NECSS Executive Committee Statement & Richard’s response

STATEMENT FROM THE NECSS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Posted: February 14th, 2016

We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally. We have sent Professor Dawkins a private communication expressing this as well. This apology also extends to all NECSS speakers, our attendees, and to the broader skeptical movement.

We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole. NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.

This statement and our discussions with Professor Dawkins were initiated prior to learning of his recent illness. All of NECSS wishes Professor Dawkins a speedy and full recovery.

The NECSS Executive Committee

Source: http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-from-the-executive-committee/


 

Richard’s Response

Dear Jamy,

Please convey my thanks to the entire Executive Committee for their gracious apology and for reinviting me to the NECSS conference. I am sensitive to what a difficult thing it must have been to rescind an earlier, publicised decision. I am truly grateful. Politicians are regularly criticised for changing their minds, but sceptics, rationalists and scientists know that there are occasions when the ability to change ones mind is a virtue. Sympathy for the victim of a medical emergency is not one of those occasions, and I therefore note with especial admiration that the Executive Committee’s courageous and principled change of mind predated my stroke.

That stroke, however, does make it impossible for me to accept the invitation, much as I would like to do so. I shall especially miss the pleasure of an on stage conversation with you. I hope another opportunity for that conversation will arise. I wish the conference well. May it be a great success. You certainly have managed to put together a starry list of speakers.

With my best wishes to you and the whole Executive Committee

Richard

46 COMMENTS

  1. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard, the NECSS Executive Committee showed great courage in reconsidering their actions and acting according only to what is right and civil.

    It is a shame, Richard, that you’ll miss out this time.

    They say that patience is a virtue. I sometimes think this is overdone, but not where someone’s health is concerned.

    We can wait.

    Peace.

  2. The SJWs are attempting to put out the narrative that Richard Dawkins has said that his stroke was caused by the stress of the NECSS’s disinvitation. They are attempted to imply that Richard Dawkins is playing the victim card in asserting the stress that caused his stroke was caused by the disinvitation, which of course it wasn’t.

    As we can see, Richard Dawkins is over-the-top classy and respectful.

    Best wishes to him and his health. I would pray if I thought it would do any good..

  3. I have replied to Ophelia Benson here
    http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/whats-that-oh-its-the-underside-of-the-bus/
    as follows:-

    Ophelia is apparently so eager to revel in the victim’s-eye-view of the underside of the bus, she overlooked the fact that I actually said the exact OPPOSITE of what she so spitefully alleges. I said it MIGHT have seemed easy to claim that my stroke was caused by the stress of being disinvited by NECSS. But I went on explicitly to rule that out because the stroke came AFTER the joyful news that NECSS had decided to re-invite me. And that, by the way, also rules out the equally spiteful suggestion, by one of the commenters on this site, that the NECSS change of mind was a cowardly response to my stroke. To repeat, for the benefit of those who seem to have difficulty understanding plain English, the wonderful (and stress-REDUCING) news of NECSS’s courageous change of mind arrived, and greatly cheered me up, BEFORE my stroke.

    And I most certainly do not “jeer at feminism”. I remain a passionate feminist who looks at the world beyond America and clearly sees that by far the majority of misogynistic atrocities are committed in the name of Islam.

    I await Ophelia’s apology and thank her in advance for it.

    Richard

  4. And I most certainly do not “jeer at feminism”. I remain a passionate feminist who looks at the world beyond America and clearly sees that by far the majority of misogynistic atrocities are committed in the name of Islam.

    As does anyone who is not encased in the cocoon of America and insulate from what’s happening in the rest of the world.

    Sadly, I clicked on the link. What is fascinating is the spin by the author to support preconceived notions. Not the rational and empirical approach of assessment of available evidence and drawing supportable conclusions.

    Don’t take a backward step, except maybe to get out of the way of as homicidal bus.

  5. Richard,

    I can’t believe that that woman is twisting it around to you saying that you blame feminists for what happened, rather then you merely saying that this was why you were stressed out. People want to sensationalize everything and I can’t believe they’re doing this when you have had a stroke. Don’t let them get to you, as understandably upsetting as it may be. These people aren’t worth it.

  6. Richard, since they are talking about having a serious discussion on these deranged authoritarians and puritans who are invading niche communities and destroying them and society as a whole, you should try to get Stephen Fry invited to talk there.

    Fry recently chose to stop using Twitter and publicly blamed those who are like the ones who pushed for your expulsion in the first place. Those who like the hatred they claim to fight against, and feed on outrage and righteous indignation.

    If he accepted, he could surely bring an eloquent and reasoned perspective to help illustrate the vileness of this regressive left menace.

  7. I have left this comment on Ophelia’s website. It’s still awaiting moderation. Let’s see if she actually approves it:

    This is ludicrous. Richard said that he had been under stress about the mudslinging at him from the far left around the time he had the stroke, and that in turn the stress contributed to the stroke. He DID NOT blame these people for causing his stroke. These are two completely different issues.

    My mother had a brain hemorrhage years ago (and, thankfully, made a full recovery). It happened while she was doing a Jane Fonda’s workout video. There was some speculation that doing this workout had been the catalyst for the hemorrhage. That does not mean she and her doctors blamed Jane Fonda or even the workout itself for her brain hemorrhage. Can you not see the difference?

    This is just overreaching and sensationalism at its finest. The poor man has been through a lot over the last couple weeks. Let him recover in peace.

  8. It’s not your job to tell American feminists what we get to care about and talk about. It’s really not. I don’t see you scolding anti-racism activists in the US, so why do you consider it up to you to scold US feminists? – See more at: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/whats-that-oh-its-the-underside-of-the-bus/#sthash.7Mmphnke.dpuf

    Part of the reply by Benson. A part that particularly interests/irks me.

    When one of these feminists like Benson talks about secular creationism, sexual in-variance, social constructionism and equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity I find it my job to tell them they are talking through their hats. That is why I could never call myself a feminist. Ideology is ideology and if you unpack the feminist ideology you find some very strange ideas about human biology. That is enough for me to be an a-feminist. My user name means something, something a great many feminists have severe problems with.

    I could forgive much of feminist theory but feminism’s problem with biology is, to me, unforgivable. So I personally reserve the right to scold feminists on this and, sometimes, other issues. ( please, no reply with the fallacy of definition or the no true Scotsman fallacy )

  9. Kind of sad in a way to see this type of thing – splitting of hairs over interpretations of words and implications – roiling the otherwise placid (?) waters of the “atheist-skeptic-feminist-humanist” (ASFH) community. And maybe NECSS is to be commended, also, for broaching the issue of having pointed and focused discussions about the proximate causes for such.

    But, more particularly, it seems that a large part of the problem is, depending on your point of view and whose ox is being gored, “a difficulty understanding plain English”, a lack of understanding of basic logic, a careless use of qualifiers and quantifiers, a lack of charity, or simple outright demagoguery: lots of blame or potential motives to go around. More particularly, while Dr. Dawkins of course didn’t say that feminism – in total – was the proximate or sole cause of his stroke, it is hard not to infer that the views and statements of some “feminists” (of some unspecified “sects”) were at least a contributing cause – and somewhat disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Which is, to be somewhat fair to Ophelia Benson, the import of her “sort of kind of blaming us for his stroke”.

    However, on the other side of the coin, it seems far too many “feminists” have taken that inference as to some feminists, and Dr. Dawkins’ orginal tweet touting the video in question, to be a categorical condemnation of all feminists – despite clear and unambiguous assertions from him to the contrary. Sure looks like far too many “feminists” have the view that every feminist has been washed in the blood of the lamb and are beyond reproach, that any linking of the word “virulent” to the word “feminism” is manifest misogyny, that any criticism of one feminist is not just a critcism of all feminists but a criticism of all women. Sloppy thinking at best, outright demagoguery at worst.

    In any case, I too wish you a full and speedy recovery.

  10. Neodarwinian #12

    So I personally reserve the right to scold feminists on this and, sometimes, other issues.

    Ideological biology denial, is very much on a par with ideological evolution denial!

    But the “one-size-fits-all so we need gender quotas” brigade, normally respond with a big show of being offended, when their ignorant “superior” ideological assertions are challenged, and they have no evidence based rational answers!

