By STEVE BRADY
PERHAPS the favourite accusation thrown at the National Front by its multiracialist critics is that we are simply a bunch of bigots, that our stance on Race, the very heart and core of our political being, is no more than ignorant prejudice against Coloured people. Is this so? Are our racial policies merely the product of prejudice, or are they instead based on sober realism and the courage to face facts?
Let's start by looking at what 'prejudice' means. The word comes from Latin roots meaning to judge before, or less literally but more usefully to judge a case ahead of the facts. In modern usage, it is generally taken to mean forming an opinion, especially about an issue or person or group of people, without knowing, or without taking into account, all the relevant facts. Judging a case without hearing, or in spite of, the evidence.
Certainly, the NF has judged the case as far as the Coloured population in Britain is concerned. We've found them guilty of being here against the best interests, and indeed the wish, of the native British people, and we've sentenced them to go home ― not quite transportation to the Colonies, but rather a phased and humane return to their lands of ethnic origin, most of which want, in some cases desperately need, them back anyway.
But has this verdict and sentence been arrived at as a result of prejudice, or is it a fair judgement on the basis of the evidence? Are the arguments we use to justify that judgement on Coloured Immigration merely expressions of bigoted dislike, or are they solidly buttressed by reality? Let's take a look.
We argue, for example, that West Indian and other Negroes will never fit in, as the multiracialists claim, as equal and integrated members of a predominantly White society because they are inherently intellectually unfitted to do so, and are thus condemned to exist in White society as a permanent underclass, confined to the lower social strata and, not unnaturally, bitterly resentful of the alien society in which they are thus trapped. Resentment which inevitably explodes in violence, rioting and crime.
We further argue that to seek to remedy this by artificially promoting Blacks to high office in White society irrespective of their ability to fill them is a recipe for chaos, as the Blacks cannot do their jobs properly, and incites racial hatred against Blacks on the part of Whites who have been discriminated against in their own country in favour of aliens.
What are the facts? Over almost seventy years, in study after study, conducted by scientists and educationalists in country after country, studies conducted by such bastions of racial nationalism as the Inner London Education Authority, the US Army, and Harvard and Oxford Universities, on every measure of intellectual ability and educational attainment Blacks perform significantly worse, on average, than Whites. In the case of average I.Q., for example, the average Negro figure is only 85% of the average White one.
This is not the place to review such studies, as I am writing an article and not a substantial book, but for such a review, indeed for a masterly exposition of the factual realities of the Race issue, I can do no better than to recommend Race, by Dr. John R. Baker, Reader in Cytology at Oxford University, published by the Oxford University Press. For a tedious but overwhelming exhaustive review of literally hundreds of studies demonstrating the extent of racial differences in intellectual ability, read *The Testing of Negro Intelligence by Dr. Audrey M. Shuey.
Faced with such facts, multiracialists make a number of attempts to wriggle off the hook, all of them futile. They argue that all these tests are unfair, that they are written by White people in a White Society and thus are biased against non-Whites. Alas for them, Chinese and Japanese, who are not noticeably more Caucasian and are often very much more culturally distinct from White society than Negroes, actually do as well or slightly better on average the Whites on these 'White mens' tests'.
Worse for the multiracialists, Negroes also perform just as badly compared to the Whites on 'evoked potential tests', where a light is flashed in the face of the subject and the speed and density of the response in terms of brainwaves evoked is measured on an electro-encephalograph ― a test so 'culture-free' it can just as well be given to a dog or cockroach as a Negro or a White man.
So the multiracialists fall back on conceding the reality of lower average Negro intelligence, but blaming it on 'social environment' rather than on innate heredity. "Enough positive discrimination in favour of Blacks will make them our equals" runs their argument, though they are rarely honest enough to state it bluntly!
Unfortunately for them, if 'social deprivation' and 'White Racism' are to blame for the poor performance of Negroes, groups such as the American Indians, who score considerably worse than American Blacks on every measure of 'social deprivation' used by liberals to explain away the Blacks' performance, would be expected to do worse, or at least as badly, as the Blacks. In fact they do a lot better on the same tests.
Finally, liberal attempts to argue that measured differences in human intelligence are not innate, founder on the rocks of numerous studies demonstrating that at least 80% of these differences in intelligence are inborn, the product of genes, not environment. Read The Inequality of Man by H.J.Eysenck, Professor of Psychology.at the University of London for the facts here.
All liberals can do is claim that one of these hundreds of studies, that carried out by Professor Cyril Burt, may include dubious data. But totally disregarding Burt's work has no effect on the overall conclusion from the evidence, which is still pouring in. On the 20th of January this year, for example, the Minnesota Centre for Twin and Adoption Research published findings yet again demonstrating the innate genetic origin of differences in human intelligence.
When we come out of the laboratory and look at the world around us, we see exactly what the scientists' conclusions would lead us to expect. Negroes, innately less intelligent, are on the bottom of every White social heap. Liberals can try, however feebly, to explain that away, blaming it on 'White Racism'.
But what about Black performance when there are no Whites to be 'racist'? What did the Negro accomplish in Africa before the White Man came? As Baker incisively demonstrates in Race, virtually nothing.
When our ancestors, hundreds of years ago, spread across the World as explorers, traders and conquerors, what did they find? In Asia, both India and China/Japan, and in the Americas, great cities, vast and often ancient civilisations, advanced cultures, emperors and poets and lawgivers and philosophers, priests and generals and architects. Often the writings of minds as profound as any in Europe. Mighty buildings, fields sown with native crops, rice in Asia, maize in America, tilled or grazed by domestic native animals ― buffalo and elephant in Asia, llama in America.
What did they find on the Negro's home turf in Africa? Primitive tribes, living in mud huts in the jungle, frequently eating one another. Negroes without the wheel, without the written word, without a history.
Professor Arnold Toynbee, one of this century's leading world historians, summed it up by concluding that of twenty-one civilisations in world history to date not one had been founded by Black men. Let's see liberals try to explain that one away as "the result of White racist society".
So on the Negro question the evidence is clear and overwhelming. Blacks are, on average, less intelligent than Whites, and they were born that way. Since measured intelligence correlates well with social, educational and intellectual attainment, it is no wonder that Blacks are at the bottom of every White social heap in which they are found. They always will be, unless they are artificially propped up in jobs they can't do in a pathetic and indeed patronising bid to show how liberal Whites are.
So, unless we actually want ghettoes of miserable, frustrated and angry Blacks seething in our inner cities for middle-class suburban liberals to drive past and congratulate themselves on how tolerant they are and how multiracial Britain is, we will do the only rational thing, the kindest and fairest thing for the Blacks themselves, and send them home to their own kind.
Western-educated Blacks would doubtless rise high in an Africa that seems to be sinking inexorably back to the jungle, perhaps making a vital contribution to Negro welfare.
So on the Black issue our verdict is based on the facts, we have judged the case on the evidence, fairly, and come to the only just conclusion. It is the liberals who persist in maintaining the fiction of 'racial equality' in the teeth of the facts.
They can't site a mass of scientific evidence to support their beliefs, at best they can only snipe, with increasing feebleness, at that which buttresses our case. Or simply seek, through the Race Acts, to suppress it. It is they, not we, who hold to their opinions in the face of reality. Dare we say it ― it is they, not we, who are prejudiced.
Are they really British?