-- THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGIST
WHOSE BOOK ON INTELLIGENCE WAS WITHDRAWN FOR POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS
BY 'PUBLISHER' JOHN WILEY (NEW YORK AND CHICHESTER) IN 1996
[How to see Chris Brand's book? Or to find
a summary of it together with other writing by him on race, IQ
and most other topics in the study of personality and individual
differences? -- Go to the end of this article.]
I am a pariah trying to speak through my gag. My publisher (Abominable Wiley) has condemned me for racism and withdrawn my book ('The 'g' Factor'); the Scottish press insists on its Divine Right of Context-Free Soundbite and refuses to print what I have actually said about adult-adolescent paedophilia; and Edinburgh University (EU) -- having given in to my critics at every opportunity since Wiley DePublisher broke contract with me on April 17, 1996 -- has suspended me from teaching and forbids me to use its Internet facilities to explain my views on race, paedophilia, IQ or anything at all. Making the censorship of me extra-effective, few people want to hear what I have to say: most people find it easier to believe that my reported views do indeed put me 'beyond the pale', that my conduct simply *must* have been blameworthy at some point along the line since de-publication day, and that, anyhow, my censorship means they could not read my book even if they wished to do so.
Still, there are some kindly lights amid
the encircling gloom. Thanks to Edinburgh's computer cafe's, the
Internet itself, and supporters who have understood the technical
possibilities, I am able to 'broadcast' worldwide for 24 hours
per day -- a vast improvement on the situation of heretics of
the past. In particular, people who search the Net on topics like
psychology, personality, heredity and environment will be bound
to come across my 'Personality, Biology and Society' -- my coverage
of the entire range of topics that compose modern differential
psychology (including sex, crime, politics, psychometrics, education
and eugenics). You could say I have the good fortune that my metaphorical
mobile phone is still working. From my island in the middle of
the metaphorical village duckpond, I can thus tell you what happened
to me and to the cause of realism in differential psychology.
Just please prepare yourself for some decision-making -- for my
own account of events differs from what you will hear in many
a village pub from plenty of my fellow psychologists.
According to many of my colleagues, I talked myself out of a readership for my book back in April by gratuitously telling a newsie that I was a 'scientific racist' -- a description of their position that my hereditarian pals, Professors Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, had long and sensibly refused to accept. After that initial blunder, I then embarked on a childish campaign against my own Vice-Chancellor, a non-psychologist who had never read my book but -- while strongly denouncing my publisher's withdrawal as "abominable" -- had reasonably told the Scottish press that he found my reported views "false and personally obnoxious." My campaign against Principal Sutherland and my snubbing of the well-meaning efforts of Provost MacCormick and the University Chaplain did nothing to persuade EU students that I was repentant about either my 'racism' or the 'sexism' of which the students themselves had more expressly accused me. Finally, carried away with my own notoriety, I sought to link my name to that of a Nobel Laureate accused of paedophilia by saying -- with astonishing insensitivity to the current media climate -- that paedophilia was often harmless. No wonder I am suspended! The only thing that mystifies such colleagues is that I have not already been sacked outright for the embarrassment that I have caused to Edinburgh University and the discipline of psychology.
Essentially, there are four main complaints
here. I will reply to each of them.
Wiley DePublisher had never done much to promote 'The 'g' Factor' (TgF). Of course, I had told them it might sell like 'The Bell Curve' if they played their cards right; but, even in late 1995, Wiley's outpost in Chichester, UK, had not seen, read or heard of 'The Bell.' Thus, when the Chichester branch arranged two phone interviews for me with up-market London newspapers in April, I gave of my time generously (perhaps 11/4 hours to each newsie).
I tried to move the interviews across the main topics in TgF and towards my educational proposals for allowing more choice in state schools by parents and children -- especially choice of 'stream' or 'track.' Generally, I felt happy enough with how things went. However, there were pressures to focus on race even though this is not a big topic in TgF nor one on which I have anything especially new to say. In particular, I could see I was being expected to be wary and apologetic about the politically incorrect views of my friends in the (largely 'hereditarian') London School of psychology.
