Professor X on X - "This is at the heart of everything. Straight white men have made up the vast majority of elected officials in American history, but Democrats have systematically stunted the career of almost all straight white men in their ranks over the last 15 years. This has two devastating effects for Democrats:
- The Democratic bench is very thin, which is what you would expect when you systematically discriminate against a huge chunk of the most qualified applicants. This is why Dem leaders are incredibly old - they successfully hollowed out their next generation.
- The young white men who are left as Dems are a very specific breed of beta orbiter who turns off most people, voters included."
Thread by @zarathustra5150 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "“Google goes to extreme—and illegal lengths—to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and male employees and potential employees.”“Wilberg, a former Google and YouTube recruiter, claimed he was fired for refusing to discriminate against white and Asian men in his hiring practices.” “recruiters were given quotas and told to cancel interviews with white and Asian male job candidates, and thento 'purge' applications that weren't from women or so-called underrepresented minorities.”"
Thread by @zarathustra5150 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "“Another survey showed a broader trend of [tech] hiring managers discriminating against white men. One of the most blatant examples was when the tech company Twilio announced it would do a round of layoffs through an "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens," a virtual certainty that more white workers would be sacked than would have been justified by business.” “As Dr. Ron Hira, a professor at Howard University and a critic of H-IBs, has observed, the H-1B system transfers wealth from employees to employers. "Guest-worker programs are supposed to fill domestic labor shortages. The H-1B program does not fill shortages”"
STARRS on X - "STARRS Calls For a Review Over Ideological Incident at U.S. Air Force Academy
Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (STARRS) today expressed serious concern about a reported incident at the United States Air Force Academy involving a large gathering of academy graduates who recently displayed conduct inconsistent with military discipline and the chain of command. According to publicly available reporting, hundreds of female active duty and civilian AFA graduates —estimated at up to 500—participated in an event on the Academy’s terrazzo (a massive, central elevated plaza and pedestrian courtyard at the heart of the Cadet Area) that allegedly included rhetoric perceived as threatening toward senior civilian leadership during a time of ongoing global conflict. The event was reportedly affiliated with an AFA alumni group and supported by Academy-related organizations. STARRS leadership emphasized the situation raises significant questions about the state of good order and discipline within one of the nation’s premier military institutions. “The United States military is built on a foundation of discipline, respect for the chain of command, and a singular focus on mission readiness,” said Dr. Ron Scott, President and CEO of STARRS. “Any activity that appears to undermine those principles—especially during a period of international tension—must be taken seriously and addressed immediately.” STARRS further noted concerns about the potential influence of ideological movements within military training environments, warning that such dynamics can erode cohesion and readiness. “Our armed forces cannot afford division, politicization, or ideological activism that detracts from warfighting capability,” Scott added. “The focus must remain on merit, unity, and the mission—nothing else.” The organization also pointed to the reported involvement of former Academy leadership, including former AFA Superintendent Michelle Johnson, as an additional factor warranting transparency and accountability. STARRS is calling for:
• A formal investigation to determine the full facts surrounding the reported event and the conduct of those involved
• A review by appropriate authorities into whether the United States Air Force Academy and the United States Air Force Academy Association of Graduates should be facilitating, sponsoring, enabling, or allowing affinity group events on Academy grounds where senior civilian leadership and elected AOG directors are publicly denigrated
• Clarification from the AOG regarding its stated position as a non-political organization, particularly considering any involvement in events where political or ideological criticism of senior officials occurs
• Clear policy guidance to ensure that future activities on Academy grounds uphold standards of professionalism, respect for leadership, and alignment with military values
“As an organization dedicated to preserving the integrity of our military,” Scott said, “we will continue to advocate for a force that is unified, apolitical, and fully prepared to defend the United States against all threats.” “Affinity groups based on immutable traits like race and gender should be abolished at military academies because they breed divisive loyalty to subcultures and ideological agendas that undermine the unity and readiness necessary for an effective military,” said Michael T. Rose, JD/MBA, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, STARRS. “There must be accountability and transparency,” Scott added. “If organizations associated with our military institutions claim to be non-political, their actions must reflect that standard—especially on federal military installations where professionalism and respect for leadership are paramount.” @PeteHegseth @SecWar @SecAFOfficial @matthewlohmeier"
Cynical Publius on X - "Well I was going to say something like this, but the post below already says it perfectly: “Affinity groups based on immutable traits like race and gender should be abolished at military academies because they breed divisive loyalty to subcultures and ideological agendas that undermine the unity and readiness necessary for an effective military.” Proponents of affinity groups like ROCKS, Inc. will say that such organizations are necessary to promote the interests of disadvantaged demographic groups in the US military. Maybe that was true in 1968. The bottom line is that exclusionary affinity groups do nothing but destroy unit cohesion and mission accomplishment. Maybe that's OK in the civilian world. But not the US military."
