Thursday, January 29, 2004


Against a background of knife-edge parliamentary debate, Guardian readers were re-introduced to the idea that IQ tests might be a help in selection for university.


Having stood by her man, Edinburgh-born TV presenter John Leslie, as he faced down multiple allegations of raping femininnies (all accusations were thrown out in court), delightful and diminutive (but impressively breast-enhanced) Abi Titmuss bravely stood by her man while condemnatory tabloids revealed a life of foursomes and sex games - the leak had come from a Black male ex-basketballer who had twice had sex with John and ex-nurse blonde Abi but eventually realized John's fame and that he could get rich by handing over photos of their orgies to paparazzi and getting Abi sacked as a TV journalist

Soon a 'friend' came forward to say swinging Abi had been into group sex, on-stage sex, cocaine, lesbian sex and big Black cocks from sweet sixteen.

{At least there remained no doubt that Leslie's orgies were, even at their druggiest, entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, so the final happy result of this tabloid smearing was more mud in the eyes of feminazies. A court ordered Texan baseballer Jayson Blayde to hand over all the images he had stolen from Leslie's home. And Abi was staunchly defended as a minx with a heart of gold by columnist Jemima Lewis in the Sunday Telegraph (25 i, 'An acrid cloud of hypocrisy hangs over the whole Titmuss affair'). Though demoted by some newspapers from 'Fab Ab' to 'Shabby Abi' and facing investigation by PC Plod for a self-confessed cocaine night, she turned out to support John as he played in a charity football match, and was said to have been offered a six-figure salary to work in soft porn TV. She was staying with her teacher parents at Ruskington, Lincolnshire, suggesting they were reasonably supportive, but Leslie's mother was said to be "devastated" and "inconsolable" (Sun, 27 i).}


The News of the World (25 i) discovered with what ease Black and Muslim young males could make it into Britain: in the east end of London alone, the paper found six 'colleges' that offered nothing by way of education and existed solely to provide a fake identity as a 'student' to impress the UK Home Office.


One of Britain's top bioethicists endorsed infanticide in the case of infants born with previously unsuspected genetic problems or brain damage (Sunday Telegraph, 25 i; Scotland on Sunday, 25 i; Sunday Times, 25 i; Times, 25 i), BBC 26 i; Manchester Evening News, 26 i). In a debate organized by the House of Commons, handsome young Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's Ethics Committee, said there was no detectable ethical difference between abortion and infanticide undertaken for serious conditions, and added that there should be more openness about the fact that such infanticide was "a very widespread and accepted pratce in most countries."

The Manchester Uni philosopher's remarks infuriated pretty young 'pro-life' campaigner, the Reverend Joanna Jepson, curate of St Michael's Church in Chester, best known for her determination to outlaw abortions for cleft palate (with which condition she herself had been born). Julia Millington, the political director of the ProLife Party, said: "It is frightening to hear anyone endorsing infanticide, but it is shocking when that person is responsible for teaching others."

Professor Harris, Oxford-educated and a founder of the International Association of Bioethics, had fifteen books to his credit on the ethics of genetics. The Jewish-looking professor had in the past supported the ideas of people being allowed to sell their organs for transplant operations and being allowed to select the sex of their babies. A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association tried to dissociate from Professor Harris, saying: "These views of Prof. Harris are personal views and do not reflect the views of the Ethics Committee or the BMA, which is utterly opposed to the idea of infanticide." And Harris was promptly criticized by columnist Melanie Phillips (25 i) assorted bloggers and the right-wing Christian WorldNetDaily (27 i), and was noted by (27 i) to have revealed that abortions are often eugenic in intent.

Harris had been criticized previously in the San Francisco Chronicle (9 vi 2002) for attending to questions of human quality. But hardcore socialist groups were expected to resist the enforced pregnancies on which 'pro-lifers' were determined, and thus to support a compassionate attitude about infanticide (at least when carried out by mothers) that had developed in 20th-century Britain.(Nothing was expected of liberals who had altogether lost their way in the shoals of PeeCee.)

I wrote to the Manchester Evening News as follows:

Parents are expected to make decisions which a child cannot make for itself. Since our laws allow such choices as suicide and abortion, it is logical to allow parents to choose the suicide (by infanticide) of a child - assuming that the child faces a very low quality of life and that adoption is impossible. Thus I support the brave Professor John Harris.

