Why is big tech overwhelmingly left leaning?

[Some Curious Person]

Does the right not know how2code?

 

[Lurk McDurk]

I would unironically vote for a hardcore tankie Marxist over a Democrat. Marxists are correct that class is the biggest factor in a person's political leanings and behavior, that LGBTQI+P stuff is a distraction being waved about by oligarchs, and that lumpenproles (Democrats) work to keep oligarchs (also Democrats) in power.

There's a reason you can't vote for them . Ultimately they are victorious in an armed insurrection, or dead. They don't do elections.

The only part I disagree with is the money making part. I've never seen any evidence that online ads work. The only ways to make money I can see on the internet are shops, pay to post communities, services, games as a (somehow) paid service, and subscription based interactions.

Most VC stuff glows so bright you can see it from Mars, is a scam, or it's obviously someone paying to shut out competitors so they can control political discourse and rent seek in government sectors (in which case you're paying journalists and associated scum to restrain people while you rob them).

Ads are in my opinion a scam, and a money laundering operation. They make people money only in very limited circumstances where things would spread by word of mouth anyways.

Facebook will happily sell you some evidence that online ads work! That's their only contribution to the evolution of the internet, after all, they had the presence of mind to know that marketing stooges only care about the commission check, and are just as happy to receive a fake report that makes the check clear as they would be actually selling something.

 

[MysticLord]

There's a reason you can't vote for them . Ultimately they are victorious in an armed insurrection, or dead. They don't do elections.

I think they should reevaluate their goals and methods, and find another way to accomplish them. Most people would be very happy with something that is 80% Tankie Marxist, if it called itself something other than Marxism.

One fights with the army you have, not the one you want.

Facebook will happily sell you some evidence that online ads work! That's their only contribution to the evolution of the internet, after all, they had the presence of mind to know that marketing stooges only care about the commission check, and are just as happy to receive a fake report that makes the check clear as they would be actually selling something.

I remember a controversy about this a few years ago.

 

[Lurk McDurk]

I think they should reevaluate their goals and methods, and find another way to accomplish them. Most people would be very happy with something that is 80% Tankie Marxist, if it called itself something other than Marxism.

I think that's the whole world we're living in right now. The 19th century right is consuming itself as resources run thin, and the 19th century left is all either dead or Cuba, while no one has thought of a new idea yet.

 

[MysticLord]

I think that's the whole world we're living in right now. The 19th century right is consuming itself as resources run thin, and the 19th century left is all either dead or Cuba, while no one has thought of a new idea yet.

We have, actually. Populism and localism are more popular than nationalism, and more palatable to lefties as it lets them have their buttsex worship in their little enclaves. Basically let's all become the Swedish Confederation instead of Balkanization and civil war.

The only issue is that our elites - oligarchs, bureaucrats - and the lumpenproles they partner with (who are parasites on the working classes) don't want change. They want to freeze everything as it is right now, forever. The problem is that they are cutting up the goose which laid the golden eggs, and they're just finding goose guts instead of gold.

You should read this article (and the comments) by Malcolm Kyeyune, a Populist from Sweden who was a Marxist. He's a co-founder of Orebro, a Swedish localist-populist party:

The Decisive Battle

“A lot of people are feeling relieved, or saying they’re ‘grateful to Admiral Yamamoto’ because there hasn’t been a single air raid. They’re very wrong: the fact that the enemy hasn’t come is no th…

tinkzorg.wordpress.com

He's appeared on the Good Ole Boys podcast several times, here's one that's public:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/crawfish-58141096

Here's a clip from another episode he appeared on:

The leader of the Orebro party was also interviewed by the GOB on their podcast, which is here:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/markus-allard-59625421

 

[Lurk McDurk]

We have, actually. Populism and localism are more popular than nationalism, and more palatable to lefties as it lets them have their buttsex worship in their little enclaves. Basically let's all become the Swedish Confederation instead of Balkanization and civil war.

It's not that simple.

Popular doesn't matter, because people who win elections will be compromised with just a little bit of money (look at AOC, for example). What's palatable to people who call themselves leftists doesn't matter either, because people who call themselves leftists are about a dozen strong in any particular place you might go to. What matters is a consistent narrative, a solid foundation, a coherent theory, whatever you want to call it. Something people can't readily spot the bullshit in which resonates with the masses.