Opinion | Muslims shouldn’t have to be like everyone else - The Washington Post - "The assimilation defense — look how well we’ve integrated — is satisfying to make. But it concedes a premise I no longer accept: that a minority community’s right to be in the United States depends on its willingness to converge with the cultural mainstream. It shouldn’t depend on that. It shouldn’t depend on anything... Muslims are different in certain ways. How could they not be? Islam shapes how its adherents think about family, sexuality and what it means to live a good life. Simply put, Islam is also a more public religion than Christianity. Muslim prayer is visually striking and often communal. If a Muslim doesn’t drink alcohol or fasts during Ramadan, that will be more noticeable to others. Moreover, practicing Muslims — despite being repeatedly asked to — can’t disavow “sharia” even if they wanted to. Sharia, roughly translated as Islamic law, includes guidelines on how to pray, fast and otherwise observe what it means to submit to God in daily practice. These commitments are not incidental to Muslim identity. For believers, they are the point. Two-thirds of American Muslims pray at least once a day — compared with 44 percent of U.S. adults overall, down from 58 percent in 2007. The Muslim percentage, by contrast, has barely moved. The country is becoming less religious. Muslims, by and large, are not. Meanwhile, 38 percent of Americans say religion is very important in their lives. For Muslims, the figure remains far higher — at 60 percent... Why do Muslims need to be like everyone else? A similar demand is directed at other minority groups. Latino immigrants arrive in the U.S. with conservative instincts. But generation by generation, those commitments erode. Catholic identification among Latinos has fallen from 67 percent in 2010 to 42 percent in 2024. Acceptance of homosexuality climbs from 53 percent among first-generation Latino immigrants to 63 percent by the third generation."
Time to mock white people who live in third world countries for not assimilating
He says Republicans should love Muslims because they're also conservative. But he doesn't make the corollary argument about Democrats hating them. Weird.
He's pretending that people are asking Muslims to become less religious in order to integrate better. What an odd claim.
Coddled Affluent Professional on X - "What Hamid is saying is virtually identical to what populist nativists who want zero or close-to-zero highly selective immigration are saying: Certain groups have no intention of assimilating because it’s totally antithetical to their culture, religion, and identity to do so. I guess the only question is what political conclusions you draw from this: do you want a fractured, Balkanized polity that is at odds with itself? And if so, why?"
Meme - "Changing the Face of Coding
Treespirit Benson-Smith
xe/xir
Writes lengthy articles about oppression for the company facebook page; successfully campaigned to have gluten free bagels regularly stocked in the breakroom
Samantha Bowen
she/her
Spent her first week at the company learning to work the copy machine
Taneesha Morgan
she/her
is no longer required to do any work that involves typing due to the length of her fingernails. Likes Beyonce.
Sabrina Rodrigo-Hernandez
neutral pronouns. BA in cultural anthropology with a minor in Chicano studies. Responsible for ensuring cultural authenticity of Spanish lunch items.
Durkadurka Al Shafar
???/???
Very quiet, nobody is quite sure what her job is. Likes to build clocks.
