Category: Free Speech
For those who might be put-off, initially or even ultimately, by the subject matter discussed here, I would refer to that old adage, that “if all you know well is one thing, then you really don’t even know that very well.”
Part 3 of the analysis of
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 09:15 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Education, European culture, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
Comments (1) |
I wouldn’t be normally posting here at this time, but something needing
the immediate attention of sincere patriots, activists, nationalists, etc. has
come up, and it’s an excellent documentation of who the enemy really is.
The prothink network comprises of a group of websites dedicated to
documenting the activities of, opposing and fighting our common enemy, a
4-letter word beginning with J. The people behind the prothink network are
mostly young and passionate individuals, not necessarily correct on all counts,
but sincere and activist, which is what matters as their heart’s in the right
place and they’re doing something constructive.
The J-enemy has targeted goddady, their registrar and web host, which caved
in and has given them 2 days to find another domain registrar and host [#1,
Now, these individuals are advised to separate their domain registrars from web
hosts, and it’s plural so that they spread out their domains and websites
across different service providers.
The prothink network comprises of websites such as prothink.org, zioncrimefactory.com, prothink.tv, jewishproblem.com, 911missinglinks.com, etc. That their
work is noteworthy can be ascertained from 911missinglinks.com receiving
accolades from ADL’s honcho, Abe, and zioncrimefactory having had blog after
blog deleted by google and wordpress. Michael Delaney, the mastermind behind
911missinglinks.com, has tirelessly campaigned, on the streets and online, to
educate Americans about who really orchestrated 9/11.
Extend these fine individuals your support, which can be in the form of
donations, moral support, mirroring their content, giving their case studies
publicity on your blogs, offering them hosting space in the event you own a
server, etc. Be advised that I have no affiliation with the prothink
In the event that the prothink network is down, which it most probably will
be for some time, you may contact some of the key individuals [remove
[prothink] [@] [yahoo.com]
[zioncrimefactory] [@] [hotmail.com]
The address to which paypal donations should be
[mikedelaney6575] [@] [gmail.com]
Had the prothink network targeted Arabs, Nazis, Blacks, Muslims, Latinos,
liberals, conservatives, feminists, or other assorted groups aside from the
J-enemy, rest assured they’d not only be left unmolested, but encouraged. If
the prothink network used superficial criticism of the J-enemy as cover for
J-excusing and disinformation, like the typical website in the nationalist
genre, they’d be left alone. But they’re the real deal. Accordingly, it
isn’t difficult to determine who the enemy really is. Act against this enemy
by supporting those fighting them.
Posted by R-news on Saturday, June 23, 2012 at 06:15 PM in Activism, Blogs & Blogging, Free Speech, That Question Again
Comments (11) |
One of the most striking things about the religious hatred legislation is how determined New Labour was to introduce it, and how keen it was, initially, not only to criminalise the ‘stirring up’ of hatred but also any potentially hurtful criticism and ridicule of a religion and its followers. New Labour first floated the idea of criminalising religious hatred and ridicule after 9/11, when it predicted, wrongly of course, that there would be an outbreak of mob madness against Muslims. After much wrangling, and boosted by another, post-7/7 panic about anti-Muslim uprisings (which again was wrong), New Labour finally introduced the legislation in 2006.
- Libertarian Brendan O’Neill of Spiked.
Of course, talking of an attempt to criminalise any potentially hurtful criticism of a religion and its followers is being coy. I don’t think Christians are protected by this, unless Dawkins has landed himself in gaol, and certainly not the nasty sort of Christians who aren’t gay friendly enough. It is Islam, specifically, that this is designed to protect.
Equally obviously, Islam and Christianity and the distinction between the two are not actually about your precise opinion of whether god is Holy or Great, and what the best way to pray to him is. It is about Middle Eastern and White.
Having said this, I think there’s nothing to be gained from pointing this out incessantly and under all circumstances. If pc and the multi-cult harms us, we can point out these harms without talking about why these things were introduced in the first place. A speech code with any other justification would oppress as much.
Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 03:16 PM in Free Speech
Comments (4) |
From the sturdy Continued...
