Connect with us

Politics

Why the Google Memo Brings Forward an Overdue Conversation

When I awoke, it became obvious a “manifesto” written by a male Google employee had become a huge topic of conversation. Given the outrage associated with the document, I expected to read some downright awful and unconscionable things in it. That never happened.

Published

on

In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang describe how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.

Fortunately, I spent most of the weekend blissfully unaware of the latest topics dominating the news cycle. As such, when I awoke this morning to get caught up, it became obvious that a “manifesto” written by a male Google employee had become a huge topic of conversation. Given the outrage associated with the document, I expected to read some downright awful and unconscionable things in it. That never happened.

Personally, I’m really glad this person wrote the manifesto. Not because I agree with everything he wrote and the way he delivered it, but because it hopefully will allow us to have a conversation on a topic that has spilt people into binary factions that resemble dogmatic religious sects. Before I get started, I want to make it clear that I understand how some people — particularly women in tech — many of whom unquestionably experience harassment and sexism, could feel isolated and offended by this document. I don’t work at Google, and have never worked at Google, so I have no basis on which to agree or disagree with what he wrote as it pertains to the company. Likewise, I have no informed opinion whether it’s true or false that coding at a high-level for a company at the scale of Google requires a higher concentration of masculine traits or not. For a contrary opinion to the Google document on that front, see the following: So, About This Googler’s Manifesto (for the record, I found most of that piece to be painful and preachy, but his point #2 is worth considering).

In contrast, the purpose of this post is to have a conversation about the belief that there are no observable biological differences between men and women at the population level, and that all observable differences are social constructs. I completely reject this assertion based on logic, history and life experience. That being said, the most productive way to talk about these differences is in the context of masculine and feminine energies. The acknowledgement and acceptance of these different energies has been discussed since the beginning of time, and really shouldn’t be controversial. It has always been acknowledged that feminine energies tend to be found in greater concentrations within the female population, while masculine energies tend to be more concentrated in males. These things aren’t just invented social constructs, they’ve always been a present and observable aspect of the human condition, which is why they’ve been discussed ad nauseam for thousands of years.

Things get complicated and dangerous when you take the fact that feminine qualities tend to be concentrated in females (and masculine within males), and then apply it at the individual level in a stereotypical manner. We certainly should not do this. Every single male and every single female will have their own unique blend of masculine and feminine energies, and there will be plenty of women who exhibit greater concentrations of masculine energy than many male peers. These are also probably the sorts of women who tend to rise up to the position of CEO or political leader. This doesn’t make masculine energy better than feminine energy, but it does mean that our unbalanced and twisted world offers more financial and material rewards to those who demonstrate a greater concentration of masculine energy.

Personally, I think this is a huge flaw and the root cause of a lot of our suffering. For example, American culture worships the Wall Street trader who makes $5 million a year while adding very little to no value to society, while looking down upon a mother or father who chooses to stay home and raise their children. Rather than reflecting upon the world we’ve created and admitting how perverse this is, the mantra seems to be “hire more women traders.” That’s a one-way ticket to nowhere.

The one aspect of the Google manifesto that really struck me on a personal level was the following:

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, 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.

I’m one of these people who worked a job that required “long, stressful hours” during my 10 years on Wall Street. I personally decided that it wasn’t worth it for a variety of reasons. Was this me finding more of an appeal in what can be characterized as feminine energy and wanting to embrace that side of me? I think that certainly was a part of it, and I’m very proud of that decision. In fact, I think much of my evolution as a human over the past decade has to do with me fundamentally understanding the importance of feminine energy and trying to connect to it more. I get to take my son out of his crib every single morning, and I simply can’t put a dollar value on how much that means to me. Claiming that these two types of energies don’t exists, or that they don’t tend to aggregate in higher densities in one gender versus the other, is just putting our heads in the sand and causes us to ignore the root of the problem.

The real problem as I see it, isn’t that feminine energy tends to aggregate more in females than in males, but that we undervalue feminine energy to the detriment of our societal health. I’ve written a lot about incentives over the years, and how we are creating more bad behavior because our culture incentivizes bad behavior. If Wall Street or other corporate crooks never have to fear prison and simply have to pay a fraction of ill-gotten gains for committing fraud, of course you’re going to have a fraud epidemic. Likewise, if we have an economic system that funnels the vast majority of material rewards to those with higher concentrations of masculine energy (which across an entire population will tend to be males), of course masculine energy will dominate and create a very unbalanced, unhealthy world.

This puts females in general in a very difficult and unfair position. There must be countless women who are extraordinarily talented and downright brilliant, yet feel trapped because they must cater their spirits toward a masculine-energy dominated world just to be financially independent and successful. Does this make any sense? Should we be denying the existence of masculine and feminine energies and their distribution within genders, or should we be questioning why our culture places masculine attributes on a pedestal and funnels most financial rewards to such traits? Is a systematic denial of the importance of feminine energy healthy for the human race?

These are the really important questions we should be asking, because the more we incentivize and reward masculine traits in favor of the feminine in a very unhealthy way, the more unbalanced and prone to collapse our civilization becomes. The yin and the yang, the masculine and the feminine, these things are equally important to nature and must be equally represented and appreciated in any society. Any culture that does not do this is out of balance and will suffer the consequences.