Chad Stevens
he/him
Writes code."
Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "Democrats just passed a law in Virginia that explicitly discriminates against White men in government contracting. State agencies are allowed to pay 5% more for a contract as long as the business isn’t owned by a White man. So yes, the Democratic Party is anti-White. We just got through 12 years of them openly bragging about this fact. And now we’re just supposed to pretend like none of that ever happened? Why? Why am I supposed to turn a blind eye to the fact that one of the two major political parties in my own country hates me because of my immutable characteristics?"
Melissa Chen on X - "Remember in 2018 when Trevor Noah made headlines by framing France’s World Cup victory as: “Africa won the World Cup?" Now PSG wins and Paris is once again trashed by the very same demographics loudly claimed as France’s greatest strength. But exactly who is setting the fires and attacking police this time? Multiculturalism’s defenders love the “enrichment” narrative but treat the riots, sexual assaults, and social fragmentation as unrelated coincidences. So diversity is only highlighted when convenient. And they will not use the same lens to examine the failures: the failed integration, no-go zones, exploding crime rates tied to mass low skilled migration from incompatible cultures. In fact, these problems are suppressed by the media and if you dare to discuss it YOU are called "far-right." That is how we got to where we are now in Western Europe. Integration cannot be a one-way street where Europe imports the problems and is forbidden from noticing the consequences."
Boochi on X - "Oxytocin, the "love hormone" that floods us when we bond with our children or spouse, is the same one that heightens ethnocentrism. There's no indiscriminate "love everybody equally" hormone. We either sacrifice for our children, or we sacrifice our children for others."
Mack on X - "You can love diversity or you can love your children, but you cannot love both."
Meme - *The Price of Peace, but with the World War I soldiers holding up a burning world with black and brown men in black, many in hoodies and the rest wearing baseball cps, some with covered faces, and all in sneakers*
DEI hollowed out a generation — and sapped America's promise - "“Affirmative action,” of course, has been around for decades, and anyone who’s worked at a major institution in America, whether government, corporate or academic, has seen its effects. When I was applying for law professor jobs years ago, I was well aware that minority or female candidates were likely to get more interviews, and more job offers, than “traditional” candidates like me. But the degree of discrimination then was comparatively minor: a question of a thumb on the scale. Sometime around 2014, the thumb turned into a brick... there’s much more to this than men’s hard-luck stories. Because the DEI fad didn’t just wreck American lives. It went a long way toward wrecking America. First, the institutions that went all in for DEI had several things in common: Not only did they openly (and largely illegally) discriminate on the basis of race and gender, they also went to hell. Pick any one of these industries — media, government, academia, the corporate world, tech — and they’re pretty much all much worse than they were a decade or so ago. The legacy media have burned their credibility to a crisp, Joe Biden’s mad DEI-fueled hiring spree bloated federal payrolls without improving services or efficiency, and academia’s descent into leftist lunacy has destroyed Americans’ trust. With young men’s careers stalling out or withering away at a crucial age, DEI impacted a whole generation’s willingness to marry and have kids. We fret about the nation’s “baby bust,” wring our hands over declining rates of homeownership and bemoan epidemic levels of loneliness among young people. Maybe unfairly barring a whole cohort of them from good jobs is a reason why. And if you’re puzzled that so many Gen Z men have moved hard right, perhaps it has something to do with society’s major institutions saying that men are awful, white men are worse, and they won’t hire any of them? Of course they’re angry. When you make war on a group of people, they tend to get mad. A diverse society needs more meritocracy, not less. If jobs are handed out based on qualities like race and gender, people have every reason to resent and suspect the qualifications of those who beat them out. The DEI fad undermined a core strength of America, even as it hollowed out a generation. It’s time to undo it."