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 06:20 PM in Free Speech
Comments (7) |
This weekend my wife and I saw the documentary movie “Expelled.” It stars Ben Stein, trying to show the heavy hand of scientific Darwinists in suppressing any scientists that do not agree with the modern synthesis. That is, suppressing any alternative to Darwinism’s rejection of intelligent design (creationism). How intolerant is science to intelligent design? From watching the movie not much—Stein only covers a couple of examples, spending most of the movie showing him walking from one campus or office to another.
The primary premise in the movie is that the simplest organisms that first evolved on earth are far too complex and statistically could not have been created from the primordial soup without a designer. The purpose of Stein’s movie seems to be not so much against science, as to show that there is a god because life needed a designer to even begin the process of evolution. And why is such an intelligent person like Stein taking on this issue? I can only speculate, but it seems to be part of the Neocon’s strategy to maintain the guiding hand of the prophets (primarily the Jews), the administrators like Bush and other government officials, and the masses who need religion in place of open intellectualism. That is, the masses do not need the truth, but need a sustaining dogma to follow blindly where the Neocons lead them.
Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 06:12 PM in Free Speech
Comments (41) |
My thanks to Micheal R for this link, an article by the near-libertarian Jewish-Russian-American blogger Eugene Volokh.
Richard Warman, a lawyer who worked as an investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, often filed complaints against “hate speech” sites — complaints that were generally upheld under Canadian speech restrictions. Fromm, a defender of various Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, has been publicly condemning Warman for, among other things, being “an enemy of free speech.” Warman sued, claiming that these condemnations are defamatory.
Friday, the Ontario Superior Court held for Warman — chiefly on the grounds that because Warman’s claims were accepted by the legal system, they couldn’t accurately be called an attack on free speech. Thus, for instance:
 The implication, as well as the clear of meaning of the words [“an enemy of free speech” and “escalated the war on free speech”], is that the plaintiff is doing something wrong. The comment “Well, see your tax dollars at work” also implies that Mr. Warman misused public funds for this “war on free speech”.
 The plaintiff was using legal means to complain of speech that he alleged was “hate” speech.
 The evidence was that Mr. Warman was successful in both the complaint and a libel action which he instituted.
 Freedom of expression is not a right that has no boundaries. These parameters are outlined in various legislative directives and jurisprudence. I find Mr. Fromm has exceeded these. This posting is defamatory.
Likewise, apropos another statement (“Since then, a number of dissidents have been dragged before human rights tribunals, largely through the efforts of CHRC hatchetman Richard Warman”), the court responds:
 While opposition to legislation is permitted, it is defamatory to say that Mr. Warman is largely responsible for “dragging” dissidents before the human rights tribunal, when in fact the “dissidents” were disseminating prohibited hate speech. The tribunal upheld the complaint. This posting is also defamatory.
Likewise, here’s another statement that the court treated as defamatory and legally punishable:
 At the press conference after Mr. Fromm’s comments, he introduced three other people who spoke of their “problems with Richard Warman.” Mr. Fromm added, after one speaker:
Thank you very much, Jason. So, for posting an opinion, the same sort of opinion that might have appeared in editorial pages in newspapers across this country, Jason and the Northern Alliance, his site has come under attack and people who are just ordinary Canadians find themselves in front of the courts for nothing more serious than expressing their opinion. This is being done with taxpayers’ money. I find that reprehensible.
 In one posting Mr. Fromm describes Mr. Warman’s “campaign of intimidation” recitingvarious actions taken by Mr. Warman. He states that freedom of the Internet was the key issue.
 Again Mr. Warman was referred to as acting like a one-man thought police agency.
 The plaintiff is accused of using taxpayer money to “restrict freedom of speech” and of refusing “to allow those with differing opinions the right to express their views.”
 The tone of all these allegations is derisive and holds the plaintiff up to ridicule and contempt. The words themselves and the inferences to be drawn are all defamatory.
Likewise, the court says, “ Mr. Warman is criticized for his anti-hate speech stance, and his professionalism and integrity are attacked. This would lead a reasonable reader to conclude that the plaintiff was an ideologue who wanted only to deny freedom of speech to those with whom he disagrees. [60 ]I find this posting defamatory.”
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 08:08 PM in Free Speech
Comments (30) |
Oxford Unite Against Fascism, Oxford University Student Union, Oxford & District Trades Council, Oxford University Labour Club, Oxfordshire UNISON Health, Oxford Brookes University Unison branch and Unite Against Fascism have called a peaceful demonstration against fascist BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier David Irving who are due to speak in the free speech form [sic] on Monday 26th November at the Oxford Union.