For years, the 'liberal'-left critics of IQ have standardly smeared psychologists like Sir Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, Art Jensen and Phil Rushton as 'racists' -- or, when critics were being polite, 'scientific racists.' Critics knew no differential psychologist could fight back once they had made such talk common media parlance. At the same time, differential psychologists were expected to deny -- inevitably somewhat defensively -- that they were what their critics standardly claimed them to be. It was a peculiar game; and, offered my turn to play it, I declined to make the statutory denial. 'Yes,' I said instead, 'I am indeed what it is conventional for 'anti-racist' critics of IQ to call a 'scientific racist'; and I am proud to be one.' At some time, an eighteenth-century 'conservative' had said 'Yes, I'm a 'Tory' [Irish bog dweller] and proud of it.' Similarly, around the same time, some 'liberal' said 'Yes, I'm a 'Whig' [Scottish cattle rustler].' In the 1960's, some American Negro said 'Yes, call me what you honkies call me among yourselves -- 'Black.'' Likewise, I hoped to turn the tables on those who thought they could make me or my friends look remotely shamefaced about our academic work and views. I accepted I was a 'scientific racist' -- in quotation-marks.
From the newsies' reactions during the interviews, I thought I had handled the race question well. I had not given in to 'Angst' and the demand for a show of White guilt; I had implicitly put the likes of Steven Rose ii and Stephen Jay Gould iii on the spot; and the journalists *seemed* to understand what I was getting at. (Famous last words!) Anyhow, when readers saw all the 'scientific racism' in TgF (ho, ho), they would realize that what was being called 'scientific racism' was nothing more than a sensible 'race realism', so the *last* laugh would certainly be on Rose and Gould. Moreover, my book had by then been on sale in the UK for six weeks -- rather successfully, Wiley had written to me -- and reviews would be appearing in newspapers and magazines at any moment. Perhaps I would even have the media laughing at the lunacy of hardcore social environmentalism and 'anti-racism' by the end of April....
What I did not know in April, 1996, was that Abominable Wiley, -- as their New York HQ withdrew the book before it could go on sale in the States -- would be able to claw back most of the copies they had issued to British bookshops. What about the reviews? This remains one of the big mysteries of the whole affair. Probably the book had been binned by most of the fifty London review editors who received it as too boring for words; but, alternatively, behind the scenes, Wiley may just have been more active and organized than my own experience of them would lead me to think possible. One review appeared -- a pretty favourable one, in 'Nature.' I was delighted: 99% of psychology books never earn a review in 'Nature', let alone receive a recommendation as making a real 'contribution.' I waited for the next reviews. But I waited in vain.
To cap it all, most psychologists happily believed what they read in the newspapers about my 'racism' and supposed wish for instant eugenics,[iv] and made no effort at all to check the story with me. Even my closer international colleagues in differential psychology showed little interest in seeing the book when I offered it free on floppy disk (so long as they each brought in a few more 'readers' who would also send their disks for me to fill). Far from seeing the opportunity to deal a major rebuff to PeeCee unrealism by condemning Wiley's behaviour, psychologists sat on their hands. Thus I was left on my own as a self-styled 'scientific racist' -- a far cry from being the psychologist who triggered a chorus of jeers at the 'liberal'-left's risible, twenty-year over-use of that label.
So had I made a mistake? Well....er....No.
In May, and even June, it would have taken a lot to make me believe
that I would not soon find numerous, articulate and determined
defenders. Anyhow, absolutely no-one even *tried* to persuade
me of what I just had to learn for myself over the next two months:
that PeeCee is now an entrenched religion in the West. The 'Right'
may have seen off socialist economics both at home and abroad;
but the 'Left' of the 1960's has completed its 'long march through
the institutions' and especially dominates the universities, the
media and the publishing houses. The modern Right regards its
own success in economics and international politics as partly
due to its cutting its ties with 'Old Right' attitudes like nationalism,
militarism, punitiveness about crime, anti-homosexuality, anti-feminism,
anti-Semitism and, of course, racism. For its part, the moderate
British Left -- New Labour -- is 'tough on crime' [and the causes
of crime], keen on NATO, and plans to keep Trident, introduce
'fast track learning' in the egalitarian comprehensive schools
and to bow to Scottish nationalism. Having embraced so much 'Old
Right' material, it has no need to flirt with racism as well --
especially since the embourgeoisement of the one-time proletariat
requires Labour's electoral appeal to be to 'minorities' of every
stripe. In April, 1996, I was far from alone in thinking that
censorious de-publication would find itself swiftly opposed by
all those many politicians who pride themselves on defending liberty
in the West. We *all* had to learn that, today, the freedom to
be a race realist is one to be enjoyed strictly in the privacy
of one's own home -- especially when the person who holds such
views has been condemned not only by his abominable de-publisher
but also by his own university principal and by his students.
