So where are the cries of academic freedom?

A senior academic is being investigated by University College London after he was found to have hosted an annual conference in which speakers debated ideas on eugenics and intelligence.

Since 2015, Dr James Thompson has overseen the London Conference on Intelligence, which has seen a researcher who has previously advocated child rape online speak on campus on three occasions.

The university was last night attempting to establish how the honorary lecturer was able to host the event without informing senior officials, who were unaware of which speakers would be attending.

Dr Thompson, a member of the university’s psychology department, has now been blocked from hosting any future events while an investigation is carried out.

It came as details about the conference emerged yesterday, revealing that papers presented at the event include research on the alleged links between genetics and racial disparities in intelligence.

It’s amusing, no, that when eugenics was a standard left wing belief universities could and did discuss it not just with impunity but approval. Now that exactly the same beliefs are now seen as somehow right wing they are to be drummed off campus.

20 comments on “So where are the cries of academic freedom?

  1. Eugenics is neither left or right. It’s just common sense.

    Both the negative (sterilisation in Sweden in the 70s, or Israel today) and positive (Singapore encouraging postgraduate women who have been brainwashed by media to have kids) kinds.

  2. This holiday, I read G K Chesterton’s work on eugenics (free on Kindle now).

    It wasn’t a left wing idea; it was an everyone but bloody G K Chesterton idea. Churchill included for a while.

    Some of the utter bollocks of the legislation put forward prior the 1913 bill were shocking.

    If only the Nazis had been huge supporters of Mathusianism, we could have killed that rubbish dead for a generation too.

  3. Leftscum like the Fabians etc were all over Eugenics until their fellow socialists under Adolf gave it a bad name too big to ignore. Then it went into the memory hole along with the Left’s adoration for Mussolini in his early days.

    Purge this fucking Uni. Kick these “Senior Officials” out on there arses sans compo/pensions. Then Purge the entire education system until there isn’t a single leftist in it.

    If that useless cow May were any shade of use, along with the equally useless skirt parade she has now boosted they should be on this matter. She has however MUCH more important stuff to attend to than the CM takeover of the UK. Fox hunting, commandeering your dead body and creating a Great Northern Forest. Obviously such matters are keeping voters on the edge of the seats and should be what the stupid cow and her gang exercise their worthless BluLabour arses over.

  4. There are two slightly different issues here. Can you go to UCL and advocate eugenics? Probably. If you encourage women to abort children with Down’s syndrome you would be perfectly mainstream. They are more likely to ban you if you did not. If you do research on actually getting rid of the genes responsible for bad things, they will shower you with money and awards.

    And yes, it was a very Left wing idea for a long time. Take a look at the Galton Institute – at one time it was basically the Fabian society on their days off:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_Institute

    Mind you it has always been cross party. George H W Bush stood for election in Texas despite his open support for abortion (for poor Blacks it seems).

    However differences in intelligence between different races is simply what the science tells us. That is not quite the same. I am sure there is enormous overlap between the two camps, but they are not quite the same. I doubt you could argue the races exist at all much less are different at UCL these days unless you observe Althouse Rule and claim Blacks are superior.

    This was not a fringe event though. Richard Lynn spoke.

  5. This appears to have come to light thanks to the report in the current Private Eye according to which Toby Young attended these gatherings.

    FWIW, and while I’m here, the racial dimension to intelligence strikes me as interesting but largely irrelevant given that intelligence is only one aspect of individual character; we’ve all (I’ve certainly) known people who were highly intelligent but deeply amoral and people who were as thick as mince who wouldn’t hurt a fly.

  6. AndrewWS – “the racial dimension to intelligence strikes me as interesting but largely irrelevant given that intelligence is only one aspect of individual character; we’ve all (I’ve certainly) known people who were highly intelligent but deeply amoral and people who were as thick as mince who wouldn’t hurt a fly.”

    If we were interested in moral character that would be true. If we were interested in something like employability, we might well be interested in IQ. When considering that every person of African origin we let into the country is going to leave a legacy of unemployment, violent crime and stupid voting patterns for instance – even if that individual is very smart. And wouldn’t hurt a fly.

    By the way, why is this a surprise? As our own Ironman has shown, at length and considerable volume, even here people think these ideas – no matter how mild or mildly expressed – are evil and should be banned. We won the Cold War in theory, but we lost the struggle for hearts and minds. We are all Stalinists now.

  7. When I first read The Bell Curve it smashed my little snowflake heart to smithereens. Then I had another think. If the research was genuine, and it seemed to be, and there was a disparity in IQ across races and socioeconomic classes, we could respond in either of two ways.

    1. Pretend that it doesn’t exist and leave the less gifted to sink or swim on their own.
    2. Acknowledge that it does exist and take appropriate steps to improve life outcomes for the less gifted.

