Friday, January 31, 2003


The Winter 2002/3 issue of Occidental Quarterly included a fine article by Richard McCulloch contesting the constructivist (neo-Marxist) view that 'race' is just a social contract. In particular, a table and figure detailed the main phenomenon of world racial structure, the differences between Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negroids - and showed in particular that the groups from which both the English and Japanese are most different genetically are the Nigerians, the Bantu, the Bushmen and the Australian Aborigines.

(Ref.: Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury, "Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale," Molecular Biology and Evolution, Sept. 1993 (pp. 927-943)



Accused of 'racism' by blind Home Secretary David Blunkett, the political editor of the Sun, Trevor Kavanagh, wrote in a Times column that the Government's open-door policy on asylum was a disgrace and that 370,000 Sun readers had written in to agree with the Sun's "crusade against asylum madness."

In Portland, Devon, locals met to express outrage at hearing of a Government plan to dump asylum seekers on them; subsequently the disused ten-story building intended to provide a home for the asylum seekers caught fire, ruining at least one of its floors. In Sittingbourne, locals swore they would burn down a hotel commandeered by Mr Blunkett to house the latest arrivals from Kosovo and Albania.

Times columnist and Environment Editor Anthony Browne recorded: John Lloyd, the former editor of Britain's main left-wing political magazine, the New Statesman, wrote a long article in that magazine pretty much agreeing with everything I have been arguing.

Britain's most intellectual magazine, Prospect, ran a cover story (February 2003) by a former Marxist Cambridge University economics professor entitled "In Defence of Fortress Europe." For Prospect to run a piece like this from a right-winger would have been unthinkable just six months ago; that even such unimpeachable left-wingers are coming out against mass immigration, legal or illegal, shows just how far attitudes have changed in Britain.

Even the left-wing Observer has talked of the "coming storm" over immigration - a storm which will damage Britain's 7 million coloured immigrants who misguidedly looked for support to unrealistic leftist politicians.



A generously endowed Pasadena lady church schoolteacher, 27, pleaded guilty to having enjoyed six months of sex with one of her 13-year-old charges. She faced a possible life sentence in Texas but otherwise neither she nor her teenage lover seemed to have any complaints.

UK police said that the 7,000 paedophilic downloaders currently waiting for a knock on the door at dawn were only the tip of an iceberg. The 7,000 were those who had used Visa cards to access kiddie porn; but once Mastercard and Access card users were investigated the number of suspects could grow to 250,000.

{Would some senior personage at last be tempted to bring paedohysteria to a halt? British jails have official room for only 55,000 prisoners, and are already overcrowded with a prison population of 80,000; and the Sunday Herald alleged that one of the suspected downloaders held, or once held a Cabinet job - this allegation being followed by a media blackout, probably because Downing Street issued a 'D' Notice to all editors, urging suppression of the story at risk of grave official displeasure.}


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Thursday, January 30, 2003

The problem of liberalism: directionlessness

(Continued from yesterday)

What was the point of all this liberation -- capricious and even destructive of liberal tradition as it could be? What were the guiding principles of the states that developed in this way, or of the citizens in whose names such liberating and anti-hierarchical arrangements were made? The answer was simple. Winston Churchill, the person who had most notably led his own country to bankrupt itself fighting the Continental illiberalism of his own day, once summed up the position of democrats since the American and French revolutions: 'Democracy,' he said, 'is the world's worst form of government -- apart from all the others.'

Admittedly, democracy had sometimes been found in harness with nationalism, socialism and both Mafia-style- and monopoly-capitalism. Yet the principle of granting equal civil rights to all proved acceptable -- at least compared to traditional systems of overlordship and to twentieth-century equalization of incomes. Universal enfranchisement expanded to include non-householders and women by around 1930; and after another half-century the ideal became that no minority group should be less than proportionally represented in the ranks of officialdom. All this was understandable when all civilians were now -- thanks to bombing and terrorism -- front-line troops; and when Western states since 1939 had spent around 45% of Gross National Product. (Even the USA had been threatened by Russian bombing after 1953; and America's need for soldiers to fight its 1942-5 war and to police the resulting settlement of Germany gave Black people new prestige and a claim on social dispensations.)

Official equality was a new religion. Classically, hierarchical societies [having an acknowledged chain of command] had required massive reinforcement from religious belief -- whether in the 'divine right' of kings or llamas to rule, of rabbis to lead, or of the Hindu classes each to perform its own distinctive life-mission. So it is natural that the modern West should have wanted a tale to tell those on lower incomes whom nobody (not even trade unions) planned to enrich. In rejecting legalized, self-perpetuating and overt hierarchy, modern liberation, in its politically correct (peecee) egalitarianism, avoided breeding the hopelessness that can lead to violent revolution and new tyrannies. Whereas socialism had once aimed to benefit underdogs by redistribution, nationalization or price controls, neosocialism offered state jobs to all minorities -- insisting on female, homosexual and immigrant involvement even in the police and military. By 1990, the necessary jobs could be freed up by shifting 'racist', 'sexist' and otherwise insensitive officials in line with fast-changing humanitarian criteria that turned attitudes, speech and even jokes into sackable offences if not crimes. By offers of early retirement, staff would agree to be bought out rather than face daily intimidation for their politically incorrect sentiments and antiquated mind-sets. Thanks to nuclear deterrence, Western societies no longer required hierarchy for war-fighting. What they needed for internal purposes was the even-handed social control once offered by religion. By insisting that no 'identity' be overtly disparaged, the inequalities between individuals could persist without yielding political revolt. By issuing increasingly bogus exam passes and university degrees, the lowly could be placated while the elite ran the economy. Unable to show that their race, religion, sex, handicap or country-of-origin were being stigmatized, protesters would be unable to make common cause. The working class solidarity that once threatened employers could not be mimicked while the state took affirmative action to help groups -- or at least the elites of groups -- which had, by official agreement, suffered discrimination.

However, a problem remains. Despite the new anti-meritocratic peecee tyranny, modern Western states are characterized by a lack of positive direction. Because so many voices have to be heard in minority-sensitive governance, such a state may take no direction at all -- or at least not articulate the direction which it is taking. Especially, the liberal democracies of the West have seen a collapse of nuclear family life that was intended by none of their political parties and which their experts in the social sciences have been powerless to arrest -- though psychiatric medication, along with alcohol, gave consolation to the divorced. No experts in child psychology or sociology ever counselled that forty per cent of Western children should grow up in single-parent families with the state playing the role of father. Anthropologists have actually been on hand to remark the type of society previously best known for this type of arrangement: in matrilineal West Africa, many women live without husbands and men die young. It might be said that totalitarian China, too, has pursued a single-child family policy (since 1970); but the modern West's singleton children lack not only siblings -- no great hardship, many children might say -- but also one of their parents, usually the father.

The collapse of 'nuclear family' life has been particularly marked among people of African descent. In the 1950's, US Black couples actually had higher rates of lifetime monogamy than Whites. In today's permissive society, however, 85% of Black children grow up in families where their father is not a regular presence (quite often because of imprisonment). This is the pattern which Whites are now imitating as their own males prove only menially employable in a world where tranquillizing drugs, video-surveillance, computer seizures and weapons supply the state's force and where salesmen, politicians and preachers cannot compete with the TV screen and its constant propaganda for the new peecee religion. Traditionally, men would at least be desperate for sex and thus marriage; but today's easy-divorce marriages offer little except a way of charitable giving, so prostitution, lap dancing and Internet pornography fill the gap.

In large parts of the Islamic world, affluent men can aim for satisfying lives which include a young wife at virtually any stage and many children who will stay with them despite divorce. In China, too, men have achievable goals: unofficial polygamy is the rule for Communist Party officials; and, for less successful men, abortion, infanticide and the strict faithfulness of wives ensure that every child is a doubly wanted child. By contrast, in the West, the availability of the Pill, together with feminist preachments, means that women have few children; that divorce typically ends with the adult male separated from his children; and that one child in ten is anyhow (according to blood- and DNA-testing in household surveys in Britain, France and the USA) not the biological product of the man it calls Daddy. By age forty, the typical woman of Western European descent now has only one child; and those women who have more are often low in IQ, poor in psychiatric health and unlikely to have made good mothers in either a genetic or an environmental sense.

