FMMLiberty

I will begin with the question and provide the backstory. The question is: Given my background and the evidence I have, how can I embark on a campaign to spur students at my former college into demanding an end to their curriculum's corrupt diversity and ethnic studies requirements? Now, time for a story. Remember back in 2015 when Ben Shapiro went to go speak at a little college in Southern California named Cal-State LA, and a bunch of leftist bastards attacked the innocent students who wanted to hear him speak, barred the doors, and essentially deprived those innocent students of their 1st amendment rights? Well, those leftist bastards were my friends. I'm Fernando. I attended Cal State LA (California State University - Los Angeles) from Aug. 2012 to Jun. 2014. In my first year there, I got involved with a group called "Students for Quality Education." If you were to walk along the campus "free speech zone" on any one afternoon during the school year, those guys handing out flyers about ostensibly fighting unjust tuition hikes will tell you that their organization (SQE) is all about organizing the student body to mobilize against overreach and graft at the administrative level of the university, and ensure student success by protesting unfair legislative and administrative initiatives that threaten the "quality of education," maybe even citing that teachers' teaching conditions are student learning conditions or some crap like that. I believed this crap too, and I even spoke on behalf of SQE at a rally in 2013 when Old Moonbeam Gerry Brown decided to push his "unit cap" agenda onto the school system (in short, unit caps made it so that after a student took a certain amount of classes, if they didn't graduate, their tuition doubled because the state no longer subsidized it). I gave a hilariously misunderstood speech about political manipulations of the student body to ransom tax money out of regular citizens, warning the citizens that they should not vote for any new taxes and instead sign our little petitions to tell their local representatives that they would be out of a job if they continued to support this budget, and it went RIGHT over every little leftist's head in the audience. One dipshit can even be heard squaking at the end, "We have to raise the property taaaaax!!!" Youtube: Now, SQE is actually sponsored and paid for by the teachers' union, The California Faculty Association. They give the resources and the orders to SQE to mobilize the students towards a particular cause, and SQE follows their orders, but makes it seem like it's an independent group of students acting of their own accord. The California Faculty Association's chapter in Cal State LA is run by a set of professors (at least three of which are outspoken Cultural Marxists) who chair various departments in the university. https://www.calfac.org/los-angeles-executive-board Now, let's direct our attention to one name on that list, Dr. Melina Abdullah. Dr. Abdullah was the chair of the Pan African Studies department at CSULA. Dr. Abdullah is also an outspoken member (middle management) of Black Lives Matter. Now, here's the budget for the Pan African Studies department For Year 2013-2014: (http://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Budget Administration/2013_14/ye_vpaa.pdf) line 201750, $393,926 expended, $280,389 available. At around this time, the unit cap proposal was long behind SQE, and orders came "from the top" (from the CSULA teacher's union run by this "lady") to begin a campaign to demand ethnic studies in higher education so as to assuage racial violence in our society (right out of a George Soros playbook). Dr. Abdullah rallied ALL of the on-campus activist organizations, among others, Black student organizations, SURGE (representing undocumented Hispanic students), the Muslim Student's Association, and of course, SQE as her administrators and enforcers. I sat at the meeting and listened to Dr. Abdullah rant about racial violence, apathy, and then I heard her say something extremely significant. She mentioned that the university administration was thinking of cutting the Pan African studies department because it had more teachers than students in the major. For reference, here are the university's demographics: https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/california-state-university-los-angeles/student-life/diversity/ So, in short, Dr. Abdullah (and I have no problem publicly charging her with this) mobilized on-campus student groups as brown-shirts to foment a false narrative of racial injustice among the student body and the university administration so as to guarantee her own job security by facilitate a vote imposing a requirement on CSULA students that, among other diversity requirements, each student is required to take an ethnic studies course specifically within an ethnic studies department in order to be able to graduate from college. This is significant because such legislation would guarantee her job in the face of an administration who would be seeking to eliminate it due to its redundancy. At this point, I distanced myself from the organization because I personally was against the movement. Imposing even more requirements on already overburdened students did not strike me as activities protecting the quality of student education However, they were still my friends (and I was still misguided), so I didn't stand up against them. When Ben Shapiro was invited on campus, it was this very "ethnic studies coalition," my old friends and colleagues, who were ordered by Dr. Abdullah and her ilk to attack innocent students and publicly shame and excoriate anyone who dared attempt to attend Shapiro's lecture. http://abc7.com/news/ben-shapiro-escorted-from-csula-due-to-angry-protesters/1219358/ I publicly disavowed my former colleagues' actions on facebook (I had already graduated