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.