I just hope that 'pro-lifers' who clamour to enforce pregnancies and parenting on unwilling parents are themselves generous in offering adoption and fostering. In the past, perhaps some two per cent of babies born in Europe were disposed of by their parents -- as can be read in Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's 1999 book, 'Mother Nature.' Myself, I imagine most severely handicapped people would rather have died (and have their healthy genes passed on by new brothers and sisters) than grow up unwanted or with a mother who had been plunged into depression at their birth.
Sincerely, -- Chris Brand.

{This letter was published (27 i) as one of eleven communications, eight of which were hostile - several of them strongly hostile -- to Professor Harris. Harris also turned out to enjoy the support of his fellow bioethicist, the Australian Peter Singer:


"Peter Singer, now the Ida W. Decamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, proposes that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." In a 1995 article in The Spectator, which is actually entitled "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong," Singer wrote, "Perhaps, like the ancient Greeks, we should have a ceremony a month after birth, at which the infant is admitted to the community. Before that time, infants would not be recognized as having the same right to life as older people."

Peter Unger, a philosophy professor at New York University, calls Singer "the most influential ethicist alive." "
One of Harris' books is titled Pro-Life is Anti-Life: The Problematic Claims of Pro-Life Positions in Ethics.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, January 28, 2004


A college student in Portland, Oregon, announced he was making it his project to ask all Presidential contenders for proof of their levels of intelligence. Christopher Nicholson had set up a charity-status group, People for Intelligent Politicians, and aimed to advertise on TV for further support in his enterprise.

{Nicholson had perhaps been reading the latest American meta-analysis of 127 studies on the importance of IQ in predicting life success, or the latest British follow-up of 11,000 children which found IQ far more important to educational success than was parental social class - results anticipated in THE g FACTOR, 1996/2000, in Commentary, 1998, and in my 'Quotations about the importance of intelligence'. The meta-analysis, published in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, was noted in the Times by senior Health Editor Nigel Hawkes (12 i) but did not apparently achieve any follow-on coverage.}


Given strong support from the Sunday Express (which devoted some six pages to him), Robert Kilroy Silk vowed to carry on outspeaking - at least so long as he could secure the jobs of his 65 TV company workers, some of whom had been with him for fifteen years. He had been much impressed by the high level of support for him when London motorists honked their horns and flashed their lights, and when he learned that 93% of callers to Sky TV had backed him. He told the Express, "I have saved the jobs of my colleagues and I am now free to say what I like, whenever I like, without any inhibition. And believe you me, I will." However, other Sunday newspapers largely ignored the affair; he didn't seize his opportunity to say anything more about Arabs, Blacks or immigration, or to indicate progress in negotiation for future takers; and the Express's own TV Correspondent, though given a page in the paper, declined to dish much dirt on the overpaid BBC peecee witches who had axed K-S as a presenter.

{One of the witches - all of them recent appointees -- was the bombastic and unmarried dwarfette who had announced her mission as one of 'inclusivity' for Britain's minorities and replaced BBC 1's 40-year-running red globe motif-logo with scenes of handicapped wheelchair racing and Black aerobics_.}

K-S was rubbished in the Mirror, Asians-in-Media and PakNews (which attributed Muslim emigration to the West on the West's "colonisation" and "constant interference by imposing dictators and despots", and claimed Western women were themselves emigrating to Muslim countries "in droves").


Paranormal expert Uri Geller strongly defended his friend Michael Jackson against allegations of child abuse (New York Post, 18 i). Apparently he had persuaded Jackson to agree to be hypnotized and then asked Jackson about the allegations against him. From Geller's long expertise in hypnotism, he felt entirely sure that Jackson had told him the truth when saying, under hypnosis, that his relationships with boys were merely "beautiful" and involved no sexual touching at all.

{MJ might just succeed in breaking the link made by the media between paedophilia and violent and manipulative sexual excursions.}


As Robert Kilroy-Silk withdrew into the shades, Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn came under fire for teasing the police about their growing numbers of overtly pansy officers. Reported to Scotland Yard by yag lobbies, Littlejohn responded (20 i):

"The Fascist Left are trying to use the law to punish anyone who challenges them and have dreamed up a whole raft of "hate crimes" to enforce their pernicious doctrine. There are some bad bastards out there, hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives, from what we eat and drink, to what we say and think. They are intolerant, hectoring and bullying. And they must be stopped. We must not be cowed. You'll never take me alive, copper."

