Friday, March 24, 2006

Frank Ellis

Frank Ellis has been suspended by Leeds University, inevitably. Just another opportunity for us to wave bye-bye to free speech. For your edification, I am going to post below the entire text of the offending article which, when published in the student newspaper, was done so in an "edited" form. Since student newspapers act much like any other newspaper, one can guarantee that it was done in a way that was guaranteed to cause the most controversy.

What is slightly sinister is that blatant lies have been made up about this man. At no point in this article can I find a reference to the BNP as "being too socialist" as was originally reported. His "support for deprtation if done humanely" was actualy a call to round up the illegal immigrants and deport them" something that I'm sure that Martin, for one, would support. As, in fact, do I.

The main issue of contention is his professed support for the research, done by others, about the differences between races. Let us be absolutely plain here: to pretend that there is no genetic differences between races is just that—a pretence. There are genetic differences between races, otherwise the children of black people would not be black, the children of white people would not be white, the children of brown people would not be brown, etc. To attempt to say otherwise is a lie. This is genetic fact.

If you allow for any kind of grouping based on racial genetics, in this case colour, then you have to entertain the possibility that anything can be based on a racial grouping, and that includes intelligence. Now, I have not read the research which Dr Ellis cites, but I am sure that it is as well-researched and factually-based as any other funded research has to be (and no one doubts global warming, after all. Or do they?): and Ellis actually references a good deal more research than just The Bell Curve. The value of IQ tests may well be questionable, many have said that it is set by culturally developed nations and therefore is skewed to that mode of thinking. Fair enough. But the next person who says that IQ tests simply test how good you are at IQ tests gets a punch in the mouth. Seriously. Because this seems to have become something of a meme around the blogosphere of late.

As far as I recall, from the last time that I did an IQ test (about 16 years ago), they are essentially tests of logic, language and basic numeracy. If you cannot add up, you are an idiot. If you cannot speak or write your own language you are an ignorant fool. And if you cannot follow a logical argument then you are probably autistic. Or a total and utter idiot. But then that's what IQ tests measure, eh? I would suggest that, if you disagree with the research that he cites, that you hunt those papers down and point out exactly why they are not valid.

And if you do not accept racial differences based on IQ tests, then how about national exam results? Or do exams simply test how good you are at doing exams?
The BBC News website asked the Department for Education and Skills for the local authority statistics underlying this analysis.

It said they were "an internal piece of work, not in a publishable form".

But it has provided national statistics - which show wide variations between ethnic groups.

Overall, 40.3% of pupils in 2004 achieved five good GCSE-level qualifications including English and maths GCSEs.

This compares with the 53.7% getting five good grades under the existing measure, covering any subjects.

Chinese pupils outperformed everyone else: 62.9% hitting the new benchmark

The figure for white pupils was 40.9%. Overall it was 41.5% for Asian pupils, but with marked differences between Indian (54.1%) and Pakistani (30.8%) and Bangladeshi (32.1%) youngsters.

Among black pupils overall the figure was 26.4% - but for those from black Caribbean backgrounds just 22.8% overall and 17% of the boys.

Of course, these differences amongst cultures are all just a white supremacist conspiracy. Yes, that's right, all of those "hideously white"* teachers are deliberately holding back the darkies, aren't they?

Now, I do not necessarily subscribe to all that Dr Ellis says, but there is much of it that I do. And before you decry me, read the whole of the article. This is a sensible, rational man, not a frothing loon, and I defy you to find any opinion in the substance of that article which points to him being anything other than quite, quite sane. He is a man who is worried about the state of this country, who is fucked off with the institutionalised anti-white racism inherent in much of the media (especially the BBC), and who is concerned that multi-culturalism is not working. For fuck's sake, even Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, was forced to admit that multi-culturism hasn't worked.

And you know what? I'm pretty fucking worried too (as I have said repeatedly, especially with reference to Islam). We are filling our country with those that hate us and, even if you don't believe me, I'm sure that the 52 people who died on the Tube on 7/7 would.

* © Greg Dyke, one-time Director-General of the BBC. The phrase was used in reference to the employee make-up of the BBC.

Time to Face the Truth about Multiculturalism
Frank Ellis

[This is the original text of the article Frank Ellis submitted to the Leeds Student. It was published in an edited form.]

Multiculturalism (multiracialism) is doomed to failure—and is failing—because it is based on the lie that all people, races and cultures are equal; that no one race or culture is better (superior) than any other. I see no evidence for the view that all cultures are equal, but vast amounts against it. To believe that all cultures are equal—and ultimately in the absence of any evidence for, it is the psychology of political fanaticism with which one is dealing here—requires the same hatred and wilful refusal to confront evidence, logic and history that characterised the individuals who believed that Stalin had built paradise on earth when in fact he had exterminated millions of so-called class enemies. When you point out to these people, as I have over the years, that, as a consequence of Uncle Jo’s Final Solution of the Peasant Question, some 11,000,000 (yes 11,000,000!) peasants were slaughtered so as to break the rural way of life and to impose collectivization, all you get are despicable, cowardly evasions along the lines that such numbers are CIA propaganda. Cowardice, evasions, lying, hypocrisy and censorship of views they do not like, all typify the range of responses from what I call the Guardian-reading classes to any evidence that multiculturalism, their Neo-Marxist fantasy, is not working. Indeed it never will work, but when it starts to unravel, as Yugoslavia eventually did, we will all suffer.

Crucial to the multicultural experiment is the assertion that there is no such thing as race; that race has nothing to do with genetics or biology. Here, for example, is what Bhikhu Parekh, the editor of a very nasty anti-white tract, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (Profile Books, London, 2000), has to say on the subject of race: ‘Race, as is now widely acknowledged, is a social and political construct, not a biological or genetic fact. It cannot be used scientifically to account for the wide range of differences among peoples’ (Parekh, 2000, 63).

In a letter dated 6th September 2001—a mere five days before we were given a demonstration of what happens when multiculturalism displaces sensible immigration policies in the USA—I wrote to Parekh. Referring to his assertion about race’s being a social and political construct, I sought clarification. ‘I must’, I wrote, ‘confess that it is not at all clear to me that race is “widely acknowledged” to be “a social and political construct”. By whom exactly is this assertion “widely acknowledged”? In the hope of being enlightened I checked your list of secondary literature on pages 378-399 but I could find no reference to any recent study, article or monograph, that would support your assertion (possible of course that I missed the sources). For example, I found none of the following major studies in the field in your bibliography: Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (1992); Michael Levin, Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What they Mean (1997); Arthur Jensen, The g factor: the Science of Mental Ability (1998); J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behaviour, 3rd edition, (2000); and Jon Entine, Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About it (2000). The Bell Curve is cited, though without the indicative sub-title, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, but no attempt is made in the report to refute the Murray & Herrnstein thesis, which, had it been made, might well have provided some basis for your assertion on page 63. Assuming that I have not missed the source(s) in the bibliography, what exactly are the primary scientific sources on which you rely to assert that race is a social and biological construct, as opposed to its being a biological and genetic fact?’ Needless to say, I received no reply from Parekh. I had called his bluff. He knew it and he ran away. (For a comprehensive analysis of the Parekh Report and its anti-white racism, see Frank Ellis, ‘Race, Marxism and the “Deconstruction” of the United Kingdom’, The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, vol 26, No 4, Winter 2001, pp.691-718).

