Blacks Unleashed: It’s Black Rapists All the Way Down

Got Blacks? Then you’ve also got bestial behavior. As the late great Larry Auster once said: “To import a black population into a previously all-white country is to consign a large number of whites in that country, year after year, generation after generation, to violent death at the hands of blacks.” Faced with that irrefutable truth, leftists across the West have worked tirelessly to import Blacks, privilege Blacks, and prevent effective policing of Black crime. In short, they’ve unleashed beasts on ordinary Whites.

Some women don’t matter

They’ve also worked to deny the reality of Black crime and to censor those who speak the truth about it. That’s why British Whites need to put leftists like Tony Blair and Barbara Roche on trial for crimes against humanity. Leftists like those knew exactly what would happen when they opened our borders to Blacks. And it has duly happened, year after year, generation after generation. In “Precious Jews, Worthless Whites,” I wrote about one bestial Black crime among many thousands: the torture, murder, and probable rape of an elderly and isolated White woman called Susan Hawkey by a Black male called Xyaire Howard.

There was no anguished commentary in the leftist media about Susan Hawkey’s death. Although leftists pretend to care about vulnerable women and male violence, in reality most of them care only about themselves and their own advantage. And it’s because they care about themselves that another bestial Black crime has slipped through the cordon sanitaire and provoked anguished commentary in the leftist media. Feminists at the Guardian don’t identify with elderly working-class White women in London any more than they identify with working-class White girls in Rotherham. But they do identify with the woman who was brazenly raped on the London underground by a “depraved” Black called Ryan Johnson. For example, as you read Gaby Hinsliff’s article about the rape in the Guardian, you can almost hear her saying to herself: “My God, this is serious — it could have been me!”

It was broad daylight, and there were other people in the tube carriage. She should have been safe.

She’d fallen asleep, missed her stop, and ended up at the end of the Piccadilly line. But still, on a weekend morning in a bustling city, she should have been safe. And yet, hauntingly, she wasn’t.

Last week, Ryan Johnston was sentenced to nine years in prison for raping a 20-year-old woman on the tube in front of a horrified French tourist and his young son, in a case the detective leading the investigation described as one of the most disturbing of his career. …

Something about this story, which unfolded in the space of just two tube stops, punches through all women’s comforting illusions about when and how we are safe. It has spread like wildfire through female WhatsApp groups, prompting questions about how on earth it could have happened: how could anyone not intervene in a rape unfolding in front of them? (If a woman can be raped in broad daylight on a train, there are tough questions for all of us, The Guardian, 15th December 2023)

Bestial Black Rapist #1: Ryan Johnson

The headline of the article claims that the rape raises “tough questions for all of us.” But the Guardian isn’t genuinely interested in raising tough questions, let alone in answering them. It would never allow a frank and honest discussion of Black criminality and its roots in Black genetics. Given a choice between admitting the uncomfortable reality of racial difference and maintaining the virtue-signaling fantasy of egalitarianism, no good leftist hesitates for a second. It’s fantasy every time. Gaby Hinsliff asks “how on earth” the rape could have happened, but she doesn’t want to hear the truth. And the truth is that it happened because leftists like her have imported Blacks and other non-Whites by the million while demonizing and censoring all those who warned about the inevitable consequences.

Bestial Black Rapist #2: Fiston Ngoy

The further truth is that crimes like that will continue to happen until leftists are removed from power and their non-White pets are sent back where they belong. But there’s also something sickly ironic in the leftist response to this rape. Even as they refuse to admit the truth about Black bestiality and their own collaboration with it, they’re providing further examples of both. Hinsliff says that “The whole thing stirs memories of a notorious attack on a woman on a train in Philadelphia in 2021. … a slowly unfolding horror that began with the attacker trying to strike up an unwanted conversation, then groping his victim, before finally progressing to rape.” Guess what? The rape was carried out by a Black called Fiston Ngoy, an illegal Congolese migrant who’d already committed sex crimes in America and who should have been deported in 2015.

A chain of bestial rapes

The Guardian didn’t mention Mr Ngoy’s Congolese origins, previous crimes or failed deportation in its own coverage of that rape in Philadelphia. But it did mention what it coyly called “the Kitty Genovese case.” Kitty Genovese was a White woman who was brutally raped and murdered in a public space in New York in 1964. That crime is still famous because it allegedly demonstrated the “bystander effect” and how city-life makes us reluctant to intervene in crimes.

Bestial Black Rapist #3: Winston Moseley

In fact, it didn’t show that at all. But it did show something else that the leftist media never want to talk about: the bestiality of Blackness. Surprise, surprise — that public rape was committed by a Black called Winston Moseley, who did so while his victim was dying from the stab-wounds he’d inflicted on her. So there’s a chain of bestial rapes in public spaces: London, Philadelphia, New York. And the rapes were all committed by Blacks. I’m reminded of a story about the great White psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910), who was supposedly told by a little old lady that the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle:

“If your theory is correct, madam,” he asked, “what does this turtle stand on?”

“You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question,” replied the little old lady, “but I have an answer to it. And it is this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him.”

“But what does this second turtle stand on?” persisted James patiently.

To this the little old lady crowed triumphantly: “It’s no use, Mr. James — it’s turtles all the way down.” (See “Turtles all the way down” at Infogalactic)

In the three bestial rapes, it’s Blacks all the way down. And super soaraway sub-Saharans like those will continue to plumb the depths of depravity in White nations until they become sub-Saharan not only in genetics but in geography too. In other words, Blacks have to go back to sub-Saharan Africa. They’ll continue to commit bestial crimes in the Motherland, of course, but that’s a problem Blacks have to fix for themselves.

Conquest by Consciousness: Blacks and Translunatics as Anti-Matter in the Worlds of Whites and Women

Anti-matter has hit the headlines recently. Metaphorically speaking, that is. If anti-matter literally hit the headlines in a newspaper or on a computer screen, there would be a huge explosion. Matter and anti-matter annihilate each other when they meet, disappearing in a blaze of deadly radiation. Scientists have long known this, but they didn’t know whether anti-matter responded to gravity in the same way as matter.

The antithesis of Whiteness

Now they know that it does: it falls rather than rises. That’s why anti-matter is in the headlines. One simple fact took decades to verify because anti-matter is so rare in our material universe and so hard to manufacture. In a literal sense, that is. In a metaphorical sense, anti-matter is very common and leftists are manufacturing more of it all the time. What am I talking about? I’m talking about Blacks, Muslims, and other non-Whites. They represent a kind of anti-matter in Western societies, opposite to Whites in all socially and culturally consequential ways. Blacks in particular are the antithesis of Whiteness in everything from skin color to behavior. On average, they’re unintelligent, unproductive, uncivilized, unable to match White achievements but above average at murder, rape, robbery, and theft. Blacks destroy what Whites create, but they don’t disappear in the process. They’re a kind of ever-lasting anti-matter that annihilates without being annihilated.

And that’s precisely why leftists are so eager to sanctify Blacks and to import more of them into the West. At the moment the sanctification is reaching new heights in Britain: October is Black History Month here. That’s the official and inaccurate title, anyway. As I’ve said previously at the Occidental Observer, I prefer the unofficial but accurate title of Black Bullshit Month. It’s bullshit, for example, to claim that Roman emperor Septimius Severus (145–211 AD) was both Black and British because he was born in Africa and died in Britain. That’s a willful trashing of history and ethnography, but the Left’s love of diversity disappears when leftists have lies to promote and propaganda to spout. In scientific reality, the continent of Africa is very racially diverse. South of the Sahara, it’s home to many different kinds of Black; north of the Sahara, it’s home to races that aren’t Black at all, like Arabs and Berbers.

Septimius Severus: Black African (from Wikipedia)

The horrible sins of imperialism and slavery

In leftist fantasy, the Sahara disappears, the Arabs and Berbers are erased, and ancient Africa becomes an exclusively Black continent. That’s why leftists pretend that Septimius Severus was Black simply because he was born in northern Africa. They also pretend that a group of Roman soldiers stationed on Hadrian’s Wall were Black. The now-famous Aurelian Moors came from northern Africa too; therefore leftist logic dictates that they too were Black. In fact, no: the Aurelian Moors were from a non-Black race like the Berbers. But something strange seems to be going on here. Why do leftists want to pretend that Blacks were an important and everyday part of Roman civilization? By leftist standards, the Romans were guilty of the huge and horrible sins of imperialism, colonialism, and slavery. The very words “empire,” “colony,” and “slave” come to us from Latin. But leftists don’t want to associate Blacks with evils like those, of course. They want Blacks to be associated with the grandeur, prestige, and great achievements of Rome, while keeping the bad parts strictly for Whites.

BBC broadcasts bullshit #1: ahistorical nonsense about allegedly Black Romans

BBC broadcasts bullshit #2: Blacks were central to Tudor England

For another good example of this, take the BBC’s lies about Blacks having “Been Here From the Start” in Britain. In a video aimed at impressionable and uncritical children, a Black actor dresses in various White costumes and sings that “For ten thousand British years some Brits have looked like me.” That’s right: because neolithic inhabitants of Britain may have had dark skin, Blacks have been “Here From the Start.” It’s like using light-skinned Albinos in Africa to pretend that Whites have always been part of African history. But the BBC wouldn’t do that to African history, of course, because the lies and ahistorical nonsense go only one way: to aggrandize Blacks and dispossess Whites. Elsewhere in the video, the Black actor appears in Roman armor and promotes the now widespread lies about Septimius Severus and the Aurelian Moors being Black. Roman uniforms are grand and glorious, and leftists love portraying Blacks in gilded breastplates and scarlet cloaks. And in Tudor finery.

But if Blacks are so important in British history, does that mean they share the blame for the horrible crimes committed by the British, like slavery and colonialism? Of course not: the BBC want to associate Blacks with the grandeur, prestige, and great achievements of Britain while keeping the bad parts strictly for Whites. Indeed, leftists are already starting to pretend that there would have been no great achievements in the West without Blacks. Just as they’ve tried to steal the greatness of Britain and the Roman Empire for Blacks, so they’ve tried to steal the greatness of the American space program and Moon landings:

[O]n November 24th, 2015, President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award, to a 97-year-old [Black] woman named Katherine Johnson, saying of her that “from sending the first American into space to the first moon landing, she played a critical role in many of NASA’s most important milestones.” Charles Bolden, the NASA Administrator at that time, said that “she’s one of the greatest minds ever to grace our agency or our country” and that “Katherine’s legacy is a big part of the reason that my fellow astronauts and I were able to get to space.” Dr. Dava Newman, NASA’s Deputy Administrator, said that “she literally wrote the textbook on rocket science. … At NASA, we are proud to stand on Katherine Johnson’s shoulders.” The award ceremony was soon followed by the best-selling book Hidden Figures and then by the film version, a critical and box-office hit. In both the book and the film, Katherine Johnson was the leading character.

