Friday, December 29, 2006


IQ got a surprise mention in the ever-Commie-loving New York Times (28 xii, Michael Wines, ‘Malnutrition Is Cheating Its Survivors, and Africa's Future’) as that gruesome and famously Stalin-supporting ‘news’paper declared Ethiopian adults to be”shorn of as many as 15 IQ points” thanks to malnutrition (especially iodine deficiency) – though the full horror of Ethiopia’s actual average IQ of 63 (IQ & the Wealth of Nations, 2002, Lynn & Vanhanen) could not be mentioned to pious readers for fear they would choke on their breakfast Muesli.


"[Malnutrition] may be much less important than has been suggested. Consider, for instance, a study carried out in Holland by Stein and co-workers.* They collected test scores, at the age of 19, of some 20,000 Dutch army recruits whose mothers, during the German occupation, had been subjected to severe starvation in the crucial months around the time of the birth. These recruits showed no lasting general retardation when compared to 100,000 recruits whose mothers had not suffered starvation...." -- Hans Eysenck, 1981, in Intelligence: the Battle for the Mind, Pan Psychology.

* Elsewhere, Eysenck gave the reference as: STEIN, Z., SUSSER, M., SAENGER, G. & MAROLLA, F. (1972). Intelligence test results of individuals exposed during gestation in the World War II famine in the Netherlands. T. Soc. Geneesk. 50, 766-774.

Saturday, December 23, 2006


Just ten years after my own free speech case in Edinburgh LUniversity came to a head (resulting, after a year of inquisition and tribunalizing, in my dismissal in August, 1997), the Glasgow Herald (Alan MacDermid, 22 xii) kindly expressed the hope that I might draw consolation from a recently launched campaign in UK academics' weekly newspaper Times Higher to re-instate free speech in British academia.

Nice to be remembered! (I had always had a soft spot for the Glasgow Herald, which had faithfully reported student protests on my behalf in 1996/7; as for Glasgow Uni which awarded my wife a Ph.D. in 2006.) - However, the 64 "influential academics"* (including E.LU.'s mature philosophy postgrad Dan Dennis) little knew as they demanded "unrestricted liberty" for academic speech just what a mountain they had to climb after E.LU. had got it established by a High Court judge in 1998 that it had no more duty to support free speech than did a biscuit factory (see my 6 xii letter to the President of Exeter University Christian Union** and the events at the London School of Economics in May***).

* `Academics for Academic Freedom' (, led by Dennis Hayes (President of the University and College Union), included Oxford's Roy Harris (who had once encouraged publication of The g Factor), Tom Ogg (of my second Oxford college, Nuffield), Guardian philosopher A.C.Grayling (Birkbeck College, London), Vincent Egan (Glasgow Caledonian U., my Ph.D. student who had defended me re IQ) and Glen Newey (Keele U., who had defended me in the Independent re paedophilia).

** "..In 1998, Edinburgh University successfully argued (against me and my counsel) before a Scottish High Court judge that any duty that it had to support free speech took second place to its need to support its own reputation and income. In a particularly astonishing passage among complex legal proceedings, it was argued by the University that it had no more duty to support free speech than did *a biscuit factory* -- and this argument was essentially accepted. I honestly advise that [Christian Union] lawyers look carefully at for more (FIND 'Decision of Mr T. Gordon Coutts QC') to see what they would be up against."

*** After LSE bosses pounced on an academic after he had (at their invitation) given a presentation at an Open Day which alluded to the School's weaker as well as its stronger features, the academic wrote: ".academic freedom and the freedom of speech are threatened by the commercialization of education. We must reaffirm [our] rights before we are all turned into salesmen."

Saturday, December 16, 2006



A warm welcome was given by Phil Rushton to "IQ and Global Inequality", which extended the work reported in "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" (VDare, 7 xii). For example: "In my view, [Richard] Lynn and [Tatu] Vanhanen have made what is arguably the most important contribution to economic understanding since Adam Smith showed that free markets promote economic development. They have shown also that national IQs explain much of the variation between nations in a wide range of economic and social phenomena -- not just income levels. Their book extends the explanatory power of the concept of intelligence in a way that makes a major contribution to the integration of psychology with the other social sciences."

Alas, the prospect of a Nobel Prize for these authors and their mail-order-published book is sadly remote. It is not just that this book largely repeats, with slight extensions (e.g. getting Israeli IQ up from 94 to 95) the review already provided in the authors' 2002 "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". The main problem is the authors' failure to solve convincingly, or even decisively the problem of which of their national variables (IQ, literacy, take-up of tertiary education, health, longevity, wealth, income etc.) are actually causing which.

The authors provide many 'regression coefficients' (the favoured technique of econometricians): but regressions only give the degree to which one variable (or more) can be used to calculate others within a data set; and of course, in L&V's data set, IQ 'predicts' wealth but wealth also 'predicts' IQ. Thus the authors stumble into a morass of "positive feedback loops" and fall into the ultimate scientific fallacy (normally appealing chiefly to desperately environmentalistic proponents of 'complex interaction effects') that X causes Y and Y causes X - invariably a clear sign that more work is urgently necessary.

What should that work be? Well, the first task is to pinpoint X-Y relations where causation can, within reason, only go one way. Thus Touhey (1972, Br.J.soc.clin.Psychol.) found that IQ was strongly related (r = .50) to whether adult testees had in their lives been upwardly or downwardly socially mobile from their fathers' occupational levels - a relationship only readily explicable by saying that IQ causes upward social mobility (for IQ itself changes little from age 8 and, of necessity, the left's beloved variable of SES does not explain inter-generational mobility).

Likewise, I pointed out (in a 2002 review of IQ&WoN at Amazon Books) that national IQs collected around 1980 were correlated with countries' economic advance (or, in African cases, economic decline) over 1983-1996: "Of the world's 21 countries which steadily tripled their GDP from 1983 through 1990 and 1993 to 1996, none was on or near the African mainland; whereas of the 27 countries whose GDP decreased by 50%, ten were African (Angola, Burkina Faso, Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Madagascar, Somalia, Sudan, Zambia and Sao Tome & Principe)." It would plainly be bizarre to envisage backward causation from such changes to IQ. Yet Lynn & Vanhanen largely decline to focus on such crucial exercises. Most surprisingly of all, Lynn & Vanhanen make no use of factor analysis - a technique ideally suited in non-experimental data to identifying the most likely causal factors among the variables as a whole, in this case certainly headed up by a big factor highly loaded by g but with substantial loadings for all the other national variables.

Amidst their 400 pages of stumbling (pretty repetitiously) around the issue of causation, the authors occasionally show glimmers of appreciation of the true picture: e.g. the correlations between national g and longevity are spectacularly high (around .80) - indicating a relation which can hardly be explained by anything other than g being causal to longevity (doubtless via self-chosen 'lifestyle' features). But few journalists and no Marxite critics will have the patience to wade through the authors' inconclusive meanderings -- the indecisiveness of which perhaps reflects disagreements between the authors, for Lynn's own writing is normally a model of clarity.

All this borders on tragedy, for these hard-working, knowledgeable and fair-minded authors supply an excellent path analysis (on p. 248 of the book) which makes entirely clear a most plausible hypothesis in which national IQ, economic freedom (i.e. capitalism) and natural resources all contribute causally to 'measures of human conditions' - with IQ as the main contributor (as also envisaged in IQ&WoN). Sadly, the surrounding text does little to explain how the model was derived or whether it is or is not held to be the model of causation that would be favoured by the authors if they could put their "positive feedback loops" behind them. Thus I stand by what I said in 2002: that L&V's work could prove to be of really great significance; but, for the moment, it needs a sympathetic and methodologically informed reader - and the media-dominating peecee 'liberal'-left will gladly accept L&V's lame 'loops' of causation and denials of full-blown hereditarianism and settle for ignoring the volume, as they did in 2002.

Lastly, it is notable that the authors continue with their 2002 idea that it would be a good idea to raise African IQ (whether via their own favourite of improved nutrition [strangely they make no mention of remedying iodine deficiency], or via whatever vast new sums of money from UK Chancellor Dr Gordon Brown and his neosocialist ilk, or perhaps via the polygamy recommended for Africans by William McDougall). Yet the Africans who have done best over the past 300 years are surely the slaves who were lifted out to the USA - where their economic level is far higher and even their IQ (c. 85) is today a substantial improvement on that of Black people in Africa (c. 70) despite these Americanized slaves having been originally the criminal riff-raff of their Black societies, which, with encouragement from Muslim traders, decided to sell them off.

Perhaps the best Africans can hope for is that the Chinese (whose 1970s experiments in Malawi etc. came to grief in oceans of mutual misunderstanding, but who are now desperate for natural resources and no longer committed to egalitarian ideology) will in future take the trouble somehow to enslave Blacks once more. If such a process replicated the American success story for Blacks, it would suggest that people of all start-out levels of IQ can flourish economically over time in a well-run hierarchy - a possibility in which L&V are strangely uninterested.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006


The Archbishop of Canterbury, bearded theologian Dr Rowan Williams, wrote (in Times Higher) urging compromise by saying that all groups surely must have the right to criticize the chosen behaviour of others and that Christians' spiritually informed criticism of homosexual acts should not be treated as 'hate speech' (Ulster TV, 7 xii; Pink News, 7 xii). He especially said:"It would be very bad ..if the idea were allowed to gain ground that a student {guild or association} could be an arbiter of publicly acceptable belief."