    IQ is an accident of birth. Lower IQ is not the individual’s fault, and certainly not their choice. By and large, smarter people are able to look after themselves. Action to improve the lot of the less intelligent, and make them more productive, benefits us all.

  8. AndrewWS: IQ is positively correlated with job performance, from doctors, to privates humping boxes in the logistics side of the US Army. It enables high future-time orientated behaviours that enabled the West to be built, from saving, to forming stable marriages. Steve Sailor has a good primer for those less familiar with the subject ( http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-do-we-keep-writing-about-intelligence-an-iq-faq/ ).

    While it is true that IQ averages, especially IQ averages for groups, do not necessarily predict moral character for individuals- there are one or two honest pikeys out there, after all- it is also true that IQs significantly below the Anglo norm are associated with higher crime rates. Since the 1970s, American researchers have found that folks with IQs in the 75-90 IQ range (too dumb to make good money legally- smart enough to want it- not dumb enough to get caught or shot dead immediately) committed more crime than other demographics. IQ scores in this range (typical for African-Americans, 1-1.5 SD below the American-American norm) were more predictive of criminal behaviour than race, class/socioeconomic status, or the two factors combined.

  9. All good stuff but James Thomson has the SJW and CM warriors coming knocking. They took Toby Young down and mob momentum is still there. They want blood.

    His blog will provide lots of offensive material even if it’s all meticulously referenced.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/

  10. “When considering that every person of African origin we let into the country is going to leave a legacy of unemployment, violent crime and stupid voting patterns for instance – even if that individual is very smart.”

    *Every* person on Earth is of African descent. That’s where humans evolved.

    But of course, the problems you mention are easily solved without resorting to racial profiling. We simply deport everyone who breaks the law, is unemployed, or votes for any party I happen to disagree with. Whatever country they’re from, whatever colour their skin. It solves the problem entirely, and is far more effective and efficient than the racist/nationalist proxy, because it gets rid of the stupid/criminal white Brits, too!

    Of course, it’s the stupid/criminal white Brits in the main who want to bring in racial profiling, because they think that will get rid of the competition in their own social niche. “If we set up a closed shop,” they think, “then employers will be *forced* to deal with us, and we can demand higher wages. We’ll be rich!” The British 1970s legacy of crime, unemployment, and voting stupidly wasn’t caused by and damn Africans…

  11. @ NiV
    There is significant reason to doubt that every person on earth is of African descent since recent archaeological finds in China include proto-human finds older than any yet found in Africa.
    Please do not go off into irrelevant and dubious comments when countering blatant and offensive lies by SMFS – just point out that they are stupid lies.
    On reading his lie I immediately thought of the second black guy I met who was then doing a post-grad degree at Oxford and was the image of a public-school-educated gentleman, except for being far more intelligent than the image, and has subsequently had a distinguished career.

  12. “There is significant reason to doubt that every person on earth is of African descent since recent archaeological finds in China include proto-human finds older than any yet found in Africa.”

    That’s news to me. Tell me more!

    “Please do not go off into irrelevant and dubious comments when countering blatant and offensive lies by SMFS – just point out that they are stupid lies”

    And why should anyone believe me if I did?

    I’ve got no problem with “offensive”. The point of free speech is so that people will be willing to express their stupid beliefs openly, which allows the errors in them to be pointed out in public. Hidden opinions fester.

  13. NiV: Lol, you literally think that all people who happen to be maybe 1SD in IQ below your population average should be fucked over and have their wages lowered by bringing in people from a population with a population average IQ 1SD below our population average?

    How has libertarianism never actually worked anywhere with arguments like this?

  14. @ NiV
    Not what I was looking for but http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/taiwan-jaw-bone-connected-origins-humanity-020183
    Well, I *do* believe you when you point out some of his/her/their stupid lies.
    I didn’t have a problem with “offensive” when one could say “step and outside and say that” [incidentally I never did but one of my childhood friends who wasn’t a fighter said that he did – and then finished his pint in quiet comfort – the ability to say it meant that when I weighed 8-and-a-half stone, people like SMFS and Mr Ecks were less offensive to me than to him]

  15. NiV – “*Every* person on Earth is of African descent. That’s where humans evolved.”

    Let’s see is NiV this dumb or is he just playing dumb in order to distract attention? I think perhaps it is time to embrace the power of “and”.

    “But of course, the problems you mention are easily solved without resorting to racial profiling. We simply deport everyone who breaks the law, is unemployed, or votes for any party I happen to disagree with.”

    So the choice is we can remain a White liberal democracy or we can become a Chocolate All Sorts police state? That is such an interesting choice. Hmmmm. How about we remain a liberal democracy and we don’t do what you want? I think most people might agree with that.

    But of course you are being an ar$ehole again. Because you can.

    “Of course, it’s the stupid/criminal white Brits in the main who want to bring in racial profiling, because they think that will get rid of the competition in their own social niche.”

