A commentator by the name of Amaka Okechukwu left a comment beneath Fran Ellis's recent open letter "Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, his Research and the Call for his Dismissal" Amaka's comment can be read here
Here is Dr. Ellis's reply to Amaka Okechukwu
------------------- -/- -------------------
From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: Amaka Okechukwu
Date: 5th July 2011 A.D.
Re: Your Post to My Open letter to LSE regarding Dr Satoshi Kanazawa
Dear Amaka Okechukwu
Thank you so kindly for taking the time to respond to my open letter to the LSE. Before I address the contents of your post I would like to clarify just who you are. You end your post with ‘Amaka Okechukwu (LSE Alumni)’. I note the use of ‘alumni’, the nominative plural, so does ‘Amaka Okechukwu’ refer to more than one person? Is it the name of some African tribe? If ‘Amaka Okechukwu’ refers to one person, a former student of LSE, then one requires the appropriate nominative singular, alumnus (male) or alumna (female) not the nominative plural (alumni). Or do you claim to be speaking on behalf of others?
You write: ‘Indeed for someone who claims intellectual superiority your open letter simply exposes your ignorance of Dr. Kanazawa’s research and of race issues in general’. You should read what I have written again. As a general consideration when responding to a point that another person makes you need to make sure what that person has written. I make no claims of personal intellectual superiority. Your claim is a straw man. What I do claim - and history and evidence are on my side – is that the achievements of white culture and civilization are vastly superior to anything that has emerged from Sub-Saharan Africa. I have a horrible feeling that in another 100 years time blacks will still be citing white racism and the legacy of colonialism as reasons for their perpetual failure. Nor do I claim to have read and studied all Dr Kanazawa’s research.
You write: ‘no one is against academic freedom regardless of the outcome of the research’. To consider the outcomes you have to have the research and that means that not being ‘against academic freedom’ is insufficient. One has to be actively for academic freedom. This is the great conceptual leap that the white man has made. He realises that he might find certain research outcomes unpleasant or horrible; that they upset what he has always believed to be true but he also realises that truth trumps his being offended or psychologically dislocated. And in any case, the reality is that there are people in universities – administrators, faculty and students – who are against certain research precisely because they fear the outcomes (the truth). In the case of race and IQ research these people see their multicultural utopia fatally undermined. So they hate the people who have destroyed their dream, people like Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray and, most recently, Satoshi Kanazawa.
If you believe that researchers and investigators are free to pursue research in race and IQ without their being attacked, denied tenure, bullied, ostracised and being subjected to legal and administrative sanctions, you are pitifully ignorant of what has been happening in, for example, British and American universities over the last forty years; or you have deliberately decided to ignore this persecution. When I drew attention to the low mean IQ of Sub-Saharan Africa – a staggeringly low 70 – the same sort of lumpen student-proletariat and Neo-Marxist faculty who want to see Dr Kanazawa reprimanded or dismissed tried to have me removed from my post at Leeds University. Fortunately, these people failed.
Nor, with regard to Dr Kanazawa, is the issue one of ‘dubious and simply unacceptable scientific methods’, though, as I predicted, that will be the line adopted against Dr Kanazawa in the attempt to remove any accusation that he is being attacked for saying things which some find offensive (or claim to find offensive) and thus that his rights to free speech are being violated. What do you mean by ‘his seemingly racist agenda’? Is his agenda racist, or does it just seem to be racist? To whom does this agenda seem racist, to you? And what exactly is a racist agenda? If a specific policy meets your definition of racism but is based on the truth, is the truth racist?
You refer to a paper published by Dr Kanazawa in 2006. First, if the research was flawed as you claim, do you have any explanation for why the article was published? Why did the editor of the journal and referees not identify the flaws which you claim to have identified in this and the most recent article? Second, even allowing for your assertion that Dr Kanazawa’s research was flawed the basic link between low IQ and poor health outcomes has been replicated many times. One reason why blacks get AIDS at much higher rates than whites and North East Asians is because far too many blacks put the imperatives of immediate sexual gratification before sexual safety. The pursuit of immediate sexual gratification also explains why the incidence of black on white rape is so high. Exercising restraint requires the ability to think ahead, to consider the consequences of having sex with an HIV-infected person. This ability to think ahead, to consider the future is related to IQ: the lower the IQ the greater the present-time orientation; the less planning and thinking ahead. The link between low IQ and poor health outcomes is something found in all racial groups but given the considerably lower mean black IQ, the negative health outcomes are much greater among blacks. This pattern can be observed worldwide.
It is not clear to me that I have claimed LSE operates a policy of affirmative action. I suggest you reread the relevant paragraph again. I encountered comments attacking Dr Kanazawa’s article on American as well as UK blogs. Now, American universities, businesses and the entire sector of federal employment most certainly do pursue a policy of denying employment to, and otherwise persecuting, high-IQ whites so as to make room for low-IQ and incompetent blacks and other non-whites. Incidentally, this is not a ‘seemingly racist agenda’: it is an explicit, public, federally-mandated, well documented, vicious, anti-white racist agenda. We have no such official policy in my country but one does see examples of blacks resident in this country – my country - rewarded and fêted because some of my misguided fellow countrymen seem to think that blacks and other non-whites are the bearers of some great gift (diversity). These blacks are beneficiaries of what I would call psychological and cultural affirmative action. They are always given the benefit of the doubt in politically correct circles such as the BBC and the universities no matter what they say or write.
You are so kind to recommend books about the state of the African economy. The sole exception to sub-Saharan squalor and savagery was, of course, white-run South Africa. Unfortunately, now that the terrorist Mandela and his communist-terrorist gang are in power, South Africa will eventually join the ranks of Third-World squalor and savagery. Indeed, that process started in 1994 and is now irreversible. As for economic success in Africa one can, of course, look to Nigeria, that bastion of fiscal and economic prudence; a country so rich in oil that its citizens enjoy a standard of living way beyond the dreams of wretched whites; a country famed for its honesty and its lack of corruption; a country whose leader has brought peace and contentment to his people merely by the simple expedient of calling himself “Good Luck Jonathan”, thereby demonstrating to the white man that black magic really does work. Africa abounds in natural resources. If Africans were half-decent economists they would not need to beg and demand money and other resources from the white man. I thought Africans were every bit as competent as the white man. Is it not about time then that Africans stopped snivelling and whining about racism and started to deliver the goods instead of thrusting a begging bowl in the white man’s face?
As for ‘a different perspective to the savagery’ then savagery undoubtedly comes in different forms in Africa: Mugabe murders and plunders the white farmers and in the process creates famine; ANC-sponsored savagery and genocide leads to the torture, rape, mutilation and murder of white farmers; and in Liberia General “Butt Naked” and his boy thugs kill babies, eat their body parts, drink their blood, snort cocaine and slaughter their fellow blacks and so it goes on and on, and on. Rwanda, the Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Swaziland, Botswana, Ghana, Chad and, of course, Nigeria are also beacons of learning and enlightenment, models to be emulated.
The great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, one of the founding fathers of the Enlightenment, called on his fellow Europeans to have the courage to know, to see things as they were. With this in mind, it is time for the white man - or at least a certain type of white - to stop lying about Africa; time to stop trying to destroy people like Satoshi Kanazawa; time for both honest and honourable blacks and whites to face the truth about what Africa is, about what it can never be. Then and only then, will it be possible to save Africans from themselves – if the white man can be bothered to expend any more effort on this task – and above all to stop and to reverse, in the first instance, the racial, physical and cultural dispossession of my country by mass, non-white immigration.