Friday, June 20, 2003


I started transferring Chris Brand’s writings to this blog in an attempt to give his views a wider audience. I do not agree with all his views but I disagree with all the attempts to censor him even more.

I think my project has now served to expand his audience considerably so in future please see his “News” page for his latest thoughts. Unlike a conventional blog, his news page reads from bottom to top rather than top to bottom so there is a slightly longer wait while it loads. He does not update it daily or on any other regular basis but you should generally find new material there if you log on a couple of times per week.

John Ray

Thursday, June 19, 2003

The needs of youth, 1983-90 -- The Structural Psychometrics Group

In view of my peers' preference for ignoring what I wrote, it was fortunate that I did not need to rely on my fellow factor-analytic psychologists for kindly tributes to my scientific grip. By 1983, the appearance of the Edinburgh work on 'inspection time' (IT) and IQ in the popular science magazine, Omni, had won me my first postgraduate student -- a late-starter who was putting the life of the hippie commune behind him while retaining a keen dress sense and not going much further right politically than buying the new Independent newspaper.

The handsome, debonair and good-humoured Vincent Egan would do his best to keep me somewhere near the straight and narrow over the next eight years -- for he continued in Edinburgh as an AIDS researcher till going on to Leicester University for training in clinical psychology. In particular, Vincent did most of my computing and word-processing work for me -- until he managed, by persuading me to undertake a little lonely-hearts advertising, to kit myself out with a nice new girlfriend, a lady doctor who taught me how to word-process. Just as important, an early girlfriend of Vincent's worked as a counsellor at a Youth Training Centre in Edinburgh and helped him recruit unemployed youths who had mediocre or low IQs. Having a good range of IQs among his subjects helped Vincent deliver more correlations between IQ and information-processing speed, and some substantial correlations between IQ and liberalism of social attitudes.

As word circulated that the Edinburgh IT/IQ show was still on the road, I was also able to attract my first postgraduette, the drop-dead-gorgeous, vivacious and top-drawer Claudia Pagliari -- the spitting image of Kristin Scott Thomas in the later film, 'The English Patient.' Claudia should have been playing cello somewhere but had instead told her public school, Gordonstoun, that she would instead seek enlightenment and a maternal, counselling role in psychology. She was just what I needed! Between Vincent and Claudia and my dear Australian friend, Trish Connolly, the 'Patroness' of the Edinburgh Structural Psychometrics Group, I never lacked for a drinking partner in Edinburgh as I staggered from marital breakdown through doomed romantic quest (I even sucked my Bloody Mary's toes to no avail) to final divorce.

Hopefully I was enough of a father-figure -- or whatever they needed -- to Vincent and Claudia.... In fact, Vincent found in the young Ian Deary (returned to psychology in the mid-1980's from his psychiatric training in London) more of a strictly professional role model; and Claudia found she could relate more easily to the practical (and perhaps temporarily love-struck) Mike Anderson -- for he too was back in town, filling a temporary lectureship. Probably I was more of a 'grandfather figure' (as another student would call me later) -- a daunting figure with whom a certain arcane fun could be had but whom one didn't take entirely seriously.

A particular problem which I presented for them was that, as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament eclipsed the Labour Party as the chief opposition in Britain to Mrs Thatcher, I felt obliged to do my bit to get NATO's message across to the young about the Soviet "Evil Empire" (as President Reagan had called it). In this sentiment was encouraged by pocket money from the Ministry of Defence which helped run the big coal fire in my old and run-down barn of a flat on Sundays and help pay for the drinking that discussions of high politics and military strategy require….

Probably I was not the best person to be Secretary for 'Peace through NATO' in Edinburgh. Yet I at least I was willing to write the necessary propaganda for the converted. Here is a sample, published, together with a surprisingly youthful, if rather serious photo of me, in the Conservative Edinburgh West Review for Spring, 1985.

The year 1984 marked the 700th anniversary of the mysterious vanishing act by the adolescent children of Hamlin town in Brunswick. No more moving testimony to parental folly was ever recorded than Browning's 'Pied Piper'; yet the crusading rallies, pop concerts and affecting idealism of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) should remind us today that our society cannot afford to ignore Browning's warning of the awful consequences of adult tight-fistedness and faithlessness. Unless we can both maintain and explain British and NATO defence commitments, it will be our own children who will end up living in what most of us would regard as a foreign land.....

President John F. Kennedy once put the challenge to us very well when he said that we were just about the first generation to have to defend freedom rather than to have to win it. It is this message that we must get across to our fellow citizens: our freedom was won in 1949 by the Western resistance to Soviet attempts to starve a further 2½ million Berliners into Communism; and it must now continue to be defended -- however unglamorous such defence may be. We have inherited a remarkable historic trust. Let us not break faith. Instead of being indoctrinated to the effect that our own countries are distinctively racist, imperialistic, sexist, jingoistic and so forth, the youth of the West must be taught about the Berlin Wall and the mass murders of the intelligentsia that took place in Stalin's Russia and Pol Pot's brave new socialist Cambodia. Wouldn't we rather be Red than dead? Connor Cruise O'Brien, that remarkable modern Irishman and admirer of Edmund Burke, recently put the stark truth so well in The Observer: "You could be Red first and dead later!"

This may seem familiar stuff today, but it was relatively novel in 1985…. At least, I could write well enough to get half-a-dozen letters into The Scotsman -- and one into The Times. A willing victim in my working life of the illusion that differential psychology was making waves, I was equally capable in my private life of believing that such exercises as the above would make the slightest difference to anything. (The Soviet collapse was in fact far closer than anyone remotely suspected and was triggered by Ronald Reagan's 'Star Wars' programme. No-one of any intelligence in the West believed in this costly programme; certainly we in 'Peace through NATO' didn't; but the Soviets did, and presumed they could never afford their own counter-defensive.)

Certainly I enjoyed 'taking a stand' that I knew could only clarify and provide a label for the difference between most of my social-scientific colleagues and myself. It especially amused me to see so many psychologists wrong-foot themselves into actually opposing NATO -- clearly the greatest Western success story of the post-1945 years.

I was happy, also, to accept opportunities to provide a little psychology for the Right (especially the relatively libertarian 'new right'). Here's how I defended in the Daily Telegraph (18 vi '88) a piece I had written explaining that environmentalism had run out of steam in developmental psychology. The article had been published, with other revisionist chapters from other new-right-ish social scientists, in Full Circle, a volume produced by the London think-tank, the Social Affairs Unit [prop. Rev. Digby Anderson].

....the central theme of my own contribution was that families do not and cannot have much influence on children unless they take individual abilities and propensities into account. ....some social scientists and present-day experts in child development may find the book hard to take -- perhaps even for personal and ideological reasons. I hope they will read the volume and perhaps look up some of the primary research that it cites. I am not without scholarly company when I argue that, in view of recent studies [notably Sandra Scarr's] present early-childhood education and allied interventions need to be re-thought.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, June 18, 2003


A caller keen on politics asked me, as a psychologist, why Western Whites have been falling over themselves to avoid even the most reasonable and necessary criticisms of coloured immigration. I gave the following reply.

The question about White guilt has intrigued me for c. 20 years. I believe the first person to draw attention to it was the late Lord Peter Bauer, a top economist at the LSE who knew his Africa and realized that independence just was not working there (and that immigration was not working here).

