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


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 Democracy has been replaced by a virtual dictatorship.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.


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

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.


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


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


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


hello everybody great to be back in New


York with all of our friends and some


great friends outside the building I


must tell you I want to thank all of our


distinguished guests who are with us


today including members of our cabinet


Treasury Secretary Stephen minuchin OMB


director Mick Mulvaney and of course our


transportation secretary who is doing a


fabulous job Elaine Chao thank you all


for doing a really incredible and


creative job on what we’re going to be


discussing today which is infrastructure


we’ve just had a great set of briefings


upstairs on our infrastructure agenda my


administration is working every day to


deliver the world-class infrastructure


that our people deserve and frankly that


our country deserves that’s why I just


signed a new executive order to


dramatically reform the nation’s badly


broken infrastructure permitting process


just blocks away as the Empire State


Building it took 11 months to build the


Empire State Building but today it can


take as long as a decade and much more


than that many many stores where it


takes 20 and 25 years just to get


approvals to start construction of a


fairly routine highway highway builders


must get up to 16 different approvals


involving nine different federal


agencies governed by 29 different


statutes one agency alone can stall a


project for many many years and even


decades not only does this cost our


economy billions of dollars but it also


denies our citizens the safe and modern


infrastructure they deserve this


over-regulated permitting process is a


massive self-inflicted wound on our


country it’s disgraceful denying our


people much-needed investments in their


community and


just want to show you this because it


was just showing me and I think I think


I’m going to show it to the media both


real and fake media by the way this is


what it takes to get something approved


today melanne you see that so this is


what it takes permitting process flow


chart that’s a float yard so that can go


out to 20 years this shows about 10 but


that could go out to about 20 years to


get something approved this is for a


highway I’ve seen a highway recently in


a certain state I won’t manage to


mention its name it’s 17 years I could


have built it for 4 or 5 million dollars


without the permitting process it costs


hundreds of millions of dollars but it


took 17 years to get it approved and


many many many many pages of


environmental impact studies this is


what we will bring it down to this is


less than 2 years this is gonna happen


quickly that’s what I’m signing today


this will be less than 2 years for a


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


going to be a very streamlined process


and by the way if it doesn’t meet


environmental safeguards we’re not going


to approve it very simple we’re not


going to approve it so this is maybe


this one will say let’s throw the other


one away would anybody like it from the


media would anybody like that long


beautiful chart you can have it


so my executive order also requires


agencies to work together efficiently by


requiring one lead agency for each major


infrastructure project it also holds


agencies accountable if they fail to


streamline their review process so each


agency is accountable we’re gonna get


infrastructure built quickly


inexpensively relatively speaking and


the permitting process will go very very


quickly no longer will we tolerate one


job-killing delay after another no


longer will we accept a broken system


that benefits consultants and lobbyists


at the expense of hard-working


Americans now I knew the process very


well probably better than anybody I had


to get permits for this building and


many of the buildings I built all of the


buildings I built in Manhattan and many


other places and I will tell you that


the consultants are rich people they go


around making it very difficult they


lobby Congress they lobby state


government city governments to make it


very difficult so that you have to hire


consultants and that you have to take


years and pay them a fortune


so we’re streamlining lining the process


and we won’t be having so much of that


anymore no longer will we allow the


infrastructure of our magnificent


country to crumble and decay while


protecting the environment we will build


Leeming new roads bridges railways


waterways tunnels and highways we will


rebuild our country with American


workers American iron American aluminum


American steel we will create millions


of new jobs and make millions of


American dreams come true our


infrastructure will again be the best in


the world we used to have the greatest


infrastructure anywhere in the world and


today we’re like a third-world country


we are literally like a third-world


country our infrastructure will again be


the best and we will restore the pride


in our communities our nation and all


over the United States will be proud


again so I want to thank everybody for


being here god bless you god bless the


United States and if you have any


questions we have Mick you could come up


here please come on up Mick Mulvaney if


you have any questions please feel free


to ask


because they’re not taking their job


seriously as it pertains to this country


we want jobs manufacturing in this


country if you look at some of those


people that you’re talking about they’re


outside of the country they’re having a


lot of their product made outside if you


look at Merck as an example take a look


where excuse me take a look at where


their product is made it’s made outside


of our country we want products made in


the country now I have to tell you some


of the folks that will leave they’re


leaving out of embarrassment because


they make their products outside and


I’ve been lecturing them including the


gentleman that you’re referring to about


you have to bring it back to this


country you can’t do it necessarily in


Ireland and all of these other places


you have to bring this work back to this


country that’s what I want I want


manufacturing to be back into the United


States so that American workers can


benefit I didn’t I wanted to make sure


unlike most politicians that what I said


was correct not make a quick statement


the statement I made on Saturday the


first statement was a fine statement but


you don’t make statements that direct


unless you know the fact it takes a


little while to get the facts you still


don’t know the facts and it’s a very


very important process to me and it’s a


very important statement so I don’t want


to go quickly and just make a statement


for the sake of making a political


statement I want to know the facts if