Her story had seemingly come out of nowhere. None of the NASA interviews of the veterans of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo had mentioned her, nor had any of the autobiographies or histories written about the manned spaceflight program. How could such an important figure have been so completely ignored? The natural next step for NASA would have been to re-interview the surviving veterans who had been associated with the accomplishments attributed to Katherine Johnson, seeking to explain how this gaping hole in the story had come about. That didn’t happen. (The Portrayal of Early Manned Spaceflight in Hidden Figures: A Critique, introduction by Charles Murray)

The heavily White “Black genius” Katherine Johnson (image from Wikipedia)

It didn’t happen because leftists don’t want their lies and distortions to be exposed. Yes, the heavily White Katherine Johnson was a hardworking and competent mathematician, but she was a small cog in a very big machine designed, built, and powered by White men. Without Blacks, America would still have got into space and landed men on the Moon. In fact, as Paul Kersey has often pointed out, if it weren’t for Blacks and the trillions of dollars wasted on them, America might well have landed men on Mars by now. Blacks are a drag and a drain on any civilization stupid enough to host them, but that’s precisely why leftists pretend that Blacks are an essential part of the West — and have “Been Here from the Start.” Inverting the truth is central to the leftist hunt for power, as Orwell described in his great satire Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). In the book, the Ministry of Truth presides over lies, the Ministry of Plenty over famine, the Ministry of Peace over war, and the Ministry of Love over torture. The Ministry of Truth was, of course, inspired by Orwell’s days at the BBC. He also satirized how leftism re-writes history and appropriates great achievements for its own ends:

In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, part 2, chapter 5)

The Party in modern America — the leftist industrial-mendacity complex — is claiming great White achievements for Blacks: Katherine Johnson put men on the Moon, Gladys West pretty much invented the Global Positioning System (GPS), and so on. Orwell was satirizing this kind of leftist propaganda more than sixty years ago. But another White writer, Walter de la Mare, offers another important insight into what leftists are doing. Not all of their propaganda about Blacks is based on lies. Yes, it’s a lie that a very important figure like Septimius Severus was Black and that the Black Katherine Johnson was a vital figure in the American space program. But it is true that there was a Black trumpeter called John Blanke in Tudor England. In her “critically acclaimed” book Black Tudors: The Untold Story (2017), the Jewish historian Miranda Kaufmann celebrates the presence of Blanke and a few other Blacks in Tudor England amid millions of Whites. But her celebration is dishonest, because those Blacks were insignificant by any objective standard. They did nothing Whites couldn’t have done just as well or better and Tudor England did not depend on them in any way. So why do Kaufmann and other leftists make so much of their presence?

A Jew centers insignificant Blacks in White history: Miranda Kaufmann’s Black Tudors (2017)

Well, Kaufman is pursuing a typically Jewish anti-White agenda. She isn’t interested in Blacks for their own sake, but for the sake of distorting British history,  diluting British identity, and dispossessing Whites. Nevertheless, there’s something else going on in the leftist celebration of insignificant Blacks like John Blanke. And I think that something was captured by the great White writer Walter de la Mare (1873-1956) in one of his poems, when he describes the solipsistic megalomania of the emperor Napoleon during the French retreat from Russia:

“What is the world, O soldiers?
      It is I:
I, this incessant snow,
  This northern sky;
Soldiers, this solitude
  Through which we go
      Is I.”

The poem says that by being conscious of the world, Napoleon claimed possession of it and solipsistically absorbed it into himself. Leftists want Blacks everywhere in British history because they want a similar process to apply. For example, if even a single Black was present in and conscious of Tudor England, that Black could somehow claim possession of it. Tudor England was inside a Black brain, therefore a Black was, in a mystical sense, possessing and sustaining Tudor England. That’s what leftists are trying to pretend. And Blacks are very happy to accept the pretence. After all, it’s not difficult to encourage solipsism and megalomania in Blacks. But it is difficult to find grandeur and great achievements in Black Africa and its history. That’s why leftists create fantasies like Wakanda and why the anti-White Black artist Kehinde Wiley has appropriated a famous and impressive image of none other than Napoleon:

Great White art appropriated by the anti-White Black Wiley Kehinde (image from SmartHistory)

Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825), the French White who created the original painting, was a great artist working in the great White tradition of classical art. His painting embodies not only his own artistic talent but also the technological prowess of White civilization. It’s easy to take bright unfading paints and sturdy canvas for granted, but it’s also wrong. There are centuries of effort, experiment, and innovation behind an artwork like David’s Napoleon Crossing the Alps. And what about the rich fabrics Napoleon is wearing and the horse he is riding? Blacks in Africa never invented oil paints and delicate brushes, never matched White skill in textiles and dyes, and never domesticated any African equivalent of the horse, despite the abundance of large mammals there. The Jewish scientist Jared Diamond has written anti-White fantasies about “African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos” making “mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses.” But his words remain exactly that: fantasies.

“Undomesticable” zebras domesticated by the Jewish zoologist Walter Rothschild (image from Wikipedia)

Diamond claims that Africa’s mammals weren’t “domesticable.” What he means is that Blacks weren’t capable of domesticating them. But Blacks are fully capable of appropriating White achievements to aggrandize themselves and attack Whites. The Black Kehinde Wiley is celebrated by leftists when he appropriates White classical art and sneers at White civilization by replacing an important (and handsome) White figure like Napoleon with an anonymous (and ugly) Black. I don’t think that Walter de la Mare was right in his portrayal of Napoleon as a solipsistic megalomaniac. Even if he was, no-one could deny that Napoleon was a genuinely great man, highly intelligent and hugely competent. There has never been a Black equivalent of Napoleon, because intelligence and competence are in much shorter supply among Blacks than among Whites. On the other hand, solipsism and megalomania are not at all in short supply among Blacks. Take the deeply absurd but also viciously murderous Black dictator Idi Amin (1925–2003), who liked to dress in impressive Western uniforms and who gave himself the title of “His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.”

The cannibal conqueror Idi Amin, a hater of Whites who eagerly appropriated Whiteness

Idi Amin claimed to be conqueror of the British Empire and leftists are portraying other Blacks as, in a sense, conquerors of the Roman Empire. Septimius Severus and the Aurelian Moors weren’t Black, but yes, there were tiny numbers of Blacks within the boundaries of the Roman Empire at one time or another. Leftists pretend that simply by existing there and being conscious of the Romans’ great achievements, those Blacks somehow took possession of the Empire. Something similar explains Jewish lies about America being a “nation of immigrants.” Jews themselves didn’t build America or risk their lives carving civilization from wilderness there — let alone sometimes lose their lives in horrible ways to Indian tribes. No, Jews arrived in a fully formed nation built by Whites and claimed possession of it by right of consciousness. That’s how America became a “nation of immigrants.”

Translunacy and trans-Westernism

But that conquest-by-consciousness hasn’t stopped with Blacks and Britain or Jews and America. It also applies to translunatics and womanhood. A so-called transwoman is a man who asserts that the contents of his consciousness — his subjective emotions and opinions — permit him to overturn biological reality and invade female territory. Because leftism preaches equality and practises hierarchy, leftists deny that women have any right to resist this invasion, just as they deny that Whites have any right to resist the invasion of their territory by non-Whites. Transwomen are higher in the leftist hierarchy than women, just as non-Whites are higher in the leftist hierarchy than Whites. The higher group can invade and occupy the territory of the lower group. If members of the inferior group resist, leftists will condemn them as bigots and haters — transphobes or racists.

This parallel between translunatics and non-White migrants is why I use the term “trans-Westerners” for Blacks, Jews, and other non-Whites who now reside in the West. Like transwomen, they’re claiming an identity that doesn’t belong to them and like transwomen they harm those who are genuinely entitled to that identity. Leftism denies the harm and claims that transwomen and trans-Westerners are more authentic and more deserving of their stolen identities because they (or their migrant ancestors) made an active choice to cross a border. This is a transwoman claiming to be more of a woman than real women:

Trans people are MORE of a woman, or a man, than their cisgender counterparts. Because trans people spend their entire lives fighting to be recognised as their gender. They undergo humiliating tests and invasive questioning to be allowed to transition. They spend hours correcting your misgendering, fighting for gender confirmation treatment, for the right name on their paperwork. (“All Men (And Women) Are Equal,” Huffington Post, 10th March 2018)

And this is a trans-Westerner claiming to be a more of a Westerner than Whites:

I deserve to be here more than you do because I risked my life to get here. You were just born here by chance. I chose here, you didn’t even choose it. @slawariwanm (The non-White Ariwan on Twitter, 21st June 2023)

These claims of superiority are nonsense, of course. Invasion and occupation do not entitle one to an identity that others have created. And leftists would never say that Whites became African or Amerindian by invading and occupying Africa and America. But they applaud transwomen and trans-Westerners for doing what they condemn in Whites. That’s because leftism condemns creators and applauds annihilators. Just as Blacks are anti-matter in White spaces, so transwomen are anti-matter in female spaces. They destroy women’s privacy and security, deprive female athletes of their rightful prizes, and sometimes assault and murder real women.

Annihilators and their anti-matter

Blacks do most of that to Whites, but there’s one big difference. Thanks to genetically mediated male advantages in strength, speed, and spatial ability, transwomen are genuinely more powerful and athletic than real women. But Blacks aren’t more intelligent and creative than Whites. On the contrary, they’re less intelligent and creative. That’s why leftists have to lie about Black achievements and pretend that Blacks have been an essential part of Western civilization.

In fact, Blacks are anti-matter for the West, destroying everything they touch in a blaze of chaos, noise, and violence. But the real Occidental Annihilators are Jews like Jared Diamond and Miranda Kaufmann, who peddle lies and distort history to aggrandize Blacks and dispossess Whites. Naturally enough, Jews like Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler have also been central to the cult of translunacy. Blacks and translunatics are anti-matter in the world of Whites and women, but Jews are the annihilators who manufacture and distribute that anti-matter.