As Summer Term started in Edinburgh, the 'Anti-Nazi' League students (and their non-student organizers) called for my lectures to be boycotted. (If the boycott was inadequate, they would howl me down instead -- as the eventually demonstrated in October.) At this point, Principal Sir Stewart Sutherland chose to seize his own moment of glory with the Scottish press by condemning what he had heard of my views as "false and personally obnoxious." Immediately, I called on him to correct the press reports (which were that he condemned my views 'tout court' -- forgetting about the 'what he had heard of' them'). However, Sir Stewart had so conspicuously enjoyed himself with the rat pack that he felt he could hardly oblige me by any kind of retraction. Essentially, he was thus giving the green light to all comers to try to throw me in the duck pond.
At one point, in June, I was able to ask Dame Stewart what he thought my views were. It turned out his ignorance was complete. For example, he thought I had claimed the Poles to have a low IQ. (I had told Olga Wojtas, of 'Times Higher',[v ] Dinesh D'Souza's storyvi that Muslim scholars thought that Slavs, as well as Negroes, were deficient in intelligence -- and explained to Olga that this *invalidated* any claim that the Muslims had a well-thought-out and well-substantiated racial theory! Thus had the Dame chosen to learn my 'views'!) In September (in preparation for a settlement that was being worked out), Dame Stewart eventually wrote to 'The Scotsman' newspaper to say he didn't know my views and thus would not have been able to condemn them even if he had tried. But no-one took any notice of this peculiar lettervii -- certainly not the newsies.
It is true to say that the Principal's condemnation
of me had at least given de-publication a local and newsworthy
dimension. In contrast, Abominable Wiley themselves just wanted
to buy me off [first with £3K, later with £6K] and,
after April 17, would do nothing to attract the dread attention
of the press. Yet how different things would have been if Dame
Stewart Sutherland, after first perhaps making an exception of
one or two of my views, had provided me with legal assistance
to force Wiley to honour their contract with me! As it was, after
giving the Principal a few weeks in which to withdraw gracefully,
I had no alternative but to denounce Dame Stewart: intentionally
or not, she had plainly made herself my chief public enemy.
Why did I also have to do battle on accusations of 'sexism'? Why did the girls of the Psychology III class seize the opportunity to turn on me? (By contrast, Psychology I and Psychology IV students stayed largely neutral; and quite a few Psychology II students were supportive [notably the brighter studentsviii].)
It is true to say that I have always given priority in my own lecturing to presenting ideas that seem interesting and relevant evidence that is up-to-date. I presume intelligent students can master the (pretty dull) history of psychology via the plentiful textbooks with their cartoons and other 'visual aids.' Of course, these once reasonable biases of mine are today quite out-of-date: most 'students' need -- and certainly demand -- 100% spoonfeeding, to be followed eventually by exam questions that are clear trigger-stimuli for regurgitation of the numbered points that the lecturer had first provided. The idea is that the lecturer's knowledge should appear in the students' examination booklets without the minds of the students having needed to intervene in the transmission process.
Thus I have sinned. Many times. Moreover, with the 1995/6 third-years, I could provide few of the much-desired visual aids.
(1) I was introducing these students to Christopher Badcock's evolutionary-psychological version of Freud[ix] which is itself an articulate argument that uses hardly more visual aids than did Freud himself in the writing that won him the Frankfurt Prize for Literature.
(2) Badcock's argument is that several basic ideas of Freud's make evolutionary sense. One of these is 'penis envy' -- always a touchy subject with official feminists. (Would the Reverend MacCormick really have desired a visual aid at this point?...) Badcock thinks penis envy is a sensible evolutionary adaptation by girls to the fact that mothers favour sons. (Sons give mothers their first opportunity to pass on their genes in *quantity* -- rather than via the *quality* route that is all that is open to females seeking to optimize their own immediate fertility.) Penis envy directs a girl's attention unerringly to where she can reclaim parental resources that, from her point of view, are being wasted. For example, she can proceed by flattering her brother or by telling mother of his misdeeds (the latter activity sometimes being called 'prosocial aggression' by female psychologists). One might have thought this would prove an attractive thesis to feminists -- stressing as it does how females are sensibly programmed by evolution to make the best of their biological situation. But whether it is right or wrong or a matter of individual differences proved of no interest to the third-year feminazies of 1995/6. Today, the mere suggestion that girls may sometimes feel inferior to boys must be rejected with outrage (except as a reflection on the bizarre 'constructions' of late capitalism and patriarchy).
