This article is republished by HonestThinking 19.02.2009. The views expressed are the author’s, and do not necessarily agree with those of HT. Hyperlinks added by HT.
This is the original text of the article Professor Ellis submitted to the Leeds Student in 2006. It was published in an edited form. Because of this article, he was suspended from Leeds University. Later that year he accepted early retirement.
By Professor Frank Ellis
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, Taboo:
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?’ (pdf) 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 know 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."
Back to HonestThinking