Now the people who believe that race is a social and political construct are like the Marxists who preached “the brotherhood of man” only to see it all unravel in 1914. They remind me of the professional, serial liars who went to the Soviet Union in the 1930s, at the very time when Stalin was killing and killing again, returned to the comforts of the liberal-democratic societies they purported to despise, and then had the repulsive effrontery to insist that Stalin was building a new civilization. So we know the sort of people with whom we are dealing.

One of the high points of 2005 was the publication of a superb article in which the world’s two greatest experts on race and race differences, Professors Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, summarised and analyzed the findings on the subject over the last thirty years (see J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, ‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Volume 11, Number 2, June 2005, pp.235-294. For background detail on the history of the physical and bureaucratic terror used to silence these pioneering scholars see my entry, ‘Race and IQ’, in Derek Jones, ed., Censorship: A World Encyclopedia, vol 3, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2001, pp.2008-2010).

Virtually all the data and conclusions presented by Rushton and Jensen attack and effectively destroy the comforting idea that all races are equal and that all differences in black and white educational outcomes are due to white racism or colonialism or any other ad hoc explanation, and that they can be eradicated if we just continue spending millions and millions of dollars. One of the more astonishing findings reported on and analyzed at great length in their long article is the finding, first made at the end of the 1970s, of an average IQ of 70 for sub-Saharan Africa. Now bear in mind that in the American Armed Forces the cut off point for recruitment is an IQ of 80—lower than that and the recruit is deemed to be incapable of assimilating even basic instructions—and one can see the problem. In the West an individual with an IQ of 70 would be regarded as being very close to, or within the range of, mental retardation.

Now stop, pause and think what this means for a whole continent where the average IQ is 70. How is it possible for a people with such a low average IQ to achieve, let alone to sustain a technologically sophisticated civilization? Nowhere in sub-Saharan Africa—Botswana is a possible exception—do we find any state that conforms to even basic standards of good governance and administrative competence. South Africa started its downward spiral in 1994. Everywhere one looks there is unbelievable corruption and stupidity, superstition and random savagery. To this gruesome list one can add sexual incontinence. Blacks die of AIDS either because they do not believe that AIDS will kill them or because the imperatives of immediate sexual gratification are so urgent and overwhelming that the consequences are disregarded.

AIDS kills Africans because Africans refuse to act, or are unable to act, in ways which are sexually responsible. And in an environment where nearly 50% of the adult population is HIV positive (Swaziland, for example) sexual responsibility means not engaging in multiple, random acts of copulation with your fellow men and women. In fact, the price for survival may well be complete sexual abstinence and then to pray that you never require a blood transfusion. The West has no moral responsibility whatsoever to assist Africa in dealing with AIDS (or new virulent strains of malaria or bilharzia). If Bob Geldof and the hordes of emotional parasites who follow him want to get weepy about Africa’s self-inflicted plight, making a public display of their virtue, fine: go and live there and do not come back when you need medical treatment which is only available in the “racist” West. If Africans refuse to behave responsibly, they condemn themselves to death.

Despite the attempts to censor and to intimidate critics of multiculturalism in the United Kingdom, race difference are not going to go away and eventually social, educational and economic policies will have to reflect the state of our knowledge not the fantasies of people like Parekh and Trevor Phillips and the Guardian-reading constituencies who support them. I agree with Linda Gottfredson: ‘Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing’. (‘What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True?’ in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Volume 11, Number 2, June 2005, p.318, emphasis in the original).

Race matters because whatever Parekh and others maintain it is connected with a whole range of social, economic, cultural and intellectual outcomes some of which are of high importance if we are to maintain the stability and prosperity of our country. Even if race (and sex and sex differences) were social and political constructs, the outcomes would not be identical. The implications of race and race differences for our society can be apprehended by any student who wants to take the time and trouble to find out for himself. In essence this means reading the books I have cited in this article and then following up the secondary literature as I have done, behaving, in other words, as an intelligent, independent thinker and researcher. This independent seeking after data and ideas and then evaluating them is critical.

It is critical because censorship is an essential weapon in the attempt to impose the multicultural agenda on the United Kingdom. The people who plan the BBC’s programming, the hordes of policy makers in the public sector, the universities, the whole gruesome secondary education system, with its teacher indoctrination courses, all know that the diversity brainwashing to which our schoolchildren and university students are subjected in order to promote multiculturalism—or the equally incoherent cult of feminism—would never survive full, open, rational and fearless scrutiny. Any student who relies on the BBC, the Guardian (so that there are no misunderstanding the ridiculous Daily Telegraph is just as bad) and most universities as a source of information concerning issues on race, feminism and multiculturalism can expect to be lied to, misled and misinformed by people who should no better but are too frightened to know better or do not want to know better. Whatever grandiose words universities use in their Charters regarding free speech and the pursuit of truth, the brutal fact remains that when it comes to questions of race, feminism and multiculturalism universities are craven and corrupt. And they know it.

Anyone who has spent time studying the cult of multiculturalism cannot but notice the nauseating hypocrisy and racial double standards that accompany the systematic and organised lying of multiculturalism. When I posed the possibility of a film with the title—No Black Society has Ever Produced a Written Language or Mathematics—I was drawing attention to an existing film, White Men Can’t Jump (1992). In my hypothetical film title—the lines are taken from Professor Michael Levin’s excellent essay ‘Recent Fallacies in Discussions of Race’, (see The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America, ed, Jared Taylor, New Century Books, Oakton, Virginia, 1998, p.69)—I underlined the hypocrisy and double standards of Hollywood which can quite happily make films with titles such as White Men Can’t Jump but would avoid any film with my hypothetical title for fear of giving offence.