(3) I simply lacked the technical competence to make up many visual aids for my October 1995 lectures on Freud etc. Because I have long been Bad Boy Brand (hereditarian, 'racist', begging-for-nothing, much cited, reviewing in the best [paid] places), Edinburgh University had only in August supplied a computer for my office, so I was very much at the beginning of mastering the routines of drawing and churning out transparencies for the overhead projector.[x]
As Freud used to say, life is over-determined.
Anyhow, all these factors contributed their few penn'orth to lively
scenes in Psychology lecture halls of Autumn, 1995. Some of the
third-year feminazies rebelled; and I let them have it with both
metaphorical barrels. Tensions were not calmed by my setting an
essay on 'The mediocrity of women' -- which feminazies wrongly
interpreted as being about the 'inferiority' of women. Was I 'getting
at them'? Well, a bit.... I had seen how the previous 1994/5 third-years
had bridled at Freud as if it were 1900; so I had resolved to
spell out the proto-Freudian case better if I could. Then, for
Christmas 1994, a trendy ex-student had sent me some paperback
Camille Paglia.[xi] Now, Paglia's sympathy
for Freud (and astrology) is the kind of thing that is unthinkable
within the piety of modern psychology. Like me, Camille Paglia
believes in the intrinsic importance of a person's sex and sexuality.
So the 1995/6 feminazies of Psychology III were eager to have
a go at me when the opportunity arose in April, 1996.
Having taken on 'antiracists', Dame Stewart Sutherland and assorted feminazies, what was the point of opening yet another front -- against the child abuse industry? Surely I should have realized that the sickeningly lowbrow Scottish press (combining nationalism, moralism, socialism and sexual titillation in equal measure) would seize their opportunity to bring down a 'democratic elitist' English intellectual who had already been singled out for destruction by his publisher, his principal and his students?
My Internet NewsLetterx[ii] is the 'sine qua non' of my views on paedophilia coming to public attention at all, so a few words about it are in order. Essentially, the NL -- updated almost daily -- has been my way of presenting my defence in detail to any who would listen, and of maintaining awareness of 'The 'g' Factor'. (Throughout de-publication, I have had no lawyer, no politician, no body of psychologists, no newspaper and no millionaire to assist me.x[iii]) Thus I had to keep the NL at once interesting and truthful: I needed to draw in psychologists and newsies surfing the Net, and to keep them coming back for more. My only hope was for it to become known that the 'censored IQ psychologist' could be found on the Net and that (just as in my book) what he had to say was acceptable and even well worth reading. Naturally, given my position of 'realism' about race, sex, IQ and much else, I infringed treasured sensibilities occasionally. -- The hypocritical Editor of EU's 'Student' newspaper criticized me for listing nicknames for female genitalia. (At the same time, his own organ was paying to send EU students to experience 'no touch' 'dream experience' sex cafe's. Anyhow, my listing of beaver, lovehole, pussy, quim, etc. was a plainly justifiable -- though, with hindsight, nai've -- attempt to bring Netsurfers and 'search engines' to visit my Website.)
Yet, though it was meant to interest punters and to show me openly at work as a psychologist, my support for Nobel Laureate Carlton Gajdusek was also entirely genuine. When I saw pictures (in the US libertarian magazine 'Heterodoxy') of 73-year-old Gajdusek being bundled into a paddy wagon in the middle of the night surrounded by eager newshounds and an array of policewomen with nothing better to do, I was quite simply furious. Not only did I know that academic research showed non-violent adult-adolescent paedophilia to do (on average) no demonstrable harm; but Gajdusek's plight reminded me powerfully of my own -- under attack by the odious agents of PeeCee in a manner resembling nothing other than a witchhunt. When I came to compose the NewsLetter the next day, October 16[xiv] it seemed entirely obvious to raise the question of whether a trial of such a distinguished medical man more than ten years after apparently minor offences could truly be in the public interest.[xv]
Did I not show poor judgement in publishing this piece? -- And even reckless disregard for the reputation of my university and the discipline of psychology?