  11. The SJWs keep bringing up Richard’s “Dear Muslima” comment, and keep deliberately misinterpreting it. Because that’s what they do. They lie, and lie, and lie some more. I’m thinking of folk like Adam Lee, who claimed in a piece in The Guardian that Richard was essentially arguing that women in Muslim theocracies have it much worse than women in the West, and that therefore the latter should remain silent about “sexual harassment and physical intimidation”.

    I can imagine how infuriating such dishonesty must be to Richard. He should (and probably does) realize that SJWs are much like fundie believers. They are equally dogmatic; they are opposed to free speech (who needs free speech, when your side has all the correct answers?); and they routinely lie for The Cause. They are totally dishonest. It is no use trying to reason with the likes of Adam Lee, PZ Myers or Ophelia Benson.

    What you should never do when dealing with such people:

    Apologize to them. First of all, they will rarely accept an apology. They will try to find reasons to dismiss it, and call it a not-pology. Secondly, they will treat the apology as a confession of guilt, a confirmation of their righteousness. Your apology can and will be used against you. Thirdly, they will never apologize to you (look at Benson’s response to Richard).
    Believe them on their word. When they appear to sound reasonable it’s because you are hearing the Motte of their Motte and Bailey doctrine. They will say “Why are you against us? Don’t you think women are people too?” It’s exactly the same trick the Christians pull, when they say “Why do you oppose our religion? Don’t you want to behave ethically?”
    Try to reason with them. Like hardened Maoists or cult members, they firmly believe they already have all the answers. You cannot convince them of anything they don’t already believe. In their unshakeable opinion, it’s you who has to listen and believe.
    Believe that they see you as a fellow human being. They don’t. They are identitarians. To them you are not an individual person, with his or her own ideas and unique life experience, but a point in a fictional space spanned by axes of oppression. If you are deemed to be inordinately privileged (that is, if you are a cishet white male), then that defines you. All you are supposed to do is grovel and be a good ally to the “oppressed”. Your opinion, your ideas, your experience don’t count. Shut up and listen to the people who are punching up: this is what is demanded of you.

    What you should do:

    Mock them relentlessly for the ridiculous authoritarians they are. Never make them appear credible.
    Make your point once, very clearly, and then stop engaging them.
    Never forget that you are dealing with totally dishonest ideologues who can’t be trusted.

    I wish Richard a full and speedy recovery. Don’t let the Regressives get you.

  12. The trouble with Stephen Fry is that he is a successful human being with a penis. So while he happens to be gay, he is still Caucasian and does have a penis. Therefore, he is part of the “Patriarchy™”

  13. Mr Steinpilz is correct, except with ignoring them. Evolution was opposed by creationism, and made Richard pick up the cause of atheism. New Atheism was a success because religious dogmatism was attacked, and mocked head-on. Now we have a similar situation again, where Enlightenment values have come under fire. The next step will be, consequently a “New Enlightenment”. I heard that Steven Pinker has begun jotting down a book about this. Christopher Hitchens mentions something similar on his final pages of “God Is Not Great”. Richard Dawkins would be in great company already, and there are some others that come to mind that could push the next wave. In other words, there is no turning back. We may need Science Wars II.

    When the “Social Justice Movement” is too clingy and won’t go away into their own anti-science postmodernist corner, then maybe we have to move on and leave them behind. A New Enlightenment proper would include social justice causes with the difference that they would be grounded in empirical evidence and without the identitarian nonsense. One can hope.

  14. It’s a little bit funny, the way these three new commenters – Yuri, Edith Brown, and Serd L – demonstrate the quality of the people who hang on RD’s every word. –

    One of the last comments by Benson. Rather telling in its projection.

    Reading there ( mostly reading her sycophants ) makes me nauseated so I won’t be going back there again.

    P.S. InYourFaceNewYorker

    I don’t think you made the cut. Lucky you!

  15. Who is Ophelia Benson, and why is Richard engaging her? Does she work for the NECSS? She said “we.” If she does, I would suggest to Dawkins that he disassociate himself entirely from them. If she doesn’t why get embroiled in a fruitless (and stressful) tug-of-war with an irrational loser?
    I don’t think an apology is likely to be delivered. The lady is filled with hate, thinks Dawkins and other men are her father or God knows what. So many twisted, pathetic, angry people in this world.
    Ophelia, you are wrong.

