[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
The Nobel-winning biologist has drawn global criticism with unfounded pronouncements on genetics, race and intelligence. He still thinks he’s right, a new documentary finds.
“Decoding Watson,” a new film about Dr. James D. Watson explores the gulf between his scientific brilliance and his views on race.
It has been more than a decade since James D. Watson, a founder of modern genetics, landed in a kind of professional exile by suggesting that black people are intrinsically less intelligent than whites.
In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.”
Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Dr. Watson’s comments reverberated around the world, and he was forced to retire from his job as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, although he retains an office there.
He apologized publicly and “unreservedly,’’ and in later interviews he sometimes suggested that he had been playing the provocateur — his trademark role — or had not understood that his comments would be made public.
Ever since, Dr. Watson, 90, has been largely absent from the public eye. His speaking invitations evaporated. In 2014, he became the first living Nobelist to sell his medal, citing a depleted income from having been designated a “nonperson.’’
But his remarks have lingered. They have been invoked to support white supremacist views, and scientists routinely excoriate Dr. Watson when his name surfaces on social media.
Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, elicited an outcry last spring with a toast he made to Dr. Watson’s involvement in the early days of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Lander quickly apologized.
“I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander wrote to Broad scientists. “They have no place in science, which must welcome everyone. I was wrong to toast, and I’m sorry.’’
And yet, offered the chance recently to recast a tarnished legacy, Dr. Watson has chosen to reaffirm it, this time on camera. In a new documentary, “American Masters: Decoding Watson,’’ to be broadcast on P.B.S. on Wednesday night, he is asked whether his views about the relationship between race and intelligence have changed.
“No,’’ Dr. Watson said. “Not at all. I would like for them to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature. But I haven’t seen any knowledge. And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.’’
Dr. Watson adds that he takes no pleasure in “the difference between blacks and whites’’ and wishes it didn’t exist. “It’s awful, just like it’s awful for schizophrenics,’’ he says. (His son Rufus was diagnosed in his teens with schizophrenia.) Dr. Watson continues: “If the difference exists, we have to ask ourselves, how can we try and make it better?”
[...]
“There are powerful methods for studying the genetic and environmental origins of individual differences, but not for studying the causes of average differences between groups,” Dr. Plomin he writes in an afterword to be published this spring in the paperback edition of his book, “Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are.”
Whether Dr. Watson was aware of any of this science is unclear. In the film, he appears to have grown increasingly isolated. He mentions missing Francis Crick, his collaborator in the race to decipher the structure of DNA.
“We liked each other,’’ Dr. Watson says of Dr. Crick. “I couldn’t get enough of him.’’
As history now knows, the duo was able to solve the puzzle in 1953, with their hallmark models of cardboard and metal only with the help of another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule was shown to Dr. Watson without her permission.
The tools of molecular biology unlocked by their discovery have since been used to trace humanity’s prehistory, devise lifesaving therapies, and develop Crispr, a gene-editing technology that was used recently, and unethically, to alter the DNA of twin human embryos.
And Dr. Watson became perhaps the most influential biologist of the second half of the 20th century. His textbook, “Molecular Biology of the Gene,’’ helped define the new field. First in a laboratory at Harvard and then at Cold Spring Harbor, he trained a new generation of molecular biologists and used his star power to champion such projects as the first sequencing of the human genome.
“You knew when you heard him that you were at the start of a revolution in understanding,’’ Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studied with Dr. Watson in the 1960s, says in “Decoding Watson.’’
“You felt as if you were part of this tiny group of people who had seen the light.’’
Oswald Mosley’s 1961 book ‘Mosley: Right or Wrong’ covered almost everything but he couldn’t know that the Soviet Union would collapse, or that the Whites would desert Africa so quickly.
All movements have their books. We had Mosley’s many works, the National Front had John Tyndall’s ‘Six Principles of British Nationalism’, and the National Socialist Movement had ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elder of Zion’, which first appeared in Russia in 1903. It’s supposed to be the minutes of a meeting held by the Jews to plan their conquest of the world. Henry Ford was so impressed by it that he had thousands of copies distributed, but most historians dismiss it as a Tsarist forgery.
Many books and authors are misunderstood. Oswald Spengler’s gloomy forecasts are based on culture. This put him at odds with the Nazis who were obsessed with ‘racial purity’. In fact, he was in the same camp as Nietzsche, Evola, Mosley, Yockey and Dugin, who all rejected strictly biological racism.