{Fine words, but the resolve and resources of the peecee brigades should not be doubted: it cost the BBC UKP625,000 to bin the 25 episodes of 'Kilroy' which they no longer wanted - all taxpayers' money, of course! The left-wing tabloids promptly embarked on a campaign of vilification against him using complaints from nonagenarian neighbours that K-S had made them get their own water supply instead of depending on pipes running through his land. It could not be long before accusations would arise of insufficient paedohysteria_.}


Constructibabblers from Jean-Paul Sartre to Daniel Dennett got a good kicking in the Guardian from Prof. Galen Strawson (son of modern Oxford metaphysician Peter Strawson).

Confronting the idea that we all inevitably spend our time 'narrating' and 'storytelling' ourselves and spinning word webs, Strawson concluded: "_.honesty and realism about self and past must matter. There are innumerable facts about one's character and history that don't depend on one's inventions. One can't found a good life on falsehood."


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Friday, January 23, 2004


The censorious ways of 'multicultural' Britain were splendidly indicted by Bush-backing columnist Mark Steyn (Telegraph, 13 i).

The Muslim 'Media Monitors Network' website added that broadcaster Nick Ferrari, Sun columnist and anti-PeeCee crusader Richard Littlejohn and top Ozzie litterateur Clive James were also supporting Kilroy-Silk.

In 2003, the British media watchdog, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, noted that the British media were unduly "self-censorious" about criticizing Islam while allowing themselves to jest obscenely about Christianity - e.g. envisaging that Jesus and Judas were sodomites (Telegraph, 29 xii).}


Thus the front page of the Daily Express (13 I*). Smelling blood at the BBC, the paper threw its weight behind its "crusade" to reinstate presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk. In particular it named and shamed the three women bosses who axed 'Kilroy' -- one of them, the head of BBC 1, on an annual salary of œ434,000 and further getting the BBC to employ her own husband; it carried an interview with with K-S in which he lambasted the "PC Police", defined PC simply as "Censorship" and ripped into 'self-styled tsar' CRE boss Trevor Phillips; it had an article by top publicist Max Clifford blasting the Beeb ('Why Auntie has let us all down') and saying it had created "a public relations shambles"; the Express claimed overwhelming public support for K-S, e.g. among the 50,000 of its readers who had phoned in; it claimed the new Conservative leader Michael Howard had joined its campaign, saying "Our tradition of free speech is precious and we shouldn't lose sight of that"; and it gave the terms of a Commons motion tabled by MP Andrew Rosindell -

"This House deeply resents the gross and disproportionate over-reaction of the BBC in suspending transmission of the Kilroy programme. It further regrets the climate of political correctness which pervades the BBC; urges the Government to defend and maintain the right to free speech and opinion within the media without censoring majority opinion as has happened in the Kilroy case; and urgently calls on the BBC to reinstate the Kilroy programme without delay."

The paper also carried several nice picturs of a smartly besuited and smiling K-S, and remarks from readers_e.g. that he was sensitive and a "real gent." Its leading article declared -

The media luvvies of the BBC are behaving like tin-pot dictators. They pay lip service to freedom, but they only want it for themselves. This fat-salaried, politically correct ‚lite sneers at the views of licence payers. The only opinions these half-baked intellectuals care about are their own.

Several letters to the paper were also supportive, e.g. asking why Kilroy-Silk had been "vilified for telling the truth." Elsewhere, in the Daily Telegraph (13 i) one letter said it was quite in order to generalize about the vile Arab ways - just as it would once have been OK to complain of 'the South Africans' system of apartheid'; and another letter wondered why the Muslim community was up in arms when K-S's criticism had said nothing about Islam - only about Arab countries. In the Daily Mail, columnist Stephen Glover headed an article 'Let Kilroy speak his mind, even if it's full of nonsense.'

Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP, said he found it hard to understand why the BBC had moved against Mr Kilroy-Silk but had not taken any action against the 'anti-Zionist' academic and broadcaster, Tom Paulin. Tory MP Roger Gale, a former BBC producer, wrote to his old bosses to complain about their political correctness (Scotsman, 14 i).

However, Robert Marshall-Andrews, the Labour MP, said of K-S's piece: ''I think it is the most loathsome and illiterate article I have ever read in a British newspaper. The only conceivable purpose is to create ignorance and prejudice. I, and people in my section of the Labour Party, hope that Tony Blair will realise that we must not accept any more support from Richard Desmond, the proprietor of the Express. It may well be bordering on criminality.''

And Muslim leaders persisted in denouncing K-S's remarks as "indisputably racist" and part of a history going back to 1995 when K-S wrote "Muslims everywhere behave with equal savagery" (Daily Mirror, 14 i). The first leader in the Telegraph (14 i)complained of the 'decadence' of London police in investigating Kilroy-Silk's 'racism' when they could have been arresting burglars or stopping Muslim fanatics shouting 'Infidel!' at Londoners.

Education minister, David Milliband, called the BBC's decision to suspend the 'Kilroy' show "absurd". "I don't believe Kilroy-Silk is a racist. I think the decision by the BBC to take him off the air is absurd," he told BBC1's Question Time. But the BBC's high-earning top witches Jana Bennett (director of television) Lorraine Heggessey (controller of BBC1) and Alison Sharman (head of daytime programmes) stuck to their line that the price of free speech on the BBC's airwaves was 'responsibility', 'sensitivity', self-censorship and -- for good measure - instant censorship by them. They had clearly forgotten the words of Lord Chief Justic Lord Hailsham in 1965:

"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."**

The thoughtless harridans eagerly told journalists that more viewers had tuned in for their 9a.m. replacement for 'Kilroy' than usually watched K-S's victim-venerating show; but since the replacement was a mixture of news and gardening - notoriously popular with British housewives - this should have been no surprise at all. The Express and other papers retaliated by putting the boot into the Beeb over its money-wasting digital channels which no-one watches.

The pro-Muslim 'Media Monitors Network' carried (14 i) the interesting information that Kilroy-Silk's January 2004 article had in fact been his own unedited original - the April 2003 publication had in fact been heavily edited at the Sunday Express to tone it down. {Time for K-S to 'fess up to race realism?! - The alternative of denying racism never did Holocaust historian David Irving any good.}

* The Daily Express did not interest itself in appearing on the Net. But thanks to the Muslim Council of Britain, the text of Kilroy-Silk's 2004 article was made available - making it quite clear that even this unedited version of K-S's thoughts was clearly targeted at Arab countries rather than at Arabs tout court. As was noticed by the U.S. National Review, the full text of Osama bin Liner's incitements to hatred, not to mention limb amputation was made available by the BBC itself. (It said America wanted "religious-economic war" and "the occupation of the entire Gulf" {strange when the U.S. had just withdrawn from Saudi Arabia} and that there could be "no dialogue with occupiers except through arms."}

** Belfast Telegraph, 16 i:

About four or five years ago a wise old judge, Lord Justice Sedley, acquitted a woman street preacher, on appeal, at the London High Court, after she'd been convicted of breaching the peace outside Wakefield Cathedral where a hostile crowd threatened her. The prosecution had claimed that she would not have caused a breach of the peace "as long as what she said was inoffensive".

"That will not do," declared Judge Sedley, "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."


After a week of enjoying public support and vowing to 'fight on', TV host Robert Kilroy-Silk met with BBC witches for eight hours and was persuaded to resign (Sun, 16 i, 19:00) - with the inducement of a big financial settlement. The BBC declared its tolerance in principle of the free speech of its broadcasters did not extend to "presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme." But its top witches announced it was working on a new version of K-S's topical discussion programme, which would continue to be produced by the 65-strong team at the Kilroy Television Company Ltd (owned and run by K-S). The Times believed further cash had been put on the table by the BBC, compensating K-S for any shows under his own editing and hosting which would no longer be broadcast.

{Would 50,000 people ever again bother to defend a fellow Brit who erred too close to race realism? K-S's settlement looked a big and perhaps decisive victory for PeeCee - though K-S said he remained unrepentant about his views and might sell his show after its remaining six BBC-contracted months to one of the UK's independent TV channels.

The only real consolation of the day was that an English Employment Tribunal backed a prison officer sacked for joking about Osama bin Laden while in the same room as two Asian men - who actually never heard the officer's remarks (Sun, 16 i). And perhaps, in future, Prince Philip might emerge as a popularly supported race realist if students at the LUniversity of Edinburgh persist with their bizarre plan to remove him as their Chancellor?_}


I do not normally see any point in submitting my views to the enemy. But in the K-S case, where my views accord with those of the vast majority of correspondents, it seemed worth a try (and I sent a similar letter to the Guardian). The BBC had asked what people thought of Kilroy-Silk's "controversial views."