(1) Since June, on the instructions of Edinburgh University, I had not used my EU Home Page to publish the NL. (The University had ostensibly wanted the NL removed from my Home Page with them because of its criticisms of Dame Stewart and the Reverend MacCormick [who had been judge and jury in the witchhunt against me through the Summer Term and was to become my official 'accuser' over my support for Gajdusek].) Everyone was thus fully aware that, in what I said in the NL, I was emphatically not speaking for Edinburgh University -- indeed, quite the opposite!
(2) I did in fact choose my words unusually carefully. I especially made clear that I was not defending the kind of paedophile who exploits immature boys from unhappy or non-existent homes -- though, heaven knows, for some poor boys that form of affection is quite often the best they ever receive. In particular, I quite deliberately mentioned summarily my own experiences with paedophiles as a choirboy (while pointing out that these were not sexual experiences for *me*). Not wanting critics to say that what I was writing came only from 'the ivory tower', I was indicating that the authority for what I said was personal as well as academic.
(3) Because some of my NL material was headed for the Net within a day or two of my drafting it, I had always taken precautions. Often I would e-mail draft copies to close supporters first, inviting comment and correction. In particular, I had told the US supporter who was letting me use her Website for the NL that I freely invited her to edit and censor what I wrote. She was not a psychologist and I did not want her to defer to me and let out material that might annoy non-psychologist supporters or in any way put her Website at risk of being closed down by her site administrator. Thus I had arranged a 'superego'!
(4) Quite unknown to me, my 'superego' did indeed go into action on this occasion (as on a few other days). Without telling me [she maybe felt a bit embarrassed, being herself a person of broadly libertarian persuasions], my friend never 'put up' my material for October 16 on the Net.
(5) Those who maintain that I have brought psychology into disrepute have so far shown no sign of having read my views in full, of being to the smallest degree cognizant of the research literature, or even of knowing the distinction between a paedophile and a pederast.[xvi] Far from bringing psychology into disrepute, I have drawn what should be welcome attention to the most important finding of the last ten years' research in psychology: that, contrary to 'liberal'-left mythology, people are *not* the hapless victims of their environments, upbringings, passive experiences and 'situations.'[xvii]
On November 8, Scottish newspapers carried
their usual context-free soundbites of my views and I was suspended
from teaching and administration by Edinburgh University. So how
had the press obtained the story? Well, as far as my records show,
I had put the Gajdusek piece into e-mail to some two dozen TgF
supporters, to several journalists who had been 'friendly', to
the Editor of 'Student' and to the University Chaplain.[xviii]
So it was one of these who, without checking whether the piece
had been published on the Net, gave the story to the Scottish
'Daily Mail' and 'Daily Record.' Far from it being myself who
had 'put the University's reputation at risk' it was almost certainly
some *other* member of the University! Of course, the NL had always
been an attention-getting device. But it had not been my particular
aim to seek attention for my views on paedophilia. I claim no
special academic expertise on paedophilia; moreover, in the case
of Gajdusek, the precise charges against him have never been made
known in the press coverage that I have seen.[xix]
Nor had I by omission or commission brought the University into
disrepute. In particular, I had taken due care and also obeyed
all the injunctions I had received from the University as to dissociating
the NewsLetter from them.[xx] What had happened
flowed quite simply from the Abominable Wiley's condemnation of
my views as "repellent" and from Dame Stewart's concurrence
with that PeeCee opinionation.
Such is my defence against the four main allegations that have been levelled against me to the effect that I brought my censorship, suspension and forthcoming disciplinary proceedings very largely upon my own head. What critics forget is that all these unhappy events derive from the more general cause of PeeCee and its particular foci in the fulminations of Wiley DePublisher, Dame Stewart Sutherland, student feminazies and the Scottish press. Anyhow, it is not just me who suffers modern censorship. In July,[xxi] Wiley dished out the same treatment[xxii] to Arthur Jensen -- the London School guru who has always scrupulously avoided antagonizing 'antiracists' and the liberal left. Most recently ('Sunday Times', 22 xii 1996), the views of Richard Lynn on current dysgenic trends in the West, have been condemned in public by two politically correct British geneticists who could plainly not even have read Lynn's work for his new book, 'Dysgenics' (Praeger) was not then published. Today, the West's egalitarian, multicultural religion, PeeCee, is a dominant and dangerous force. Attempts to blame its operations on its own victims, like me, merely indicate that practitioners of PeeCee still have a residual sense of shame.