Those who dream of a Golden Age with knights in shining armour defended fair damsels, often gravitate to Tolkien with his dwarves and Hobbits. Tolkien once subscribed to ‘Candour’ but that doesn’t prove anything. His strange world of fantasy has got nothing to do with the economic forces driving the modern world. Those who are opposed to plutocracy cannot seek refuge in fantasy.
The ‘Wizard of Oz’ was a landmark film released in 1939, based on the book by Lyman Frank Baum published in 1900. It tells the story of Dorothy and her friends, the Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man. They follow the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City in search of the Wizard of Oz. On their way, they encounter the terrible Witch of the West. At first sight, this is just a children’s story, but Dorothy and her friends were really pilgrims in search of the truth, the Yellow Brick Road was life itself, the Wizard represented Good and the wicked witch Evil. In the end, they discovered: “There’s No Place Like Home”.
To commence, we will indicate some of the issues, adding to these issues in the series to come where issues emerge relevant beyond mere detail to be fleshed out and given argumentative support. That is to say, we anticipate an ongoing corrective process.
As we must go into the history, the other side, the side which is subject to a right wing political correctness of its own, needs to be addressed - this quote, alternative media, that sees a niche market in the largest by far White demographics of America - German/Irish - and panders to the fact that they are going to be more susceptible to positive spins on Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is to counter this pandering, that it is necessary to take a corrective postion from an ethnonational standpoint, that does not look upon Hitler and the Nazis as innocent and only acting in accordance to what they should be rightfully entitled.
The map drawn by Versailles and the contentions raised by Hitler are central issues to redress thereupon.
Hermeneutic, that is to say, additional historical perspective is necessary to assess the situation and related contentions over the borders set by The Treaty of Versailles and maintained by The Treaty of Saint Germain in the case of the Sudetenland..
Contra Allied grievances, Hitler’s mindset of Friedrich The Great 2.0 is key.
Ostensibly justifying excuses were used for his imperial aspirations as such, chief among others, an epistemic blunder failing to assess socially corrective human nature in praxis, taking rather a sheer might makes right naturalistic fallacy, that humans are bound sheerly to struggle in nature’s way; a will to power set in motion in this case by false allegations of mass persecution of German civilians and false threat to the German nation to provide pretext for Imperialist and supremacist expansion Eastward.
His defenders frequently lob the straw man that he was being accused of wanting to take over the whole world, when in fact, he did want Europe eastward up to the Urals, which is way more than bad enough considering he was using the guise of his sheer necessity to fight communism; and when, in fact, all nations between Russia and Germany were anti-Soviet.
Of course these nations weren’t perfect either and yes, the Nazis had a number of things correct, in the quote, N/S idea; and it’s nevertheless understandable how people could get wrapped up and go for broke; but it didn’t work and there was much fundamentally wrong about it, it wasn’t just that the Allies were corrupt, that defending Nazi Germany is bad optics for the “normies”, nothing fundamentally wrong other than that the “normies are not ready to quote, “understand” - nevertheless, it’s history now, and we can learn from it.
It might also be said of some people on the Allied side, that they can learn too - for example, like many of us since those times, we’ve projected our own reasonableness onto the YKW as a group - we thought, as our Allied forebears might have thought, that the YKW would be ok if we were ok to them - they’d be fair and deserved a chance. How many of you grew up aware of the J.Q.? Well, now the YKW have had their chance and we are aware that we need to be in separate governance.
WN has a pretty good feel of that now, but not so much representation of views apart from what is for it, a politically correct Nazi sympathetic perspective and the false either or thereof YKW or Hitler 88.
With that said. Here are some of the topics we are going to address and more:
As we already mentioned, We will be taking a look at historical events which have been distorted by Nazi propaganda.
Events such as the Bromberg “quote bloody Sunday” incident, the Polish/ Slovak border train station take-over by the Poles, the false so called “peace offers” from Hitler to Britain and Poland and why it was valid for the Allies to reject them.
The claim that Hitler only wanted peace with the neighboring Slavic countries, and only wished to get back lands taken from Germany, where a majority of Germans where then living under non-German governments. And so on.
We will also debunk the claims that Hitler and the Nazis were ok with the Slavic peoples and did not see them as subhumans with less right to life.
We will address the Nazi ideology of imperialism, immoral racism and the concept of “might is right” contra healthy nationalism, ethnopluralistic morality and what we view as the right kind of racism.
We will address the issue of who has had a worse influence in promoting a false, positive idea of the Nazi regime to Americans after the war - George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce?