His statements came after several Christian leaders had spoken out against the new Sexual Orientation Regulations {being introduced in Northern Ireland by Government fiat}, claiming they were an attack on "freedom of conscience." He seemed just about game for confrontation with the likes of E.LU., expressing his belief that the banning by universities of religious groups threatened 'the integrity of the whole educational process'.

Several London medical schools were said to have joined E.LU. & ilk in backing yag 'rights' to disrupt Christian Union meetings by their tireless questioning of the Church's position(s) on homosexuality (This is London, 6 xii).

The National Secular Society prepared for battle, saying Bullying Christians Demand the Right to Mistreat Others On Campus (7 xii) and reckoning Edinburgh's Christian Union would soon launch legal action against E.LU.

Edinburgh and Exeter LUnis were named and shamed on BBC Radio 4's flagship programme 'Any Questions' (8 xii) for their attacks on their Christian Unions.

The director of Share Jesus International, the Rev Dr Rob Frost, criticised the university bans on Christians which he called "a great tragedy". He told Christian Today: "The loving, serving and gracious ways in which the Christian Unions have carried out their ministry over the last 80 or more years is to be applauded. "The fact that they are now being pushed off of university campus property, and out of the mainstream of student life is a great tragedy." (Christian Today, 9 xii)

E.LU.'s compromise offer to its C.U. of 'a room with a health warning' for the PURE course was rejected by C.U. officials (Scotsman, 9 xii).

Pretty Mid-Bedfordhire MP, Nadine Dorries, 39, backed the C.U.'s against the lunis (10 xii). "Any moves to impose on the leadership teams of CUs individuals who do not share their beliefs should also be opposed," she said as she tabled a C.U.-backing motion in the House of Commons.

Pink News recorded E.LU. to be "deadlocked" over the PURE course. Said LUni PR personages: "This is a complex and delicate matter and the university is working to strike a balance which will be acceptable to everyone involved, and is staying in close touch with Edinburgh University Students' Association (EUSA) in this regard."


Just eight years after announcing himself a champion of the multiculturalism which had been Labour policy since 1976, Prime Minister Blair announced that this particular game was over and that 'integration' and 'balanced multiculturalism' were now the flavour of the month (Daily Telegraph, 8 xii). Rev Bliar thus brought welcome annoyance to Muslim 'leaders,' who feared he would insist that females should have full access to mosques; but others* were understandably cynical, noting:

(1) that NuLabour's enthusiastic admission of millions of third-world immigrants had - while generating temporarily a boom economy based on slave-for-the-time-being labour - undermined all possibility of serious integration occurring into the British way of life (itself under attack by Labour, which had weakened the family, eroded free speech and provided the conditions for yag domination) and

(2) that producing 'integration' out of his hat was as likely as Blair ever realizing his former promises of 'education, education, education' or peace and democracy in Iraq. Bliar might also turn out to have upset Christians themselves by saying that "No culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of the UK." Anyhow the likelihood of the new 'policy' resulting in much more than occasional withdrawl of funds from some mad mullah's favourite 'charities' looked slight - for Muesli slave women would be unlikely to respond to any legal liberation of them, never having produced any noticeable Muslim feminist movement in a generation. And Bliar's demand for acceptance by all of the 'British' value of tolerance could well prefigure an actual intensification of peecee pressures to disallow insensitivity to the sensitized.

Bliar's policy change, whatever it might turn out to involve (and 'Opposition Leader' David Cameron - praised by Blair for not 'playing the race card' -- needed to press Bliar urgently for details), was made in a lecture to the Runnymede Trust, which had been working for a 'multi-ethnic Britain,' but with increasing realism; and the change was accompanied with the usual 'celebration' of diversity, which had merely to be 'balanced' with integration. In the left's hands 'integration,' like multiculturalism, could actually have big dangers for Whites - resulting in busing, forced cohabitation and even eventually state-funded pressures for intermarriage as called for by Black Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson in Rituals of Blood.

However, the Labour-backing Daily Mirror tabloid's interpretation (in agreement with the Torygraph) was that some genuine positive change was underway: "His words are a clear sign Labour fears it is alienating working class voters who feel ethnic minorities are a higher priority;" and the Sun said Blair's patience with extremist immigrants had "snapped." The Guardian said the Government had "announced a crackdown on foreign imams by requiring them to have a proper command of English before they are allowed to enter the UK."

* See e.g. the correspondents who wrote in to the Sun newspaper, 11 xii.

Amusingly, Rev Blair's effort had been anticipated a week previously by BNP leader Nick Griffin, who had told followers in the BNP's top Barking & Dagenham constituency that 'multiculturalism was dead - killed by the BNP.' The Rev's advice to immigrants to Britain that they should 'like it or bugger off' was also splendidly reminiscent of the favourite advice of the French National Front to immigrants about France, 'love it or leave it' ('Allez-la ou quittez-la'). Evidently, having bullied the 'Conservatives' into silence on race, immigration, crime and the lunacy of comprehensive schools, NuLabour wanted to move into the political space that the terrified Tories had left wide-open. Rev. Bliar, always supposedly concerned with his 'legacy,' was making sure that Labour would win another election and that he himself would surely go down in history as a political, if no other kind of genius.

It transpired that Mr Blair agreed with a windy and self-contradictory November letter from some 'New Generation Network' in the Grauniad which, while protesting belief in "freedom of expression" went on to advocate the elimination of all prejudice against Blecks, Mueslis, yags etc, (20 xi) - no prize for guessing how such elimination would be achieved. Having bullied the (admittedly timorous) Whites into silence about race, the lordly 'moderate' left suddenly favoured free discussion so as to disguise the rampant 'anti-racist' anti-White authoritarianism which they had permitted until it succeeded. Now, apparently, was the time to put knives back in sheaths and pretend that all was sweetness and light in the oh-so-decent immigrant-slave society which lefties had created, despite that society spawning thousands of new welfare-dependents daily with the importation of ever more slave-women from Pakistan and drug mules from Jamaica.

In the Observer, dotty-leftie columnist Mary Riddell quickly arrived at her own preferred version of Tonyman's new 'integration' proposal: "This is the opportunity to defuse the public power of all gods, to ban religious schools of every hue, to end the cross-contamination of faith and policy and to move towards a secular state." This was the opportunity to get the bishops out of the House of Lords, thought daffy Mary (10 xii, 'Integrate? Tell that to the Christian church, Mr Blair').

Rev Bliar's demand for 'integration' by Mueslis was accompanied by a fresh attack on the family as he announced a crackdown on 'deadbeat dads' who declined to support runaway wives and accompanying useless children. Fathers who thus rejected marriage break-ups were to be 'named and shamed' on the internet (this modern version of the pillory being introduced after twenty years of successive governments persecuting fathers who had no wish to finance their wives' adultery and desertion). No wonder it seemed that the Blairite house of cards must soon tumble, even if the wretched 'Conservatives' were incapable of lifting a finger to help the process!

The pseudo-drama of Rev Bliar's pseudo-conversion was captured by columnist Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times (10 xii): "Immigrants to this country have a "right to be different" and a "duty to integrate", according to Tony Blair. I think this means clear off if you don't like it here, but one can never be entirely sure with him. For example, he also said multiculturalism had always been about a balance between conformity and difference, which is a breathtaking assertion - a little as if he had announced: "There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - and, y'know, we never said there were." Government-sponsored multiculturalism for 30 years insisted there was no imperative to share the core values of society - if there were core values of society, which there probably weren't. People who disagreed were branded "racist". If Blair had made his speech 10 years ago he'd have branded himself "racist", which would have been fun to watch, I suppose."

The Torygraph also made good points (9 xii): "True, the ideology which Mr Blair now decries has been advanced chiefly by his own party. Given his readiness to apologise for ancient wrongs, it would perhaps have been appropriate to acknowledge this more recent mistake. Still, we are delighted that Mr Blair has come round to the view that this newspaper has always held, and that our countrymen have clung to through decades of official bullying and hectoring. What, though, are these "British values" that Mr Blair wants everyone to accept. It will not do to carry on about freedom, fairness and tolerance: admirable as they are, these virtues would serve equally well for Ecuador or Finland. British values, surely, are bound up in our institutions: common law, a sovereign parliament, habeas corpus, counties, army regiments: the very institutions that have often been traduced by this ministry. Perhaps Mr Blair might devote his final months to reparing some of this damage."

Top columnist Simon Heffer was still more scathing: "Saying you want people to integrate but remain multicultural is like saying you want them to stay sober but still drink a bottle of vodka each night."

America's National Review welcomed Blair's 'bigger than babyish' steps away from classical Labourite multiculturalism, but noted that he had not dissociated himself from voices in his party wanting still further free-speech-dampening laws against 'stirring up religious hatred' (11 xii).

In the Guardian, columnists Madeleine Bunting, Faisal al Yafai, Simon Woolley [Black] and Dave Hill whinged that Blair's speech had shown insufficient appreciation of the hard times that Muslims had in Britain, especially because of the Government's joining the War on Terror, and virtually denounced as 'racist' Blair's saying "Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. Conform to it; or don't come here."; but they met with rather little support from correspondents, who tended to reckon Blair was sensibly reining in PeeCee so as to halt Labour's slide in the polls.

