Cultural Marxist Terror in Academia

 

 

 

By Tim Haydon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For most of recorded history, no one doubted the existence of innate differences between individuals and thought nothing of saying so. People were miserly or generous or pleasant or cunning or good-hearted or wicked or hard-working or lazy or greedy and so forth. They were these things ‘by nature’.  Men and women were also perceived as having different natures, just like the animals previous generations were so familiar with. The bull in the field behaved differently from the cows. The cockerel’s nature was not that of its hens; the stallion’s ways could not be mistaken for those of mares. And so it was with men and women.

It was also mostly accepted that the races of the world tended to behave in different ways according to their respective inherited natures. It was ‘in the blood’.  Of course, our forebears’ generalisations about the races were sometimes off the mark.  But in the main, their common sense observations, uncluttered as they were by obfuscating ideology, did a pretty good job.

All that changed with the 1960’s.  Intellectuals began telling people that they shouldn’t believe the evidence of their own experience. They should instead listen to the dictates of philosophy which said that all their observations were mere illusions and that the truth was that there was no difference between individuals or men and women or the races. If there seemed to be, this was only because of the different ways in which these had been nurtured and the learned attitudes of people who thought this. From that time, the common-sense observations of ordinary people began to be scorned as ‘bigotry’ and ‘prejudice’ and condemned as  ‘sexist’ or ‘racist’ or some such term of abuse and remarking on them began in some cases to be criminalised as ‘hate speech’.

Now though, research into genetics is beginning to confirm the truth of much of the common-sense observations of yore. That this is so is filling the scientists and ‘intellectuals’ who bought into the intellectual fashions of recent decades with a kind of dread – dread of what further investigations are likely to reveal. Their response has been to try to deny the validity of what has been already uncovered, to vilify and to gag those who have undertaken this work and to try to deny any funding for further scientific explorations.

The hysteria of their condemnations so far reveals the depths of their fears that they have been terribly wrong and that the people they have smeared as ’bigots’, ‘racists’ and so forth, have been right all along. What follows is a run-down of what has happened at their hands to some of the brave researchers in the fields of truth.

J. Philippe  Rushton who died in October last year, was the Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Toronto who was responsible for perhaps the most striking theory of human development in recent years.  In his ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ (1995)  the results of wide-ranging biometric and other studies of three racial groups, Whites, Blacks and East Asians are synthesised with the r-K Life History Theory.

Rushton’s master-stroke was to realise that the many human characteristics he identified that grouped themselves around the three racial groups he concerned himself with; African Blacks, Whites and East Asians, reflect different reproductive strategies. At one end of the spectrum are the East Asians, who are the most intelligent, have the largest brains, show the most sexual restraint, develop most slowly, live the longest, and are the most law-abiding (or conformist, if you like). This is consistent with having few children but taking very good care of them.  At the other end of the spectrum are black Africans, whose behaviour is consistent with less investment in larger numbers of children. On virtually every scale of r-K behaviour (that is, on a scale of high-investment versus low-investment child-rearing), whites fall somewhere between Asians and Blacks, but are much closer to the Orientals than to the Blacks.

Rushton’s PhD at the London Institute of Psychiatry (He was also later awarded the senior doctorate DSc degree) was overseen by one of the most formidable psychologists of the 20^th Century:

Hans Eysenck. Eysenck made significant contributions to many areas, particularly the study of personality (He was responsible for the tender minded –tough minded spectrum theory), but was the object of leftist vilification when his ‘Race, Intelligence and Behaviour’ came out 1971. Rushton was present at a lecture in 1973 which Eysenck came to deliver at the (leftist) London School of Economics on ‘The Biological Basis of Intelligence’. Rushton wrote, (‘A scientometric appreciation of H J Eysenk’s contributions to psychology’. Personality and Individual Differences.  31 (2001) 17-39),

‘Unfortunately for Hans, the entire first row was made up of Maoists proudly sporting red Mao-Tse-Tung badges in their lapels.  As Hans began to speak, these Maoists jumped forward in unison and physically attacked him’.