you go back to my effect I brought it I


brought it I brought it as I said on


remember the Saturday we condemn in the


strongest possible terms this egregious


display of hatred bigotry and violence


it has no place in America and then I


went on from there now here’s the thing


as to excuse me excuse me take it nice


and easy here’s the thing when I make a


statement I like to be correct I want


the facts this event just happened in


fact a lot of the event didn’t even


happen yet


as we were speaking this event just


happened before I make a statement I


need the facts so I don’t want to rush


into a statement so making the statement


when I made it was excellent in fact the


young woman who I hear is a fantastic


young woman and it was on NBC


her mother wrote me and said through I


guess Twitter social media the nicest


things and I very much appreciated that


I hear she was a fine really actually an


incredible young woman but her mother on


Twitter thanked me for what I said and


honestly if the press were not fake and


if it was honest the press would have


said what I said was very nice but


unlike you and unlike excuse me unlike


you and unlike the media before I make a


statement I like to know the facts they


don’t say what not at all


I think the country look you take a look


I’ve created over a million jobs in some


president the country is booming the


stock market is setting records we have


the highest employment numbers we’ve


ever had in the history of our country


we’re doing record business we have the


highest levels of enthusiasm so the head


of Walmart who I know was a very nice


guy was making a political statement I


mean you know because I want to make


sure when I make a statement that the


statement is correct and there was no


way there was no way of making a correct


statement that early I had to see the


facts unlike a lot of reporters I didn’t


know David Duke was there I wanted to


see the facts and the facts as they


started coming out were very well stated


in fact everybody said his statement was


beautiful if he would have made it


sooner that would have been good I


couldn’t have made it sooner because I


didn’t know all of the facts frankly


people still don’t know all of the facts


it was a really important excuse me


excuse me


it was very important to me to get the


facts out and correctly because if I


would have made a fast statement and the


first statement was made without knowing


much other than what we were seeing the


second statement was made after with


knowledge with great knowledge there’s


still things excuse me there’s still


things that people don’t know I want to


make a statement with knowledge I wanted


to know the facts okay


two questions was this terrorism and you


tell us that your feeling about it your


chief strategy well the driver of the


car is a disgrace to himself his family


in this country and that is you can call


it terrorism you can call it murder you


can call it whatever you want I would


just call it as the fastest one to come


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


call it


because there is a question is it murder


is a terrorism and then you get into


legal semantics the driver of the car is


a murderer and what he did was a


horrible horrible inexcusable thing I


never spoke to mr. Bannon about it I


like mr. Bennish he’s a friend of mine


but mr. banek came on very late you know


that I went through 17 senators


governors and I want all the primaries


  1. Bannon came on very much later than


that and I liked him


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


tell you that he’s a good person


he actually gets a very unfair press in


that regard but we’ll see what happens


with mr. Bannon but he’s a good person


and I think the press treats him frankly


very unfairly




us getting good health care well I don’t


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


McCain must know what he’s talking about


but when you say the alt-right define


all right to me you define excuse me


what about the alt left they came


charging at the as you say the alt right


do they have any semblance of guilt what


about the fact that came charging that


they came charging with clubs in the


hands swinging clubs do they have any


problem I think they do that was a


horrible horrible day wait a minute I’m


not finished


I’m not finished fake news that was a


horrible day I watched those very


closely much more closely than you


people watched it and you have you had a


group on one side that was bad and you


had a group on the other side that was


also very violent and nobody wants to


say that but I’ll say it right now you


had a group you had a group on the other


side that came charging in without a


permit and they were very very violent


what you call the alt left is the same


as neo-nazis I owe those people all of


those people excuse me I’ve condemned


neo-nazis I’ve condemned many different


groups but not all of those people were


neo-nazis believe me not all of those


people were white supremacist by any


stretch those people to protest the


taking down of a statue robert e lee so


excuse me and you take a look at some of


the groups and you see and you know it


if you were honest reporters which in


many cases you’re not but many of those


people were there to protest the taking


down of the statue of robert e lee so


this week it’s robert e lee i noticed


that stonewall jackson’s coming down I


wonder is it George Washington next week


and is it Thomas Jefferson the week




you know you oh you really do have to


ask yourself where does it stop but they


were there to protest excuse me you take


a look the night before they were there


to protest the taking down of the statue


of Robert Ely infrastructure question go


ahead the property lease they up I would


say that’s up to a local town community


or the federal government depending on


where it is located


I think they’ve gotten better or the


same I look they’ve been frayed for a


long time and you can ask President


Obama about that because he’d make


speeches about it but I believe that the


fact that I brought in it will be soon


millions of jobs you see where companies


are moving back into our country I think


that’s going to have a tremendous


positive impact on race relations we


have companies coming back into our


country we have two car companies that


just announced we have Foxconn in


Wisconsin just announced we have many


companies I say pouring back into the


country I think that’s going to have a


huge positive impact on race relations


you know why it’s jobs what people want


now they want jobs they want great jobs


with good pay


and when they have that you watch how


race relations will be and I’ll tell you


we’re spending a lot of money on the


inner cities we’re gonna fix we’re


fixing the inner cities we’re doing far


more than anybody’s done with respect to


the inner cities it’s a priority for me


and it’s very important


I’m not putting anybody on a moral plan


what I’m saying is this you had a group


on one side and you had a group on the


other and they came at each other with


clubs and it was vicious and it was


