.

22 – 21

We will keep our eyes wide open.

22 – 24

In abiding by the oath I took on January 20th,

22 – 27

I will remain steadfast in protecting American lives

22 – 31

and American interests.

22 – 34

In this effort, we will make common cause

22 – 38

with any nation

22 – 39

that chooses to stand and fight alongside us

22 – 42

against this global threat.

22 – 45

Terrorists take heed –  America will never let up

22 – 49

until you are dealt a lasting defeat.

22 – 53

Under my administration, many billions of dollars

22 – 56

more is being spent on our military.

22 – 59

And this includes vast amounts being spent

23 – 02

on our nuclear arsenal and missile defense.

23 – 06

In every generation, we have faced down evil,

23 – 09

and we have always prevailed.

23 – 13

We prevailed because we know who we are

23 – 17

and what we are fighting for.

23 – 19

Not far from where we are gathered tonight,

23 – 22

hundreds of thousands

23 – 23

of America’s greatest patriots

23 – 25

lay in eternal rest

23 – 28

at Arlington National Cemetery.

23 – 32

There is more courage, sacrifice,

23 – 35

and love in those hallowed grounds

23 – 39

than in any other spot on the face of the Earth.

23 – 44

Many of those who have fought and died

23 – 46

in Afghanistan enlisted in the months

23 – 49

after September 11th, 2001.

23 – 53

They volunteered for a simple reason –

23 – 56

They loved America,

23 – 57

and they were determined to protect her.

24 – 01

Now we must secure the cause

24 – 02

for which they gave their lives.

24 – 05

We must unite to defend America

24 – 08

from its enemies abroad.

24 – 10

We must restore the bonds of loyalty

24 – 13

among our citizens at home,

24 – 16

and we must achieve an honorable

24 – 19

and enduring outcome

24 – 21

worthy of the enormous price

24 – 24

that so many have paid.

24 – 26

Our actions, and in the months to come,

24 – 29

all of them will honor

24 – 31

the sacrifice

24 – 32

of every fallen hero,

24 – 35

every family who lost a loved one,

24 – 37

and every wounded warrior who shed their blood

24 – 40

in defense of our great nation.

24 – 44

With our resolve, we will ensure that your service

24 – 49

and that your families

24 – 51

will bring about the defeat of our enemies

24 – 54

and the arrival of peace.

24 – 57

We will push onward to victory with power

25 – 00

in our hearts,

25 – 01

courage in our souls,

25 – 03

and everlasting pride in each

25 – 06

and every one of you.

25 – 09

Thank you. May God bless our military.

25 – 14

And may God bless the United States of America.

25 – 18

Thank you very much, thank you.

 

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

President Trump Pulling no punches, both sides are to blame Charlottesville Va

President Trump  Pulling no punches, both sides are to blame Charlottesville Va

And some really good news on the Country’s Infrastructure 

 