a year prior) and told them that their actions were not helping race relations, but rather destroying 1st amendment protections for students whose interests they ostensibly claimed to protect. Not only that, I publicly called them out for outright attacking innocent students whom they, again, ostensibly claimed to be advocating for! What was the reaction? I was called a privileged scumbag with my blue eyes and light skin, and I had no right to relay to these exalted people of color any perspective on their experience (this is basically verbatim). At that point, I cut ties. And about the ethnic studies requirements that got passed in June of 2014? What was the effect? Here is the CSULA budget for the next two fiscal years: 2014-2015: http://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Budget Administration/2014_15/ye_vpaa.pdf Line 201750, $619,419 expended, $425,912 available 2015-2016: http://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Budget Administration/2015_16/ye1516_aa.pdf Line 201750, $819,767 expended, $95,374 available (I guess there was a cut!) As one can see, my friends who sold their souls, and those innocents who bled in their indignity, the reason they suffered was primarily for Dr. Abdullah's job security. And given that her budget is almost running dry, it might just be time for another rush of "racial awareness campaigns." Not on my watch. I felt horrible being impotent in my unemployed depression while witnessing this going on. Now, with resources at my disposal, I feel like I can do something about it. It's too late to expose Dr. Abdullah; she's too powerful and the university too far invested in her scheme for any exposure to have an effect other than empty virtue signalling. But I don't think it's ever too late to take down the diversity requirements and to expose the truth behind them. Our country is no more racially united than it was before these stupid requirements. We don't see these leftist bastards cheering about how their campaigns are bringing about racial unity. In fact, they claim the opposite, that race relations are worsening, and thus their presence and activities are ergo ever more necessary. I want to stand up and do something to put my old colleagues in their place, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Maybe some of you have some ideas as to how to do this? I've e-mailed this to Ben Shapiro and received no response (probably because his show and his inbox are WAY bigger than this one incident ), but any ideas are appreciated. Reference: CSULA Budgets (https://www.calstatela.edu/budget/year-end-reports) - check under "academic affairs"

I think you make some great points. I must apologize for completely missing an entire post of yours! Let's consider; if being an extremely fast and capable learner, an independent thinker, and a supreme performer who speaks multiple languages is considered to be undesirable, what are these companies selecting for? That's why I dumbed down my resume :). I don't know if I got results due to having dumbed myself down on paper, but after I did that, instead of rejection, I started getting inquiries from interested companies, so much so that I had to shut down my indeed. I don't know, that doesn't bode well. Then again, that's anecdotal, so it doesn't necessarily mean that companies are definitely seeking slow, incapable, controllable, unthinking drones to populate their ranks. I don't have enough evidence to corroborate such an assertion, however... A more important question here is why is someone's excellence considered a "flight risk" in the first place? Why must a company look for candidates who can be coerced instead of candidates who can cooperate with the firm? And if this is the case, it leads into your next point. Why am I allowing my talents to go to waste? Why am I not pursuing an entrepreneurial career from the beginning? I will answer my own questions, but I think the overarching theme here is, alluding to Mr. Molyneux himself, that government is perverting the incentives in each of these realms at their inception. First off, the reason someone leaving the company hurts the company so much is because every company is required to invest thousands of dollars into each individual employee in terms of unemployment insurance, medical coverage, retirement benefits and defined benefit plans, worker's compensation, employment taxes, etc., and these expenses are required, in come cases, up front. Therefore, it's no longer profitable for a company to find someone who is the best at what they do. It's an optimization matrix where they need to be just good enough to actually do the job, but not so good that they can leverage their absence and end up costing the company dearly. Therefore, a high performing individual with an entrepreneurial mindset is a priori undesirable because of the enormous risk involved with hiring an individual who cannot be coerced, but must be asked to cooperate, and can choose not to do so. This leads to the second point, if I'm so smart and I'm so bright and I'm so talented, why am I not choosing not to play the game? Why am I not being entrepreneurial? (well, I am, on a small scale, doing independent tax and bookkeeping work on the side, parallel to my impending employment, but that's beside the point.) "Unfortunately, California (and actually every state in the US) requires that every CPA candidate clock 1,000 hours under the direct supervision of another CPA, so it's one of those things where no one is allowed into the industry other than "Amici Nostri" among the CPAs already in the profession." I am quite literally barred by the government from doing the kind of work that I can do at my highest capacity (fraud analysis, forensic accounting, tracing money, finding stolen assets, gauging purchasing and income patterns to determine certain kinds of activity, etc.) at the threat of a