大象传媒

If Gordon Brown is still considering calling a general election shortly he must expect that the economy is going to implode fine style within the next 18 months. If all the false money of house price growth evaporates in a housing market crash the Tories cut in inheritance tax may be insignificant for all the ten bob fat cats who hope to gain. At the same time the welfare state will be systematically dismantled when most people who loose their jobs are likely to need it. Will the ten bob fat cat electorate vote to destroy their potential lifeline just at the time they will most probably need it. The Tories will no doubt put welfare standards back into the 1930s.

Ten-bob fat-cat electorate? I suppose (post 1) you also believe the electorate are so uneducated and selfish that elections should not be held at all, and the country continue under the management of those who know best.

On the topic of the 大象传媒, is this such a big sin? The Palace stated that HM did not walk out, and the responsible controller resigned following the inquiry. Surely this is a sign that something is right, not wrong.

Queen Row

I have to ask - if the Queen is not storming out of the photo session with Annie Leibowitz, then is she storiming into it? - for she is clearly storming somewhere and from something.

Is this the case of the 大象传媒 having to sacrifice a head on the block to provide a scapegoat again to satify senior executives - or to palcate the Queen's embarassement.

They don't have to accept Peter Fincham's his resignation.

Have you learned nothing fromn the Gregg Dyke affair

Again, the Queen was clearly in a huff - so what was happening

Shouldn't voters be given lessons on the cost implications of e.g. demands for more very expensive drugs, alterations in taxation etc. Trying to read Gordon Brown's mind about election dates is futile and a complete waste of resources that could otherwise make us all think. There are more hours of broadcasting than ever in both visual and audio media; people speak faster and faster on some channels yet the public cannot understand that services are costly if decent reward is to be available for public servants who are in the same awful market for houses as eveyone else and if resource availability is to be increased.
The vote was hard won and is treated with contempt.

Post # 3

In actual fact I believe that elections are fair enough if they are fought under proportional representation, the Scottish system seems to be a good model to copy. The electorate can vote for an MP whilst at the same time for the party of their choice ( not necessarily the same as the MP ) and total votes from the whole county count. Just leaving the balance of power to a few marginal seats is probably the reason why British governments have been so bad over the past 60 years. If anyone gets a huge majority the country is subject to whatever quasi-religion the party in power subscribes to, usually the bidding of large scale party donors. Incidentally I hate the Lib-Dems since they went eco-fascist and dropped the 50p top rate of tax. However a coalition of all the best brains from all the parties is likely to give a better result in the longer term, it worked well in WW2.

Given that David Miliband* (25th Sept, Newsnight) said there won't be a UK referendum regarding the EU Reform Treaty:

and given that William Hague said that it's very much like the
shelved Constitution:

a few points in the context of a) the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:

with all the talk of an opportunistic snap election, it might be worth giving the points below a little thought.

First, note that this EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is not, of
course, to be confused with the similar b) EU Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR):

or with c) the 1998 UK Human Rights Act (which is the part of the above
which we enacted in 1998), and it most certainly shouldn't be confused
with d) the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

(used to prosecute war crimes), despite the fact that the Reform Treaty cross references a, b & d in one way or another.

Whilst the UK has made it clear that a) will not be law in the UK (we
have an opt out), if one looks at Article 3(2) which pertains to the
selection of persons (eugenics), it's stated that this refers to the
'Statute of the International Criminal Court' adopted in Rome on 17 July 1998 Article 7(1)(g). But this pertains to war crimes, not to medical routine peacetime practices and genetic screening, but can anyone envisage the UK legislating as China did in 1995?

In 1995, China enacted its 'Law on Maternal and Infant Health Care' which has been described in the West as 'eugenics' legislation. This will contribute towards the reduction of dysgenesis within its population (that's all that 'eugenics' really comes down to in the positive usage of the term). The key concern of some in the West being that there's an element of compulsion to this. In the West, we offer terminations, but we don't make them compulsory. China focuses on the welfare of the population, we on the rights of the individual. There are costs and benefits to both approaches.

Although this hasn't had time to work through the Chinese population
yet, given the high heritability of IQ this will, ultimately further
ensure that China's current mean IQ of 108 (8 points higher that most
European countries) will continue to rise, as will their GDP and overall
quality of life for their people. The West will have no hope of
competing with them. Given their population of 1.2 billion and ours of 60 million, proportionately, they can only be admitting half the number of an annual cohort to university (although numerically, of course, they will be producing far more good graduates because of a) their larger population (20x ours), and their higher mean IQ, although one must treat national means of IQ with some caution, especially when based on opportunistic sampling). Still, one must ask why New Labour states that we can make people brighter through education, as we have no evidence for this. On the contrary:

getting-worse/


we clearly have quite the opposite. Whilst more females than males go on to higher education, don't for a second thing their is no sex difference in subject choice. Twice as many males do physics A level (in decline), and 80% of psychology students are female (at university, onoly about 14% of engineers are female).