Eysenck was marked by courage. He ‘stood firm on the race-IQ issue. He stood firm on the genetics of crime. He stood firm on the issue of sex differences, on the poverty of psychoanalysis….

Little did I know then, sitting with a friend in the eighth row, that not 20 years later, I would experience the same primal encounter.’

Rushton’s own encounter with the leftist / ‘liberal’ determination to shout down, physically repress and otherwise allow ‘no platform’ to any scientific (or actually any) opinion contrary to their own preferred view occurred even before the publication of his book, ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ in 1995, after the Toronto Star began a campaign in 1989, joined by the rest of the Canadian media, to get him dismissed from his professorship at the University of Western Ontario, accusing him of “racism.” He wrote,

‘Students and activist groups .. daily demanded a public forum to air my iniquities. Newspapers ran cartoons of me with a Ku Klux Klan hood on and having a telephone conversation with a delighted Adolf Hitler. The Premier of the Province, while acknowledging that he did not have the power to do so said that he would fire me if he could..…..It bordered on becoming a witch-hunt and I was the centre of media and political attention for many weeks.’

Rushton was subject a police criminal investigation for the promotion of “hatred against any identifiable group.”(He was cleared, the Attorney General of the Province saying that his views were ’loony, but not criminal’). He was assaulted by leftist thugs and forced to confront his accusers in a university hall packed with hostile students and activists. (This piece of organised intimidation can be accessed on YouTube). In return, Rushton never showed anything but patience and courtesy.

William Shockley.  Shockley (1910-89) was the Nobel-Prize winning co-discoverer of the transistor and sole discoverer of the junction transistor. However, he became interested in eugenics in his later career, considering it more important than his work in physics. He was outspoken and forensically analytical in his view that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites and that people of lesser intelligence should be discouraged from having children.

Of course, such views were criticised, not because they were incorrect on the basis of the evidence, but on ideological grounds as ‘racist’.  However Shockley was not intimidated, merely reasserting that the future of humanity was threatened because people with low IQs were having more children than high-IQ people. In a 1980 interview, when asked if his views amounted to racism, he famously answered “If you found a breed of dog that was unreliable and temperamental, why shouldn’t you regard it in a less favorable light?”

Such coldly clinical, not to say brutally honest attitudes, did not go down well with a public which preferred its illusions, so he got nowhere when, in 1982, he stood for the US Senate on a platform calling for sterilization of people with IQs lower than 100. He was ostracised by the scientific community and in his later years was picketed whenever he spoke at an event.

Larry Summers:  Summers was President of Harvard, possibly the USA’s most prestigious university, when in 2005 he dared to suggest that women were underrepresented in the top echelons of the Hard Science Faculties in Universities, not because they were discriminated against but because that compared to men, they simply weren’t good enough. His ‘best guess’ was that ‘in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude.’ Women had ‘different availability of aptitude at the high end.’

He called for clear thinking on these matters. But there is no room for clear, rational thought and freedom of speech where Cultural Marxism is involved. You simply can’t say these things, even if you are President of Harvard. Under the presiding Cult of Equality, heretical thoughts about the non-Equality of the Races, the Sexes, Religions and Cultures are simply not tolerated, regardless, or even because of the evidence.  Summers paid the penalty for his candour. He subsequently ‘resigned’ from his position. He was though appointed as an economics advisor by Obama and is currently being talked of as the successor to Bernanke at the Federal Reserve.

James Watson: Watson is the Nobel-prize-winning co-discoverer of the structure of DNA who suggested in 2000 that dark- skinned people had stronger libidos than lighter-skinned ones. This suggestion has been confirmed by the research of the National Cancer Institute, Jan; 76(1):45-8, which wanted to know why blacks have a prostate cancer risk twice that of white males at age 45. Young black males have testosterone levels up to 19% higher than whites (21% higher free testosterone). Even when adjusted for various factors such as weight, height, drinking habits etc, black levels are up to a statistically significant 15% higher (13% higher free testosterone).