Mr Kilroy-Silk's views are NOT "controversial." Some 93% of those phoning to the Express and BBC have agreed with him. To have bribed him to drop out as a TV presenter must put fear into smaller-fry personnel at the BBC. They will not now dare to criticize 'the West', 'the USA' or even that convenient shorthand, 'the Americans' -- unless assured that the BBC's secret agenda does not involve castigating anti-White 'racism.' The BBC has grossly dishonoured itself as a champion of the free and fair interchange of ideas. Let's hope Kilroy-Silk's settlement with the Beeb will not long gag him from speaking out elsewhere!
Sincerely, -- Chris Brand.

Comments at the BBC's website ran roughly 50% in K-S's favour, and were 75% favourable on the particular issue of whether he was entitled to free speech. Cathy Lloyd of London wrote: "The BBC have lost something more than a TV host, they have lost their integrity and imagination." According to the Guardian (17 i), there was a prospect that Channel 5 TV would hire Kilroy-Silk to run their morning chat show (with which they are were known to have been unhappy). The Persian Journal (17 I) appeared to take K-S's side with an item titled "When Arabs don't like the truth, let's lie to them" - apparently the journal did not know that, at the time of writing his Express piece, K-S had believed Iran to be an Arab country_.

Scotland Yard said it was still investigating the suggestion of the Campaign for Racial Equality that K-S might been guilty of incitement to racial hatred. K-S said: "I have been overwhelmed by the support from the general public, and I continue to believe that it is my right to express my views, however uncomfortable they may be. "However, I recognise the difficulties this has caused the BBC, and I believe my decision is the right way to resolve the situation."


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Tuesday, January 13, 2004


As top UK talk show host Robert Kilroy-Silk prepared to be 'investigated' by the BBC bosses who had axed 'Kilroy' for 'racism', he did not mince his words for the press, calling his BBC censors "wimps" and their conduct "disappointing" and talking of "thousands of good, honest, decent people who seem to be cowed down by the bullying ethos of political correctness." The UK's top-selling tabloid, the Sun (12 i, Political Editor Trevor Kavanagh) came out in K-S's favour, concluding: "_.the shock is not that he spoke out so forcefully. It is that in a civilised nation like Britain he risks being sacked by the standard bearer of free speech for doing so."

Fellow TV presenter Richard Madeley said Kilroy-Silk had not said anything offensive and called for his show to be put back on air (Scotsman, 12 i). Speaking to BBC News 24, the 'Richard and Judy' front-man said: "The only explanation I can come up with is that someone at the Beeb wants him out. The treatment of Kilroy by the BBC is nothing short of disgraceful."

In the Telegraph, it was observed that the Commission for Racial Equality had made no move to censor the widely available book Sayings of Mohammed (hadis) in which non-Muslims are described as unclean and uncivilized (12 i, correspondent Randhir Singh Bains); and another correspondent drew attention to the CRE's failure to denounce Aesop's Fable 152, which includes the line "Their [Arab] tongues know not the truth" (12 i, Stephen Crane).

Even the Guardian (12 i) accepted a letter from homosexualist Peter Tatchell pointing out that the BBC repeatedly broadcast songs from Black reggae stars advocating violence to gays and women.

{The chief peculiarity among all such excellent banter was Kilroy-Silk's own refusal to agree that some of his remarks had been racist or at least race-realist - even for him, evidently, to accept being labelled with the 'r_' word was a bridge too far.}

{A cogent reply to Kilroy-Silk by Muslims was attempted at Media Monitors Network; but it quickly degenerated into accusing the West of all the main twentieth-century evils - forgetting the Turkish jihad that got rid of 5 million non-Muslims from 1893 to 1923, peaking with the expulsion or death (sometimes by gas chamber) of 2 million Christian Armenians in 1915, and forgetting the continuing internecine and nearly nuclear feuding between Muslims on the one hand and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists on the other.}

{Interviewed by Black Sir Kenneth McDonald on ITV, K-S toned down to appear a nice guy who had only wanted to draw attention to the failings of Arab regimes. Apart from calling criticism of himself "manufactured", he said nothing against Arabs, Blacks, Islam, the Anti-Nazi League (ANAL) or PeeCee - presumably wishing to appear nice enough to continue being a TV chat show host_.}

