Richard Dawkins and when Science is only acceptable when it agrees with cultural-Marxism

This is one of the best, but also most pernicious examples of what Steyn and Levant call, ‘I support freedom of speech but..’ I have seen to date.

The brilliant and insightful evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, was recently invited to speak at a scientific conference.

Before I continue I would like to say a few words about Dr. Dawkins. Whether you believe in God or no, whether you subscribe to creationism or evolutionary biology, Dawkins’ books are fantastic reading. His model has a lot of predictive value, and for that alone its good reading, but The Selfish Gene is also chock-a-block full of insights into human behaviour without ever describing human behaviour. Quite a trick. And something all parents might find useful in raising children. The issue of human origins is secondary in all, even if Dr, Dawkins would not agree with that last claim.

The conference which invited Richard has rescinded its invitation and offered a refund to all who planned to attend the conference. I doubt that would include airfares or hotel deposits however.

Lets have a look at their reasoning verbatim:

FirefoxScreenSnapz068

Let’s parse this a little:

“We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular and even offensive views.” But in the very next line they qualify that statement to negate pretty much anything anyone at any time and under any circumstances finds offensive for any reason. The language of cultural-Marxism ensues:

“Divisive, counter-productive (but no standard given for what constitutes productive and certainly no exception was made in the previous statement that all speech must be ‘productive’ on this unnamed standard) and hateful, meaning the organizers hated it so it doesn’t count under the former statement of: “We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular and even offensive views.”

This is some of the most blatant Cultural Marxist/Orwellian hypocrisy I have seen from a scientific body of sufficient gravitas that a person like Richard Dawkins would consider speaking to.

Now on to the video. It has to be a Leni Riefenstahl award winner right? (The Wiki attempts to sanitize her role as Hitler’s film propagandist for anti-semitic materials) Or at least it has to be some vile KKK video on racial inferiority right?

Sure.

Here it is:

This goes out to the descision makers at the ICSS   a paraphrasing from one of the great lines from the brilliant British series, I Claudius,

‘You remind me that what is most important to the human being, is our sense of smell’

To see Richard’s twitter feed with a description and other indicators that the above video is the correct one, click here. 

 

Thank you Xanthippa

 

 

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “Richard Dawkins and when Science is only acceptable when it agrees with cultural-Marxism”

      • Perhaps he means that you don’t say nice things about that video in the faculty lounge if you want to have a nice long profitable career as a university professor – at least not within earshot of the head of the Women’s Studies Department having drinks with the head of the Islamic Studies Department. If it was any more politically incorrect it would burst into flames and explode spontaneously…

  1. The fact that modern feminists are so deathly quiet about the misogyny that exists in Islam is a real puzzler to me. Everything that Germaine Greer or Gloria Steinem or whomever said about the mistreatment of women exists so tragically in the Islamic World, and yet the ladies never, ever utter a peep in protest – even when confronted with a photo of a girl’s face melted with acid for the crime of wanting to learn to read and write, or a girl’s face when she is buried up to her neck and waiting for the first stone for the crime of being raped. Not a problem, Gloria? Work for you, Germaine?

    It’s almost as if their “concern” about women has never been real and has always been nothing but a vehicle for unbridled sexual and racial prejudice (WhiteManHating). Could it be that none of the feminists give a rat’s behind about the plight of women and are only interested in getting back at their dads or their ex-husbands or that cute guy in high school who rejected them, or whomever they’re really mad at…?

    • Excellent post! Feminist have no problem whining about the “horrific injustice” of a woman’s blouse costing more to dry clean than a man’s shirt yet ignore the grotesque treatment of women in Islam. Many tout that Muslim women “choose” to wear a niqab yet refuse to answer the question as to what happens when the male in the family – whether he is the father, brother, uncle, etc.- demands she wear one and she refuses. A small example of the many injustices & prejudices of the Islamic attitude towards women. Current day Feminists should be renamed Femislamists as they do more to promote Islam/sharia than speak out on behalf of women.

    • Feminism’s goal is not the empowerment of women, but the destruction of Western civilization.

      Third wave feminism, that is.

      It is one tool Cultural Marxism uses to destroy our way of life. Another such tool are all the different identity studies, from black to native to LGBT, and so on. This is born out, for example, by “black community leaders” ignore black-on-black violence and continue to drive law enforcement agencies out of primarily black neighbourhoods, resulting in both higher criminality in these neighbourhoods and the breakdown of our society in those areas.

    • You got it in one. this has always been the case with modern feminism Tammy Bruce discovered this when she was head of the Calif NOW and came out against OJ for murdering his ex. She was kicked out of NOW.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.