An old-fashioned answer would point to the demise of Christianity. Whatever its burdens and betises, Christianity enabled people to 'move on', as is said today. For Catholics the key weekly ritual was the personal drama of confession and absolution -- which also enabled a 'police state' which could solve problems far more easily than today's social workers.

A more modern answer would say that white guilt is just a pretence which allows global capitalism to work more smoothly by placating its victims. One could say that white guilt is simply the chief ritual required by the new religion of PeeCee Multiculturalism.

A third, more prosaically cynical view might stress that the new religion, which cuts down criticism of dullard immigration, is singularly convenient to four dominant groups in Western society:
(1) Left-wing politicians who had been losing votes because of the embourgeoisement of the old working class;
(2)Right-wing politicians wanting to break the trade unions.
(3)Employers who need cheap labour.
(4) Bureaucrats and humanitarians need more clients so as to be able to expand their empires.

(Historically, the new religion was a reaction to the perfectly real White guilt of many Europeans as the scale of Hitler’s Holocaust was discovered and as the Jews sought to avoid any repetition of that by allying themselves with other minorities and demanding protection and respect for all alike.)

Certainly it would be easy to argue that any stable and successful human society is going to need both a social hierarchy and a mollifying (equality-stressing) religion that keeps the top and bottom in passable harmony. Dullard immigration and PeeCee manage to perform both those vital functions. This is perhaps why our elites are apprehensive about giving it up – ‘always keeping hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse.’ And it would suggest that no big political shift is going to occur until a even more attractive positive alternative arrives on the scene -- i.e. it's no good just saying 'no more immigration.'

Myself, I think the new deal will involve giving everyone the possibility of contractual involvement in an extended family -- what I call neofamily. The state would then use families as it chief channel for purchasing health care, education and welfare. Basically, the scheme attractively offers at once more choice and more fraternity. Clearly the state would interfere to some degree -- hopefully insisting that every neofamily have 50% of its adults having English language and British history to CSE standard -- but I feel the neofamily scheme would work just as families of the past normally managed to protect their own interests against the demands of church and state.

Our chief Western problem today -- amidst enormous success, we must remember -- is essentially that the family has broken down under the strains of
(1) death duties and old people living longer, resulting in there being relatively less for children to inherit and
(2) contraception and abortion blocking the main route to family formation in the past.

Today 40% of state spending now goes on welfare -- compared to about 2% during the Great Depression! What is arguably needed is a party of the family that is not shackled with traditionalism or moralism or (as John Major's Tories were) with manifest hypocrisy and sleaze. Families naturally contain marked hierarchies which are glued together by various forms of love admiration, obedience and by the prospect for junior members of promotion. What more could one want?

Do I know what I’m talking about? Yes, I myself grew up in a neofamily – as one of two adoptive children whose parents took the trouble by entertainment to keep together a wider family consisting of my mother’s relatives, my father’s aunt and cousin (my father’s other relatives were all dead, his two brothers lost in World War II), church friends, a former scoutmaster, and sometime workmates –- all having no young children of their own. It worked excellently, though sadly was considerably broken up as people on retirement wanted to cash in the value of their North London homes and move to the countryside.

(For more, search for ‘neofamily’ in my pages, including the William McDougall NewsLetters.)

(Would I favour homosexual marriage? To me, that seems tolerable if done discretely; but such marriage does not seem sufficiently natural to deserve positive state support except perhaps on an experimental basis. I would suggest that a homosexual couple should normally find themselves a place within a willing neofamily having at least 50% of its members heterosexual. I would further encourage neofamilies to be relatively natural by having 50% of its members having genetic kinship with each other.)


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Tuesday, June 17, 2003

British Academia Today: 'PROBLEM? -- WHAT PROBLEM?'

There was, around 1980, a famously fatuous Eirish Agriculture Minister, Brian Lenihan, who, whenever the media mentioned some new apparent difficulty or crisis, would reply "Problem? -- What problem?" He had apparently learned his line from British Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan who had flown back from a Caribbean holiday into Britain's 1969/70 'Winter of Discontent' (when strikers left the dead unburied) asking "Crisis? -- What crisis?" and thus precipitated seventeen years of Conservative government.

In September 1999, the Galton Institute's London conference 'Man and Society in the New Millennium' was disrupted by 'People Against Eugenics', throwing some fifty scientists and genetic counsellors out of the Zoological Society of London's conference centre (McDNL 22 ix '99). Now, the Institute has allowed a leisurely period of reflection and decided that discretion is the better part of valour. It sees no problem -- except that of providing a minimal old-fashioned courtesy to its speakers who had found themselves having to fend off and try to reason with noisy and physically assertive protesters. The Galton has written to its eight speakers saying neither more nor less than this:

At the November meeting of The Galton Institute Council, it was decided that in view of the events of September 17th, 1999 it would not be possible to publish the usual proceedings of Conference. Council regrets any inconvenience this may cause.

The Council's policy of ostensible indifference has the merit of consistency. The Institute equally took no action when The g Factor was withdrawn by Abominable Wiley in April 1996 -- indeed, a year elapsed before the Galton's Members were advised of Chris Brand's troubles via the quarterly Galton Institute Newsletter. The Council's policy is also well in line with the view of British academia and the press about how to handle assaults on free speech in Britain. When Emeritus Professor Richard Lynn sought support from senior British academics in defence of Chris Brand and free speech in January 1997, he could raise only six signatures and the letter was turned down by several London broadsheet papers -- appearing only in the Scotsman (5 ii 1998, 'University urged to uphold appeal). In the present incident, it was a full five days before any mention of the disruption at the Galton appeared in the London press (Guardian 22 ix '99 -- see McDNL 28 ix '99) even though a professional photographer had been brought along by the protesters.

The eminences of today's life of the mind in Britain deem it unremarkable that:

* a book should be withdrawn after a favourable review in Nature;
* an academic psychologist with an unblemished 26 years of service should be sacked for 'insensitivity' in urging clemency for a Nobel prizewinner facing 30 years in an American prison;
* twenty police should be called to the rooms of the Zoological Society of London not to spare the academic audience from demonstrators but to kick the experts on to the street;
* such events should be followed not by seminars and treatises but by silence.

Nor do such matters trouble the great and good in America -- where the New York Times has yet to carry the story of any of them. Science even told its readers (12 xi '99, 'Random Samples') that the Galton Institute conference had actually gone ahead; and the magazine quoted from the talk which Emeritus Professor Arthur Jensen had 'given.' Far from Chris Brand, Glayde Whitney or Arthur Jensen receiving apologies or even sympathy for how they have been treated, great effort is made to pretend that nothing has happened.