This is a racist double standard. Whites can be pilloried but blacks and other non-white racial groups enjoy a protected status. There is much worse of course. Interviewed on BBC Radio Scotland in January 2001, Greg Dyke said that the BBC was ‘hideously white’. Would he, I wonder, in response to the question of whether he would like to live in Brixton, have replied that it was ‘hideously black’. Of course not, but whites, as far as the BBC is concerned, are ‘hideous’. So that’s okay then. Not only does the BBC express racist contempt for the white indigenous majority population—who are WIMPS for putting up with BBC lying—but then insults the viewer by demanding payment for receiving a television signal, even when the signal does not emanate from a BBC transmitter.

Here is another example of racial double standards, once again the BBC is the culprit. During a discussion on the theme of “hate speech” one of my students pointed out to me that on a BBC radio show broadcast in September 2004, a one Jeremy Hardy had said, on air, something along the lines that life in Britain would be better were all people in the British National Party and anyone who voted for the BNP to be shot in the back of the neck. I wrote to the BBC, demanding an explanation and a verbatim transcript of the programme. This is what Hardy said: ‘if you took everyone in the BNP and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head, [the standard method of execution used by the Bolsheviks, FE] there would be a brighter future for us all.’ This racist, anti-white filth is taken from the same manual of hatred that Julius Streicher, the homosexual sadist and rabid anti-Semitic editor of the Nazi paper, Der Stürmer, used to target Jews. Readers might like to replace all references to the BNP and insert ‘blacks’ or ‘lesbians’ or ‘homosexuals’ and then ask whether the BBC would have broadcast such a programme. I could cite many other examples from the BBC. And I am supposed to believe that the BBC is an impartial and fair organisation? The BBC is no such thing. It is the propaganda arm of a government that wants to destroy ancient English freedoms. The grotesquely overpaid BBC executives know full well that their pampered, protected and under-performing organisation with its diet of celebrity trash and mental junk food would simply not survive in an open and free market. The BBC is a parasite organisation.

I must also mention another case. Last year I made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) about an article in the Daily Telegraph. In the article rural, white Americans were referred to as ‘Georgia rednecks’. The use of the word “redneck” by Harry Mount, the Telegraph journalist, to refer to American whites is unquestionably a “prejudicial” and “pejorative reference” and, one, moreover, with which any journalist possessing even a modicum of understanding regarding racial and ethnic naming, as used in America, should be familiar. Certainly, there can be no excuse for a paper such as The Daily Telegraph not being familiar with the nuances of American racial labels. As stated in the introductory sentence to the Code’s second paragraph: ‘It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit’. This racist language with regard to white Americans is made all the more offensive by the fact that The Daily Telegraph would not permit Mount to write about “Georgia niggers”. Mount’s article deliberately singles out American whites for racist abuse.

The PCC judged that since no individual had been named the Daily Telegraph was not guilty of breaking the PCC’s Code of Practice. Strictly speaking the PCC is correct but again you have to ask yourself whether the editor of the Daily Telegraph would permit a journalist to write about ‘Georgia niggers’. The answer is surely no. I also argue that in finding for the Daily Telegraph the PCC violated the very ethos of its own Code of Practice which insists that papers adhere not just to the letter of the code but to its spirit.

It is now quite clear to me that Mr Kennard came to this interview with the conviction that I was a member of the British National Party (BNP)—what if I was?—which possibly explains his clumsy subterfuge. Now I hold no brief for the BNP but I was and I remain deeply disturbed by the fact that the leader of Britain’s fourth largest political party can be arrested and put on trial for remarks made at a private gathering. MacPherson, the author of that wretched report, actually recommended that the law be amended ‘to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place’ (Recommendation 39). Think what that would mean for the privacy of your own home. The BNP is a lawfully constituted party registered with the Electoral Commission, pursuing a rational agenda. As far as I am aware it was not the BNP that waged a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland for thirty years. Nor was it members of the BNP who murdered some 55 people in London on 7th July 2005. If you do not like the BNP, no problem, vote for another party. I thought this was how a liberal democracy was supposed to work.

All those dreadful “racist” white people who vote for the BNP have eyes and ears. They know a hawk from a handsaw and they know that all the talk about “vibrant multicultural society” and “diversity” is an ugly metropolitan lie. Quite rightly, they resent being lied to by white middle class “diversity” groupies who live in nice country houses in Norfolk, Hay-on-Wye, Somerset and Perthshire—a million miles from all that wonderful “diversity”—while spitting abuse at others who express their rational misgivings through the ballot box. The awful truth for the BBC is that its organised campaign of censoring BNP success and the lack of basic courtesy in dealing with the BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin has backfired. The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is one of the best recruiting sergeants the BNP has. One of the more sinister proposals aimed at the BNP was made by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in July 2004. ACPO proposed that action should be taken against any police officer who joined or who was a member of the BNP. The reason given for this vicious proposal was that the police have ‘to promote racial equality’. Rubbish. It is not the job of the police to promote the ideological programme of the Left. The police exist to prevent and to fight crime. ACPO’s proposal was a direct attack on political freedom since it involves the police in policing politics. It is yet another example of the creeping Sovietization of the United Kingdom. In the light of ACPO’s sinister attack on the BNP, I would ask readers to consider the following extract from Alan Bullock’s masterful study of Hitler: ‘The moment Göring entered office he began a drastic purge of the Prussian State service, in which hundreds of officials were dismissed and replaced by men who could be relied on by the Nazis. Göring paid particular attention to the senior police officers, where he made a clean sweep in favour of his own appointments, many of then active S.A. or S.S. leaders’ (Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952), Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1983, pp.260-261).

The BNP is the only party in this country that articulates the thoroughly justified hopes and fears of the white indigenous population regarding the legal/illegal immigrant invasion. Yes, in case it had escaped your attention, we are being invaded. Consider that the number of illegals in this country could be as high as 1.5 million. It should be a matter of the highest national priority to hunt these people down, round them up and deport them. “Diversity is not our strength”. On the contrary it shall be our destruction. One of the more alarming findings from the 2001 census was that for the first time in our history whites are a minority in Birmingham and Leicester. This is the beginning of the racial and cultural dispossession of our people, my people, my country. Am I expected to celebrate this dispossession as one of the benefits of “diversity”? I shall not. It fills me with dread, fear and foreboding.

Meanwhile the Labour government, aided and abetted by cowardly and despicable Tories, will push through ever harsher legislation to silence critics and where that fails, they will subject them to legal and bureaucratic intimidation. This is the context to the Griffin and Collet trial. Indeed, the process of turning Britain into some kind of Peoples Democracy, along the lines of the old German “Democratic” Republic, is well under way. My freedoms, among them the all important free speech, are only secure when my fellow citizens can exercise the same freedoms. An attack on their freedoms is manifestly an attack on mine. Regardless of what one thinks of the BNP’s leader, if Griffin can be treated in this manner, none of us is safe from the Police. In the words of Martin Niemöller: ‘First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me’. You have been warned.

Frank Ellis was a speaker at the 2000 AR conference. His subject, all too appropriate in retrospect, was "Racial Hysteria in Britain."

(Posted on March 6, 2006)

The original article, and comments on it, can be found here.

UPDATE: Neil Craig has a nice piece on this, and Timmy asks the usual questions.


wrinkled weasel said...

The truth is being gradually massaged out of all debate.

When you read "1984" I bet you didn't imagine that this was the form in which our freedom would be curtailed?

It occurs to me that Blair's greatest "legacy" will not be Iraq, or Peerages for Pounds, it will be the death of free thought.

Jim said...

Having skimmed the article, I find it as badly written and filled with sweeping generalisations and loaded arguments as the Chomskytastic far-left rants that Ellis berates. I'll just comment on his description of 9/11 as "a demonstration of what happens when multiculturalism displaces sensible immigration policies in the USA". The 19 hijackers weren't in the US for reasons of "multiculturalism" - they were there because the US govt. gave preferential treatment to Saudis for political reasons, and because they didn't bother to check on overstayed visas through the general incompetence of the US Immigration and Naturalisation Service. I'll probably return to this when I have time, because reading it really annoys me.

The Pedant-General in Ordinary said...

I'm with Jim.

This article is the most hate-filled and inflammatory apologia for the BNP I have seen in some time.

Ellis makes absolutely no attempt to argue coherently about the nonsense of cultural relativism. I am surprised that appear to agree with it DK.


Devil's Kitchen said...

There are elements of his argument that I can agree with, and I can certainly see where he's coming from. The point is to be able to think about and consider it, rather than to dismiss it out of hand.

For instance, can one say that illegal immigrants should not be deported? And I simply don't think that he is making apologies for the BNP; he is merely saying, as I did some time ago, that he understands why people would belong to or vote for that party.

It is something that needs to be addressed since more and more poeple are voting for the BNP, and I don't think that it is coincidence that they hold the most votes (and council seats) in some of the most heavily immigrant-populated areas of Britain, e.g. Burnley...


Katy Newton said...


I would definitely place him towards the "frothing loon" end of the scale, I'm afraid. This whole "average IQ" thing is a red herring. Most people are below average or above average, but few are average. There are clever black people and stupid black people and clever white people and stupid white people. Even it was possible to definitively prove that the average black IQ (however you defined who counts as "black" in the first place) was lower than that of white people or vice versa, that would be of no use in everyday life whatsoever; it wouldn't entitle you to assume that a particular black person was less intelligent than a particular white person, any more than you would be entitled to assume that every single man in this country is 5'9, or whatever the average height is.

I'm all for Ellis having the right to say what he thinks. However, having read this article I'm tempted to conclude that the university is entitled to sack him on the grounds of being unfit to teach anyone how to argue coherently in writing.

This article is just an attempt to try and dress up prejudice based on assumptions about race as serious academic debate. I agree with you that it isn't racist to say that illegal immigrants should be deported, but so do lots of other non-racist people; why quote this looper?


PS I don't approve of anyone calling for executions full stop, but calling for BNP members to be shot isn't anti-white, it's just anti-BNP.

Devil's Kitchen said...


You are splitting statistical hairs. We all know that averages are just that: averages. If you won't accept averages in the study of humans, then we can just abolish Sociology now (not, I grant you, necessarily a bad thing). I fully understand your point as, I'm sure, does everyone else.

This article is just an attempt to try and dress up prejudice based on assumptions about race as serious academic debate. I agree with you that it isn't racist to say that illegal immigrants should be deported, but so do lots of other non-racist people; why quote this looper?

Because, as I have said, the press reported it as though he meant all foreigners should be deported. From the original Guardian article: "Repatriation would get his support, he added, if it was done 'humanely'." Do you support this kind of dishonesty on the part of the media?

Now, Ellis says that he came to his conclusions after reading research, not the other way around. Sure, you might not believe him, but since we have no other data I think that we must give him the benefit of the doubt.

I disagree with his assertion that Africans are effectively sub-normal; the IQ tests are Western-oriented and thus almost certainly unlikely to give an accurate response that can be meaningfully compared with Western respondants. However, most of the rest of his stuff, when it is taken in the context of being someone's opinion (which is, after all, what most of us here in the blogosphere publish), is perfectly fair. He should certainly be entitled to his opinion. After all, it could be said to be backed up by the Beeb article that I quoted.

Oh, and he also apparently said that "that the BNP was 'a bit too socialist' for his liking." Well, it's fair enough: they are pretty damn socialist. Only I cannot find this in the original article. More intellectual dishonesty.


Katy Newton said...

I don't oppose the use of averages in academic studies in principle and nothing in my first comment implied that I did. I said that they don't assist in judging individual people in the course of everyday life. I am not sure what statistical hairs you think I'm splitting.

I don't approve of the press misquoting people or taking their comments out of context, which was why I based my comments on his full, unedited article.

Devil's Kitchen said...

As Worstall would say, it is the individual that matters; this is also my general belief. However, one person is not a meaningful way to measure any kind of trend, so we use averages. To attempt to dismiss his views on the basis that averages don't actually tell us anything about a particular is splitting hairs since averages, almost by definition, do not measure single entities. They show trends for multiple entities whcih share similar characteristics.

I find myself defending him because I believe that the left-liberal MSM have deliberately told lies to paint him as being worse than he is. This offends my sense of fair play...

As an aside, I rather like this comment on news preface to the original article:

"“He said the Bell Curve theory was out of date and showed lower achievements among the black population because they were economically worse off. “

Cart before the horse?

Maybe they are economically worse off because of lower achievement (obviously) and that in turn is because of lower achievement potential."


Katy Newton said...

It isn't splitting hairs (she doggedly maintained). He presents a statistic. The conclusion that he invites the reader to draw from the statistic is that black people as a race are inferior to white people as a race, and also that black people as a race are dangerous to white people as a race. Assuming purely for the purposes of this argument that the statistic is unassailable, I say that
it doesn't follow from that statistic that black people as a race are dangerous to white people as a race or that it is a justification for discriminating against black people as a race. What he and I disagree about is the conclusion to be drawn from that statistic (and probably everything else, but you know what I mean).

I understand why you defend him, although I think you do come close to endorsing him as well in your original post, and I wonder if that's what you intended. I agree that he is entitled to his view, but I am entitled to mine and my view is that his view is, as Socrates once said, pants.

Neil Harding said...

DK, You conveniently ignore that Black African pupils have scored higher on average than white pupils in GCSE results and that black girls score better than white boys. Also why is there such a disparity between Pakistani and Indian GCSE results? Doesn't this clearly suggest that it is cultural rather than racial difference that is important?

Every single person is genetically different (except identical twins). In terms of DNA, there are more differences within races than between them. This is why it is a social (based on appearence) rather than scientific construct.

Also there is more genetic disparity between two groups of chimps 20 miles apart than between Aborigines and Icelanders. There was a bottleneck in recent human evolution caused by a near ice-age extinction 70,000 years ago (tiny in evolutionary terms) that means we all descend from a few thousand people.

You clearly demonstrate racist BNP sympathies by lauding this guy. Reading through the article, like Jim and Katy found, I was amazed at how poorly written it is (considering his views, maybe I shouldn't be that surprised).

What is wrong with what Ellis said is not that he supports a flawed journal article but his linking it with BNP policies. This makes his position at the university untenable because it totally undermines the student's trust of his judgement and this will affect their studies.

Why should the IQ of anyone be relevant to their residence in this country? This is the ideology of the Nazis. Sadly, DK, you seem to support this ideology. I suspected it, this post proves it beyond any remaining doubt.

Jim said...

I was going to post on my own blog about Ellis's article, but to be honest it's so pisspoor it's not worth the effort. The axe he's grinding is obvious from the get-go, when he blames supporters of multiculturalism for both 9/11 and Stalin's collectivisation policies (a rather worrying lapse in knowledge for a lecturer in Russian - Stalin did not kill off the kulaks because of their PC rainbow-nation mindset). I read onward with bated breath, to see if he would assert that every time you think a nice thought about multiculturalism, God kills a kitten.

Then he embarks on the quoting of journals. Unfortuantely, he seems to be mostly quoting himself, which gives an indication as to the academic rigour of his research. Carry on down and further proof of his high standards is offered when he gives the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa at the end of the 1970s as 70, and then goes on to say "the average IQ is 70". Could he not be bothered to find any more recent research? Or did he prefer to have a set of stats that "prove" that blacks are inferior?

"Blacks die of AIDS either because they do not believe that AIDS will kill them or because the imperatives of immediate sexual gratification are so urgent and overwhelming that the consequences are disregarded"
This comment is so disgusting I'm not even going to bother to comment on it.

His ridiculous example of a spin on "White Men Can't Jump" shows that he hasn't worked out that the title of the film was a joke. Most bigots have no sense of sense of humour, and Ellis appears to be no different, as he subsequently gets his knickers in a twist over the Telegraph's "Georgia rednecks" reference. Firstly, it is not the same thing to say "Georgia n***ers". There is a history of oppression and slavery behind the latter term. The former has none of those implications.

But Ellis is now on to the BNP:
"I remain deeply disturbed by the fact that the leader of Britain’s fourth largest political party can be arrested and put on trial for remarks made at a private gathering."
Yes, a fair trial, in which he was acquitted. Not quite the totalitarian nightmare Ellis would like to conjure up. And "fourth-largest political party" is not as powerful as it sounds. There are currently six BNP members in local government. Six too many, in my opinion, but there you go.

“Diversity is not our strength”. On the contrary it shall be our destruction.
If by 'our', you mean racists like you, I'm all for it. So "whites are a minority in Birmingham and Leicester"? Well, almost everyone in those cities are British, whether white, black, brown or whatever. If you have that much trouble accepting your own countrymen, I suggest you go and live somewhere else.

"Regardless of what one thinks of the BNP’s leader, if Griffin can be treated in this manner, none of us is safe from the Police." Yes, if you call for race war in the United Kingdom and say things like "Let's show these ethnics the door in 2004."

The whole comtemptible performance is rounded off with the old Martin Niemöller quote. Several years ago I sat in my old History classroom, with a poster of that saying on the wall, and listened to the testimony of a Holocaust survivor. It is for her that those words should be repeated and understood, not for bigots like Ellis. The man deserves shame and obscurity, and I hope people read his article and realise just how much.

Katy Newton said...


Looking at all of this again, I think there's been a misunderstanding. The original piece in the Leeds Student was not an article by Ellis but an interview with him. The article that you have posted was a follow-up article which Ellis submitted to the paper after the reaction to his interview. It appears that the comments about repatriation, the BNP being socialist and Ellis being an unrepentant Powellite were made in that first interview, and I can't find any suggestion by him or by anyone else that he was misquoted in it.


The Pedant-General in Ordinary said...

If that article was a REACTION to adverse reception to an interview then the man is a total moron.

He deserves everything coming to him.

That is not to say that cultural relativism is not mad, bad and dangerous. It is. It just needs a cool clear argument to show that this is the case. Morons like Ellis make it so much harder for the rest of us to do so with out attracting the charge of racism.


Devil's Kitchen said...

No, this is the whole text of the original article: the Leeds student newspaper published edited "highlights".


Katy Newton said...

No, I don't think that's the case. As I understand it, there was an interview with Frank Ellis by Matt Kennard, a journalist with Leeds Student. Following the furore caused by Ellis' comments in that interview, Ellis submitted a follow-up article to Leeds Student, which he wrote himself, and which was published by them in an edited form but which appears in full on the American Renaissance website to which you linked. That is why they refer to it having been originally published in an edited form, and why none of the reported quotes from the original interview appear in the article. It's because they are two different events. This also explains every single paper, blog, news channel and organisation which has reported on this - including racist organisations like Stormfront and American Renaissance - has referred to an interview, and then to a follow-up article.

The position is quite clear on the American Renaissance page that you linked to:

"Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies, sparked anger after stating, in an interview with the university’s student newspaper, that he was an ‘unrepentant Powellite’ who thought that the BNP was ‘a bit too socialist’ for his liking."

And later in the American Renaissance article:

"The angry reaction has not deterred Ellis, who wrote a follow-up article in the Leeds Student, in which he argued: ‘Multiculturalism is doomed to failure—and is failing—because it is based on the lie that all people, races and cultures are equal; that no one race or culture is better (superior) than any other.’"

See? Interview with Frank Ellis by Matt Kennard, then follow-up article by Frank Ellis.


Dryden said...

Katy wrote "What he and I disagree about is the conclusion to be drawn from that statistic"

IQ and race are obviously controversial, but suppose the hereditarians were right and that a substantial component of the black-white IQ gap turned out to be genetic. If no other features of the distribution change, then a DNA-induced gap of even 5 points would have an enormous effect on tail distributions: the high-IQ populations would then be overwhelmingly white, whilst the low-IQ ones would be mostly black -- even a small difference in means can have a great effect on the extremes of a normal distribution. In that case, it would not be correct to assume that, for example, the number of black postgraduates should equal the black percentage of the total population, even if all other socioeconomic disparities were removed. It would also mean that the large number of black boys who do so poorly on exames would not be excoriated for laziness, nor would their teachers necessarily be biased.