gun. if I do the work without a license, I get fined and possibly barred from getting the license. if I continue to do the work unlicensed, I get imprisoned, and then I resist arrest and get some holes in my chest, etc. To get that license, I have to pass test designed to be impassable (which I've done), I have to be indoctrinated (university education, done), I have to pass an ethics exam (uuughhh, gag me; but it will be done soon), and I need 1,000 hours of supervised work under another CPA in good standing. In other words, I need to be approved by the establishment before I can be allowed to do what I'm best at. So, given that almost impenetrable barrier, why not just do something else I can do on my own terms? I guess that's a more existential question that I'm not prepared to answer at the moment save for an inner drive that just won't be satisfied getting by to get by. The near identical but possible and attainable outcome simply doesn't exist on this side of that barrier. All I can do now (without the threat of violent government retribution) is basically bookkeeping and filing taxes, which isn't unrewarding or bad in any regard, but it's so far from that of which I'm truly capable. I suppose the extreme alternative is to use these skills in favor of an outlaw enterprise where my licensing doesn't matter, but, then I just trade one violent oppressor for another, and the same rules apply, except that I can't file paperwork to appeal my execution order with the latter. Plus, when I posted an ad on backpage.com advertising bookkeeping and compliance work for escorts and sex workers, I got 0 responses. I don't quite know how to penetrate (HA!) that market anyway... :).

I definitely agree. I've tutored a lot of the "recent grads" you're referring to, and some of them can't even put together a complete sentence. Two counterpoints to your statement though: #1) How is someone supposed to get their first job, following this line of thinking? I.e. how do they demonstrate they can do the job (or learn to do the job) if they haven't had a chance to already do that specific job? "You can't work in fields in which you've never worked beforehand." It's...circular reasoning. What is the alternative? Nepotism? #2) If work experience counted for so much, then why is there a glut of experienced older workers in the job market? (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/for-older-workers-getting-a-new-job-is-a-crapshoot.html) (https://www.aarp.org/work/job-hunting/info-06-2013/job-security-issue-for-older-workers.html) Obviously, other factors apply. My point with my original post is, at what point do these extant requirements (someone who will stick around, someone who will get along with the other employees, someone who will look nice bending over in front of my desk, etc.) begin to, in concert, prevent otherwise well qualified people who can perform the necessary job functions from gaining employment to the point that a nation's economy as a whole is strangled into oblivion? Have we reached that point? One more thing to add to your comment. Yes, young people tend to overrate their exam scores. If we are talking about what we can assume to be a normal (Gaussian) distribution, roughly 68% of those young people will overrate their exam scores because their exam scores actually suck. About 5% may possibly overrate their scores due to their relative perceived academic superiority, at least in terms of academic performance. What about individuals who score in the 99.5th percentile? 4 out of 940, 20 out of 4,000. How many of those individuals overestimate their capabilities (Dunning-Kruger and all)? How many of those individuals do employers even get to interview, ever? The individuals who scored in those categories were not divorced from reality. They saw things precisely how they truly were, and that is why they performed as they did. It's why I performed as I did. Could it be possible that at a certain level of performance, the candidate's capacity to learn new material can actually be more important than another candidate's already accumulated experience? For example, I speak 4 languages. Can anyone learn two or three more languages faster than I can learn any particular single job? Another example: I built a business in an unrelated field, from scratch, and was successful enough to pay for college with the income generated. Another candidate did 6 months in an internship in a field directly related to the job, and is saddled with insurmountable debt. Both candidates are otherwise equally experienced. What would lead the employer to hire the internship candidate over the entrepreneur? And what hard data validates the assumptions they would make in order for logic to justify that decision? Furthermore, any random hiring manager is likely to score 1 to 2 SDs from the mean in most endeavors. If the hiring manager meets a candidate who scores close to 3 SDs away from the mean in that same field, does the manager even have the capability to accurately judge the candidate's abilities? How does the candidate explain to the hiring manager that, while the language they're using is similar (have an impact, redefine what's possible in the industry, push boundaries, seek challenge) to the 1 SD from the mean narcissistic recent grad millennial, their track record indicates that their self assessment is not so inflated, and explain it in a way that doesn't go over the manager's head? And what if the hiring managers themselves are these narcissistic, dunning-kruger afflicted, navel gazing, millennial dipshits who overvalue their capacity to judge another person's performance? How does a high performer cope with that? I'm honestly a fan of competency testing. Unfortunately, such testing has been considered "racist" since the civil rights movement, but I think Stefan goes into that in one of his videos much better than I can.

I appreciate your feedback! Well, "hiring myself" is how I've been paying my bills so far! Unfortunately, California (and actually every state in the US) requires that every CPA candidate clock 1,000 hours under the direct supervision of another CPA, so it's one of those things where no one is allowed into the industry other than "Amici Nostri" among the CPAs already in the profession (which would have been nice to know before sinking 4 years and $30,000 into college to learn accounting!). Try as I might to run my own bookkeeping and tax firm, I'll never get that magical designation until I am "accepted" into a sort of apprenticeship, which is mainly why I'm elated about having been hired. Otherwise, I would never have even bothered. This actually caused me a lot of problems, it seems, because while it was never addressed directly in an interview, outside of interviews, I was CONSTANTLY questioned about the validity of my experience under self employment and about how such experience either means it was inadequately supervised, fraudulent, or if accurate and effective, a threat to the firm looking to hire since I would either be a flight risk or possible competition. These HR chicks (and I rarely dealt with men in HR departments or recruiting firms) would literally question me about whether I was actually making any money working for myself, or whether I really put myself through school through my own business. It's almost as if the principles of hypergamy still held true in the world of HR. Some of these women were absolutely ruthless. I can deal with a "shit test" if I'm picking up some girl on the street, but...in an employment setting? I don't know how to handle that without getting written up or sued. Anyway... I don't know if you listened to the podcast, but not to write a novel in this comment section, my upbringing was... turbulent. And it ravaged my self esteem. I have severe self erasure issues, and it certainly didn't help when, in my late teens and early twenties, I started reading a lot of material about psychology and trauma, and everything I ever believed about myself turned out to be a lie. It's been difficult recovering self esteem and self appreciation, and for a while I thought I was doing well given how I excelled in an academic setting. The next 3 years of unemployment and uncertainty wreaked havoc once more upon my self esteem, but I think I have a handle on it to an extent. Still, it's something I need to work on for sure. I'll definitely check out your resources! Thanks again!