Brexit and Trump weren't it, because they are just reactionary backlashes. Reacting to a thing is not a plan to replace a thing. Reactionary "movements" always putter out for this reason, they have no definition of victory. If they accidentally defeat the thing they're reacting against, they find themselves with no plan for what to do tomorrow.

Marx identified the conflict correctly, although he got the predicted outcome wrong. I think everyone forgets (or never really knew) that Marx was a journalist, not a political figure. In keeping with that station, Marx was making predictions more than he was selling a theory for political action. His predictions came true in some places but not others and eventually withered on the vine, but there wasn't a lot of meat there in terms of what to do when you've killed off all of the factory bosses. That's why the Soviet revolution eventually fell to Stalin when Lenin died. There wasn't a clear way forward and absent a plan, Trotsky wouldn't take power. The result was an empire built on a shit foundation with Stalin at the helm.

America has also built an empire on top of a shit foundation, it just hasn't figured it out yet because it can finance the end game down the road with all of the money it amasses. America's initial founding philosophy of free land for motivated evangelicals, who could be excused for killing off the Natives and Spanish colonists because people are fallen from grace and would be forgiven later... that all missed the boat entirely. If god has to give you permission to kill the natives and Spanish colonists, he surely wouldn't do so just because you're greedy for a few more acres over the next hill. This is a philosophy for people who "don't read so good," which is doomed to fail as soon as the free stuff runs out (you are here, LOL).

But because Marx's predictions aren't terribly different from John Milton's ideas, and both of them are trapped in Hegel's mousetrap of progression toward some mythical "end of history" that probably doesn't exist, there's no room for a competing narrative. Their narratives cover the whole spectrum. One says capital concentrates wealth and power, the other agrees with the one, but says "at some point people won't make the Air Jordans anymore, they'll just kill the landlord and the factory boss."

The two together don't leave any wiggle room. If you want to kill the factory boss you're an extension of Marx. If you think the Bangladeshi kids can be forced to make the Air Jordans forever as long as you have enough tables to chain them to, you're the liberal bourgeoisie. To escape the cycle you've got to come up with some idea that isn't one of the others, which is hard to do considering you were born into the others regardless of which "side" you're on.

 

[MysticLord]

It's not that simple.

Popular doesn't matter, because people who win elections will be compromised with just a little bit of money (look at AOC, for example). What's palatable to people who call themselves leftists doesn't matter either, because people who call themselves leftists are about a dozen strong in any particular place you might go to. What matters is a consistent narrative, a solid foundation, a coherent theory, whatever you want to call it. Something people can't readily spot the bullshit in which resonates with the masses.

AOC is popular because libtards are dumb enough to believe her shtick about being a bartender. She went to some sort of prep school as a kid, and her parents live in a mansion. Her boyfriend supposedly works for a startup and freelances as a marketing consultant on the side, but it's safe to say he's probably some oligarch or bureaucrat's spawn.

Libtards (and their right wing equivalent, wignats) are low quality people who will believe anything the authorities tell them. They have an external locus of control, anyone can get in their heads and fiddle around with shit if they have the correct credentials.

Brexit and Trump weren't it, because they are just reactionary backlashes. Reacting to a thing is not a plan to replace a thing. Reactionary "movements" always putter out for this reason, they have no definition of victory. If they accidentally defeat the thing they're reacting against, they find themselves with no plan for what to do tomorrow.

Brexit and Trump were reactions by the working classes against their exploitation by oligarchs and both the email class bureaucrats and the lumpenprole criminals who depend on the oligarchs for status and resources.

Marx identified the conflict correctly, although he got the predicted outcome wrong. I think everyone forgets (or never really knew) that Marx was a journalist, not a political figure. In keeping with that station, Marx was making predictions more than he was selling a theory for political action. His predictions came true in some places but not others and eventually withered on the vine, but there wasn't a lot of meat there in terms of what to do when you've killed off all of the factory bosses. That's why the Soviet revolution eventually fell to Stalin when Lenin died. There wasn't a clear way forward and absent a plan, Trotsky wouldn't take power. The result was an empire built on a shit foundation with Stalin at the helm.

The only useful thing I've seen come out of Marxism is that people behave primarily in the interests of their class.

When you look at actual implementations of Marxism that isn't explicitly localist and populist, it always becomes managerialism.