Secretly, I suspect that many liberals already believe that the gap is partly genetic -- consider the condescension towards blacks in the Guardian.


rjw said...

They should certainly fire him. As Jim put it, so nicely, the article is really pisspoor. Non-sequiturs all over the shop, logical fallacies, straw men, and the old propagandist trick of guilt by association. It's utter bollocks. That he seems to be a complete tosser seems almost beside the point.

Anonymous said...

This man can believe what he wants but the bottom line is that he is not fit to be an educator.

Anonymous said...

Frank Ellis is a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies, not a psychologist. He does not have the background to realistically assess the 'research' he claims to find compelling.

As such he has no business expressing his views publicly and trading on the image of authority that a university lecturer has. If he wants to be in a position to express his views with some degree of authority, he can spend a few years studying the subject properly.

Of course, if he spends a few years studying psychology and still believes the nonsensical pseudo science set out in 'The Bell Curve' he will rightly be fired for incompetence.

Anonymous said...

In the past, anthropologists talked and wrote about the various differences between the human races. But after World War II that became much harder to do, since after that war descriptions of racial differences came to be viewed as "Nazi-like" in much of Western society.

Sadly, in the Western countries today, the field of anthropology is filled with professors who either deny or downplay the significance of racial differences in humans. Those professors insist that race is either meaningless or nearly so, and that race is merely a social construct instead of a key physical feature. They insist that a person's environmental surroundings, not his race, is the central factor in whether or not he is successful in life.

In other words, modern anthropology has become "politically correct," and is therefore frequently driven by leftist political ideas and not by scientific facts.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if you passionate advocates of freedom of speech understand libertarian thought at all?

There are, even in the most liberal of philosophers thoughts, actions and behaviour that are unacceptable per se. One of such is the persecution of entire races (which is the logical progression from Ellis's inferiority claim). To defend this, in the guise of freedom of speech is not only misleading but would lead to the loss of speech of an entire race.

Moreover, perhaps what you must realise is that Ellis has shared a stage with the K.K.K. A terrorist group responsible for the deaths of innocent black people for no reason other than their ethnicity. This is a sackable offence. Think of the equivelant with a muslim lecturer sharing a stage with Osama Bin Laden and the concept of freedom of speech is redundant of meaning.

Perhaps you should accept that freedoms have responsibilities that go along with them. John Locke, Rousseau, John Stuart Mill and all other libertarian thinkers accept this. Now you should.

Devil's Kitchen said...

One of such is the persecution of entire races (which is the logical progression from Ellis's inferiority claim).

No, it isn't. One can believe something as being inferior in some way without actuively persecuting it. Indeed, there seems to be, currently, no evidence that Ellis persecuted any of his students.

The idea of discussions about race -- rather than killing people because they belong to a race -- being off-limits is wrong.

What I have been trying to point out is that genetically, scientifically, there exist differences between the human races (otherwise there wouldn't be any races). The idea that all scientific discussion of race should be out of the question simply because a few loons kill people, because of what they believe the differences to be, is completely contrary to the concept of free speech.

I don't defend Ellis's views: I do defend his right to discuss these views.


P.S. It's getting a bit confusing with all these Anons about, eh?

Anonymous said...

Frank Ellis DID say that he agreed with repatriation of ALL immigrants legal or not. This was his second piece in the Leeds Student newspaper. His first interview the week before carried this message.

A student of Frank Ellis

Anonymous said...

Quote from the BBC:

"Dr Ellis said the assumption that IQ tests are the most valid way of testing intelligence was the "dirty little secret" of psychology, because society as a whole did not accept this."

Patent cobblers, completely arse about face: the rest of society seems to believe that IQ tests identify native intelligence, psychologists know that it tests something; but we're not sure what it is, what it's made up of, whether it's worth testing, and whether IQ tests are an effective way of testing it.

Ellis is dangling his nasty, ill informed opinions in the public gaze because he has an *agenda*. He may have the right to express his opinions, but he also has the responsibility to *say* they are opinions - representing them as scientific fact is a lie.

Seun said...

I find your article quite pathetic, for all its misplaced grandiloquence. I was expecting a well reasoned dispassionate argument on why Dr Ellis assertions should be believed, why he shouldnt be seen as a die-hard racist in some state of paranoia.

If you know some bits of basic psychology, you'll find IQs are generally conditioned by nurture and not by nature. All humans are equal in potentials for intelligent learning, but many factors hinder or foster the development of individual intelligence. That's fundamental, and anything to the contrary is mere pseudoscholasticism. Why, you may as well invoke Nietsche in defense of Nazism! This is how they start, the detractors of humanity,spreading the virus of racial hatred here and there.

I am black, but i have no use for racists and terrorists of different brands, be they black or colured or white. Alqeda, Klux Klux Klan, and the Nazis are all in the same league, enemies of the human race.

When some weeks ago i posed a question on Calculus to a white friend of mine, a Chemistry graduate, he had no idea how to solve it.I've had similar experience more than once, but never for once did it occur to me to brand all white men stupid for that. Those friends of mine simply did not know it, and I'll reckon they are apt in other subjects.

It is as silly as it is superficial to cite isolated examples as GSCE results and make sweeping generalisations about intelligence quotients of races!

Check this out: The Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka graduted in Leeds with First Class honours. In 1986, he became the first african to win the Nobel Prize in literature

Anonymous said...

you're a bunch of racist bastards

Devil's Kitchen said...

Dear Anonymous,

You're a fucking prick. I f you want to start a fight, then go ahead, but at least have the courtesy to leave a name -- a face if you like -- for us to call you a reactionary cunt to.


Neil Craig said...

"If you know some bits of basic psychology, you'll find IQs are generally conditioned by nurture and not by nature. All humans are equal in potentials for intelligent learning"

You are quite wrong. Studies with twins separated at birth show that 70% of IQ difference is nature.

An earlier writer justified action against Ellis for speaking on a subject which was not his lecture qualification & for which he could therefore be considered not expert or in Sean's case just plain wrong. God save us from a society in which nobody may express an opinion unless they have received a certificate of expertise from the appropriated certificate giving authority. On this subject, & a number of others, I suspect government controlled certificating authorities may be biased themselves.

Anonymous said...

Frank Ellis' research is very flawed and the way he presented this research is extremely irresponsible.

I ask myself, what was he trying to prove by conducting such research. In order to conduct research of this kind, demographics and socioeconomic factors need to be taken into consideration. Use of the terms white, black and asian mean absolutely nothing.