We would appear to have little hope of competing intellectually or economically with China, and New Labour's 'education, education, education' policy may only be making matters worse, (odd though that may sound, it's only paradoxical if one doesn't factor in the now widely accepted figure for heritability of intelligence of 0.5-0.8 plus assortive mating, i.e. like mating with like, and one doesn't understand that the more able the
female, the less children she is likely to have if she competes in the workplace as an 'equal' - men can not have children - there's the basic inequality that matters).

h_record006.htm

nt

Returning to Article 3 of EU the Charter of Fundamental Rights (and
others covering mass expulsions and equality) it's worth noting that
China doesn't have an immigration problem. One must ask therefore what
the 'cascade effect' of EU legislation down to 'guidelines' will inevitably be given all that we've seen trickle down over the years since 'equalities' and especially the 1998 Human Rights Act have been enacted. These have been abused (if not developed) in order to serve egregious Political Correctness/Cultural Marxist interests where minority groups are used at the expense of the larger population's general welfare, in fact, in many areas, it no longer makes sense to even speak of minorities given that in some London boroughs, e.g. Tower Hamlets in London, at primary school age, it's White British who are the minority (under 25%). In fact, at this age, 75% of London LEAs are 50% or less White British, and the percentage is projected to get even smaller given the low indigenous birth rate.

The price we, in the EU (but especially in England), will pay for
increasingly skewed differential fertility will be a further general
dumbing down of the population, and ultimately GDP and civil order (see
other countries with dictatorships and high, low mean IQ populations) as we become less economically competitive with respect to China and other countries which follow her example.

One could even cynically suggest that New Labour's, New Left, prima
facie laudable 'education, education, education' policy, which now sends the top 42% of the nation's population each year into higher education (more females than males), leading females to delay having children (so lowering the birth rate), whilst the lower half of the IQ distribution reproduces at a higher rate is not a dysgenic strategy, as over 5 generations this must (if it hasn't already) have a devastating effect at the top of the ability distribution (relative to say China, but also any other country which still only sends its top 20%), skewing the UK IQ downwards, and therefore GDP. This must effect social instability given
that the lower group will helped to expand through Tax Credits etc.

Is this not, in the long run, a strategically managed, long term selective population 'cull' i.e. 'genocide'? Might it not fall under Article 6(b,c, and especially d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998):

Whilst offered just as provocative food for thought, it's worth saying that one doesn't always have to have a revolution in order to bring about radical political change...one can just use Human Rights legislation to legislate for 'equality' and 'choice' whilst selling off what little remains of the welfare state to the Third and Private Sectors:

* Is Miliband (and New Labour's New Left generally) Trotskyite with a
makeover? Are they trying to build a Workers' Democracy (rather like
Solidarnosc set out to do in Poland? Thatcher praised Solidarnosc, and the attack on the public sector in the UK began under her well before New Labour got rid of the Stalinist Clause Four.

Looking at English politics today, how long will it be before the country effectively becomes a one party state, or at least, a Workers' Democracy? Does the label really matter, as in the end, the policies all seem to have the same end game.

By the heck Adrienne, isn't life and politics complicated? Perhaps it is the fact I may be older than you and some of the others commenting in this blog on politics, that no matter who gets elected the "other lot" can do it better.

I would suggest most of you who are the "regulars" on this site plus Jeremy et al reads "Thatcher & Friends" written around 1983 who, in the last chapter predicts that there will be no difference in the two major parties where both Labour and Tories will "ditch" their traditional supporters and will both (especially Labour whenever they came into power) would have to adopt policies to the economic/business/world situation of the day. i.e abandon the old tenets.

Where we had "New Labour" we are now experiencing "New Tory", with the "Old Sweats of the "Old" parties muttering into their beer or Pimms.

Much of what you write Adrienne may be right but I tire of Punch & Judy" politics whipped up by the media.
As to the election, does it matter? The Tories will get elected whether it's next month, or even in 2010, the latest he can leave it. It is called "buggins turn".