Adding to the liberal West's problems of increasingly small, fatherless, dysfunctional and state-dependent families, scientific advances are opening up a further range of choices that traditionally liberal and now minority-favouring states are ill equipped to make. The ostensibly minority-tolerant West which professes to take all 'diversity' to its bosom can pursue no policies that tend generally to support the traditional nuclear family. In rough accord with voting strengths, it must seem to support parenting by single, homosexual, immigrant, transgendered and disabled parents. At least, it must not disparage such ventures; so the easiest way is not to back any particular 'lifestyle.' The liberal-democratic state cannot aim for any particular quantity or quality of children in matters of breeding. It has simply no standards by which to make such a judgment. Its liberal duty is merely to support its citizens so they do not sink through the floor of basic democratic citizenship; and such support will involve spending more money on precisely those families whose children are unlikely to meet any conceivable eugenic criterion. The modern liberal-democratic state's disbursements are for 'need' -- that is, for poverty. They are not for merit -- which has no place within official egalitarianism. Classically, liberalism freed people from unreasonable power -- especially from the power of foreign religions; but freedom gradually became the cry of those who claimed other citizen's money and jobs. Vote-seeking politicians hardly asked where such redistribution would lead.

Today, further challenging the West's directionlessness, new possibilities are arising that will definitely require choice. First, genetic engineering will soon be in as much demand as traditional medicine. Parents will wish the best for such few children as they have; and some genetic engineering will involve modification of germ lines so that gains accrue not only for children but for grandchildren. How will self-declared egalitarian states be able to justify such expenses? These states will no longer be meeting immediate medical needs for which compassion can be felt. Rather, they will be conferring long-term advantages on some of their citizens. How will it be decided which families will be allowed state-funded genetic engineering? (For that matter, which families will be allowed to escape engineering? -- For non-engineered families will often impose long-terms costs on state-supplied health care.)

The classic philosophical problems of welfare states are thus about to take an acute form. Some will object to either the state or individuals being allowed to 'interfere with nature.' However, a blanket ban on germline therapy will just leave such genetic improvements in the hands of other countries -- notably of China which already has a huge eugenic programme preventing breeding by people having learning difficulties (low IQs) for a radius of hundreds of miles around Beijing. Simply, the liberal-democratic state will have no choice but to liberalize further: it will have to let people themselves decide about genetically modified grandchildren -- as about genetically modified crops. Since it has abandoned any will of its own in the name of tender-minded adulation of diversity, it will be castrate until it allows people to make their own choices.

Constituting a second challenge to the West's liberalism, reproduction by non-sexual means, by cloning, will bring blessings on which some will be bound to seize. For example, parents will be able to clone a replacement for a dearly loved child who is dying. (Already, in the USA, rich people are paying universities half-a-million-dollar sums to try to replace their pets. -- Many women are now addicted to pets since use of the Pill means they have few children or grandchildren to tend.)

Yet cloning will allow the possibility of children lacking not only an effective father -- as can happen at present -- but also a mother. Since mother love is such a supremely powerful and valued feature of human life (as acknowledged classically by Christianity), and since step-mothers have through the ages been the bane of the lives of children in fairy tales, to allow people to clone themselves will be a major step into a quite unexplored Brave New World. On the other hand, to ban cloning would also seem strange -- preventing what would otherwise seem a highly desirable replication of Nobel prizewinners, top athletes and filmstars. In any case, the liberal-egalitarian welfare state itself is simply not capable of making the choices which will be necessary. To allow people to embark on new forms of procreation, the (possibly horrific) casualties of which would doubtless be laid at the door of the state, is absurd. To prevent infertile couples taking the best biological route to having children and passing on their genes would be illiberal and an outrage against the 10% of couples who are infertile. Yet for the state itself to become an actor and regulator in the process would be to violate a taboo that is intrinsic to modern liberalism. This is the taboo against state-organized eugenics over which the Allies of 1939-45 are deemed to have prevailed. According to much of the 'anti-Nazi' left, the Allies' victory in 1945 was against a range of Nazi programmes -- from euthanasia for the senile and the handicapped through to the Holocaust; and these programmes began with the promotion and enforcement of eugenic practices.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, January 29, 2003

The triumph of liberalism -- even over liberalism

World-wide, to 'liberate' was the great objective of political endeavour in the past two centuries. The American and French revolutionaries who created modern democracy agreed on this one point. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," demanded modern America's founding fathers of 1776 as they rejected 'taxation without representation.' "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity," cried the Paris mob which stormed the Bastille in 1789. While the English had, by 1688, liberated themselves -- but only themselves -- from their Catholic monarchy, the Americans and the French of a hundred years later would inspire the quest for liberty further afield. The liberating principles of democracy and nationalism would replace colonial and priestly authority. Through the nineteenth century, South Americans, Indians and Russians would begin to make the same demands for freedom. In the twentieth century, the USA and the USSR would claim to sponsor world-wide liberation and certainly end Western European countries' empires in Africa, Asia and the Middle East just as Europe's own Holy Roman Empire had itself broken up into relatively 'national' states. One imperial nation-state, Prussia (an early sponsor of liberalism under Frederick the Great), vanished from the map in the process.

Throughout these two centuries, few revolutionaries would do without calling themselves 'freedom fighters' and announcing their quest as being for 'national liberation.' China and Cuba, where guerrillas had conquered whole countries, provided the exemplars for the Irish, the Basques and the Kurds.

Even the conservatively-minded thinkers who would defend capitalism against Karl Marx's strictures stressed -- at least for public consumption during the Cold War -- the easier-sounding principles of 'free trade', 'free markets' and 'free competition.' By 1980, 'libertarianism' was favoured as much by the political right as by the left and became an alternative title for the non-authoritarian and non-'racist' doctrines of neo-conservatism. Just as democracy enjoyed universal appeal (however its instantiations varied), so liberty was beyond reproach. Anarchy remained recognized as the horror which it had once seemed to the liberal genius, Wolfgang Goethe; but the law-governed constitutional liberties of Western countries were widely appreciated. Exiled intellectuals of the Third / developing world made affecting spectacles in Western capitals as they pleaded for liberty for their peoples. Relatively affluent countries like Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria had wrested a freedom from imperialism, the world noticed, without passing on much of that freedom to their own citizens.

Nor would the West itself remain content with the liberties embodied in nation-statehood and in hard-won restrictions on government taxation, economic planning and inflation. By the 1980's, Westerners further voted against versions of socialism that offered any substantial redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. Only in highly ethnically cohesive countries like Sweden and the Republic of Ireland did taxation of high incomes remain progressive -- i.e. savage. Likewise, Westerners were indifferent even to the icons of their classical culture. It was not just that advocates of socialism proceeded with caution -- wary of any return to Europe's 1918-1945 period of totalitarian regimes. Even the West's literary canon came under challenge as 'minority' students supposedly preferred to study writers whose own struggle for liberation struck more of a chord with them -- thus conjuring for students their own class-type war of 'disadvantaged' underdogs versus privileged overdogs.

Science, the chief arbiter of truth in the post-1945 world, suffered a decrease in popularity among the West's college students; and such a hero of twentieth century liberation as Freud was shunned not only by finicky academics but by students who would once have thought Freud's stress on sex the very height of liberating scientific realism. Even Darwin's ideas made slow progress, outwith science itself, in a world where the remaining Christians and the neo-socialist left were both anxious about the kind of interference with human nature and social convention that practices like abortion, womb leasing, genetic engineering and cloning might involve. After all, both Darwin and Freud had believed in radical differences between the sexes; but one big new demand for liberation came from women.

The demand for liberation from scientific authority was assisted by the widely held belief (popularized by acolytes of the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn) that science itself was a socially determined construction having no more merit as an arbiter of truth than had the Christian Church of former times. (Christianity was by this time derided for its past failures in resisting liberation and began a process of making grovelling apologies for wars, slavery and genocide.) Such liberating doctrine was well suited to a Western world where journalists declined the disciplines of numeracy and spared their readers any notion that the correlations between variables could be handily quantified. The statistics of correlation and partial correlation would have allowed public discussion of scientific results to replace the convenient fiction of an arts/science divide. Instead, even public discussion of which types of schooling produced real gains for children was impossible: initial levels of intelligence could not be adequately measured, claimed the media's favoured columnists; and partial correlations of schooling with outcome after control for baseline intelligence would have baffled readers -- a hundred years after Sir Francis Galton's breakthrough to measuring correlation and partial correlation.