This is in line with J. Phillippe Rushtons r-K theory which accounts for greater sexual activity amongst blacks, as broadly do the finding by Richard Lynn ( Personality and Individual Differences 2012) that while British men have a penis length of 5.5 inches, for the Congolese it is 7.1 inches. Other lengths were; Ecuador 7, Ghana 6.8, Colombia 6.7, Iceland 6.5, Italy 6.2, South Africa 6, Sweden 5.9, Greece 5.8, Germany 5.7, New Zealand 5.5, UK 5.5, Canada 5.5, Spain 5.5, France 5.3, Australia 5.2, Russia 5.2, USA 5.1, Ireland 5, Romania 5, China 4.3, India 4, Thailand 4, South Korea 3.8, North Korea 3.8

The high sex drive and aggressive masculinity of blacks commensurate with their high testosterone levels and their longer penis length might help to explain the attraction that some white females, especially lower-!Q, lower class ones, appear to have for black men. The fact that black women have higher testosterone levels than white females (ie they are more masculine) might help to explain why white men do not on the whole find them sexually attractive, except in the absence of reasonable white alternatives. (One can observe in the street that black /white couples comprise as much as 70%-90% black males / white females.) That at least is the theory of Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, (See under) which does not however take into account the whole story of Racial Inclusiveness / Fitness.

Watson said that extracts of melanin – which gives skin its colour – had been found to boost subjects’ sex drive. “That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.” On October 25, 2007, Watson had to resign from his position as head of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York after he was reported as saying ‘I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa (because) all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.’ Watson had apparently made similar remarks about women, without it seems quite realising how much such suggestions are a heresy against the Cult of Equality, punishable by excommunication.

Watson got his ideas about sub-Saharan Africa after Richard Lynn sent him a copy of his book ‘The Global Bell Curve’. Following the Watson incident, the BBC made a TV programme which attempted to discredit the work of Rushton and also Lynn and Arthur Jensen. (No surprise there. The surprise would have been if the BBC had been biased in the reverse direction, or had tried to be even-handed). These researchers were given just a few minutes each to put their cases, which were then dismissed as ‘unscientific’. The presenter, the Somali Rageh Omar, rather gave the game away about the otherwise obvious bias of the programme when he indicated that he was concerned about their findings because blacks were ‘my people’, an odd remark in a programme dedicated to the proposition that racial differences do not exist. This programme can also be accessed on YouTube.

E.O. Wilson. Wilson is the famed ‘Father of Sociobiology’ which has been defined as ‘the scientific or systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, in all kinds of organisms including man, and incorporating knowledge from ethology, ecology, and genetics, in order to derive general principles concerning the biological properties of entire societies’ and is a Harvard Professor. He was an advocate of “multi-level selection theory”, a development of the idea of “kin selection”, which holds that other biological, social and even environmental priorities may be behind the process, but now favours ‘group selection’, the view that evolution is driven by the differential survival of whole groups of organisms.

Wilson attracted great opprobrium from the usual quarters when his book ‘Sociobiology: The New Synthesis’ was published. In it, he reduced complex behaviour in animals to patterns with a genetic basis and  extended that analysis to humans.  Wilson wrote that humans always have been characterized by “aggressive dominance systems, with males generally dominant over females.” He argued further that, “Even with identical education and equal access to all professions, men are likely to continue to play a disproportionate role in political life, business and science.”

Naturally, feminists, who like other proponents of the egalitarian agenda seem to think that scientific findings should conform to their ideological wishful thinking rather than the other way around, were seriously aggrieved by this, as were those who saw an ethnocentric or racist basis to his judgments about the determination of behaviour.

Wilson was shouted down at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1978 and had a pitcher of water poured over him. Two of his colleagues at Harvard and other scholars signed a letter of protest, and there were public protests on his lecture tours.

Thomas Bouchard. Bouchard, a professor at the University of Minnesota, was responsible for The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA), which perhaps more than any other has destroyed the left-liberal assumption that intelligence and other characteristics are independent of heredity; that on the contrary any differences are entirely due to the environment and so are infinitely malleable.