Finally, here’s a link to the entire “manifesto” should you want to read it. In tomorrow’s post, I’ll analyze the document, and the extremely heated reaction to it, from a Spiral Dynamics framework.

If you enjoyed this post, appreciate what I do, and want to support my work, consider doing so at Patreon, or via our Support Page.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Photo: “Google” by edowoo is licensed under CC BY-SA

Free "dummies guide" to trading options

Did you know trading options can actually be safer and more profitable than buying and selling stocks? Video and plain English training guide reveals how to get started tonight. 100% free.

Download now.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump: Russian Uranium Deal “Is The Biggest Story That Fake Media Doesn’t Want To Follow”

It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction,” Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.

Published

on

As we reported yesterday, as the media continues to lose their collective minds over $100,000 worth of Facebook ads allegedly purchased by Russians during the 2016 election, the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally decided they’re going to take a look into a shady Russian deal – first  profiled here last summer – that handed Putin 20% of America’s uranium reserves, was approved by the Obama administration during an ongoing FBI investigation into charges of bribery, extortion and money laundering by the Russian buyer and netted the Clintons millions of dollars in donations and ‘speaking fees.”

Recall that on Wednesday it was reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee launched a full-scale probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow. Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee chairman, gets his first chance to raise the issue in public on Wednesday when he questions Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing.

“It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction,” Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.

“The fact that Rosatom subsidiaries in the United States were under criminal investigation as a result of a U.S. intelligence operation apparently around the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction raises questions about whether that information factored into CFIUS’ decision to approve the transaction,” the chairman added.

Fast forward to this week when thanks to newly released affidavits from a case that landed one of the Russian co-conspirators, Vadim Mikerin, in jail, we learned on Tuesday that not only was the Obama administration aware the Russians’ illegal acts in the U.S. but it may have also been fully aware that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow.”

It gets better: in an unexpected twist, the FBI’s investigation into this particular Russian plot began in 2009 under none other than Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case… and ended in late 2015 under the controversial, former FBI Director James Comey who was relieved of his duties by President Trump. “Surprisingly” when the DOJ finally arrested Mikerin in 2014, following 5 years of investigations in a massive international bribery and money-laundering scheme, rather than publicly celebrate, they seemingly swept it under the rug.  In fact, there was no public release concerning the case at all until a full year later when the DOJ announced a plea deal with Mikerin right before labor day.

* * *

Putting all that together, it is not difficult to see why the story has gotten percisely zero mainstream media coverage in the past 48 hours, or past year for that matter.

But not the president… Upon waking up on Thursday, Trump immediately went on twitter to slam the “Fake media” for not following the Russian uranium deal, and once again accused both Obama and the Clintons:

“Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!”

We expect that now that Trump plans on making a daily twitter spectacle of this particular Russian involvement, the DOJ and FBI may have no choice but to reopen the investigation, with potentially adverse consequences for Mueller, Comey, including perhaps Clinton and Obama.

In a separate tweet on Thursday, Trump said he thought there is enough to support in the Senate to pass its 2018 budget resolution, a key step toward tax reform, but added, “who knows?”

“Republicans are going for the big Budget approval today, first step toward massive tax cuts. I think we have the votes, but who knows?” he tweeted.

Later on Thursday, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the budget resolution bill, which is a crucial step before the Republicans formally work towards a tax reform package by the end the year. Currently, the GOP control 52 seats in the Chamber and with Mississippi’s Cochran off due to sickness, there is a slimmer margin of error to pass this resolution which seeks to authorise a deficit increase of cUS$1.5trn over the next 10 years. That said, with the late backing of Senator Collins from Maine, the bill is expected to pass before the weekend and ahead of it going on to the next (tougher) phase, which includes drafting the tax bill and getting it through the committee and the full Senate.

If Republicans pass the budget resolution, they can utilize a legislative tool called reconciliation that would allow them to move tax legislation through the Senate on a simple majority vote. Otherwise, tax reform would need 60 votes, which would make the GOP proposal’s passage much less likely as it would need to pull support from all Republican lawmakers as well as some Democrats.

Free "dummies guide" to trading options

Did you know trading options can actually be safer and more profitable than buying and selling stocks? Video and plain English training guide reveals how to get started tonight. 100% free.

Download now.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clinton Cover-Up Has Been Orchestrated By The Same People Investigating Trump

Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. 

Published

on

Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.

But there’s more.  It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”

The incriminating evidence was uncovered by The Hill (John Solomon and Alison Spann) and Circa News (Sara Carter).  Their dogged reporting reveals that the FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

The corrupt scheme is said to have been financed by the Russians through bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.

Indeed, the entire sordid affair remained hidden for seven long years.  Until now.

Clinton Corruption and Racketeering?

It is a crime to use a public office to confer a benefit to a foreign government in exchange for money.  It is often referred to as “pay-to-play,” but it can be prosecuted under a variety of anti-corruption laws passed by Congress, including the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201-b), the federal gratuity statute (18 USC 201-c), the mail fraud statute (18 USC 1341), the wire fraud statute (18 USC 1343), the program bribery statute (18 USC 666), and the Travel Act (18 USC 1952).