By the end of the twentieth century, even the foundational freedoms of the West, once championed by classic anti-Popery liberals, were themselves under siege. As the left of the 1980's recognized the success of capitalism and dropped socialist agendas for detailed economic management and equalization of post-tax incomes, it became more willing to redress perceived social injustices by other means. In particular, this involved control of 'chauvinistic' men -- widely said to have remained lords of all they surveyed in a still patriarchal world.

By the 1990s, men could be hounded from their jobs for 'sexist' remarks and attitudes. At play, men could find their classic sexual overtures labelled as harassment, date rape or stalking. Adult men -- even pop stars -- found themselves criticized in the media for any sexual involvement with adolescent girls, even if the girls were sixteen or over. Few men any longer sought careers as school- or scout- or choir-masters or social workers, for the slightest misinterpreted physical affection could find them accused of paedophilia and imprisoned even twenty years after alleged offences which had done no visible harm and gone unreported at the time.

Virtually no women had ever been top-ranking intellectuals in any human culture; but universities felt obliged to sport ever-higher percentages of women among their staff. Likewise, progressive endeavour of the kind once focused on helping the working class became concentrated on retaining and promoting ethnic minorities, the physically disabled, the homosexually oriented and the differently gendered [i.e. transsexuals and hermaphrodites] in schools and colleges, in the workplace, and in government service.

'Affirmative action' even reached national parliaments thanks to some political parties setting limits on the percentage of male candidates they would put forward. Whereas the political left had once dealt with inequalities by taxation and redistribution of wealth, it now demanded front-end equality: employers should attend to the balance or diversity of their work-forces before considering the individual merits of job applicants; and the police should not stop and search (Black) minorities with greater frequency than they stopped (White) majorities.

In the name of multiculturalism, people were treated increasingly not as individuals but according to their sex (or 'gender', as sex was fashionably re-titled) and ethnicity. Through 1970-1995, US universities operated discriminatory racial quotas with virtual impunity to boost their percentages of Afro-American students. To be of 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' or even Asian descent in America actually became a handicap except in so far as it was actually accompanied by above-average ability or serious wealth.

Millions of would-be migrants might find it increasingly hard to enter the welfare states of the West which were understandably reluctant to offer their free-at-the-point-of-use health, educational and social security benefits to those who had not paid their way via taxation and responsible citizenship. Yet as migrants and 'asylum seekers' (even from countries belonging to the United Nations!) bribed or married or forced their way in, at rates around $50,000 per head for the exercise, Westerners prided themselves that they practised no visible colour bar -- and indeed prosecuted as racist those who did.

Though the world's great religions were weakened forces that could no longer sustain the concept of the brotherhood of man, the West's de-sanctioning of nationalism, homophobia and racism looked liberating to many in the third world who suffered far worse forms of these practices of stereotyping at home than minorities ever encountered in the West itself.

The advance of feminism, too, assisted the creation of a 'global village' atmosphere. Nobody was officially claiming to lord it over anyone else, and familiar patterns of male chauvinism in clubs and trades unions were being conspicuously reversed. America and its allies might enjoy unprecedented world-wide military hegemony, but the new religion of egalitarianism-by-type was designed to forbid the exclusion of anyone. All who could pay student fees, arrange state employment as teachers of their own languages, or obtain citizenship by marriage were welcome in Western countries.

A now-godless Western world had mastered the knack of the religions it had superseded: its new religion of Political Correctness (PeeCee) allowed none to deny in public the brotherhood of man and could thereby justify the pleasant offices and salaries of the state servants who worked in the name of its increasing world-wide imperium of liberation. Originating in feminism, and instantiated in the many female and Black politicians who served President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, PeeCee and its 'affirmative' doctrines had begun to liberate the new downtrodden from the problems of liberalism and created a splendid array of sinecures for their protagonists.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Tuesday, January 28, 2003


For the Labour Government, Education Minister Charles Clarke said he would allow universities to charge fees of up to 3,000 Stg for UK students and announced his defection from leftist piety about the universities, saying "the 'emperor's clothes' idea that all universities are broadly the same was always nonsense and needs to be stripped away" (Times Higher, 25 i).

The state of 'universities' created in the years of expansion was starkly indicated by research from Australia showing that "Students on Australian campuses are copying material from the internet and textbooks, submitting work by previous students, collaborating on assignments and hiring someone more knowledgeable in a subject to sit their exams" (Times Higher 25 i). No less than 80% of undergraduates and 54% of postgraduates admitted to cheating in the course of their degree work - blaming the fact that they were also typically in paid employment for 20 hours per week.



"If we were to imagine a great war taking place, say, in 1960, we who too often measure guilt by its consequences might well be wrong in imagining that a tragedy so stupendous could only be the work of some special monster of wickedness."
Herbert Butterfield (Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge), 1949, Christianity and History. London : G. Bell & Sons.

"[The Holocaust has not,] as might have been expected, gradually receded with time to the peripheries of American Jewish consciousness. Rather, it seems to become more central every year."
Hillel Halkin, 1998, Commentary [New York], November 1998.

"Germany and Austria, where Jews had seen their talents ripen into genius, wealth and an apparent bourgeois security -- those very nations instituted a systematic plan for the extermination of the Jews, a plan whose all but completely successful execution remains the astonishment of this century, the final refutation of any European claims to virtue and wisdom."
From a draft lecture by Nobel recipient 'Bech', a fictional US Jewish author. John Updike, 1998, Bech at Bay. London : Hamish Hamilton.

"The incomparable guilt of Germany in no way exonerates the rest of the world."
Canon Paul Oestreicher, Observer [London], 8 November 1998.

"The cardinal principle of justice in Ancient Greece involved the allocation of costs where they truly belong."
Dr David Starkey, BBC Radio 4 UK, 18 November 1998, 20:30.

"I see the entire period of Nazi ascendancy as the product of the coming together of a whole series of quite abnormal factors."
George Kennan, New York Review of Books, 3 December 1998.

"In 1936, a German Jew could still drive a car, collect stamps, go to football and do well at school. It was hard to despair and leave."
Niall Fergusson, 1998, Literary Review, December.

"Francis Fukuyama [author of The End of History] believes that the most important question {for the future} is 'the goodness of liberal democracy itself', whether liberal democracy retains internal contradictions that will eventually undermine it from the inside as a political system."
Paul Bacon, 1999. In S. Chan & J. Wiener, Twentieth Century International History. London : Tauris.

"Eugenics is tainted, presumably irretrievably, by its association with genocide."
J. W. Burrow (Professor of European Thought, University of Oxford), 1999, Times and Times Higher 'Millennium Magazine', 31 xii.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, January 27, 2003


Feminist icon Germaine Greer announced she expected to be branded a paedophile after writing a new book challenging conventional views on child pornography - and expressly saying she enjoyed nothing better than looking at pictures of nude under-16 boys.

{Her activities would have been quite legal in Britain so long as she did not download pictures from the Internet.}

Mick Hume, the Times resident ex-Marxist, said he would not want any paedophiles locked up on the strength of what he could remember from dance halls of the 1970's (20 i).

In Times Higher (25 i), sociologist Frank Furedi also criticized paedohysteria, saying he found it "repellent" that, if current trends continue, researchers would soon need a Government license to be able to study paedophilia and its internet images.

{However, it still remained for any defensible paedophile to make a successful public appearance - star paedophiles continued to deny their paedophilia or commit suicide or both.}



After a British National Party victory at a council election in Yorkshire, a Times leader (25 i) managed to commit itself to saying people were right to be angry about Britain's hopeless provision for getting rid of failed asylum seekers.

The Spectator complained mildly about Algerian immigrants and brought itself to mention the scores of thousands of cases of disease (HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis B) which have been imported into Britain under Labour rule (Andrew Browne, 25 i) {mentioned on this blog on 27th December}.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, January 26, 2003


{The extract below is from an article originally published in the Autumn issue of 'downlow', Volume 2, Issue 1, p. 33 (1996). UK retail price stlg2-00. For more detail of the magazine and its availability, phone or fax +44 (0) 1707 322101 (Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK). 'downlow' is a black oriented music magazine. See also here}

I believe - on the evidence - that all children (under parental guidance) should be allowed TRACK CHOICE. At school, they should be able to choose the age-group in which they are taught. That would allow both Blacks and Whites to eliminate deficiencies and catch up where necessary.

To use a sporting analogy: a broad, 250lb male is unlikely to achieve success in a 100-yard dash, irrespective of the type of coaching he's offered; but he could, probably, become a successful hammer thrower.
'Horses for courses' is an old saying which still makes a valid point. It's time to get real about race and IQ - for the sake of children of all races and IQ levels.