The Soviets broke up the existing peasant farming collectives. They blood libeled them as kulaks, and set human trash on them to rape, torture, rob, and murder them - just like libtards are trying to do now with BLM and antifa terrorist militias.

They then set themselves up to "manage" the economy, and wouldn't you know it once they were in power they no longer saw the need to be subversive. The difference between the USSR then and the USA today is that the USA is now a Trotskyite Managerial State. Instead of commissars, we have diversity consultants and HR departments, which are mandatory for all corporations. And just like the USSR, the actual people's wealth is being taken from them and given to massive corporations which can hire more diversity consultants aka comissars.

Everything is a scam where bureaucrats do nothing unless the solution is to take your wealth, hire more bureaucrats, or pay bureaucrats more money.

Theory is entirely unnecessary to understand what's going on. You just need to look at what's happening and apply Ockham's Razor.

America has also built an empire on top of a shit foundation, it just hasn't figured it out yet because it can finance the end game down the road with all of the money it amasses. America's initial founding philosophy of free land for motivated evangelicals, who could be excused for killing off the Natives and Spanish colonists because people are fallen from grace and would be forgiven later... that all missed the boat entirely. If god has to give you permission to kill the natives and Spanish colonists, he surely wouldn't do so just because you're greedy for a few more acres over the next hill. This is a philosophy for people who "don't read so good," which is doomed to fail as soon as the free stuff runs out (you are here, LOL).

When colonists first arrived here, they had a hard time keeping them in the colonies. They would run off to the live with the Indians, because the Indians lived freer lives, had a less rigid class structure, and know how to actually farm and hunt here unlike the colony commanders who were laser focused on cash crops and gold. We had entire colonies disappear (Roanoke) and go native.

Puritans were a very small part of the ethnic heritage of colonial America. Most of the colonists and pioneers prior to the Civil War were Scot-English Borderers, Cavaliers, Irish, and Dutch traders. Puritans were about as common as the French. Puritan culture is nothing like the cultures of Borderers, Cavaliers, the Irish, or the Dutch.

You're also denying agency to the Indians. King Phillips War against the Puritans started when he killed an Indian man who lived with them and was allied with them. During the war, two tribes fought alongside the Puritans. Some tribes were converts to the Puritan religion, and others were converted to Catholicism by French traders and wandering priests.

The natives still exist, they're just diluted into us via intermarriage.

In Central and South America, Catholic priests fought alongside their pure Indio congregations against Protestant mestizo slavers.

Absolutely nothing anywhere is black and white, and if you believe the low effort memes that reddit-tier libtards believe about America's "sins" then you are NGMI.

But because Marx's predictions aren't terribly different from John Milton's ideas, and both of them are trapped in Hegel's mousetrap of progression toward some mythical "end of history" that probably doesn't exist, there's no room for a competing narrative. Their narratives cover the whole spectrum. One says capital concentrates wealth and power, the other agrees with the one, but says "at some point people won't make the Air Jordans anymore, they'll just kill the landlord and the factory boss."

A better explanation is that Revolutionary Marxism and liberalism are totalizing ideologies. They believe that they have all the answers/solutions, and they can't tolerate anyone anywhere believing or organizing themselves differently.

Moreover, they are also purely materialist ideologies, which nonetheless seek to remake humanity - indeed, the world and all life on it - in their own image. For liberalism, this means turning everything into an economic transaction, the only thing that they believe can be measured.

And yet despite their materialism, whenever the chance to improve material conditions comes up, they whiff the ball. They do this because if material conditions improved, most normal and sane people would no longer see the need for them. Without their ideology, there is no need for managerialists - either commisars, bureaucrats, revolutionary vanguards, or oligarchs. Thus do these 4 classes of people prevent improvement of material conditions to keep those they supposedly serve dependent on them.

I believe in leaving people to their own devices. If they succeed, then their ideology is correct for them. If they fail, welp at least I contained a shit-tier ideology.

The two together don't leave any wiggle room. If you want to kill the factory boss you're an extension of Marx. If you think the Bangladeshi kids can be forced to make the Air Jordans forever as long as you have enough tables to chain them to, you're the liberal bourgeoisie. To escape the cycle you've got to come up with some idea that isn't one of the others, which is hard to do considering you were born into the others regardless of which "side" you're on.