Abe Lincoln - Not seen the Democrats this mad since we took away their slaves

0-00

hello everybody great to be back in New

0-06

York with all of our friends and some

0-10

great friends outside the building I

0-11

must tell you I want to thank all of our

0-14

distinguished guests who are with us

0-17

today including members of our cabinet

0-20

Treasury Secretary Stephen minuchin OMB

0-24

director Mick Mulvaney and of course our

0-27

transportation secretary who is doing a

0-30

fabulous job Elaine Chao thank you all

0-34

for doing a really incredible and

0-38

creative job on what we’re going to be

0-41

discussing today which is infrastructure

0-44

we’ve just had a great set of briefings

0-48

upstairs on our infrastructure agenda my

0-52

administration is working every day to

0-54

deliver the world-class infrastructure

0-56

that our people deserve and frankly that

0-59

our country deserves that’s why I just

1-03

signed a new executive order to

1-05

dramatically reform the nation’s badly

1-07

broken infrastructure permitting process

1-11

just blocks away as the Empire State

1-13

Building it took 11 months to build the

1-17

Empire State Building but today it can

1-20

take as long as a decade and much more

1-22

than that many many stores where it

1-25

takes 20 and 25 years just to get

1-28

approvals to start construction of a

1-32

fairly routine highway highway builders

1-36

must get up to 16 different approvals

1-38

involving nine different federal

1-40

agencies governed by 29 different

1-43

statutes one agency alone can stall a

1-46

project for many many years and even

1-48

decades not only does this cost our

1-52

economy billions of dollars but it also

1-55

denies our citizens the safe and modern

1-57

infrastructure they deserve this

2-00

over-regulated permitting process is a

2-02

massive self-inflicted wound on our

2-06

country it’s disgraceful denying our

2-10

people much-needed investments in their

2-12

community and

2-13

just want to show you this because it

2-15

was just showing me and I think I think

2-16

I’m going to show it to the media both

2-21

real and fake media by the way this is

2-24

what it takes to get something approved

2-26

today melanne you see that so this is

2-31

what it takes permitting process flow

2-33

chart that’s a float yard so that can go

2-36

out to 20 years this shows about 10 but

2-39

that could go out to about 20 years to

2-41

get something approved this is for a

2-44

highway I’ve seen a highway recently in

2-47

a certain state I won’t manage to

2-48

mention its name it’s 17 years I could

2-52

have built it for 4 or 5 million dollars

2-54

without the permitting process it costs

2-58

hundreds of millions of dollars but it

3-00

took 17 years to get it approved and

3-04

many many many many pages of

3-09

environmental impact studies this is

3-11

what we will bring it down to this is

3-13

less than 2 years this is gonna happen

3-16

quickly that’s what I’m signing today

3-17

this will be less than 2 years for a

3-20

highway so it’s going to be quick it’s

3-24

going to be a very streamlined process

3-27

and by the way if it doesn’t meet

3-29

environmental safeguards we’re not going

3-31

to approve it very simple we’re not

3-34

going to approve it so this is maybe

3-36

this one will say let’s throw the other

3-38

one away would anybody like it from the

3-40

media would anybody like that long

3-42

beautiful chart you can have it

3-44

so my executive order also requires

3-47

agencies to work together efficiently by

3-50

requiring one lead agency for each major

3-54

infrastructure project it also holds

3-58

agencies accountable if they fail to

4-00

streamline their review process so each

4-02

agency is accountable we’re gonna get

4-05

infrastructure built quickly

4-09

inexpensively relatively speaking and

4-11

the permitting process will go very very

4-13

quickly no longer will we tolerate one

4-16

job-killing delay after another no

4-19

longer will we accept a broken system

4-21

that benefits consultants and lobbyists

4-25

at the expense of hard-working

4-26

Americans now I knew the process very

4-29

well probably better than anybody I had

4-31

to get permits for this building and

4-33

many of the buildings I built all of the

4-34

buildings I built in Manhattan and many

4-36

other places and I will tell you that

4-40

the consultants are rich people they go

4-44

around making it very difficult they

4-46

lobby Congress they lobby state

4-49

government city governments to make it

4-51

very difficult so that you have to hire

4-52

consultants and that you have to take

4-55

years and pay them a fortune

4-56

so we’re streamlining lining the process

4-59

and we won’t be having so much of that

5-01

anymore no longer will we allow the

5-02

infrastructure of our magnificent

5-05

country to crumble and decay while

5-09

protecting the environment we will build

5-11

Leeming new roads bridges railways

5-13

waterways tunnels and highways we will

5-17

rebuild our country with American

5-19

workers American iron American aluminum

5-23

American steel we will create millions

5-27

of new jobs and make millions of

5-29

American dreams come true our

5-32

infrastructure will again be the best in

5-34

the world we used to have the greatest

5-35

infrastructure anywhere in the world and

5-38

today we’re like a third-world country

5-41

we are literally like a third-world

5-43

country our infrastructure will again be

5-47

the best and we will restore the pride

5-51

in our communities our nation and all

5-55

over the United States will be proud

5-56

again so I want to thank everybody for

5-59

being here god bless you god bless the

6-01

United States and if you have any

6-04

questions we have Mick you could come up

6-07

here please come on up Mick Mulvaney if

6-13

you have any questions please feel free

6-15

to ask

6-19

because they’re not taking their job

6-22