The British police’s anti-racism today

Are young Black men victimised by society or is society victimised by young Black men? Specifically, do the police have it in for young Black men or do young Black men have it in for the police? For more than twenty years it has been the settled opinion of the British police that it is society and especially they, the police, who are at fault. This was illustrated by a press release produced by the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset in June 2023.[1]

Before we come to the press release, consider the following points from Britain’s racial history. The first crime to be reported as a mugging occurred in 1972 when an elderly widower was stabbed to death near Waterloo Station by three young Black men as he walked home from the theatre.[2] They had tried to rob him; he had resisted.

It has been consistently stated over the decades that eighty per cent of London’s muggings are carried out by Black people, which makes a Black person about fifty times as likely to carry out a mugging as anybody else.[3] In 1973, 1,500 such crimes were reported in London;[4] by 1995 the number was 33,000. But reported muggings are a fraction of the total. It seems that in 1981 a certain Black twelve-year-old might have carried out a mugging every day.[5] If so and if London contained 500 boys like him, this would mean more than 175,000 muggings for the city in the year.

Not just that first one but many other muggings have been fatal. For example, in 1993 Constance Brown, 72, was knocked to the ground in South London by a young Black man who smashed her head against the pavement before running off with her handbag. Elizabeth Pinhom, 96, died in hospital in 1997 after being pulled down the front steps of her house when she opened the door to a young Black man, who went off with her bag.[6]

It was in 1970 that young Black men started attacking the police, according to an activist from Trinidad, who wrote that skirmishes and violent confrontations continued throughout the decade.[7] Young Black men first used knives against the police at the Notting Hill carnival in 1976.[8]

The activist, Darcus Howe, was a great admirer of the Brixton riots, where in 1981 young Black men threw petrol bombs at the police and set fire to buildings and vehicles. Howe described the riots as different “in range and depth from previous revolts waged by blacks against the police. This general uprising”, he continued, “stands head and shoulders above all that had gone before”.[9] In another riot, in Tottenham, North London in 1985, a policeman was hacked to death by young Black men with machetes.[10]

Black people had no legitimate grievance against the police on either occasion. The Brixton riots followed a crackdown on street crime. The Tottenham riot started after a woman died of a heart attack when the police came to see her about her son, who had given a false name when found in a car with a fake road licence.

During the 1990s the war on the police was conducted mainly through the media, who aired activists’ portrayal of them as, of course, “racist”. The activist-media alliance met with nothing but success, winning a decisive triumph in 1999 when a retired High-Court judge, Sir William Macpherson, described the police as institutionally racist, a conclusion he reached via a definition that allowed any institution to be described as institutionally racist. Although the police presumably saw the trick, they were prevailed upon to submit, after which they came effectively under the control of anti-racists and rapidly became anti-racist themselves. For example, in 2000 a Deputy Assistant Commissioner boasted that he had reduced the number of young Black men stopped and searched by almost forty per cent in the previous year,[11] during which muggings went up by two thirds.[12]

But it would be more accurate to say that the police became more anti-racist after 1999, for they had started on the road of anti-racism long before. In 1981, a report on the Brixton riots by Lord Scarman, a Law Lord, insistently called on the police to go easy on Black crime.[13] As a result, within ten years they were allowing open drug dealing on the street.[14] Scarman also called on the police to recruit more non-White officers, which led them to lower their admission standards for non-Whites, who enjoyed special treatment once they were in.[15] In 1996 they offered sub-standard young Black men a free ten-week course to help them pass the recruitment tests.[16] In 1998 they launched a scheme to “attract, develop and retain minority ethnic recruits, particularly at a senior level”.[17] As early as 1970, when a workman told the police that children were stealing from his lorry and throwing bricks through people’s windows, he was told that there was nothing they could do because the children were Black.[18]

Confirmed anti-racists by 1999, the police have been upending their traditional values ever since, a process of inversion seen also in every other British institution. This has been accomplished by means of political correctness, of which, if one sees it as a collection of ideologies, anti-racism is the leading one.

So there is nothing new or unusual about the self-hating press release we are about to look at. It is just the sort of thing one expects from the British police, who, after spending twenty years being attacked and accused by Black criminals and anti-racists, have spent twenty more trying to be their friends.

Entitled “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, the document is typical of political correctness in being vague, evasive and inclined to presume what is far from obvious. It fails to define its terms and uses jargon not just to create an impression of expertise but also to defy comprehension. It treats Black people as members of a semi-royal class, not calling them Black people, an expression with only three syllables, but showing its extreme respect by calling them “those who are from Black heritage communities”.

According to Sarah Crew, she intends to make her force anti-racist. What does this mean? Pro-Black.

She mentions a report about disproportionality in her county’s criminal justice system. What is disproportionality? This refers to the fact that the criminal justice system deals with Black people out of all proportion to their numbers in the population, which, according to anti-racism, means that there is something wrong with it. According to anti-racism, the races are the same, therefore no system should deal with one at a higher rate than with another.

Sarah Crew describes a review of the Metropolitan Police as a “stark reminder for policing … that the need for real and profound change is essential if we’re to retain the public’s trust and confidence”. This combines illiteracy with presumption, vagueness and anti-racist code. Presumably it is change rather than the need for it that she deems essential, but why is it needed if the police have the public’s trust and confidence? She means “gain” rather than “retain”. Why does she describe the review as a reminder? Did the police know that real and profound change was needed? Nor does she say what this real and profound change must be. Had she wished to make herself clear, she might have said that the police must look the other way when Black people commit crimes, thereby reducing the disproportionality.

As for “the public’s trust and confidence”, this is a stock phrase that requires translation. “The public” doesn’t mean the public here but the Black public, whose trust and confidence the police are supposed to have forfeited by their “racism”. This is an anti-racist pretence, for the police didn’t have Black people’s trust or confidence to start with. The police adopt the pretence so as to appear to admit to their imaginary guilt. Nor does “trust and confidence” mean trust and confidence; it means approval. The police seek the approval of Black people, specifically criminals, who want them to keep away from their crimes. This the police will never be able to do entirely, for there are times, such as when a murder is committed, when they are expected to get involved. Thus they must perpetually try to please their masters, knowing that they will never quite succeed.

Sarah Crew reports that she has had “encouraging conversations … around institutional racism”. That’s nice, but what is institutional racism? You might think that it would be pervasive racial discrimination in an institution, but Sir William Macpherson defined it as in effect any lack of pro-Black discrimination. Sarah Crew, however, has no doubt that it exists at Avon and Somerset, going by four criteria given by Baroness Casey, which she lists. But Baroness Casey’s criteria are meaningless for she does not define racism, in terms of which she defines institutional racism. Is racism a sentiment, such as aversion to immigration, or an empirical belief, such as that Black people are prone to crime? Is it an act performed by an agent of an institution, such as treating people differently by race, or indeed failing to treat them differently by race? Baroness Casey gives no clue even as to which ballpark her concept might be in.

But “I must accept that the definition fits”, says Sarah Crew, referring to Baroness Casey’s definition of institutional racism. In what way does she think it fits? Even if we imagine that she knows what Baroness Casey means by racism and hence by institutional racism, what took her to her conclusion? For example, if she thinks that Baroness Casey’s third criterion fits, which is that “Racism and racial bias are reinforced within systems”, where does she see racism and racial bias being reinforced at Avon and Somerset? Could she give us some examples? Apparently not.

Baroness Casey’s fourth criterion is that a police force under-protects and over-polices Black heritage people”. This was a popular slogan with anti-racists in the 1980s, but, again, what does it mean? What are the police failing to protect Black people from that they are protecting others from, and if over-policing Black people means paying too much attention to their crimes, how much attention should be paid to them?

“This”, writes Sarah Crew, “is about recognising the structural and institutional barriers that exist and which put people at a disadvantage”. What structural and institutional barriers? She doesn’t say.

She states that “Not being racist is no longer good enough” but doesn’t explain why not. Surely if all her officers refrained from being racist, whatever that might mean, there would be no racism in her force and all would be well. But she thinks that not doing something means standing by while others do it, who should be pounced on: “It is no longer okay to be a bystander and do nothing, to be part of a system that disadvantages one group of people over another”. What she means is that one must be not merely non-racist but anti-racist. One must identify an enemy class, putting oneself on the side of good, and have an ideology that requires non-Whites to be given special treatment.

What does she mean by one group being disadvantaged over another? It’s the disproportionality again. Black people commit crimes at a higher rate than others, therefore they get convicted at a higher rate, therefore they go to prison at a higher rate, therefore they are disadvantaged.

Why must Sarah Crew always speak of the “system” rather than the level at which things actually happen, the level of the individual? It’s because there is no “racism” at the level of the individual. It can only be found in the statistics, which can tell us about “the system”. Or, it is the system that must be transformed, therefore it is in the system that racism must be found.

Apparently she isn’t interested in criminals and their wrongdoing; she is interested in the police and their wrongdoing. This is what attracted her to the job, she says: “the fight against injustice and unfairness”. It’s about “a recognition that the system is unfair, and our job is to make it fair”. She doesn’t say how it is “unfair”, but we can guess. It’s the disproportionality.

She wants to apologise. “Accept it and say sorry” is her policy, and again: “What we can do is say … we’re sorry”. She doesn’t say what she wants to say sorry for or to whom. Presumably it’s to Black people, for the disproportionality again. She wants to apologise to all those who have been convicted of crimes that a better system would have overlooked to make itself more proportional.

She repeats her reference to the “trust and confidence of our communities”, seeming to think that it is because this is lacking that more Black people don’t report crimes committed against them. She has had enough of Black people as offenders; she wants Black victims. We read the heading: “Supporting Black heritage victims of crime”. She’s not bothered about protecting anyone else from crime.

She doesn’t want the police to transform themselves alone. She wants Black people to take part so that “communities [will be] involved in changing our systems”. It’s not enough for her that Black people, through their activists, largely control the police already. She wants them to have more control.

It’s the same with complaints made against the police. Presumably she gets plenty already, but she wants more, so she is “working on a programme … to support young people in understanding … what to do if they feel a police power is not being used legitimately”. This recalls the case of Sarah Everard, a young woman who was killed by an off-duty policeman in 2021. United behind the idea that all men are mortally dangerous, especially policemen, feminists were obliged when the police encouraged women to question the legitimacy of a policeman who might question them.[19] He might be a murderer like Wayne Couzens. The guilt-addicted police welcome anyone who might accuse or suspect them of wrongdoing.

She mentions a scheme that allows people to “avoid a criminal justice outcome for low-level or first-time offences”. The trouble is, she says, that disposing of a matter out of court requires an admission of guilt, “which research has shown can be a barrier to young men of Black heritage”. In other words, young Black men rarely admit they have offended, which leads to “harsher and disproportionate criminal justice outcomes”. So it is hard to see how the scheme is going to work unless the police avoid all contact with these offenders.

She mentions “cultural trauma”, a concept that is just catching on. When Edward Kemp, director of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, confessed to the academy’s “institutional racism” in 2020, he wrote: “We are profoundly sorry for the role we have played in the traumatic and oppressive experiences of our current and past Black students”.[20] The following year, Goldsmith’s, part of the University of London, proposed to narrow the “achievement gap” between Black students and others by allowing Black students extra time to finish their assignments. They would also be able to defer their exams if they had suffered “racial trauma”, it being up to them to say whether they had or not.[21] Neither Kemp nor Goldsmith’s said what racial trauma was, and nor does Sarah Crew, which is not surprising since the term’s only purpose is to give White people something new to accuse themselves of inflicting on Black people, who can use it as yet another excuse for their failures or offences. But Sarah Crew’s force is “committed to becoming a ‘Trauma Informed’ organisation”.

And so in nothing but repulsive English Sarah Crew bows and scrapes to Black people, conceals her meaning, assumes that we already accept what she wants us to accept, talks vaguely about “the system” but never about what is actually done, and uses meaningless slogans and undefined terms left and right. As she goes, she not only puts on a display of institutional self-abasement that would make a statue cringe, but presents herself as noble. Her aim in all this is to persuade us that the police and the rest of the criminal justice system mistreat Black people but might redeem themselves by turning a blind eye to their crimes.

It is to this level of sycophancy, dishonesty and desertion of principle that the police were reduced by anti-racism more than twenty years ago, when the last memory of their original job of preventing and detecting crime without regard to race began to fade. Since then, race has been all-important. “Was this crime committed by someone White? Then let’s get him! Someone Black? Ignore it!” This is the thinking that was pressed on the police throughout the 1980s and ‘90s by anti-racists, aided by the occasional Law Lord or retired High-Court judge, which in this century became the police’s second nature. It is second nature to Sarah Crew, it was second nature to whoever made her a Chief Constable, and it is presumably second nature to all our other Chief Constables. These are the sort of people who like to think, even as they bestow one favour after another on young Black men, that our society and especially they in the police have it in for young Black men.

[1] Avon and Somerset Police, June 16th 2023, “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”,

[2] Stuart Hall et al., 1978, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, Basingstoke: Macmillan, p. 3.

[3] In 1975 a march was held under the slogan “Stop The Muggers. 80% of muggers are Black. 85% of victims are White” (Paul Gilroy, 1987, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, London: Routledge, p. 120). Twenty years later, Paul Condon as Metropolitan Police Commissioner stated in a letter to prominent Black figures such as Diane Abbott MP that eighty per cent of London’s muggers were Black. He invited them to a meeting where their support would be requested for a planned drive against the crime. Several recipients, including Diane Abbott, declined to attend the meeting. One passed the letter to the media, who quoted activists condemning Condon for saying that Black people committed so much crime. The police were out to get them; the statement was a licence for racists, and so forth. What all this did, as intended, was encouraged the idea that mugging was not the problem; the problem was that someone had said that it was mostly the work of young Black men. See Independent, Aug. 4th 1995, “Mugging: criminal or political offence?”,

[4] In 1973 the headline appeared: “Muggings reach four a day in London” (Hall et al 1978, op. cit., p. 8).

[5] In his memoir of his days at a comprehensive school in London in the 1980s, John-Paul Flintoff writes that a Black classmate came in one day and gave him an empty wallet to look after. The next day he did the same. Flintoff does not tell us whether the pattern continued. See John-Paul Flintoff, 1998, Comp: A Survivor’s Tale, London: Indigo Orion, pp. 103-04.

[6] J.F.Cronin, no date (possibly 2000), “The forgotten victims”, Right Now magazine.

[7] Darcus Howe, 1988, From Bobby to Babylon: Blacks and the British Police, London: Race Today, p. 52.

[8] Paul Gilroy 1987, op. cit., p. 96 quotes the Telegraph.

[9] Howe 1988 op. cit., p. 52.

[10] Metropolitan Police, no date, “MPS Historical Timeline: Broadwater Farm Riot 1985”,

[11] This was John Grieve. See Metropolitan Police, Feb. 22nd 2000, “Press Conference Held Re the Anniversary of the Lawrence Inquiry Report”,[…]/b3cb2697adf8d9e1802…OpenDocument.

[12] Muggings went up nineteen per cent in March 1999 alone (Telegraph, April 24th 1999, “Muggings soar as police tread softly”). Towards the end of June 2000 they were reported to have risen 38 per cent in the previous twelve months (Sunday Times, June 25th 2000, “Straw on rack as muggings soar”). This means, on reasonable assumptions about figures month by month, that for every 100 muggings in London at the end of February 1999 there were 178 fifteen months later.

[13] Lord Scarman deemed that the police’s duty to maintain public tranquillity trumped their duty to enforce the law (Lord Scarman, 1982 [1981], The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin, Paragraphs 4.57-4.58). Therefore if an attempt to enforce the law might not be received in a tranquil manner, they should not make the attempt. Secondly he advocated policing with the active consent of the public, which in a place like Brixton the police would never have (Scarman, Paragraph 5.46). Thirdly, he said that the police must exercise discretion, quoting a senior policeman saying that to believe in enforcing the law without concessions to any section of the community was too simplistic. Some groups had different cultural backgrounds (Scarman, Paragraph 5.76).

[14] The anonymous author of “The street where I live” (Independent, Nov. 2nd 1993) thought that in the previous three years someone must have decided to turn his road into a no-go area for the police, where crack dealers could trade openly. Since a policeman had been killed nearby, the police had kept their heads down. Until the shooting the author had been blanking the dealers out, but then a bullet had been fired through the window of a betting shop over the road, which acted as a crack and dope market. Angry at drugs being sold outside his son’s bedroom, he had called the police and told them that the problem was getting worse. “Yes”, they said, “it will get worse. There’s a lot of money involved.” He never saw a police car arrive.

[15] Lord Scarman had required the police to acquire more Black officers, the aim being “that the composition of the police fully reflects that of the society the police serve” (Scarman 1982, op. cit., Paragraph 5.13). In 1989 a superintendent attributed discipline problems with West Indian officers to the fact that non-White recruits were below par. A White officer couldn’t see “why some other bugger shouldn’t have to [study every night] just because he happens to have a different colour skin”. See Roger Graef, 1989, Talking Blues: The Police in Their Own Words, London: Collins Harvill, pp. 134-38.

[16] Telegraph, Feb. 26th 1996.

[17] Metropolitan Police, March 15th 1999, A Police Service for All the People: Report of the MPS Ethnic Minority (Recruitment and Advancement) Working Group.

[18] ThamesTv, Nov. 27th 2020, “1970s London | Poverty in the 70s | North Islington | Community Tension | This week | 1970”,

[19] BBC, Oct. 1st 2021, “Sarah Everard: Challenge plain-clothes officers, Met Police says”,

[20] Ikon London Magazine, June 30th 2020, email from the Director of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art,

[21] History Debunked, June 18th 2021, “How British universities plan to boost the achievement of Black students”,

Review of Black Britain  

Black Britain
Chris Mullard
London: George Allen and Unwin, 1973

Black Britain, published in 1973, is the memoir of a Black man born in Britain in 1944, when Black people were a rarity here. It contains much evidence that as a boy Chris Mullard was encouraged by all around him, but he could not accept that they did not despise him. Out of his racial self-hatred, projected onto others, he forged an identity and career as an anti-racist. He has a violent disposition. All the time he was writing the book, he says, he felt “a disturbing desire to break, smash and riot, to bellow: ‘Whitey! One day you’ll have to pay!’”[1]

The book’s main interest lies in the light it throws on what happened after it was published, when many other anti-racists took Mullard as a model. All with the same aim of destroying White society, they built on his success in promoting the anti-racist programme, which eventually became public policy.

Mullard clearly had hang-ups about his race from an early age. He writes that as a child he was taught that the colour of his skin was ugly, but, he says, the message was conveyed in an extremely subtle way. No one mentioned it.[2] Instead, references were made to Britain’s role in civilising Black people in far-off lands. The only reason the British Empire appeared in the curriculum, Mullard thought, was to put him down.

He claims to have been paraded for all to see because he was Black but also to have been hidden away for this reason: “I found myself in school plays because I was black; I took a back row seat whenever dignitaries visited the school because I was not white”.[3]

He was told that if he did well at school he would get the same chances as anybody else and be respected. He took this to mean that, being Black, he was inadequate.[4] The worst thing he could do, his headmaster told him, was develop a chip on his shoulder about his race. Mullard writes: “I had truly learned the school’s lesson — my skin colour was ugly and to be despised”. We see that we are dealing with a fantasist when we read that Mullard was repeatedly told that “wicked black people … were responsible for all the troubles in the world”.[5]

As a young man Mullard was a social climber. “I courted the daughters of reactionary conservatives. I dined at distinguished places”. As he also puts it: “I associated with bigots”.[6] Just as freely as he calls people bigots, he talks about “oppression”, “exploitation” and “racism” without ever saying what for him makes something qualify for such descriptions. But if he deplores oppression, exploitation and racism, what does he desire? Freedom, justice and equality, of course!

He had a letter published in the Times. “Get out of our country, black rubbish!” someone wrote back. “Blacks are lazy, immoral, savage, drug-taking, stinking bastards.”[7] At last, Mullard had encountered someone who hated Black people. “If I could not find and accept myself I would always have to depend upon the mercy of racists like the author of the note”, he decided, and so began his journey of self-discovery.

Once, he went into a café and ordered some chips. The atmosphere seemed pleasant enough until he noticed a “group of neatly dressed men [who] wore large boots which began a few steel inches beyond their toes and ended abruptly buckled below their knees”.[8] One of them whispered something, then “Abuse electrified the room, punctuated with indelicate commas such as ‘nigger’, ‘ape’, ‘wog’ and ‘Black bastard’”. By the time Mullard had finished his chips, the men were ready to leave. “They pointed at me, laughed and then kicked me as hard as they could. Any objection I made was met with blows to my knees as they violently pushed their chairs under the table”. “Frustrated”, Mullard watched them go to the counter and get their bill.

Did this really happen? If the men were at their table when they pointed to Mullard, didn’t they have to walk over to his before commencing to kick him? How could their chairs, pushed in under one table, have dealt blows to Mullard’s knees as he sat at another? If anything like what he describes occurred, how could Mullard have found it merely frustrating? Shouldn’t he have been doubled up in pain? More likely, as the men left, one of them pushed Mullard’s shoulder to make him spill his tea. Offended that he wasn’t attacked, he made the story up. Although he has said that he had finished his chips, he writes that after the men left, he finished his chips.

But this was another crux: “From that day onwards I knew I could not go on as before”. He entered a period of prolonged thought, which led him to himself: a “new self which was cynical, bitter, full of hate for whites”.

At length, his “longing to hate and destroy” started to abate when he began to associate with other Blacks, which gave him a sense of security — “spiritual rather than intellectual” — unlike anything he had known. Now he could build his identity. But his destructive urge did not entirely disappear. He resolved not to be “turned into garbage like so many black people” but to “fight, hate or even kill”.[9]

He joined an international friendship group, but it showed friendship to Whites. An Indian praised the British, who had given India roads, introduced a system of government and improved the nation’s health before withdrawing. No, they hadn’t, Mullard thought; they had plundered villages, exploited the natives and forced them to accept Western values.[10]

In 1966 he set up his own group to “try and foster a realistic approach towards racial harmony”.[11] The media saw it as revolutionary, but he saw it as concerned with civil rights. It helped him to find himself, giving him a “reason for living”. It also showed him that it was his “duty to organize black rebellion against exploitation and oppression”. His cry was: “I am black, I am proud of it, I pledge my life to killing white racism!”[12]

In 1967, unemployed, he volunteered as a race advisor, having come highly recommended by the person who had put him forward for the role, namely himself: “I thought myself pre-eminently suited for my new advisory job”.[13] Statutory and voluntary bodies started sending people to him, but he saw a problem. He was “working within the system”.

Mullard believes that when West Indian immigration to Britain began, it was because the country had invited West Indians to come and join the workforce. He thinks that people were required who would “accept bad conditions, heavy dirty work, low wages, and long or unattractive hours”.[14] In fact, the immigrants were responding to advertisements put up in the West Indies by companies wanting passengers for their eastbound voyages.

Mullard insists that mass immigration to Britain was nothing new. He thinks the country’s history was one of successive waves of immigration. But although he says that immigrants were habitually abused, sometimes to the point of death, he opposes any restriction on immigration.[15] Let them come and meet their fate!

He feels that White people misunderstand Black people. They think of them as uncivilised and unintelligent when they are just the opposite. Nor are they in any way parasitic; it is just that White people don’t give them enough money.[16] Also, Whites should understand that the right people to determine race policy in a place like Britain are Blacks.[17]

Relativism was already current in 1973, for Mullard thinks that truth comes in different colours. Throughout the book, he says, he insists on “Black truth as opposed to white truth”.[18]

If there is one thing an anti-racist cannot stand it is the races receiving equal treatment. If a Black person joins a queue, nothing could be more unjust than expecting him to stay in it until he reaches the front; he must be placed at the front immediately. In Britain, many Black people, like many White people, found it hard to obtain accommodation. Getting a council house took years. “This was no good for a black with nowhere to live on arrival”, Mullard says,[19] appearing to think that a system was needed whereby as soon as a Black person set foot in the country, everyone else would understand that they would have to wait a little longer for a house.

But what if a Black person got a house that he didn’t entirely like? Mullard cites the case of a Black man who was given a house that was run down.[20] No doubt he was aware that most of Britain’s housing stock was run down, but come on! This man was Black!

It was the same with jobs. Black people could get them but they weren’t necessarily good jobs. They might have to drive buses, sweep factories or do other menial tasks.[21] Menial tasks, for Black people? A scandal!

There were also problems with the schools. Indian children did well, seeing school as a place in which to work, but Black children found it difficult to settle.[22] Moreover, many books were out of date, which made them feel inferior. They might have to sing songs mentioning little brown children, brothers and sisters dear, who hadn’t heard of the Lord in Heaven or been told that God was near.[23] How could they cope? Some sought “solace in aggressive activity” aimed at the “bigoted reluctance” of Whites to accept them as equals.

Mullard opposes the research put out by the “race relations industry”, which concentrated on the “immigrant problem”.[24] Was someone suggesting that immigrants were a problem? Moreover, all the industry preached was brotherly love and equal opportunities.[25] Mullard opposes racial integration, seeing it as liable to “produce more hostility”.[26] He regrets that universities have “jumped on to the bandwagon of promoting good race relations”.[27] Too much time was spent seeking facts, he feels, which he doubts can be presented in an objective fashion.[28] How could people see brotherly love and equal opportunities as desirable, Mullard seems to wonder. Why don’t they realise that the way forward is to incite racial conflict and subvert the dissemination of facts? Above all, why don’t they realise that Blacks must “play an active, if not a majority role in the formation of race policy”?[29]

He opposes the Community Relations Commission and with it the whole concept of community relations. At least, he did until someone made him a community relations officer, at which point he decided that community relations officers were an excellent idea. The only problem was that not everyone wanted to see him in the role. One commissioner wrote that a militant like Mullard was “hardly the kind of person to make a good community relations officer”. The Dean of Manchester thought him immature and lacking in moral sincerity.[30] Filled with “indescribable rage”, Mullard realised that he was involved in “a black versus white battle”.

Mullard finds crime a natural reaction for Blacks to the White denial to them of decent jobs and equal opportunities, although he admits that it has an allure for them. “It is a way of getting our own back on society [and] forging an identity for ourselves”.[31]

But if Blacks are prone to crime, other negative descriptions of them are calumnies: “we are not lazy; we do not live off the dole … we are not the cause of this country’s social and political problems … we are not maladjusted; we are not educationally subnormal”.[32] Rather: “Our habits, customs and cultures are just as civilised as anybody else’s. … We are just as intelligent as others. We are industrious. We possess a sense of morality”. Then again, maybe not, for it isn’t quite clear whether Mullard is talking about what Black people are like here or about their self-conception. This might be a “Black truth”.

He quotes a race official describing exponents of Black Power as “working towards destroying our society. … They’re the cause of bad relations between the coloured community and the host community”; they must be stopped before they ruin race relations beyond repair.[33] But according to Mullard, only “bigoted whites” criticise Black Power. When they refer to Black people committing murder or burning or smashing White property, they fail to see that Black people are fighting for their lives. Blacks “feel that white society is knifing us in the back”.[34]

As Black people resisted race relations policy, causing communication increasingly to break down, Mullard sees passive resistance possibly giving way to more violent forms of behaviour.[35] He expects riots within ten years.

In the meantime, he advocates a massive programme of social change. Every industry “should be given a minimum quota of Black employees”.[36] He denies that this will involve preferential treatment for Blacks, for if there is discrimination against them, then they are underprivileged, and “in order to bring this underprivileged group to the same level as whites it becomes necessary to discriminate positively.” In other words, yes, his programme will involve preferential treatment for Blacks, but this is just what society needs.

He wants such policies to be promoted by the media, the churches and the trades unions so that a “new climate of opinion towards race” is created.[37] It must be accepted that to treat all the same without regard to race is no longer good but bad. To achieve this “complete reversal in attitude and policy”, existing expenditure must be increased by at least twenty times, “with provisions for further increases to possibly five times even this figure”. Thus no limit must be placed on the potential cost to the taxpayer of funding his own demise. Should the White man’s “pathological desire to hold on to the reins of power” persist, it must be contested.[38]

This would all occur under the direction of Black people, with Whites in an assisting role, doing “any job however menial … without expecting gratitude”.[39] This “fight against all forms of racism” would “foster a black British identity” and “destroy once and for all the dubious concept of community relations by using conflict as a tool”.[40]

The media must cease to give publicity to Black violence under the “pretence of only informing their audience”.[41] They must attack society’s “racist framework”, not support it. Films must cast Black actors in all kinds of roles, not just as bus-drivers, entertainers or sportsmen. All institutions must improve race relations, which “can only be done, ultimately, by giving support to the demands of black Britain”.

Mullard sees a bloody battle coming. It will start with Blacks using pressure, demonstrations and scorching resentment, and then, when peaceful means fail, it will “explode into street fighting, urban guerrilla warfare, looting, burning and rioting”.[42] To those who think this can never happen, Mullard says: “Watch out, whitey, nigger goin’ to get you!”[43]

In Chris Mullard we therefore have an aggressive, race-obsessed megalomaniac full of paranoid delusions. Everything he imagines to be true of Whites with regard to Blacks, he wishes to make true of Blacks with regard to Whites.

But for an insight into the character of Britain, consider this. In the 1970s Mullard was put in charge of a unit at the London Institute of Education, England’s premier teacher-training establishment, and in 2004 he was made a Companion of the British Empire for his work in race relations.[44]

It is therefore unsurprising that his programme, whether espoused by him or those who came after him, was implemented almost to the letter. It is now decades since Britain last tolerated fair competition. Rather, in the name of “diversity”, “inclusion” and “equity”, it is decided before a competition starts what proportion of the rewards will go to members of which races regardless of their performance.

In 1973 Mullard’s idea that Whites are bad and Blacks are good seemed like something out of a sick cartoon. Now, question it and you will be shunned.

He wanted the media to keep quiet about Black crime. They had already started doing this by the time his book came out. When years later the Home Office stated that the media must do nothing to encourage feelings of racial antipathy (meaning antipathy to non-Whites), the decree was unnecessary.[45] As for attacking society’s “racist framework”, what else do the media do, and how long is it since a film has failed to show an astrophysicist or saviour of society as Black?

Reflecting Mullard’s view that forming racial policy should be kept out of the hands of Whites, Britain’s Home Secretaries are invariably non-White these days. Two recent commissions on matters concerning race were both chaired by Black men.[46] When the BBC reported on one of them, it invited only non-Whites to comment. We had already seen a special committee on race questions chaired by another Black man.[47] Today, the idea that a White person might have something to say about race or racial policy would be considered ludicrous.

As for Mullard’s prediction of riots within ten years, it came true in Bristol in 1980 and Brixton in 1981.

Mullard wanted no restrictions on immigration. Every year now, the numbers of immigrants to Britain set new records, apparently as a matter of government policy.

All told, we are living in pretty much the country Mullard dreamed of.

[1] Black Britain, p. 7

[2] Ibid., p. 14.

[3] Ibid.., p. 14.

[4] Ibid.., p. 15.

[5] Ibid.., p. 14.

[6] Ibid.., p. 16.

[7] Ibid.., p. 17.

[8] Ibid.., p. 20.

[9] Ibid.., p. 24.

[10] Ibid.., p. 29.

[11] Ibid.., p. 29-30.

[12] Ibid.., p. 34.

[13] Ibid.., p. 31.

[14] Ibid.., p. 38.

[15] Ibid.., p. 40. Mullard refers to Irish immigrants as slaves: “Many of Britain’s canals and roads were built by the navvy gangs of Irish slaves”.

[16] Black people suffer from “inadequate provision” (Ibid.., p. 159).

[17] “Throughout I have taken the view that race policies should be dictated by Blacks, not by Whites”, p. 7. See also p. 56.

[18] Ibid.., p. 7.

[19] Ibid.., p. 41.

[20] Ibid.., p. 42.

[21] Ibid.., p. 43.

[22] Ibid.., p. 45.

[23] Ibid.., p. 44.

[24] Ibid.., p. 66.

[25] Ibid.., p. 65.

[26] Ibid.., p. 52.

[27] Ibid.., p. 67.

[28] Ibid.., p. 69.

[29] Ibid.., p. 72.

[30] Ibid.., p. 107.

[31] Ibid.., p. 151.

[32] Ibid.., p. 152.

[33] Ibid.., pp. 153-54.

[34] Ibid.., p. 156.

[35] Ibid.., p. 156.

[36] Ibid.., p. 163.

[37] Ibid.., pp. 164-67.

[38] Ibid.., p. 155.

[39] Ibid.., p. 169.

[40] Ibid.., p. 168.

[41] Ibid.., pp. 171-73.

[42] Ibid.., p. 176.

[43] Ibid.., p. 176.

[44] ChronicleLive, June 12th 2015, “Race activist Chris Mullard talks of his time in North East”,

[45] A statement from 1989, quoted in The Response to Racial Attacks and Harassment: Guidance for the Statutory Agencies, a report of the Home Office Inter-Departmental Racial Attacks Group, quoted in Rae Sibbitt, 1997, The Perpetrators of Racial Harassment and Racial Violence, Home Office Research Study 176,, p. 85.

[46] I mean David Lammy’s report on racial disparities in the criminal justice system (2020) and Tony Sewell’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (2021).

[47] This was Simon Woolley’s Race Disparity Audit Advisory Group (2018).

Anti-racism’s victory over the British police

Anti-racists have never approved of racial impartiality. Only discrimination in favour of non-Whites, especially Blacks, is acceptable to them. They especially object to any lack of pro-Black discrimination in the police. For fifty years it has been their goal to get the police to ignore Black crime. They have largely achieved it.

In 1981 the police decided to crack down on street crime in Brixton, where it was rife. The result was the Brixton riots, where young Black men spent a weekend hurling bricks and petrol bombs at the police and setting fire to vehicles and buildings. This was their reply to the police’s impertinence in seeking to hold them to the law.

A report on the riots by Lord Scarman, a Law Lord, called on the police to go easy on Black crime on three grounds, one of them being that their duty to maintain public tranquillity was more important than their duty to enforce the law.[1] If an attempt to enforce the law might be met with violent resistance, in other words, it should not be made. The police took the message so much to heart that within ten years they were letting young Black men engage in open drug dealing on the street.[2] Such responses to Lord Scarman’s call were the first great success for anti-racism, which had emerged as a recognisable political movement in the 1970s.

Anti-racism took a second great leap forward in 1983, when its activists badly needed racial incidents with Black victims to back up their claim that non-Whites were commonly abused by Whites. The predominance of incidents with White victims, as in mugging, could not help them portray Whites as the aggressor race. Then they realised that a fake racial incident was as good as a real one if the public believed that it was real. It would go into the statistics like a real incident, attract the same publicity and have the same political effects.

As it happened, the Home Office also needed racial incidents with Black victims. In 1981 it had produced a report called Racial Attacks, which manipulated statistics to portray Whites as aggressive racists. This was all well and good, but actual attacks on Blacks were needed to give the manipulated statistics substance. Frustrated by the shortage, the Home Office too realised that fake attacks would be as good as real ones. The attacks might be fake but the statistics would be real.

And so in 1983 the Home-Office-funded Association of Chief Police Officers supplied the police with a definition of a racial incident that could be used to manufacture racial incidents at will. According to the definition, a racial incident was “any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person”.[3] All that was required was an allegation. It did not need to be backed up by any evidence.

Anti-racist activists were delighted. Now they only needed to persuade the police to apply the definition to any incident with a Black victim where somebody — possibly the victim, possibly an activist, possibly the police themselves — made an allegation of a racial motive and they would have all the evidence, real or bogus, of White racial aggression that they could wish for. The police obliged and started describing crimes as racially motivated with no evidence of a racial motive.[4]

Indeed, they needed no evidence that White people had been involved. They could conjure White offenders into existence by accepting an allegation that the motives of imaginary offenders were racial. It was this definition that enabled the police to make their biggest ever gift to anti-racists by blaming the murder of a young Black man on White people after an agitated young Black man found with the body blamed the crime on Whites of whom there was no trace.[5]

That was in 1993, when it looked as if the progress of a new social movement called political correctness might be unstoppable. In that year Giles Auty wrote in the Spectator: “Within the next five years I fully expect to see the full horrors of political correctness imported lock, stock, and barrel from American academic institutions to our own”.[6] This occurred, nor was it just academic institutions that accepted political correctness but every public institution.

Political correctness is a kind of super-ideology whose main job is to enforce its sub-ideologies and make life uncomfortable for those who do not go along with them. From the start its two main sub-ideologies were anti-racism and feminism, which, although some of their more bizarre doctrines jarred with many people, were presented by the media as necessary and good. To cite two bizarre doctrines, the basic proposition of anti-racism is that the races are essentially the same, and the basic proposition of feminism is that the sexes too are “equal”. Thus any difference between the circumstances of the races or the circumstances of the sexes can only be due to the oppressive effects of White power or male power. And so it turned out that the idea of universal human equality made a supposedly unanswerable case against White people and especially men. To be politically correct was to condemn one’s own society.

The compulsory and punitive nature of political correctness brought us a new age of hypocrisy. Unless people wanted to be shunned as retrograde and nasty, they had to profess agreement with its doctrines, however obviously untrue or pernicious they might be. There was no room for frankness or clarity now that public discourse appeared to be governed by an overriding need to protect an invisible, slightly deranged and ultra-sensitive woman from the risk of fainting, as she might do if any fact she found distasteful happened to be mentioned. As one generation followed another, pretence was followed by credulity. Soon there were young people who actually believed the dogmas of political correctness.

Political correctness was a new name for cultural Marxism, not that that phrase was yet often heard. Appearing in America towards the end of the 1980s, it offered fresh hope to Marxists just as Marxism as we knew it was being discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1992, a jocular guide to what today might be called the clown world that was descending on us was provided by The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook, which told us that so as not to allude to sex we must call waitresses “waitrons”.[7] To show that we saw no difference between human beings and other animals, we were supposed to call animal trainers “inter-species communicators”. A milkman was a “milkperson”, vegetarian cuisine was “non-violent food”, and a book was a “processed tree carcase”. According to Mary Koss, women who denied that they were oppressed were “trying to pass as non-victimized”. Leonard Jeffries, head of Afro-American Studies at City University, New York, found the destruction of the Challenger spacecraft something to be applauded since it might deter White people from “spreading their filth throughout the universe”. The scientific method was to be despised as a “patriarchal conspiracy”.

A thorough journalistic treatment of political correctness came in 1994 in the book Dictatorship of Virtue.[8] Academic treatments started to appear, with titles like “Political correctness in Britain: A blueprint for decline”,[9] “Who placed American men in a psychic ‘iron cage’?”[10] and “The Historical Roots of Political Correctness”.[11]

By the turn of the century, political correctness was more or less mainstream. People who still used their faculties of thought and observation were marginalised as enemies of society, as they are even more today, when the continuation of political correctness is called “wokeness”. Naturally, anti-racism received another great boost when political correctness made it in effect obligatory.

An abiding aim of anti-racist activists was to get the police officially described as institutionally racist. No one knew or particularly cared what the term might mean; the important thing was that if it was formally attached to the police, they would be conclusively disgraced. The establishment would have turned on its own and, by condemning itself as racist, have proclaimed itself to be anti-racist.

Lord Scarman had refused to call the police by the dread term. It was left to Sir William Macpherson, a retired high-court judge, to do this in 1999 in his report on an unconcluded murder case. Under pressure from anti-racists,[12] he used a purpose-built definition that allowed any institution to be described as racist if it did not discriminate in favour of non-Whites or do so sufficiently.[13] As soon as his report was published, every institution in the country, from the British Medical Association to the church, the universities, the judiciary and the political parties, as well as the police, dramatically stepped up the degree of its pro-Black discrimination. Pretending or perhaps really believing that they were doing something good, they put an end to the principle of equal treatment, an ancient cornerstone of British justice, forever.[14]

One anti-racist activist, who as a student revolutionary had been described by the Foreign Office as a troublemaker acting with malice aforethought,[15] was particularly chuffed. This was Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, who had commissioned the Macpherson report and stated on receiving it that he intended to use it to create “permanent and irrevocable change … across the whole of our society”.[16] He did just this by imposing racial quotas on the public services,[17] thereby institutionalising racial discrimination. Institutional racism, supposedly being dispelled, was installed, which Straw described as a great step forward for society.[18] Foreseeably, the public services became the home of incompetence and corruption as anti-racism itself took another great step forward.