Rev Bliar found himself fortified in his turn-around by his former Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, revealing that Britain had argued hard in Washington not to disband Madman Insane's half-a-million-strong army, and not to cast equally into unemployment the further half-a-million state servants (doctors, teachers, nurses etc.) who had joined Saddam's Ba'ath Party not as convinced ideologues but only because there was little alternative except emigration. Some high-ranking American civil servants backed up Hoon, saying the USA had simply ignored British advice. The possibility thus emerged of Blair re-branding himself as a pseudo-true son of the Empire - if only he could resist the temptations to make pseudo-apologies for slavery (in which the English had never engaged on their own soil until they allowed the importation of Pakistani brides into forced marriages).


A warm welcome was given to "IQ and Global Inequality", which extended "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", by Phil Rushton (VDare, 7 xii). For example: "In my view, Lynn and Vanhanen have made what is arguably the most important contribution to economic understanding since Adam Smith showed that free markets promote economic development. They have shown also that national IQs explain much of the variation between nations in a wide range of economic and social phenomena-not just income levels. Their book extends the explanatory power of the concept of intelligence in a way that makes a major contribution to the integration of psychology with the other social sciences."


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Wednesday, December 06, 2006


After years of claiming to `integrate' Blacks and Muslims into the French Republic, France found itself faced with a Black police officer in Paris shooting into a crowd of 100 White football supporters who menaced him after he tried to stop them harassing a visiting Israeli football fan whose team had just beaten the French team Paris St Germain 4-2 (MetroNews, 25 xi). As inquiries began into the resultant killing of a PSG supporter, breast-beating about the country's multicultural achievements raged in France's media and Interior Minister and presidential hopeful Nicholas Sarkozy swore to stamp out racism in football even if French soccer stadia were left half-empty.

Any French ideas that they could exert control over Black genocidal tendencies was undermined as the French ambassador was expelled from Rwanda after he called for President Paul Kagame to go on trial for his share of the 800,000 Tutsi killed by the Hutu.

Within days of the PSG incident, the soccer fans of once-Liberty-loving France found themselves barred from all matches unless they purchased tickets from official fan clubs which would be obliged to monitor them for `racism' (Guardian, 28 xi). PSG itself agreed under government pressure to close its 2,000-seater `Red Boulogne' stand where `racist' fans had been known to congregate.


A planned London love-in (at 700 pounds per head in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, all bills footed by taxpayers) to celebrate 30 years of British multiculturalism was disrupted as `Red' Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, refused to share twiglets with Commission for Racial Equality boss Trevor Phillips - the latter top Black Bliar toady having given offence by casting the occasional teeny aspersion on multiculturalism and thus put himself, said Ken, `in line for membership of the BNP' (Observer, 20 xi). {Amidst the jollifications, it emerged that NuLabour had arranged no less than 50,000 jobs for its cronies in Britain's race relations industry.}

{Amusingly, Phillips himself had once thrown BNP slurs around at fellow lefties, in 2004, saying to David Goodhart, the Prospect author who had got around to pointing out that relatively `diverse' countries do not have much of a welfare state: "Is this the wit and wisdom of Enoch Powell? Jottings from the BNP leader's weblog?" (Guardian, 24 ii 2004). Likewise, the lordly Goodhart himself surely took the view over the years that I and The g Factor were well beyond the pale.}


On a day when two Black youths were given life sentences from the Old Bailey for murdering a gifted young White lawyer* in London for just 20 pounds and his mobile phone, Tory MP Bob Spink found himself carpeted by Not-the-Conservative Party leader Daft Dave Chameleon for explaining in email to a constituent that Black males were, pro rata, over-represented in the criminal fraternity (Daily Telegraph, 28 xi; Black Information Link, 4 xii).

* Thomas ap Rhys Jones, 31, had a First Class Degree from Trinity College, Cambridge, and was also a talented amateur violinist. When police found him dying in a pool of his own blood, a list of wedding guests was among his belongings for he and his lawyer girlfriend, Adele Eastman, 32, had been planning to marry a few months later. The mighty Boris Johnson MP felt moved to advocate the death penality but held himself back because Adele and the Jones family, though devastated, did not seem to want to restore hanging.


The American Enterprise Institute hosted a fine scholarly debate between its own Bell-authoring Charles Murray and political philosopher-turned-psychometrician James Flynn* who had maintained since the 1980's that IQ was rising and that Blacks would surely soon somehow benefit from an extra score rise of their own.

No victor seemed to be declared in the media - though commentators** did note critically Flynn's heavy dependence on the Eyferth-originating study of (illegitimate) children of Black US servicemen growing up in Germany (for the apparent near-equality of these half-Black children with Whites was easily explicable by the US military not accepting personnel of under IQ 90 and by German girls in post-Hitler days being unlikely to have had sex with Blacks unless the Black soldier himself was extra-presentable and well-monied). One suggested compromise (made by Steve Sailer) was that the B-W gap had been narrowing a little among children but not among adults (perhaps because of schools' limitless concern to ensure children pass tests). Another possible explanation for the Flynn-Murray difference could have been in the different IQ tests used (Education Week, 6 xii).

What was notable was that (apart from Flynn himself hailing from Ireland and New Zealand) the whole exercise and its media coverage were so exclusively American, rather confirming that, in the aftermath of The Bell Curve's publication, my being sacked and British psychologists and journalists subjected to a reign of terror by their university administrators and editors, the London School of Psychology had possibly moved Stateside -- a new book from Richard Lynn (Ulster) and Tatu Vanhanen (Finland), IQ and Global Inequality, was on its way, but brought out by Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta, Georgia.

* A good friend of The g Factor, it should be said; and just as nice and reasonable on his two visits to Edinburgh as he evidently was in New York.

** John Derbyshire in National Review, 29 xi; Ronald Bailey, 1 xii. Surprisingly, commentators did not note in particular the recent Rushton & Flynn 2006 summary of the totality of evidence, showing the B-W difference virtually unchanged over the past 30 years -- Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2006). `The totality of available evidence shows race-IQ gap still remains.' Psychological Science 17, 921-922.


Responding to Prime Minister Blair's assertion that he felt "deep sorrow" about the slave-trade, the Daily Telegraph's Charles Moore made many excellent points (that Britain had been the first country to end slave-trading and to stop others - the French Revolutionaries outlawed slavery in French dominions but Napoleon quickly reintroduced it; that slavery was alive and well in Mauritania and Sudan - where the local Arabic word for `Black' was the same as for slave; and that the principal British anti-slaver, William Wilberforce, had been a political conservative, not a radical). However, one did wonder whether British `idealism' was not at least partly the result of American Independence and the subsequent 30-year war with Britain - public protests in Britain at the slave trade seem to have begun in 1787.


Bruce Jones, a star of Yukay's top TV `soap,' `Coronation Street' (where he played `Les Battersby'), admitted and apologized for a `racist remark' against Asians [i.e. Pakistanis] while he was addressing a charity gig, blaming drink and the impending death of his father (News of the World, 3 xii; Sunday Mirror, 3 xii). The Corrie star, not unknown for alcohol problems, thus joined Hollywood's Catholic star and multimillionaire Mel Gibson who, when arrested by a Jewish police officer earlier in 2006 for apparently drunk driving in California, had produced an anti-Semitic tirade - sentence: 3 years probation. In neither case were newspaper readers allowed to hear the precise criticisms that these celebrities had in mind about the racial groups in question,* so imperative was it for the West's peecee-crippled media to avoid the slightest discussion of race (even when the meanderings of these `drunken' celebrities could presumably have been quite easily lampooned by a half-competent scribbler). Although the Western tradition had long been not to accept drink as an excuse for anything, inebriation was coming to be the easiest way of explaining otherwise inexplicable glimmers of race realism.

* Jones had apparently joked that the `Asians' he saw in the charity-bash audience had presumably come because they were waiting for passports which they could then sell in their `market stalls', but no inquiry was made into Jones' actual beliefs that had furnished the basis of his merry insult.


"Frantic" oral, hand-job and straight sex for several months in 2002 with two 14- and 15-year-old virgin boys, friends of her son, led to the downfall of a busty, blonde, glamorous (Daily Torygraph picture, 5 xii), strong-shouldered and thong-wearing British mother and businesswoman, who employed them at her bouncy castle emporium, Yvonne Renton, then 35: Yvonne made the mistake of dumping the older of the readily zip-opening youths (a boy `not equipped to cope' - later diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic), triggering self-harm by him and herself being sentenced in Kent in 2006 to 18 months jail and general ruin for naughtiness and intimidation. {Of course, had she been a man 'preying' on 14-15-yr girls, the sentence would have been more like 10 years.}

{In Devon, the 79-year-old Abbot of Benedictine Buckfast Abbey, a monastic settlement since 1018 and famous for its cider, was forced to resign following allegations that he had occasionally importuned choirboys of under 14 between 1972 and 1981 (Sun, 6 xii). Just what had happened to the perhaps-lucky choirboys was not a matter which Britain's hysterical media-folk could allow themselves to explore. In the Kent court, the judge made a point of not blaming Mrs Renton for her impressively-penically-endowed but flawed young partner's paranoid schizophrenia.}


Following the announcement that Exeter University's Christian Union would pursue legal action against the LUni, I sent the following letter to the CU leader, copied to other Christian groups.