seriously as it pertains to this country

6-25

we want jobs manufacturing in this

6-28

country if you look at some of those

6-30

people that you’re talking about they’re

6-32

outside of the country they’re having a

6-35

lot of their product made outside if you

6-37

look at Merck as an example take a look

6-39

where excuse me take a look at where

6-41

their product is made it’s made outside

6-44

of our country we want products made in

6-47

the country now I have to tell you some

6-48

of the folks that will leave they’re

6-51

leaving out of embarrassment because

6-53

they make their products outside and

6-55

I’ve been lecturing them including the

6-57

gentleman that you’re referring to about

6-59

you have to bring it back to this

7-01

country you can’t do it necessarily in

7-04

Ireland and all of these other places

7-06

you have to bring this work back to this

7-09

country that’s what I want I want

7-11

manufacturing to be back into the United

7-14

States so that American workers can

7-16

benefit I didn’t I wanted to make sure

7-26

unlike most politicians that what I said

7-29

was correct not make a quick statement

7-32

the statement I made on Saturday the

7-34

first statement was a fine statement but

7-37

you don’t make statements that direct

7-39

unless you know the fact it takes a

7-42

little while to get the facts you still

7-44

don’t know the facts and it’s a very

7-46

very important process to me and it’s a

7-50

very important statement so I don’t want

7-52

to go quickly and just make a statement

7-54

for the sake of making a political

7-55

statement I want to know the facts if

7-57

you go back to my effect I brought it I

8-01

brought it I brought it as I said on

8-06

remember the Saturday we condemn in the

8-09

strongest possible terms this egregious

8-12

display of hatred bigotry and violence

8-15

it has no place in America and then I

8-18

went on from there now here’s the thing

8-20

as to excuse me excuse me take it nice

8-22

and easy here’s the thing when I make a

8-26

statement I like to be correct I want

8-28

the facts this event just happened in

8-30

fact a lot of the event didn’t even

8-32

happen yet

8-33

as we were speaking this event just

8-35

happened before I make a statement I

8-37

need the facts so I don’t want to rush

8-40

into a statement so making the statement

8-42

when I made it was excellent in fact the

8-45

young woman who I hear is a fantastic

8-48

young woman and it was on NBC

8-51

her mother wrote me and said through I

8-56

guess Twitter social media the nicest

9-00

things and I very much appreciated that

9-02

I hear she was a fine really actually an

9-06

incredible young woman but her mother on

9-08

Twitter thanked me for what I said and

9-11

honestly if the press were not fake and

9-14

if it was honest the press would have

9-16

said what I said was very nice but

9-18

unlike you and unlike excuse me unlike

9-21

you and unlike the media before I make a

9-23

statement I like to know the facts they

9-28

don’t say what not at all

9-47

I think the country look you take a look

9-49

I’ve created over a million jobs in some

9-52

president the country is booming the

9-55

stock market is setting records we have

9-56

the highest employment numbers we’ve

9-58

ever had in the history of our country

10-00

we’re doing record business we have the

10-02

highest levels of enthusiasm so the head

10-06

of Walmart who I know was a very nice

10-08

guy was making a political statement I

10-10

mean you know because I want to make

10-17

sure when I make a statement that the

10-20

statement is correct and there was no

10-22

way there was no way of making a correct

10-26

statement that early I had to see the

10-28

facts unlike a lot of reporters I didn’t

10-34

know David Duke was there I wanted to

10-37

see the facts and the facts as they

10-39

started coming out were very well stated

10-43

in fact everybody said his statement was

10-45

beautiful if he would have made it

10-47

sooner that would have been good I

10-49

couldn’t have made it sooner because I

10-51

didn’t know all of the facts frankly

10-54

people still don’t know all of the facts

10-56

it was a really important excuse me

10-58

excuse me

10-59

it was very important to me to get the

11-03

facts out and correctly because if I

11-05

would have made a fast statement and the

11-07

first statement was made without knowing

11-09

much other than what we were seeing the

11-12

second statement was made after with

11-14

knowledge with great knowledge there’s

11-16

still things excuse me there’s still

11-19

things that people don’t know I want to

11-21

make a statement with knowledge I wanted

11-23

to know the facts okay

11-26

two questions was this terrorism and you

11-29

tell us that your feeling about it your

11-30

chief strategy well the driver of the

11-32

car is a disgrace to himself his family

11-36

in this country and that is you can call

11-40

it terrorism you can call it murder you

11-44

can call it whatever you want I would

11-46

just call it as the fastest one to come

11-49

up with a good verdict that’s what I’d

11-50

call it

11-51

because there is a question is it murder

11-53

is a terrorism and then you get into

11-55

legal semantics the driver of the car is

11-59

a murderer and what he did was a

12-01

horrible horrible inexcusable thing I

12-11

never spoke to mr. Bannon about it I

12-18

like mr. Bennish he’s a friend of mine

12-20

but mr. banek came on very late you know

12-23

that I went through 17 senators

12-26

governors and I want all the primaries

12-28

  1. Bannon came on very much later than

12-30

that and I liked him

12-33

he’s a good man he is not a racist I can

12-36

tell you that he’s a good person

12-38

he actually gets a very unfair press in

12-40

that regard but we’ll see what happens

12-43

with mr. Bannon but he’s a good person

12-46

and I think the press treats him frankly

12-47

very unfairly

12-56

[Music]

