Google employees organize to hunt down and destroy Conservatives within Google with Stasi-like "Hit Squad"




Google employees organize to hunt down and destroy Conservatives within Google with Stasi-like "Hit Squad"

Paresh Dave



SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - About 100 Google U.S. employees concerned about cyber bullying inside the company have organized into a group proposing new policies for conduct at the unit of Alphabet Inc, five people involved in the effort said in recent interviews.


Silhouettes of laptop and mobile device users are seen next to a screen projection of Google logo in this picture illustration taken March 28, 2018. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

Three current employees and two others helping to organize the group said it formed last fall. They said that among its proposals, which have not previously been reported in detail, are that Google should tighten rules of conduct for internal forums and hire staff to enforce them.

They said they want to stop inflammatory conversations and personal attacks on the forums and see punishment for individuals who regularly derail discussions or leak conversations. The group also wants Google to list rights and responsibilities for accusers, defendants, managers and investigators in human resources cases.

The group also desires greater protection for employees targeted by what it views as insincere complaints to human resources used as a bullying tactic and goading.

The organizers said Google should be more attuned to when people seeking to stir animosity or expressing views opposite the company’s stated values try to take over discussions about race, gender and other sensitive subjects.

The group is speaking informally to mid-level executives, hoping they will take up the cause with senior management, organizers said. Self-described conservatives at Google have also raised their own concerns.

The split among Google employees reflects growing polarization across the United States since President Donald Trump was elected. Other companies and industries have also been hit by corporate scandals involving diversity and harassment.

Google counts on open dialogue to strengthen products and morale, and prides itself on fostering an environment in which subordinates can challenge managers. Debates about politics and science flow freely on its private, online discussion boards.

But discussions have become more hostile and abusive since an engineer on internal forums last summer wrote that women are biologically unsuited for technology jobs. Google fired the engineer, James Damore, for perpetuating stereotypes, sparking more heated conversations.

Organizers of the campaign said at least 100 employees have taken part in private and online discussions of potential fixes. But they also said Google may wait to change policies until recent lawsuits filed by Damore and others are resolved.

“My coworkers and I are having our right to a safe workplace being endangered,” said staff site reliability engineer Liz Fong-Jones, one of the lead organizers. She said employees experience stress and fear of physical reprisal when internal conversations are leaked to media, sometimes with writers’ names.

Google spokeswoman Gina Scigliano declined to comment on the proposals but said the company already limits what employees can say in the workplace.

“We enforce strong policies and work with affected employees to ensure everyone can do their work free of harassment, discrimination and bullying,” she said.

Matt Stone, a software engineer at Google who was on disability leave last year, said he returned in January to an “alien environment” in which protections for disabled and transgender individuals were up for debate.

“We’ve been taken under siege in a war we didn’t even know we’re in, a war we didn’t even want,” he said. “We want it to stop.”

Two other employees said they have reduced posting on company forums out of fear of becoming bigger targets. It is not clear if the internal harassment debate has affected recruitment and retention of employees.

Fong-Jones said Google organizers nationwide have received leadership training and advice on media strategy and labor rights from online petition service, which has helped employees at Starbucks Corp and other companies lobby around workplace issues.


Self-described conservatives at Google, who often clash with the organizing group, have made their own proposals, including asking the company to clarify forum rules and protect employees from retaliation, according to a wrongful termination lawsuit Damore filed in January.

Damore’s attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, said she spoke with current Google employees and believed an internal “witch hunt” targeting workers expressing unpopular viewpoints grew aggressive following Trump’s election in 2016.

“The reaction to Damore’s memo was not for its opponents to engage in dialogue or reason with him, but rather to leak his memo, attack him personally, and work to get him threatened and fired- casually, unhesitatingly, maliciously,” Dhillon said by email.

Reporting by Paresh Dave; Editing by Peter Henderson, Jonathan Weber and David Gregorio


At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics are attacked and black-listed

Karen Weise

Illustration: 731; Getty

Shashi Ramchandani, who manages a team of engineers at Google, has never been shy about being a conservative working in Silicon Valley. He showed coworkers emails he exchanged with Ivanka Trump after he mailed her photos he took at the Republican convention, and on election night, he texted colleagues snapshots from the floor of Trump’s victory party in New York City. “They saw me first as a Googler, then as a conservative,” Ramchandani said.

In his 14 years at the company, he said he hasn't felt like he had to keep his mouth shut—until last month when Google fired an engineer who penned a memo saying biological differences partly explain why more men work in tech than women.

Politics often don’t mix easily at work, but it’s particularly fraught in tech, where free thinking is prized yet the workforce is predominantly liberal. Now, as President Trump stirs up the culture wars at the same time as Silicon Valley faces a backlash for being so white and so male, conservatives in tech have their guards up like never before.