There are signs that ordinary British people are restive with PC. Last week, a BBC Any Questions audience warmly applauded all its four panellists who, replying to a question about a city council telling taxi drivers not to discuss politics [British taxi drivers are notoriously keen on hanging and flogging most things, especially immigrants and paedophiles], condemned political correctness. Yet British academics see No Problem. Fondly, they believe they would have done something to help Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and those selected for euthanasia in the six years of Hitler's Germany before the plunge into war was taken by the attempt to carve up Poland with Stalin. Yet in three-and-a-half years since Wiley DePublisher began the harassing, intimidation, suppression and sacking of hereditarians in Britain, British academics have done precisely nothing. Faced with court action, Edinburgh LUniversity coughed up the full UK12,000 pounds that could have been awarded against it for an unfair dismissal; but even that development (McDNL 2 xi '99) has not encouraged academics to speak more boldly in the country that once faced down the Pope, the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Mr Hitler. 'What,' they would have said on Plymouth Hoe as the Armada swept past, 'is the problem?' Splendid -- just like Sir Francis Drake, perhaps! Yet one hopes they won't leave it too much longer before putting to sea, sweeping up the Channel, and ensuring PC is routed.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, June 16, 2003

Dimensions of Personality, -- the 'Big Six'

In 1983, I was given a new opportunity by my senior colleague, the social psychologist and culture vulture, Halla Beloff. The offer was to have my say in a matter that had always been central to my psychological concerns. The question was: 'How many personality dimensions are there?' Finding general and objectively demonstrable differences between people had long been hoped by many psychometrician-psychologists to substitute for describing, locating and talking about 'the heart', 'the mind', 'the soul' and 'the spirit.' I was thus glad to attempt a review for psychology students of the 'state of the art' in this modern field of factor-analytic endeavour; and I felt sure my thoughtful, witty and informed advocacy of the answer 'SIX' would compel assent and receive acclaim.... (An academic is someone who still thinks someone other than his mother will ever read what he has written.)

I had come to the answer '6' in the early 1980's as Eysenckian psychological theorizing began to peter out and I returned to Raymond Cattell for the factor-analytic basics. I had discussed the problem at some length over Sunday lunches with Ian Deary, and was increasingly convinced that '6' integrated and synthesized quite a wide range of competing personological schemes. (Of course, I remained disappointed that no personality dimension at all seemed to predict with whom people would fall in love. Only later, in the 1990s, would it be realized that identical twins relatively seldom fall in love with the same person, even though they prefer the same type of partner. Love, at least, is not just a product of personality but is partly 'constructed', meaning that one's identical co-twin cannot so easily take over where one has left off -- though such happenings are not unknown.)

For better or worse, my six-dimensional theoretical initiative would make little progress -- at least for the next ten years. The British Psychological Society's Psychology Survey series proved entirely uninfluential, whereas I had fondly imagined in 1983 that every psychology teacher worth his salt would feel obliged to have a desk copy. Hans Eysenck continued to call for his 'gigantic three' (or four or five) dimensions; Cattell called for some fifty-seven varieties; and, most challengingly of all, American researchers materialized who had a big and supposedly normal adult subject pool (of around IQ 100) and called for five dimensions. I had a fair amount of ammunition with which to challenge my competitors; and I eventually used it in the 1990's. Yet what intrigued me throughout this entirely academic ding-dong was the vanishingly slight interest that it attracted. To me, the question of 'How many dimensions?' is a bigger question -- because it is posed at a more abstract level -- than the question of 'What is g and does it matter?' In fact, however, the larger question is a sport for only a score of people and their students worldwide.

In fairness, the Big Six (and equally the Big Five) have hardly been presented in a riveting fashion by psychometrician-psychologists. My own attempt in the 1990's to link the Big Six to Freudian theorizing -- and to intelligence differences (which had not themselves interested Freud) -- is, I naturally believe, the kind of move that is necessary; and I have explained how Hans Eysenck might retrospectively be counted in this regard as having been an 'accidental', or honorary proto-Freudian. However, few of my sage and sober colleagues seem likely to agree to such a package. Like the great and grand psychologist, William McDougall (whose life was later to come to intrigue me) many of my colleagues drew the line at the Oedipal conflict.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, June 15, 2003


The second ‘Festschrift’ for g-genius Arthur Jensen was published by Pergamon Press at a price of c. £50 if payment was made before the end of June. (The first ‘Festschrift’, edited by Sohan and Celia Modgil in 1987, was published by Falmer Press, Brighton. Jensen also had a special issue of the journal Intelligence devoted to him in the Autumn of 1998.) The volume was described by Pergamon as “an up-to-date introduction and overview of the controversial field of general intelligence” – a claim as optimistic as it was agrammatical, but the volume was lucky to get published at all for Pergamon’s owners, Elsevier, had busied themselves closing down Praeger, the only other publisher of g-supportive and race-realistic books from 1996.

Two relatively sane critics of the London School were among the authors: R. J. Sternberg was allowed to query the g factor and Nathan Brody was allowed to query Jensen’s interpretation of the Black-White difference in g. The volume concluded on rousing notes from ex-seaman editor Helmuth Nyborg, censorship-deploring journalist Rosemary Arden, P. A. Vernon (Philip Vernon’s son) and the new Plato-backing team of yours truly, Denis Constales (a Belgian mathematician and polymath at the University of Ghent) and Harrison Kane (a brave young race-realistic psychometrician-psychologist, currently at the University of West Carolina). B, C & K concluded:

Despite the heroic effort of Arthur Jensen, realism about the g factor has been in short supply in recent years. Critics of IQ ignore the strongly positive correlations that obtain between all mental abilities – especially across the lower reaches of intelligence; and they set impossibly high standards of 'measurement' that are never met elsewhere in social science. Claiming to fear that acceptance of g differences must lead to the type of regimented (though sexually rewarding) society that Plato once envisaged, critics deplore London School ideas as 'fascist'.

In fact, the case for g has strengthened markedly in recent years as the ambitions of massively-funded multifactorialists have come to grief. And now it turns out that the failure of many intellectuals of the past to recognize the importance of g can be explained by their lack of contact with low-IQ people: fifty per cent of Western philosophers could not even bring themselves to marry, let alone have the extensive contacts with normal youngsters that characterised the militaristic and paedophilic society of Ancient Greece. How Galton and Burt differed from other psychologists of their day was in their wide experience of life – Galton as an adolescent surgeon working with his medical family around Birmingham, and Burt undertaking live-in social work in the slums of Liverpool. Alfred Binet too, thanks to government funding, saw the problems of low IQ at first hand.

Moreover, there is in fact no necessity for the facts of life about g to lead to authoritarian social arrangements. Plato himself envisaged that his utopia run by philosopher-kings would involve much discussion, choice, social mobility and indeed sexual opportunity; it was Aristotle, not Plato, who set about justifying slavery and female subordination -- whereas Plato counselled individuation of treatment rather than the use of group labels; Plato recommended outright censorship only in the primary education of trainee guardians – a principle endorsed world-wide today, for all societies make many restrictions on what can be shown to pre-adolescent children; and any true liberalism is essentially assisted by Plato's recognition that people differ importantly from each other and thus should not be given identical schooling, employment or marital contracts.

Liberalism has been advocated in the past by Protestants, nationalists, hedonists and empiricists wanting to throw off the chains for which they blamed Aristotle and the Catholic Church. But negative liberalism has a bizarre feature: for what is the point of liberalism unless there are radically different individuals to be liberated? Liberalism is altogether more likely to flourish if the truth is acknowledged that each person is a debating society, as Plato and Freud both thought, and that society should mirror and articulate that arrangement in ways likely to lead to such moral progress as is possible. The gruesome experiments of 1642 in Britain, of 1789 in France, of 1917 in Russia and of 1933 in Germany give no reason at all to think that utopias arise from ideologies of brotherly equality. Instead of seeking an equality that invariably turns out to deny freedom, it is time to put freedom first. That the most important truths of human psychological nature steer us logically towards intelligent and informed choice would not have surprised Plato – who after all wanted such choice to apply even to the question of breeding the next generation. Presently the breakdown of marriage in the West is promising a much reduced White population which will come increasingly from the least responsible parents. Rather than blunder into such an Afro-Caribbean future, it is time to admit the realities of human g differences – which have classically liberal consequences when properly considered. To his eternal credit, Arthur Jensen – though perhaps no Platonist himself -- has helped mightily to keep that option open.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Saturday, June 14, 2003


UK media went ape about a pretty blonde 16-year-old, Kayleigh Quinn, 5’9”, who was reported missing in West Sussex with Steven Barton, 23, 6’2”, a “convicted rapist.” The facts that Barton had completed his sentence (for a crime – albeit macabre -- committed when he was 15) and that the pair were themselves committing no crime were immaterial to the BBC, Daily Mail and Classic FM Radio.