13-08

us getting good health care well I don’t

13-21

know I can’t tell you I’m sure Senator

13-23

McCain must know what he’s talking about

13-25

but when you say the alt-right define

13-28

all right to me you define excuse me

13-38

what about the alt left they came

13-40

charging at the as you say the alt right

13-42

do they have any semblance of guilt what

13-49

about the fact that came charging that

13-51

they came charging with clubs in the

13-52

hands swinging clubs do they have any

13-55

problem I think they do that was a

14-00

horrible horrible day wait a minute I’m

14-03

not finished

14-04

I’m not finished fake news that was a

14-07

horrible day I watched those very

14-15

closely much more closely than you

14-16

people watched it and you have you had a

14-20

group on one side that was bad and you

14-22

had a group on the other side that was

14-23

also very violent and nobody wants to

14-26

say that but I’ll say it right now you

14-29

had a group you had a group on the other

14-30

side that came charging in without a

14-33

permit and they were very very violent

14-41

what you call the alt left is the same

14-44

as neo-nazis I owe those people all of

14-47

those people excuse me I’ve condemned

14-50

neo-nazis I’ve condemned many different

14-53

groups but not all of those people were

14-56

neo-nazis believe me not all of those

14-59

people were white supremacist by any

15-01

stretch those people to protest the

15-07

taking down of a statue robert e lee so

15-10

excuse me and you take a look at some of

15-13

the groups and you see and you know it

15-15

if you were honest reporters which in

15-16

many cases you’re not but many of those

15-18

people were there to protest the taking

15-21

down of the statue of robert e lee so

15-23

this week it’s robert e lee i noticed

15-26

that stonewall jackson’s coming down I

15-28

wonder is it George Washington next week

15-31

and is it Thomas Jefferson the week

15-33

after

15-33

you know you oh you really do have to

15-35

ask yourself where does it stop but they

15-38

were there to protest excuse me you take

15-41

a look the night before they were there

15-43

to protest the taking down of the statue

15-46

of Robert Ely infrastructure question go

15-48

ahead the property lease they up I would

15-52

say that’s up to a local town community

15-56

or the federal government depending on

15-58

where it is located

16-05

I think they’ve gotten better or the

16-08

same I look they’ve been frayed for a

16-10

long time and you can ask President

16-12

Obama about that because he’d make

16-14

speeches about it but I believe that the

16-17

fact that I brought in it will be soon

16-20

millions of jobs you see where companies

16-22

are moving back into our country I think

16-25

that’s going to have a tremendous

16-26

positive impact on race relations we

16-29

have companies coming back into our

16-31

country we have two car companies that

16-33

just announced we have Foxconn in

16-35

Wisconsin just announced we have many

16-37

companies I say pouring back into the

16-40

country I think that’s going to have a

16-42

huge positive impact on race relations

16-45

you know why it’s jobs what people want

16-48

now they want jobs they want great jobs

16-50

with good pay

16-52

and when they have that you watch how

16-54

race relations will be and I’ll tell you

16-56

we’re spending a lot of money on the

16-58

inner cities we’re gonna fix we’re

17-00

fixing the inner cities we’re doing far

17-01

more than anybody’s done with respect to

17-04

the inner cities it’s a priority for me

17-06

and it’s very important

17-14

I’m not putting anybody on a moral plan

17-16

what I’m saying is this you had a group

17-18

on one side and you had a group on the

17-20

other and they came at each other with

17-22

clubs and it was vicious and it was

17-24

horrible and it was a horrible thing to

17-26

watch but there is another side there

17-29

was a group on this side you can call

17-31

him the lefty you’ve just called him the

17-33

left that came violently attacking the

17-36

other group so you can say what you want

17-38

but that’s the way it is there’s Blaine

17-46

yes I think there’s blame on both sides

17-48

you look at you look at both sides

17-50

I think there’s blame on both sides and

17-53

I have no doubt about it and you don’t

17-55

have any doubt about it either oh and if

17-59

you reported it accurately you would say

18-13

but you also had people that were very

18-17

fine people on both sides

18-19

you had people in that group excuse me

18-21

excuse me I saw the same pictures as you

18-24

did you had people in that group that

18-27

were there to protest the taking down of

18-29

to them a very very important statue and

18-32

the renaming of a park from robert e lee

18-35

to another name George Washington was a

18-39

slave owner was George Washington a

18-41

slave owner so will George Washington

18-44

now lose his status are we gonna take

18-46

down excuse me are we gonna take down

18-49

are we gonna take down statues to George

18-51

why how about Thomas Jefferson what do

18-54

you think of Thomas Jefferson you like

18-55

him okay good

18-57

are we gonna take down the statute

18-59

because he was a major slave owner now

19-01

we’re gonna take down his statue so you

19-03

know what it’s fine

19-04

you’re changing history you’re changing

19-06

culture and you had people and I’m not

19-09

talking about the neo-nazis and the

19-11

white nationalist because they should be

19-12

condemned

19-13

totally but you had many people in that

19-15

group other than neo-nazis and white

19-18

nationalists okay and the press has

19-21

treated them absolutely unfairly now in

19-24

the other group also you had some fine

19-27

people but you also had troublemakers

19-29

and you see them come with a with the

19-31

black outfits and with the helmets and

19-34

with the baseball bats you got a you had

19-37

a lot of beds you had a lot of bad

19-38

people in the other groups we were

19-42

saying you were saying the press has

19-43

treated white nationalists unfairly

19-45

there were people in that rally and I

19-47