I have more in common with Sunni Muslim Bangladeshi kids chained to a sweatshop table than I do with bureaucrats in Washington DC, oligarchs such as Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, Twitter "commissars" whose parents are DC defense contractors, or a bunch of academics larping as a revolutionary vanguard while they drive busloads of feral lumpenproles to riot in the suburbs.

What I want is isolationism, nationalism, localism, and populism. Leave everyone to their business around the world and at home, do not interfere unless I am interfered with, show no mercy to social parasites, and organize society such that managerialists are not needed.

 

[Lurk McDurk]

We've had what you're talking about before, it was the city-state era. It makes the bourgeoisie merchant class wealthy (because there's no self-sustaining location that doesn't need any imports), and makes middle-tier invading German "kings" look powerful (because merchants don't want to pay for armies, they want to pay for hookers and blow).

 

[TheFinalCountdown]

To make profit out of mentally ill people and to enable them on platforms like Twitter (read: echochamber.)

I don't give a shit if trannies simply exist, but when you give these people, or "people" these days one massive echochamber to sniff their own farts in 24/7 instead of just keeping it in the bedroom, that's the point where I draw the line.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Because the companies are typically in left leaning areas.

 

[MysticLord]

We've had what you're talking about before, it was the city-state era. It makes the bourgeoisie merchant class wealthy (because there's no self-sustaining location that doesn't need any imports), and makes middle-tier invading German "kings" look powerful (because merchants don't want to pay for armies, they want to pay for hookers and blow).

What I'm talking about is the Swedish Confederation, the oldest extant nation state.

Say what you will about local governance, if the local magistrates fuck around it is very easy for them to find out. This is vastly superior to our current system of centralized bureaucratic control 3000 miles away in Washington DC, or centralized in a state capital in the middle of a favela.

A bourgeoise merchant class is desirable compared to our current crop of lumpen-bourgeoise bureaucratic parasites.

The history of the USA is the history of the failure of centralized bureaucratic organizations - central banks, federal government, and state bureaucracies. In order for the American people to prosper, these things must be destroyed and their people deported from the USA forever.

 

[cybertoaster]

I would unironically vote for a hardcore tankie Marxist over a Democrat. Marxists are correct that class is the biggest factor in a person's political leanings and behavior, that LGBTQI+P stuff is a distraction being waved about by oligarchs, and that lumpenproles (Democrats) work to keep oligarchs (also Democrats) in power.

Dont, tankies still believe that cuba is doing everything right and their abject misery its just the work of us gringos meddling in, even tho cuba has no limits to trade with any other country but us. The fact that marxism destroyed what was a net exporter of foodstuff to the point its now a net importer with a huge swath of its population going chronically malnourished its irrelevant to them.

When marxists rise to power you always see the same: the upper class parasites you complain about will flee and take their money with them, far easier to do today than a century ago. Only the lower middle class and down, basically anyone who cant afford an overseas bank account and a flight ticket out of the country will remain, which its still the majority but again not the people the revolution was supposed to stop, those got away.

So now you have to pay for the fuckups of the revolution, keeping you alive its optional

They voluntarily became retarded online and many traded real life for a virtual one

I wish, what actually happened is that the normies brought their IRL retardness to the web. Social media its but a tool to showcase and embellish if not outright fabricate whatever stupid shit they are currently doing

In '91 if I said I was on the 'Internet' it would been met with 'Interwhat?' And then 'haha computer nerd'

In '96 those same kids were like 'ooooh can't wait to get home and get on AOL IM after school'

You were online in 91? how old are you?

I think they should reevaluate their goals and methods, and find another way to accomplish them. Most people would be very happy with something that is 80% Tankie Marxist, if it called itself something other than Marxism.

Please, the average normie its a walking CONSOOMER meme, they would outright hate living in a marxist state where you have to wait months if not years for a new pair of shoes

 

[Troonologist PhD]

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this in English; but there are established links between autism and mathematical ability, intelligence and depression, as well as creativity and breaking with tradition in the form of radical left wing views.

People who work in the tech industry likely have higher mathematical/coding skills than the layman and are also as a result more likely to be autistic or display traits like transgenderism, LGBTQX identities or mental illnesses.

People who have high skill levels are also more likely to be depressed and searching for a fix; be that in the form of religion, drugs or forcing other people to affirm you.