To: The President, Exeter University Christian Union

Re: 'Students Consult Lawyers After Refusal to Reinstate Exeter Christian Union'

(The saga started in May this year when one student felt the CU's requirement that members attest biblical principles was too "exclusive" for him -- probably in its not condoning homosexual behaviour.

Full account: here and here)

Edinburgh, 6th December 2006.

Dear James Harding,

It's great to gather from the media that UCCF and Exeter University Christian Union have the will to fight for freedom of belief, speech, expression and association in Britain's universities. Freedom is a most important cause, as is support for traditional family values; and both causes have been abandoned by many British academics over the past twenty years. Times Higher recently reported that 80% of British academics said universities had sacrificed the principle of academic freedom (26th October).

But I write principally to urge a little clever caution in view of press reports of your planned legal action. In particular, I suggest your legal team should not put much reliance on the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act, for this statute only *appears* to oblige universities to support free speech.

In 1998, Edinburgh University successfully argued (against me and my counsel) before a Scottish High Court judge that any duty that it had to support free speech took second place to its need to support its own reputation and income. In a particularly astonishing passage among complex legal proceedings, it was argued by the University that it had no more duty to support free speech than did *a biscuit factory* -- and this argument was essentially accepted. I honestly advise that UCCF lawyers look carefully at for more (FIND 'Decision of Mr T. Gordon Coutts QC') to see what they would be up against.

Of course, Edinburgh University's attitude to free speech was and is disgraceful; but I imagine, in view of all the trouble that Exeter University has given your Christian Union so far, that Exeter will follow suit. One way forward could be to publicize the inadequacies of the 1986 statute via the media, for I'm sure there would be wide public sympathy once it was realized that British universities had spinelessly accepted legislation actually undermining their historic duty to defend free speech. Alternatively, it would be important, apparently, to gather evidence that allowing expression of 'homophobic' views would not diminish, and might actually enhance the reputation and income of a university.

Sorry if this is initially dispiriting; but I want you to win, not lose! You're welcome to let me know if there is anything else you feel I can do to help.
I am yours sincerely,

-- Chris Brand (psychologist, author of 'The g Factor').

PS The latest from Edinburgh University is a compromise offer of accommodation for the Christian Union's (allegedly homophobic) PURE course so long as information (which the University would itself supply) is prominently displayed to the effect that some groups (telephone helplines supplied) think homosexuality is just fine. However, no such 'health warnings' were planned to oblige the Islamic Society to explain that its Hamas speakers were anti-Semitic, or to point biology students to creationist points of view about the origins of life. Rather than litter its clubs and courses with health warnings, the University would surely do better to put up a sign at its Old College HQ declaring 'Anything said in this university may be rubbish -- especially the University's own unprincipled and fast-changing views on freedom of speech.'

The University's Student newspaper carried a fine letter (from Scott George McCombe, 5th December) pointing out the classic error of calling for 'free speech so long as it is responsible/sensitive/inoffensive/balanced etc.': for there is simply *no need* to provide 'freedom' for speech that wouldn't upset anyone -- a point that was made unavailingly to Edinburgh University as it aimed to placate its 'anti-racists' and feminazies back in 1996/7/8.


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, November 27, 2006



British Catholics were given the news of attacks on them by the luniversities of Edinburgh, Exeter, Birmingham and Heriot-Watt (also in Edinburgh) (Independent Catholic News, 20 xi) (The Universe, 21 xi). The 200,000 Protestant readers of Inspire were similarly alerted (20 xi) and asked to write in protest to E.LU.’s Vice-Chancellor, Comrade Tim O’Shea; and Christian Today (21 xi) carried the story. Apparently Laura Stirrat, the robust vice-president of Edinburgh University's Christian Union, had pointed to the simple truth of the matter: "The university is effectively closing down free speech."

Britain’s yags carried the news of the impending battle in their PinkNews, 20 xi. Apparently, PURE came from the USA, from the founders of the chastity-till-marriage-advocating ‘Silver Ring Thing.’

The Times (21 xi), under the heading ‘These are exciting times for Christian students,’ carried three letters responding to its p.1 article, two backing free speech and one criticizing ‘evangelical’ take-overs of Christian Unions. The Telegraph (21 xi) revealed that NuLabour had forced through regulations in Northern Ireland to criminalize discrimination against homosexuality or criticism of homosexuality, obliging schools to educate children as much in homosexuality as in heterosexuality – and similar ‘protection’ of yags was planned for England and Wales. News that “Christians across Britain were preparing to take legal action against university authorities” reached Oz (The Australian, 21 xi).

Edinburgh’s Student (21 xi) reported Matt Tindale, the UCCF staff worker at the Edinburgh University Christian Union, as saying: “…from what our lawyers have been saying, we have a strong legal case.” E.LU. student union President Tim Goodwin burbled fatuously that “The decision to ban PURE is less about religious groups and more about ensuring that all groups on campus are free to express themselves regardless of their sexuality or any other discriminating factor;” and E.LU.’s National Union of Students-appointed (and presumably salaried) Officer for LGBT affairs whinged that the Christians had chosen to “target some of the most vulnerable students on campus” – when said “vulnerable students” had in fact set themselves up for criticism not only by their shameless exhibitionism but by their frankly tyrannous effort to close down the Christians’ freedom of speech. Student’s editorial settled for a middle way of complaining that the Christian Union was “subsidized” in its “repugnant” views by the University – though the CU was in no way different in this from any other E.LU. society, getting free antiquated rooms in dilapidated buildings in the smallest of returns for its members’s fees to the LUni. E.LU.’s CU reported that the LUniversity had not even consulted them before banning PURE.

The director of the London-based interdenominational ‘Share Jesus International,’ the Reverend Dr Rob Frost, offered his support to any British student Christian Unions wanting to do battle with censorious institutions such as E.LU. (Christian Today, 22 xi). (The movement involved 700 churches and its annual Easter event was attended by some 6,000 people.) Nine Anglican and Catholic bishops, including the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the Evangelical Lord Carey, announced they had, together with eight academics and Christian representatives, written to the Times to condemn the “intolerant and unlawful” behaviour of such luniversities (Inspire, 22 xi; published Times 24 xi – though the letter diplomatically omitted saying that the censorship and to believing that "The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God" and "is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour" (Spero, 23 xi). Apparently LGBTs hoped that non-evangelical Christians would join them in condemning such ‘exclusory’ requirements. A Times news report (24 xi) said the four CUs (at Birmingham, Edinburgh, Exeter and Heriot-Watt) had been told that they had “strong cases” and that they should they press ahead with court action.

These troubles for the lunis arose at the same time as British Airways was criticized by 100 MPs (including Labour’s ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw) for not allowing a female employee to wear her crucifix (despite displaying on its aeroplanes’ tailfins the crosses of St George, St Andrew and St David) – BA eventually buckled under the barrage, promising further ‘review’ of its peecee policies; and it was said with academic authority that 25 lunis were wittingly or unwittingly providing facilities for training Muesli wannabe suicide bombers. The National Secular Society called the new assertive moves by Christians “sinister” (23 xi)

The UCCF website provided further news, press cuttings etc. and called on “Christians everywhere” for support. In particular it noted that Edinburgh’s Christian Union was under attack from the University itself and not just from Edinburgh University Student Association. News of the bishops’ letter was carried by The Scotsman (24 xi) and Virtue Online (“The Voice of Global Orthodox Anglicanism”) (24 xi) and the Anglican Diocese of Lichfield (24 xi). The trouble at Exeter LUni had started in May when just one student had complained of finding the Christian Union’s declaration of faith too restrictive and took action via the Student Guild to have the Union’s name changed to ‘Evangelical Christian Union.’

With laughable disregard for any principle of free speech, the National Secular Society accused the bishops who had written to the Times of defending “mistreatment” of and “discrimination” against unbelievers in general and yags in particular (26 xi). Although Times Higher (24 xi) declined to show any interest in the debate, evidently adopting the mainstream left’s usual fall-back tactic of denial (as with Dr Sushi Kasanova lately, with Dr Frank Ellis last year, with Richard Lynn’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations and with myself for the past ten years) the battle for free speech (that should have been held in 1996/7/8 about The g Factor vs Edinburgh LUniversity) was hotting up.

Scotland on Sunday’s Paul Stokes came down in favour of free speech between E.LU.’s Christians and yags, writing (26 xi): “No idea or faith should be immune from criticism, attack and ridicule. Let the Christians back in, let them harangue the gays, and let the gays shout back. If you can't do that in a university then where can you? If we really want to encourage the harmonious co-existence of radically opposed ideas then we must learn to treat each other with due disrespect.”

