LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

As the decrepit mainstream media vilifies James Damore — the ex-Googler excommunicated from the tech cult — and his "screed", more reasonable journalists are discussing the compelling arguments presented in Damore's treatise.

For those who still need a summary, Damore systematically presented the science behind the general biological differences in abilities and affinities of the two sexes in explaining some of the reasons why more men pursue STEM fields and thus end up in tech companies.  Top evolutionary biologists and other scientists studying the differences between the sexes have said that Damore has largely gotten the current paradigm correct on the science of biological differences and have defended his essay.  Freelance journalist Dr. Debora Soh, holding a PhD in sexual neuroscience, wrote an exceptional column on the science behind Damore's work for the Globe and Mail (shocking they published it).

One fascinating angle missed in this explosive story is how Damore's argument mirrors the new right's ideological belief system.  Damore argues in his memo what the "alt-right" (whatever the hell that lazy and pejorative label means nowadays) Canadian commentators like Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, Ezra Levant, Faith Goldy, Stephen Crowder, Gad Saad, Dr. Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux have been elucidating on over the past few years.  Damore's decision to do his first two interviews with the latter two Canadian Youtube thought leaders and him being "a huge fan" of Peterson suggest Damore may have been ideologically influenced by this new wave of conservative thought.  His memo certainly argues — practically verbatim — what Peterson says in his lectures about the general differences of the two sexes.

There is something hilariously ironic about Damore doing a popular interview with Peterson on Google's Youtube about his firing from Google shortly after the former had been fired by the company and the latter had been temporarily banned last week from his Youtube and Gmail accounts — without explanation — at the time Google implemented its new free speech policy, which seems to serve the purpose of censoring and demonetizing thought leaders on the right like Peterson, all so said thought leaders can't radicalize more dissidents within Google's and societies' ranks via the company's video-sharing platform.

Despite Google's latest efforts to stifle the new right's wild popularity on Youtube, Pandora's box has already been opened.  There are now other revenue streams like crowdfunding, advertising and selling of products that will help continue to fuel these new thought leaders, no matter how much Google tries to shut them up.

As the zeitgeist goes through a revolutionary shift (i.e. red pilling) perhaps (tired and hackneyed) third-wave feminist Justin Trudeau's horrendous government policy will be relooked at and exposed for its pathetically obvious pandering to women, which ignores the facts of the matter.

Back in May I wrote a piece titled "Tinker, Tailor, Sorry, Guys" in which I outlined some of the policies Trudeau's government has created to favour women.  For example, earlier this year, Trudeau decreed that universities give a higher percentage of federally-funded research chairs to women, yet the percentage of women pursuing the STEM fields at the doctorate level being much lower than that of men, echoing Trudeau's gender-equal cabinet.  As I explained in said column, many of the reasons — albeit sexism could still be a factor — I laid out, which I borrowed from second-wave feminist Warren Farrel's Why Men Earn More (2005), are the same arguments Damore listed in his memo.

An excerpt from the column:

"Although too numerous to list here, among the reasons: jobs ranked the worst (although usually paying above the average income) are male-dominated because women tend to avoid these undesirable or dangerous jobs; men are more likely to take financial risks that can yield high payoffs, while women generally prefer a more secure career; and men work longer paid hours on average than women, which can significantly increase income.  Farrel found as little as a 13 per cent increase in hourly work per week translated to a whopping average of 45 per cent more annual income."

Damore also cites how biological research has found men are generally more interested in systematizing activities while women are generally more interested in people-oriented jobs.  Damore, too, pointed out how men are more driven by status, ergo willing to make sacrifices to attain it, because of the importance it holds for them in their ability to reproduce.  These are what some in the right call hate facts; they are scientifically backed truths, but they run counter to the safe-space PC narrative.

Damore is a mild-mannered, logical and straightforward techie, with a stellar education from Princeton and Harvard, who has obliterated the left-wing "echo chamber" by expounding the overwhelming evidence in a dispassionate essay.  As much as the left-wing mainstream media tries to dismiss Damore as a sexist or a misogynist and his treatise as "a memo" or "a screed" (try Googling "Google memo", the first five pages of search results are literally all screeds denouncing Damore) the cool-headed Damore and his evidenced-based piece will hopefully withstand the onslaught.  Hopefully, if the left fails in its desperate attempts to rebuild its echo chamber, the media will start to confront how SJW policy has created reverse discrimination and a bigotry of low expectations.

Perhaps, one day soon, Trudeau will even have to go past his virtue-signalling policies and journalists will push him to elaborate on what "Because it's 2015" really means.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


When the New Democratic Party (or its predecessor, the CCF) established itself as a governing force in a province, partisans to their right usually reacted by uniting in order to keep the socialist hordes at bay.