White people blocked from jobseeker schemes - "White jobseekers are being shut out of taxpayer-funded employment schemes. A range of employment support programmes offered by local authorities to benefit claimants are open only to ethnic minorities... Critics have described the schemes, which are funded by the taxpayer through multi-billion-pound grants to local government, as an example of “two-tier” Britain."... Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, director of Don’t Divide Us, described the schemes as “segregationist”, adding: “Have they looked at age, locality, educational background, language proficiency and other relevant variables before proceeding with yet another divisive, race-based, segregationist plan for social in-cohesion? “If and when there is civil disobedience, it will be in no small part due to the patronising stupidity of leaders who think this is a good plan.” The DWP has previously been involved in schemes exclusively for non-white jobseekers, including “mentoring circles”, and the “Moving on Up initiative” in London that was open only to black men... The National Audit Office has been criticised for blocking middle-class white men from applying to an internship open only to applicants who are female, of black heritage or from lower socio-economic backgrounds."
Clearly, without DEI, only straight white men would get jobs
If you criticise this, you are trying to divide people
Bernie on X - "🚨 Well done taxpayers, you’re funding discrimination in government. The UN’s Agenda 2030 goals of “Reduced Inequalities”, “Gender Equality” and “Leave No One Behind” are being used to justify opportunities based on identity rather than merit. You did NOT vote for this!
National Audit Office – excludes most white men from an internship.
MI5, MI6 & GCHQ – internship schemes restricted by ethnicity.
Transport for London – placements reserved for specific demographic groups.
House of Commons, House of Lords & Senedd – internships limited to BAME applicants.
Bank of England – previously ran an internship excluding white candidates.
The UN pursues equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity, where people are judged by their race, sex and background instead of their ability. Read my book 🔥"
Ben Jones of the Free Speech Union: ‘Banning pro-Gaza marches won’t stop anti-Semitism’ - "Island of Strangers comes in: a new book in which Jones examines the state of freedom of speech in 21st-century Britain. Its conclusion is bleak: it’s hard to talk about defending societal values, Jones writes, when no one can agree what those might be. Taking its cue from Sir Keir Starmer’s now infamous “island of strangers” phrase, on which the Prime Minister almost immediately backtracked, Jones argues that high immigration levels, our deference to radical Islam and the demise of the West’s Christian identity have left us with a Britain that doesn’t know itself. Jones’s argument in Island of Strangers will make many small-L liberal readers wince. He argues that the “Boriswave” of immigration from largely Muslim countries, and lax attitudes prior to that, caused too many people to enter the country; and not only did those newcomers fail to become British, but they were actively unwilling to do so. This, he claims, means that hostility to the very notion of a “British identity” is growing not just in openly Islamist pockets of society, but in the Muslim community more generally, and even, beyond that, among white, middle-class Green and Labour supporters. As such, the tale of two marches in May – when Tommy Robinson fans daubed themselves in St George’s crosses, and pro-Palestine supporters donned keffiyehs – serves as proof of our new tribal landscape. That landscape, he feels, has been long in the making. He points to the 2000 Runnymede report chaired by Lord Bhikhu Parekh, and its call for the UK to be reconfigured “not as a land of one homogenous people, but [as] a ‘community of communities’”. That idea was rejected by Jack Straw, the home secretary at the time, as too radical, but Jones notes that it has since become so uncontroversial that the King used it in a speech in 2022, declaring that the sovereign has a “duty to protect the diversity of our country”. For Jones, the problem with the rejection of a “common culture” is that free speech needs a solid base from which to come alive. It becomes hard to argue that someone should be protected if they insult someone else’s god – by burning their holy book, for instance, or drawing cartoons of them – unless everyone notionally agrees on a set of basic collective beliefs about what matters in society. “What we have now,” he warns, “is a fragmented society of societies, who each have their own set of sacred ideas – not just religious groups, but ethnic groups, identity groups. We’re talking about the trans rights movement, Black Lives Matter, intensely passionate groups of people who’ve replaced religion with politics in their lives, and who are trying to impose those ideas across society.” Still, I point out, we have never had a total or true commitment