This assumption is responsible for the injustice of our social policies which are predicated on the basis that, if (say) there is underrepresentation of women or some racial group in any walk of life, this must be entirely due to ‘oppressive’ social structures which can be rectified by political management. These policies sail on regardless of such studies because it is very difficult for the ruling cliques which worship in the cult of equality and their fellow travellers who pander to this or that group which benefit from such policies to accept that their sweeping assumptions of equality  are fantasies.

MISTRA was designed to determine the extent that genetic inheritance is responsible for various human characteristics, and how much can be attributed to environment. Monozygotic twins are genetically identical. If they were separated at birth and reared in different environments, the respective input of genetics and environment in the outcomes can be assessed.

The first pair of such twins that MISTRA evaluated was particularly striking. The two men met when they were 39, and found that both had been in law enforcement but were now working as firemen. Both had loved math in school and hated spelling. Both did woodworking as a hobby, and their favourite vacation spot was Pas Grille Beach in Florida. One had named his son James Alan and the other had named his James Allan. They looked very much alike, had the same smoking habits, and always held a beer can with a pinky under the can. Both had put on 10 pounds at the same age for no apparent reason.

Of another pair, one twin was reared in Germany and the other in Trinidad, and they had never met before they came to Minnesota for testing. When they arrived at the airport each was wearing a light blue shirt with epaulettes, and wire-rimmed glasses. They both collected rubber bands, which they wore around their wrists, and washed their hands both before and after using the bathroom. Both liked to startle people by sneezing loudly in elevators.

In another case, both of a pair of MZA women wet the bed until age 12 or 13. When they were teenagers they started having nightmares about the same things: fishhooks and doorknobs. Both had problems with nightmares for more than ten years.

Another pair of MZA men had been overweight until middle school and then became quite thin. They had speech problems for which they received therapy in kindergarten or junior school. Both were diagnosed as hyperactive at about the same age, and both were actively and openly homosexual.

A pair of female MZA twins from Australia found each other because of a case of mistaken identity. They both worked as fashion buyers for competing department stores, and a customer accused one of moonlight for the competition. They were both very elegant, dressed with the same style and the same kind of jewellery, smoked the same cigarettes, and had the same hairstyle, posture, tastes, and speaking voice. One MZA pair of male twins were both fitness fanatics who ran their own body-building gyms. MZA twins generally have the same posture, arrange their hands and legs in the same way and have other similar personal tics while DT (fraternal) twins do not.

MZA twins were so remarkably similar that MISTRA attracted a lot of media attention, but this did not lead to the funding needed to keep the programme going. There was in fact intense resistance to research that contradicted the orthodox belief that in the right environment we can all be made happily equal and equally happy. One grant-application reviewer for the USA National Science Foundation wrote that MISTRA would “fan the controversy regarding heritibility [sic] of intelligence . . . rejection is the only intellectually defensible course for NSF.”

However, the USA Pioneer Fund, which also supported such scholars as Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn (Rushton actually ran the fund for a period), provided much of the funds that were needed. Critics complained that Pioneer money was “tainted” because they associated it with right-wing attitudes, but these critics of the Pioneer Fund were really critics of the research itself.

Herrnstein and Murray.  These researchers were of course the co-authors of perhaps the most famous book on racial difference in recent decades, ’The Bell Curve’. This book argues that those at the top of US society, the “cognitive elite”, owe their position to their high largely inherited IQ’s and that others owe their lower status to their lower ones.  These latter include blacks who on average are less intelligent than whites. Nearly all inequality between Blacks and whites is due to racial differences in cognitive ability (IQ), not to racism or “ethnic oppression.” American society is threatened by strong “dysgenic” pressures, meaning that low IQ people, especially blacks and immigrants, are out- breeding everyone else.

Herrnstein and Murray’s book was attacked, not because of the lack of coherence of its arguments as such, but in an ad hominem sort of way as it were, fundamentally on grounds of its ideological unacceptability. It was ‘academic Nazism’ and ‘viciously racist.’ It was claimed that there was no scientific basis to its arguments and that these relied on “tainted” sources. Thus in the New York Review of Books, (12/1/94), Charles Lane tried to dismiss their work by tying them to writers who had edited and contributed to the journal, ‘The Mankind Quarterly’ which was apparently some kind of sin since it is not left-liberal and had received research money from the Pioneer Fund.