Now what about families?

Here, too, there's a major problem, as we all know. It centres on the West's great growth industry: 'single parent families' and fatherless children. It's a disaster for both Blacks and Whites, particularly for our kids.

Admit it, how many of you 'downlow' readers saw your dad recently?
Blacks 'took the lead' in the US during the 1970's when welfare was increased and lessened a woman's need to have a man about the house; but since then Whites have been catching up fast.

Then there's the crime and drugs problem, also increasing dramatically. Study the statistics, and you'll find that young offenders come mainly from fatherless households.

Do we have to accept this as inevitable? Not at all! Just rid ourselves of the UN-FREEDOM with which we live!

The trouble is the lack of individual choice to pick what's best for us, not what's best for the PeeCee egalitarians. If there's only one type of marriage contract, for example, don't expect marriage automatically to remain intact for the couple's lifetime. Partners should be able to plan for reality, not pie-in-the-sky ideals.

Black people are especially hindered by having no choice of marriage contract.

In many African countries, a successful Black man will have mistresses as well as a wife or wives. There are two main advantages of allowing men to have more than one female partner at a time. First, more women can have children by, and support from really successful husbands. Secondly, if a partnership does falter (perhaps because the woman becomes more interested in her children than in her husband) the home lives of the adults and children don't have to be violently disrupted in order for the man to find a new sexual partner.

Polygyny thus keeps families together and ensures children a father who is a high achiever and good role model.

Polygyny is a natural part of many African cultures, despite the considerable interference of European missionaries; but PeeCee would never allow it here, whatever your traditions.

Forced to put aside tried and tested customs, it's not surprising that family unity is uncommon in Black communities forced to conform to Western values. The result is a lack of support economically and no foundation for the moral upbringing of Black youth, who end up rejected everywhere through no fault of their own. Black kids become crap on the streets, and crap gets removed.

And that's the rub of my work: THE 'g' FACTOR simply advocates the need for different arrangements to cater for and harness the individuality of people of different races, recognizing how our minds tick.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Saturday, January 25, 2003


Even the Shadow Home Secretary for the usually peecee Liberal Democrats mused that, where it was not possible to establish the identity of people coming into the country (e.g. if they have no papers) and where there was concern that they posed a security risk, it might be necessary to detain them while they were security-cleared.

The centre-left Independent's reporter Johann Hari (a Swiss) reported that the young men he found at Finsbury Park Mosque talked of all English people as "racist and hating Islam" and of all English women as "whores"; he wrote of these "vicious" men having celebrated the deaths of 9/11 and as showing "paranoia in the extreme" and added that the Mosque was plainly "a nest of crime and terrorism."

Spectator editor and Tory MP Boris Johnson braved the wrath of 'modernizing' Tories by condemning Britain's failure to extradite Arabs wanted in France for the 1995 bombing in the Paris Metro: apparently Lord Justice Stephen Sedley had essentially ruled that no Muslim could expect a fair trial in France, making extradition impossible in view of the countless rights granted to asylum seekers (though not to British people to have a vote on whether they want asylum seekers, costing £9,000 a week to keep).

(Sources: Times 21 i; Daily Mail 21 i; Independent 22 i; Daily Telegraph 23 i).


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Friday, January 24, 2003


(This excerpt is from an article originally published in 'Downlow', Volume 2, Issue 1, p. 33 of 1996).

Let's put to flight the PeeCee battalions whose absurdities warrant psychological research in their own right and wipe out modern White Anglo-Saxon Protestant 'speech codes' which blur and deny our differences.

Once upon a time, we were equal before God and struggled for equality in the eye of the Law and in voting booths. But today, the central doctrine of PeeCee claims us to be naturally equal in every important way: morally, psychologically and in all-round cultural achievement. Who can believe such absurdity - apart from fat-cat high priests of PeeCee?

Are we all to be grey, dull, boring, mass-produced units turned out like Pentium chips in Taiwan or Silicon Vallley? If we're to retain our individuality and different qualities, we must face the TRUTH, with honesty.

Now let me remind you that - without any reader here going into a frenzy - a Black person can say 'White people are made to be evil' or that modern Blacks have lost their 'culture, language and religion' or that 'You open up a store and Niggas are gonna steal from you'. I didn't make up those quotes. They come from Leo X and Fat Joe, featured in articles published in this magazine in January. I applaud them and the 'Downlow' editor for being frank.

But, as a 'White Devil', I am not allowed to point out that the average African-American has an IQ of 85 or a better sense of R&B music than a White. No! No way must I say those things! I'm expected to change the facts to suit the PeeCees.

If Whitey academics and politicians admit the differences between the races, and these are perceived as 'problems', we must say immediately, 'Hey, we can find an instant solution!' All that needs to be done to remedy things is to alter social conditions through spending money - just a little bit more than the 40% of Gross National Product currently dedicated {in the UK} to our so-called 'Welfare State'.

Yes, if you're a Black and you're failing to get that job or pass that examination, don't worry, we've got the antidote to all your ills. And if we don't, we'll pretend.

But that attitude is condescending.

To me, there's a lack of realism in today's Western world and it impacts equally badly on both Whites and Blacks. This is what I've tried to explain in THE 'g' FACTOR: the same type of education offered Blacks and Whites - of all IQ levels - in the US and the UK has been a disaster. It hasn't improved knowledge or even enhanced students' capabilities?

More here


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Thursday, January 23, 2003


Paedohysteria was roundly denounced in a major centrefold article by the Daily Telegraph's top columnist, Barbara Amiel (married to proprietor Lord Black) (20 i).

Amiel specially slammed the criminalization of mere looking at Internet images, said that the idea that material on the Internet caused violence or paedophilia was "totally contradicted by historical evidence", and said it was time to get back to the principle of punishing people chiefly according to the amount of harm they actually caused.

She specially lambasted the "pathology of the police" who had found it necessary to send no less than twelve officers to arrest the ageing rock star Pete Townshend and charge him with paedophilic downloading.

The first leader in the Telegraph took up Amiel's theme, deploring the fact that thousands of men were literally being broken for minor paedophilic offences and saying it was time to reassert the Christian distinction between hating the sin and loving the sinner.

Forty stars wrote a letter to the Daily Mail (21 I) defending popular TV presenter Matthew Kelly, arrested on paedophilic allegations dating back to the 1970's.

For regular coverage of paedohysteria news, see Casualties of False Sexual Allegations, New Zealand.}



The New York Times complained that President Bush's new 'affirmative percentages' plan would not work and might even be condemned by US courts as racist (' Bush's Affirmative Action Plan Unlikely to End Debate ', 19 i).

The Bush idea - as implemented in Texas and Florida - was to guarantee that the top X% from any school would win a state university place. But few Blacks would benefit unless the schools were racially segregated; and the scheme was plainly if indirectly racist in intent. Thus did the NYTwits' newspaper seek to defend traditional affirmative racism.

{This was a mean analysis of a rather charming idea which might rapidly bring about school desegregation as Whites try to snap up easy university places for their kids. But the NYT was right that this was not the real way forward for Blacks. Rather, universities wishing to affirm their anti-racist idealism need simply to offer courses which no Whites will want to take. Notably, they should offer degrees in the languages, history and geography of Africa.

Any advantage in such a short-term waste of public money? Yes! Perchance Black students of those subjects will get really keen to go and do good humanitarian works in Africa - and stay there permanently! Harvard should start offering postal courses to Black jailbirds immediately, and the US Government should plan to build a mainly-Black 'Task Force Africa' which would police the Dark, Feckless and AIDS-ravaged Continent and keep Blacks out of shooting each other on American and English city streets.}


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, January 22, 2003


After London police raided and made seven arrests at the Finsbury Park Mosque, which had been increasingly taken over by al Quaeda-supporting Algerians since 1998, the Government was given an unprecedented opportunity to jettison Britain's lunatic immigration and asylum policies.

In the Times, columnists Michael Gove and Libby Purves railed against politicians' peecee cowardice, and the leading article said that what Muslims had permitted at the Finsbury Park Mosque was "true sacrilege."

The Muslim Council of Britain said it was "angered" by the preachments (against "Christian pigs") of loopy, one-eyed and no-handed fanatic Abu Hamza, and "outraged" that he had never been arrested.

Even the more extreme Moslem Parliament of Great Britain was critical that Abu Hamza had not been reined in.