    We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole.

    Btw, I don’t think there is anything that needs to be addressed except the corruption, pussilanimity and pettiness within the NECSS.

  16. P.S A little off topic but worth saying: these labels are really getting out of hand. “Social Justice Warriors” are bad and yet social justice is GOOD!
    Now “Anti-Fascist” is being equated with “Leftists” who are “regressive” and aggressive.
    Anti fascism is GOOD. Got that?
    Let’s not let allow good and bad to become conflated.
    And let us not be name slaves, as Jack London said. (The Iron Heel.) All these labels are getting to me.
    Pretty soon all our concepts will be turned on their head. It is already happening. It’s Orwellianism in its infancy.
    Take heed of what I am saying.
    This is a Reason site. These labels are causing distorted thinking, are confounding, and they are also historically and educationally pernicious. It is not reasonable to allow these labels to continue to creep into the language.

  17. P.P.S. “Phrase slaves.” Sorry.

    From London’s dystopian sci-fi masterpiece The Iron Heel (1908):

    “The people of that age were phrase slaves. The abjectness of their servitude is incomprehensible to us. There was a magic in words greater than the conjurer’s art. So befuddled and chaotic were their minds that the utterance of a single word could negative the generalizations of a lifetime of serious research and thought.”

  18. Dan #20

    “Social Justice Warriors” are bad and yet social justice is GOOD!

    Now you understand why labelling of any ideological sort is unhelpful for yourself. I choose none for myself and substitute a phrase or brief account as needed and contingent on the discussion.

    The problem is entirely what other people choose for themselves. Patriot, nationalist, socialist…. In this instance a large fraction of people identifying themselves as anti-fascists are these simple-minded folk who make a grave moral error out of a fear of siding with the wrong underdog. (Real underdogs might actually try to fight back in some way. Play acting underdogs know when to whimper. These folk get easily confused.)

    The caveat is not about how we choose our language but about how others choose theirs. There were many nice and well intentioned National Socialists. But words have no spooky power to force people to do its bidding, when others try to use them as a simple badge of goodness. Always check the label.

  19. Phil # 22

    Dear Phil,

    Not sure I entirely understand. And I am not sure I entirely agree. I have nothing against the words themselves. I object to their misuse.

    If there is a war going on and someone says there is peace then that is destructive and pernicious. If someone fights for social justice and is called a fascist, then that is destructive and (historically, educationally, socially) pernicious. If someone is a fanatic and unfair and is called a social justice warrior then that is to vitiate the concept of social justice. If someone is a socialist and is automatically called an advocate of tyranny then I would rebel and speak out against this conflation of opposites, would speak out against such ignorance and such horrible misuse of language, such gross mischaracterization and misrepresentation.

    There are cases when one can be a despot and also be altruistic, cases when one can be good and bad at almost the same time. There are atheists who are deeply religious. There are (a great many) religious people who are in their hearts completely devoid of belief. There are conservatives who are latent radicals, etc. We need to appreciate contradictions. A healthy appreciation of contradiction is enriching to the mind and enhances our understanding of the human personality. But things are not their opposites! Not necessarily. We must preserve meaning, not perpetually eschew meaning. (In that sense, yes, I am a conservative – I suppose.)

    I do not reject or fear terms, phrases, names for things. I just think that words should be put in their proper context and used as accurately as possible.

    Otherwise we will be assisting in bringing about totalitarianism. The essence of totalitarianism is that it beheads; it is a psychic beheading. The obliteration of history and the destruction of language (which go hand in hand) is part of that process, and history has shown that those are tools of real fascism.

    And we will enter to into a realm of no-meaning. We will not know what we mean anymore. All the efforts of the great men and women of the past, whose achievements and actions should be a source of guidance and inspiration, will be reduced to nonsense or to confusion – or worse, to nothing. This is already happening.

    “So befuddled and chaotic were their minds that the utterance of a single word could negative the generalizations of a lifetime of serious research and thought.”

    “National socialist” is a very good example of how something rich and varied, complex and in many respects good (socialism), is now, as a result of this classic case of the misuse and appropriation of a certain concept, can lead to the mixing together of two disparate ideological visions: now we have people equating socialism as a whole with Rightism at its worst! That’s an abomination.