Times signatory Lord Carey, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, managed some unusually stirring words for the Sunday Telegraph: “This country is in danger of losing sight of its Christian heritage. One of the most telling recent cases is the action taken by student unions agains Christian organisations on university campuses. I was among those who earlier this year spoke in Parliament and voted against a proposed law that would exempt religion from free speech. Yet I am beginning to wonder whether the principle of free speech can even be preserved on university campuses. ….Are we beginning to see the menace of censorship and political correctness in the very places where we expect liberality and generosity.” {Apparently, His Holiness did not know that the assault on free speech in the UK’s universities had begun in Edinburgh, just ten years previously….}

News of Christians versus yags and lunis appeared in the USA’s Fox News (26 xi) and in Australia’s The Age (27 xi), which pointed out that 1986 legislation obliged universities to support free speech on campus. {But, sadly, my own 1996/7/8 case showed this obligation was worthless for it could be overridden (decided a Scottish High Court judge) if a luni found some particular case of free speech to be bad for its business. The Church would find it had left things too late for lawyers to solve, and that it would have to use its muscle – if it had any left after years of selling out to lezzies.}

Sunday, November 19, 2006


In the same elections that saw Americans recoil from their Government's race unrealism in Iraq (where Rev. Dubya Bush of the Church of the Latter-Day Morons had thought the Iraqis ready for democracy and had his Black secretary, Condoleezza Rice, denounce critics of this as racist), the citizens of Michigan voted to ban the favouritism to Black applicants shown for years by the `diversity'-affirming University of Michigan - though the University Principal promptly announced she would spend her next few years fighting via the courts to maintain pro-Black race prejudice.


Whether because of the BNP's court victory (below) or the feebleness of the 2006 Blair-supplied Queen's Speech, Torygraph columnists came on gratifyingly stronger than usual about Britain's real problems. Leo McKinstry (15 xi) deplored the mocking of Britain's `indolent, scrounging, chain-smoking, beer-swilling, football-hooliganning, obese' `working class' (or what's left of it) by Muslimme Yasmin Alibhai Brown (of the Indie) and noted that, throughout the UK's media, "the propensity for young, urban black males to be involved in serious violent crime attracts nothing like the same concern."

Boris Johnson [renamed `Boras' in Private Eye, but bless him] derided NuLabour's endless tough-talk-but-no-action about crime and blamed crime especially on NuLabou's "disastrous multicultural agenda." Daniel Hanna slammed into NuLabour's "assault on our civic freedoms - without precedent in peacetime" which had deprived people of the rights to smoke, smack children, foxhunt or express the slightest criticism of others' racial characteristics or religious beliefs; he urged Britain should abrogate the European Convention on Human Rights and rely on classic British liberties* (e.g. of Parliamentary sovereignty, habeas corpus, jury trial, and to vote against unwanted immigration and for the death penalty for those prisoners who will never be able to pay the costs of their human-rights-rich keep [lately found to provide British prisoners with free pornography and heroin]).

{However, nothing daunted, Black CRE supremo Trevor Phillips (16 xi) urged the churches to ban BNP members from Christian fellowship - and several swiftly replied with website messages to the effect that adamant race realists were in no fit state to try to talk to God.}

* Hanna aptly quoted Disraeli: "To the liberalism they profess, I prefer the liberties we enjoy; to the rights of man, the rights of Englishmen."


Just ten years after it suspended me and charged me with undue naughtiness in my race realism, sex realism, elitism and anti-paedohysteria, the LUniversity of Edinburgh again put itself in the advance guard of the UK's peecee pack by moving against its Christian Union (Christian Today, 18 xi). Driven by madding hordes of the `lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered', as in 1996 by the `Anti-Nazi League,' the LUni banned its Christian Union from running an event (titled PURE) for students at which `sex-only-in-marriage' was to be advocated and homosexuality declared sinful - as taught by the Church for 2000 years and by Jewry for longer.

The LUni's harassment of its Christians came a year after it had banned the supply of Bibles (arranged free by the Gideons, as for most British hotels) in the 3,500 student rooms of its halls of residence; and it was likely to be followed by moves to suspend the CU's bank account and ban it altogether. Similar bullying was noted in the universities of Exeter and Birmingham, but it was Edinburgh which received the lion's share of the coverage on p. 1 of the Times (18 xi).

The British 20,000-strong University and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) asked that as many people as possible write to the Principal of Edinburgh University (email: to express their disapproval at the censorship of the Christian Union at the university.

Principal Timothy O'Shea had been appointed in 2002 and promptly embarked on his self-declared right-on mission of widening "access" to the LUniversity - i.e. increasing the numbers of students having no great record of educational achievement. After the LUni's 1996/7 peecee attack on me, it had dropped permanently out of the top ten in UK university league tables - overtaken in Scotland itself by St Andrews University. E.LUni's yags had not demanded any similar attack on the LUni's Muslim Society. How strange!...

In the Times, columnist Ruth Gledhill seriously doubted the wisdom of the universities attacking their Christian students, concluding: "Arguments are what student unions thrive on. It seems bizarre beyond belief to attempt to stifle some of the most fundamental arguments of all by banning student Christian unions." In Exeter, Christian students threatened their wretched University with legal action if it did not fully re-instate the Christian Union within 14 days. In Scotland, E.LU. found itself condemned by the Catholic Church for "blind, unthinking political correctness," but bleated in reply that the PURE event was "contradictory to our equality and diversity values" (Scotland on Sunday, 19 xi) so a promising battle loomed, with a good prospect of defeat for the Marxite LUni.


Britain's politicians of the far-left and far-right were thrown into hilarious confusion as a top Muesli turned out to have donated money to peecee-persecuted and imprisoned `Holocaust-denying' historian David Irving (Observer, 19 xi). How these goons -- who had never managed to lay a finger on Rev. Bliar -- must have wished they had stuck simply to defending freedom and the g factor! Ditto Edinburgh LUniversity, whose self-appointed battle with The g Factor and Nobelist Carlton Gajdusek had turned after ten years into a battle with Catholicism at a time when the British Prime Minister was a closet Catholic, his Cabinet Minister for Communities (boyishly attractive Ruth Kelly, from The Queen's College, Oxford) was an ardent `Opus Dei' member and the NuLabour Education Minister had just a week previously had to withdraw in ignominy - collapsing his own leadership hopes -- his proposals to make Catholic schools accept 25% of their pupils from other faiths. How weird that E.LU., previously best known for giving an honorary degree to ruinous Black Marxite dictator Hastings Banda of Malawi, should have put itself forward to fight and lose with the ultra-sound Muesli-bashing Pope Benedict! But serious contempt of g and freedom hopefully brings disastrous consequences (as it did for the Church itself in the past when it tried to battle Galileo and Darwin).


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, November 13, 2006



In a surely sensational development, on Guy Fawkes Night, the Observer and Guardian turned their attention to the `controversial'/'racist' etc. work of a US-Japanese sociologist-turned-evolutionary psychologist, Satoshi Kanazawa (Observer, 5 xi).

Dr Kanazawa, a Reader in Management Economics and Research Methodology at the London School of Economics, was evidently quite a guy, with a theory that human general intelligence (by which he unashamedly meant the g factor) had evolved to cope with novel, non-repeating problems, and with evidence from 29 non-evolved African countries that, in *them,* intelligence differences were *not* much related to success. He had held a Postdoctoral Fellowship in the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand till 2003 -- which could explain why `Anglo' psychologists like Eysenck, Rushton and myself didn't figure on his reference lists (though his work - e.g. a 2004 paper in the prestigious Psychological Review - did mention Richard Lynn). When I emailed him to extend support, I received an automated reply that he was 'out-of-office' -- a situation all too likely to become permanent by Christmas....

Kanazawa, c. 40, had several times come to media attention over previous years for supposedly `provocative' theorizing - e.g. to the effect that aggression, beauty and intelligence should all be positively linked by evolution (Guardian, 5 ix; Financial Times, 30 iv 2005); but his effect sizes had been predictably modest and his methods open to disputation (e.g. 30 viii). By contrast, his IQ x race x prosperity work seemed likely to get him charging into sunlit uplands - as he very much deserved in view of his appreciation of the importance of intelligence and liberty and in view of his cogent detestation of PeeCee (Evolutionary Psychology, 27 vii). Certainly there was soon interest in Ethiopia in Kanazawi's IQ figure for the country of 63 (6 xi) - as ventured unremarked by Lynn & Vanhanen in 2002; and in America the `Progressive University' complained of `the return of eugenics' while American Renaissance carried the story with approving comments (5 xi).

The LSE began promisingly enough by saying it `did not take an institutional view on the work of individual academics' (6 xi) - which was better than my own published views of 1996 being denounced by E.LU. Principal Dame Stewart Sutherland as "repellent, false and personally obnoxious." In a major damping-down exercise, the LSE and the left achieved virtual media silence (apart from the Kenyan IQ of 72 being announced by Kenya London News, 6 xi); but Reuters carried the Observer's story, together with a health warning from Oxford `human rights & development' aficionado and Samba enthusiast that Kanazawa's work and/or views were "ridiculous" and "very irresponsible" (7 xi), attracting a little correspondence, as had the `Research Digest' site of the British Psychological Society (18 x, where abuse of Kanazawa led to deletion by the blog administrator of several messages from the good psychologists). The Sudan Tribune carried the news of its neighbours' low IQs (9 xi)


As American teenagers explained to Kazakhstan's `Borat' that minorities had "the upper hand" in the U.S.A., Israeli Vice-Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman announced that minorities were the world's worst problems and said Palestinians should be segregated from Israel's Jews in the same way the Greeks and Turks of Cyprus had been separated in the successful ethnic cleansing of 1974 which had - after years of ethnic strife -- produced "stability and security" (Sunday Telegraph, 5 xi).