As a Labour supporter I cannot see any reason for a man with such a majority with 3 years to go and such a lot to put right (or get wrong as you Tories will always cry) needs to have an election. The current hiatus will be forgotten if we enter a period of economic decline, much in line of what Adrienne implied.

As I wrote before, if there is a mess then perhaps Gordon is the man to put it right. I have that feeling Cameron will spend his early years blaming the previous Government instead of addressing an issue caused by world-wide factors. (hope over experience?) Boom -time is ending no matter what party takes power and unless we have firm Government we will all suffer and it's no good blaming one party or the other.

If John Wilson thinks that Fatherland is about "Britain under Nazi rule" he's been reading the wrong book.

Hospitals or Walk in centres & GP's made to open longer. Look !all we ask is our GPs return to there access as per before the New Contracts.. inc' after hours through the week.You got us into this mess Mr Brown et al ...now get us out!!
If you & yours spent more time GOVERNING than posturing we could see results... yesterday was a bad example..'re-opening the opening of that clinical centre' do you really believe the electorate is that stupid??...you do... don't you!
GB & his sycophantic crowd as demonstrated by his attack(eyes) dog Balls ed or is it Ed Balls!(the one with verbal diarrhoea) would do well to stop the photo opportunities & keep their heads down.
Any more New Hospitals to 're-open 'Gordon Brown....& your new Wanless(report), Lord Stazi(report).. to be titled "Champion of Innovation" !!! it's like what the Americans term..."the Funnies"!& todays news says it all... This is not a PM...but a weak ineffective Politician that just reacts to all recent disasters ...but when things go wrong personally..in his own interests!

Below are the fixed broken links in #8. Newsnight 'Preview' and 'Post' don't seem to be working very reliably at present.

//
//

#10, #12 - The problem is, given what I outlined above, the more lower ability (but 'pseudo-qualified') people there are in the population, the less critically aware they'll be of their shortcomings (and the more uncritically receptive they'll be to the spin/deception/Newspeak which political press officers (the Civil Service has been littered with these commissars/journalists, for nearly 20 years) churn out. These tend to be female or feminised males given the gender balance in the courses which feed such occupations.

I suspect that they literally don't *see* what's wrong with what they put out as it 'sounds right/reads well' and that suffices.

It's instructive to consider whether one gender tends to more naturally subscribe (philosophically speaking) to the 'coherence theory of truth' whilst the other leans towards the 'correspondence theory of truth' (or one of its variants).

Legislation is clearly a social (political) construction, and those who practice law, politics and journalism, etc. (rather than science/engineering and the professions dependent upon these classically, and still, predominantly male disciplines), tend to be far better versed in the coherence theory in my experience.

We're now getting rather short of 'builders' as a consequence (hence the lin to science and maths teachers in #8) yet we tend not to notice this because the 'wreckers' are living on borrowed time as a result of recent surges in cheap technology which has effectively automated much of our science and technology. This can't last.

The two world-views don't mix well, as C.P Snow famously pointed out in 'The Two Cultures'.

What he didn't draw out, but which is now far better understood, is the (biologically based) gender difference in subject and career choice, how it's brain gender which matters, how these overlap between the sexes, and how some ethnic groups are, in terms of gene frequencies, far more feminised than others.....cf. NCAH, CYP21 for a clue.

Yet 'equalities' legislation makes it difficult to report such things, even though the figures are all in the public domain.

One should, perhaps, ask why.

"Off with his head, Off with his head." A hundred years has gone by and nothing has changed.

Bring me the head of Peter Finchman on a plate. Excuse me, two thousand years has gone by and nothing has changed.

As for 大象传媒, the signs all point in one direction. The Encyclopedia Britannica...is now owned by an American Corporation based in Chicago, Cunnard is owned by Carnival Corporation based in Florida and traded on the NYSE, Rolls Royce is owned by Gemans, Jaguar was owned by Ford Motor Company. I think 大象传媒 is likely to become a largely American owned private or publically traded company possibly traded on the stock market. How's BNEWS for a ticker symbol. Maybe it should be renamed to something like BNN, Box News or MS大象传媒 and have a 24 hour a day US cable channel complete with commercials. Perhaps it could lure popular American personalities like Larry King, Jeraldo Rivera, or Paul O'Reilly.

I look forward to the news & blog this week over Gordon's decision not to go and I am not surprised at the reaction. We are now entering 3 years at max. of substituting Brown for Blair who will get nothing right according to his opponents. I have said and written all along that an election won't be until at the earliest May 2009, information I was told some 4 months ago by one of his whips for the reason that he wanted to establish his own ideas.