One has to look at the postgraduate students in UK universities and one would find that number of asians and black students outnumbers white. What does this tell us?

Not sure why research councils waste money funding research that has no benefit or positive effect in society.

I remain firm in my belief that those who are truly superior (intellectually or otherwise)don't need to prove their superiority - they know it. when someone tries to prove that another group is inferior, then it shows inherent feelings of inadequacy within them.

Devil's Kitchen said...


He didn't do the research; he was quoting research that was done quite some time ago.


Anonymous said...

Well, I have heard a lot about Ellis but this is the first time I have actually seen his 'arguments'. What dross, what drivel. All that stuff about Stalin, his visceral hatred of the BBC, his 'Guardianista' stuff - if he was a serious, intelligent player, he wouldn't need all that. He doesn't even seem to know that IQ scores can, and do, change - in repsonse to better nutrition, more stimulating environments. Yes, there are differences between races in scores, but we seem to be obesessed with those who score lower than we do, and ignore those who do better!
I'm interested to know why the UK exam results are considered evidence of a genetic link to IQ. People from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are not dissimilar racially - but their exam results are amazingly different! Why? Cultural attitudes, pure and simple.
On the evidence of this diatribe the University are absolutely wrong to try and silence this guy. Let him speak, let him shout it from the rooftops - just make sure that someone with a brain is there to point out what a load of old tat it really is. He condemns himself out of his own mouth.
I just hope his lectures are more interesting, and have a better theoretical and empirical basis, otherwise the students are wasting their fees.

Anonymous said...

It is a persistent "straw-man" rebuke that multiculturalists believe there are absolutely no differences between races, just as radical feminists are accused of denying the anatomical differences between the sexes. This is not true. Any sane person will recognize that genetic differences, such as skin color and hair color, do exist between races, and although there're ambiguous cases (such as mixed-race people), certain characteristics do recur within a race. It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Rather, what multiculturalists contend is, firstly, that race is *in part* culturally constructed, secondly, that "races" are not always coherent and objective categories (e.g. mixed-race and marginal peoples), and thirdly and more contentiously, that the genetic differences between races are less significant than the culturally determined ones.

Please stop reducing each other to polemical extremes (e.g. neo-Nazi racists vs. Hollywood airheads). I trust that most people are neither, that a factually-based common ground is larger than the passions of the debates may suggest.

Sam Spade said...

In a region of the world where poverty and undemocratic government seem to be the rule, Mauritius is an exception.

Mauritius is an island nation in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar and the African continent, and ethnic groups, known as "communal groups," are tightly knit. Mauritius has a multicultural society in which the cultures blend and mix harmoniously.
The population is made up of people of Indian, African, Chinese, and French origin. Most people speak English, French, and Creole. English is the official language of the government and of education. An individual's name easily identifies his or her ethnic and religious background. There is a strong correlation between religious affiliation and ethnicity. Citizens of Indian ethnicity usually are Hindus or Muslims. Citizens of Chinese ancestry usually practice both Buddhism and Catholicism. Creoles and citizens of European descent usually are Catholic. Intermarriage is relatively rare. Nearly a third of Mauritius's population (the so-called Creoles) are descendants of slaves brought from the African mainland. Most Creoles have remained at or near the bottom of the country's socioeconomic ladder, BUT those who have attained a measure of prosperity are almost invariably of mixed descent and lighter skin color.

A brief history
Arab traders were the first to come upon the island in the 10th century, followed by the Portuguese in the 1500s, but neither group remained to make permanent settlements. The Dutch landed in the late 1500s and stayed, naming the island after Prince Maurice of Nassau. They remained for little over a century but also decided to leave. It was the French, arriving in 1715, who stayed and gave the island its essentially French character and charm. However, as a result of the conflict between the British and French in Europe and the rivalry in their respective trade with India, the British attacked the French garrison stationed on the island and defeated them. From that time until independence in 1968, the island was administered by the British. The island’s present inhabitants are descendants of settlers from Europe, slaves from Africa and Madagascar, and indentured laborers and artisans from Asia, with each racial group bringing its own culture and traditions. These different attributes have, over time, became uniquely blended to create a national harmony which recognizes diversity within a common identity and national character. Today, the island has a population of 1.1 million people.

Andy Worthing said...

Ellis makes much sense and what he says should be discussed openly, without fear of participants being called racist. Brave man saying what he did. His arguments represent what many of us are thinking but are too afraid to say in public in our diversity-obsessed culture. I wonder, does this recent news article support his theory about sub-Saharan African IQ levels?

Andy, Worthing.

Anonymous said...

I just stumbled on this whole thing while reading the black student union newsletter online.I'm a black student from Sub saharan Africa,studying in the UK and I'm shocked and appaled,not by F. Ellis but by people like DK and Andy whom actually support him( even if you claim that you do not support hi,DK,you should re read your comments and you might see why it seems that you;re defending his ideas,not his freedom of speech).

I speak 5 languages and will be graduating from uni with a 1st this summer.I work very hard and so did my parents,in order to send me to university here,where I spend £ 8,000 a for me,as a black student,to read a supposedly educated person who is in a position to teach and mark student write that black people (from where I am from) are intellectually inferior is not only hurtful and offensive but incredibly ignorant.

I cannot believe that this guy was sitting in a class lecturing people,TEACHING anyone in a constructive,objective and educational manner.furthermore,even though there is no evidence of him treating black students and colleagues differently,I find it hard to believe.

I could go into details but I'm utterly disgusted not just by this man's views but also by people who actually(lthough not openly)support him.

Paul said...

"Blacks die of AIDS either because they do not believe that AIDS will kill them or because the imperatives of immediate sexual gratification are so urgent and overwhelming that the consequences are disregarded"

This comment is so disgusting I'm not even going to bother to comment on it.

...Well this guy did.

Anonymous said...

Disgusting is an understatement, about Elis so called research and the above slow and ignorant ideas of DK and those who sound like him. First, you people need to brush your teeth, (cos y'all mouths STINK) discipline your young ones, and yourselves , and stop drinking so that the IQ which is so precious to you will not be replaced by BENSON and HEDGES and FOSTER. The FUTURE OF THE GRANDIOSE BRITAIN IS BLEAK BLEAK BLEAK..... As for Paul, please read the story of Paul in the Holy Bible and truly your eyes will see the light.

Anonymous said...

DK, I'm with you & Mr Ellis on a lot of points here. But please explain the disparity between the figures for Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi students. I'm Indian and a small part of my family went to Pakistan in 1947. Say a young person from each side moved to Britain and took GCSEs. Would the Pakistani student score less than the Indian student? Would race be the cause? I'm sure you'll agree this is impossible. SM

Anonymous said...