Amidst constant media coverage, a police manhunt was launched – ending only when the pair showed up at the girl’s home. Apparently the couple had got fed up with parental intrusiveness and gone off for a night in a nearby area having many caves. In their hysteria, British media did not even think to supply the important detail of whether Kayleigh and her parents knew of Barton’s rape conviction – though the BBC admitted the conviction was “well known in the area.”

{Abusohysterics suffered another blow when Indian pharmacist Mrs Trupti Patel was quickly cleared by jury of murdering all of her three infant children. The Crown Prosecution Service had demanded the trial even though they had no evidence or indeed idea of what might have been Mrs Patel’s motive; and the trial proceeded mainly on the evidence of paediatric ‘experts’ who had been involved in other failed witchhunts, one of which had jailed solicitor Sally Clarke falsely for three years.}



An article in the Spectator (‘How to win votes for the BNP’, James Cartlidge, 14 vi) drew attention to training and internship schemes in British TV and at the Observer newspaper which quite publicly proclaim that Whites need not apply.

(Unfortunately, these schemes are entirely legal, as I found when, c. 1985, I criticized the British Psychological Society for offering non-Whites-only training courses -- I subsequently resigned in disgust that the BPS decided to rely on the letter of the law to practice anti-White racism.)

The Spectator article felt obliged to defend its wish for even-handedness by saying that “people from minority ethnic groups are just as capable and talented as anyone else” – conveniently mentioning the Chinese and Indians [who have overtaken White Brits in income] while ignoring Pakistanis and Blacks. But the article was commendable even if 20 years late.



Harvard President Lawrence Summers shocked staff and students at a graduation ceremony by announcing he wanted to restore the undergraduate course Fine Arts 13 – a course in Western art and art history previously dropped as insufficiently peecee and multicultural.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Friday, June 13, 2003


A fine American Front Page article sounded another warning bell that England has proved incapable of producing a politician like Holland’s Mr Pim Fortuyn, let alone of keeping him alive. Quote:

…In England, time is not on the side of classical liberalism. If immigration is not seriously reformed, our nation’s first cousin will one day hear thunderous calls for sharia, and that’s a “cultural diversity” that only the most hypocritical leftist could celebrate…from a safe distance, of course.
In the U.S, the battle is not yet over. Indeed, many polls demonstrate, most Americans favor a serious reduction in immigration. This desire does not make Americans “Xenophobic” or “racist”; it makes them realists. Ordinary Americans, after all, increasingly bear the brunt of our nation’s highly irrational immigration policies. If the PC herd believed for one second its own hot air about supporting the working class, it would join ordinary Americans in immigration reform.
But it doesn’t, so it won’t.



The Church of England faced an awesome choice as its policy of tolerating homosexuality (but not, of course, homosexual relationships or behaviour!) was rejected as nonsense by third-world bishops (and presumably by many homosexuals, but they tend to keep quiet about such matters, as about the imprisonment of Nobel prizewinners for harmless paedophilia).

Likewise, a serious problem arose for PeeCee as animal rights activists achieved the blessing of the UK Government’s ‘Farm Animal Welfare Council’ for their view that cows, pigs and sheeps should be stunned before being killed – a pain-reducing practice running contrary to the traditional beliefs of both Muslims and Jews.

Compared to these tensions, the rivalry between playmates Brown and Blair over whether Britain should pretend to be part of Europe seemed quite small beer – especially as France stood revealed as a failed power full of Muslims (5 million) and strikers and without even any Hindus to offer opposition.

(A worse dilemma for the UK Government was that the House of Lords voted to ban sodomy in public toilets – a practice which the Government had committed itself to support so long as faggots kept their cubicle door closed.)



Further to the story about the man who waited until girls were 13 to avoid heavy penalties for underage sex: Paedohysterics did not need to worry: the Times and BBC offered the reassurance that government legislation was in the pipeline to jail fanciers of 13-year-olds for all eternity – in the disgustingly overcrowded jails which were complained about publicly by Britain’s Lord Chief Justice, Lord Wolff (Times, 7 vi, p. 1), for NuLabour matched its dishonesty about schools, hospitals, party donations and Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ with unwillingness to acknowledge that its ‘tough on {non-Black} crime’ policies required the building of more prisons.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Thursday, June 12, 2003


The brilliant pro-Crusade columnist Mark Steyn returned to the Spectator (7 vi) after an awaybreak in Palestine and Iraq, bringing with him a preference for local autonomy in Iraq rather than for any rush into multicultural democracy (“….the Kurds got busy ethnically cleansing the north of the country”).

(Spectator columnist ‘Taki’ also thought it likely that Iraq would end up in three pieces.)



After 4.7 million died in Black on Black violence in the Congo (“the highest death toll in any conflict since World War II” – Observer, 8 vi) and Zimbabwe came under thug rule and charged its opposition leader with treason.

Liberia – the state set up by America in 1822 for liberated slaves – determined to provide another visual aid to Black thanaticism. Liberia’s civil war (which had already uprooted 1 million people and sent 300,000 fleeing to neighbouring countries) erupted so badly that all American, European and UN personnel needed to be helicoptered out of the country.



At it like bunnies in the most irresponsible ways with their spotty age peers, British girl weenies (under-16’s) turned out to have a massive infestation of chlamydia. This bacterial infection was newly estimated by government medics to affect one British girl in 7 and to require a £96million screening programme (Observer, 8 vi).

{The discharge in chlamydia can easily be confused with gonorrhaea, but the symptoms can be very mild and remain unnoticed until the disorder yields pelvic inflammatory disease (in 40% of untreated cases), infertility, or potentially fatal tubal pregnancies. 80% of women and 45% of men have no symptoms.}



Top leftish columnist, Julie Burchill, was once pretty sick at how the BBC had pandered to mad mullahs and burqa-backing Islamic women during a week of multicultural propaganda. In 2001, she wrote for the Guardian (16 viii):

“While the history of the other religions is one of moving forward out of oppressive darkness and into tolerance, Islam is doing it the other way around. It is impossible that any Christian or Jewish country would suddenly start practising their fundamental religion as the Taliban have. And by 2025, the BBC informs us, a third of the world will be Muslim. In the light of this, and the threat it poses to our human rights, I believe that mindless, ill-sorted Islamophilia is just as dangerous as mindless, ill-sorted Islamophobia.”