... Fascism threatens the safety of Black, Jewish, Muslim, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of Oxford including students and academics. Wherever fascists are active or have a presence, racist attacks and other hate crimes increase.
For transport/coach details, please contact National UAF office ...
So ran the instructions to the thousand freaks, self-haters, simple minds and Jewish and “BEM” activists who screamed and occasionally became violent outside the Oxford Union Free Speech Forum last night. How far we have come from the “rainbow coalition” invented by Ken Livingstone in his GLC administration of the early 80s. Now the heir to this poisonous confection dictates acceptable speech and even debate about acceptable speech.
Anyhow, let’s get a flavour of what it was like inside the building.
Simon Darby of the BNP managed to record part of Nick Griffin’s speech - albeit, apparently, by employing technology no more effective than the wax disc. You can hear it, complete with the baying mob without, and a heartening round of applause from Griffin’s audience to finish, here.
Griffin spoke in a separate room from Irving, who was in the main debating chamber. The mob had made it impossible for some of the ticket-holders to access the latter. So the police, who don’t seem to have been especially effective, ushered them to another room. The speakers were split accordingly.
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 07:27 PM in Free Speech
Comments (5) |
Along the road to the reclamation of homeland lies the reclamation of free-thinking and free speech. A few days ago The Times put up a discussion topic titled, Do migrants make us or break us? Despite the fact that this is, in mainstream terms, precisely the gateway question - the beginning of understanding - there have only been 24 comments at the time of posting this entry. Compare that to the 205 that The Guardian musters for a piece titled The toxic Powell legacy, written by a sub-con named Sunder Katwala.
OK, the very fact that immigration is now dominating all the serious rags is a great advance on the conspiracy of silence of five years ago. But really ... 24 comments on what is, after all, the choice between a prosperity predicated, supposedly, on racial egalitarianism and the Darwinian meaning of life itself! When the circulation of The Times is 700,000 and The Guardian 375,000!
Well, I decided to conduct a (necessarily very small) experiment on The Times’ thread. Since the headline question is the precurser to a proper political understanding of race and modernity, I’ve stretched it a little by submitting to The Times’ moderator a few rather more cogent questions. Here they are:-
Questions to sleepers.
1) Is good business a good enough reason for English children to lose their birthright to England?
2) Is it fair or moral of the self-hating left and self-interested racial minorities to scream “racist” at those who seek the actual survival of the English people?
3) Do you believe that the English have a moral right to survive?
4) Do you understand that territory is the guarantor of genetic continuity? Do you believe that the English have a moral right to assert their ownership of England?
5) If, in fact, the demographic trajectory for us is already one of continuing local displacement, national dispossession and genetic deracination, do you think it is better to repatriate immigrants wholesale or to acquiesce in an inevitable if long and slow extinction?
6) Will the hyper-moral return of tolerance mean anything if we do not survive?
7) If you are English, do you love your people? Is there anything outside of your immediate family which you love more?
Now, these are the sort of questions that have twice got me banned at The Guardian, once as Guessedworker, once just the other day as this guy John Standing. Will they survive the cut at The Times? Has freedom of expression recovered to that point, or is it only permissable for mainstreamers to ask the questions?
And, of course, if the comment is published, will any readers answer? Will they be Englishmen or opportunistic cryptos?
We shall, as the blind man said, see.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 08:32 AM in Free Speech
Comments (33) |
Italy approves law making Holocaust denial a crime
Italy’s government Thursday approved a bill that makes denying the Holocaust a crime and stiffens prison sentences for those found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
Ministry officials said those found guilty of spreading ideas about a race being superior to another would now risk up to three years in prison while acts designed to incite racial, ethnic, religious or sexual violence would be punishable with a maximum four- year prison sentence.
Here’s the interesting part:
Initially conceived to target Holocaust deniers, the bill was broadened to include all forms of intolerance after some members of Prodi’s centre-left coalition had expressed reservations about the appropriateness of using the criminal code to honour the millions of Jews killed in the Shoah.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 08:45 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (6) |
...of countries that criminalize heresy:
Editors Fined For Printing Anti-Semitic Letter
Two newspaper editors were fined for publishing a letter that said violence against Jews was justified and that the Holocaust was acceptable.