Hi! As one can surmise, I'm a long time lurker and listener, first time poster :). I'll try to be as concise as I can. For TL;DR, just read what's in bold. UPDATE: I'm the caller for question #3 on that podcast, and I remember that Stefan asked me to update him on my progress. Of course, it's like over a year later, but I keep my word!!! The question I asked during the podcast was, paraphrased, "despite graduating at the top of my class, successfully running my own business (and paying for college from its proceeds), speaking 4 languages, and having all of these other qualifications, why won't anyone hire me?" During the podcast we went into my ACE score a bit and touched on some of the tragedies that happened with my family, and Stefan suggested that I go to therapy because of a variety of socially awkward tics and speech patterns that likely developed from my traumatic past. He also generously offered to pay for the first few weeks. While I appreciated the offer, I didn't want to squander it on ineffective treatment, so I thought I would go for the first few weeks and try different doctors out, and once I get one I like, contact Stefan and ask for his help. I tried contacting a few places, and eventually started going to a local therapist, but after 5 weeks, they told me I didn't need therapy. I asked why, and they said I didn't have any specific billable event (inability to work, psychotic episodes, etc.) for which they could report to the department of health to get their subsidies, or I would have to pay exorbitant rates for therapy under a "private practice" classification. The first thing I thought of was, "Well, if I cut up my arms horizontally, I can claim a billable event without actually doing much damage to myself," but then I realized that someone with such little self regard that they would consider mutilating themselves in order to access therapy that they were being denied was someone who probably needed a lot of therapy. Anyway, I decided to take a more cognitive approach since I had no interest in wasting 5 weeks at a time on an indefinite number of therapists in search of "the right one" before I contacted Stefan. I decided instead to address my tangible issues directly. I may be socially awkward and a bit strange, but I had bigger problems. Primarily, I had the CPA (certified public accountant) exam to worry about (this is a test that you have to take in the US in order to operate independently as an accountant). It is a pretty nasty exam, about as difficult as the BAR exam is for lawyers. So instead of chasing ghosts in my mind, I dedicated myself wholeheartedly to beating this stupid exam and trying the job market again after it. Surely, once I got that license, people would have to hire me, despite my awkwardness! I'll skip over all the other developments that took place during this time, but I eventually passed that monstrous beast of an exam. I finished my last part and got my scores this last September, and looked for a job. Here is my breakdown (and this will lead to my question): From late September to about mid October, I contacted multiple professional recruiters to place me in local firms. The recruiters would talk to me for like, one day, and then just disappear. My experience with recruiters could be its own podcast given how unprofessional, impetuous, deceptive, and just outright disgusting these people are. I absolutely despise recruiters after this experience. Eventually, when pressed, they would all say the same things: I was told, "some firms and hiring managers will see you as competition," "you're too old and managers won't think that you're capable of obeying orders from someone younger" (I was 29), "managers don't need the best workers, they just need people who are good enough," "you have a unique skill set, but we just don't have a place to put you." Ad nauseum. In Mid October, I decided to change my strategy and started applying to places on my own, aiming for smaller firms on Craigslist. While I got a few offers and interviews, they did not quite work out or offer what I needed. Around late October, I was getting desperate, and decided to dumb down my resume. I removed any references to self employment or independent thought. I eliminated any evidence of critical thinking capacity on my resume beyond saying "problem solver." I deliberately tried to make it look like I was as generic and unthinking a drone as I could possibly make it seem, and continued to target smaller local firms. I was still getting rejected from most firms, so clearly that wasn't working either. I then hired a virtual assistant to call my references as if they were a hiring manager and inform me about what they were saying about me. Before that assistant completed her task, however, I received a call for an interview with a local firm who wanted candidates who had passed the CPA exam. Ironically, I was hired specifically because of my thinking capabilities and independent work ethic. They were specifically looking for someone with an entrepreneurial mindset. So, I start in two weeks! It doesn't mean my psychological issues went away, but thanks to Stefan's guidance during the call, I've been able to address some of it on my own and resolve a bit of that trauma, thankfully, it seems, enough to get past the issues that were costing me jobs and keeping me from gaining employment in the past. I guess I really just want to say "Thank you" to everyone here at FDR for their compassion and generosity. My question though, is the following: I understand that generally, managers don't just hire for skill, but also for someone who fits in with a culture, who will be easy to work with. Being awkward and socially outcast is a liability in that respect, despite one's skill set. However, each successive generation seems socially awkward to its predecessors and its successors (i.e., younger generations are enraptured by stupid fads, older generations are stuck in outdated and outmoded habits). At what point do those expectations diverge to the point that the hiring process becomes almost impossible to surpass and an entire generation is rendered unemployable? I'm haunted by the notion that I'm not the only one who has faced this wall in the job market. Is my case unique? Is anyone else dealing with this? How? Some relevant statistics from the department of labor: Unemployment data: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 4.1% unemployment as of October "People Not In The Workforce": https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000 95,385,000 people not working as of October (wait, what?) Irrelevant Tangent: Our population is around 330,000,000, so you show me how they get 4.4% unemployment! (I know, they only count recipients of unemployment insurance and don't count everyone else, yes, but that doesn't really encompass all of the "unemployed," DOES IT? )