Being on the island in the middle of the
proverbial duckpond is not without its compensations. As people
say, I have learned who my friends are. I have hopefully found
a proper description, 'race realism',[xxiii]
for the position on race of most psychologists of the London School.
I have learned a fair amount about the Internet [not enough for
the liking of my young advisers, of course....]. I have plenty
of time for reading about my new hero, William McDougall. My own
name is now a household word.... at least in homes that take the
'Grauniad', the 'Funday Times' and the 'Sunday Torygraph.' And
at least I am alive, unlike the many witches that Scotland was
the last European country to be burning in its moralistic censoriousness
of old. Very properly, a TgF supporter reminded me recently of
what Freud said when told his books were being burned by the Nazis
in the streets of Berlin. "I regard that as a sign of progress,"
Freud said. "Three centuries ago, they would have been burning
For a PHOTOCOPY of the book, send stlg30 and a label bearing your address to:
Chris Brand; 71, South Clerk Street; Edinburgh EH8 9PP; UK
For a COPY ON DISK, send a formatted, high-density disk with s.a.e. to Chris Brand; 71, South Clerk Street; Edinburgh EH8 9PP; UK
together with the names of three other people who will be doing the same.
When I receive from each their disks, s.a.e.'s and names of three further new readers, I will copy all the book's documents to you. In turn, I will fill up the disks of your other three people when their own new readers have made contact.
Please note the above offers may not continue
for much longer because I am now being offered re-publication
by a well-known academic publisher of psychological works in the
1. For a Summary of the book, previous NewsLetters and others' comments
and reviews, see the Internet URL sites:
2. For my 'downlow' article for young Blacks, 'Get Real About Race!' see:
3. QUOTATIONS about INTELLIGENCE
(Measurement, Psychological bases, Nature/Nurture questions,
Importance and practical relevance)
including THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GROUP DIFFERENCES
( in Age, Sex, Class, and Race)
My anthology of Quotes, with a little introduction to each section,
is back on the Net at <http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/quotes/>.
4. For more coverage of 'heterodox' intellectuals writing on IQ, sex differences,
race, crime and other topics that are sensitive for the 'liberal'-left,
Edinburgh University has been drawing up charges against me since November 8. When they have completed this evidently arduous process, I will have a month in which to set out my defence in writing, should I wish. Then the Principal will decide whether to proceed to mount a university 'tribunal' which would hear evidence in public. Action on any verdict would be decided by the Principal. After that, I could, under Scottish law, take the matter to an Industrial Tribunal.
I will continue to publish the NewsLetter,
will provide an 'intellectual autobiography' of myself [at http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/],
will be writing a 'review of reviews' of 'The Bell Curve', and
will be working on the planned biography 'top psychologist who
spoke out', William McDougall, MB, FRS.
i When writing TgF, I knew that, in the late 1970's, the Nobellist William Shockley had won a libel action against a magazine that had likened his eugenic views to those of Hitler. So how had the label 'scientific racist' had been allowed to catch on? What I hadn't realized was that, though Shockley technically won his case, he had been awarded no damages or costs.
ii Professor Steven Rose is a well-known neuroscientist at Britain's Open University. He is active in The Anti Nazi League. Rose's views on the impossibility of calculating the heritability of traits are discussed and rejected in TgF.
iii Professor Stephen Jay Gould is a distinguished palaeontologist at Harvard University. He is best known in psychology for his book 'The Mismeasure of Man' (1981, Norton) which seeks to deny that there are real individual differences in general intelligence (the 'g' factor). His views are discussed and rejected in my own book.
iv I had spelled out what would be a sensible set of birth control / family planning arrangements for girls who wished to drink at late-night parties and were not prepared to use fellatio, contraception or abortion. These arrangements would most obviously involve selecting a high-ish-IQ sexual partner who would himself be capable of the necessary self-restraint or would at least make a valuable contribution to the genes and environment of any resulting child. However, I pointed out -- as I do in TgF (Chapter 3) -- that such arrangements would only seem really necessary to utopians who wished to improve the quality of the next generation; that the arrangements would recommend themselves as much to environmentalists as to hereditarians; and that my own immediate proposal was actually -- as Sir Cyril Burt's had been -- for educational reform (TgF, Chapter 4; 'Intelligence 22', 3, 311-326).