to free speech in this country. Modern hate-speech law has its roots in Britain’s historical criminalisation of sacrilege and blasphemy; centuries of defamation law have been used to silence critics of powerful people and institutions. Jones agrees that we’ve never, in truth, had a free-speech golden age, but he argues that in the past the censorship was at least clearer and simpler when it was just state and church in charge of censoring – better the devil you know... “I think we sometimes have too simplistic a view of freedom of speech.” He’s worried not just about the obvious aspects of “cancel culture”, the outrageous things that get people silenced, but the more insidious ones: all the things that we feel we can’t say. “It’s not only the victim of cancel culture who suffers; it’s also the people who don’t get exposed to their ideas. And society suffers, too, because one of the purposes of freedom of speech is to correct a society that is going wrong.” Is he hopeful about the future of free speech in Britain? “I don’t know what this country is going to look like in the next five years, much less the next 50,” he avers. But he believes our first task is to get back to basics. “All of these debates, the questions about freedom of speech, they only really function in a liberal-democratic society where there is some cohesive national identity and an idea of what our rights and obligations to each other are.” Well, how can we create, or recreate, this sense of British identity, without relying on politicians posing with fish and chips? “We need a continuity with the past,” he says, “which doesn’t mean going back to the past, it doesn’t mean preserving a status quo in an artificial way – it just means a continuity. “There’s a line from Britain-as-was to what we have now, and to what the future will be. Parts of it are religious, parts are in the Enlightenment, the ancient past, poetry, art, culture – it’s a rich history. And we should be proud of it.”"
Should Canadians Be Concerned about the New Public Safety Minister? : r/espionage - "He knows nothing of the job everything you said aside. He doesnt even know what Canadians have to do to get a firearms license, hunting, or things like that. He has no knowledge of Canadas criminal code or the recruitment process/policies for RCMP, CBSA and other agencies."
"But we need diversity, what could would a public safety minister be if he wasn’t a diverse candidate with ties to foreign militias and extremist groups?"
On Gary Anandasangaree
Britain’s councils are being bankrupted in the name of equality - "Equal pay for equal work. Who could possibly object to this? It clearly is not acceptable that women are paid less for doing the same job as men. And ensuring this did not happen was why the 1970 Equal Pay Act was passed. But the equal pay claims which come before tribunals today are rarely based on blatant discrimination. Rather, they argue that the work done for an employer by a predominantly female workforce is of equal value to different jobs performed for the same employer by a predominantly male workforce. And some of these judgments seem to be based on rather stretching the notion of equal value... In 2024, employment tribunals found that more than 3,500 employees working for the retailer Next deserved a total of £30m in compensation on the grounds of gender discrimination. These were not women who were paid less for doing the same jobs as men. Rather, it was that Next was paying more to its warehouse staff (53pc of whom were male) than to its retail staff (77pc female). The tribunal accepted that, with changing retail patterns, there was an increase in demand for warehouse staff and a fall in that for retail staff. It further accepted that the vacancy rates for warehouse staff were double that for retail staff. This alone suggests that one job is more desirable than the other, and to fill those vacancies extra pay needs to be offered. But the tribunal nevertheless ruled against Next, under the principle of the work being of “equal value”. It is this nostrum which underpins nearly all the recent major equal pay rulings. Birmingham council was driven to effective bankruptcy due to having to pay out at least £1.3bn to predominantly female cleaners and clerical staff for being paid less than overwhelmingly male dustmen. Asda is facing a possible payout of £1.2bn on similar grounds. The basis for these judgments is an amendment to the Equal Pay Act from 1983, which embodied this concept of equal value into legislation. It might seem a strange measure for Margaret Thatcher’s government to adopt – European integration was the reason. The founding Treaty of Rome states that “each member state shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied”. As is inevitable with Brussels, the interpretation of “equal value” gradually ratcheted up and Britain complied with its directives. What Britain has not done post-Brexit is in any way amend this interpretation of equal pay and find a more sensible approach which does not risk bankrupting businesses and local authorities."