horrible and it was a horrible thing to


watch but there is another side there


was a group on this side you can call


him the lefty you’ve just called him the


left that came violently attacking the


other group so you can say what you want


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


yes I think there’s blame on both sides


you look at you look at both sides


I think there’s blame on both sides and


I have no doubt about it and you don’t


have any doubt about it either oh and if


you reported it accurately you would say


but you also had people that were very


fine people on both sides


you had people in that group excuse me


excuse me I saw the same pictures as you


did you had people in that group that


were there to protest the taking down of


to them a very very important statue and


the renaming of a park from robert e lee


to another name George Washington was a


slave owner was George Washington a


slave owner so will George Washington


now lose his status are we gonna take


down excuse me are we gonna take down


are we gonna take down statues to George


why how about Thomas Jefferson what do


you think of Thomas Jefferson you like


him okay good


are we gonna take down the statute


because he was a major slave owner now


we’re gonna take down his statue so you


know what it’s fine


you’re changing history you’re changing


culture and you had people and I’m not


talking about the neo-nazis and the


white nationalist because they should be




totally but you had many people in that


group other than neo-nazis and white


nationalists okay and the press has


treated them absolutely unfairly now in


the other group also you had some fine


people but you also had troublemakers


and you see them come with a with the


black outfits and with the helmets and


with the baseball bats you got a you had


a lot of beds you had a lot of bad


people in the other groups we were


saying you were saying the press has


treated white nationalists unfairly


there were people in that rally and I


looked the night before if you look they


were people protesting very quietly the


taking down of the statue of Robert Ely


I’m sure in that group there were some


bad ones the following day it looked


like they had some rough bad people


neo-nazis white nationalists whatever


you want to call them but you had a lot


of people in that group that were there


to innocently protest and very legally


protest because you know I don’t know if


you know they had a permit the other


group didn’t have a permit so I


we tell you this there are two sides to


a story I thought what took place was a


horrible moment for our country


a horrible moment but there are two


sides of the country


does anybody have a final does anybody


have any leaven infrastructure what


makes you think you can get an


infrastructure bill you didn’t get


healthcare we came very close with


healthcare unfortunately john mccain


decided to vote against it at the last


minute you’ll have to ask john mccain


why he did that but we came very close


to health care we will end up getting


healthcare but we’ll get the


infrastructure and actually


infrastructure something that i think


will have bipartisan support on i


actually think I actually think


democrats will go along with the


infrastructure to the family of the


victim of the car now be reaching out I


was very i I thought that the statement


put out the the mother’s statement I


thought was a beautiful statement I was


tell you it was it was something that I


really appreciate it I thought it was


terrific and really under the under the


kind of stress that she’s under and the


heartache that she’s under I thought


putting out that statement to me was


really something I won’t forget thank


you all very much thank you thank you


no I own a house and where is it oh boy


it’s gonna be it’s in Charlottesville


you’ll see where is it say it is the


winery I mean I know a lot about


Charlotte’s well Charlottesville is a


great place that’s been very badly hurt


over the last couple of days I own


actually one of the largest wineries in


the United States it’s enjoys overcome


the racial divides as well I really


think jobs can have a big impact I think


if we continue to create jobs over a


million substantially more than a


million and you see just the other day


the car companies coming in with Fox you


know fuck I think if we continue to


create jobs at levels that I’m people


i’m creating jobs i think that’s gonna


have a tremendous impact positive impact


on race relations and what you said


today how do you think that will impact


the racial sort of thing are they


working they’re gonna be making a lot of


money much more money than they ever


thought possible that’s gonna happen and


the other thing be very important I


believe wages will start going up they


haven’t gone up for a long time I


believe wages now because the economy is


doing so well with respect to employment


and unemployment


I believe wages will start to go up I


think that will have a tremendously


positive impact on race relations




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

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.


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!


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?


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.


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?


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’s a


private company and has every right to


fire an employee it deems not in line


with this position or its culture but


it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so


negatively to an employee to in a 10


page memo laid out a case for why Google


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% chance


you’re part of Google’s leadership piece


and while 31% of Google’s employees are


women only 20% of its technical


employees are and it was primarily the


memos focus on this gender gap it 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


outcome when it comes to computer and


mathematical occupations the numbers


clearly show that women and men are not


equally represented women held 27% of


such jobs in 1960 30 years later they


held 35% but bath towards 2013 and the


number of women in computing and


mathematical occupations had fallen back


to 26% and it’s not because fewer women


are going to college in fact a US


Department of Education study from 2014


shows more women the men are attending


and graduating from college and they are


receiving the majority of bachelor’s


master’s and doctorate degree


but when it comes to college majors


women and men choose differently


a recent Georgetown University study


showed over 80% of petroleum engineer


majors are male


so we’re almost 70% of those majoring in


mathematics and computer science women


on the other hand in the major 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% 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 quote 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

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 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!