In May 2002 my life was turned upside down.
I had been living quietly as a computer science professor in a provincial British university. For decades I had had a strong side interest in politics and current affairs. In the years when socialism was still a live movement, I had published journalism and books advocating the virtues of the market economy; and I opposed surrender of British independence to the European Union. In the last few years, since the arrival in power of New Labour, I had grown increasingly worried about the Orwellian way in which government seems no longer satisfied to control our actions by law, but seeks to look into our minds and insist on approved thinking.
In November 2001 I was asked by the local Conservatives to stand in a by-election for a seat on our District Council, which I won thanks to crass public behaviour by my Liberal Democrat predecessor, a recent Mayor of our town. I was appointed to the planning committee, and enjoyed learning how to help make sensible decisions about what could be built where.
The Lib Dems were hopping mad. They are the minority party on the Council as a whole, but, before me, they had had a monopoly on our town’s seats for half a generation. They wanted me out. Searching round my website, they found a way. On 12 May 2002, they planted a story in the left-wing Observer newspaper expressing shock at my unfashionable views on racial matters.
Next morning, I hit the big time. Our New Labour government sees race as an issue on which it can put the Conservative opposition on the defensive. Peter Hain gave an interview about me on the Breakfast With Frost TV programme. (Because key elements of this story are things said on television and radio rather than written and printed, I cannot guarantee that I have every detail word-for-word exact, but if there are any inaccuracies I believe they are trivial rather than significant.) People my age remember Peter Hain as a young twerp who organized demos outside the South African embassy. In May 2002, almost unbelievably, he was the Minister for Europe in Tony Blair’s government. “Sampson is proud to be racist”, Hain thundered on television. I was given a chance to reply on Radio 4’s Today programme, and since this is live they could not stop me pointing out that Hain’s statement was untrue: as far as I am concerned it would be daft to be proud of racism — what is there to be proud of? But this was ignored in subsequent TV news broadcasts, which continued to repeat Hain’s denunciation of my “outrageous” web page: “Sampson is proud to be racist ... Sampson is proud to be racist ...”
Journalists besieged my phone and my doorstep, until I took the phone off the hook, drew the curtains, and ignored the doorbell.
The Lib Dems on the District Council made it clear that they would be happy to bring the useful work of the Council to a halt in order to make political capital out of their opposition to me personally. I reckoned the residents of our District deserve better than that, and it would have meant huge psychological stress for little advantage that I could see; so I resigned my Council seat.
And then, a couple of days later, a policeman from Special Branch asked to visit me. He explained politely that I am now a marked man. He unfolded a series of everyday practices which I should adopt in order to reduce the risk of harm coming to me or my family, now or in the future. I shall not go into detail, but at best these are a thorough time-wasting nuisance. The implications of some of them, if I allowed myself to dwell on them, are terrifying. Looking back, life before May 2002 was a carefree lost Eden.
What led to all this?
My website at that time contained a set of pages on controversial current-affairs issues, including one which made the point that preference for members of one’s own race over other races is a biologically natural, universal aspect of human psychology. The racial tensions associated with the large-scale immigration into Britain that has occurred over the last half century are not a temporary product of ignorant and wicked attitudes on the part of the indigenous population. They are permanent, unavoidable, and consequently can be nothing to be ashamed of.
This is in fact the case. We know that feelings of racial preference are universal, and we understand the biological mechanisms that cause this to be so. Reacting to such a statement as if it were shocking and unsayable does not reveal a superior moral sensibility; it simply reveals ignorance.
There is nothing original to me in making this point. In fact hardly anything in the web page that Peter Hain and the media attacked was about my personal likes or dislikes. (The only real exception, I think, was my condemnation of “multiculturalism”, which is rather separate — culture is to some extent freely chosen, race is biologically fixed.) The best-known academic analyst of the innateness of racial feelings is Pierre van den Berghe, in writings such as The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981). Like any other scientific theory, van den Berghe’s has been criticized; but the criticisms have been answered, for instance by Frank Salter (in Patrick and Goetze, eds., Evolutionary Theory and Ethnic Conflict, 2001).
Incidentally, many commentators hostile to me seemed to assume that scientists who explain the roots of racial feelings must be sinister Ku Klux Klan types. That is virtually the reverse of the truth. I have no personal acquaintance with the scholars just quoted, but (as I read him) van den Berghe feels that we need to understand the causes of the racial feelings which are in all of us in order to prevent them leading to undesirable overt behaviour. Surely that is a very sensible and respectable point of view. Frank Salter’s political position seems more unusual; if I have grasped it correctly, he believes that the inevitable future submergence of the white race by more rapidly-breeding non-whites will be a fair retribution for centuries of white imperialism. I find it hard to see the logic of Salter’s politics, but it does not prevent him recognizing the scientific truth about innate racial preferences.
The point in my web page which seemed to arouse most hostility of all was in fact a relatively brief allusion to scientific findings that were established decades ago, and which I supposed that most educated people were well aware of, about differences in average intelligence level between the races. We have known for a long time that the yellow-skinned races have on average slightly higher IQs than whites, who in turn have on average higher IQs than blacks. (For up-to-date statements of the findings, see J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability”, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 11, 2005, or – at a less technical level – Charles Murray’s “The Inequality Taboo”, Commentary, September 2005.) In 2005 it emerged that brain evolution has continued not just since our species began to differentiate into separate races, but even within quite recent times: see papers by Bruce Lahn and others in Science, 9 Sep 2005.
Again, when the IQ findings were first put forward people raised intellectual objections, but the objections were answered long ago. A number of people suggested that the IQ measurements might be culturally biased, for instance, but that makes it hard to explain why Canadian Eskimos score higher than white Canadians — it is implausible that the tests are biased to favour Eskimo culture, but genetically Eskimos are relatively close to East Asians on the other side of the Bering Strait. Peter Urbach examined in detail the attempts to refute the IQ/race correlations (in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 25, 1974). Urbach found that the situation was like the attempts by the 17th-century Catholic Church to deny that the Earth goes round the Sun. If, for ideological reasons, one is desperate enough to deny reality, it is always possible to invent a more and more elaborate structure of special assumptions to reconcile one’s ideology with contrary observations; but that is not how to go about finding the truth.
(Recently, Linda Gottfredson has analysed the strategies which purportedly-objective writers have been using to resist recognizing the truth in this area; see particularly “Table 1” in her article of November 2007.)
Personally, I don’t doubt that the race/IQ correlations are correct, though I can’t see why they are important. Should I feel humiliated when I meet a Chinese or a Japanese, because I know that on average members of his race are brighter than members of mine? I don’t know why I should; whether I should or not, I certainly don’t. When I found myself being publicly condemned in May 2002 for believing in statistical differences of intelligence among the races, it really did feel as though civilization had slipped back a few centuries and I was being threatened for publicly admitting that the Sun is the centre of the solar system.
On innate racial preferences, plenty of members of the immigrant groups understand the truth. Among the e-mails that reached me following this episode, more than one made comments along the lines “I think you are quite correct, and I am a black man”. More recently, no less than the negro chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, has remarked:
Look, you can’t make people love people of other races. You just can’t. And you can’t have a law which says we have to love each other. That’s bonkers. (Quoted in the Spectator, 24 Sep 2005.)But if, like me, you are a member of the indigenous population whose forefathers created our nation and its culture, you are not allowed to say such things openly.
Of course, ironically, the vehemence with which I was denounced by a Government minister only served to make it pretty clear that he knew that what I wrote was broadly correct. If you are genuinely convinced that what someone is saying is factually mistaken, it is not sensible to drop on him from a great height. It is more effective in practice to point out the flaws in the reasoning politely, and to let reality and common-sense do the rest. Even if my statements about racial differences and racial feelings were in fact mistaken, they were manifestly a sincere contribution to political discourse, and, in a civilized society, entitled to respect as such; and respectful counter-argument is the most effective way to oppose false beliefs. The louder that the Minister for Europe thundered that my statements were “outrageous”, the more obvious it was that in his heart he knew they are true. He knew the truth, but he was determined that no-one shall dare to voice it openly. That is how Britain is governed now.
The reason why Hain decided to go for me at that particular juncture became clearer when I read a discussion of the episode in a blog by Shelagh Shepherd called WestminsterWatch (no longer on the Web in 2008). I hadn’t noticed, but a few days earlier Hain had been discussing the need for Muslim immigrants to do more to integrate culturally with the indigenous British population. That raised the danger of a Labour minister being denounced as racist, so Hain needed to lay publicly into some Conservative making racially sensitive comments in order to create an appearance of contrast with “Labour’s intelligent, compassionate realism regarding immigration”. I happened to be a convenient tool to serve the Minister’s momentary purpose.
Hain is a man of no significance in his own right, he was simply serving as the Government’s voice. In August 2005 a Spectator leader summed up Hain’s career by describing him as “one of Mr Blair’s principal toadies, a man who has evinced little sign of ability in any post he has held, but whose climb up the greasy pole has been marked by frequent somersaults and disdain for anything approaching a principle”. In January 2008 Hain resigned from government when the police began investigating his use of a dummy organization to evade the obligation to report political campaign contributions.
(Aren’t we lucky to have leaders like this to tell us ordinary citizens what our moral principles ought to be?)
For many years it seemed to me that there must eventually be repercussions on the economy and on the quality of public services from our masters’ current insistence that if members of minority ethnic groups are less than averagely successful in their careers, we must act as though that were because they were blocked by irrational prejudice against them. I assumed, though, that the repercussions would come in the form of gentle decline over many years, as non-Europeans were promoted on the basis of skin-colour rather than competence. However, in autumn 2008 the entire global financial system has come close to meltdown; despite heroic moves to try to keep the show on the road, it looks at present as though the best we can hope for is several years of severe depression. A central cause of this dramatic near-collapse has been the politically correct attitudes discussed above.
Everyone knows that the crisis had to do with “subprime” American mortgages, i.e. loans to individuals who could not be relied on to keep up the payments. But why did U.S. banks make so many risky loans? Had they lost the skill of sorting likely payers from likely non-payers? No, they had the skill; but when the U.S. government noticed that the outcome was fewer loans to negroes and Mexican-Americans, the banks were forced via laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act to make loans to the likely non-payers. It was proved that banks had been judging racial-minority applications by the same criteria they used for applications from white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (they were not discriminating against minorities); but this was not enough. Because fewer blacks and “Hispanics” met the criteria, they had to be given loans despite not meeting the criteria.
While house prices continued to rise, the banks got away with this (a lender could get its money back even if it had to repossess the house). But once the economy slowed and put pressure on this system, it turned out to be a house of cards. Its collapse has come close to bringing the rest of us down with it.
Eric Cantor is the Member of Congress who led the Republican side of negotiations on the Troubled Assets Relief Programme bill to bail out U.S. banks. On 29 Sep 2008 he commented in an interview with the National Review magazine (no longer on the Web, or at least not at the URL where I read it):
let’s see where we first started going off course. That was during the Carter administration, when Congress began this process of pushing lending institutions into extending credit to uncreditworthy borrowwers … as the regulations developed, banks would be punished if they couldn’t demonstrate a certain number of loans on their books that were extended to those who were not worthy of that type of credit.
The experts understood the dangers. But, as Steve Sailer said in an article dated the previous day:
It’s now legally dangerous to express fear in writing. Imagine that an executive in a financial firm had sent an email to a fellow executive sayingI see that the median home price in California is heading towards a half million bucks. Isn’t California full of Mexicans? How can a bunch of Mexicans afford to pay off half million dollar mortgages once the price of homes stops going up and they can’t refinance anymore? Aren’t we headed for disaster in California if we don’t go back to traditional credit standards?An email like that would wind up in the hands of plaintiffs’ attorneys during discovery in discrimination lawsuits. The author would be fired … You can only mutter heresies like that over drinks to close confidants.
I do not mean to suggest that reverse discrimination is the only cause of the 2008 crisis. The banking industry is to blame too, for creating over the past decade an array of “derivative” products – what Warren Buffett called “financial weapons of mass destruction” – which bury the securities ultimately underlying them beneath so many layers of complexity that banks are quite unable to quantify the risks they are taking on. That is how the crisis spread from the U.S.A. across the world. But the excessive risks would not have been there in the first place, if governments had not been insisting on special favours for minorities. In this case the problem arose in the U.S.A., but our own government is doing the same to us.
If political correctness can be even one contributory factor to a near-disaster on the scale we have experienced in autumn 2008, how can society possibly afford to go on indulging such sentimental irrationality?