People who display creativity, as many tech founders have, are also far more likely to hold contempt for the the established way of doing things, and the left is always on a march to "progress" and change.

There's a bit more to it, and I think I'm fudging the wording as well but I think they are factors in themselves.

But all the radlefts are the low IQ management.

 

[Lurk McDurk]

The history of the USA is the history of the failure of centralized bureaucratic organizations - central banks, federal government, and state bureaucracies. In order for the American people to prosper, these things must be destroyed and their people deported from the USA forever.

No, the history of the US is decline on the horizon as soon as the last bit of "free" land was given away. The only things that have prolonged the stasis before that decline are post-war profits in the 1920s and 1960s, and reckless amounts of credit beginning in the Reagan admin and continuing until the crashes of the early 2000s. Next stop is social unrest. None of this has anything to do with central committees or governments, because US governments at all levels are instruments of donor greed.

Say what you will about local governance, if the local magistrates fuck around it is very easy for them to find out. This is vastly superior to our current system of centralized bureaucratic control 3000 miles away in Washington DC, or centralized in a state capital in the middle of a favela.

I'm not against a preference for local governance, mind you, I just don't think that it's any more likely in the US than a tankie overthrow by people who are more concerned with misgendering than anything else in the world. The deck is too stacked against it, it's pointless to talk about outside of causing grief for the two major political parties who ignore local races to keep more consultant money for themselves.

A bourgeoise merchant class is desirable compared to our current crop of lumpen-bourgeoise bureaucratic parasites.

Not really, because eventually there's no more for rent-seekers to own and everyone else has no choice but to kill them all and burn their houses. Capitalism is a poor means of distributing resources. It just so happens that central committees are also a poor means of doing so as well.

When Bill Gates and Blackrock own all of the domestic farm land, there is no compromise that lets "muh free market" survive, and lets them keep it all. It has to be taken from them. This is the entirety of human history. Wealth is amassed until the more powerful neighbor notices it, and then kills the wealthy and takes it from them. It's really a testament to the naïveté of the children of boomers that they think the post-ww2 era was normal and sustainable. It wasn't. It was a particular set of circumstances that won't be repeated, because too many nations have nuclear weapons.

 

[MysticLord]

No, the history of the US is decline on the horizon as soon as the last bit of "free" land was given away. The only things that have prolonged the stasis before that decline are post-war profits in the 1920s and 1960s, and reckless amounts of credit beginning in the Reagan admin and continuing until the crashes of the early 2000s. Next stop is social unrest. None of this has anything to do with central committees or governments, because US governments at all levels are instruments of donor greed.

Donors do act as a class, but the people who implement the donors plans are a class in themselves - the bureaucrat/middleman class. They insert themselves into bottlenecks and rent-seek.

Look at the Republican party elites: they will walk into your town, sniff out libtards stirring shit, insert themselves between you and them, then tell both locals whom the libtards afflict that he's on their side and they should give him money. After they have no more money left, he leaves and repeats the grift elsewhere. If they are foolish enough to elevate him to power, he'll immediately pal up with the libtards in private while putting up a token effort in public, while trying to extract as much money from both of them.

The federal government is the boot on our neck keeping us from doing what the American people did to grifters, con-men, liars, and politicians in the 1800s. Without the feds to protect them, they have only mercenaries - and mercenaries will kill if you pay them enough, but you can't pay them to die for you.

All efforts should be spent on subverting the federal government. That is the essential first step to liberation.

I'm not against a preference for local governance, mind you, I just don't think that it's any more likely in the US than a tankie overthrow by people who are more concerned with misgendering than anything else in the world. The deck is too stacked against it, it's pointless to talk about outside of causing grief for the two major political parties who ignore local races to keep more consultant money for themselves.

I'm referring to Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, and hardcore old school Marxists. Not libertarian socialist gender spectrum freak shows.

Not really, because eventually there's no more for rent-seekers to own and everyone else has no choice but to kill them all and burn their houses. Capitalism is a poor means of distributing resources. It just so happens that central committees are also a poor means of doing so as well.

When Bill Gates and Blackrock own all of the domestic farm land, there is no compromise that lets "muh free market" survive, and lets them keep it all. It has to be taken from them. This is the entirety of human history. Wealth is amassed until the more powerful neighbor notices it, and then kills the wealthy and takes it from them. It's really a testament to the naïveté of the children of boomers that they think the post-ww2 era was normal and sustainable. It wasn't. It was a particular set of circumstances that won't be repeated, because too many nations have nuclear weapons.