{Fat chance that Julie would get away with that in the increasingly antisemitic left-wing circles of today!}



Following its exposure as a lying organ of peecee affirmativism -- hiring and promoting a mendacious Black man in the face of repeated complaints by other staff (see above) -- the New York Times found itself with the extra embarrassment of having the Pulitzer Prize Board planning to withdraw its 1932 prize from Commie-lover NYT reporter Walter Duranty who had told the West there was no such thing as the Stalin-arranged Ukrainian famine. (See here)


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, June 11, 2003


The BRAND, CONSTALES & KANE chapter (' Why ignore the g factor? -- Historical considerations.') for the latest Jensen Festschrift (Helmuth Nyborg (ed.), The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: A Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Oxford : Elsevier Science/Pergamon) is due out this month. Abstract:

Today's neglect of general intelligence (g) and IQ by psychologists, educationists and the media is the West's version of Lysenkoism. By 2000, denial of g became effectively the official science policy of the USA as Stephen Jay Gould, the author of The Mismeasure of Man -- and thus Arthur Jensen's main rival -- was elected President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Rooted in an egalitarian ideology that the West had managed to expel from the field of economic policy in the Reagan/Thatcher years, denial of g has typically been supported by wilful ignorance, wishful thinking and downright censoriousness.

Those who deplore g and its links to heredity, achievement and race often rehearse the multifactorial/componential ambitions of the nineteenth–century phrenologists that eventually appealed to American psychologists in the 1930's and subsequently.

Alternatively, g-denial may deploy both ancient and modern arguments that nothing can be 'measured' in psychology. These two contradictory positions of IQ's more scholarly detractors are especially considered in this chapter, as is the less-often-remarked problem for the London School that so few Christian-era philosophers and psychologists -- prior to Herbert Spencer and Sir Francis Galton -- made much room in their systems for g.

Despite considerable tacit acceptance of Plato's stress on the centrality of reason in human psychology, Plato's elitism and eugenicism are feared for their supposedly authoritarian implications; thus his acknowledgment that people have different general mental potential is set aside. However, a hypothesis is advanced here, and supported empirically, which attributes neglect of g by intellectuals partly to their limited experience of real life – across the full IQ range. Data from 6,539 representative American subjects are searched to form groups having mean IQs 115 and 85 respectively, and it is found that the g factor accounts for almost twice as much mental ability variance among subjects in the lower-IQ group, in line with the account of intelligence given in Chapter 2 of The g Factor (Wiley DePublisher, 1996). Finally, it is suggested that Platonic realism actually enjoys distinguished support in modern philosophy and provides a basis for a new liberalism.

This *should* make me 'famous' for I will be, I believe, the only person to have contributed to all the Festschrifts for Jensen (2) and Eysenck (3). Of course, it's rather shocking there should be such a high rate of turnover at the London School. The whole thing was poorly organized with too few opportunities for drinking, let alone womanizing or bashing PeeCee (as I complained in my recent review of Frank Miele, in the journal Heredity). Excerpt:

“Who were Jensen's friends in martyrdom and what was the organization of the London School of which he became the honoured intellectual head? Miele's book has no index allowing tracing, but such crown princes of the London School as Phil Rushton (who first linked the Mongoloid-Caucasian-Negroid continuum to a wide range of psychological features, including sexuality) and Richard Lynn (who first noticed evidence that average Black African IQ was actually only 70) certainly do not loom large in Jensen's ‘conversations’.”

One Eysenckian, the Prof. of Psycholotalunacy in Glasgow University, ended in maximum security prison for trying to burn down the Glasgow shop of a hairdresser who -- his son told him late one Friday night when Papa Corcoran had drink and drugs on board -- was the professor's wife's lover. Corcoran later disappeared without trace -- appropriately enough in so far as he had been a world authority on psychopharmacology and might have been expected to do better. So I have had more luck than that thanks to all kind friends.



An American friend insists I was the world's first 'blogger' with the TgF and McDougall Newsletters (1996 - 2000). I can't believe this, but perhaps people could comment? Fans will be glad to know that bits of my old TgFNewsLetters and William McDougall NewsLetters missing from the Net can now be found via The Wayback Machine (my thanks to Johnny Pate!). Use the search term: for starters.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Tuesday, June 10, 2003


From WSJ, 6 vi:

The Wages of Appeasement:

"Belgian police said Thursday they detained an Iraqi man after letters containing a nerve-gas ingredient were sent to the prime minister's office," Reuters reports from Brussels. Let's review:

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons.
Pursuing a less-aggressive foreign policy is the best way to prevent terrorism.

It's a myth-busting trifecta!



As the literary prize offered by the mobile phone firm Orange was awarded to an American woman who had written a novel groaning about slavery in eighteenth-century America, it transpired that the prize was not available to *men* -- a bit of sexism that would have been pounced on immediately if it had gone in the reverse direction.

The arrangement attracted the wrath of top Times (6 vi) columnist Simon Jenkins, who wrote (under the heading: 'Hey, girls, you're so inept you need special prizes): "The Orange prize is a blot on Britain's literary landscape." and "There are women who will not go near the Garrick Club in London because it excludes women members. I sympathise with them. For my part, I will not touch an Orange mobile phone".

Apparently women write 50% of novels published in Britain and win 33% of the annual Booker prizes - the shortfall possibly reflecting the fact that men had a wider distribution of IQs so invariably produce more giftedness and genius. Twentieth century Britain produced such great female novelists as Virginia Woolf, Muriel Spark, Iris Murdoch and Penelope Lively.



Some poor British wretch, looking like Radiohead, was consigned to jail for having had sex with a 13-year girl, watched by another 13-year-old friend of the girl. On another occasion, the two girls swapped roles. The first girl had known the man over the internet for two years - he had helped her with problems she had with her obese and in other ways unattractive mother.

A newly hysterical feature of media coverage was that the Times and BBC wanted to complain that the man might be released from prison within a year. Police had apparently whined to the media that the guy had 'waited till the girls were 13 so he could only attract a 2-year prison sentence' [in the UK, sex with under-13's means death on the yardarm]. Amazing! The man had responsibly waited till the girls were 13; and his early release date was quite simply because he had already spent a whole year in prison on remand before his case was tried.

Needless to say, the Times and BBC never deigned to advise their readers about what the girl 'victims' thought about these goings-on or even about whether they had suffered the slightest objective harm. {The truth is that many 'paedophiles' do a better job for children than do parents. It is shameful that up-market elements of the media should indulge in such shoddy and unhelpful 'reporting'. Hopefully they will soon go the way of Howell Raines and his lying affirmative racism at the New York Times.}


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, June 09, 2003


A new debate about school choice, educational vouchers and abolishing the stranglehold of teachers' unions looked possible with the publication of a new book by Peter Brimelow. Called The Worm in the Apple, the book especially provided a worthy successor to the bell curve: it was the bow tie, referring to the X of crossed lines on a graph showing, over the years, rising educational expenditure in the USA had been accompanied by falling educational standards.



After twenty years of Arabs being told by Edward Said that the West was intrinsically racist and hostile to them (and indeed the rest of the world), a full and vigorous reply was provided by Ibn Warraq of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society. Apparently Said's classic work Orientalism tarred Western thinkers as racist by the simple expedient of ignoring all those who took a favourable attitude to the Arab and Muslim worlds - such as Montaigne, Voltaire, Lessing, Gibbon, Montesquieu and Diderot.



