It’s either, in their words, get woke or go broke.
One main reason is fear of lawsuits in a climate of anti-white animus. An incident from the piece highlights how deep the kimchi we’re in. Abercrombie & Fitch “was sued into oblivion for failing to reflect racial diversity in its marketing strategy.” Seems the company had to piss away “$40 million to several thousand minority and female plaintiffs.”
Why? Not enough non-white men in their advertising. Which isn’t any sane person’s idea of anything even approaching a whiff of a shade of a crime. Nevertheless, fearing they’d lose a lawsuit amidst growing anti-white fervor, they settled and gave the race hustlers their blood money.
And so now A&F, against their own will, is woke. This suit also explains why non-white men are now the feature of most (all?) ads.
Well, that’s a pop culture clothing company and advertising, decadent by definition. How about in areas rich in Experts? Surely they are immune from the woke mind virus?
You will recall I predicted (two weeks ago) that within two years a Nobel Prize in science would go to a black, perhaps even a black woman, merely for the sake of appearance. This sage forecast came after the announcement of this year’s prizes, when it was discovered there wasn’t an Official Victim anywhere in the lists.
This next item doesn’t exactly count as a verification, but it’s close.
From the political magazine Scientific American comes the headline: “Nominees for a Science Award Were All White Men—Nobody Won”.
We learn a “protest by a group of scientists has ignited spirited discussions about the persistent lack of diversity in such awards”. Lack of Diversity means insufficient Official Victims, regardless whether they are deserving. Here’s the proof.
Five of the nation’s top ice scientists found themselves in a conundrum.
They’d been tasked with a formidable job: reviewing candidates for the American Geophysical Union’s fellows program, the most prestigious award given by the world’s largest earth and space science society. But when the group looked at its list of candidates, all nominated by peers, it spotted a problem.
Every nominee on the list was a white man.
“That was kind of a bit of a showstopper for me,” said Helen Fricker, a glaciologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and one of the five committee members.
One instantly suspects Fricker was promoted beyond her abilities, because she was a she. This, of course, may not be so, but it is rational to entertain the idea. An over-promoted person is naturally going to identify merit as a “problem.”
Here’s the hilarity. “The selection process [for the award] this past spring was an arduous, careful operation from beginning to end.” This (with other details on the process) means they found the best persons to nominate—where best is relative to ability to do geophysics.
Now Fricker confirms our suspicions: “One of the reasons I was put on the committee was because I’d been quite vocal about the year that I’d been a fellow, I was very much in the minority, and we needed to do better and get more women.” “Do better”, as we know, means promote more women, regardless of ability.
“So the committee members,” led by a probable beneficiary of promotion-beyond-ability, “made an uncomfortable decision. They declined to recommend any nominees at all.”
Sorry, white men, you have been judged too worthy, too good. You’re embarrassing the rest of the field. So the award goes to no one.
The decision has triggered a spirited dialogue among AGU members and other earth scientists about the persistent lack of diversity in science awards — and how to address it.
The only hint in the article about merit is that it is bad, a hindrance to our bright brown feminine future.
“We are disappointed that there were fewer women and fewer individuals from international countries nominated and awarded in 2021,” AGU said.
Why, were you looking for some? What happens when you find them? Better geophysics, the ostensible basis of the AGU?
No, we’ve already dismissed ability. That can’t be it. Your disappointment has to be because of the perverse desire to not see so many white and (East) Asian men. These Y-chromo paleskins did such an excellent job creating AGU, and doing geophysics, it became desirable politically for other races and sexes to get in on the spoils.
Which won’t be around as much anymore. The spoils, I mean. Because once you, à la Affirmative Action, begin promoting based on Diversity & Perversity, you must necessarily lower standards.
In saner times, the lack of women and non-whites and Asians in competitive intellectual endeavors would be evidence of built-in, ineradicable differences in ability and desire. Alas, that thought is anathema. Fricker and others can’t even think it: it has passed beyond into an incomprehensible language for them.
Back to my prediction. I’ll close with these thoughts from the article:
Only about 3 percent of Nobel science prizes have gone to women since the awards were established more than 100 years ago. Not a single one has been awarded to a Black scientist.
Anybody want to bet against me?
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here