v Formerly 'Times Higher Educational Supplement', this is the weekly newspaper for academics in Yukay.
vi In 'The End of Racism' (New York, Free Press, 1995).
vii 'Jocksperson' readers must have been mystified as to why, in five months since de-publication, the Dame had not managed to read TgF for himself and make up his own mind as to whether my views were or were not "false and personally obnoxious."
viii My four chief student supporters from Psychology II gladdened my heart by all coming in the top 10% of the Class in the final results. But the girl who did best -- almost gaining the Class Medal -- said the other TgF supporters would have done still better if they had been more prepared to "lick arse." Apparently it is widely believed by EU students that good results depend on obedience to and flattery of professors and postgraduate demonstrators.
ix 'PsychoDarwinism: The New Synthesis of Darwin and Freud', London, HarperCollins, 1994 (paperback 1996).
x Edinburgh University refuses to provide the useful old epidiascopes that once allowed a lecturer to display directly, with magnification, any page of any book that he had taken from his office shelves to the lecture hall.
xi 'Sex, Art and American Culture' (New York, Vintage, 1992). For the first published result of my vacation reading of Camille Paglia, see my ''g', genes and pedagogy -- a reply to seven lamentable chapters' in 'Current Topics in Human Intelligence 5' (Norwood, NJ, Ablex).
xii The TgF NewsLetter can be found on the Net at: <http://www.webcom.com/zurcher/thegfactor/index.html> and <http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/>.
xiii In particular, the political Right -- on which I had thought I would be able to rely, however reluctantly, if the worst came to the worst -- has proved completely useless. I have had just two offers of re-publication from small US mail-order publishers -- and for me to end up selling just a few hundred copies of TgF to right-wing 'extremists' is precisely what Wiley's modern censorship was intended to achieve.
xiv For my statement in full, see 'Paedophilia Corner' at <http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/>.
xv Some may say it is 'incest' that Gajdusek committed with his then 14-year-old son; and that, whatever precisely he was guilty of, Gajdusek was anyhow in serious breach of trust as an adoptive parent. Yet what kind of 'trust' could Gajdusek be thought to have undertaken when allowed to adopt no less than *twelve* boys without an adoptive mother being anywhere in sight? Gajdusek hardly seems to have pulled the wool over anyone's eyes as to what were his motivations and what would be the nature of the family experience that he would be providing. Eight of his 'sons' appeared with him at his Stockholm Nobel Award Ceremony in 1976.
xvi See the NewsLetter for December 11, 1996.
xvii See my Quotes V, on nature/nurture issues at <http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/quotes/>.
xviii The Chaplain, Iain Whyte, was at that time was professing to wish to help students who had been upset by my views. -- This was at a time when I had been in the news for being appointed and then quickly demoted as Convener of the Psychology Department's Ethics Committee.
xix A sympathetic whole-page article on Carlton Gajdusek's case can be found in 'Times Higher' for November 15; but the charges themselves had still not surfaced from the Maryland judiciary (who had by then postponed any trial till 1997).
xx On Saturday, November 9, in order to make my full statement of October 16 available to journalists, as a corrective to the summary and sensationalist reporting of my views that had already occurred, I did indeed put the statement up at my own EU Home Page. But this was only because my Princeton friend was away and because of the need to quieten the press -- the University's own objective; and I had sought Provost MacCormick's permission on November 8, but had no reply from his office. It was this November 9 move that led the University to try to cut me off from their e-mail facilities and, when that failed, to demand that I use none of their Internet facilities at all.
xxi See NewsLetters for mid-August.
xxii Strictly, Jensen was non-published rather than de-published. Wiley had sat on Jensen's manuscript for nine months before sending him a curt note to the effect that they didn't feel he was their sort of author.
Regrettably, the term was sometimes used with approval by European
Fascists around 1930. However, I am no kind of nationalist, socialist
or collectivist -- largely the opposite; and I see no point in
jettisoning such a succinct descriptor, especially when London
School psychologists themselves have come up with nothing better.
Phil Rushton and Richard Lynn sometimes call themselves 'race
scientists'; but this term lacks any distinctively hereditarian
commitment -- one could be a 'race scientist' and come to ovewhelmingly
social-environmentalistic interpretations of available data.
|Cycad Web Works Mon Nov 19 10:37:24 EST 2018
: # 1 : last modified 21/5/97 |
Chris Brand viewed by firstname.lastname@example.org