Equally free of peecee garbage were the 83-year-old Malaysian sultan who denounced "dirty foreigners," the hundreds of Muscovites who got themselves arrested in street protests against immigration, the 17% of French who told pollsters they would be voting for Jean-Marie Le Pen and his National Front party and Mrs Ellenor Bland, a parliamentary candidate who found herself ostracized by her fellow `Conservatives' after apparently circulating what she called a light-hearted poem about welfare-loving third-world immigrants (see September Diary, POETRY CORNER) (ThisIsLondon, 7 xi). Just as Mrs Bland faced expulsion by `Dave' Cameroon, a study appeared showing most immigrants to Norway ended up on welfare - as compared to only 13% of White age peers (Aftenposten, 30 x).

In South Africa, longstanding White humanist, Nobelist and `anti-racist' Nadine Gordimer, 82, was robbed and locked up by Black burglars of her Johannesburg home (Times, 29 x). Idealistic illusions about minorities and multiculturalism also led to the effective ending of Rev. George Dubya Bush's Presidency as the U.S. electorate noted that the tribes of Iraq had declined to settle and that America had underestimated how much sheer Saddam-style force would be necessary to whip them into the desired peecee line. Yet, nothing daunted, the Not-the-Conservative Party continued to instal PeeCee,* demoting Bernard Jenkin M.P. for simply mentioning realistically to a 31-year-old Pakistani would-be parliamentary candidate that he wouldn't stand much of a chance against a middle-class White male (Daily Telegraph, 8 xi, p. 1).

* The Guardian's John Harris wrote (8 xi): "Make no mistake: the Cameroons, and the thin sprinkling of New Tories who serve as their foot soldiers, believe in the new switched-on, patrician, multi-culti Conservatism with the same fervour that your Blairs and Milburns brought to the New Labour project."


Striking a blow for freedom and realism against Britain's entire political class and media (and especially against the UK's lunatic peecee-toadying `Crown Prosecution Service' and its Blair-appointed `Attorney General' overseer*), an all-White Leeds, W. Yorkshire, jury (of 7 men and five women) cleared BNP leader Nick Griffin, M.A. Cantab. in Law, 46, and adjutant Mark Collett, a Leeds University economics graduate, 27, of all charges brought against them of supposedly `stirring up race hatred' (at a private BNP meeting in 2004, secretly filmed by the BBC and shown to an estimated 4.5M people**) by pointing out that Muslim rapes target White and not Muslim women, calling asylum seekers "cockroaches" and accusing "vicious" Mohammedanism of `racism' and `wickedness.'

Using a megaphone and spraying champagne, annoying "anti-fascist" demonstrators kept in police pens, a delighted Nick Griffin told 200 jubilant supporters from the steps of Leeds Crown Court the truth revealed by the total lack of media support for the BNP as it had been put on trial for a second time in a year: "This party is now the icon of resistance to the forcibly imposed multi-cultural experiment that's now failed. .. What has just happened shows Tony Blair and the government toadies at the BBC that they can take our taxes but they cannot take our hearts, they cannot take our tongues and they cannot take our freedom. It took 12 ordinary, decent, common-sense Yorkshiremen and women less than three hours to find us not guilty on all charges. This shows the enormous gulf between the ordinary, real British people and the multicultural fantasy world our masters live in."

In court, the BNP leader had told the jury that the idea that Islam had a strong, tolerant and moderate strand was "a politically correct nonsense" (icWales, 10 xi). After the 12-person jury's unanimous decision in a week-long trial costing at least one million pounds, Mark Collett branded the BBC as "the real cockroaches," saying: "The BBC have abused their position. They are a politically correct, politically biased organisation which has wasted licence fee payers' money to bring two people in a legal, democratic, peaceful party to court over speaking nothing other than the truth."

The BNP's victory was as much against Britain's lying and freedom-smashing Government as against the toady-lefty-dominated BBC. West Yorkshire police told the Times that it was not on their own initiative that the BNP had been persecuted (homes raided, computers seized etc.), but that the initiative had come "from much higher up." The Times further reported (12 xi): "One of the things Griffin was accused of saying was this: quite soon Britain would suffer a terror attack perpetrated by British-born Muslims. This was thought of at the time - the summer of 2004 - as being a little inflammatory, and so he was arrested. His case came before the courts only a few days after the bombings of July 7, 2005. "

Britain's normally reserved and pseudo-sensible Labour Chancellor `Grumpy' Gordon Brown was shocked by the jury's verdict into revealing his own sorry multi-culti colours,*** saying that the law would have to be changed so as to prevent a BNP advance in the polls (BBC, 10 xi), an opinion in which he was swiftly joined by the Blairite toady Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC (the `Lord Chancellor' in Bliar's sofa government system) and Labour M.P. Jon Cruddarse (shitting for Labour in the Dagenham area where the BNP won 11 council seats in May).

But Liberal Democrat M.P. Evan Harris warned that greater legislative restrictions could create "extremist martyrs." And LibDem peer Lord Lester, a leading human rights lawyer, said he and others would strongly oppose tougher legislation and criticised the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, for bringing a prosecution against the BNP leader in the first place. (Meanwhile, obese and bejowelled Goldsmith herself planned to meet with Tarique Ghaffur, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner and the force's highest-ranking Muslim officer, to lick his bottom and discuss a possibly possible community-based approach for tackling extremism - the pipedream of NuLabour for its previous ten years of bullying British people into its vote-gathering and fatcat-feeding multiculturalism, i.e. importing slaves as fast as possible.)

The verdict came despite the prurient left-pervert People newspaper having stolen and published pictures of Griffin's bodyguard, Martin Reynolds, 37, enjoying a swinging threesome (involving Reynolds, Reynolds' wife and another girl) (29 x); and despite Griffin having once said he wished to rid Britain of non-Whites - apparently the court and/or prosecution accepted the BNP's move, c. 2000, to declare itself free of the dreaded `racism.'

Hilariously, a day previously, the London `hate speech' case against an excitable 23-year-old Muesli, Mizanur Rahman, had had a quite different outcome. At a rally outside the Danish embassy in London in February, 2006, Rahman had said soldiers should be brought back from Iraq in body bags and called for September 11-style terrorist attacks against Europe. He had carried placards with the slogans "Anihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam". He was found guilty by a jury at the Old Bailey of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir racial hatred - showing that juries, at least, were able to use Britain's peecee `hate speech' legislation in ways quite contrary to the minority-worshipping wishes of its leftist originators.

* The scale of Government incompetence was revealed in the Times: "The Times understands that West Yorkshire Police had concerns the trial represented a no-lose opportunity for the BNP. It was feared that Mr Griffin and Mr Collett would be portrayed as martyrs for free speech if they were convicted, while an acquittal would be greeted by the party as a huge publicity coup."

** A sample from NG's Keighley speech: ".. those 18, 19, 20, 25-year-old Asian Muslims who are seducing and raping white girls in this town right now, they're not particularly good Muslims, they drink and all the rest of it, but still part of what they are doing comes from what they are taught is acceptable... And it will get worse and worse because, as I say, it's partly the police force won't interfere. They are all brown nosing their way to the top for being politically incorrect, the Labour Government won't interfere, the Labour council won't interfere, the Muslim imams won't interfere and the white British just turn away....What's happening in going to be happening in all the rest of Yorkshire in 10 years' time and what happens in Yorkshire in 10 years' time is going to be happening in Northumberland and in 15 or 20 years' time and in Cornwall as the last Whites basically try and find their way to the sea."

** *Colours normally revealed only in the course of his `charitably' giving billions of British taxpayers' pounds to help African dictators talk him up ooops to help emaciated Black child victims of Western-invented AIDS.


Despite Bell Curve author Charles Murray (U.S.A.) and profs Phil Rushton (Canada) and Jim Flynn (New Zealand) having entirely failed to get The g Factor republished in print or to administer the slightest punishment to Wiley DePublisher, they still had enough motivation, time and energy to whack each other around the head in true Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee style - e.g. Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2006). `The totality of available evidence shows race-IQ gap still remains.' Psychological Science, 17, 921-922. Hilarious - lending new meaning to the adage `failing to see the wood for the trees'! (Flynn had his answer from me four years ago here, but academic journals have a charmingly sedate and antiquated life and pace of their own.)


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, November 06, 2006


While occasional Government ministers and cronies spoke out against the limitations of `multiculturalism', increasingly-top columnist Leo MckInstry (MA Cantab.) insisted that multiculturalism in fact remained perceived by grey/pink functionaries as the "primary civic duty" of local councils' schools and social services (Daily Telegraph, 25 x); and pious Kirklees County Council (the sixth largest metropolitan authority in Britain, responsible for the area around Huddersfield and Dewsbury) resolved at least to stand by political correctness. It told all employees to refrain from the use of sexist, racist, ageist, homophobic etc. language, but told them at the same time that any critical reference to PeeCee (especially as in the phrase `political correctness gone mad') would be likely to be treated as "a direct physical attack" on the person towards whom the criticism was addressed (Daily Telegraph, 1 xi).