{In all this, not a word was heard from any senior Conservative, Liberal or Labour politicians. Faced with the biggest row about race and free speech since 1996, and perhaps since the days of Enoch Powell, Britain's politicos preferred to sit on their hands. No wonder the newspapers had long been more important than the House of Commons!}

Saturday, January 10, 2004


IN Spectator Michael 'Wacko Jacko' Jackson was ably defended by columnist Leo McKinstry as a likely victim of gold-digging. {In November, 2003, McKinstry had inveighed splendidly against the evils of 'multiculturalism.'}


After five years of Nato imperialism and pious multiculturalism over Kosovo, Serbians voted decisively for Vojislav Seselj - in custody in The Hague facing trial over 'war crimes.' {Seselj was once an outstanding student, becoming the youngest Ph.D. holder in Yugoslavia; but subsequently he was condemned even by Slobodan Milosevich as "the personification of violence and primitivity."}


After two weeks of suppression by the Western media, Vienna Medical School's Martin Voracek's rehearsal of the national IQ levels given in IQ and the Wealth of Nations reached China Daily ('Study shows Asians top rank in terms of intelligence', 5 i) and New Zealand's Stuff ('Kiwis have thought it for years - but now scientists have proven we are smarter than Australians', 4 i). Lynn & Vanhanen's original result (that IQ accounts for 57% of per caput variation in GDP) achieved substantial coverage in Malaysia's New Straits Times (5 i) - which condemned the result as "laughable" "scientific racism" and appealed to Britain's Marxoid Professor Steven Rose to denounce IQ testing as culture-unfair. (Just how a lack of culture fairness could explain East Asian IQ superiorities was left unstated.)

{The possibility began to emerge that some serious journalists might one day ask what cowardice had led IQ and the Wealth of Nations [published February, 2002] to remain unreviewed in any important academic journal. For a discussion of how White Rhodesians came to have an especially high IQ, see Nathaniel Weyl.}

* The 'Vienna IQ study' (by Martin Voracek, Clinic for Depth Psychology and Psychotherapy, Univ. Vienna) probably involved merely the use of Lynn & Vanhanen's data and not new data of its own. See e.g. and

Confusion arose because Voracek wrote to the British Medical Journal on November 15 ( apparently attributing IQ data on 85 countries to a paper by himself on IQ and suicide accepted in September by Personality & Individual Differences and due for publication in 2004. Of course, it was still encouraging that a researcher at a prestigious university should have been prepared to accept L&V's data, apparently without significant reservation.


26,000 votes were cast in a BBC Radio 4 competition to find the most popular suggestion for new parliamentary legislation. To the BBC's horror, the winning proposal was to allow homeowners to defend their property against housebreakers by any means they chose. Altogether 37% of those voting backed the idea, which will in due course be presented to the House of Commons by the embarrassed Labour MP, Stephen Pound.


An engaging website represented East Asian IQ as high, along with IQs in the major European cities of Holland, Germany, Poland and Britain - but gave Paris an IQ of merely 100. Red China's Peoples' Daily (5 i []), ShortNews [Regensburg, Germany] (5 i) []) and China View (8 i) []) also carried the 'Austrian' result that East Asians have the highest IQs.

{Perhaps, one day, America's piously peecee 'journalists' would realize that NYTwits would have to be told about Lynn & Vanhanen's (February, 2002) results, and even about THE g FACTOR (1996) ?_.}


Invented in the McDougall Newsletter of 28th July, 1998 a standard consent form attesting that a person is not drunk or drugged and consents to sex "and will not change my mind until the sex act is over" made its appearance in California (Short News, 8 i).


Four Black British football stars were told by police they would not be charged with raping a 17-year-old fan whom they had admitted to "roasting" (cf. gang-banging) in a London hotel in December 2003 (Sun, 8 i 04). The girl (the product of a Jamaican mother and a convent education, out drinking with a 30-year old man when she met the stars in the small hours at London's 'Funky Buddha Club') had originally claimed that eight footballers had raped or otherwise had their way with her, but scaled down her claims in the interests of realism. However, police were unimpressed; so a full-scale outbreak of argumentation between the Black and feminastie 'communities' seemed likely.