As for more AIDS patients in Africa, um, AIDS originated in Africa and the place of origin almost always has a higher incidence of disease than the places it spreads to. The black plague of the 14th century similarly spread and caused havoc mostly around European countries. The modes of transportation at that time were far less compared to today's which is why AIDS has spread to other countries as well, but still has the largest number of occurences in Africa.

Anonymous said...

I think Frank Ellis was right. James Watson too. Blacks just aren't very bright on average. You only have to listen to them talk, and read their internet comments to see that, if daily experience hadn't already convinced you. A lot of people seem to be blinded by the athletic ability of blacks, their likeability (when not mugging, murdering and raping people or accusing people of racism at the drop of a hat) and aptitude for dance and the simpler kinds of music. But look at the way they live. When did you last hear the phrase "... a prosperous black area"? Can you name a successful black nation?

The orthodoxy today is that unequal outcomes prove that opportunities are not equal. But it is obvious to me that equal opportunities will produce vastly unequal outcomes, simply because there is a vast variation in people's abilities. This is what happens in the educational systems of Western nations. And sadly, the losers are most often blacks.

Anonymous said...

I think I can see a correlation between the "there's no difference between blacks and whites" arguments and the quality of the blogs. Those for example, like anonymous who speaks 5 languages, include such gems as:

- "I'm shocked and appaled"
- "you do not support hi,DK,"
- "to teach and mark student write that black people"

What's your 1st in exactly? Poor orthography? Not making much sense?

Or another anonymous one...

"Disgusting is an understatement, about Elis so called research and the above slow and ignorant ideas of DK and those who sound like him"

As Dr Evil would say; "Riiiiight"...


"First, you people need to brush your teeth, (cos y'all mouths STINK) discipline your young ones, and yourselves , and stop drinking so that the IQ which is so precious to you will not be replaced by BENSON and HEDGES and FOSTER"

You tell us my friend, you tell us! Let me guess, you're one of the bright ones, right?

Anonymous said...

I agree I am one of the bright ones, thank you. But, you all who support this article, you all need to move around the world and know what is happening. Slowly and gradually, the world will be led by they are referred may or may not even be proficient in the English language as this is seen as one of the requirements of a 'high IQ'lol lol. Funny enough most of you cannot even spell correctly (and you created the English language ha ha ha). I will say this again, Oh! Grandiose countries that have a high perentage of youngsters, who do not like going to school, but only to drink, smoke, have children early outside marriage, live on benefits, live in debt are DOOMED. Start cleaning up your acts and see the world (even to the nearby cities in your country e.g london lol),so that you will have it at the back of your mind and wonder why, 'the so called poor developing countries' according to the GRANDIOSE RICH THIEVES developed countries pay more tuition fees in your school and still with this, a high level of the so called GRANDIOSE countries are not able to still support themselves. High IQ reason, and read wide. AND PLEASE ZIP YOUR FREAKING LIPS.

cerelac said...

I agree I am one of the bright ones, thank you. But, you all who support this article, you all need to move around the world and know what is happening. Slowly and gradually, the world will be led by the...'developing counties'as they are referred may or may not even be proficient in the English language as this is seen as one of the requirements of a 'high IQ'lol lol. Funny enough most of you cannot even spell correctly (and you created the English language ha ha ha). I will say this again, Oh! Grandiose countries that have a high pecentage of youngsters, who do not like going to school, but only to drink, smoke, have children early outside marriage, live on benefits, live in debt are DOOMED. Start cleaning up your acts and see the world (even to the nearby cities in your country e.g london lol),so that you will have it at the back of your mind and wonder why, 'the so called poor developing countries' according to the GRANDIOSE RICH THIEVES developed countries pay more tuition fees in your school and still with this, a high level of the so called GRANDIOSE countries are not able to still support themselves. High IQ reason, and read wide. AND PLEASE ZIP YOUR FREAKING LIPS.

Anonymous said...

cerelac/anonymous ("Don't tell him, Pike!"), I think the suggestion that you were one of the bright ones was made with rather heavy sarcasm, and your delightfully incoherent response shows why. What a great advertisement for your race you are! Keep taking the tablets.

Anonymous said...

Frank Ellis's "well researched approach" was nothing more than generalizations based upon a test that is fit for western, white society. Mind you, recent discourses on intelligence suggest that IQ tests are merely one small aspect of intelligence, and at least seven other forms of intelligence are applicable when truely questioning intelligence. What many fail to realize, and especially Frank Ellis, DK, and any other persons helping to perpetuate racial distinction, is that the purest form of intelligence is the colloquial "not making the same mistake twice", or adaptation of behavior in response to new information rather than the rote implementation of prior action patterns. This has little to do with IQ and more to do with one's perception of right and wrong. In the sociological sense, the continuing recontruction of minority groups as inferior is purely contextual and based upon the assumption that what is right is what is white. I am a white middle class male from the United States who realizes the actuality of genetic variance as stated above. We are all human, and regardless of how you score on an IQ test, you are most likely intelligent in one form more than somebody else, regardless of ethnicity. So stop propagating bias, because geniuses and idiots exist in all shapes and forms; surely the autistic savaant may seem like a babbling moron, but his ability to do something extrordinary makes him very intelligent, and his right to a voice, regardless of his intelligence level, shouldn't be based on the color of his skin. Hopefully, in the near context of time, the youth of the world will stop buying into the social construction of race as it posits difference and oppression, but rise above their ancestors and get out of this colonial mentality, BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. Learn from you mistakes.

A Leeds Student said...

Educate yourself. This is a great synopsis of why Frank Ellis and DK are wrong.

Andy Sword said...

Great stuff! Has to be to get a lazy fuck like me to read that much text!

I think it's worthy of note that whenever people argue against literature like that above, they tend to get themselves in a knot citing this-ist, that-ism and so-and-so's theory of the other.

Which smacks of regurgitated college crap.

Just saying.


Anonymous said...

Gene alleles tied to IQ are unevenly distributed amongst populations groups.

"As you can see, there's some clustering along traditional racial lines, most visible when comparing frequency rates among the three East Asian populations with the four black African populations. Regardless of whether these SNPs are ultimately found to be associated with intelligence (and even if they are, they are almost certainly going to be of very small effect), the fact that they are known to be expressed in the brain and that prevelance rates for all of them - with the possible exception of rs363039 - cluster to one degree or another along traditional racial lines illustrates that the forces of genetic drift and selection did not stop at the neck."

Also, there is plenty of research from twin studies & transracial adoption studies to suggest differences are at least partially genetic.

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294