Things went on in the same vein, as when in 2017 Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, called for judges to treat Black criminals more leniently and White criminals more harshly than they had been doing.[19]

Lord Scarman, Sir William Macpherson, Lord Thomas: it was those at the very top of the criminal justice system who introduced anti-racism to it and drove it deeper and deeper in, presumably with the support of the Home Office or at its behest.

Anti-racism’s next great surge came in 2020 with the Black Lives Matter movement, which prompted another dramatic increase in the desired form of institutional racism. Bodies such as the British Museum, the British Library and the National Trust made a point of showing how ashamed they were of British history and culture, apologised for oppressing Black people and promised to give them more important positions with immediate effect.[20] Needless to say, they had in no way wronged Black people; they were expressing a purely visceral urge to racial self-abasement. So lacking was any anti-Black discrimination that the media had to borrow the death of George Floyd from Minneapolis to suggest that something was amiss. With no injustice to point to, they spoke ambiguously of “racial inequality”, intended to be taken to mean inequality of treatment but in fact referring to inequality of circumstance, which is a natural product of differences between the races.

Lord Scarman’s injunction to the police to go easy on Black crime had sunk in so deeply by this time that when they came across a mini-riot in Brixton, they ran away. They actually took to their heels sooner than confront Black criminals.[21] During an interview with Sky News, a former Metropolitan Police chief was cut off when saying that the police had given up trying to stop young Black men carrying weapons. It was more than their careers were worth to attempt to hold Black people to the law, he was saying when he was interrupted.

It was now police policy to stand by and allow rioting and looting if those doing the rioting and looting were Black. This policy was causing concern in cities like Nottingham and Manchester, where retail chains were thinking of closing down, so much of their stock were they losing to young Black men, whom the police would not arrest.[22]

Anti-racists must have split their sides as they congratulated themselves on the extent of their achievement. It was already years since they had disposed of the principle of equality before the law. For years the police had been free to pursue crimes committed by Whites with as much vigour as they could muster, and law-abiding acts as well, such as posting limericks on social media that were not to the liking of favoured groups, as long as they did not lay a finger on Blacks. Now, this had induced young Black men to make rioting and looting a weekly pastime, which threatened to change the face of the high street, and still the police would not act. What could be more satisfying?

[1] Lord Scarman, 1982 (1981), The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin, Paragraphs 4.57-4.58. Secondly Scarman advocated policing with the active consent of the public, which in a place like Brixton the police would never have (Paragraph 5.46). Thirdly, he said that the police must exercise discretion, quoting a senior policeman saying that to believe in enforcing the law without concessions to any section of the community was too simplistic; some groups had different cultural backgrounds (Paragraph 5.76).

[2] The anonymous author of “The street where I live” (Independent, Nov. 2nd 1993) thought that in the previous three years someone must have decided to turn his road into a no-go area for the police, where crack dealers could trade openly. Since a policeman had been killed nearby, the police had kept their heads down. There was a sense that the dealers were winning. Until the shooting, the author had been blanking them out, but then a bullet had been fired through the window of a betting shop over the road, which acted as a crack and dope market. Angry at drugs being sold outside his son’s bedroom, the author had called the police and told them that the problem was getting worse. “Yes”, they said, “it will get worse. There’s a lot of money involved.” He never saw a police car arrive.

[3] In full the definition stated that a racial incident was “any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person” (from “Race Equality in the UK Today: Developing Good Practice and Looking for Reform: The Police”, a handout distributed by John Newing, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, on December 8th 1998 at QMW Public Policy Seminars: Developing New Legislation and Strategies on Race Equality, Royal Over-Seas League, London SW1).

[4] In 1991 a Black teenager named Rolan Adams was killed by a White one in South-East London in a fight that broke out between two gangs. Activists called the murder racially motivated on the basis that one gang was Black and the other White, although neither gang was in fact racially uniform (Transcripts of the Proceedings of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, 1998,, pp. 4,209 4,575 and 7,883-84). In 1992, also in South-East London, a sixteen-year-old Indian named Rohit Duggal was killed by a White youth in an altercation that had nothing to do with race (Ibid., pp. 7,878-79). The police classified both murders as racial as soon as they heard about them (Ibid., pp. 7,885 and 7,887-88).

[5] Ibid., pp. 5,747 and 4,653.

[6] Spectator, July 31st 1993.

[7] Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf, 1992, London: Grafton-HarperCollins.

[8] Richard Bernstein, 1995 (1994), Dictatorship of Virtue: How the Battle Over Multiculturalism Is Reshaping Our Schools, Our Country, and Our Lives, New York: Vintage.

[9] Frank Ellis, Jan. 9th 1994, “Political correctness in Britain: A blueprint for decline”, Academic Questions, vol. 7.

[10] Gerald L. Atkinson, 1998, “Who Placed American Men in a Psychic ‘Iron Cage’?”,

[11] Raymond V. Raehn, no date, “The Historical Roots of Political Correctness”,

Other useful sources include Brian Mitchell, 1998, Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, Washington, DC: Regnery; William McGowan, 2002, Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, San Francisco: Encounter; and Occidental Observer, March 10th 2017, “No Campus (Or Country) for White Men” by Edward Connelly,

[12] The activist Lee Jasper threatened Macpherson with riots if he did not call the police institutionally racist: “We are set for repetitions of police attacks, community reprisals, civil disturbances. I do not say that lightly. …I know very well … that unless this matter is sorted out, sooner or later there is going to be huge explosions on the streets of Britain.” He went on: “Our own community would say … maybe we should have a couple of riots anyway to focus the minds, maybe we should burn down a couple of buildings and beat some police officers in order that you can get the focus”. (1990 Trust, 1998, The 1990 Trust Human Rights Programme, London: 1990 Trust, p. 665.)

[13] Macpherson did not define institutional racism briefly and comprehensibly, such as by saying that it referred to pervasive racial discrimination in an institution. According to his lengthy and obscure definition, it was:

the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.

(Sir William Macpherson, 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office,, Paragraph 6.34.)

This definition did not condemn racial discrimination. On the contrary, by suggesting that different treatments could be “appropriate” for the different races, it permitted it. It did not require any discrimination to have been going on for an institution to be deemed racist; only something amounting to discrimination, such as the races being treated equally, which, given differences between the races, produces race-correlated outcomes. It did not require evidence of any wrongdoing but said that institutional racism could be “seen or detected” in various things, meaning that it could be detected where it could not be seen. It did not require any individual to have done anything wrong but allowed “collective” guilt to be assigned directly to an institution. It did not intend the concept of institutional racism to be applied to any race impartially but singled out “minority ethnic people” as potential victims, thereby placing no limit on the amount of discrimination that could be aimed at Whites. This kind of discrimination could be inflicted in the name of combating “institutional racism”.

[14] Macpherson made his purpose a little too apparent when he called for the police to be legally compelled to discriminate by race. “Colour-blind policing must be outlawed”, he decreed (Ibid., Paragraph 45.24).

[15] Telegraph, March 7th 2003, “Straw was student trip’s chief troublemaker”,

[16] BBC, Feb. 24th 1999, “Lawrence: quotes at a glance”,,.

[17] Home Office (1) March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan; (2) July 28th 1999, Race Equality: The Home Secretary’s employment targets.

[18] Hansard, Feb. 24th 1999. Vol. 326, col. 393,

[19] Sarah Corriher, Dec. 7th 2020, “U.K. prisons are for Whites only”, Sarah Corriher’s video shows a Daily Star headline from 2017: “Judges will go softer on minorities as punishments get tough on White kids”.

[20] For example, the British Library was explicit in its support for Black Lives Matter. Resources disseminated there urged employees to donate to the organisation and educate themselves about their “privilege” by reading Marxist authors. Internal emails revealed a staff group which claimed that being colour-blind was a sign of “covert White supremacy” (Telegraph, Aug. 23rd 2020, “British Library should lose taxpayer funding over support for BLM and Labour, say MPs”,

In July 2020, the library’s leadership declared that the library intended to become “actively anti-racist” rather than merely non-racist (British Library, July 2022, “British Library commits to becoming an anti-racist organisation”,

Deploring the lack of non-Whites in its senior management, it said it would “add the Chairs of the BAME Network to the Library’s Strategic Leadership Team” without delay and announced that its future approach to race would be determined by members of this network. The library, a national repository of culture, had already stated its intention of reviewing its collection of documents accumulated by Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), who founded the British Museum (The Sun, Aug. 30th 2020, “RACE ROW British Library’s chief librarian claims ‘racism created by White people’ as she supports plans to ‘decolonise’ displays”, This raised the question of how many of its 50,000 Sloane books and manuscripts would end up on its anti-racist bonfire.

[21] The man was Kevin Hurley (The New Culture Forum, July 17th 2020, “Ex-Met Police Chief: Police Leaders Have Lost the Confidence of their Front Line Police Officers”,

[22] History Debunked, Aug. 4th 2023, “Disorder on the streets of England is on the increase, although we don’t like to talk about it”, Simon Webb comments: “Low level riots and looting expeditions are becoming common parts of some English cities, fuelled by a particular demographic group”.

Twitter feed from E.P. Kaufmann showing the effectiveness of propaganda on children

Eric Kaufmann is a professor politics based in the UK. I reviewed his book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America here. We can only hope that the Millennials will wake up at some point. Kaufmann’s Twitter feed can be accessed at:
1/ Why school indoctrination is working, and will make the Republicans unelectable in a generation. A thread, based on my new @ManhattanInst report with @ZachG932
School Choice Is Not Enough: Social Justice Ideology in U.S. Education
School choice may allow a small number of highly informed and committed parents to insulate their children from CSJ, but it will make little difference for
2/ @jburnmurdoch @FT showed that younger generations are diverging from older ones by not becoming more Republican as they age. Why might this be?
3/ Indoctrination. Virtually all of over 1,500 18-20 year-olds polled had heard at least 1 of 8 critical social justice (CSJ) terms from adults at school. 90% heard a critical race (CRT) concept, 74% a gender one
4/ CSJ is a proxy for left indoctrination. Children getting lots of CSJ are far more liberal-Democratic than those getting none. Republican party id crashes from 61% to 30% comparing youth hearing zero vs 6+ concepts

Recent Research on Race Realism

Race and Evolution: The Causes and Consequences of Race Differences
Stephen K. Sanderson
Self-published, 2022

Stephen Sanderson is the author, coauthor, or editor of sixteen books in twenty-two editions and some seventy-five articles in journals, edited collections, and handbooks. He is a retired professor of sociology and is quite unusual within his discipline for applying evolutionary principles to the study of society. His latest offering, dedicated to J. Phillippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, combines a useful summary of the best in recent research and theory regarding human racial differences (seven chapters) with applications to such topics as the history of slavery, liberal stereotype theory, social stratification by color, the history of human accomplishment, the rise of Northeast Asia, and the decline of Africa (six chapters); a final chapter discusses policy options. Being an American, the author devotes special attention to Whites and Blacks, but includes information on other races wherever helpful.

Sanderson begins his book with several epigraphs that indicate his awareness that he is stepping into a very politically incorrect minefield. These two are well worth pondering in the present context where woke ideology—an ideology based on moral judgments and equitable outcomes rather than science and facts—reigns supreme in universities, the media, and corporate culture:

A good society is one that permits a maximum amount of objective pursuit of truth and beauty, and this pursuit should be undertaken “irrespective of the consequences.” Such inquiry may lead to the discovery of “inconvenient facts,” but it must be undertaken nonetheless. We cannot know in advance whether the knowledge we create or discover will support or contradict certain moral positions already held. And “philosophies incongruent with the pursuit of a reduction in misery should be permitted since the basis of rationality is strengthened through argument,” and “all opinions, however obnoxious or however passionately held, [should] be heard and subjected to the test of rational criticism.” Barrington Moore, Jr.

Political thinking, especially on the left, is a sort of masturbation fantasy in which the world of fact hardly matters. George Orwell

The first section of the book, entitled “Foundations of Race Realism,” will be well-trodden ground for regular readers of The Occidental Observer, so I shall be brief. The first chapter defends the biological reality of races by providing a point-by-point refutation of two high-profile formal statements of social constructivism, one issued by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1998 and the other by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) in 1999. The author explains what is wrong with “Lewontin’s fallacy,” i.e., the inference of the unreality of race from the fact of greater genetic variation within than between racial groups. He quotes some older texts to show that the concept of race was not invented by eighteenth century European colonialists, as the AAA and many antiracists maintain. A good example of the lengths to which some people will go to deny reality is the AAPA’s declaration that “human traits known to be biologically adaptive do not occur with greater frequency in one population than in others.” Sanderson marvels that this is “obviously false and a rather astonishing statement for a biological anthropologist to make,” giving a few simple examples. The chapter closes with an account of how cluster analysis of population genetic data can reliably identify “four to six major racial groups.”

Chapter Two explains the inadequacy of non-biological explanations for differences in racial outcomes, including discrimination, the lingering effects of slavery, and systemic racism. The best of these theories focuses on the higher rates of fatherless households among Blacks than Whites, but the explanation for this difference lies ultimately in racial biology after all.

Chapter Three summarizes evidence for genetically based racial differences in average intelligences. American psychometric data showing an average White IQ of about 100 and an average Black IQ of 85 has now accumulated for over a hundred years. In the course of childhood, the degree to which environment can explain such differences steadily declines, disappearing entirely by around age fourteen. Most damning for the social constructivist position, however, is that Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) now make it possible to identify specific genes that contribute to intelligence, meaning that intelligence can be reliably (albeit not perfectly) predicted from biological data alone. One particularly telling statistic Sanderson cites is the correlation between the average IQ of the nations of the world and the percentage of their population that is Black: .808.

Many Black-White socioeconomic gaps disappear once IQ is controlled for, but one difference that does not is out-of-wedlock births. In his fourth chapter, Sanderson explains race differences in sex, reproduction and family patterns, summarizing Rushton’s evidence for high mating effort/low nurturance among Blacks and low mating effort/high nurturance among Northeast Asians, with Whites intermediate. He demonstrates that fatherless homes are common in Africa and among Blacks worldwide, not something unique to post-World War II America.

Chapter Five discusses race differences in personality and temperament. In the American context, the most important are that Blacks have significantly higher levels of antisocial personality as well as higher time preference than Whites (i.e., Blacks are more likely to place less value on returns receivable or costs payable in the future and hence more likely to accept immediate rewards rather than wait for larger returns at a later date and more likely to take out disadvantageous long-term loans with immediate up-front payouts). Confusingly, the author systematically switches the terms “high” and “low” time preference; one hopes this mistake can soon be corrected through the print-on-demand system.

Chapter Six explains racial differences in law-abidingness, including violent crime, civil disorder (mob violence), and political corruption. Such differences are in large part a consequence of differences in intelligence and time-preference.

Chapter Seven outlines the historical development of racial differences following the migration of early humans out of Africa and into colder climates where getting through the winter required planning ahead. There is also a discussion of Life History Theory and the r-K continuum (basically the continuum from high mating effort/low nurturance to low mating effort/high nurturance).

The six chapters which make up Part 2 of Race and Evolution apply the race realist perspective to particular issues. Chapter Eight provides a brief history of New World slavery, including regional comparisons, arguing it was fundamentally an economic rather than a racial institution: “Europeans did not choose Africans as slaves because they considered them biologically inferior, but because Africa provided a huge supply of labor that could be transported to the New World more cheaply than slaves drawn from, say, India or China.”

Chapter Nine discusses racial stratification around the world, showing that Blacks have the lowest average socio-economic status in multiracial societies everywhere. The author explains that the phenomenon of “pigmentocracy”—where increasingly light skin is found the higher one goes up the socio-economic scale—results from a hierarchy of ability: “Lighter skinned people are regarded more highly because they are more talented.”

Ever since psychologist Gordon Alport published The Nature of Prejudice in 1954, “stereotypes” have been a staple of social constructivist discourse, the assumption being that they are unreliable. But this has never been demonstrated. In Chapter Ten, Sanderson summarizes the findings of a series of studies published since 2012 by social psychologist Lee Jussim and colleagues. They found a high positive correlation between racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes and empirical reality. For instance, in one study comparing stereotypes with US Census data, correlations ranged from .27 (already moderately significant) to .96, with a mean as high as .83. Jussim et al. write that “stereotype accuracy correlations are among the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology.” This is no doubt because, over human evolutionary history, accurate knowledge of behavior patterns of social groups within one’s environment must have had considerable survival value, and thus been favored by natural selection.

Chapter Eleven demonstrates that the bulk of scientific discovery and other advances in human knowledge have been the work of European and European-descended men. Northeast Asians may have somewhat higher average intelligence, but they tend to produce highly conformist cultures where copying from accepted “masters” is inculcated and originality is frowned upon. Africa, of course, has produced nothing notable in scientific discovery.

Chapter Twelve discusses the recent rapid economic development of Northeast Asia and the dominance of Southeast Asian economies by the overseas Chinese.

Chapter thirteen contrasts this with the catastrophic fate of sub-Saharan Africa since decolonization and demonstrates the inadequacy of anti-colonial theories to explain it. The late Ghanaian economist George B. N. Ayittey has described the typical African post-colonial regime as a “vampire state.” Sanderson summarizes:

A vampire state is one run by crooks and gangsters who come to power either through rigged elections or coups d’état. Their leaders are functional illiterates who debauch all major government institutions: civil service, military, judiciary and banking system. They transform their countries into personal fiefdoms for the benefit of themselves, their cronies and tribesmen.

The author offers a brief tour of the continent filled with collapsing public services, universal corruption and bribery, civil wars, cannibalism, torture, a five hextillion percent rate of inflation (in Zimbabwe a few years ago) and outright genocide (in Rwanda). As he explains:

Before colonialism Africans had indigenous political institutions that were much simpler and more easily used to maintain order than those established by the colonists. The new colonial institutions were not natural to Africans and proved beyond their ability to manage effectively. Indeed, it took Europeans thousands of years to develop such institutions, . . . so it is no wonder that Africans did not understand them.

To this must be added that many who succeed in the ruthless world of African power politics have extremely antisocial personalities and are not really interested in economic development or the general welfare. They concentrate their efforts on enriching themselves at the expense of the countries they govern, displaying “a massive failure to adhere to social norms, no regard for truth, a lack of remorse or feelings of guilt, extreme aggressiveness, impulsiveness and recklessness, and an unusually weak moral sense.”

The final chapter of Race and Evolution is devoted to policy, explaining the failure of racial preferences, the lack of any evidence for the alleged benefits of “diversity,” and the many powerful objections to slavery reparations. Sanderson agrees with law professor Amy Wax’s position that “outsiders’ power to change existing [dysfunctional Black family] patterns is severely limited; the future of Black America is now in its own hands.” Yet he notes that the choices Blacks have to make are constrained by their own biological nature. Some Blacks do make good choices and prosper as a result, but these are generally those with above-average intelligence and an absence of antisocial character traits. Many others are unlikely ever to make better choices than they are making now.

Sanderson agrees that America needs a “national conversation on race,” as advocated, e.g., by Bill Clinton and Howard Schultz (the CEO of Starbucks), but unlike them he understands that it will do no good as long as knowledgeable race realists are banned from participation. As Arthur Jensen and J. Phillippe Rushton have written:

There is a need to educate the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics, and evolutionary biology. Ultimately, the public must accept the pragmatic reality that some groups will be overrepresented and others groups underrepresented in various socially valued outcomes. The view that one segment of the population is largely to blame for the problems of another segment can be harmful to racial harmony. Equating group disparities in success with racism on the part of the more successful group guarantees mutual resentment.

Racial equality of outcome is not achievable, but race relations could be greatly improved if the biological reality of racial differences were understood by more people.

There is not a lot of original material in Sanderson’s Race and Evolution, but I am not aware of any other single volume which summarizes so much useful information about race between two covers. It could do a great deal of good if made widely available. Is there any chance it will be? The author is currently trying to get an e-book version published on Amazon. For the time being, you can order the book directly from him for $12 US plus $4 US shipping (domestic) or 10 EUR plus 7 EUR shipping (outside the United States). Write to:

Stephen Sanderson
460 Washington Road, Apt. G-3
Pittsburgh, PA 15228


The author also maintains a website at