Ramchandani, whose parents came to the U.S. from India, wasn’t a fan of the memo. He particularly objected to its assumption that Google’s hiring favors women and minorities, which ran counter to his experience as a hiring manager. But he was also “extremely disappointed” Google fired the engineer. Ramchandani felt, for the first time, that he had to reconcile his love of Google with his conservative support for free speech and distaste for bureaucracy.

Tech has seen ousters for unpopular political or cultural views before, like when the chief technology officer at Business Insider was forced out in 2013 over old racist and homophobic tweets, and the next year when the CEO of Mozilla stepped down after facing criticism for a $1,000 donation he’d made to a group that opposed gay marriage. But those were executives. The Google memo, which exposed a rank-and-file engineer exposed in a public way, hit closer to home for many conservatives, who said the current environment is more hostile than ever before. “Before it was, ‘I don’t agree with you,’ but now it has evolved into this new thing that is much more aggressive, ‘don’t even say something that is counter to what I believe,’” says Aaron Ginn, co-founder of Lincoln Network, which looks to connect conservative techies with government and political work.

Some fear losing their jobs while others worry they’ll be ostracized by colleagues. (That’s in a sector where 76 percent of technical jobs are held by men, and blacks and Latinos make up only 5 percent of the workforce.) Adding to the stress is Silicon Valley’s penchant for open floor plans, which make it hard to tune out an officemate on a rant, and the way companies encourage workers to socialize and bring their whole selves to their job. Several tech workers said they don’t post about politics on Facebook, where they’re friends with many coworkers. “My wife is very paranoid about me sharing my opinion, even on private WhatsApp groups with my friends,” said a former Amazon engineer who now works at Oracle. Most employees who spoke asked not to be identified because they worried about their job security.

An engineer at Microsoft Corp. first realized just how in the minority his political views were back in 2004, when George W. Bush was up for re-election. At lunch one day, his coworkers one by one slammed the Republican candidate. The engineer, just a few years out of college, recalls saying, “I’m probably going to vote for him.” He wasn’t prepared for the response. “They said, ‘You stupid person. How can you think about that?’” Things got so heated, he said, his manager sent a memo to his 100-person team, that said, in essence, “Hey, cool it. We have engineering tasks we have to focus on.”

As contentious as 2004 may have been, it’s nothing compared to the polarizing election and presidency of Trump. The Microsoft engineer said now it’s even harder to have a productive political conversation, as colleagues lump him with a president whom he said doesn’t represent his conservative values, threatening the ability to do his job well. "Thirty years ago, there was somebody in their garage doing something amazing,” he said. “Now these projects have thousands of people on them. People have to work with you and like you. If you get labeled as a bad person because you voted the wrong way and start getting ostracized, it will impede on your job because most people can’t flip modes. They can’t have a heated political debate with you and then flip modes and have a heated technical debate with you."

Google’s office felt like a funeral the day after Trump was elected, according to an employee who describes himself as libertarian. “A lot of people didn’t come,” he said. “The people who did were very quiet, almost like their aunt died.” 

This Google employee believes the now infamous memo was relatively well-reasoned and that Silicon Valley's diversity initiatives ignore data that conflict with their ideology. He’s regularly reminded of what he refers to as the company’s “social justice agenda,” like when he gets corporate email touting a donation to a non-profit that supports minorities, or hears an executive talk about hoping to have half of his leadership team be female,which he believes shows the company prioritizes some groups over others. He worries that the company is under pressure to reach 50-50 gender equity too fast, and it will impede the promotion opportunities for men. “Just do the math,” he says.

The Oracle engineer said the bro culture in tech is real and knows of female colleagues who face sexism, but with women making up fewer than a fifth of computer science graduates, the goal of reaching anything close to a 50-50 split feels “misguided” in the near term. “Some people are better than others, and when I work with a woman who is below average, I always have a thought that maybe she is a diversity hire, and I don’t think that’s healthy,” he said. He bristles slightly when he hears about female colleagues being heavily recruited by top firms.

Some confide in colleagues they consider friends. One liberal Google product manager said a conservative teammate who used to work at Goldman Sachs told him the environment now reminds him of his time in banking during the Occupy Wall Street protests, when he tried to lay low.

Ramchandani, who said he’s fiscally conservative but socially liberal, said the pressure on conservatives is “less of a Google thing than a Silicon Valley thing.” In the suburban Bay Area at large, he said, “I had more trouble coming out as a conservative than I did with my race or orientation or any other minority status.” He believes Google should recognize his fellow conservatives more but is nervous that conservatives are becoming more polarized themselves in recent weeks. He said on internal Google employee email groups for conservatives, he noticed “a few loud voices” stoking an “us versus them” mentality, for example contemplating legal action against the company. “I found that distasteful because it’s biting the hand that feeds you,” he said. “We are here to do a job not expound political values.”