Big Brother's Anouska, a physically attractive Black 27-year-old who grew up fatherless, was evicted from the Big Brother House after she had discussed the possibility of having sex with one of the boys so audiences would always vote for them to stay in. What a misjudgment! She was voted out at the end of the week - though she blamed jealous women. Subsequently she told the News of the World (1 vi) that she did not invariably have sex with her boyfriends - though she did sometimes on a high speed train and in a public park. She also revealed that the house member who was most frisky - often asking her to remove her bikini, and trying to pull it off her in the House pool, till she cried 'rape' - was Ray, a distinctly Negroid-looking 'Irishman'. Excerpt:

Ray tried to strip me

RANDY housemate Ray Shah tried to tear off Anouska's BIKINI during a romp in the house pool, the beauty revealed last night. The 25-year-old Irishman (right) only stopped after she screamed out loud and desperately cried 'Rape!' Anouska, 20, said: "Ray is sex-mad. He is very randy and very, very naughty. "Every time we went into the swimming pool something crazy went on in his brain. One time I was in the pool in my purple bikini with Ray, Federico and Scott, and Ray tried to rip my top off.



A 35-year New Zealand lady schoolteacher admitted to police that she had intercourse some 15 times with a 10-year old boy over an eight-month period - following three years of a very close relationship. The only clue allowed by the cowardly media as to the race(s) involved was that the teacher was called Faryn Ripine Matthews. The boy's behaviour had deteriorated in 2002 after Matthews' family pressured her to end the affair. Matthews will argue in court that the boy consented to sex.

{What a pity Matthews had not consulted her local coven of feminazies - for she would then have been advised to charge the boy with rape!}


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, June 08, 2003


Contrary to the fond hopes of enthusiasts for the (James) Flynn Effect, there is no sign at all the years of ‘affirmative action’ (of Head Start programmes, of positive discrimination and of the media denying Black problems) are raising Black IQ towards White levels – and this is now admitted in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (4 vi). Naturally, that journal wants to blame poor Black schools, low expectations of teachers, peer ridicule for ‘acting White’ and even an unduly Afrocentric education in some schools. But all that the article manages to demonstrate is that the Black-White gap in SAT scores actually widened a little from 1988 to 2002, and that differences between Blacks and Whites in income cannot account for the racial difference -- Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was about a standard deviation below the mean score for Whites from families at the same income level.



Rejected by all Hollywood directors, the spanking good film, ‘The Secretary’ (where Maggie Gyllenhaal [26, ex-Columbia, ACLU star] gets her kit off and has her b*m whupped), stayed a big UK attraction for three weeks and achieved excellent reviews – e.g. in the Sunday Times, 1 vi. Mercifully, the scenes of secretary ‘Lee’ arguing with her feminazie friends did not last long; but they lasted long enough infuriate fat lesbians, as would also such scenes as Lee being roped to a tree for her first postmarital sex with her adoring hubby.



Two Thai women were jailed in London for having brought hundreds of Thai girls to Britain to be sex slaves on offer to punters until they had performed 1,000 assignations (at around £75 per male orgasm) and won their freedom.



The liberal-left bias of the BBC achieved recognition in a University of London seminar attended by 80 people. Like Britain’s wretched ‘universities’, the BBC had long been recruiting its staff mainly via advertising in the Guardian newspaper. Just to make sure candidates were sound, interviewees were standardly asked which newspaper their family took, and interviewers’ jaws dropped if the interviewee replied ‘the Telegraph’.



Feminists reeled as Tammy Bruce, a former President of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW), turned coat and began exposing the strong-arm tactics peecee organizations use in lieu of reason, arguments and evidence. Feminazies replied by bombardments of emails to Fathers’ Rights groups accusing them of sympathy for and even practice of paedophilia. Moderate feminists (, Independent Women’s Forum) weighed in against NOW, so there was promise of a successful gender war to finish off fat-frump high-psychotic lesbianism and its hangers-on.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Saturday, June 07, 2003


A Birmingham friend was out playing snooker when he met a chap newly returned from Toronto. My friend asked the question on every normal person's lips (but never asked nor answered in Britain's PeeCee-dominated media): 'Does SARS affect all racial groups equally?' 'Of course not,' came the reply, 'it's only East Asians who get it.'

Hilariously, students from China and other regions of Asia affected by the SARS virus will not be accepted for the summer session at the ultra-peecee University of California at Berkeley, the chancellor has ruled. The ban will apply to students traveling from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, as well as mainland China. But such a ban was largely pointless if SARS does not transmit at all easily to Whites and Blacks.

{Whether SARS spreads much more easily among East Asians may or may not be true, but suppression of discussion could - as always - be bad for health and sanity. We should be told.}



Still determined to keep the Euroland project together (even as the European Commission prepares to pass draconian legislation outlawing the thought crimes of 'racism and xenophobia'), Tony and Cherie Blair appeared in St Peterburg to beam at Messrs Chirac, Schroeder, Putin etc.

Their reward? Putin had his ballet dancers (led by the extraordinary - and even pretty -- Svetlana, who could and did spread her legs 180§ scores of times with the greatest of ease) perform a famous scene where a rough gambling victor brags of his success and recommends gambling to all -- before being exposed as a three-card-trick artiste by a French aristocrat and falling on his sword.

Alas, Russian TV did not remember to focus in on Rev. Blair's pseudo-beaming visage as this wee moral tale unfolded.

{Around this time, Rev. Blair was arguing that he would one day find the promised 'weapons of mass destruction' in destructed Iraq; while Rev. Bush maintained the 'smoking gun' had been found already. Both religious maniacs seem to have forgotten that the initial justification of the war ooops conflict was that Madman Insane was judged by the United Nations not to be co-operating fully with the programme of inspections that Madman himself had wanted so that the West would end Gulf War ooops Conflict I.

But neoimperialists can afford to be casual when their opponents decline to invent neonationalsocialism and when neoliberealism is only a dream in the eye of the William McDougall NewLetter_.}



In June, the first issue of Forbes magazine detailed the billion-dollar rip-off planned by American lawyers and paedohysterics pursuing 'sex abuse' allegations even in cases where 'victims' freely admit to having forgotten for periods of thirty or forty years the dreadful abuse now alleged to have been perpetrated on them in childhood (Forbes, 9 vi, 'Sex, God and Greed', by Daniel Lyons, Professor of Psychology at Harvard).

{Apparently, the sex abuse industry now plans to move on from accusing paedophile priests to wresting compensation from schools, Boy Scouts, police, social workers and Hollywood. Lawyers are seeking to have lifted such statutes of limitations as US states still have, citing the flood of allegations which poured in when California lifted its statute of limitations for just one year.

Presumably the next trick will be to accuse official carers and teachers of 'cruelty' because they failed to comfort distressed children until they had checked all local video monitors were working_}

{The unlikelihood of 'recovered memories' for genuine trauma is covered by Professor Lyons, as it was too in the William McDougall NewsLetters, e.g. 'False Memories', 21 iii 2000.}



After five weeks of dithering following the exposure of an affirmatively promoted Black journalist {Jayson Blair -- see May}, executive editor of the New York Times, Howell Raines, and his Black sidekick resigned. Journalists at the pseudo-newspaper wept buckets, but the paper’s news story (5 vi) tried to place the blame for continuing to employ Blair on Raines’ “hard-charging style” rather than on his peecee ideology tout court.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Friday, June 06, 2003


I contributed the following letter to an e-mail group discussing whether Prince William should ever become King.