Derek Wyatt, the Labour MP for Sittingbourne (where the Government was caught planning to used a 3-star hotel for 100 asylum seekers) expressed fury and called for a two-year moratorium on asylum seeking in Britain.

Fine letters calling for Britain to withdraw from the 1951 Convention on Human Rights were printed in the Times from Professor S.F. Bush and Adrienne May.



Brave John E. Joseph wrote to mention the advantage of race realism to the Times Literary Supplement (17 i): A hundred years ago the French were beginning to realize that they had lost the battle for world empire. Writes Joseph:

[According to Leopold Saussure's Psychologie de La Colonisation Francaise], Spain and France suffered from the illusion that, through education, they could make 'primitive' imperial subjects the equivalent of Europeans. The Anglo-Saxon, being racist through and through, had no such illusion. So it was that 65,000 British could dominate an Indian empire of 250 million, while France, with 50,000 troops in Algeria, was struggling to control a population of 3.5 million.

Joseph, brave? Why, yes, he penned his race-realistic letter from the new 'School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Science' at the loony University of Edinburgh!


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Tuesday, January 21, 2003


In an article titled 'Sterilization Program Revisits Eugenics Issue', C.R.A.C.K. received the censorious attention of 'Concerned Women of America', many of whom apparently believed that America's 60-year War on Drugs was winnable and that, quite without contraceptive effort, a drop in the numbers of crack-addicted babies could be expected some day, somewhere over the rainbow_.



A Black man was appointed to head the Government milk cow, the Commission for Racial Equality, after he promised not to mount drunken assaults on young policemen (as did the previous occupant of the sinecure, an Indian) and to try to end racial in-fighting at the CRE between Blacks of African origin and Blacks of Caribbean origin.



Despite borrowing œ30 million under the 1990'S vice-chancellorship of Lady Houndstooth of Sutherland, the loony University of Edinburgh has no money to repair its antiquated facilities, many of which are "verging on the illegal" (Student 15 i 03).

Tiles fall daily from the wrecked Appleton Tower even though this building is being used to rehouse the university's prestigious computer scientists after their own building burned down. Recent signs around the LUniversity have warned of asbestos leads, and an Estates and Buildings official told Student that "all university buildings have a mouse problem" - indications of the severity of the LUniversity's decline.



As UK police rampaged through the hard drives of 7,000 suspected paedophilic downloaders, including popstars and TV presenters, top Times columnist Matthew Parris (himself homosexual) bravely expressed reservations about the criminalization of merely looking at things (18 i). He was backed up by a West London correspondent, S. G. Trembath, who wrote:

It took longer than George Orwell reckoned, but the Thought Police are now with us. They come to our homes, remove possessions and arrest us, because we have looked at something. The internet is Big Brother's dream tool to track our every peculiarity and peccadillo.

London Libertarian Sean Gabb also did a fine job of protesting the new witch-hunt (click on sidebar link).


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, January 20, 2003


It is excellent that fees are to be raised, thus deterring kids from going to dismal institutions that are mainly bastions of political correctness, feminazism and kindred post-Marxism -- where 95% of staff are liberal-left, despite their own fond stated 'belief in the value of diversity.' (Also the level of literacy among staff and students is deeply shocking - that's why all examination papers are quickly burned, lest any journalist get hold of them and expose the horrors.) At last there will be some young men to mend washing machines, TV aerials etc. at less than £80 per hour!

It is sad that, in all this, the universities have not made the slightest effort to champion (a) really bright children and (b) kids whose parents have taken the trouble to give them a good (private or grammar school) secondary education. But no matter, they will soon be swept away as surely as the monasteries of Catholic England. Let's get those fees up and put pressure on academics who no longer even bother to defend free speech or (on the Internet) the right to look! The state of history says it all: our best historians (Paul Johnson, Hugh Thomas, Simon Schama, David Starkey, Norman Stone) have largely left UK academia behind them.

This comment formed part of a “Times Higher” discussion -- posted 19th. January. See here.


Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, January 19, 2003


After Sacrificing a Statesman Before the Altar of Multiculturalism, a Nation Faces Cultural Suicide

The gifted and esteemed, if unsmiling and much abused British politician, Enoch Powell, fell from grace in 1968. Powell's mistake was to have alluded to the possible perils of the mass coloured immigration into Britain which was by then well under way. Powell was instantly sacked from the Conservative Shadow Cabinet (where he had been Defence spokesman) and then left to languish on the Westminster backbenches – finally becoming an Ulster Unionist MP.

With this put-down by the Heath government vanished for a generation any serious possibility of public realism in Britain about race or nationhood. Even the quite successful Scottish National Party currently professes multiculturalism and in 1999 reproved its leader when he queried Nato's bombing of Serbia (which had tried to control the Albanians within its borders). Today, it is not just academics and journalists but drinking men and grandmothers in Britain who know that “you mustn't mention the darkies.” By intimidation, Britain's political class has preserved the fiction that race is not a problem.

Such enforced piety is sometimes claimed to have been a success. Britain's roughly 93% white population has certainly tolerated rather well the 7% of British citizens who now hail from the New Commonwealth. Yet, this year, Britain experienced its worst race riots since the 1950s – with over 200 police injured by young Pakistanis in nights of street battles in Oldham, Leeds, Burnley, Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent. Globalized capitalism and its convenient religion of Political Correctness are likely to be answered by ever-rising levels of white racial consciousness and the rejection of multicultural illusions. In the past two years, scores of violent incidents between Glaswegians and London’s 4,000 Muslim “asylum seekers” have provided a test of how keen the Scots are on multiculturalism.

Was Enoch Powell correct in his forebodings that multiculturalism would not succeed? Contrary to the wishful thinking of Britain's chattering classes (themselves largely unaffected by coloured immigrants competing for their own jobs or nearby living space) the jury is still out. The murderous ethnic polarization which erupted in multicultural Sarajevo could also happen in Macedonia and even the UK's south Pennines. Fortunately, dangerous multiculturalism may prove corrigible if it meets a monoculturalism that is at once nationalist and classically liberal – the kind of dynamic compromise that Enoch Powell would have wished.

More here


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Saturday, January 18, 2003


What is inclusiveness?

"Inclusiveness", like "access" and "equity", is a way of talking about equality. Liberals believe as a matter of principle that the benefits of society should be equally available to all and that a basic task of government is to help make them so. As liberalism has developed so have the specific demands of that principle; today it requires that persons of every race, ethnicity, religious background, sex, disability status and sexual orientation be able to participate equally in major social activities, with roughly equal receipt of status and rewards the test for equal ability to participate. This requirement of equal participation is referred to as "inclusiveness".

What is wrong with inclusiveness?

The demand for inclusiveness is in effect a demand for comprehensive political, economic and social equality defined and administered by government. One objection to that demand is the usual objection to bureaucratic egalitarianism, that it requires comprehensive state control of social life restrained neither by popular control nor traditional limitations, and so leads to something not far from slavery. It destroys civil society, degrades the human spirit, and has disastrous economic consequences. In the case of state socialism the legitimacy of such objections has finally been conceded, but since the spirit that gave us socialism keeps reappearing in new forms the destruction and degradation continue.

A more abstract objection is that inclusiveness means that characteristics that define personal identity have no legitimate public role. If my specific identity--as a man, a member of a particular people, or whatever--affects how I am treated, then I am treated unequally because of who I am, contrary to inclusiveness. Since we are social animals, however, how we identify ourselves can not so easily be divorced from our place in the world. To say that what I am should have no effect on my position in the world is to say that I should have no essential connection to the social order of which I am part, and so to estrange me from that order. The progress of inclusiveness is therefore the progress of alienation. That alienation has political as well as individual and general social effects; a man becomes one thing, society quite another, and the bonds linking the two become wholly abstract. As a result, all grounds for loyalty disappear and free government becomes impossible as a practical matter.

Isn't the sort of equality referred to as "inclusiveness" a limited one?

Not in the long run, since over time the circumstances thought to constitute exclusion multiply. Any inequality corresponds to a benefit from which some are excluded and so can be held to violate the principle of inclusiveness. No usable way of limiting the principle has been proposed.

