Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 1st, 2014 #1
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default James Watson (USA)
Old December 2nd, 2014 #2
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,712
Tomasz Winnicki

Flamewar going on right now at the comments section. Lots of fun .
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist." | |
Old December 2nd, 2014 #3
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

Contrast the utter viciousness of this article:

-- with this article:

The first article is in Slate, and was written by Laura Helmuth. I have no idea if she is a jew; it seems likely. Here are some of her recent contributions, as chronicled by Muck Rack:

Note one of her recent Twitter messages there (a retweet):
"James Watson, co-discover of DNA, is a huge [rhymes with Crick]."

While it's unclear if she's a jew, what is certain is that she's an egregious leftist who cannot be taken seriously, and that she has a nasty child's mentality, flinging poo. In contrast to Watson, whom she declares to be "a horrible human being" who "knows fuck-all," Helmuth has a BS in Biology and Psychology from Eckerd College and a Ph.d in Cognitive Neuroscience from UC Berkeley. She also likes to talk a lot about her "writing" and "storytelling" as if she were a dime-a-dozen female English major, which she might as well be.

(Note also, as a sidelight, that her poo-flinging storytelling about Watson was earlier titled there: "James Watson is Selling his Nobel Prize. Please Don't Buy It." This changed within hours to: "James Watson Throws a Fit," with no rewrite or additional content. Maybe a more responsible editor/storyteller at Slate -- or just someone in the legal department -- realized that the original title might be actionable: the article makes inflammatory assertions about Watson, couched as facts, and the earlier title avowed an intent to damage him financially.)

Now look at the provenance of the second article above -- the better one. It's Al Jazeera America. The writer is Stephanie Becker. The article is respectful, upbeat, rational. It references controversies about Watson and seems to dismiss them as unimportant which, of course, they are. Becker is a senior journalist (24 years on the Today Show, for example) who makes no pretense of being a scientist, nor of being a biology major/storyteller/shrink sans practice, or self-appointed witch hunter.

Becker demolishes at least one big lie (presented as fact by Helmuth): the insinuation that Watson maneuvered Rosalind Franklin out of a Nobel.

[Franklin] probably should have gotten the Nobel along with the men, but they don't give Nobel Prizes to people who have died. [SG's note: Franklin died of ovarian cancer in 1958; Watson and Crick won the Nobel in 1962.]
I don't know if Becker is a jew, she could be, but how many jews work for Al Jazeera America in a public position? It can't be that big a number, because Al Jazeera broadly represents the Arab world as distinct from (and often opposed to) Israel, including Zionism and general jew interests. Unless I'm deceived by a conspiracy of which I'm unaware.

Now consider Slate vs. Al Jazeera. Which is better for Whites? Clearly, in this instance (and in many others I could list), Al Jazeera wins.

The jew-controlled US media are malign and worthless. The jew-controlled Anglosphere media in general are basically anti-White by default. So if you want news with a fighting chance of being straight, or pitched from a sane perspective at least, then you might selectively sample Al Jazeera, or, much more selectively, Russia Today, which is terrible on Ferguson, which it knows little about, but informative on foreign policy issues.
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; December 2nd, 2014 at 01:37 PM.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.
Page generated in 0.06106 seconds.