In British Columbia, the BC Liberals are the "free enterprise coalition", a coalition of liberals and conservatives designed to keep the NDP out of power.  First established in the 40s to stop the ascension of the CCF, the coalition split before the 1952 election to the benefit of the Social Credit.  The Socreds were then the new right-wing coalition until its demise in 1991 at the hands of Mike Harcourt's NDP.  This resulted in the resurgence of the BC Liberals, uniting the right under Gordon Campbell to wrestle power away from the NDP and keep it for 16 years.

More recently in Alberta, worried by Rachel Notley's NDP success and her campaigning skills, the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservative Party successfully negotiated a merger to attempt to defeat the NDP in the next election.  This despite the fact that every single poll since the 2015 election, with one exception, had the NDP trailing the Wildrose or the Progressive Conservatives.  Or both.  But why take a chance?

In Saskatchewan, a party was established in 1997 by a coalition of former provincial Progressive Conservative and Liberal party members and supporters who sought to remove the NDP from power.  At the time, the NDP had won two majorities in a row.  The CCF/NDP, in fact, had governed the province for 37 of the preceding 53 years, interrupted by Ross Thatcher's Liberals in the 50s and by Grant Devine's Progressive Conservatives in the 80s.

The PC brand was badly damaged by scandals and mismanagement.  The Liberals, despite forming the Official Opposition under Lynda Haverstock in 1995, were not seen as a sustainable option to defeat the NDP, even by their own MLAs.  Four Liberal Members of the Legislative Assembly joined forces with four MLAs from the Progressive Conservative Party.  Lo and behold, the Saskatchewan Party was born.

Premier Roy Romanow derisively called them the SaskaTories, in the hopes to stick Devine's legacy to them.  Romanow also predicted that the Sask Liberals would endure.  They survived long enough to split the vote for two more elections, allowing the NDP to stay in power.  Still, after two elections, the Saskatchewan Party was solidly established as the main other contender for power against the NDP.

When the Saskatchewan Party turned to Brad Wall, acclaimed as the new party leader in March 2004, it was the beginning of the end of an era for the NDP.  In the 2007 election, Brad Wall was able to fully unite the anti-NDP vote and led his party to three consecutive election victories, something that no other party other than the CCF/NDP had achieved since the Liberal party won their sixth consecutive term in 1925.

This leads some commentators to exclaim that Brad Wall's legacy was to break the back of the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan.  Not so fast.  While it is true that the Saskatchewan Party under Brad Wall took more than 50 per cent of the popular vote in each of the contests, the NDP never fell under 30%.  And one of the main reasons Brad Wall is leaving provincial politics is precisely because the NDP's backbone is solid and that his own popularity is tanking because people know there is an alternative.

A Mainstreet Research poll in May was pegging the leaderless NDP with 49% of the popular support, largely ahead in Regina, ahead in Saskatoon and tied in Saskatchewan's rural areas.  In June, Angus Reid had a different read of the rural areas, with the NDP trailing by 27 points, but still comfortably ahead in both Saskatoon and Regina.

With these numbers, the writing was on the wall for the sitting premier. "Saskatchewan needs renewal, a fresh perspective in leadership," Wall said during the news conference announcing his departure on Thursday.  He also said the province would benefit from a new voice and energy.

The problem is, there are no obvious candidates lining up to replace him.  Names are being thrown around Kevin Doherty, Gordon Wyant, Tina Beaudry-Mellor, Dustin Duncan, Jim Reiter, etc.. but nobody with Wall's stature.  For the Saskatchewan Party, it means there will be no acclamation of a new Leader, which is probably a good thing.  It also means soul-searching and divisive debates, with no clear path forward and a big orange bus in its rear-view mirror.

Thankfully for the Sask Party, the orange bus doesn't have a full-time driver yet as the NDP won't have a Leader in place for another 9 months.  The Opposition won't be able to benefit from the vacuum to promote its new leader.  So far, only Ryan Meili, the popular MLA for Saskatoon Meesawin, has thrown his hat in the ring.  It is a 3rd attempt to win the NDP crown for the physician, who finished second in both the 2009 and 2013 NDP leadership races.  But now that the Premiership is literally in play, it wouldn't be surprising to see others give it a try.

Trent Wotherspoon resigned in June as interim leader in order to reflect and consider seeking the permanent leadership of the party.  His thinking will probably be easier now.  Other MLAs, like Carla Beck, Danielle Chartier and Warren McCall could also decide to jump in.

Two leaderless parties in a very competitive province.  All bets are off.

Photo Credit: National Observer

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.