Linda Gottfredson.  Gottfredson is a professor of sociology at the University of Delaware. She has straightforwardly stated that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites and have diminished capabilities in work and educational settings. As a result of her open honesty and plain speaking, her University rejected a $174,000 Pioneer fund grant toward her work, citing the fund’s racist history.  Gottfredson had to sue, claiming she was a victim of political correctness (She was), and the school eventually backed down to avoid a protracted legal battle.

In 1990 Gottfredson and J Philippe Rushton, together with Harry Weyher, the president of the Pioneer Fund, wrote a letter to the ‘The Independent’ in Britain saying that “governments that want ‘effective’ public policies must listen to scientists who say blacks are genetically less intelligent than other races.”

Gottfredson, who seems fearless, also ran into flak from leftist batteries because she supported the conclusions of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in ‘The Bell Curve’.  In 1994, she drafted the letter Mainstream Science on Intelligence to the Wall Street Journal, which was a public statement signed by 51 university professors specialising in intelligence and related fields on the validity of the concept of intelligence and IQ testing. This was thought necessary in view of the media hostility to ‘The Bell Curve’ and what were considered the misleading reports in them regarding academic consensus on the results of intelligence research. This letter was subsequently reprinted in 1997 in a special volume of the American Journal, ‘Intelligence’.

Kevin B. MacDonald:  Macdonald is a professor of psychology at California University, Long Beach. Using evolutionary psychology, he has developed a theory of Judaism as a “group evolutionary strategy.” According to this theory, traits attributed to Jews such as higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentrism have eugenically evolved to enhance the ability of Jews to conspire to out-compete non-Jews for resources while undermining the power and self-confidence of the white majorities in Europe and America, The latter, he insists, Jews seek to dispossess, working indirectly through such ideologies as neo-conservativism which, like Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism, uses arguments that appeal to non-Jews, rather than appealing explicitly to Jewish interests.

MacDonald questions claims that racial differences are unimportant or illusory and that racial and cultural assimilation will be an easy process. He believes that blacks and Latinos are by and large genetically intellectually inferior to whites and Asians. He stated in connection with mass immigration that:

‘The alternative (to having an ethno state from which non- Europeans are excluded) faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans’ promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness—an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.’

Many might think that this sums the situation up very neatly. Unsurprisingly in the present climate, the University Senate and his colleagues in the university’s psychology department have formally dissociated themselves from his work. The Senate described his views as Anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric. Apart from this condemnation on the grounds of Cultural Marxism, no substantive criticism of the correctness of his opinions appears to have been offered. Apparently, while Macdonald’s work may be described as ethnocentric and anti-semitic and justify attempts to gag and possibly to remove him from his post, the theory that Jews are anti –white and ethnocentric is either dismissed out of hand or is beyond criticism.

Arthur Jensen:  Jensen, who like J Philippe Rushton died in October last year, was rated as one of the 50 most significant psychologists of the 20^th Century. He was a major proponent of the heriditarian position in the nature / nurture debate. He concluded from his studies that the Head Start programmes designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in his estimation, heritability of IQ was over 0.7 of the within-race IQ variability, and the 0.3 left over was due to non-shared environmental influences. ( With J Philippe Rushton, he established that there have been no black gains in reading and mathematics in five decades). The vast amounts of public money poured into this scheme and other ‘affirmative actions’ on the assumption that American blacks and Hispanics are equally intelligent to whites and to other races and that their poor relative performance is due to racial discrimination has been largely wasted.

After Jensen’s paper was released, students and faculty staged large protests outside his University of California Office at Berkeley. He was subject to abuse and to threats of violence. He was denied reprints of his work by his publishers and was not permitted to reply in response to letters of criticism—both extremely unusual policies for their day.

Jensen’s 1998 ‘The g factor: The Science of Mental Ability’ suggests that a genetic component is implicated in the white-black difference in IQ .