{Under in-the-pipeline Blairite legislation designed to please femiloons, 'roasters' et al. would by late-2004 have to prove that consent was granted.}


The BBC cancelled its top morning TV chat show (1.2 million viewers daily since 1986) when an article by the show's silver-haired, dashing and smooth-talking host, former Labour MP Robert Kilroy-Silk, 61, appeared in the tabloid Sunday Express. The article claimed that Arabs had produced "no civilization" and were chiefly known for their "suicide bombers, limb-amputators and women-repressors." In fact (e.g. Guardian 10 i), the offending article had originally been published by Kilroy-Silk in April 2003 and elicited only two letters of complaint to the newspaper - hardly surprising since its criticisms had at that time been made not of 'Arabs' but of 'Arab states.'

(The Arabs themselves clearly contributed to civilization, especially before their uptake of Mohammedanism; but Arab states are clearly known for little but their authoritarianism, backwardness, rapacity and the scores of London prostitutes maintained by their princes.) The January 2004 version of K-S's article involved re-editing and re-titling (as 'We owe Arabs nothing' instead of 'Are we loathsome? Shame on them!') at the pornographer-owned Sunday Express and had nothing to do with Robert Kilroy-Silk himself, who said he "very deeply regretted" its republication out of its original context (where opponents of the Iraq War had claimed Arab states "loathed" the West). He added that the article had been 'republished in error' because his secretary, asked by the Express for K-S's latest weekly column, had accidentally sent the old April article as an email attachment; and he apologized further that the article contained two factual mistakes (e.g. counting Iran as an Arab country).

Supporters of Kilroy-Silk - he facing breach of his BBC contract, possible criminal charges and denunciation by Muslim leaders for an insufficiently grovelling apology -- could phone a vote to the Sunday Express at 0901 565 5008. Kilroy-Silk promised to defend himself in further issues of the Sunday Express, which itself reported that its readers were giving him clear backing.

The Black Chairman of the UK's Government-funded Campaign for Racial Equality described the article as "indisputably stupid" and said he expected Kilroy-Silk to be prosecuted for inciting race hatred - if not, Britain's race legislation would need further tightening.

(Born Anglo-Irish to an Irish mother and a Royal Navy stoker in Birmingham, Robert Kilroy-Silk previously apologized in 1992 for describing the Holy Republic of Eireland as "peopled by peasants, priests and pixies." In 1990, his son (by his wife, Jan) was jailed for fraud; and in 1995 it was revealed he had a love child by an art teacher, conceived while he had been an MP. Kilroy-Silk reputedly interrupted his marriage around 2001 and ran off for a while with a 34-year-old Russian cabaret dancing girl. He had been educated at the London School of Economics. His show, the eponymously titled 'Kilroy', had a œ2 million annual budget and involved 'victim entertainment' - though sometimes the 'victims' turned out to be fakes.

In 2001, Britain's top left-wing New Statesman magazine declared Kilroy-Silk its Man of the Year, calling him: "an ultra-democratic philanthropist spreading the feeling of fame to the greatest number." In 2002, the owner of the Express, the Jewish porn publisher Richard Desmond, gave œ100,000 to the British Labour Party.)


Intelligence tests should be used by physicians to help detect and ameliorate Alzheimer's Disease, according to new work presented in Neuropsychology (i 04). Doctors should make allowance for a patient's previous high IQ and realize that a current 'normal' score can indicate a considerable deterioration.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Thursday, January 01, 2004


One of the relatively novel claims of THE g FACTOR was that intrauterine nutritional competition between identical twins (who often share the same chorion) can create special differences between them that have no bearing on how differences between singleton children arise. The point was graphically illustrated in The Sun (31 xii) with pictures of a pair of MZ twins where one twin was more than three times the weight of his brother at birth - and still almost twice as heavy as the pair reached ten months old.


The top American Middle-East scholar and Islamosceptic, Daniel Pipes, called for race to be used in airport security profiling - apparently all forms of profiling are currently used (e.g. sex, age, demeanour), with race as the only exception.


The year 2003 ended well for the London School with the confirmation of a strongly significant link betweeen IQ and 'tongue tubing' (whether testees can curl up the left and right sides of their tongue so that the tongue forms a 'roll' or at least a U-shape) (Galton Institute Newsletter, xii 2003). Working with 346 members of his own extended family in Pembrokeshire, Patrick James reported that 'tongue-tubers' were 6 IQ points higher than non-tubers (p<.01) - a finding that can presumably be due only to some genetic linkage.


At last, a brave relative of a 9-11 victim came forward to sue the U.S. Government for failing to protect America from its tidal wave of low-IQ and crime- and terror-prone immigrants.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.