My Taiwanese wife (studying Queen Elizabeth I and the equally formidable last Empress of China, Xi Xi) and I have both long felt that William has few regal qualities and that Harry has plenty.

William seems neurotic like his mother and even the unctuous Torygraph interview (Tuesday) admits he is prone to violent rages. His failure to settle at St Andrews (requiring fraught interventions by Prince Charles), and now his planned switch of degree from History of Art to the desperately dull subject of Geography all suggest a lack of grip, as does his wish to have a second 'gap year' rather than getting on with something useful.

By contrast, Harry has now had no trouble sweeping to leadership in Eton athletics. Now, says my wife, Harry is more popular with the tabloid plebs than is Wills. And do I detect the last Private Eye suggesting Wills is gay? Apparently he doesn't want a service career, like his Uncle Edward.

I also agree with [a correspondent] about Prince Charles -- though of course it's hard to blame Charles when even the Conservative Party has agreed to lie in the gutter and be walked over by peecee multiculturalism. Hopefully our Iraq Crusade has toughened him up; but if not abdication would seem a good idea. Private Eye and others definitely speculate that he and Camilla are on dope.

Any betting that Harry will marry earlier than Wills and quickly procreate, thus offering a choice that may seem quite attractive as compared to Wills? Is Harry known to be a love-child and nothing to do with the Windsors? If so, perhaps that's quite good so long as it doesn't become impossibly widely known, for illegitimate children have an impressive track record -- think Moses, King Solomon, Aristotle, Jesus, Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Leonardo, Elizabeth I, Rousseau and Nelson Mandela. (For more, see here.)

The next day (29 v), the Times, carried in interview in which the Prince revealed he had studied social anthropology for a year (as one of the three subjects required in each of a student's first two years at a Scottish university) and was studying Swahili because of "my love of Africa."



A nice report in the Times by Tim Reid (29 v) discussed the new book by Professor Diane Ravitch which lambests American PeeCee. Apparently some of the words found to be banned by publishers and schoolboards were as follows.
'Old' - because it's ageist
'Boyish' - because it's sexist
'yacht' - because it's elitist
'able-bodied' - handicapist, should be 'not disabled'
'American' - because it's patriotic
'Adam and Eve' - should be 'Eve and Adam'
'dinosaur' - because it can bring to mind thoughts of evolution and the dreaded Charles Darwin
'sea' - because not all children live near the sea, so they may not understand the concept of a large body of water.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Thursday, June 05, 2003


I have just had published a review of The Revolt of the Masses, the masterpiece of the great Spanish political thinker, Ortega y Gasset (1883 – 1955). The review commends the philosopher for his liberalism, elitism and realism, and his stalwart opposition to communism and fascism; but it doubts whether the European Union (which he always hoped for) will do much to fulfil his aspirations; and it also doubts whether either Ortega’s conservatism or anyone else’s will enjoy 21st-century success without a clear commitment to sexual liberation and to making realistic families the key social unit. The article was published in The Sprout [a satirical Brussels-based magazine, aiming to give E.U. bureaucrats and politicians a hard time], No. 10 (Commentary). The Sprout kindly called me a “respected psychologist” and acknowledged the help of the Woodhill Foundation in keeping me afloat.



In 2000, the bohemian, much-tattoed and experienced filmstarlet, Angelina Jolie, then 25, married (as her second husband) Billy Bob Thornton, boasting as she did so that her man had the biggest one in Hollywood. Alas, her appreciation did not last long: she filed for divorce in 2002. (Angelina is probably bisexual, likes acting in the nude and using knives during sex, and was once caught in the sack with married Nicolas Cage while the pair were filming. Angelina has said "I love sex! I never get enough, I need it more than anyone I know.")



According to the Times (30 v), a 12-year old girl had a year-long affair with her parish priest, Rev. Kevin Conway, 37. She had gone to him in distress at being bullied at school and found more than a sympathetic ear. Soon the couple were at it like bunnies, quite often in the back seat of Rev. Conway's car. A court gave the priest a three-and-a-half-year jail sentence. As is typical of Britain's paedohysterical media, the Times did not bother to report whether the girl herself had made the slightest complaint or whether she had suffered in any way at all; and of course the girl 'could not be named for legal reasons', so researchers were unlikely to be able to find out.



At the 2003 Turner Exhibition in London, a star exhibit turned out to be vases decorated with explicit phallic imagery and mannequins of pubescent girls sprouting male genitalia (Times, 29 v). The artist was Grayson Perry, 43, a transvestite graduate of Portsmouth Polytechnic who submitted the work in the name of his alter ego, 'Claire.'


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, June 04, 2003


In its 31 May issue, the internet Spectator carried several letters which were all critical of the article on IQ and race by Sean Thomas (above). IQ was said to be "irrelevant" to anyhing important; Richard Lynn's linkage of IQ to GDP was said to be "ludicrous"; and, naturally, Thomas was accused of "racism."

Under the heading ''Fascist' IQ tests', the print-edition Spectator [p. 29; correspondence has no relation to internet edition] carried a letter from former Edinburgh Loony University Psychology student Fiona Pitt-Kethley astonishingly claiming that all the data used in The Bell Curve were "paid for by the Pioneer Foundation" and that the tests used in that research were "not IQ ones as we know them but achievement tests."

A second letter from C. James (possibly a one-time student of Richard Lynn's) pointed out that PeeCee obfuscated not only race differences but also sex differences. Another letter praised the European Union for its paedohysterical initiatives. For whatever reason, the Spectator did not publish my own response to Sean Thomas:

Edinburgh 25 v 2003
Dear Editor,
I congratulate Sean Thomas on his succinct summary of the 'race and IQ' wars (Spectator, 24 May) and especially on seeing the importance of the very strong connections now established between national IQ and national prosperity. There will be reviews of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's new work soon in the academic journal Heredity; but any who wonder whether prosperity causes IQ rather than vice versa should learn that Lynn & Vanhanen's data show that race and IQ (measured around 1970) actually predicted increases in Gross Domestic Product.

Of the world's 21 countries which steadily tripled their GDP from 1983 to 1996, none was on the African mainland (where the average 1970 IQ was only around 75); by contrast, of the 27 countries whose GDP actually decreased by 50% or more, ten were African (Angola, Burkina Faso, Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Madagascar, Somalia, Sudan, Zambia and Sao Tome & Principe).

Whether the enormous Black-White IQ difference will ever reduce without eugenic measures is unlikely.

(1) For the past ten years, liberal-left moderates (who do not entirely reject any talk of race and IQ), have seized with relief upon the idea that IQ is increasing worldwide and that Black people may one day catch up. Thus did Sean Thomas conclude his article. However, I argued in my book The g Factor that the observed changes in test scores are largely due to greater test sophistication (Chapter 4 - available free at

Professor James Flynn (whose work established the test score rise) actually quite agrees with me about this. He admitted while he was in Edinburgh last year that he did not believe our great-grandparents were, by today's standards, mentally defective. Rather, Flynn thinks the 20th-century test score rise occurred because of secular improvements in "open-ended problem solving skills", not because of improved intelligence.

(2) Despite fond hopes and vastly improved nutrition and medical help for Blacks in the 20th century, the Black-White IQ difference shows no sign of decreasing (e.g. C. Murray, 1999, Frankly, there will be no substitute for educating children according to their own abilities - and not piously expecting (as does Britain's New Labour) that 50% of children will be capable of university education. A return to educational streaming and vocational specialization is as important for Whites as it is for Blacks; and the unrealistic, egalitarian ideologizing and ignoracism which characterized the twentieth century must give way to realistic optimism, not to more fibs for the fainthearted.