looked the night before if you look they

19-50

were people protesting very quietly the

19-55

taking down of the statue of Robert Ely

19-59

I’m sure in that group there were some

20-01

bad ones the following day it looked

20-02

like they had some rough bad people

20-06

neo-nazis white nationalists whatever

20-09

you want to call them but you had a lot

20-11

of people in that group that were there

20-12

to innocently protest and very legally

20-15

protest because you know I don’t know if

20-17

you know they had a permit the other

20-19

group didn’t have a permit so I

20-23

we tell you this there are two sides to

20-25

a story I thought what took place was a

20-28

horrible moment for our country

20-31

a horrible moment but there are two

20-33

sides of the country

20-34

does anybody have a final does anybody

20-36

have any leaven infrastructure what

20-38

makes you think you can get an

20-39

infrastructure bill you didn’t get

20-40

healthcare we came very close with

20-43

healthcare unfortunately john mccain

20-45

decided to vote against it at the last

20-47

minute you’ll have to ask john mccain

20-49

why he did that but we came very close

20-51

to health care we will end up getting

20-53

healthcare but we’ll get the

20-55

infrastructure and actually

20-56

infrastructure something that i think

20-57

will have bipartisan support on i

20-59

actually think I actually think

21-01

democrats will go along with the

21-03

infrastructure to the family of the

21-07

victim of the car now be reaching out I

21-11

was very i I thought that the statement

21-14

put out the the mother’s statement I

21-17

thought was a beautiful statement I was

21-20

tell you it was it was something that I

21-23

really appreciate it I thought it was

21-25

terrific and really under the under the

21-27

kind of stress that she’s under and the

21-30

heartache that she’s under I thought

21-32

putting out that statement to me was

21-34

really something I won’t forget thank

21-36

you all very much thank you thank you

21-47

no I own a house and where is it oh boy

21-50

it’s gonna be it’s in Charlottesville

21-53

you’ll see where is it say it is the

21-55

winery I mean I know a lot about

21-59

Charlotte’s well Charlottesville is a

22-01

great place that’s been very badly hurt

22-03

over the last couple of days I own

22-07

actually one of the largest wineries in

22-09

the United States it’s enjoys overcome

22-17

the racial divides as well I really

22-18

think jobs can have a big impact I think

22-20

if we continue to create jobs over a

22-23

million substantially more than a

22-24

million and you see just the other day

22-27

the car companies coming in with Fox you

22-29

know fuck I think if we continue to

22-32

create jobs at levels that I’m people

22-35

i’m creating jobs i think that’s gonna

22-37

have a tremendous impact positive impact

22-39

on race relations and what you said

22-42

today how do you think that will impact

22-43

the racial sort of thing are they

22-46

working they’re gonna be making a lot of

22-47

money much more money than they ever

22-48

thought possible that’s gonna happen and

22-51

the other thing be very important I

22-53

believe wages will start going up they

22-55

haven’t gone up for a long time I

22-56

believe wages now because the economy is

22-59

doing so well with respect to employment

23-01

and unemployment

23-03

I believe wages will start to go up I

23-05

think that will have a tremendously

23-07

positive impact on race relations

23-18

you

 

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

Google fires Whistleblower, Women gathering to file class action lawsuit

Google fires Whistleblower, Women gathering to file class action lawsuit
Google to employees, keep your mouths shut!

 Google to employees - Keep your mouth shut

 
Why Did Google Freak Out and Fire an Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?

Genevieve Wood

The tolerance police at Google just struck another blow against increasing diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an employee who wrote a memo critiquing the company’s politically correct culture.

Now, let’s be clear – While the Google software engineer who authored the memo had the right to say and write what he did?it’s called free speech?Google is a private company and has every right to fire an employee it deems not in line with its mission or culture.

But it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so negatively to an employee who, in a 10-page memo, laid out a case for why Google’s diversity programs weren’t working and how it might rethink its attempt to reduce the gender gap.

 

Could it be that Google is feeling just a little bit paranoid?

For all the talk about inclusiveness and diversity, here’s the reality –

If you’re not white or Asian, that means there is only a 5 percent chance you’re part of Google’s leadership team.

And while 31 percent of Google’s employees are women, only 20 percent of its technical employees are?and it was primarily the memo’s focus on this gender gap that seems to have caused the recent unpleasantness in Silicon Valley.

In addition to bad PR, perhaps what the larger left-leaning community there doesn’t want to admit is that for all its diversity programs and safe spaces, and who knows how many millions of dollars spent promoting them, they have done very little to change the outcomes.

When it comes to computer and mathematical occupations, the numbers clearly show that women and men are not equally represented.

Women held 27 percent of such jobs in 1960. Thirty years later, they held 35 percent. But fast forward to 2013, and the number of women in computing and mathematical occupations had fallen back to 26 percent.

And it’s not because fewer women are going to college.  

In fact, a Department of Education study from 2014 shows more women than men are attending and graduating from college, and they are receiving the majority of bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees.

But when it comes to college majors, women and men choose differently. A recent Georgetown University study showed over 80 percent of petroleum engineering majors are male. So are almost 70 percent of those majoring in mathematics and computer science.  