State Prosecutor Mika Illman said Uusimaa, a regional newspaper, and the Kansan Uutisetpaper broke the law in July by publishing the letter by Usko Takkumaki, which criticized Jews and Israel.
The WaPo and Israel Today carried the story as well.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 06:15 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Germany wants EU-wide law against denying the Holocaust
BERLIN - Germany wants to make denying the Holocaust punishable by law in every member state of the European Union during its current presidency of the bloc, Brigitte Zypries, the Justice Minister, said yesterday. “Denial of the Holocaust is an example of what would be punishable by law if standardization took place,” she said at a press conference to present the German government’s program on justice matters for the next six months. Previous attempts to unify legal standards for Holocaust denial and other xenophobic attacks were blocked by Italy, but the new Italian government of Prime Minister Romano Prodi has dropped its opposition, Ms. Zypries said. Among EU members, there are laws against denying the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain. In a recent high-profile case, controversial British historian David Irving spent 13 months in jail in Austria for challenging the Holocaust before being released on probation last month. Germany took over the rotating six-month presidency of the 27-country EU on Jan. 1.
So it’s news in Canada.
It’s news in the international non-Arab Semite Anglophone press:
Germany aims for E.U. ban on Holocaust denial
German politicians are pushing for a ban on Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial throughout the European Union.
Holocaust denial is illegal in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain.
Germany wants Holocaust denial to be EU-wide crime
That seems to be the source of the article at Canada.com.
It’s news to lawyers:
Germany to push for EU law criminalizing Holocaust denial
It’s not news to Americans.
Points of interest:
The holocaust was all about non-Arab Semites. The rest who died (usually anonymously included in an 11 million figure, if at all) are shit.
The proposed law is all about the non-Arab Semite holocaust. The myriad other racial sensitivities the world over are shit.
It seems okay to tell Canadians (used to draconian suppression of free speech), non-Arab Semites (in favor of and benefiting from draconian suppression of free speech), and lawyers (in the business of draconian suppression of free speech) about the desire to expand across the EU the suppression of free speech, but not Americans (none too fond of any kind of suppression of free speech). They don’t need to know about such things. They might get the wrong ideas.
Race-realism has predictive power: I predict not a peep from the American freedom lobby about this.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 04:46 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Should UK Ban Shoah Denial?
Britain should hold a debate on whether to introduce a law banning Holocaust denial, a senior government minister said this week.
Police and Security Minister Tony McNulty, was speaking exclusively to the Jewish News less than two weeks after Holocaust denier David Irving arrived back in Britain after serving 13 months in an Austrian jail.
As far as I can tell, this story is indeed a Totally Jewish exclusive; Google News shows no other results (“Tony McNulty” holocaust). It isn’t too hard to suss out who Tony’s pandering to.
Lord Janner, Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, welcomed McNulty’s views. He said such legislation would be “great”. However he was pessimistic over the chances of such a law being introduced. “Holocaust denial is worse than libel, but it won’t happen. The chances of getting it in the UK are nil.”
At least libel laws are subject to defense, wherein the defendant can prove himself innocent by proving the truth of what he said. With Holocaust laws the only truth that matters is that heresy has been committed.
McNulty added: “The MCB is wrong to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, whatever they feel about other events in history, it misses the point. For all the other atrocities in history, the Holocaust was so mechanised, so formal in a way we have not seen before and happily not since.”
Translation: THE HOLOCAUST is special because non-Arab Semites are special; the 20+ millions (mostly Christian) killed by the Soviets (wildly disproportionately non-Arab Semite) aren’t special.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 04:34 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (31) |
The Austrian government has magnanimously released convicted (and confessed) heretic David Irving.
Or at least, that’s the impression I get. In between telling us the sentences Austria metes out to heretics for their heresy, how evil Austria is for producing Nazis, the right-leanings of the judge who’s cut his sentence short, etc., the non-Arab Semite mouthpiece has overlooked telling us when he’ll be released, or even if his release has been ordered.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 07:21 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (0) |
Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 07:34 PM in Free Speech, That Question Again
Comments (9) |
Swiss minister wants to legalise genocide deniers
Switzerland’s justice minister has called on the Swiss government to reverse a law which makes historical revisionism illegal.
Minister Christoph Blocher is on a campaign to change the law, according to the Neue Zuercher Zeitung (NZZ) newspaper – even if it will impinge upon the sensitivities of minority groups, including the country’s Jewish communities.
Blocher claims that freedom of expression is more important than protecting the sensibilities of minority groups, NZZ wrote.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 04:21 PM in Free Speech
A MEMBER of the British National Party was convicted yesterday of racially abusing an Asian woman, although the victim has never been traced and the exact words that he used could not be heard by the only witness.
Robert McGlynn, 40, was seen shouting abuse at the unknown woman through the open window of his car as he drove through Swansea, South Wales, in June.
He was arrested after a receptionist, Lydia Rees, 43, took down details of his car and reported him to police.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 04:22 PM in Free Speech, Marxism & Culture War
Comments (9) |
BNP teacher can only teach whites
A council has sparked outrage after allegedly ordering a school to make sure a teacher who stood as a candidate for the British National Party only teaches white pupils.
Teachers claim Clive Jones has been kept away from ethnic minority children once his ties with the far-right group became known.
Union leaders have written to Derby City Council accusing it of playing into the hands of the party which has been widely condemned for its extremist views.
I think that this is a wonderful idea, and that the principle implicit in it should be extended further. Socialists should only teach the underclass, gay activists should only teach practising queens and black activists should only teach blacks. Multiculturalists should only teach genetically engineered race-less test-tube babies.
Posted by Alex Zeka on Saturday, July 15, 2006 at 10:07 AM in British Politics, Far Right, Free Speech, Oh Tempora, Oh Mores
Comments (5) |
Holland moves to ban Holocaust denial
When a Dutch family comes back to Holland after eight years of living in Israel, people tend to assume its members are Jewish.
So says Leon Meijer, and he should know. Meijer, who completed his doctorate at the Technion, learned that lesson the hard way when his 11-year-old daughter was told by a classmate soon after her return: “It’s a pity Hitler didn’t finish the job.”
Meijer was shocked not only by the comment, but by the discovery that the Netherlands has no laws clearly outlawing Holocaust denial.
I’m shocked, shocked as well! It’s (not) odd that this is (shocking!) news in the jewish press (for jews), but not in the jewish press (for goyim).
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 06:29 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (5) |
Belarus Jewish school under political pressure
A Jewish kindergarten in Belarus was forced to remove Jewish symbols from classrooms after a prosecutor accused the teacher of violating the country’s religious law.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 07:17 PM in Free Speech, That Question Again
Comments (0) |
Poland cracks down on hate
Poland cracked down on hate speech and Web sites following a knife attack on a man who had been targeted by a neo-Nazi Web site.
Police earlier this month arrested the alleged content provider of Red Watch, the Web site that listed the name and whereabouts of the anti-fascist who was later assaulted by skinheads in Warsaw, and which also promotes hatred of Jews and homosexuals.
There are more than 500 racist and xenophobic Web sites in Poland, according to Never Again, an anti-racism organization, which this month will begin working with police to shut the sites down.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 07:11 PM in Free Speech
Comments (0) |
Holocaust denier draws 160,000 votes
Democrats call AG candidate’s strong showing ‘embarrassing’
MONTGOMERY - Larry Darby believes that Jews exaggerated the Holocaust, that the country should be all-white and that illegal immigrants should be shot on sight.
In Madison County, Darby received more votes Tuesday than his opponent for attorney general in the Democratic primary, Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr.
Huntsville wasn’t alone. Darby received more votes statewide than former Chief Justice Roy Moore did in the Republican primary for governor.
Darby, a Montgomery lawyer, had 52 percent of the county’s votes to Tyson’s 48 percent, though Tyson won the Democratic primary. In fact, Huntsville was the only major metropolitan area that voted for Darby. And he got more votes in Madison County, the third-largest county in Alabama, than former Gov. Don Siegelman, who was running in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.
State Rep. Randy Hinshaw, D-Meridianville, calls the Darby vote totals “embarrassing.”
160,000 voters unfazed by Darby’s extreme views
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Friday, June 9, 2006 at 04:25 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism, U.S. Politics
Comments (13) |
Ahenakew’s conviction overturned
David Ahenakew’s conviction for promoting hatred was overturned yesterday and a new trial was ordered by a judge who questioned whether the former aboriginal leader willfully intended to spread hate when he told a reporter that Jews were a “disease.”