In addition, the inequalities targeted by measures such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extremely stubborn, and any serious attempt to eradicate them quickly turns radical. Sex, religion and ethnicity have always and everywhere been fundamental principles of social organization, and to forbid "discrimination" is to attempt to eliminate them as such. That effort necessarily requires "affirmative action"-- quotas and equivalent measures--since the only way to verify proper motive and eliminate subtle structural inequalities is to look at results. Thought control--sensitivity training, the bowdlerization of language, speech codes and so on--is also necessary to any serious antidiscrimination program, since the purpose of such a program is to prevent people from making decisions in ways that will seem natural and fitting to them unless their ways of thinking are transformed.
The demands of inclusiveness thus become quite comprehensive.

To focus discussion on basic issues, this FAQ will concentrate especially on measures that now count as "conservative," such as the rules against race and sex discrimination in employment, and on defense of some of the conduct those measures forbid. The objections to more far-reaching measures are in general all the stronger. In order to limit the discussion, I will not deal with the question of innate differences.

Why is coercion a necessary part of inclusiveness?

A particular organization may choose inclusiveness even in the absence of coercion. However, it is not likely that all would do so, certainly not to the extent proponents of inclusiveness demand. Intentional discrimination is often rational. Human beings differ, as do their affinities for each other. While many differences are purely individual, enough are related to characteristics such as sex and ethnicity for free dealings to lead to a degree of social segmentation even in the absence of intentional discrimination. Where such segmentation arises the habits and social expectations it engenders accentuate it. When those habits and expectations become self-aware they turn into full-fledged discrimination. Discrimination of a kind considered invidious by proponents of inclusiveness thus perpetually recreates itself if there is no comprehensive supervening force to forbid it.

Excerpt from Anti-inclusiveness FAQ by Jim Kalb.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Friday, January 17, 2003


In a clear admission that nothing but specialized training can improve the abysmal educational performance of Black children, White teachers were found to be leaving Black schools in droves whenever their pay was tied to general test scores (, 13 i, ' White teachers fleeing black schools').

Three Georgia State University professors found that during the late '90s white elementary school teachers in Georgia were much more likely to quit at schools with higher proportions of black students. After the 1999-2000 school year, 31 percent of white teachers quit their jobs at schools where the student population was more than 70 percent black, and those who changed jobs went to schools that served lower proportions of black and poor pupils.

See also HERE for an example of why white teachers flee.



President George W. Bush bravely tried to deliver what may be the kiss of death to standard issue affirmative racism, announcing:

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a case about admission policies and student diversity in public universities. I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed. At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students, based solely on their race. So, tomorrow my administration will file a brief with the court arguing that the University of Michigan's admissions policies, which award students a significant number of extra points based solely on their race, and establish numerical targets for incoming minority students, are unconstitutional.

Instead, the President praised schemes by which universities offer to take the top pupils from all schools, including the poorest.

So aggrieved White parents need only shift their children into "sink" (or as is said by British Labour ministers, "bog standard") schools for a year at age 17 to give them a chance of Harvard entry!

More here


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Thursday, January 16, 2003


BLANTYRE (Reuters) - Hundreds of angry Malawians hounded a senior political figure from his house and stoned him late Wednesday, accusing him of harboring vampires. Blantyre Urban Governor Eric Chiwaya, a member of the ruling United Democratic Front, was the latest victim of a bizarre rumor that the country's government is colluding with vampires to collect human blood for international aid agencies.

More here



Reports trickling in from the Democratic Republic of Congo indicate that militant rebels backed by Uganda have enslaved much of the indigenous, peace-loving pygmy population, forcing them to work the mines and gather food. But even worse than enslavement is the punishment visited upon pygmies who dare to return from forage without a sufficiently impressive food haul. According to United Nations officials, these unfortunate souls are butchered, then eaten, by the rebels.

"Ituri is completely out of control and cannibalism is just the latest atrocity taking place," said one UN official who was on the scene. "We hear reports of commanders feeding on sexual organs of pygmies, apparently believing this would give them strength. We also have reports of pygmies being forced to feed on the cooked remains of their colleagues." It is believed that many of the rebels in Africa's densely forested central region have fallen under the influence of the Mayi-Mayi, a religious movement that encourages the practice of ritual magic, including wearing body-parts and eating human flesh

More here.



The case that humans are essentially polygamous was ably set out by Lord Robert Winston, Fellow of the Galton Institute, as in his recent TV programmes. Sadly, Lord Winston did not remark the list of famous bastards published by the BBC.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, January 15, 2003


The Metropolitan Police revealed that their Political Correctness had reached new heights as they allowed a Black gunman, a notorious criminal and drug dealer, to hold 100 officers (and doubtless psychobabbling counsellors) at bay from his bedsit in South London (Evening Standard [London], 10 i 03).

Officers did not even bring the siege to an end when Eli Hall's only hostage escaped, instead allowing the gunman to set fire to the flat and commit suicide. The whole exercise cost the Met alone at least a million pounds and gravely inconvenienced hundreds of neighbours in nearby shops and flats – not least because loud music was played whenever the gunman showed signs of falling asleep.

The excessive caution on the part of the police certainly resulted from fear of criticism by 'Black community leaders' if the police had shot the gunman. It transpired that Hall's father was serving a three-year prison sentence for drug dealing, and that Hall's brother was killed in a street shooting in South London last year.



The Council of Europe toughened its cybercrime patrolling and urged member countries to criminalize the slightest sign of racist incitation – even mere links to Internet 'race hate' sites.

{Thus was marked the swift decline since 1990 of what was once a liberal organization – showing that liberalism cannot be trusted unless combined with realism.}

Not to be outdone, Essex police announced they would 'name and shame' thieves and rogues – unleashing upon them the unpredictable ferocities of the public.

And the NuLabour Government pressed on with plans to restrict jury trials (in 'complex' cases which might soon include paedophilia – Times, (13 xi ‘02), to allow juries to know of an accused's previous convictions while trying a case, to allow alleged criminals the 'double jeopardy' experience of being re-tried if the prosecution thought it had not obtained the right result the first time round, and to extradite British citizens to face trial in European courts on charges that could not be brought in Britain (e.g. Holocaust denial).

{Letters urging MPs to reject the European Arrest Warrant appeared in the Times, (18 xi ‘02), from lawyer Robert Rhodes and freedom campaigners Philip Duly, Frederick Forsyth, John Mortimer and John Wadham.}



Iain Murray of “England’s Sword” reports (post of January 14th.) that there were 3 times as many murders per 100,000 of population in London as there were in New York -- plus 5 times as many rapes and 4 times as many burglaries!


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Tuesday, January 14, 2003


Responding to Black-on-Black murders of girls by submachine gun in Birmingham UK's Aston area, Government sources announced plans to penalize any gun ownership with a mandatory 5-year custodial sentence and to require Jamaicans to obtain visas before visiting Britain.

{Whether such tough talk would lead to action or just be forgotten (like plans to remove failed asylum seekers) remained to be seen; and the offer by Birmingham police of a measly £1,000 for Blacks to shop the Black murderers hardly exuded determination.}



According to figures in a report on condoms by "Population Action International", the average man in Botswana gets less than one condom per year from international donors.

More here



[U.K. Home Secretary] David Blunkett's remarks that "If we are going to have social cohesion we have got to develop a sense of identity and a sense of belonging" are welcome - if overdue - recognition from a senior Leftist that the multicultural society he and his political peers have created is fundamentally flawed and inherently unstable. Years of self-delusion and wishful thinking may finally be coming to an end.

Over decades, large-scale, poorly-controlled immigration, aggressive anti-Western propaganda, misplaced idealism and political irresponsibility have brought into being enormous - if not intractable - social problems. Our inner cities are becoming permanent low-grade battle zones between disaffected ethnic minorities, disgruntled whites and the police. Our society is full of angst and mistrust, with 'anti-racist' fanatics creating unreasonable expectations and setting impossible targets.

From Right Now news release.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, January 13, 2003


A major political realignment came a step nearer as, in the House of Commons, 150 Labour MPs made a point of listening to a speech by the anti-war 'Father of the House', Tam Dalyell.

If the liberal-left broke with Mr Blair, leaving him to pursue Americanglish Empire, globalization, the New World Order and its PeeCee religion together with President Bush, the new opposition – joined by anti-war Conservatives – would have no alternative but to be relatively nationalistic and tough on immigration.

After all, if one declines to prevent the growth of terrorism in the world, one is going to need to seal the borders and deal firmly with any enemies within and their supporters – bearing down in ways just as unprecedented as those of President Bush on the families, friends, flatmates and funders of terrorists.