Women, on the other hand, tend to major in what might be called more people-oriented professions, such as counseling, education, and social work.

Why men and women make such different choices is not 100 percent clear cut, but the idea that biology plays no role and it’s all because America is a sexist culture seems like an outdated and disproven theory.

And it was hiring and personnel practices based on that politically correct theory that the now-former Google employee was criticizing.   

As he stated in the memo that got him fired – “If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”

Apparently at Google, and much of Silicon Valley, the discussion is over.

 

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore – [email protected] July 2017 Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss Reply to public response and misrepresentation TL;DR Background Google’s biases Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech Personality differences Men’s higher drive for status Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap The harm of Google’s biases Why we’re blind Suggestions Reply to public response and misrepresentation I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many?personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety . This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. ? Extreme – all disparities in representation are due to oppression ? Authoritarian – we should discriminate to correct for this oppression Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. Background 1 People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document 2 . Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google. Google’s biases At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media , and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices – ___________________________________________________________________________ This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries. 2 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason . I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations. 1
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors. Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation. Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3 At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because – ? They’re universal across human cultures ? They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ? Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ? The underlying traits are highly heritable ? They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ____________________________________________________________________________ 3 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
Personality differences Women, on average, have more – ? Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things , relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ). ? These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ? ? Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. ? This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support. Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). ? This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism . Men’s higher drive for status We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on 4 , pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths. Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them – ? Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ? We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this). ? Women on average are more cooperative ? Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. ? This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self-reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. ? Women on average are more prone to anxiety ____________________________________________________________________________ For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty . Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. 4
Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average ? Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech. The male gender role is currently inflexible ? Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally “feminine” roles. Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google?with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged. The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices – ? Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5 ? ? ? A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) ? Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ 5 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions . We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology 7 that can irreparably harm Google. Why we’re blind We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ 8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left ( about 95% ), which creates enormous confirmation bias , changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap 9 . Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner 10 . Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn. ____________________________________________________________________________ 7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” 8 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of aristocracy. 9 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. 10 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness 11 , which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment. Suggestions I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite – treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to – ? De-moralize diversity. ? As soon as we start to moralize an issue , we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” ? Stop alienating conservatives . ? Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. ? In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility . We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ? Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness , which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. ? Confront Google’s biases. ? I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ? I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. ? Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ? These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. ____________________________________________________________________________ 11 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. ? Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. ? There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber. ? These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives. ? I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination. Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity. ? We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination. ? We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity. ? Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX. De-emphasize empathy. ? I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy?feeling another’s pain?causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases . Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. Prioritize intention. ? Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive – sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions. ? Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence . Be open about the science of human nature. ? Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems. Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory. Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown. Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

Rush Limbaugh on the firing of the Google Guy.

Rush LimbaughRUSH: The Google guy got canned. I told everybody it was gonna happen. No mystery there. The fascinating thing about the Google guy getting canned is everybody in Silicon Valley is all for it. The land of free speech, the land of equality and no discrimination, they’re all excited, ’cause this guy broke Google’s rules. You may not like ’em, but Google has rules, and if you break ’em, you’re out, which there is some logic to that.

Anyway, they’re happy to get rid of the guy because they just can’t handle anything other than their preordained cocoon-generated truth, which, of course, isn’t truth. That’s the whole point. They can’t allow anything to challenge what they have convinced themselves is true because that shakes and rattles and rolls their existence.

RUSH: Also big news over the weekend. I was kind of fascinated by this. Have you heard about the secret memo that went around Google? (interruption) You’re frowning. You hadn’t heard about this? (interruption) Some Google employee sent around an anonymous ? posted an anonymous note ? manifesto, on the inherent bigotry and political correctness at Google. It suggested that their pitch, their effort on diversity was misguided, that they need ideological diversity at Google, that all the conservative employees are scared to death to speak up and say anything. And then the guy ? or girl. We don’t know who it is yet.

All we know is, it’s gonna get fired when they’re discovered. The guy said ? and he was I think ripping off Larry Summers when he was the president of Harvard. He said (summarized), “Look, the reason why,” and this was on his diversity kick. “The reason why there aren’t more women in tech positions is they’re not good at it. They’re not as interested in it as men are. So this effort to be diverse and have equal number of men and women in the tech workforce is silly ’cause it’s never gonna happen. Women are just not that inclined.”

 Rush Limbaugh at HoaxAndChange.com

Larry Summers said the same thing at Harvard. The reason why there aren’t more female math teachers is women don’t do as well in it, and they ran him out of the place. So this guy’s gonna get fired as soon as they find out who he is. But this story has captivated countless people over the weekend, and it is not over yet, and there’s much more straight ahead.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You lady engineers at Google? I want to say something to you. Google is playing defense right now on the issue of diversity. This memo by a Google employee? I mean, this guy has just thrown a political correctness bomb right into the executive suite, ’cause this memo asserts that Google? When you strip it all away, the memo is an allegation that Google has fewer female engineers because men are better suited for the job, that essentially natural selection has taken over, and men are just more oriented toward math and science and engineering in those fields.