The Oracle engineer, like some others, have opted to lay low during this tense time. “Work is work, and not everything needs to be about politics,” he said. While he sees liberal colleagues who sit nearby don’t seemingly need to filter their comments, he’s decided it’s not worth engaging, adding “I don’t want to be known as that guy who wants to argue with everybody.”



The Washington Post Is Running A Propaganda Campaign Against President Trump. Writers Tied To Hillary Clinton And Her Agents.

Ramses Reyes in Alternative MediaOfficial Blog // 4 Comments

Writers Tied to DNC, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Campaign and Obama Administration.


If you ever wondered why The Washington Post was so Anti-Trump, I have a simple answer for you.. The Podesta’s. After the 2016 Presidential Election, John Podesta, the former campaign head to Hillary Clinton and former Chief Of Staff to Bill Clinton and counselor to Barack Obama, John Podesta, took a job at the Washington Post as a “Contributing Columnist”. Yeah you really can’t make this stuff up!

Rosalind S. Helderman is a political reporter over at the Washington Post, constantly writes hit pieces on Trump and other Republicans was routinely having her articles passed around the Clinton Campaign as shown in the Wikileaks Podesta Email releases . This particular article was forwarded to John Podesta and Robby Mook by Adelle P. Cruz, Legislative Correspondent for Senator Harry Reid. 

Rosalind S. Helderman routinely cleared her stories by the Clinton Campaign and had direct contact with the Clinton Foundation!!!!!  Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Obama from 2013 to 2015 worked closely for the Clinton Campaign and regularly opines for Washington Post stories and routinely in contact with Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s close confidante and Political Strategist, who is also connected to Erik Wemple of the Washington Post. Here is an article by Erik Wemple throwing shade towards the New York Times over a story covering details of the Hillary Clinton email scandal directly citing a letter from Jennifer Palmieri.

Amber Phillips of the Washington Post also worked directly for the Clinton Campaign while also working for the Washington Post. Her email address in many of the email exchanges with John Podesta is 

Hillary Clinton says Jeff Stein of the Washington Post is a good friend of hers.. The connections are mind-boggling. He writes for “SpyTalk” a Washington Post blog  He also has ties to David Brock’s Media Matters and the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Both of which worked directly with the Clinton Campaign. He also writes for Newsweek.

Karen DeYoung over at WaPo is used to asking for direction from John Podesta and his people

Hillary Clinton kept close tabs on The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashema who was working on a story about Dyncorp hiring “Dancing Boys” in Afghanistan while she was Secretary Of State. “Dancing Boys” are underage Afghani sex slaves. I had to do some digging to find the article in question. I do believe that she maintained a working relationship with people in the Clinton Camp, cowrote the WaPo article covering the fake news story that James Comey was pressured by President Trump to drop the Flynn probe.  Lets get a look at that memo for ourselves! Oh, we can’t because the only known copies of said memo are at the Washington Post and The New York Times, that’s totally legit right? They are very Fake News.

Robert Kagan, of Brookings Institute writes a monthly piece for The Washington Post. He is a Neoconservative that backed Hillary Clinton. He is used to writing hit pieces on President Trump.

Greg Sargent of The Washington Post was caught up in the DNC Leaks also coordinating with the Clinton Campaign 

Fareed Zakaria CNN personality and Opinion Writer for the Washington Post constantly slams President Trump, just so happens to be in bed with The Clinton Global Initiative and has even moderated discussions for them!! I’m sure he was paid handsomely for his work with the Clinton Global Initiative. George Soros was also in attendance at this event.

Ronald A. Klain is an Opinion Writer at the Washington Post. He previously worked for Joe Biden.

I’d consider it safe to assume that the abundance of Clinton connected writers and columnists at the Washington Post, which is owned by Clinton insider and political supporter Jeff Bezos has a lot to do with its current position as the key disinformation and propaganda outlet for the Democrats and The Deep State.

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, is the founder and CEO of, and has extensive connections and contracts with the C.I.A. 


Is this all starting to make sense to you? It would seem that all of the writers at the Washington Post running the propaganda campaign against President Trump are all directly connected to Hillary Clinton either directly or through one of her lap dogs.

Many of these Journalist hacks seem to move between The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, and CNN. “Fake News” writers might change employers but continue to tow the line for the Democratic Party and the Deep State.

You cannot trust ANYTHING coming out of these people, they are far from objective and have an AGENDA and are complicit in the ongoing Deep State COUP of President Donald Trump.