    Uh huh. Good for you. How very clever.

    john77 – “Please do not go off into irrelevant and dubious comments when countering blatant and offensive lies by SMFS – just point out that they are stupid lies.”

    I notice that you have not been able to point out a single thing I said that is not true. Or stupid for that matter.

    “On reading his lie I immediately thought of the second black guy I met who was then doing a post-grad degree at Oxford and was the image of a public-school-educated gentleman, except for being far more intelligent than the image, and has subsequently had a distinguished career.”

    Yes, we know. You once met a clever Black man. You tell us. All the time. One.

    So what is the lie you think I said?

    NiV – “I’ve got no problem with “offensive”.”

    Unless it is about your favorite topic – Trans. Then that sets you off.

  16. “NiV: Lol, you literally think that all people who happen to be maybe 1SD in IQ below your population average should be fucked over and have their wages lowered by bringing in people from a population with a population average IQ 1SD below our population average?”

    No. I think *everyone* should be fucked over and have their wages lowered to the minimum the employers can get away with because that’s *good*. That’s how life gets cheaper, technology progresses, economies get more efficient, and everybody gets richer. The idea that you can make yourself richer by excluding the competition and thereby increasing everybody’s wages is what fucked us all over in the 1970s. It’s a typical socialist argument, and economically illiterate.

    Nationality is treated like a labour union, the nation is a ‘closed shop’, and immigrants are ‘scabs’. And there’s nothing a closet-socialist hates more than a scab.

    As for IQ, if IQ is what you’re really worried about, then test IQ. Don’t test skin colour, or nation of origin, because that would be testing the wrong thing and stupid.

    Like I said, we test the IQ, criminality, employment, and voting patterns of *everybody*, black or white, native or foreign, and we deport *everyone* who fails the test. We’ve got an IQ test. It’s easy to apply and reliable. So we don’t need to use any other variables or metrics – unless of course we’ve got a different agenda, are lying about this being about IQ, and are just trying to exclude the competition. I mean, it’s fairly well known that racists test less intelligent than average, too.

    But if it’s really IQ you care about and not race, then you ought to be just as keen to chuck out all the white Brits who score less than 110, too. Are you?

    “Not what I was looking for but http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/taiwan-jaw-bone-connected-origins-humanity-020183

    Mmm. Well that dates from between 10k and 100k years ago, but the initial exodus from Africa was about 500k to 1.8m years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_hominin_expansions_out_of_Africa Not sure that proves the case. But thanks. It was interesting.

    “Well, I *do* believe you when you point out some of his/her/their stupid lies.”

    But should you? Do you believe me because I’ve made a solid case, or because it was what you already believed before I started talking?

    “Hitler & Stalin using the excuse to kill serfs was good.”

    Oh, those crazy right-wingers, Hitler and Stalin…

    (So I’m told.)

    “Let’s see is NiV this dumb or is he just playing dumb in order to distract attention?”

    Or if he’s a lot less dumb than you are?

    “So the choice is we can remain a White liberal democracy or we can become a Chocolate All Sorts police state?”

    No. The choice is between a white liberal democracy, a white police state, a multicoloured democracy, and a multicoloured police state. You’re asking for a white police state. I’m asking for a liberal society where people are free to do what they like, go where they like, and trade with whoever they like without authoritarian prodnoses interfering and telling them they can’t, and where irrelevant characteristics like skin colour or shoe size are ignored.

    Personally, I have no particular liking for a society segregated on IQ, either. (The market sorts all.) But *if* you’re going to argue that we need to filter society because of some people having low IQ, then it’s pretty bloody obvious that you need to *filter it on measured IQ*. If you don’t advocate that, then you’re clearly lying about what you really care about.

    “Unless it is about your favorite topic – Trans. Then that sets you off.”

    I don’t have a problem with “offensive” on that topic, either. It’s the same with people having a go at fat people, or smokers, or Jews, or gays, or – as we have just seen – black people. There are authoritarians on both sides of the political aisle – bigots who repress minorities, and zealots who repress bigots – and I’ll argue with the stupid arguments of them both.

    I’m no more obsessed with it than you are. You’re the ones who keep on bringing the subject up. The only reason you have an issue with me on it is because I *disagree* with you, and you’ve got no evidence or coherent logical argument with which to refute me, so you get upset about having your stupid bigoted and wrong opinions constantly being exposed as such. You’re echo chamber is being polluted by alternative beliefs (horror!), and throwing a sweary temper tantrum doesn’t make the nasty man go away.

    There’s a simple expedient. If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it. If you’re asking that *you* get to constantly discuss it but *only your opinions are allowed*, then you’re doing the same thing as the “safe spaces” crew, and it would be grossly hypocritical of you to then complain about them. This is how free speech works. If you don’t like it, and want to stop it, don’t pretend that you’re not an enemy of free speech.