Now, what generally happens in a situation like this is that the feminists and leaders women’s groups that get all hot and bothered and run around start making noise about discrimination and unfairness. Ladies, forget that. There’s a much better path that you should take here. Don’t get lost in the diversity argument. Don’t get caught up in it. That’s what Google expects you to do. Don’t go acting offended, and don’t get on some soapbox claiming that whoever wrote that is a bigot.

Google is reeling right now. This is the kind of thing, this is the kind of charge that just sends leftists up the tree, that they’re unfair, that they’re discriminating on the basis of gender. Ladies, tell Google to prove it to you that the guy who wrote the memo is wrong. What you say to Google is, “Show me the money.” Go to the money. Tell ’em you want money. Tell ’em you want raises. Tell Google to prove it. Don’t join the protest march and start throwing underwear and bras. Just demand the money. They’re reeling right now. Hit ’em!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Bill in Ridgefield, Connecticut. I’m glad you called, sir. You’re up first. How are you?

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was just talking to Snerdley. Let me get to the point. I’m rich. I’m a big chess player and a damn good one. In fact, the New York AC I was the (call drops out) of the chess club. But backing up a second, of the top ?

RUSH: Wait. Wait a minute. Your call ? hey, hang on, hang on. Your call is bucking up. Did you say the New York Athletic Club? Is that what you said?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: New York AC. Okay. And you said you’re a rich guy in New York.

CALLER: That’s right.

RUSH: The New York Athletic Club would say that. So you’re a great chess player. Okay. Got that. Go.

CALLER: Okay. Of the top hundred chess players in the world ?

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: ? you know how many are women? Zero.

RUSH: What does that mean?

CALLER: I think they gravitate. I’m not saying women aren’t smarter. I have a daughter that went to Smith. I have a daughter that’s a doctor. I’m not saying women aren’t smarter. But they gravitate to the nurturing areas of society, as maybe they should. But they are not competitive with the mechanical and sciences. There may be a great scientist, but that would be an anomaly. But women, that can’t God for them, do a great job raising kids, God forbid, the feminazis, you know, one daughter that went to Smith, loaded with feminazis, she has our values. You know, common sense, down to earth, she got four kids, whatever.

RUSH: Let me get back to your chess question.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: ‘Cause you’re probably right. You’re not saying women aren’t capable of learning it and excelling at it, you’re just saying they’re not interested in it, right?

CALLER: For the most part. But there are grandmaster female players. They’re just not in that top tier. The Polgar sisters, they’re from I believe Poland. Both of them are grandmasters.

RUSH: Well, how much of it is that they don’t want to do what it takes to get there because they have other ?

CALLER: That’s right. You know, you take, you know, whether it was Bobby Fischer, God rest his soul. You take Kasparov who is going back, apparently, into the competition area. I read it in I think yesterday’s Journal ?

RUSH: He wants to beat the computers, yeah.

CALLER: Well, the computer is a different ball game.

RUSH: I don’t know. Elon Musk says they’re gonna take us over and Bill Gates and Hawking say if we don’t get to Mars, the machines are gonna eat us. What do we do?