In 2005, Jensen’s article, co-written with J Philippe Rushton named ‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability”, was published in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law. They present ten categories of evidence in support of the notion that IQ differences between whites and blacks are partly genetic in origin.

Glayde Whitney: Glayde Whitney was a behavioural genetics and psychology professor at Florida State University. Whitney drew the wrath of the liberal establishment when in his Presidential address to the Behavior Genetics Association in 1995 he suggested that there was a need to investigate the possibility of genetic factors behind the high incidence of black crime in America.

Whitney caused further controversy when he wrote a sympathetic foreword to David Duke’s autobography, ‘My Awakening’. He described it as ‘’a painstakingly documented, academically excellent work of sociobiological-political history … provid[ing] on the order of a thousand references and footnotes.’ He wrote,” I discovered that Duke’s ‘racism’ was not born of hatred, but of science and history. In reading Duke’s work, Whitney noted, “As the hard scientific data came in, it became more certain that genetic differences (heredity) played a large role in the discrepancy. But in public it became politically incorrect to even to acknowledge that there was a difference.”

Whitney argued that opponents of genetic research into racial differences are positioned against the scientific tradition of open inquiry, maintained even when one detests another’s subject. When he received death threats he stated that “races are different for many genetic systems that influence everything from behavior and psychology to physiology, medicine and sports […] Screaming nasty words does not change the reality.” Whitney’s views regarding race and intelligence prompted the Florida Senate to pass Resolution 2742 in 1999, “condemning the racism and bigotry espoused by Florida State University Professor Glayde Whitney.”

Chris Brand: Brand was a lecturer in Psychology at Edinburgh University. After an almost year-long investigation by the University, he was sacked from this tenured post which he had held for 27 years because of his views on Race, IQ and women and because of remarks he made about paedophilia.

His 1996 book ‘The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications’ led to accusations of ‘scientific racism’ and sexism and his lectures were protested and closed by the Anti Nazi league of Edinburgh. Brand describes himself as a ‘race realist.’

Geoffrey Sampson: Sampson is Professor of Natural Language Computing in the Department of Informatics, University of Sussex. He was elected as a Tory to Wealdon District Council in 2001. In 2002 he resigned having been attacked by Labour Party and Lib Dem ministers and councillors for publishing an article on his website, ‘There’s Nothing Wrong with Racism (Except the Name)’. The Conservative Party Central Office endorsed his resignation saying that it was “in the best interests of all concerned …the Conservative party is opposed to all forms of racial discrimination”.

Satoshi Kanazawa: Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. He got himself into serious trouble when he 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. Kanazawa was accused of ‘reviving the politics of eugenics’ by publishing the research which concluded 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, compared IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries and claimed that nations at the top of the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings.

‘The Guardian’ said that ‘the reaction to Kanazawa’s paper would ’reopen the simmering debate about whether academics are entitled to express opinions that many people may find offensive’. No surprise there. The (’Liberal’) Guardian will always be opposed to the expression of scientific opinion if it is less than flattering to some non-white male group which will be ‘offended’ by it. Apparently truth should be concealed or never revealed or isn’t truth, if this is the case. It’s called sweeping unpleasant facts under the carpet; deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room, etc etc. If you buy The Guardian, you won’t get the whole picture. So why bother?

Kanazawa also found himself in hot water because of his research into the attractiveness of the women of different races. ‘Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races…women with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive,’ he wrote. His article, published on the U.S.-based website Psychology Today, caused international outrage.

Professor Paul Gilroy, a sociology lecturer at the LSE, said: ‘Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution’. Again, it is, it seems, not so much the correctness or otherwise of such research that matters to the likes of Gilroy, but whether or not it is politically acceptable.  As Kanazawa  says himself, ‘The only responsibility scientists have is to the truth. Scientists are not responsible for the potential or actual consequences of the knowledge they create.’

Kanazawa, Richard Lynn, J Philippe Rushton and Helmuth Nyborg (with Jim Flynn of the Flynn effect) once posed for a photograph with the caption, ’The Four most hated psychologists in the world.’

