A further reply to Amaka Okechukwu by Dr. Frank Ellis

In response to a further comment by Amaka Okechukwa (which can be read here) following Frank Ellis's recent article on Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, his Research and the Call for his Dismissal, Dr Ellis has give the following reply:

  ____________ -/- ____________

From: Dr Frank Ellis

To: Amaka Okechukwu

Date: 24^th July 2011 A.D.

Re: A Reply to Your Second Post 21^st July 2011

Dear Amaka Okechukwu

All research begins with a bias: the bias of interest. Why are some people interested in snakes, birds, the polar ice caps, the climate on Mars, the origin of life, race/IQ and so on? Why did Sir Isaac Newton ponder the significance of a falling apple? The white man is driven by an insatiable desire to explore way beyond his physical and mental boundaries: to go to the moon and one day, I hope, to Mars and beyond; to penetrate the depths of the oceans; to explore Antarctica. If one day a cure is found for AIDS, it will not be made by some sangoma-monster in a mud hut butchering an albino in Tanzania and distributing the body parts to his fellow savages: it will be made in a white man’s laboratory somewhere in the West.

Interestingly, since we are dealing with racial differences, curiosity about the world, which has led to the superior benefits of white civilization and its technological mastery being conferred on blacks through colonial expansion and in the aftermath of white colonial withdrawal in the form of handouts and endless loans (because blacks are incapable of attaining the mastery of nature achieved by the white man and so are unable to exploit nature’s bounty) is something that is not uniformly and equally distributed among all racial groups. Blacks who unfortunately reside in huge numbers in my country (and in other white nations) benefit from the white man’s superior understanding of nature and enjoy a standard of living that would be unthinkable in Africa. This is, of course, the reason why blacks are so eager illegally/legally to enter European nations and to exploit white largesse and to prey upon the white indigenous populations.

I made a number of assertions and points in my first response to you, which, I maintain, can be regarded as a factually accurate. I shall summarise them:

(i). white culture and civilization and achievements are superior to anything that has emerged from Sub-Saharan Africa (if you disagree then explain why you disagree);

(ii). academics in universities in the West who have published work on race and IQ, especially where that work has revealed a low mean black IQ have been pilloried, ostracised, dismissed, denied tenure and promotion and more besides (If you claim this is not the case, then explain why you hold that view);

(iii). I asked you to clarify what you meant by a ‘racist agenda’ in regard to Dr Kanazawa (I am still waiting for an answer);

(iv). I asked you to explain what, in your opinion, had gone wrong with the refereeing procedure concerning the publication of Dr Kanazawa’s 2006 article (I am still waiting for an answer).

The other point that can be made here is that Dr Kanazawa is by no means the sole researcher dealing with race and IQ (among other things). Yet again, you make vague references to Dr Kanazawa’s publications and my ‘bigoted ideals’. Two additional questions, therefore, require clarification. They are:

(v). Please cite the publications written by Dr Kanazawa that you find unacceptable (please provide full bibliographical citations/data);

(vi). According to you, what are my ‘bigoted ideals’?

Regarding the findings about the relationship between low IQ and poverty, then the research was not conducted by me. That said, I have read some of this vast corpus of work. Having read some of this work, I find the arguments made in favour of a link between low IQ and poverty more convincing than those who, in the case of Africa, always use the default position of racism. Why is Somalia once again starving and begging for the white man’s aid? The answer, or one of them, is reckless breeding. When a black population breeds beyond its ability, not the white man’s, to feed itself the four horsemen come calling. The white man has absolutely no moral obligation whatsoever to feed the unsustainable populations of Africa which arise from the massive, unforgivable, sexual delinquency of Africans themselves. Do you understand?

If, however, you think that the white nations of the West are some how obliged to feed and to clothe the backward tribes of Africa, and the rest of the Third World for that matter, to provide them with the advanced technological infrastructure which we in the West take for granted and which we whites have achieved by our own efforts, then you are invited to present your case. I shall judge your arguments on their intellectual merits not on any sentimentally explicit or implicit appeals to “we-are-the-world” or the mumbo jumbo of “the brotherhood of man”. Nor shall I permit you or white diversophiles to silence critics of multiracialism and those who point out the evidence of black failure, incomprehensible stupidity and random savagery by shouts of racism. The time has come for you and others to explain, to make your case without threats, intimidation and endless accusations of racism and so-called hate crime. Such accusations were and remain the weapon of the bully and the liar. They are a device to cow critics of multiracialism into silence. They will no longer work.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis