Some items of news from the Sunday papers

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 05 November 2006 09:50.

Three-quarters of black males in Britain are on the DNA database. Blame white racism.

Lip-flapper Trevor Phillips - The E-Man - has been making those smooth, self-promotional moves again. This time:-

Race watchdogs are to investigate the national DNA database over revelations that up to three quarters of young black men will soon have their profiles stored.

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), vowed to examine whether the database breached race relations laws following the findings by The Sunday Telegraph. “This is tantamount to criminalising a generation of young black men,” he said.

An estimated 135,000 black males aged 15 to 34 will be entered in the crime-fighting- database by April, equivalent to as many as 77 per cent of the young black male population in England and Wales. By contrast, only 22 per cent of young white males, and six per cent of the general population, will be on the database.

... Mr Phillips disclosed that his officials will investigate whether the policy of retaining DNA from suspects who are never convicted of a crime results in discrimination against black men, who are more likely to come into contact with police than their white counterparts.

... “As enforcers of the Race Relations Act, the CRE will be investigating if this complies with the race equality duty to promote positive race relations. If we discover that the database fails to comply with the law, than we have to consider what legal steps we can take.”

The new figures, calculated from the Home Office’s own projections, will fuel fears that Britain is becoming a “surveillance society” in which some ethnic groups are monitored more closely than others.

So many questions go unasked here ... and all to maintain the fiction that multiracialism can work.

Low IQs are Africa’s curse, says lecturer

One man who does have an answer is LSE lecturer, Satoshi Kanazawa. But then he is that evil old thing, a sociobiologist.

The London School of Economics is embroiled in a row over academic freedom after one of its lecturers published a paper alleging that African states were poor and suffered chronic ill-health because their populations were less intelligent than people in richer countries.

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, is now accused of reviving the politics of eugenics by publishing the research which concludes that low IQ levels, rather than poverty and disease, are the reason why life expectancy is low and infant mortality high. His paper, published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, compares IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries and claims that nations at the top of the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings.

But never fear because there is always a “correct” opinion on the matter.

... Philippa Atkinson, who chairs the LSE student union’s 85-strong Africa Forum and teaches in the school’s Department of Government, said the paper ‘reflects the now discredited theories of eugenics, which should have been left behind’.

‘Eugenics was a very influential discourse for centuries,’ she said. ‘It’s the discourse that colonialism and racism in America until the Sixties were based on, and was part of the basis of apartheid too. Nobody could prove that there are racial or national differences in IQ. It’s very, very controversial to say that national IQ levels are low in Africa, and completely unproven. It’s a surprise that the odd person would try to bring it back,’ she said.

Well, I suppose it’s something that the issue gets an airing. In The Observer, too.

More eugenics

From The Times:-

ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.

The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”

Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child — but a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering”.

Well, the one thing the RCOG proposal is NOT is social engineering in the “gene pool” sense. It might be social engineering in the sense of trying to realise the greatest possible individual happiness. But that’s a rather liberal theme.

However:-

... Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: “Euthanasia for disabled newborns tells society that being born disabled is a bad thing. If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions, it would tell adults with those conditions that they are worth less than other members of society.”

Thus, equality reveals itself to be the polar opposite of either variety of social engineering. Or of anything but the single, inflexible view that all life is sacred.

Unless it’s male ...

BA thinks all males are potential peadophiles

So who the hell thinks up stuff like this?

British Airways has been accused of treating all men passengers as potential sex offenders after it was revealed it has banned children from sitting next to male strangers - even if their parents are on the same flight.

The bizarre regulation came to light when a nine-year-old girl was moved from her seat next to a 76-year-old passenger and his wife on a flight from Malaga to London.

... “When everyone was seated, the stewardess asked my wife if she would sit next to the girl. Frances explained why she couldn’t move and I thought I could resolve the problem by moving up and letting the girl sit between us.

“To my amazement, the stewardess said BA had a rule that no unaccompanied child under 16 may be seated next to an adult male stranger - even if there’s a woman on the other side.

“The discussion went on for several minutes but she refused to back down and said we could not take off until the problem was sorted out. I heard her muttering to a colleague that everyone would have to disembark.

“She didn’t seem embarrassed - just rather irritated that it was taking up so much time.”

Tags: Media

Comments:

Posted by martin_uk on Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:44 | #

The hypothesis that blacks are less intelligent than Orientals is supported in four ways.

1. In IQ tests conducted throughout the world, blacks have scored lower than Orientals. Since the tests were devised by white men, mainly, it cannot be cultural bias in favour of Orientals, since Orientals did not devise the tests. The black/Oriental IQ gap is pervasive: it has been known about for many, many years and is found to be true in every part of the world.
2. The high position of blacks in all the negative social indices - theft, robbery, murder, rape, sexual disease, unemployment, lack of education, poverty and welfare dependency, illegitimacy, and so on, is exactly what one would expect from a group with a low IQ. There are no surprises or anomalies. Suppose that the Japanese in Canada scored low on IQ tests. Then it would be legitimate to ask: Why are the Japs in Canada performing so badly in IQ tests? There must be some kind of bias! This would be a legitimate line of enquiry because we know that Japs do well in IQ tests everywhere else, and are not associated with crime and poverty anywhere. But with blacks it is different. In every part of the world blacks do badly on IQ tests, and in every part of the world blacks are disproportionately poor and involved in crime. There are no surprises. There is therefore no reason to look for an alternative explanation for blacks scoring low on IQ tests in, say, the USA. There is nothing “anomalous” that needs to be explained, unlike the case where the Japs were doing badly in IQ tests in Canada alone, and being useful and productive citizens everywhere else.
3. Africa is worse off now than it was 50 years ago. They are still holding out the begging bowl to the Western nations, and now they are turning to China. (China has enough very poor people of its own, and is surely only looking after its own rational self interest in its dealings with Africa.) Anyway, left to their own devices, blacks have shown a complete inability to build a Western style economy or political system. Somehow, colonialism has been blamed for this, but apart from being 50 years ago, -consider how long it took Japan and Germany to recover from the second world war,-
it turns out that those countries that were part of the British Empire are actually slightly better off than those that were not. (Ghana and Uganda better off than Mozambique and Somalia, for instance.)
4. Everyone who has come into contact with blacks and Orientals will know that blacks are not as intelligent as Orientals. Even those white fools that pretend to believe that blacks are the same intelligence as whites and Orientals will not send their own children to a school with a large number of black pupils.

Why should we talk about black low IQ?

1. Because we can never solve problems if the cause of those problems is never properly addressed. For instance, if we continue to plough money into Africa by giving it to Africans to spend, then famines and droughts will continue. If on the other hand we admit that blacks can’t manage their own economies as well as other races, then the West (or East) could recolonise and build reasonably successful nations on the back or white or Oriental managers. African states were never as well off, relative to the rest of the world at the time, and it even appears relative to NOW, as they were when the British governed.
2. If we can’t discuss black low IQ, then the only alternative explanation for blacks not doing well in white societies or in Africa is “white racism”. Now, as with anyone who has been accused of a crime, white people have, colectively, the right to a defence. If they are accused of holding the black man down, then they have the right to tell their side of the story. By citing the masses of evidence of black low IQ, white people are merely defending themselves against accusations that they are treating blacks unfairly. If blacks complain that we are hurting their feelings, then they should not have accused us of “racism” in the first place!

Posted by Tim Heydon on Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:31 | #

It is difficult to disgree with anything Martin has said.

The fact that the plainly obvious lower average IQs of blacks is denied time and again by white academics, is because any such suggestion is a blasphemy against the most fundamental beliefs of the secular religion of human equality, which involves the ‘logical’ deduction that the inferior performance of blacks must be due to their ‘oppression’ by whites. The cult of sameness cannot survive if the light of reason is shone onto the articles of its faith.

This cult gives some sort of meaning to many otherwise empty lives and is therefore viciously defended by its devotees. It has an internal logic which must deny contradictory exterior facts such as scientific research. It does this by

a) Denying the validity of the research ( eg IQ tests are culturally biased / do not measure anything worthwhile, Eugenics has been discredited). &/or

b) Ad Hominem attacks on the researchers - they are ‘racists’ etc. &/or

c) Appeals to emotion. Eg details of cranial capacity are fundamentally antagonstic to the dignity of human beings; this lecturer has insulted people of other races, etc.

These attudes are widely held and form a formidable barrier to any kind of reasoned debate, not least because those who hold them are in positions of power.

Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:49 | #

martin_uk makes the point: “In IQ tests conducted throughout the world, blacks have scored lower than Orientals. Since the tests were devised by white men, mainly, it cannot be cultural bias in favour of Orientals, since Orientals did not devise the tests.”

This raises a further point, namely, which “white men” devised IQ tests? Judging from what I have read and understood about IQ testing, there is a profound bias toward white urban life styles and against white rural life styles which results in disadvantages for rural white youth, along with several other biases which work to profile IQ scores as higher for members of certain white ethnic cultures and lower for others. IQ testing may be value neutral as between persons from Asia and persons from Africa, but how about value neutrality as between white persons indigenous to Europe and white persons indigenous to Southwest Asia?

Can anyone name, and identify the ethnicity of, the top ten “white men” who devised IQ testing?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:24 | #

That’s one for Chris Brand. You should mail him, Bo.

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:04 | #

If on the other hand we admit that blacks can’t manage their own economies as well as other races, then the West (or East) could recolonise and build reasonably successful nations on the back or white or Oriental managers.

Martin_UK,

I agree that [in the absence of genetic engineering] the only way for black Africa to prosper and live in a civilized manner is to be colonized by whites or northeast Asians who will then need to maintain an apartheid system, treating blacks like a responsible parent treats children. However, is this desirable, let alone feasible? Living among blacks is a big security risk. Blacks will lose no time in resorting to their natural behaviors should a major disaster strike. Even when blacks in the southern U.S. were enslaved/segregated and lived under fear of whites, there were numerous incidents of white women being raped by black men.

Colonization will amount to domination and subjugation, and there are moral issues involved. People should not have to live under subjugation. Additionally, what is the guarantee that after neo-colonization being well established for quite a while, unforeseen events/leftist pressure in a future generation won’t force decolonization and whites once again have to bear the white man’s burden?

Forget colonization. Blacks need to be left to their own devices in Africa. No help other than food and elementary medication should be provided to them. Even if all outside help were stopped, an unlikely scenario, one will only see a drastic population reduction; they will survive as a race.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:25 | #

The cold, harsh spotlight of truth, (although engedered as a by-product of a completely different project), has incontrovertibly shed its light on what voices in the wilderness have been crying out for ages.
Of course, if the passionless and disinterested profiles stored in a police computer say this, scream the lefties, ‘well let us destroy the computers!’.
But hang on, a moment didn’t the arch-commissar of PC in Britain, namely Tony Blair himself,push this project (which would be unthinkable in any other ‘liberal democracy’), as part of his ‘tough on crime’ project?
Beware of the law of unintended consequences!

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:58 | #

martin_uk’s contribution was excellent apart from the intellectually sloppy use of the term ‘Orientals’.