It remained to be seen, however, whether the present the liberal-left would turn to classic horrors of national socialism, or whether the position of neofamily-based national liberalism could prove sufficiently attractive.

Britain must have learned from its experience of Irish terrorism: either you infiltrate and destroy terror networks or you defend formidably against traitors – otherwise you get the shoddy compromise of the current explosively multicultural and undemocratic Northern Ireland. Could British politicians ever think that even such a disgraceful compromise would ever be on offer from Islamic fanatics?



Apparently my name can now be used to scare leftists' children into eating their Cuban Muesli. Last year the Baltimore City Paper reported: " C.R.A.C.K. is funded by a host of social conservatives, including Laura Schlessinger, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Jim Woodhill. Chris Brand, a public-policy consultant to the Woodhill Foundation, is a notorious eugenicist whose book The g Factor attempts to prove differences in white and black racial intelligence based on genes."


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, January 12, 2003


(The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life)

According to The Bell Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, by Richard J. Herrnstein, Ph.D. Psychology, Harvard University, and Charles Murray, Ph.D. Political Science, M.I.T., black IQ scores are so far below white IQ scores in their distribution as to preclude useful Affirmative Action Programs.

The reason? Only 29,000 African Americans have IQ levels above 130 points, the minimal level found suitable for many executives in business. With 15+ million businesses in America, this leaves fewer than 1 theoretically qualified African American for each 500 businesses to serve as executives; however, more than 20,000 of these 29,000 African Americans are under 21 years of age and one-half of those precious few 9,000 African Americans who are presently above 21 years of age will never earn a university undergraduate degree. That leaves just 4,500 African Americans over 130 IQ points with a university degree to share among 15+ million companies. this is why Affirmative Action has aided white women and Asians in achieving high promotions more than it has African Americans.

The types of jobs available for almost 28 million African Americans with IQ's below 115 points are typical menial positions such as janitorial work, cooking, common labor, carpentry, routine factory work, residential services, security, farming, retail sales, and lawn work. These were the natural choices of African Americans prior to Affirmative Action and continue to employ the vast majority of African Americans. It is believed by many economists that one of the reasons American manufacturers are moving overseas is the problem of African American economic expectation--e.g., African American low IQ levels, Affirmative Action unrealistic legal rules concerning African American promotions, and African American lawsuits over not being promoted regardless of their low IQ level, and the related quagmire of civil rights in the United States.

The number of African Americans above 100 IQ in the black bell curve is miniscule by comparison to the bell curve representing the IQ of whites. Those African Americans above 110 represent a shallow line by comparison below that huge slug of whites with IQ's beyond this level.

In addition, the majority of African Americans have IQ scores below 85 points, and 85 points is borderline between retarded and feebleminded. This is reflected in the large number of African Americans who never graduate from high school (graduation in many cities is less than 17% of the student body and more than one-half of our few African American graduates are functionally illiterate.)

The question of fairness to businessmen was raised recently by an executive who was quite candid, "Who is going to hire a work force of such low quality and expectation for success?" he asked. "All you are asking me to do is open myself up like a can of sardines for an EEOC lawsuit if I don't promote someone who is incompetent and can't perform just to avoid the cost of litigation. This lowers production efficiency and causes me to raise my prices. I can't run a business like this. I need to ship my manufacturing to China or South Korea soon."* (*An anonymous executive in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who says he must remain anonymous to avoid further lawsuits by the Civil Rights Commission.)

Many academicians in universities are concerned that the civil rights movement must begin to ask itself, "Are the movement's realistic?" Only 32% of our African Americans graduate from Howard University, a major black college, and this school is not considered to be difficult; low graduation rates from both white and black universities are confirming indications of the truth of the bell curve which predicts extremely low African American achievement in academia as a group.

Source of above excerpts



Not many people noticed, but the current UK administration has been in office for just over 2000 days. What's been achieved in that time? Rather little, says ASI's Dr Madsen Pirie: after 2000 days, Mrs Thatcher had seen off General Galtieri, broken the miners' strike, sold council houses, and privatized much of UK industry.


Devolved assemblies for Scotland and Wales are a reality, but have not achieved much. Scotland's can claim to be more generous with student fees and home care charges, but it is generosity done with other people's money


The various taxes on pensions, insurance, travel, and fuel, all left their mark. Indeed, since New Labour took office, Britain has increased taxes more than any other EU country. Thirteen of them have lowered taxes, but the UK, along with Portugal, has raised them.

Source of above excerpts.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Saturday, January 11, 2003


An article, 'Race - the final frontier' by Derek Turner took a mildly optimistic view about the possibly imminent ending of PeeCee - though saying the end might be 'messy and graceless', with leftists increasingly accusing each other of racism (Right Now Magazine i-iii 02).

My own fear was that the end of PeeCee might be much worse, with leftists being sure to use every statutory power to ruin and imprison rightists and neolibeREALISTS. What was important was to have an agreeable policy ready for solving the core problem posed by young Black males. I offered my own suggestion to a Conservative weblog:

It intrigues me that correspondents on this thread feel no need to say just who are the immigrants Britain can do without. Surely these immigrants are people of limited IQ and literacy in English, among whom Black people are spectacularly over-represented.

America has conducted a mighty 135-year experiment in desegregation which has largely been a failure (except for baseball stars and substantially interbred 'Blacks' like Colin Powell). Whereas other racial groups in the USA manage to live together, attend church together and intermarry, Blacks are largely segregated -- and not least the million Black men whom the USA has to keep in prison since slavery is not an option.

Now that the dramatic over-involvement of Blacks in violent crime is quite clear in Britain too, surely it is time to say that there are some particular forms of multiculturalism that have plainly been shown not to work?

Myself, I cannot imagine a serious challenge to New Labour from a party that has not got real about race. Presumably it is time to expect unemployed, criminal, low IQ and illiterate immigrants at least to join groups that would work hard to change or at least cramp the style of the regimes from which the immigrants fled. We will soon be needing such groups to defend the Christians of Africa.



Many sub-Saharan countries -- hobbled by autocratic governments, corruption and civil strife -- regularly rank at the bottom of lists rating human and economic development.

Of the 50 countries that make up the bottom of a U.N. list of 75 countries ranked according to human and economic development, 39 are in sub-Saharan Africa.
32% of sub-Saharan Africans won't reach age 40.
49% of the population has no access to safe water.
42% of adults are illiterate.

Between 1995 and 1997, sub-Saharan economies have declined by 2.4% on average, while those in Southeast Asia grew by 5.1% and those of East Asia by 12.4%.
Most sub-Saharan African countries are heavily dependent on official aid from foreign governments and international institutions. Investment from private foreign sources is negligible in all but a few countries.

Countries in which more than one-third of the population lives on $1 a day or less: Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Uganda, Rwanda, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Madagascar.

SOURCES: World Bank, U.N. Human Development Report, The Washington Post, 21 vi '97, p. A18


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Friday, January 10, 2003


The Spectator provided a fine indictment by columnist Peter Oborne of tyrannous and murderous Black rule in Zimbabwe (11 i 03). The article concluded: "Already a mild form of genocide is underway: the constant attrition of state murder, the deliberate starvation of great masses of the people, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of farm workers to remote and inhospitable camps. The ingredients are nearly all in place for something altogether larger and more tragic. But Britain regards herself as powerless to act, while the rest of the world - preoccupied with Iraq - could not care less."

{America had a million imprisoned Blacks who could have been let loose against dictator Mugabe, and Britain had a further 15,000. Yet little could be said against Black rule - except a few words in the ears of English cricketers.}



Sterilization group hit with charges of racism

By Liz Trotta

NEW YORK -- A group that is paying drug addicts and alcoholics $200 apiece not to have babies has expanded its reach into this city amid an outcry from liberal activist groups and a cold shoulder from the health care establishment.

Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity (CRACK), also known as Project Prevention, seeks to stop addicts from giving birth by offering money in exchange for sterilization or long-term birth control. It also offers vasectomies for the same deal.
Its philosophy is blunt: It is better for a child not to be born than to suffer the physical and psychological damage inherited from addicted parents.

More white women than black have availed themselves of the group's services, Mrs. Harris said. "To assume that they're all black is more racist than they could ever accuse me of. Black babies matter, too. And even if it were all black people, is that unacceptable?" she said.

In October, Mrs. Harris announced the group's opening of an office in New York City at an unruly news conference attended by more anti-CRACK demonstrators than journalists. The National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPR), Mrs. Harris' chief antagonist, accused her of "racial targeting" and says that her group's activities are reminiscent of Nazi Germany's sterilization programs of the 1930s.

"Nearly half the women she has paid are African-Americans," said Lynn M. Paltrow, NAPR executive director, adding that Mrs. Harris' statistical information is faulty. Asia Tepper, a 27-year-old Brooklyn woman, constitutes CRACK's New York office.

She said the response among addicts, social workers and the homeless has been "amazing," adding that "not one person has said it's a bad idea."

But New York's medical establishment is not likely to take up CRACK's approach. The city's Health and Hospitals Corp., which runs 11 municipal hospitals, said in a statement that it is "philosophically opposed to coercing women, economically or otherwise, to make reproductive choices."

CRACK has paid 838 women, half of whom received sterilization, according to Mrs. Harris. Twenty-two men have had vasectomies. Before contacting CRACK, the women treated had had a total of 1,322 abortions, with some having had 15. "They use abortion as birth control," Mrs. Harris said.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Thursday, January 09, 2003


(Originally published in the authoritative Annual Review of Psychology)

By David Lubinski

For some benchmarks, general cognitive ability covaries 0.70-0.80 with academic achievement measures, 0.40-0.70 with military training assignments, 0.20-0.60 with work performance (higher values reflect higher job complexity families), 0.30-0.40 with income, and 0.20 with law abidingness (Brody 1992, 1996; Gordon 1997). Willis & Schaie (1986) have shed considerable light on the role of general intelligence for practical intelligence in later life, and O'Toole (1990) has done the same for motor vehicle accident proneness.

A nice compilation of positive and negative correlates of g is Brand's (1987) Table 2, which documents a variety of modest correlations between general intelligence and altruism, sense of humor, practical knowledge, response to psychotherapy, social skills, supermarket shopping ability (positive correlates), and impulsivity, accident proneness, delinquency, smoking, racial prejudice, and obesity (negative correlates), among others.

These outer-layer peripheral correlates are especially thought provoking because they reveal how individual differences in g "pull" with them cascades of primary (direct) and secondary (indirect) effects (Gottfredson 1997).

Contemporary psychologists at opposite poles of the applied educational-industrial spectrum, such as Snow (1989) and Campbell (1990), respectively, have showcased g in law-like empirical generalizations.

Given new evidence and reconsideration of old evidence, [g] can indeed be interpreted as `ability to learn' as long as it is clear that these terms refer to complex processes and skills and that a somewhat different mix of these constituents may be required in different learning tasks and settings. The old view that mental tests and learning tasks measure distinctly different abilities should be discarded. (Snow 1989:22)

General mental ability is a substantively significant determinant of individual differences in job performance for any job that includes information-processing tasks. If the measure of performance reflects the information processing components of the job and any of several well-developed standardized measures used to assess general mental ability, then the relationship will be found unless the sample restricts the variances in performance or mental ability to near zero. The exact size of the relationship will be a function of the range of talent in the sample and the degree to which the job requires information processing and verbal cognitive skills. (Campbell 1990:56)

These views are widely accepted among psychometricians (Barrett & Depinet 1991, Carroll 1997, Gottfredson 1997). They will be welcomed by researchers who have searched in vain for genuine moderator variables and felt compelled therefore to accept, however reluctantly, Ghiselli's (1972:270) influential but dyspeptic appraisal: "It is possible that moderators are as fragile and elusive as that other will-o-the-wisp, the suppressor variable."

The following empirical generalization is now one of the most robust in all of psychology: The positive correlation between work performance (Y) and general intelligence (X) is moderated by job complexity (Z). Substituting general academic learning for Y and accelerated abstract-curriculum for Z, another robust empirical generalization of a moderated relationship is revealed for curriculum and instruction (Benbow & Stanley 1996).

Yet, contentious debate has been common for research pertaining to g (Campbell 1996). Indeed, psychologists can be found on all sides of the complex set of issues engendered by assessing general intelligence (Snyderman & Rothman 1987). This is not new, however. Heated debate has followed this important construct since shortly after Spearman's (1904) initial article (cf. Chapman 1988). Nevertheless, recently, many scientists have been determined to understand g and the means of assessing it better. Even prior to 1994, the date marking publication of Herrnstein & Murray's (1994) controversial book, a number of highly visible publications appeared that attempted (among other things) to explicate the social significance of g. For by the 1980s it was becoming clear that g played a prominent role in learning and work (Ackerman 1988, Thorndike 1985).

This development bore out Cronbach's (1970:197) earlier evaluation: "The general mental test stands today as the most important technical contribution psychology has made to the practical guidance of human affairs." Thorndike (1994:150) summarized years of research findings on cognitive abilities: "[T]he great preponderance of the prediction that is possible from any set of cognitive tests is attributable to the general ability that they share. What I have called `empirical g' is not merely an interesting psychometric phenomenon, but lies at the heart of the prediction of real-life performances...." Meehl (1990:124) remarked: "Almost all human performance (work competence) dispositions, if carefully studied, are saturated to some extent with the general intelligence factor g, which for psychodynamic and ideological reasons has been somewhat neglected in recent years but is due for a comeback."

By 1995, largely in response to exchanges stimulated by the Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray 1994) (both within scholarly outlets and the popular press), the APA formed a special task force (Neisser et al 1996). Contemporaneously with the work of this task force, several major psychological outlets published special issues (Ceci 1996, Sternberg 1997, Gottfredson 1997).

The final chapter to this story is far from complete. However, one thing is clear: The intensity of research on intellectual abilities continues unabated. Jensen (1998) has just unveiled his most recent book which, like Carroll's (1993), is destined to become a classic (Bouchard 1999, Neisser 1999). In Meehl's (1998) words: "Verbal definitions of the intelligence concept have never been adequate or commanded consensus. Carroll's [1993] and Jensen's [1998] books,
Human Cognitive Abilities and The g Factor (which will be the definitive treatises on the subject for many years to come), essentially solve the problem."

In both works, general intelligence has been conceptualized through a (perhaps, the) fundamental predicate of science--covariation. General intelligence is defined by the covariation cutting across various problem solving mediums (numerical, pictorial, verbal), assessment modalities (group, individual), and populations (cross culturally); it reflects the general factor--or communality--shared by these multiple operations.

To the extent that this general factor reaches out and connects with external phenomena--covariation--a basis is formed for evaluating its scientific significance. Jointly, these two systems of covariation (internal operations of assessment tools and external links to extra-assessment phenomena) form the nexus of the general intelligence construct, g is viewed as the central node of this nexus, with its meaning successively clarified as conceptual and empirical interrelationships develop through research and establish the causal directionality of the network's strands. Spearman (1927:89) referred to the essence of g as "mental energy," which manifested itself in individual differences in "the eduction of relations and correlates." This was a respectable pioneering beginning but, as indicated below, there are other ways to construe this attribute.

While Meehl (1998) is correct that verbal definitions of intelligence have never been "adequate or commanded consensus" because writers tend to focus on the unique features of their formulation rather than the communality that they share (cf. Sternberg & Detterman 1986), literary definitions do have their place. For example, they frequently point to critical core criteria and relevant peripheral criteria that constitute differential degrees of importance for establishing construct validity of measures purporting to assess the attribute in question. Such distinctions can bring the fruitfulness of a particular line of research into focus.

Early psychophysical measures of intelligence were rejected, for example, because they failed to covary with educational outcomes, rate of learning academic material, and teacher ratings--criteria thought to be central to the meaning of intelligence; for measures not to display an appreciable relationship with these criteria would violate the essence of what intelligence was intended to embody. It was natural, therefore, that when Binet and Spearman produced tests predictive of these core criteria, investigators shifted their focus and began using the new tools in their empirical research (Thorndike & Lohman 1990).

Today, for example, there is a fair amount of agreement among measurement experts that measures of g assess individual differences pertaining to "abstract thinking or reasoning," "the capacity to acquire knowledge," and "problem-solving ability" (see Snyderman & Rothman's 1987 survey of 641 experts and Gottfredson 1997). Naturally, individual differences in these attributes influence aspects of life outside of academic and vocational arenas because abstract reasoning, problem-solving, and rate of learning touch so many facets of life, especially now in our information intense society. These quoted characteristics fit with correlates at both the core and the periphery of g's nexus. They are compatible with empirical facts. Investigators who conceptualize intelligence differently are probably talking about something other than psychometric g, and something less central to learning and work performance.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.