    I am not quite sure what you meant by “well-intentioned people.” Yes, there were some well-intentioned people who embraced the führer. Your point?

    Best Wishes. —DR

  20. phil rimmer #22
    Feb 19, 2016 at 3:40 am

    The caveat is not about how we choose our language but about how others choose theirs. There were many nice and well intentioned National Socialists. But words have no spooky power to force people to do its bidding, when others try to use them as a simple badge of goodness.

    You make a very good point about self-labels chosen by ideologists, as a call for support, or a badge of goodness or integrity!

    Superficial reading could lead the naive to believe that “National Socialism” (far-right NAZI), had anything to do with (left-wing) “socialism”, just as the naive and ignorant might be mistakenly led to believe that “Truth-in-Science” has anything to do with reputable science!

  21. P.S. Phil, I think you know I have a rather prominent touch of OCD.

    Corrected sentence:

    “National socialist” is a very good example of how something rich and varied, complex and in many respects good (socialism), can, as a result of the misuse and appropriation of a certain concept, lead to the mixing together of two disparate ideological visions…”

    I see that Alan was able to glean some meaning from your reference to National Socialists. I like what he said. I don’t know why I couldn’t grasp it. Did Alan get that right?

    “Far right nazi.” Hmm.

  22. Dan #25
    Feb 19, 2016 at 5:33 am

    Did Alan get that right? – “Far right nazi.” Hmm.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party
    .National Socialist Party or Nazi Party may refer to:
    National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi Party

    You will see from the link that some political parties using the term “Socialism” are “marxist-left”, while others are “fascist-right”!

    I thought it illustrated the propagandist wilful confusion well.

  23. @phil-rimmer

    Re#22

    Now you understand why labelling of any ideological sort is unhelpful for yourself.

    An insightful post.

    I suspect labels let simple people instantly (mis) understand a person. “Oh, he’s gay.” “He’s a communist.” “She’s a feminist.” As if every gay person, communist or feminist is identical in their outlook to every other one of that kind. Labels let simple people attribute properties from a drop down box of preconceive ideas to anyone they face. They don’t have to THINK. “He’s black.” “They’re Muslims”. Lazy thinking.

    The person in front of you is a person. That’s it.

  24. The skeptics really need to kick feminism out.

    Feminist theories are just like religion.

    Everything feminists say is a lie :

    the wage gap is a lie
    the 1 on 4 rape stat is a lie
    the patriarchy is a conspiracy theory
    the gender theory is disproved by biology, neurology and psychology
    domestic violence is a lie : most of hurt women also hurt their partner
    the glass ceiling is a lie
    and so on

  25. You’re just talking about one group of feminists who are on the fringe. And I agree that they can get ridiculous. I can’t comment on the wage gap and rape statistics and the glass ceiling because I haven’t researched them. But yes, “patriarchy” is a bit conspiratorial.

    Not sure where you’re getting this stuff about the domestic violence being a lie. I could be wrong, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that women– who generally have far less upper body strength than men– are also hurting the man who beats them.

  26. @ InYourFaceNewYorker

    Not sure where you’re getting this stuff about the domestic violence being a lie. I could be wrong, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that women– who generally have far less upper body strength than men– are also hurting the man who beats them.

    This is a common ideological position of MRA’s. Men are assaulted as often or more often than women by their partners.

    As you have correctly pointed out men have much greater upper body strength ( plus equal or greater lower body strength ) so the damage done is far and away stacked against women, on average, in any altercation.

    Ideology is ideology, whether feminist or MRA ideology. Reality does not enter into the equation with fringe groups and many of the main group.

    P.S. Did your comment ever appear at Benson’s site?

  27. Nope, she never posted it. Strange, because she’s posted other comments where people have told her that she’s wrong. I guess she thinks I’m one of those blind fangirls who thinks Richard can do no wrong, rather than that he’s a human being who makes mistakes just like everyone else. And of course my post was also to remind people that we were talking about a human being who’d just had a stroke.

    Bottom line:

    Thinking that certain people who are heroes who can do no wrong is one form of dehumanizing (albeit a more benign form).