Nor should Sean Thomas feel a need to doubt Professor Philippe Rushton's finding that Black men have larger penises: in these days of AIDS, large penises have considerable drawbacks in view of the ruptures they cause, especially during buggery; and an eminent anthropologist told me that some Black women actually prefer as lovers Bushmen who, though having smaller sexual tackle, are 'always up for it.' Anyhow, the World Health Organization long ago agreed with Rushton that Africa needed bigger condom sizes.
Yours sincerely, -- Chris Brand.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Tuesday, June 03, 2003


The cowardly Daily Quislingraph could not bring itself to tell readers the race of “a drunken labourer” [sounds like a nineteenth-century White] who slaughtered two policemen after a car chase by deliberately driving his van into their car at 85mph. The black double murderer was subsequently jailed for life, but Telegraph readers were left to infer what they could from the bastard’s unChristian forename, Leayon.



The Home Office admitted that it had been losing around 3,000 passports per year – the documents were apparently despatched to applicants but later claimed not to have arrived.

{The Customs & Immigration division of the Home Office is scandalously inefficient – sometimes people have to queue for days in order to get their passports in time for their planned travel. Customs & Immigration has long provided something of a sheltered workshop for ethnic minorities – employed their in abundance since they are supposed to be able to ‘help’ with immigrants’ problems.}



In a sensational blow against peecee multiculturalism, the New York Times admitted (21 v) that immigrants of below-average education are a net drain on California, costing $13,000 per head even after their lifetime tax contribution was considered. The relevant study had been conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in 1997, but it had never previously been mentioned in polite peecee society.

{No doubt the NAS study did not take account of the not-so-easily-estimated special costs of policing Mexicans, imprisoning them and treating their sexual diseases.}



A gigantic Black construction worker was arrested and charged (for starters) with the murder and aggravated rape of five attractive Louisiana girls (4 White, 1 Mixed). Apparently the accused, Derrick Todd Lee, a married man, was a smooth talker and would inveigle young women via a Bible study group which he started.

Women in southern Louisiana had lived in fear as the unusual string of attacks occurred, apparently while Todd was working away from his Georgia home. There was much criticism of police delay in finding the murderer. Lee was well known to police, having an armful of previous convictions for Peeping Tom activities and attempted murder; but – probably out of political correctness – the FBI had said the serial rapist-murderer was probably White.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, June 02, 2003


From Chronicle of Higher Education 28 ii '00

A geology professor at the University of Oklahoma triggered a fiery response from students and faculty members by comparing a woman's vagina to a handgun in a letter to the campus newspaper.

The letter by David Deming, a gun owner and a member of the National Rifle Association, was in a response to a column running in the Oklahoma Daily advocating stricter gun-control laws. Yale University's Joni Kletter had written in the column that "easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country, including criminals, youth, and the mentally disabled, to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want." In response, Mr. Deming wrote, "I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random people' as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs."

The Oklahoma paper has been flooded with letters condemning Mr. Deming's comments.



From Times 3 iii 00

Star actress and sex bomb Tullulah Bankhead has been revealed from newly released government documents to have posed a problem for the U.K. Home Office in 1930. The 'shocking' actress had been reported to be regularly entertaining youths from Eton College and having her way with them in hotel rooms on the Thames. The Home Office dismissed the reports on the grounds that heterosexuality had never before been heard of at Eton. No confirmation of Tullulah's stripping young toffs can be obtained from her diaries. As the naughty starlet once said, "Only good girls keep diaries; bad girls have no time."



Despite a packed-out London courtroom, Brits were not told that Irving often had the defence on the ropes as he argued that some two million Jews died not on Hitler's orders but as the work of "rogue Nazis." However, after a fortnight of silence, the newspapers sprang to attention when the defence at the trial took five minutes to allege that Irving had subscribed to the wholeheartedly revisionist and neo-Nazi aims of the German People's Union and had once stood during a toast to Adolf Hitler at a dinner in a Munich hotel. Replying, Irving said that, while at the dinner for sixteen, where he was guest speaker, he could not in fact have toasted Hitler since, being a teetotaller, he had no glass. "If one has no glass and does not drink, how can one toast anyone?" he inquired.

Sadly, Irving's opponent, the barely menopausal Professor Deborah Lipstadt, will not be asked any questions about her own historical knowledge (or ignorance) or about her own prejudices and on-the-side dinner engagements. Simply, she has declined to take the stand. Like the London newspapers, she is content that the best-ever trial of Holocaust revisionist ideas should take place by means of a few smears on Irving.

Once the author of Rommel and many other works had been made a pariah by Jewish detractors, persecutors, prosecutors and de-publishers, there were few dinners to which he was invited except those organized by neo-Nazi groups.

The trial is meant to concern whether Irving is a proper historian -- as his books reveal him to be* -- or whether defendants were right to accuse him of wholly improper distortions, deceits and unprofessionalism. Just how Irving's precise behaviour at a private function can be relevant to the issue is obscure, except in that defendants wish to blacken Irving's name. Hopefully Irving has reminded the High Court of the many fellow-travelling historians who long underestimated the extent of Stalin's crimes while still preserving their own reputations as 'professionals.'

Irving's writing is emphatically not that of a sensationalist popular historian, or even of an ideologue. His books show a concern with evidence that would tire most modern British university students; and he maintains impressive impartiality -- allowing, for example, a free play of observations by participants in the Nazi drama as to whether Hitler was or was not, at any stage, barking mad.

For more see the Times 2 iii '00 and Salon.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, June 01, 2003


T.A.T.U. manager Ivan Shapovalov was arrested in Moscow's Red Square and charged with "corrupting the morals of young girls" (National Inquirer,10 vi). A Russian policeman explained: "He threatened the morality of girls as young as 7 by offering them 10 rubles (20 pence) to prance around in Tatu's trademark short skirts.

Apparently some 300 girls were involved, all in full public view, so it was hard to see what crime could be involved -- though Shopalov had readily admitted on other occasions to sexually seducing girls as young as 14 (the age of consent in Russia). But a court case should provide sensational new publicity for Tatu's team of "lesbians" -- who in May managed to get themselves cut out of a Jay Leno Tonight Show telecast because of what American producers deemed an unduly smoochy smooch.

Tatu came third in the Eurovision Song Contest and complained they would have come first if only incompetent Eirish broadcasting authority (Radio Telefis Eirann) had worked out how to count Eirish telephone votes in time. {If the press and police are going ape about paedophilic Tatu, they should really take a look at the delightful waif-like biracial singer-songwriter Alicia Keys, whose physical charms principally are those of an inviting 14-year-old. They could also have a look at delicious Srindopakeshi filmstarlet Aishwarya Rai, 29, who can easily pass for 15. Then of course there is Harvard University's enticing star psychology student, Natalie Portman, 22 but playing 16 -- so off limits in some US states; flame-haired and stick-thin TV actress Alyson "Alleycat" Hannigan, 29 but playing 15; blonde Amy Smart, 27 but playing 15; sensational and diminutive Mena Suvari, 25 but playing c. 14; and intriguingly twiggy Christina Ricci, 23 but playing 13.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.