How is rent-seekers having "their" land stolen by the locals and being lynched a bad thing lol?

On a long enough time frame, geographically isolated groups become ethnic groups. The catalyst for that is a breakdown in order, locals cleansing parasitic classes, and then keeping outsiders away.

Markets are by far the best means of distributing resources, but only at the local human scale. Scaling beyond locality unless absolutely necessary just burns resources faster, and the only people who profit from it are those who own the means of production (oligarchs) and those who manage them (bureaucrats). They have the first mover advantage, which is the only one that matters in a winner take all system such as our modern globalized economy.

 

[Creepy Joe]

It's not just big tech. It's cooperations in general. Look at Activision Blizzard for example. They've been pandering to the far left for years and now you have one scandalous reveal after another. Employees are being sexually harassed (with one instance being so bad, that the victim committed suicide). Women and minorities earning less than others. Mothers having their milk stolen at work!

These people don't care about diversity, trans rights, black lives matter and so on. The only thing they care about is money. They preemptively use social topics as a shield, for when the actual truth gets revealed. It's so easy to make an Instagram post consisting out of a black block. But missing out on another yacht to keep 150 employees employed for longer? COME ON, MAN!

 

[Troonologist PhD]

It's not just big tech. It's cooperations in general. Look at Activision Blizzard for example. They've been pandering to the far left for years and now you have one scandalous reveal after another. Employees are being sexually harassed (with one instance being so bad, that the victim committed suicide). Women earning and minorities earning less than others. Mothers having their milk stolen at work!

These people don't care about diversity, trans rights, black lives matter and so on. The only thing they care about is money. They use the rest to use it as a shield, when the truth gets revealed. It's so easy to make an Instagram post consisting out of a black block. But missing out on another yacht to keep 150 employees employed for longer? COME ON, MAN!

Hit the nail on the head. It's because leftists are stupid and easily manipulated. Rightists and centrists are stupid too, but the left is stupid to the point of committing terrorism on behalf of the ruling class.

 

[cybertoaster]

It's not just big tech. It's cooperations in general. Look at Activision Blizzard for example. They've been pandering to the far left for years and now you have one scandalous reveal after another. Employees are being sexually harassed (with one instance being so bad, that the victim committed suicide). Women and minorities earning less than others. Mothers having their milk stolen at work!

These people don't care about diversity, trans rights, black lives matter and so on. The only thing they care about is money. They preemptively use social topics as a shield, for when the actual truth gets revealed. It's so easy to make an Instagram post consisting out of a black block. But missing out on another yacht to keep 150 employees employed for longer? COME ON, MAN!

Its like the neocon who is a huge closeted fag so he's super against gay rights, its all a smokescreen so nobody will suspect he's a polesmoker, but sooner or later the cat will be out of the bag.

Hit the nail on the head. It's because leftists are stupid and easily manipulated. Rightists and centrists are stupid too, but the left is stupid to the point of committing terrorism on behalf of the ruling class.

Its no secret that wokeism its the ideology of the 1%, plenty of studies show that. Due to the march on the institutions everyone with a college degree is either woke or woke-adjacent meaning that if you're a corporation they are your most profitable market, so you pander to them even if you dont actually fulfill any of your promises. If the economic pendulum went the other way and suddenly everyone upper middle class and above becomes right-wing then you'll see these corporations no longer pandering to the woke and instead pandering to the right.

Keep in mind a lot of these megacorps dont do the rainbow logo shit with their social media in markets like the middle east, russia and china, only on the west and even there some countries like poland are exempt because they know they'll lose marketshare for pulling that shit there.

 

[Ona Quest]

Uhhhh... They're not? They just pretend to be because of being located in SanFran and the history it has had. But most tech dudes are more libertarian than leftist. They just wann buy guns, smoke weed, and ingest tiddy skittles

 

[NotYourMom]

Because their right hand either holds their phone or controls the mouse while they masturbate.

 

[Clint Torez]

Most of the tech companies created today were made during the 90's by "counter culture" anti-religious anti-republican leftoids who still pretend the 2000's never ended and must continue to "fight" against the "evil religious right-wingers like Bush!" that no longer exist in the government beyond fringe states.