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here’s how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around, or under, 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
This is the case in:
United States—Muslim 0.6%
Australia—Muslim 1.5%
Canada—Muslim 1.9%
China—Muslim 1.8%
Italy—Muslim 1.5%
Norway—Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark—Muslim 2%
Germany—Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom—Muslim 2.7%
Spain—Muslim 4%
Thailand—Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France—Muslim 8%
Philippines—5%
Sweden—Muslim 5%
Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago—Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana—Muslim 10%
India—Muslim 13.4%
Israel—Muslim 16%
Kenya—Muslim 10%
Russia—Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia—Muslim 40%
Chad—Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon—Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania—Muslim 70%
Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%
Qatar—Muslim 77.5%
Sudan—Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation, violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
The Economist urges Europe to accept its merger with Africa gracefully
The Economist, owned by the Rothschilds, has always been at the forefront of globalism. Back in the early days of mass migration, it mocked those, such as Cyril Osborne, who warned that the population reserves of the Third World were infinite, and Europeans would seen be faced with minority status if the influx was allowed to continue.
Here we are only a few decades later and the Economist, in the same imperturbably smug tone that is its hallmark, now tells Europeans that their being merged with Africa is now inevitable and they should accept it gracefully.
Europe’s deluded politicians still say that we need to encourage development in Africa to stop them coming here. But as the Economist makes clear, prosperity acts as a driver of immigration, not the obverse.
Today’s waves of African migration are merely a prelude. Of the 2.2bn citizens added to the global population by 2050, 1.3bn will be Africans—about the size of China’s population today. And more of them will have the means to travel. Those Africans risking the trip north across the Mediterranean today are not the poorest, but those with a mobile phone to organise the trip and money to pay smugglers. Few of the Nigerians who attempt the crossing are from their country’s poor north, for example; almost all are from its wealthier south. As African countries gradually prosper, migration will surely increase, not decrease. Emmanuel Macron raised these points in a recent interview. The French president was recommending a new book, “The Rush to Europe”, published in French by Stephen Smith of Duke University, which models past international migrations like that of Mexicans into America to show that the number of Afro-Europeans (Europeans with African roots) could rise from 9m at present to between 150m and 200m by 2050, perhaps a quarter of Europe’s total population.
Rape is probably inevitable, women. Rather than resist it, you should do your best to try and enjoy it. Maybe your rapist will turn out to be a nice guy. You can have little brown sprogs with him and live happily ever after.
Individuals can declare themselves bankrupt but it’s not so easy for nations. Argentina defaulted in 2001 and she is still suffering the consequences. The UK national debt currently stands at £1.8 trillion, which is almost as much as our GDP. The annual cost of this debt is £48 billion.
Few modern states earn more than they spend. The exceptions are oil-rich states with small populations, like Norway or Qatar. Most states spend more than they earn, particularly on fighting wars. They cover the deficit by borrowing from the banks and by selling bonds. This is known as the National Debt. Hilaire Belloc explained it in ‘Economics for Helen’:
“When these national loans began the Government honestly intended to pay back what they had borrowed. But the method was so fatally easy that as time went on, and the debt piled up and up until there could be no question of repaying it all: all the State could do was to pay the interest out of taxation. It remained indebted to private rich men for the principle, that is the whole original sum, and meanwhile, through further wars, this hold of the rich men upon all the rest of the community perpetually increased.”
Countries with vast natural resources and reserves of gold and foreign currencies, like the United States, can function with massive debts because the banks and bondholders trust them. But countries with no collateral can only borrow more money, for as long as they can.
When countries run out of credit they are reduced to starvation, unless some help is extended. Germany’s national debt was partly written off at the Lausanne Conference in 1932 and again at the London Conference in 1953. The Allies decided that it made more sense to get Germany back on her feet. At least, that way they would get some of their money back. It worked, and Germany cleared her debts as her economy recovered.
In 2000 a Canadian proposal for a debt moratorium was rejected by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but eventually, all national debts will have to be rescheduled, reduced or abolished. Creditors, including private bondholders, insurance companies and pension fund managers, will cling to the present system because they want their money back, but ultimately it’s unsustainable.
My parents came from widely diverse backgrounds, for my Father was a motor car tester, and my Mother was Governess to the children of a very senior army officer, I was born in the summer of 1924, and had a very reasonable education, initially at a state school, and then at ten years of age, to a well respected Grammar School in the Home Counties. At the age of 14, when I was on my way home from School, I came across a poorly dressed old man wheeling a pram on which he had fixed a wind-up gramophone and was playing a recording of a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley, who was addressing his audience as “my Blackshirt brothers”. I listened intently until the record was finished, and then thanked the old man, giving him a penny from my pocket. Arriving home, I explained to my Father what I had heard, and he told me how on one occasion he had gone up to London to make trouble at a Mosley meeting, but he had been so impressed that he had finished up cheering his support. I remember that. Before I was old enough to follow my Father’s example, the war was upon us. I was at University, and Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley were in prison under law 18B, together with scores of his senior officers. In fact, I never wore a black shirt myself.