If the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.

The FBI evidence, if true, would seem to show that one or more of these illegal “pay-to-play” laws were broken.  The government would have to prove that Hillary and Bill got paid, while the Russians got to play.  And prosecutors are required to show a “quid pro quo” or “nexus” between the payments and the benefit provided.  But it appears that the FBI already possesses all the evidence it needs to make a compelling case.

If Hillary leveraged her public office as Secretary of State for personal enrichment, but also used her charity as a receptacle or conduit for money obtained illegally, that would also constitute racketeering, as I first argued in a column almost a year ago.

Racketeering is the use of a business for a corrupt and illegal enterprise.  The “Mafia” and other organized crime syndicates are often prosecuted under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” or “RICO” (18 USC 1961-1968).  Frequently, they devise a dual purpose company –one which operates lawfully from the front door, but unlawfully out the back door.

There is little doubt the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity.  But if the FBI documents demonstrate that there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, then prosecution could be pursued against Clinton for racketeering.

According to the Associated Press, more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state donated money to her foundation.  If Clinton was peddling access, was she also peddling influence?  Again, the reported FBI documents seem to answer that question.

But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton?  Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret?  Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency?  Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact.   Who are they?

Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein

Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.  Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered.

What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010.  Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.

It gets worse.  Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.  Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.  There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton.  The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.

It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

If this is true, Mueller and Rosenstein should immediately recuse themselves from the case.  How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of the lead investigators has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?

And, if the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and former defense attorney.

h/t Fox | Original Link

Free "dummies guide" to trading options

Did you know trading options can actually be safer and more profitable than buying and selling stocks? Video and plain English training guide reveals how to get started tonight. 100% free.

Download now.

Continue Reading

Politics

CIA Urges Trump To Delay Release Of 3,000 Never-Before-Seen Documents On JFK Assassination

Published

on

Authored by Alex Christoforou via TheDuran.com,

More than 3,000 never-before-seen documents from the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department on the assassination of John F. Kennedy are scheduled be released, with many experts fearing that such a large release of secret JFK assassination documents will spur “a new generation of conspiracy theories.”

According to Roger Stone, the CIA is urging President Donald Trump to delay disclosing some of the files for another 25 years.

Roger Stone said in a post on his website…

 “They must reflect badly on the CIA even though virtually everyone involved is long dead.”

Newsmax reports:

More than 3,000 never-before-seen documents from the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department are set to be released, along with 30,000 that have only been partially released in the past. The document dump “will simply fuel a new generation of conspiracy theories,” write Philip Shenon and Larry J. Sabato.

Sabato is the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of “The Kennedy Half-Century” and Shenon is a former reporter for the New York Times and author of, “A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination.”

The CIA is urging President Donald Trump to delay disclosing some of the files for another 25 years according to friend and political adviser Roger Stone but the National Archives would not say whether any agencies have appealed the release of the documents.

According to The Gateway Pundit Roger Stone and Gerald Posner, two New York Times bestselling authors who are polar opposites about who killed JFK, have joined together to urge Donald Trump to release all the remaining classified files on Kennedy’s assassination.

About 3,100 files are still sealed in the National Archives. Under the 1992 JFK Records Act, the Archives have until October 26 to decide which of those files to publicly disclose.

Some of the classified documents include a CIA personality study of Oswald, top-secret testimony of former CIA officers to congressional committees, transcripts of interrogations with Soviet defector and Oswald handler Yuri Nosenko, letters about the case from J. Edgar Hoover and Jackie Kennedy, the CIA file on Jack Wasserman, the attorney for New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello, and the operational file of E. Howard Hunt, career spy and Watergate burglar.

Roger Stone, in his bestselling 2013 The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, set forth the case that LBJ was the mastermind of plot that included the CIA, the Mob and Big Texas Oil to kill Kennedy.

Gerald Posner, in his 1993 bestselling finalist for the Pulitzer for History, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, concluded that the Warren Commission conclusions are correct and Oswald acting alone had killed Kennedy.

While they might not agree on who killed Kennedy, Stone and Posner are longstanding advocates for the release of all the government files on the assassination.

“These files should have been released long ago,” says Posner. “The government does this all the time, over classified documents and then holds on to them for decades under the guise of ‘national security.’ All the secrecy just feeds people’s suspicions that the government has something to hide and adds fuel to conspiracy theories.” Posner is convinced the case will still be closed when the last document is made public.

”I know CIA Director Pompeo is urging the President to delay release of these records for another 25 years,” said Stone. “They must reflect badly on the CIA even though virtually everyone involved is long dead.” Stone believes the evidence supporting the case in his book is still hidden somewhere in government files.

Both authors called on President Trump – who is empowered to make the final decision should the National Archives or CIA balk on releasing all the files – to opt for transparency.

Free "dummies guide" to trading options

Did you know trading options can actually be safer and more profitable than buying and selling stocks? Video and plain English training guide reveals how to get started tonight. 100% free.

Download now.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending