The truth that dare not whisper its name

The truth that dare not whisper its name
LYNETTE BURROWS on why the idea that IQ is hereditary is causing anguish among multiculturalists
THE furore over the publication in Amer­ica last week of the book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Struc­ture in American Life reminds us that every age has its sensitivities that simple truth must not be allowed to offend.
The book's author, Charles Murray, is a social scientist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Wash­ington, but his academic cre­dentials have not saved him from the wrath of the liberal establishment, any more than the erudition of Galileo pro­tected him from the atten­tions of the Inquisition. There is a prevailing ortho­doxy today as there was then; the difference is that in the 17th century they made no bones about it, whereas we maintain the fiction that we are uniquely free-thinking.
In fact, most of the secular creeds of the 20th century are extremely intolerant of dis­sent, and the ones centred on "equality" are more so than most. Thus we have the New York Times denouncing Mr Murray as "the most danger­ous conservative" in Amer­ica, for daring to argue that IQ has a genetic and heredi­tary component.
To most people this is an unsensational theory that is largely confirmed by their own experiences. The gen­eral experience is that unex­ceptional parents mostly produce unexceptional chil­dren, and that at least one clever parent can pass on the gift to several children.
None of this would cause any problem with liberal sen­sitivities if it were not for the fact that Mr Murray has gone one stage further and stated what has long been con­firmed by other, more dis­creet studies, that whites, on average, do better in cogni­tive tests than blacks, and that East Asians and Jews do better than both. Again, this has been long been accepted by most people, who cannot fail to notice how dispropor­tionately successful Jews are in every society and, though less part of common experi­ence, it comes as no surprise that Orientals are probably cleverer too. If they can be cleverer than we are, why can't we be cleverer than some other group? The ques­tion is: does it matter?
The Christian answer is that it does not. If God in his wisdom made us as different tribally as we are individu­ally, that does not mean that in his sight we are anything less than all uniquely worth­while. The problem arises for cultures where there is no God and where intelligence alone has been elevated to a position where there is a measure of all things. The problem then is that any group which is not as intelli­gent as the others is, by defi­nition, inferior.
The problem of valuing unequal hu­man beings for what they are and not for their abil­ity to fit seamlessly into an acquisitive, competitive society is resolved for liberals at the moment by the pretence that there are no differences between peoples.
This denial is given an even greater urgency in the con­text of the multiracial Utopia that liberals hope to forge out of their disparate peoples. They simply cannot face the implications for their society of there being real intellectual differences between their racial minor­ities, because problems of ethnicity then become con­fused with problems of power and subservience. Isn't it, after all, how the caste system came into existence on the Indian sub-continent; and how do they think they will avoid such a society developing in the United States? Mr Murray does not know, but he thinks it should be discussed realistically.
However, it may well be that the problems experi­enced by the blacks in Amer­ica have little to do with their intelligence and more to do with the fact that, although
they can justly claim more right than most to be there, they do not have anything remotely resembling nation­hood. If they are anything like the rest of mankind, they would probably like to gov­ern themselves, even if, like us, they do it rather badly for several hundred years at first.
It is not only America which has this problem. Most of Europe has embarked upon a love affair with multi-racialism that has been at best undemocratic and at worst like colonialism in reverse. Country after coun­try has been settled by mil­lions of foreigners with­out the acqui­escence of the indigenous population.
All the countries going in for this duplicitous exercise have specifically denied their population the right to decide electorally on the wis­dom or otherwise of the deci­sion taken in their name, and have passed hasty laws to make discrimination in favour of their own people a criminal offence. So deeply ingrained is the desire of most people to be law-abid­ing that it has muzzled what is undeniably a desire for nationhood of exactly the same kind that fired Gandhi.
The wonder is that although we were unceremo­niously pushed out of our erstwhile colonial posses­sions on purely racial grounds, we managed to depart, uncompensated and at very short notice, without the ingratiating smile ever dropping from our faces. While acknowledging the absolute right of the colonies to be rid of us in order to forge their own nations, our rulers nevertheless denied their own people the same right when the process was reversed. Is it surprising that extremist parties are emerg­ing all over Europe?
The question of the rela­tive intelligence of different peoples in this context is quite irrelevant as is, indeed, the question of race. What is sinister, however, is the fact that we are not even allowed to discuss the continued settlement of our country by upwards of 50,000 Asians a year; despite the growing signs that they feel their numbers now constitute a nation within a nation.
They have an alternative Islamic parliament and last month hired Wembley Sta­dium to air their plans to con­vert England to an Islamic state. A Bradford councillor recently declared "This is our country now" when he was explaining why, when the present Labour MP retires, they want an Asian to replace him, but would not permit a woman to stand.
The editor of this news­paper remarked in a recent article in The Spectator that he believed there was a con­spiracy of interests pushing us into integration with Europe, and mentioned senior civil servants, central bankers, most Cabinet minis­ters and most of the chairmen of the largest companies as being implicated. "Like all the best conspirators," he said, "they do not need any formal plot to set them afoot."
This concerted movement to remove the sovereignty of our Parliament is mirrored by the movement to dilute the tiresome encumbrance of a nation that might feel con­fident and united enough to resist integration into a super-state. "Divide and rule" is a useful device when you see individual countries merely as the source of a lim­itless supply of proles to ser­vice the requirements of enterprise. It is worth repeating that speaking out against what is being done to our country is not racialism. It is something that, in the context of their own country, every nation on earth understands. Maybe even the Americans will come to see it in the end.