    So is kicking people while they’re down, just because they’re famous people.

  28. Alan4discussion #24

    Hi, Alan

    I simply couldn’t grasp this line from Phil:

    “There were many nice and well intentioned National Socialists. But words have no spooky power to force people to do its bidding, when others try to use them as a simple badge of goodness.”

    You wrote this:

    “Superficial reading could lead the naive to believe that “National Socialism” (far-right NAZI), had anything to do with (left-wing) “socialism”, just as the naive and ignorant might be mistakenly led to believe that “Truth-in-Science” has anything to do with reputable science!”

    I understood and appreciated your point, but was wondering if that was what Phil was saying.

    The thing about right wing nazis was just an afterthought: as opposed to what: leftwing nazis?

  29. Dan #32
    Feb 19, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    I simply couldn’t grasp this line from Phil:

    “There were many nice and well intentioned National Socialists. But words have no spooky power to force people to do its bidding, when others try to use them as a simple badge of goodness.”

    I think he was commenting on naive but nice people, accepting label-badges of “goodness” or philosophy, at face value, when they should be looking deeper than the superficial meaning of the words, and closely examining the nature of the organisations/politicians using them.

    That is my perception which could be wrong, so if in doubt, ask Phil!

  30. Alan, your perception is correct.

    Dan, The label some group selects for themselves is not in our hands to alter, but we do need to be aware of the problems of its use. It will be selected as a badge of goodness, particularly in its use as a rallying call to others. It may be selected by the group leaders with entirely honest intentions or it may be selected cynically. Honestly intentioned anti-fascists, say, may still be terrible examples of anti-fascists by using a false test for fascism. (As illustrated elsewhere, the support for “the underdog” is hugely open to manipulation and misinterpretation.) Or again having a group identifier “anti-fascist” doesn’t impose that mode of thinking on group members. The irony that they may evidence clear fascistic tendencies themselves is entirely possible.

    The news of unrigorous (plastic) labels is far from all bad. It is crucial that declaring for Islam, or Christianity or Libertarianism means what you want it to mean and is the generational route to freedom.

  31. I seem to remember when Ophelia Benson was a regular contributor here and she generally had something constructive to say. Sad, really.

    Steve

  32. True. But I don’t like the phrase Social Justice Warrior. It’s a pernicious phrase. Social justice is good. So why mix up good things and bad things? I mentioned this on another thread, or maybe it was this one. Forgot. Yes. this one. # 23.
    Let’s call them something else. Soon we’ll be calling thieves, murderers and liars social justice warriors.
    They are not for justice.
    Language is important. The misuse of language with these phrases leads to obfuscation, confusion.

  33. Richard Dawkins #6 Feb 17, 2016 at 4:17 am I have replied to Ophelia
    Benson here
    http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/whats-that-oh-its-the-underside-of-the-bus/
    as follows:- …. she overlooked the fact that I actually said the
    exact OPPOSITE of what she so spitefully alleges.

    It’s unfortunate if someone who can’t read plain English is confident enough to wade in unabashedly with an utterly perverse comment. It’s worse if someone quite able to understand what they are reading, pretends to have diminished competence in order to make a vicious remark. That’s not mere misplaced self-confidence, it’s morally unwholesome. It’s all too common, though.

  34. A great response to a great response. “Oh “Lord”, don’t let me be misunderstood”, as Nina Simone so beautifully and greatly sings.

  35. Some of us of course know that this unfortunate medical accident is a long-term process, doesn’t happen overnight and its climax is normally detonated by (severe) stress and emotional/physical overstrain, not joy and relief. I don’t have a dog in this whole feminism fight, we don’t really have to deal with it here in Russia (thankfully), we’re at the periphery of Europe and waves produced by this or that major social splash there reach us only after certain periods of time… but hopefully, in this particular case the waves never reach us. Comparing feminism to islamic fundamentalism was completely justified. Tolerance, liberalism, social progressivism start from nudging a non-bearing wall and then end up trying to crash the bearing one with a wrecker crane. But since it is a very effective way of population reduction (take a look at the statistics) these things are being heavily lobbied by the elite. At that point they don’t have anything to do with humanism, but are actually the opposite.

Leave a Reply