After the war, they were all discharged from prison without being charged, and ‘Union Movement’ was formed. The new party had headquarters at an address in London and produced a newspaper called ‘Action’ with the front emblazoned with the Blackshirt emblem, a circle crossed by one flash, not two as in SS.
By this time I was making regular visits to London on business and would call into the London Office, and chat at length with Mr Raven Thomson, who was Editor of the newspaper. I used to make a contribution now and then to ‘Action’ and kept in touch. We had a group called ‘Friends of Union Movement’, and every now and again would attend a dinner in London, with ‘OM’ as speaker. He always spoke well, and his following was intensely loyal.
Of course, prompted by the Jewish lobby, things were made very difficult. We were obliged to drop ‘The European Salute’, and then the blackshirt emblem. The Home Office declared that the wearing of a black shirt constituted a uniform, and in spite of the fact that OM insisted that wearing the black shirt was merely to identify Party members during a commotion it was banned.
Raven Thomson died from the long-term effects of his brutal treatment during his stay in prison, and OM went to live in Orsay, France.
All these people have left their mark, and although several splinter movements have started up to maintain the creed, none have really been able to rally the public as OM was able to do.
This is not necessarily to do with their inadequacies, but the result of well organised, and Jewish funded publicity blocks that have prevented both reporting and any publicity leaking out, however small.
Once the administration was changed in Germany after the war, OM adopted a slogan “Europe a Nation”, which was his frequent cry. Were he to be here in 2016, he would have been aghast to note that the Jewish lobby is once again running things over there.
When OM retired into France he went there on the basis that eventually he would be called. He never was of course, which is a tragedy, for he would have been a brilliant statesman.
Nevertheless, he always kept his ear to the ground and clearly read the UK papers. This is made clear when some reporter named Peterborough reported on a rowdy meeting in Oxford, that the stewards had dealt with the rowdies as savagely as OM had done at his Olympia meeting. His reply is appended below.
“Sir, a note by Peterborough (May 14th) appears to compare the actions of stewards in defending my meeting at Olympia from attack, with the action of those recently attacking someone else’s meeting at Oxford. The difference is surely clear to any impartial mind.
Facts regarding Olympia are also on public record in contemporary Press reports and are now worth recalling. The attack on a perfectly legal meeting was openly organised and publicised for three weeks in advance, without any intervention of authority to prevent a flagrant breach of the law.
The assault of armed roughs was defeated by our young men who were accused of using their fists too vigorously. Soon after the occasion (the largest public meeting ever held in Britain) at Earls Court Exhibition Hall, was conducted in perfect order. Previously free speech had been systematically denied to anyone unpopular with Communism or the anarchic left. e.g. Sir Winston Churchill’s election meeting in Dundee when he was just out of hospital, reported in the Times under the heading “Mr Churchill shouted down.”
Authority was supine during a period when free speech ceased to exist. This was the origin of the Blackshirt movement, which opponents described as my “private army”. The means to defend ourselves were subsequently removed by special act of Parliament.
It then became more than ever, the duty of Government itself to maintain order, and in this duty, then and now, it conspicuously fails. In agreeing that no man should be allowed a private army, I suggest that Britain needs a Government with the will to maintain order which includes free speech for all. ”
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 05 October 2018 06:05.
Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival - not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization - the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our individuals and group, systemic survival thereupon.
And now these selfish pigs are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests - either naively or disingenuously - to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble - instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” ...the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).
Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.
... that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.
“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”
The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for individual and collective (for example), in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway, in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, which is now an over-emphasis on concerns over collectivization - but rather recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization and accountability thereof; which is destroying the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that European species affords.
All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book, with a sci-fi nightmare culmination in eusocial take-over. They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where the YKW had taken accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, beyond all reason (producing the insanity of the Stasi and a Merkel).
It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the cartoon exaggerations of their international left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); that right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group, are being encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive over the top and to ultimate dissolution those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”
The WN Right-Wing merges with and then reacts in accordance to the parasite’s directives and drives.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 01 October 2018 07:41.
W. Barnett Pearce
Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations
by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce
An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.
In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:
Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc. I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they will charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”
But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and a racist by definition.
- which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.
Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:
You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.
If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.
On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.
W. Barnett Pearce
James Watson won the Nobel Prize in 1962 along with Francis Crick for discovering the double helix structure of DNA.