After years of parents of `cot death' infants being blamed by social workers etc. for presumed infanticide of their offspring, or at least gross negligence, U.S. scientists found the children's problem was genetic and linked to the area of the brain controlling breathing. At the same time, evolutionary biologist Mark Hauser proposed in a new book, Moral Minds, that aspects of human morality (e.g. the sense of fairness, typically developed by age 4) were innate and perhaps evolved by group selection (New York Times, 31 x).


As a Government review exposed the well-known treachery of U.K. academics in doubling the percentage of First Class degrees in 15 years and allowing astronomical pass rates in social science for only half the hours of work put in by students of medicine and biology, 80% of U.K. academics told Times Higher (26 x) that they thought the universities had sacrificed the principle of academic freedom. {As well those academics might, after the cowards had hung me out to dry in 1996/7!} In a new survey for the Guardian, 62% of lecturers told a YouGov poll that they had seriously considered quitting; 47% said university work had given them health problems; and 55% said they would not recommend a career in higher education to their own children (Guardian, 2 xi).


The complete failure of the West's feminists to stand up to the likes of Australia's top mufti, Sheikh Silly-Billy-Hilali (see above), was robustly exosed by the Assyrian International News Agency (1 xi). Apparently, because Muesli women need four male witnesses to prove their accusations of rape, no less than 75% of female prisoners in Pakistan were in prison because of making `false allegations' that they had been the victims of rape....


In a surely sensational development, on Guy Fawkes Night, the Observer and Guardian turned their attention to the `controversial'/'racist' etc. work of a US-Japanese sociologist-turned-evolutionary psychologist, Satoshi Kanazawa (Observer, 5 xi). Dr Kanazawa, a Reader in Management Economics and Research Methodology at the London School of Economics, was evidently quite a guy, with a theory that human general intelligence (by which he unashamedly meant the g factor) had evolved to cope with novel, non-repeating problems, and with evidence from 29 non-evolved African countries that, in *them,* intelligence differences were *not* much related to success. He had held a Postdoctoral Fellowship in Christchurch, New Zealand till 2003 -- which could explain why `Anglo' psychologists like Eysenck, Rushton and myself didn't figure on his reference lists (though his work - e.g. a 2003 paper in the prestigious Psychological Review - did mention Richard Lynn). When I emailed him to extend support, I received an automated reply that he was 'out-of-office' -- a situation all too likely to become permanent by Christmas....


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, October 01, 2006


In the USA, a Northwestern University female professor was awarded half a million dollars to pursue her studies which showed (from MRI brain scanning) that it was mentally tiring for Whites to have to deal politely - as they so often do -- with Blacks of whose wayward behaviour and riskiness they were realistically aware (American Renaissance, 19 ix). Professor Jennifer Richeson proposed to explore `the complexities of bigotry'.. {Such psychophysiological work would doubtless improve the facilities for identifying `covert racism' in due course.}


After a decade of the media talking up the wonders of Asperger's Syndrome (in which autists do not have their usual low IQ), a Chichester McDonald's worker, Shane Freer, provided a visual aid to the downside of the condition as he plunged an 8-inch knife repeatedly into a manageress who had fired him for face-punching a customer who had flicked a small piece of carrot at the irascible employee. "She got me fired - she had to die," said unrepentant killer Freer, previously known to have hit a teacher and threatened with a knife a girl who had taunted him (Daily Telegraph, 21 ix).


At Ryerson University, Toronto, Finnish maths professor Ilkka Kokkarinen found himself in deep doodoo with femininnies for having said back in April on his blog that females weren't so hot at the more arcane forms of maths. Snooping Big Sister (in the form of IK's oh-so-alert students) demanded and received (at least after IK's head of department had proposed a re-education course for him) an apology and the taking down of Kokkarinen's internet material (22 ix) - but the good student-, pussy- and boss-whipped professor was not without the robust and/or sympathetic support of most of those who had followed his blog.

{I was lucky at the time of my own troubles with Edinburgh LUniversity, 1996-8, that I was not romantically involved; that -- together with my mortgage having been paid off and my having multi-millionaire Jim Woodhill behind me ready to thrown money at E.LU. -- gave me a happy freedom of action which IK has apparently lacked. The nineteenth-century system of obliging dons not to marry, at least for the first seven years of their college fellowships, plainly had something to be said for it.}


One of the oldest known sleep pattern differences, being a `lark' (early riser) or `owl' (late sleeper), was nailed down to genetic factors by scientists at Cold Spring Harbor (22 ix), America's original source of genetic and eugenic enthusiasm in the 1920s. At the same time, the ancestry of the black-haired and hard-fighting Celts of the British Isles was traced to Iberian fishermen of c. 5,000b.c. (Independent, 22, ix).

(By contrast, although the Romans ruled Britain from AD 43 until 410, they left only a tiny genetic footprint. For their first 200 years, Rome's occupying forces were forbidden from marrying locally.)


US and UK ally, former Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, set another challenge to Muslim tolerance for free speech when he demanded a Muslim apology for 700 years of occupying Spain - not that he was optimistic of getting one, `It's us or them,' he declared (Basque EITB 24, 23 ix). (Meanwhile, Pakistan's main alliance of radical Muslims called for the Pope to be crucified for his noting that Christians might once have found Mohammedanism a teeny bit aggressive (Conservative Voice, 23 ix).) In Britain, pie-gobbling staff-abusing England-hater `Deputy Prime Minister' John Two-Shags Prescott prepared to apologize for Britain's part in the slave trade - even though Britain never had slaves and gave up the slave trade before anyone else (notably before the Blacks and Muslims who should surely have been called on as co-signatories in any such grovel - some Black countries were still sending envoys to plead with Britain in the twentieth century to restore the slave trade).


In the middle of European Russia, in the Volga Valley, 400 miles east of Moscow, the region of Ulyanovsk (pop. 1.5M) announced it would give a fridge and other household luxuries to women delivered of babies on June 12th - Russia's Independence Day (Daily Telegraph, 19 ix).


As the Western apologia for Islamic scholarship and rationality (at least of yore) got up steam in New York (International Herald Tribune, 24 ix) -- ignoring outright Muslim denial of responsibility for 9/11, Madrid, 7/7 et al. (and for the hundred of dead and maimed weekly in Baghdad's Muslim-on-Muslim strife, and for the 1,400 killed in the Lebanon as Hezbollah wilfully teased the Israeli tiger) -- Islam's intellectual mecca of the present, Egypt (Cairo has two bookshops!), gave its reply by banning issues of Le Figaro and Frankfurter Allgemeine which had dared to agree with the Pope in questioning whether Islam might not have a teeny tendency to violence in general and anti-Semitism in particular (Reuters, 24 ix). However, the Pope himself made no further complaint about Islam, telling Muesli ambassadors wimpishly that he sought `inter-faith understanding' without ever mentioning what the obstacles might be for Christianity in dealing with a religion which did not noticeably expect the Almighty to be reasonable, patient, good-mannered or even vaguely benevolent. The muddled pontiff who had appeared briefly and all too late in the War on Terror (i.e. Tenth Crusade) was apparently angling for an invitation to lecture and canap‚s at Cairo's top-of-the-range Al-Azhar University.. He was presumably unaware that he had been condemned as "arrogant," "stupid" and "criminal" on state-run Palestinian television (23 ix).


The writing appeared on the wall for Britain's feckless state-run socialist `universities' as brain-addled Harvard professors of education and kindred ignoracist `policy managers' began to question the vanishingly low graduation rates at some American `universities' (i.e. at those making their money by recruiting lots of `affirmative action' [i.e. Black] students) and to demand resignations from luni presidents who failed to sustain NYTwits' illusions by issuing Blacks with degrees at the same frequency as obtained for Whites (Allen Finder, 15 ix).


At the same time as grandly announcing `devolution of power from Whitehall' as the major theme in his bid to be crowned Labour successor to U.K. Prime Minister Rev. Bliar, Chancellor Grumpy Gordon Brown (the scion of a Kirkcaldy manse and once a good Edinburgh host in his flat off the Cowgate) moved to stop scaring socialist horses by declaring a move as draconian as it was pathetic: to compel kids to stay at school till 18 (even though he himself had left at 15 - fast-tracked into Edinburgh University). The nail-bitten one-eyed Dr Brown, a whiz at expanding state employment (by then accounting for 35% of jobs in Scotland and 50% in Northern Ireland), proclaimed he sought to imitate Rev Dubya Bush's `No Child Left Behind' initiative (which for five years had seen schools across America lowering their standards and cooking their books so as to appear to meet such ludicrous g-neglecting government targets). At least Mrs Cherie Blair was not fooled by Brown's verbiage, being overheard to remark at Labour's Manchester conference as Brown said `it had been a privilege for him to work with Tony Blair,' "Well, that's a lie," as she prepared for the dismal remains of her husband's broken-backed premiership (Bloomberg, 25 ix) - frank talking from the `Wicked Witch' that made a refreshing change from her husband's ludicrously messianic advice to his foul and failed party (Britain faced worse problems in 2006 than it had in 1997, said Bliar in an acdidental admission of his lamentable stewardship) that `Lo, I will be with you always.'