They are attempting to prolong and expand the Russiagate canard, despite the fact that there is still zero evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia. This is a direct smear campaign to try to alienate President Trump’s base from him. They will stop at nothing to prevent President Trump from enacting his Pro-America agenda that he was sent to Washington to accomplish. With people like this, it will become increasingly difficult to “Drain The Swamp”. In my honest opinion I think it’s time that President Trump take the gloves off and starts hiring a new communications and press team that will actually expose the traitorous actions of The Washington Post.

I will continue to dig up as much information on these ties as I can and will expand into the New York Times and CNN as time goes on. Stay Vigilant.



Assholes of Google show off the money they got at the expense of the public

Google employees order 10-pound box of live lobsters for Burning Man meal

By Dianne de Guzman, SFGATE

Apparently some Burners are eating better than others: A group of Google employees reportedly shipped out a box of live lobsters to the festival for a meal.


Scroll through the slideshow to see photos from this

... more






o: Kyle Hendrix / Nevada BLM






If you know where to order a box of live lobsters and how to get them safely to Black Rock City for Burning Man, that should still count as falling under the principle of "radical self-reliance."



Well, it seems that a group of Burners from Google found themselves preparing for the gathering and were looking to have a luxurious meal at the start of Burning Man. But rather than going for something land-based, the group instead turned to Maine company Lobster207 to rush a 10-pound box of live lobsters to Google offices at Sunnyvale, the Reno Gazette-Journal confirmed.

HOT HOT HEAT: Heat wave to hit Burning Man, making this one of the hottest years for the event ever


Twitter Ads info and privacy



The purchaser asked if the lobsters could be shipped to see if they "could survive the journey, basically from the ocean floor to the deserts of Nevada" Lobster207 manager David Sullivan told the paper. Shipped overnight and arriving Friday in California, the lobsters were taken on the road to Burning Man, where they arrived Sunday. The lobsters are carefully packed in styrofoam coolers with seaweed and layers of ice gel packs and paper to keep the live creatures cool for the trip — all for a total of approximately $140, with shipping.As for whether the lobsters survived? They made it, but probably did not stay alive for much longer.

"They said it was very fresh and lively," Sullivan said. "It was everything we were hoping for, too, when we sent them out to the desert."

As odd (and opulent) as it sounds to dine on lobsters in the desert, it's apparently now de rigeur for certain camps to splash out on meals, as well as costumes and deluxe accommodations. In a 2014 New York Times article covering the tech elite "invading" Burning Man, a man paid to help with one of the so-called luxury camps described "lavish RVs" parked in such a way as to keep out outsiders, and decadent-sounding meals of sushi, lobster rolls and steak tartare, made by "teams of chefs."

Definitely not the trail mix and sandwiches one would expect to eat while at Burning Man. BURNER ETIQUETTE: 25 Burning Man rules you might now know about If one is wondering whether the other principles of "gifting" and "radical inclusion" are being practiced by those glamping at Burning Man, there is one example of a camp treating its neighbors to an extravagant meal: One writer described the time he investigated a man offering up steak and lobster via a ballpark barker-ish type call outside of his camp. Inside a tent, there was a dining table, where the writer was given steak and an entire lobster, along with wine pairings.

With luxury camps and celebrities here to stay at Burning Man, lobster and steak meals could become a mainstay in the desert — just hope they plan on sharing.




As my team was well into our investigation of the New York Times our path took a sharp, and unexpected twist.

I thought we would ONLY expose the unethical behavior and lack of integrity of the “Gold Standard” of journalism, but in addition to that, THE media powerhouse was laid before our feet.

This company releases content seen by 30 million people a day.

You probably have already watched one of their releases today, maybe minutes ago. And in just a few seconds, you’re going to watch another one.

Ironically, Project Veritas releases our content on this platform.

I’m talking about YouTube.

Watch our latest investigation here.

Despite all the talk about artificial intelligence and algorithms that rule the most seen content on YouTube, my team obtained admissions that the New York Times was having its video content featured due to special relationships between people within both companies.

There’s nothing artificial about it.

Assuming their admissions are true, YouTube assisted in promoting the biased content of the New York Times.

Who else do they do this for?

We’ll find out . . .

Watch the video here and be sure to promote it on Facebook, Twitter, or forward this email on to friends and family.

And stay tuned for more. Project Veritas is not done yet.

In Truth,

James O’Keefe
Project Veritas

P.S. Last year I promised Project Veritas would target the Establishment Media including the influential tech giants that have emerged. My team is doing just that and will keep going with your support. If you haven’t already, please donate to Project Veritas and help keep our work alive.


They posted on the same topic

Trackback URL :

This post's comments feed