0-00

the tolerance police at Google just

0-02

struck another blow against increasing

0-04

diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an

0-07

employee who wrote a memo critiquing the

0-09

company’s politically correct culture

0-16

now let’s be clear while the Google

0-19

software engineer who authored the memo

0-22

had the right to say and write what he

0-23

did it’s called free speech Google’s a

0-26

private company and has every right to

0-28

fire an employee it deems not in line

0-31

with this position or its culture but

0-33

it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so

0-35

negatively to an employee to in a 10

0-38

page memo laid out a case for why Google

0-41

diversity programs weren’t working and

0-44

how it might rethink its attempt to

0-46

reduce the gender gap could it be that

0-48

Google is feeling just a little bit

0-50

paranoid for all the talk about

0-52

inclusiveness and diversity here’s the

0-55

reality if you’re not white or Asian

0-57

that means there is only a 5% chance

1-00

you’re part of Google’s leadership piece

1-02

and while 31% of Google’s employees are

1-05

women only 20% of its technical

1-08

employees are and it was primarily the

1-10

memos focus on this gender gap it seems

1-13

to have caused the recent unpleasantness

1-14

in Silicon Valley in addition to bad PR

1-18

perhaps what the larger left-leaning

1-20

community there doesn’t want to admit is

1-22

that for all its diversity programs and

1-24

safe spaces and who knows how many

1-27

millions of dollars spent promoting them

1-29

they have done very little to change the

1-31

outcome when it comes to computer and

1-34

mathematical occupations the numbers

1-36

clearly show that women and men are not

1-38

equally represented women held 27% of

1-42

such jobs in 1960 30 years later they

1-45

held 35% but bath towards 2013 and the

1-50

number of women in computing and

1-51

mathematical occupations had fallen back

1-54

to 26% and it’s not because fewer women

1-57

are going to college in fact a US

2-00

Department of Education study from 2014

2-03

shows more women the men are attending

2-05

and graduating from college and they are

2-07

receiving the majority of bachelor’s

2-09

master’s and doctorate degree

2-12

but when it comes to college majors

2-14

women and men choose differently

2-16

a recent Georgetown University study

2-19

showed over 80% of petroleum engineer

2-21

majors are male

2-23

so we’re almost 70% of those majoring in

2-25

mathematics and computer science women

2-28

on the other hand in the major what

2-30

might be called more people oriented

2-32

professions such as counseling education

2-35

and Social Work why men and women make

2-38

such different choices is not 100% clear

2-41

cut but the idea that biology plays no

2-44

role and it’s all because America is a

2-46

sexist culture seems like an outdated

2-48

and disproven theory and it was hiring

2-51

and personnel practices based on that

2-54

politically correct theory that the

2-56

now-former Google employee was

2-58

criticizing as he stated in the memo

3-00

that got him fired quote if we can’t

3-03

have an honest discussion about this

3-04

then we can never truly solve the

3-07

problem apparently at Google and much of

3-09

Silicon Valley the discussion is over

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

Prager U – a young, single, black woman, recently discovered she is a racist, sexist, misogynist

Prager U – a young, single, black woman, recently discovered she is a racist, sexist, misogynist

How in the world did this happen? None other than Antonia Okafor explains.

Antonia Okafor, a young, single, black woman, recently discovered that’s she’s a racist, sexist, misogynist. How in the world did this happen? None other than Antonia Okafor explains.

This video is part of an exciting partnership between PragerU and Turning Point USA that will include videos with other young conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and more!  Visit FreetoThink.org to learn more. 

I recently discovered something startling about myself. It turns out that I’m a racist, sexist, misogynist. This came as quite a shock to me. How did this happen? As a person of color, a single woman with a graduate degree who grew up poor in a home without a father, I had a clear political path to follow.

And I followed it.

I voted for Barack Obama?twice. After all, we share the same skin color. His father was from Africa. Mine was, too! What other reasons did I need?

I was inspired to see a black man rise to the highest office in the land. I believed his ascent would herald a new beginning, a new era of racial healing and harmony. We would finally have that frank discussion about race that everyone always talks about.

I was also inspired by his wife. I was thrilled to see such a strong, opinionated black woman take the national stage. But then something happened? actually, several somethings.

I realized there was a big contradiction in my own life. I considered myself a free-thinker, but I was thinking exactly what I was supposed to. I decided to start asking questions. I belonged to several campus feminist groups. I was even teaching feminism to inner-city girls. Part of that teaching involved making the case for abortion. These girls needed to know that they had the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Surely, I thought, that’s empowerment. But one day I asked myself: Isn’t it men who benefit most from consequence-free sex? Doesn’t that give them even more power over women? And, of course, abortion certainly doesn’t empower the women it prevents from ever being born.

When I began to ask my other feminist friends how they reconciled these issues, they just got angry. I was called anti-woman. Even by progressive men! “But I’m not anti-woman,” I thought. “I am a woman!” I just don’t want to be a weak one. I want to be strong ? like Michelle.

At about the same time, while I was a student at the University of Texas at Dallas, the UT Austin Department of African Diaspora Studies released a statement in which they said, and I quote, “African Americans are disproportionately affected by the saturation of our society by firearms ? We demand that firearms be banned in all spaces occupied by black people on our campus.”

Wait a second, I thought. Why would you want to ban firearms only in black areas? Doesn’t that mean that you either think black people are more dangerous than other people, or less worthy of protection? These questions did not endear me to my progressive friends. I was called a race traitor?even by white people. But I’m not anti-black. I am black. I just want to be safe ? like Barack.

I realized I didn’t have a good answer; I only had more questions ? like, why were blacks doing so poorly in cities that had been run by Democrats for decades? Was it racism and sexism that was holding people back, or was it something else?

The more questions I asked, the less popular I became. But here’s the funny thing: I started to feel better about myself. I decided that the very definition of empowerment required me to take responsibility for my own life. I wasn’t going to be anyone’s victim. Which meant I had to protect myself. So, I bought a gun. I started to advocate for gun rights. That cost me more friends. I joined the pro-life movement and walked in The March for Life. More friends…gone.

Then, I crossed the line. I voted Republican ? the party that views me as an empowered individual, able to shape my own destiny; not as a member of a victim group.

And that’s how I became a racist, sexist, misogynist.

I’m Antonia Okafor for Prager University.

Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!