Berlin police - apparently preferring peecee work, as did their ever-more-Gestapo-like British counterparts -- advised and achieved the closure of Berlin's opera house before it could repeat a 2003-4 production of Mozart's `Idomeneo' which had its eponymous hero sever the heads of Mohammed (as well as of Jesus, Buddha and other illustrious figures). The `police' mercenaries of multiculturalism feared `incalculable risks to the public and employees' - the same excuse as had been used by fuzz in Edinburgh of 1996 so as to close down, when faced with Anti-Nazi League violence, debate at a computer cafe just off Princes Street between two London lefties (Marek Kohn and Kenan Malik) and myself.

But German Reichskanzlerin Angela Merkel refreshingly warned against bowing to fears of Islamic violence after Deutsche Oper cancelled its Mozart interpretation,* saying "Self-censorship out of fear is not tolerable" (27 ix). "I think the cancellation was a mistake. I think self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practise violence in the name of Islam," she added. "It makes no sense to retreat." Guardian correspondents mainly agreed (27 ix), e.g.: "If the Guardian would like to preserve Eeuropean liberal values, and sustain the culture that has flourished on top of them, then guess what? It needs to stop fannying about and work out which side it is on.

As I said on the Telegraph blog on this same subject this morning, this is YOUR fault. YOU have contributed to the culture of cowardice that feeds censorious impulses within and without Europe. The appeasement of bigots displayed during the cartoons row, the subsequent grovelling, the pleas to redefine free speech to exclude anything that upsets anyone... THAT is what has brought us to this. Now, show some bloody bottle -- this time and every time -- and start "guarding" what you're supposed to be guarding." Germany's Interior Minister, Wolfgang Sch„uble, called the closure decision (made by Oper manageress Kirsten Harms) "crazy and unacceptable."

* "Idomeneo" is the ancient story of the king of Crete's pact with the Greek god Poseidon to sacrifice his son. The production by Neuenfels, known for his controversial interpretations, is a meditation on enlightenment that shows the king lifting the severed heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad to suggest that overreliance on religion can endanger the human spirit. There were walk-outs when the opera was first performed, but no calls for it to be banned.


As Britain's Labour Party at its annual `conference' wallowed in mendacious self-congratulation as to its pursuit of benevolence, equality, justice, mother love, sliced bread etc., it transpired that the arch-Muesli-loon of the minute, Home Secretary-banning Abu Izzadeen (see previously) was the proud beneficiary in Leytonstone not ony of a council house but also of œ700 per week in welfare support - and was further advertising for three more `wives' (though polygamy was still technically illegal in Leytonstone) (Sun, 27 ix).


After thirty years of shameless idealistic nonsense from popularity-seeking teachers, Education Secretary Alan Johnson announced that Briltain's General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) exams would no longer award marks for unsupervised coursework - long known to reflect help from candidates' parents, friends, computers etc. (Education Guardian, 27 ix). {However, ex-postman Johnson undermined any claim to more general realism when he announced in the same speech that he would like to provide compulsory Head Start-type programmes for Britain's two-year-olds on council estates, mimicking America's genes-ignoring lunacy.}


Further evidence arrived that masculinization was genetically linked to having a relatively long ring finger (as compared to the index finger) (a ratio known to be 70% heritable) and to athletic ability (especially at running), butch-lesbianism, hyperactivity and being a professional footballer (Sunday Times, 17 ix; BBC, 27 ix; Sunday Times (Australia), 27 ix; MSNBC, 27 ix; Independent, 28 ix; Scotsman, 28 ix; Times, 28 ix; Pravda, 29 ix; China Daily, 29 ix; People's Daily, 29 ix). Funnily, the story was not carried by the Guardian which had tried to get some fun out of it at my expense six years ago (31 iii 2000) - though the Guardian had carried a more `negative' report about masculinization in April to the effect that long-ring-fingered men were more easily `blinded by sexual arousal' (i.e. more accepting of `unfair play' in a competitive situation) (19 iv).


Preparing a pretend response to Islamicist advance (as one person in ten in London was found to be Muesli), Glaswegian Home Secretary `Dr' Reid declared there would be no `no go' areas for Mueslis (there never have been), no forced marriages (never legalized anyway) and some thought about `mass immigration' (which no mainstream politician had ever denied giving). This `initiative' was said to "hit the Tories from the right" (Daily Telegraph, 29 ix), so little had anyone expected from years of supine `Conservative' responses to the filling of Britain with unintegratable third-world riff-raff

Friday, September 22, 2006


In Oz, academic Andrew Fraser struggled to keep his name as a race realist after (30 viii) claimed he had been successfully bullied by legal authorities into retracting his warnings about Australia becoming a third-world country thanks to abandoning its classic White Australia policy – warnings of the type which had already led to his resignation from Macquarie LUniversity. The Paramatta Sun said it would “probably” publish AF’s retraction of his alleged apology.


A fine tribute to Enoch Powell was published by Roger Scruton in New Criterion (ix 06), explaining the need for Platonic ‘noble lies’ to help people find their unconscious roots and rituals and thus their perfection etc., etc.; but rather dismally concluding that the peoples of Europe were losing their homelands – a process that could apparently ony be interrupted and not halted by “a violent upheaval, with results every bit as interesting as those [of the River Tiber] that Powell prophesied.” {There was indeed much reason for doom and gloom at this stage as the West’s feckless and psychologically bankrupt politicians and ‘philosophers’ had led their multiculti societies into half-hearted war with Islamofascism which even an ‘outspeaking’ Pope and a media suffering from only self-censorship could not bring themselves to support, let alone extend. But the coming exodus of talent from southern and eastern Europe would probably do wonders for American and British resolve just as Albert Einstein and Hans Eysenck had helped provide the Anglo-Saxon world with the means and resolve to stand up for itself. Already there were weekly queues of Poles trying to worship in Catholic churches in Britain; and the Pope had promised fresh attempts at reconciliation with Orthodoxy, with its long history of successfully resisting both Islam and Communism (and its true hero for the West in Alexander Solzhenitsyn).}


Neuropsychiatrist Richard Haier, California, told (12 ix) of a substantial link between volume of cerebral grey matter and IQ (long championed here, as classically). Enthusiastically, he told reporter Sanjay Gupta: “"We can make quantitative assessments of how much gray matter [people] have in every single area, and we can use that to predict what their IQ might be. This is in the very early stage, and I think it’s going to be very interesting."


Ten years after The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications set out the case for school streaming/tracking/setting etc., the mighty USA Today published an article favouring the idea (Patrick Welsh, ix 2006)….


Britain’s ludicrous Home Secretary, ‘Dr’ Reid, was shouted down by angry Muslims as he announced during a visit to Leytonstone, East London, that Muslim parents should report to the police any signs of their children becoming “radicalized.” Instead of cancelling Muslim immigration, mosque building, ‘faith schools’, female slavery, enforced child marriage, beards, burquas etc., ex-Marxist Doc Reid preferred to go straight down the path to a police state by encouraging reporting of and police action on the vaguest of suspicions – lumbering Britain with an anti-terror policy that was at once tyrannical, prejudicial and grossly impractical. {Plainly the NuLabour belief in benevolent despotism backed by state snoopers knew no bounds. Rather than simply deporting unemployed, criminal and welfare-absorbent Mueslis, the thuggish Home Secretary had decided – without the slightest consultation with Cabinet, Parliament or even the press – to introduce an East German-style regime (under which millions finally lived in ‘internal exile’ rather than fall foul of the state’s army of snoopers which eventually employed one in eight of the adult population).}

Brown and bearded Muslim hecklers in white robes (some council house denizens and well-known members of extremist Muesli organizations, deemed ‘racist’ by fellow-Mueslis) were eventually ushered out of the Leytonstone Youth Centre to police tents for tea, biscuits, counselling and completion of complaint forms as to how their human rights had been violated before joining co-religionists chanting “John Reid, Go To Hell” while top cop Sir Ian Blair explained that British police would ‘have difficulty’ following Dr Reid’s ideas (hoh-hoh) for ‘putting down’ Muslim fanaticism.

It transpired that burly top scimitar-waver Abu Izzadeen, 30, was in fact a Jamaican who had converted to Islam and apparently become a leader of the (legal) al-Muhajiroun and the outright bossman of a splinter group called al-Ghurabaa which had actually been outlawed by HMG for ‘terror glorification’ earlier in 2006 (though Abu Izzadeen had been left free to run around). In view of the newsworthiness of a Muesli leader’s public claim that the Home Secretary was wrong to visit a “Muslim area”, Izzaloon was interviewed on the BBC’s flagship Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme, where he obligingly called Rev. Bliar a murderer, crusader and state terrorist, said the West was fighting Islam (not just Iraq and Afghanistan), and threatened no end of trouble (“a very strong reaction”) if Whitey did not mend his ways (Guardian, 22 ix). Radio 4 listeners – a pious and middle-aged group that had for years seldom emitted a squeak about the BBC’s general gross political correctness and multiculturalism – was shocked to its cotton socks and phoned in en masse to say e.g. that ‘if Muslims feel like Izzadeen, they should all be deported.’ {Such were the violent explosions of feeling from both Muslims and Whites to which 40 years of British politicians’ cowardly stifling of debate about third-world immigration had been bound to lead.}