Even if the problems of differential ability were not there, people prefer to share their environment with members of their own race. Racial feelings are as biologically inevitable as sexual feelings. Obviously, that does not make it all right to act oppressively to members of other races. Most men find themselves physically attracted to numerous women: a quite crucial part of learning to be a member of a particular culture is learning to control such feelings, and learning what it is and is not permissible to do about them within that culture. It would be difficult or impossible for young men to achieve that, if they were required to pretend that only a few utterly wicked individuals had such feelings anyway.
The current situation in Britain is about as unnatural as that — which became obvious, at the time of the episode described above, from the flood of letters and e-mails that reached me from strangers, saying things like “Thank you for saying publicly what we all believe but no longer dare to say”. A few messages that came in were from extreme political groups that I would not want to be associated with, but most of them seemed to be, and I am sure were, from ordinary, decent English men and women who are baffled at the way that true beliefs and normal, natural human attitudes are currently being demonized.
There was even a letter from someone in a distant part of the country saying that he too was a university teacher and he thought what I had written was perfectly correct; but he did not dare include his name and address. OK, since I don’t know who wrote the letter, it could have been a spoof, but what would have been the point of that? I imagine it was genuine. But if so, think what it implied. Four hundred years after the Tudors, a British academic does not dare put his name to a statement that he agrees on factual matters with another British academic.
Some people asked me whether I was not worried that I might be encouraging undesirable, thuggish political movements. That seems to me exactly the wrong way round. Because these are things that many people are concerned about, they need to be thoroughly ventilated within mainstream British politics. This country has resolved its political tensions peacefully for hundreds of years because people have been willing to accept the compromises that emerged from the process of political argy-bargy, in which everything was up for discussion. If, now, there is going to be a new convention that forbids open discussion of things to do with race and immigration within the political mainstream, and requires everyone to pretend to believe in officially-approved opinions, then voters will be driven towards the nasty fringe groups because they find no possibility of getting a hearing for their views within the decent mainstream parties. I shan’t join one of the thuggish groups myself, but others will; and the people pushing voters that way will not be people like me — they will be people like the then Minister for Europe, who seeks to outlaw honest discussion of issues that matter.
The truth is that a healthy Britain needs a lot more political debate in this area, not less. And who more suitable to participate in such debate than a local councillor from a District with scarcely any non-white residents and no racial tensions? (Not that that last fact exempted us from the requirement to waste large amounts of council-taxpayers’ money on developing Race Equality Action Plans, which seemed quite difficult when it was so hard to find any plausible areas for action.)
I do not feel bad about resigning my seat. If it is really so nowadays that no-one can sit on a local council unless they are willing to give lip service to beliefs which I know perfectly well are false, then I am better off out of it: that is no way for a professional academic to behave. (Some people seemed to think that I ought to have purged my website of controversial matters when I stood for the Council. Do they want their politicians to deceive them?)
But I do mind very much what the case shows about the decline of political freedom. What happened to me was not normal, traditional British political cut-and-thrust. It was suppression of dissidence, more reminiscent of Soviet-style politics.
Because let’s be clear: the fact that, for instance, I have to flounder about on the ground under my car before driving it, rain or shine, to check that no intruder has attached anything to its underside, is a direct consequence of a New Labour government minister publicly denouncing me as outside the pale. True, the intruder would not be working as a State employee, but it was a government minister who sicked him on. (I can mention that particular security routine because, as luck would have it, I have now been able to give it up. A couple of months after the height of the furore, I developed a medical symptom that meant I was no longer allowed to drive at all, and I sold my car.)
Of course, the successful and unsuccessful Muslim bomb outrages of July 2005 have changed many minds, including Government minds, about the “multiculturalism” issue. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor and now Prime Minister, wrote in the Daily Telegraph of 13 Jan 2007, under the headline “We need a United Kingdom”, that “we are waking from a once-fashionable view of multiculturalism … What was wrong about multiculturalism was … that it over-emphasised separateness at the cost of unity.” Less than five years earlier, more than a hundred of Gordon Brown’s fellow Parliamentarians had signed an Early Day Motion denouncing me for expressing the point of view about multiculturalism which Brown now takes for granted.
So evidently nowadays, an Englishman with a political opinion is expected to ask himself “Are we allowed to think this yet? Has Government licensed this as a permissible idea?”
Edward Spalton, in a letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph on 27 Nov 2007, wrote that
One of the depressing things about canvassing in the last election was the number of times people asked: “Am I allowed to say that?” on matters of vital importance to our existence as a nation.
During the Cold War decades, we used to feel sorry for Eastern Europeans because they had to live in that kind of political climate.
The fact that a British government is prepared to destroy political freedom in this way makes me angry. The fact of their fastening on this particular area of life as one where alternative views are forbidden made me puzzled, for a while. Why should race in particular be a taboo subject? I do not recall anything in the classic philosophies of morality that implies a duty of special regard for other races or for recent immigrants. The injunctions of “political correctness” seem to be arbitrary expressions of passing social fashion, rather than principles recognized as valid throughout the ages.
The supreme arbiter of morality in our culture was traditionally taken to be Jesus Christ, and he did not regard racial distinctions as morally irrelevant. When the Canaanite (i.e. non-Jewish) woman asked him for help (Matthew 15), his first response was “I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to them alone … It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She then pointed out that the dogs are allowed to eat what falls from the master’s table, and Jesus did what she had requested.
I would not myself want to compare our coloured immigrants to dogs, and I do not understand why Christ chose this metaphor. But, that point aside, the exchange corresponds rather clearly to the common-sense position. Our nation was created with much effort and sacrifice by our forefathers for the benefit of themselves and their descendants – not for the sake of aliens from the far corners of the earth. If by now we are so blessed with resources that we can share some with strangers, that is wonderful; but it is our country, not theirs.
It could be that intermarriage will eventually lead to the ethnic communities blending together so that the issue will disappear, but there seems little prospect of that at present. While they remain separate, it is for the newcomers to fit in with the indigenous majority, and it is morally wrong for governments to require the latter to change their ways to cater to the newcomers, as our governments have been doing.
This strand of political correctness cannot be explained by reference to deep moral principles. The answer, I believe, to the puzzle of where it comes from is that what governments want above all — certainly what this New Labour government wants above all — is power. If the population can be made to feel guilty about having feelings which are innate and unchangeable, it will be a docile population. British governments used to be, and ought to be, organizations that are grudgingly allowed a strictly limited and necessary range of powers by voters who decide their morality and way of life for themselves. New Labour is turning instead into a kind of Church which preaches that we are all damned, but which offers chances of partial absolution provided we acknowledge our sinful state and obey the fathers of the Church implicitly. If the ethnic minorities were not so useful as a tool to help the government pull off this trick, I imagine New Labour would lose interest in them. At present it cherishes them, because they enable it to work this strategy against the rest of us with such success.
We have had bad governments in the past. Arguably, it is in the nature of politics that any government is to a greater or lesser extent a bad government — the most one can hope for is “less bad”. But this New Labour government is more than just a bad government. Unprecedently in my experience, New Labour is an evil government.
New Labour is trying to change Britain from a relatively free society into a society of serfs. At a time when the Conservative Party seems to have lost the ability or taste for real opposition, it may seem that all the cards are in the government’s hand, and there is little an individual can do to resist.
But there have been cases of much more monolithic State oppression that have been overthrown by “little people”. In her inspiring 2002 Reith Lectures under the title A Question of Trust, Onora O’Neill (Lady O’Neill, Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge) suggests how this can happen by describing how humble individuals began to resist tyranny in the former communist Czechoslovakia:
The Communist Party of the People’s Republic of Czechoslovakia used to send bulletins with Party slogans and messages to be displayed in all shops. These mind-numbingly boring Party slogans were so familiar that they became invisible: yet displaying them represented support for the regime and its oppressions, a small connivance, a small lie. Refusal to display those slogans, to endorse that view of the world, was a small act of truth and courage, and ultimately of power, that was open to the powerless. From small refusals larger and bolder action followed.
In 21st-century Britain, no-one is required to display slogans about the dictatorship of the proletariat. But anyone who participates in public life is being frequently required to sign up to the idea that preference for members of one’s own race and nation over others is wicked — implying that there could be a human society in which such feelings were not widespread.
I refuse to endorse that lie.
(In closing: readers are free to agree or disagree with what I have written here. Either way, please don’t expect me to respond to correspondence about it. I have a demanding job, and I just have not got the time.)
last changed 14 Nov 2017