So far despite investigation by his University and letters written to newspapers signed by many academics, Kanazawa has survived, quite possibly because, not being white, he has been held to be less guilty than if a white person had made the same arguments.

Armand Leroi: Leroi is Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology at Imperial College, London. He attracted much hostile attention when in 2005 he published an article ‘A Family Tree in every Gene’ which underlined the importance of gene expression in confirming the reality of Race. Naturally, any scientific work which serves to deny that race is merely a ’social construct’ must be not just wrong, but evil, because leftist ideology says it is. So far, Leroi has survived academically.

Frank Ellis: Ellis is the lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies at Leeds University who dared to support the ‘Bell Curve’ theory. This theory of course holds that black people are less intelligent than whites – enough to have Ellis figuratively burned at the academic stake. But Ellis also believes that women did not have the same intellectual capacity as men and backed the ‘humane‘ repatriation of ethnic minorities. Whilst the University appeared initially to have tried to back Ellis, in the end, it seems, it failed to hold out against the pressure from protesting students and teaching staff. Ellis took early retirement.

David Coleman: Coleman is University Professor of Demography at Oxford. He helped to found MigrationWatch. His researches include ‘the comparative demographic trends of the industrial world, particularly the reasons for the persistence of substantial international differences in birth and death rates and in family structure. .. Also immigration trends and policies and the demography of ethnic minorities and….. housing policy.’

Coleman’s warnings about the immigrants’ takeover of Britain through their differential birthrates have, like the work of the other academics mentioned here, attracted hostile criticism from the usual quarters. When a University immigration group wrote to the University authorities demanding Coleman’s sacking, he said, ‘It is a shameful attempt of the most intolerant and totalitarian kind to suppress the freedom of analysis  and informed comment that it is the function of universities to cherish’ .

Like the others mentioned above he has been the victim of academic gagging.

Richard Lynn:  Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Ulster is currently probably the most prominent British Scientist in the field of IQ and other racial differences. Among his writings are ‘IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Human Evolution, Behaviour and Intelligence)’ co-authored with Tatu Vanhanen), ‘The Global Bell Curve’ and ‘Race Differences in Intelligence.’

It is no coincidence that Lynn’s prominence in this field arose after his retirement from the University with the honorific title ‘Professor Emeritus’. As with others mentioned here (those who have not been sacked or who thought it best to leave their posts, that is) Lynn was gagged from discussing racial matters whilst actually in post. Like J Philippe Rushton, he has only managed to get his work known through small private Publishers and through the support of the Pioneer Fund.

Helmuth Nyborg: Nyborg, Professor of Developmental Psychology at Aarhus University is probably Denmark’s best known and most controversial Psychologist. He has identified a 5-point average IQ difference in favour of men. Through research, Nyborg has also concluded, inter alia, that white people tend to be more intelligent than blacks.  Nyborg has also warned about the decline in Western IQ brought about by mass immigration from low IQ countries.

In 2005, Nyborg published his paper, ‘ Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status’. Even though this passed peer review in an expert scientific journal, Aarhus University investigated accusations of scientific fraud in the results. The resulting report concluded that there although there was some statistical errors (which were not in fact of major significance in the results) there was no evidence of fraud. Notwithstanding this, the University reacted to the report by suspending Nyborg in 2006.

And so on and on.

What do we gather from all of this?  That in highly important areas of research the claims of Academic Freedom are either under serious and sustained threat or are actually dead in the era of Cultural Marxism oppression. Just as the freedoms of ordinary people are barely alive in a society where who they must mix with and what they must not say are dictated by law.

 And that if highly important and respected Scientists like those mentioned above can be attacked, sacked, vilified and silenced in the way they have been for pursuing lines of research which conflict with the doctrines of the cult of equality, it is certain that there are many, many more in the shadows who substantially agree with their views but who lack their courage and determination, preferring a quiet life and living with its perniciously evil lies.

Even given understandable fears of what an exclusive emphasis on race differences can lead to, what we have now is censorship and oppression, pure and simple and the result is not the oppression of women and /or racial minorities but the oppression of the rest.