    I *like* free speech, and I *enjoy* arguing with people who disagree with me. I assume you do too, or you wouldn’t do it. So why complain about it?

  17. NiV – “The idea that you can make yourself richer by excluding the competition and thereby increasing everybody’s wages is what fucked us all over in the 1970s. It’s a typical socialist argument, and economically illiterate.”

    Except it is, you know, true. The West has always excluded the competition in the sense that they stopped people from Asia and Africa moving to Europe until the present lot of treasonous scum. The result was richer workers. Which also seems to have helped with Europe’s industrialisation as richer workers means that they were able to move into their own start ups much easier.

    “Nationality is treated like a labour union, the nation is a ‘closed shop’, and immigrants are ‘scabs’. And there’s nothing a closet-socialist hates more than a scab.”

    Indeed. Economics is not the be all and end all here. Because there are quality of life issues too. Just ask the girls of Rotherham.

    “As for IQ, if IQ is what you’re really worried about, then test IQ. Don’t test skin colour, or nation of origin, because that would be testing the wrong thing and stupid.”

    Assuming that IQ does not revert to the mean. Which it seems to do. So if an African with a high IQ moves to the West, it is likely that his children will be closer to the African average.

    “I mean, it’s fairly well known that racists test less intelligent than average, too.”

    Is it? I suspect that non-racists are by and large hypocrites – and the sort of people who need the good opinion of others.

    “Or if he’s a lot less dumb than you are?”

    That ship sailed a long time ago.

    “No. The choice is between a white liberal democracy, a white police state, a multicoloured democracy, and a multicoloured police state. You’re asking for a white police state.”

    Actually that is not the choice and that is not what I am asking for. The multicoloured democracy is not an option. There are none. The only possible democracy is an ethnically homogeneous one. What I ask for is a democracy. Which we are losing because of our more Vibrant immigrants. As we see with May’s restrictions on the internet. The more Vibrant we become, the less democratic.

    “I’m asking for a liberal society where people are free to do what they like, go where they like, and trade with whoever they like”

    Unless they have low IQs. Then you want to deport them. Oh wait, no you don’t. You lie. Of course now we can’t even go to parts of London. Because of your “liberal” society. And people get arrested and put in jail for saying that Islam is wrong. Or correctly pointing out what was happening to the Rotherham girls. So you’re even more full of sh!t than usual.

    “and where irrelevant characteristics like skin colour or shoe size are ignored.”

    What makes you think skin colour is irrelevant?

    “I don’t have a problem with “offensive” on that topic, either. It’s the same with people having a go at fat people, or smokers, or Jews, or gays, or – as we have just seen – black people.”

    And there you go again. You just can’t help yourself. Paragraphs of ranting about it.

  18. “Except it is, you know, true.”

    So much for Bastiat and all the free market economists…

    “Assuming that IQ does not revert to the mean. Which it seems to do. So if an African with a high IQ moves to the West, it is likely that his children will be closer to the African average.”

    No,they’re closer to the western average, because IQ is related to education and culture. When black infants are adopted and raised by white families, they grow up with white-typical levels of educational attainment. Skin colour has no detectable causal influence.

    But even supposing your theory was true, which it’s not, it would still be fixed by my proposal, because as soon as the children got old enough to be tested for IQ, they’d be out, same as any other British-born kid.

    Like I said, if IQ is really the concern, then testing IQ is the only answer you need. But that’s precisely the sort of basic logic needed to pass an IQ test – so it’s not really surprising that racists don’t get it.

    “Is it? I suspect that non-racists are by and large hypocrites – and the sort of people who need the good opinion of others.”

    And if everyone was secretly racist, none of them would have it. It does conjure up a bizarre scenario, though. Everybody pretending to an opinion none of them have, each of them thinking that everyone else does. An amusing thought. But it seems unlikely to me.

    People with delusions commonly invent conspiracies to explain why nobody else appears to think as they do. The figure everybody else *does* think as they do, but they have to hide their opinions in case “they” find out.

    The curious thing about your theory is that it doesn’t explain why such people don’t need *your* good opinion of them. They seem to think that doesn’t matter, almost as if they really believed that racists were a tiny minority of mental defectives on the fringes of society?

    “The multicoloured democracy is not an option. There are none. The only possible democracy is an ethnically homogeneous one.”

    We live in a country that has had one wave of immigration after another. Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenot, and Indian. After a few generations, most people aren’t even aware of the distinctions. And the UK’s strength has always been that it is a cultural melting pot, adopting and adapting the best from any cultures it comes across. The French try to keep their language pure, but English adopts foreign terms with cheerful bonhomie.

    A lot of British take some pride in the fact.

    “What makes you think skin colour is irrelevant?”

    The evidence. What makes you think shoe size is irrelevant?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.