The mind boggles at those who wonder why when the latest polls at best show no difference and at worst behind the Tories that he decided not to chance his arm. Would you-be honest?
So he now has to match the inheritance tax give away and go for a referendum, in other words do what Blair did, pinch the Tory clothes.
As for the non-stories of photo calls in opening hospitals, every new building functions long before an official opening. As far as I am concerned we have a new hospital, who opens it and when is irrelevant except for those who enjoy making cheap shots.

As I have written many times, in the end, no matter when the election takes place, the Tories will get in under "buggins turn" then according to most of the Tory bloggers we will have another 18 years of superb government with nothing to complain about. Paxman out of a job???

Sir, Gordon did not go...wise man. He has drawn out of the Tory machine their policies which they were never going to reveal unless an election was in the offing. He can nit-pick and steal their best stuff and present them as his own in two years, Michaevellian or what. No, Brwon won this one hands down, Cameron just looks......well, pink. Watch Brown change inheritance tax. Steve

David What you write is mostly correct and I have already e-mailed Brown's Whip on what he needs to do next. I,a Labour Cllr., still have my suspicions about Brown and those who advise him and I still don't forget his abhortive coup against Blair last year.

However let's see what he can do in the next two or three years. This hiatus could be the making of him. I still don't trust Cameron who will do or say anything to get elected, a typical politician!!

My goodness, how the 大象传媒 enjoys a good bout of self-flagellation... that was painful to watch. There are countries in this world where people would give their right arm for an institution like the 大象传媒.

Adrienne, in the ongoing Nature vs. Nurture debate Nature has sure found a strong advocate in you. Only, how did the 'superior Europeans' get into such a strong position in the first place? By keeping women under-educated thereby ensuring their dependency on their male, apparently so much more intelligent counterparts? By ensuring weaker children are left to die? What exactly to you suggest: a revival of the much-maligned Arian, purified society? Scrap women's rights, have them back in the home producing babies and terminating or, hey, at least castrating anyone with the 'wrong' genes or an IQ under 90?

I'm being deliberately facetious here but I have a feeling you can't be entirely serious, at least partly because I think there can never be enough education: it is the only way people learn to question and think critically about others' motives. Today's refusal to do so, notably in the press/media but also in more innocent areas, is closely linked to an unwillingness to focus on issues which matter, but are often complicated and thus not understood or followed by the majority of individuals. This would not be resolved by 'raising' educational standards for the few and simply not giving a damn, or in the Chinese example 'getting rid of', those left behind. You state that there is no evidence education is working... However, there is plenty of correlative evidence for a link between the lack of education, poverty and the ensuing instability. Uneducated people are more, not less, susceptible to believing scaremongering populism and are more, not less, likely to have larger numbers of offspring most of whom, based on your theory, would have a low IQ and in turn lower that all-important comparative average.

I'd like to see some of the actual data that you use for supporting your IQ argument, notably that averaging Chinese as 'overly-intelligent' and Africans as, to put it politely, 'under-educated'. Given my experience with statistics, I doubt very much that it stands any kind of testing on closer examination. And of course, all this ignores the controversial nature of IQ test themselves and the debate on how accurately IQ measures reflect the development and/or sustainability of economically/socially successful societies (briefly, a bit like chicken and egg: intelligent people forming a successful, peaceful society or the latter enabling people to develop their intelligence and skills by providing them with a stable environment).

Cloe #21 - There is a wealth of data on this, and it is very easy to find if you ust look for it. Try Lynn, Rushton, Jensen to name but a few. It is just socially censored by political correctness (aka Cultural Marxism). The dysgenics point was made in 1989 by Herrnstein and elaborated in The Bell Curve in 1994. It was made in the 1930s by Cattell and others before him. Lynn eleborated it further in his 1996 book review, updating it several years later in his boo on Eugenics. The work on differences in IQ across the world is largely Lynn and Vanhanen's work (see 'IQ and The Wealth of Nations' (2002) and their updated book last year) but the Chinese through to Blacks profile is is born out by PISA data 2000, 2003, 2006, has been clear for decades in the US SATs, and is replicated every year in the UK DfES Key Stage 1-4 data.

In short, it's solid/reliable.

It doesn't matter how we feel about the facts. They won't change simply by getting upset about it. They will not change, we will just remain ignorant.

Your facetious response is one of the reasons why people don't talk about this sensibly. They prefer to avoid the unpleastness. In fact, what that results in is self-censorship of the facts which results in the implementation of hopelessly Lysenoist policies which never work, waste lots of money, and do more harm than good.

Cloe #21 - There are lots of data on this, and it's very easy to find if you just look for it. Try Lynn, Rushton, Jensen (to name but a few, the links will be easy to find through Google, just put in race and intelligence). It's just socially censored by political correctness (aka Cultural Marxism) these days, and it has been since the 50s/60s as there was an element of anti-racism in the war de-nazification programe (psychological warfare).

The dysgenics argument was made in 1989 by Herrnstein and was elaborated with Murray in The Bell Curve in 1994. It was made very clealry in the 1930s by Cattell and others before him (see Fisher as you seem to like statistics). Lynn updated the work in his 1996 book review 'Dysgenics', updating it several years later in his book on Eugenics. The work on differences in IQ across the world is largely Lynn and Vanhanen's work (see 'IQ and The Wealth of Nations' (2002) which makes uses of IQ standardisations and opportunistic studies). See also their updated book last year on world inquality. The racial (gene barrier I prefer) continuum shows up in PISA data 2000, 2003, 2006 which has strict sampling (so stric the UK has been excluded twice!), has been clear for decades in US SATs data, and is replicated every year here in the UK DfES Key Stage 1-4 results for Maths, English and Science) which are IQ proxies for the NFER CAT.

In short, it's solid/reliable. That people don't know this or keep quibblng is irrlevant, the KS data is population based not sample based. It can be seen for about 600,000 kids every year, and we have now seen it since PLASC began.

In brief, it doesn't matter how we feel about these facts, they won't change simply by our getting upset about them. They won't change if we look the other way either, we'll just remain ignorant.

Your facetious response is one of the reasons why people don't talk about this sensibly/openly anymore. Most prefer to avoid unpleasantness. They are human after all. In fact, what that results in is self-censorship which results in the implementation of hopelessly Lysenkoist social policies (e.g. HeadStart, SureStart, Aiming High etc) which never work, waste lots of money, and do more harm than good. Most educators don't know how misguided they are, they are unwitting Marxists of the most naive kind. Though I am sure they mean well, and I say that from experience.

I suggest you look up the US ETS report "The Perfect Storm" which they released in February 2007. Prepare for a shoc when you watch the video. Then look up The Leitch Report. Read between the lines of political correct talk. Look at the demographics. Look at what Frattini said about immigration, and bear in mind that IQ is largely genetic.

It doesn't matter how clearly the evidence is put, people argue. Sadly, that doesn't stop what is happening. It just stops people doing anything about it.

Cloe #21 - You have a lot to say for someone who begins by making it clear that they are unaware of the evidence ;-)

There are lots of data on this, and it's very easy to find if you just looks for it. Try Lynn, Rushton, Jensen (to name but a few, the links will be easy to find through Google, just put in race and intelligence). It's self-socially censored by political correctness (aka Cultural Marxism) these days, and it has been since the 50s/60s as there was an element of anti-racism in the war de-nazification programme (psychological warfare - see next comment to be posted later, which elaborates, or see the Tehran Conference meetings in late 1943 for what the alternative may have been for German officers).

The dysgenics argument was made in 1989 by Herrnstein based on then available data, and it was elaborated with Murray in The Bell Curve in 1994. It has been vindicated on both sides of the Atlantic since. The case was made very clearly in the 1930s by Cattell and others before him (see Fisher, one of the fathers of statistical testing and quantitative genetics, or Perason, or Spearman, all eugenicists). Lynn updated the work in his 1996 book review 'Dysgenics', updating it several years later in his book on Eugenics. The work on differences in IQ across the world is largely Lynn and Vanhanen's work (see 'IQ and The Wealth of Nations' (2002) which makes uses of IQ standardisations and opportunistic studies). See also their updated book last year on world inequality. The racial (gene barrier I prefer) continuum shows up in PISA data 2000, 2003, 2006 which has strict sampling requirements (so strict that the UK has been excluded twice!), has been clear for decades in US SATs data, and is replicated every year here in the UK DfES Key Stage 1-4 results for Maths, English and Science) which are IQ proxies for the NFER CAT.

In short, it's solid/reliable. That people don't know this or keep quibblng is sadly irrelevant, the KS1-4 data is population based, not sample based. It is descriptive not inferential. The world pattern can be seen for about 600,000 kids every year, and we have now seen it since PLASC began. The Indians do unrepresentatively well here, and the Black Africans here do better than those at home because both are economic migrants from the higher end of their groups' populations (unlike the Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and Black Caribbeans).

In brief, it doesn't matter how we feel about these facts, they won't change simply by our getting upset about them or believing in educational panaceas. They don't work. They won't change if we look the other way either, we'll just remain ignorant and preside over a catastrophe, some of which we see on our streets, and in our schools and prisons already.

Your facetious response is one of the reasons why people don't talk about this sensibly/openly anymore. Most prefer to avoid unpleasantness. They are human after all. In fact, what that results in is self-censorship which results in the implementation of hopelessly Lysenkoist social policies (e.g. HeadStart, SureStart, Aiming High etc) which never work, waste lots of money, and do more harm than good. Most educators don't know how misguided they are, they are unwitting Marxists of the most naive kind. Though I am sure they mean well, and I say that from experience.

I suggest you look up the US ETS report "The Perfect Storm" which they released in February 2007. Prepare for a shock when you watch the video. Then look up The Leitch Report. Read between the lines of political correct talk. Look at the demographics. Look at what Frattini said about immigration, and bear in mind that IQ is largely genetic.

It doesn't matter how clearly the evidence is put, people argue. Sadly, that doesn't stop the harm that's being done, it just stops anyone from doing anything about it.

If you look at the research, nobody knows how to effect stable environments for low IQ people. The bets anyone ever does (and it requires levels of intensive supervision which are unrealistic to sustain) is prevent some people from physically damaging themselves and their fellow family members. These are the 'environmental' contribution s to IQ note, they pull genotypic IQ down through injury (in utero and post-natally). What robust group differences in ability tell us is something interesting about how gene barriers operate. These operate within groups too, through assortive mating etc.

Finally, the inferences you draw are your inductive inferences. These do not necessarily follow from anything that I have posted. Your inferences are just classic inferences of inertia. Please remember that.

morley for president.

If one says that mosquitoes carry malaria, that does not mean that all mosquitoes carry malaria. In logic, the universal and existential quantifiers in logic are related in that SOME=NOT(ALL) and ALL=NOT(SOME). Natural language has a problem with quantification, please bear that in mind when reading the following as it bears on other points I have made about class membership (i.e. frequencies). This comment is on the theme of 'mssters of the universe' discussed on 19th September given a recent comment by Richard Dawkins:

It is also designed to make more people think about hegemony given some of the points I have made about innate group differences.

Here are a few extracts from the (Jewish) historian Martin Gilbert's book "Exile and Return 'The Emergence of Jewish Statehood' (1978) which reveal some of the thoughts of the British establishment long before the rise of Hitler and WWII (which Hitler asserted was a war against Jewish Bolshevism).

"On January 21 the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir Henry Wilson, noted in his diary that Waizmann, 'the Jew who is running the Zionist Movement', had been to see him, and 'admitted Bolshevism was being run by Jews'"

A little later, Gregory (a key player in the 1924 Zinoviev Letter affair), which led to the downfall of Ramsay MacDonald's ILP (which Stalin allegedly regarded as a Trotskyist front), as well as the
weakening, ultimately of the Comintern before the purges of the Bolsheviks by Stalin in the 1930s:

"The Jews deserve all they get. Their whole influence in Eastern Europe during the war was against us and our allies: nearly all the German and Austrian spies were Jews: and now they are busily engaged in undermining the foundations of European civilization. It is little wonder that the two races [Russians and Ukranians] which have suffered most from Jewish espionage and then from Jewish Bolshevism, should take a truculent revenge on them."

J.D.Gregory-Senior Foreign Office Official, Feb 3,1919. Cited in Gilbert, p. 120.)

In October 1919, the British representative in Georgia, John Wardrop wrote to Lord Curzon saying "I cannot too strongly insist as I have been doing for last two years that nearly all the present misery of world is due to Jewish intrigues....In England and America as well as in this part of the world a diabolical plot is being carried out for (? ruin) and enslavement of Christendom". Martin Gilbert (1978) p. 125. This was a senior FO Civil Servant advising his Foreign Secretary. This was after saying that if the "'Bolshevism of German-Jewish intrigues could be crushed in the Caucasus, the beneficial result would at once be apparent as far as frontiers of India and China'"

Hitler and the Axis Powers signed the Anti Comintern (Communist *International*) Pact, and later declared war on Jewish Bolshevism Trotskyism). He was not alone when he did so. Stalin helped him via the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact (and perhaps in ways we still have not had revealed?). More people need to think about this, and the fact that a) the Jewish population of Europe in 1933 was about 15.3 million, and today it's about 14 million; b)European birth rates have been falling for decades and are now well below replacement level; c) The growth of Britain's indigenous population since WWII has been small and have had to be compensated for through immigration, it still is today (there is no evidence that Jewish fertility rates have been any different).

So, surely one must ask why the world Jewish population today is so similar that in 1933 if so many were killed in the 1940s? Note that most European Jews were in Poland (3 million) and further East in neighbouring Soviet republics/Russia (3.3 million) and that these areas all went behind the Iron Curtain shortly after WWII. Note that the evidence of the Holocaust came from the Soviets as the camps were on Soviet liberated/occupied territory). The Soviets lied about Katyn at the IMT, it was the Soviets, and many of the horrors in the Western camps depicted at the IMT may well have been the consequence of starvation and typhus as a result of the efficacy of allied carpet bombing. Much of this was no dounbt used for political purposes in the context of the post war de-nazification programme.

Given that Hitler *lost* the war against 'Jewish Bolshevism' ('Worker's Democracy'?), what do we think happened in the West after the war? It certainly didn't move to the right politically, did it?

Might the consequences of this (affirmative action) not go some way towards explaining the statistical over-representation of Jews throughout the West (in positions of power and influence)? Perhaps it's the consequence of a misguided sense of guilt on the part of gentiles, with affirmative action close on its heels, or perhaps it just reflects higher native ability? Regardless, it isn't racist (i.e. anti-Semitic), to point out variations from statistical base-rates, that's how scientists are trained to think. The only threat which I can see is to hegemony.

Adrienne, I didn't write all that much now, did I? Thank you for your three answers... and you are, of course, absolutely right on two points: yes, this is not my field and yes, I haven't looked a the data yet. Many apologies for being such a foolish, ignorant mongrel.

However, if that's ok with you, I really don't care all that much whether the smart guy at the top is black, white, yellow, brown or green with purple dots so long as at least some of us (us=human beings) continue to try to figure out what the hell is actually going on here and to save ourselves and our planet for as long as humanly possible from inevitable doom. If the next centuries or millennia belong to the Chinese then so be it, particularly if they are actually smarter than 'we' are (or, presumably at least, than I am).

Cloe, I didn't mean to be rude, but many people begin by asserting what they don't know, and then sneer at people who try to tell them what *is* known. The repeats were because there have been problems with the Newsnight Preview/Post I believe.

This entire issue has precious little to do with colour per se. No educated person cares what colour the skin is of the people who run the country, treat them medically, etc. To do so would be racist, and ignorant. So we agree on this. But what I have been saying is a point about frequencies, and *not* being misled by phenotype, or appearances, but the issue is a subtle one, and political correctness has ridden roughshod over those subtleties.

Melanin (and other phenotypic characteristics like hair, facial features etc) is just a phenotypic marker which *can* be used to mark differences in gene frequencies between groups. That's the thing to hold on to throughout what I have posted. Think about that in terms of how *many* people there are in each ethnic group falling into standard frequency classes across the normal distribution (e.g. standard deviation units or percentiles) and how groups are sustained by gene barriers. When one looks inside a group, one will find varying frequencies of alleles/QTLs etc and varying frequencies in behaviours by those frequency classes too. The task is to functionally relate genotype to phenotype in a useful way. Genes, and what they determine, are not distributed according to a uniform distribution. The Human Genome Diversity project (HAPMAP) is premised on this and promises to shed important light on the nature of disease, behaviour, and its epidemiology.

A reference to add some substance to my cautionary remark about our limited ability to establish and sustain 'stable environments'. This needs to be read critically to see through the spin, as people go into these professions with high hopes making bold promises which they rarely deliver on. I fear most of us have got the basics of what can be done drastically wrong and that when this is appreciated there will have to be a radical change to how we go about managing behaviour. What we do throughout education and offender management, is, I fear, hopelessly misguided and is premised far more on wishful thinking rather it is on scientific evidence. That's dangerous. It diverts resources and raises false hopes (cf. SEAL). In extreme cases it is fraudulent.

Given the point made about behaviour/offender management, and the references to a) the ETS report 'A Perfect Storm' in February and b) our own Leitch report, Jack Straw's remarks to the HoC Constitutional Affairs Committee - The Work of the Ministry of Justice (about 16-17 minutes into the session beginning at 16:43 on 9th October), are worth taking on board.

Given the current and projected changes to our demographics spelled out elsewhere, given what drives social disorder (largely low verbal ability in a high verbal demanding service sector driven feminised culture), we may well indeed end up where Jack Straw says he does not wish us to be, and sooner than we think.

New Labour, and their predecessors have brought this radical change to our demographics upon us, ostensibly to compensate for our low indigenous birth rate. In practice, it can only make matters worse if I am on the right track. Sadly, as has been said by many, they do not listen.

Some paragraphs from the European Scrutiny Committee 'European Union Intergovernmental Conference Thirty鈥揻ifth Report of Session 2006鈥�07 Report'

"61. A secondary issue which we raised with the Minister was whether the provisions of Article 1(2) of the Protocol applied to the whole Charter or only to Title IV. We note the Minister鈥檚 confirmation in his letter of 16 July that the Protocol applies to all the Titles of the Charter, but we also observe that in the IGC Mandate text the reference to Title IV in Article 1(2) was in square brackets, so that it was not clear to us if the provision in Article 1(2) (which was a particular provision for the avoidance of doubt) applied only to Title IV or to the Charter as a whole. The Minister confirmed in his letter of 16 July to us that Article 1(2) referred only to Title IV.48 The Minister described the provision as securing 鈥渋n particular that the Charter will not extend the ECJ鈥檚 or national courts鈥� power to challenge or reinterpret UK employment or social legislation鈥� [our emphasis]. We accept that this was intended to underline the Government鈥檚 particular concern to secure its industrial relations legislative position.62.

We would be concerned if the assurances given by the Minister that the provision will secure the results which have been claimed prove to be flawed. As far as we are aware, avoidance of doubt provisions are a rarity in the Treaties and lead us to question why, in this case, the specific reference was only to Title IV. We would seek more concrete evidence from the Government that this provision could not be read as suggesting that the other provisions of the Charter do create justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom. We accept that the avoidance of doubt provision does not apply 鈥渋n so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law鈥�.

47 The grounds of social origin, language, political or any other opinion, property and birth are not mentioned in Article 13 EC. 48 Title IV of the Charter (Articles 87-106) is concerned with social and employment rights, including the right to strike."

But how does one tell if someone is being discriminated against on grounds of social origin? This is where the Lysenkoism creeps in. The evidence now seems to suggest that SES is a dependent variable or function of IQ, not the other way around.

Here's the important Protocol 7, which is not really an 'opt out' (derogation) as the last 4 pages of the report above reveals in the correspondence between the committee and Jim Murphy.

"Article 1

1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law."

Note, whilst TITLE IV covers SOLIDARITY (Articles 87- onwards) and is what appears to be what's the major concern of the UK government (as the Charter could undermine Thatcher era anti-union legislation) my concerns here are more to do with TITLE I, II and III.

TITLE I covers DIGNITY (Articles 61- 65). The way the lawyers appear to be handling this is to say they don't say anything which is new, so they don't *extend* what is already in other EU legislation (which was something I drew attention to in my first post on this) where I cover the "selection of persons" (eugenics). Note how this is handled through other legislation.

TITLE II covers FREEDOMS (Articles 66-79) and TITLE II covers EQUALITY (Articles 80-86).

TITLE V covers CITIZENS RIGHTS (Articles 99-106) and TITLE VI covers Justice (Articles 107-110)
and TITLE VII (Articles 11-114) set out how these Articles are to be applied.

Economic migrants come here ('asylum seekers' don't seek asylum in EU states nearer to Africa, Iraq etc) presumably because other countries don't speak such a universal language.

The Charter would mean that we can't "discriminate". But what would that mean exactly? Looking at the last TITLE of the Charter, one might think that the entire Charter has ony limited application (to EU legislative bodies practices). But would it? 'Discrimination' is basic to all intelligent behaviour. It's how we tell the difference between people (and things). It's the sine qua non for classification and rational behaviour management, and the latter is already way out of control largely because of 'human rights' legislation derivative of post WWII policies I submit.

One might think it would be unnecessary to point this out, but looking at what's happened over the past 30 years, common sense, alas, has not prevailed. When it comes to research being censored or ignored because it covers individual and group differences, something has gone very very wrong (see the work on sex and ethnic differences).

"Article [II-81] Non-discrimination 1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited."

Note, "genetic features".

"Article [II-78] Right to asylum The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaties. Article [II-79] Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition.

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Think back to Germany in the 1930s/40s and the aftermath of WWII where repatriations were going on throughout Europe and to the USSR.

The July and October Draft Reform Treaties are here. Note that file 03 of the July version contained the Fundamental Charter Articles, but the October 5th version does not.

More opacity?