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Friday, June 9, 2006 at 04:07 PM in Free Speech
Comments (2) |
Liberals believe in freedom, surely? That’s what they keep on telling us reactionary, bigoted authoritarians. A number of students at Warwick L’Uni might just disagree, however:
Students at Warwick University have been banned from flying the England flag ahead of this month’s World Cup, it emerged today.
Students have been told that no flags can be displayed at windows before or after the tournament, and that flags of countries which did not qualify - such as Scotland - may not be flown at all.
The university authorities are worried that flying the flag might cause tension between students of different nationalities who live in the halls.
In other words, the ethnic situation at the university is so volatile that even the slightest reminder of the existence of another nation might send many of its students into a genocidal rage. Given what I think about Warwick University, this surprises me not in the slightest.
But surely the university, multiculti authorities should hesitate before admitting that its students are this hate-filled and intolerant of all nationalites other than their own. Might throw a spanner into the wheels of the Undivertable Enlightened Train, mightn’t it?
This is especially sweet and meet as Warwick has long carved for itself a niche as the most “tolerant”, “inclusive”, etc of L’Uni bins. Tolerance? For randy homosexuals, but not for patriotic Englishmen- or indeed patriotic anyones. Inclusive? It effectively excludes from its dominant culture the vast majority of all Englishmen.
The students in question sound like imminently sensible fellows, especially for a place like Warwick, with one exception. One of them said:
The university have treated us with contempt. They originally told us we weren’t allowed flags at all because flags might create an opportunity for violence.
International students have chosen to come to this country so I don’t think they will have a problem with the English flag.
I wouldn’t bet on it. Only too many British residents of a certain extraction regard ther penetration of the West as a continuation of the battle they lost at the Gates of Vienna. But then, given their disorderly behaviour, they aren’t particularly likely to be university students.
One of the ignominies inflicted by the West on its colonial holdings was the denial to them of expressions of their nationality. As I have written before, our ethnic guests are increasingly acting like our pith-helmeted masters.
I have had the doctrine of national liberation rammed into my eyelids by Leftie teachers: why, pray tell, does it not apply to the English?
Posted by Alex Zeka on Saturday, June 3, 2006 at 01:21 PM in British Politics, Education, Free Speech, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Oh Tempora, Oh Mores
Comments (4) |
Unlike your previous correspondents on black-white IQ differences (Letters, March 31), we are specialists on this subject. For nearly 100 years, the data have shown that in dozens of studies throughout Africa, in Britain, the US and the Caribbean, black people have lower average IQ scores than white people. There is a clear overlap in the black and white IQ distributions.
The scientific debate is mainly over the causes of the average differences. We have concluded that genetic factors have a role to play in this difference, as evidenced by the fact that black infants adopted and brought up by white middle-class parents show little improvement in their IQ scores by late adolescence.
IQ is also related to brain size, where the races also differ. It is the lower average IQ scores of blacks that contributes to their poorer performance in school and later on to their lower earnings.
Many other scientists have reached the same conclusion as us. Thus, Frank Ellis has done no more than restate what has been well known and accepted for many decades by those who have expertise in this subject.
J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
The suspension of Frank Ellis by Leeds University reflects the weakness of the academic community as it submits to institutional mob rule.
Those who condemn Ellis should disprove his assertations, not seek to ban him or condemn his views as “abhorrent”. A tightly knit group of politically motivated fanatics and “anti-racist” zealots cannot be allowed to undermine the purpose of a university.
Hanif Lebabi, the spokes-man for Unite Against Fascism, condemned a book he has not read. There is no “Bell Curve theory”, only a book of that name. It is not for his group to decide which ideas can be discussed.
The modern book-burners must be resisted. Ellis must be supported on principle in a landmark case with serious implications.
Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, April 6, 2006 at 11:35 PM in Free Speech
Comments (48) |
On March 13, 2006, John J. Mearsheimer of the Department of Political Science, University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, published on the web in PDF format, “THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY,” available here.
The outfall of course has been enormous, though the publication has been kept out of the mainstream media. I did a Google search ten days after its Internet publication and got 401 hits. Six days later I got 55,000, and today, 22 days later, it is up to 118,000.
Posted by Matt Nuenke on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 10:00 PM in Free Speech
Comments (52) |