The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
Andrew Fraser

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

[See Also: Banned In Oz, Posted On VDARE.COM: Fraser's “Rethinking the White Australia Policy” (With Comment By Peter Brimelow)]

Americans admire Australians as plainspoken, fearless That’s not a knife, now … THAT’S a knifeCrocodile Dundees.

Yet diversity is working its emasculating effect Down Under. It’s making Australians as pusillanimous as any Harvard faculty member shocked, shocked by Larry Summers’s tactless honesty about sex differences.

For years, I’ve been pointing out that, although ethnic diversity is alleged to inspire the free interplay of multiple viewpoints, the reality is that it undermines our heritage of free speech.

Australia is a case in point: the presence of a few hundred Sudanese refugees in the country has apparently intimidated two universities into shutting down discussion of the wisdom of importing more sub-Saharan Africans into Australia.

As I reported in July, Macquarie University suspended law professor Andrew Fraser, a contributor, for the unforgivable transgression of writing a letter to the local newspaper suggesting that people of African descent have a higher propensity toward crime.

In fact, of course, in the wake of the New Orleans Nightmare, the view that there are systematic differences in different races’ propensity for crime is more undeniable than ever. See, for example, the just-released report The Color of Crime—or the Associated Press report last week, Half Katrina Refugees Have Records:

“In South Carolina, state police checked every evacuee flown there by the government. Of 547 people checked, 301 had criminal records, according to Robert Stewart, state Law Enforcement Division Chief.”

But nothing makes people madder at you than telling a truth that they are perfectly aware is true when they just want it to disappear.

So what just happened to Fraser is hardly surprising.

A lengthy essay by Fraser had passed through the standard double blind-referee evaluation process of the Deakin University law review and was scheduled for publication. Then the lawyer for the Sudanese, one George Newhouse, [send him mail] threatened Deakin University under Australia’s law against “racial vilification.”

After displaying some backbone for a few days, Deakin University’s higher-ups shamefully caved in [email Deakin Vice-Chancellor Sally Walker] and stifled the article’s publication. In response to an inquiry by British psychometrician Chris Brand, the Dean of Deakin’s Law School, Philip H. Clarke, [email him] claimed:

“The decision not to publish was taken following legal advice from counsel that publication would contravene the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and also, possibly, state and territory legislation dealing with racial and religious vilification. As I am sure you will understand, in these circumstances, publication was not possible.”

Clearly, Australia needs a First Amendment. But it’s also obvious that Deakin University was looking for an excuse, as Brand acidly demonstrated in his reply:

“I have read the 1975 Act and note that it actually expressly exempts racial criticism of an academic nature. Please can you tell me which law firm advised you to depublish and what was the precise wording of their opinion and how much Deakin paid for the advice? As things stand, it looks as if Deakin has been exceptionally cowardly in not even attempting to see whether academic free speech is still possible in today’s Australia…”

It’s striking how the mere residence of a few hundred Africans in Australia can cause two major universities to corrupt themselves morally, to humiliate themselves publicly, by junking their promises of academic freedom.

But, then, that’s the magic of diversity!

Fortunately, retired academic John J. Ray showed some of that traditional Australian spunk and posted Fraser’s spiked essay,Rethinking the White Australia Policy, on one of his many websites.

Fraser’s paper turns out to be far-reaching, provocative, and intellectually ambitious. Perhaps to a fault—he might have been well advised to point out that not every one of his more speculative arguments is necessary to his overall point.

To the typical contemporary intellectual with his impoverished conceptual vocabulary, however, Fraser’s essay could only be expressed in one word: crimethink!

In 1901, Australia adopted a requirement that immigrants be literate in a European language, which became known as the (now much-denounced) “White Australia” policy. At the time, it was pushed through by labor unionists and socialists. They knew that both the high wages of the Australian working man and the Australian government’s nascent social safety net would be undermined by the capitalist class’ desire to have the impoverished masses of nearby Asia pour into this largely empty island.

Immigration restriction helped make the “Lucky Country” into a relative paradise for the working class. Also, as environmentalist Jared Diamond quietly implied in his recent bestseller Collapse, the White Australia restriction moderated the ecological stress on this geologically ancient continent permanently plagued by infertile soil and aridity.

Similarly, Californians of a century or more ago, such as the formidable socialist author Jack London, backed the U.S. government’s ban on Asian immigrants.

And that helped long preserve California as the Promised Land for America’s working and middle classes.

Looking back, it’s clear that emigration to Australia or America could not have alleviated on any meaningful scale the awful poverty of Asia. The only thing that could help that mass of people is the kind of radical improvement in government policy that China underwent in 1978 and India in 1991.

Someday, we may see the same in Mexico—but probably not until we shut down the ruling elite’s use of its northern border as a safety valve for its discontented.

After WWII, Australia encouraged immigration from southern Europe. Large numbers of Italians and Greeks were assimilated with considerable success.

In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the ascendant Leftists turned away from the welfare of the majority to championing minorities, thereby trumpeting their moral superiority over their fellow whites. Australia dumped its White Australia policy and began admitting sizable numbers of non-European immigrants. (Needless to say, Asian countries did notopen their borders to Australians. Racial equality is a one-way street.)

Fraser is appalled by the Australian immigration policy of the last few decades. But an American patriot might be mildly envious. John Howard, the brilliant right-of-center politician who recently won his fourth term as Prime Minister, has made the fight against illegal immigration and abuse of the refugee process central to his political identity. (After barely scraping by two Presidential elections in a row, it’s starting to become clear that the GOP’s only hope in 2008 is to imitate Howard).

Australia’s legal immigration quotas are high, but not as extravagant as in Canada, where the ruling Liberals use immigration to import new left-of-center voters from around the world.

And, unlike the U.S., Australia strives to accept applicants rich in human capital who are more likely to pay more in taxes than they consume in government subsidies.

Thus, Australia (and its distressed Aboriginal population in particular, who hardly need new competitors at the bottom) has largely been spared the importation of a second underclass (although Australia is having crime problems with Muslim immigrants).

In contrast, the U.S. has chosen to drive millions of African-Americans out of jobs they were qualified to do and replace them with Latin American immigrants.

Still, one downside of Australia’s emphasis on high-quality immigrants is that its Asian newcomers are pushing native Australians out of elite meritocratic institutions—just as in California, several of the University of California campuses have come to be dominated by workaholic Asians.

Perhaps the most intriguing of Fraser’s many themes: his paradox that the same high level of trust (to use Francis Fukuyama’s term) extending beyond kin that has allowed the English-speaking peoples to build self-governing institutions that square the circle of reconciling individualism with cooperation also threatens to undermine the Anglosphere—by making us suckers for self-sacrificing ideologies that more clannish immigrants laugh at.

In most countries, in most eras, you needed to belong to an extended family mafia for protection. Upper-middle class individuals in English-speaking countries, at least when not watching The Sopranos, generally just don’t get the importance of extended families in the rest of the world. Anglosphere intellectuals are especially oblivious, for emotional reasons—they tend to despise their relatives, who often aren’t as smart as they are, but frequently make more money.

The English were perhaps the first to break out of this rut. Fraser notes:

“Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers…”

Some of the cultural attributes that emerged in Northwestern Europe that made individualistic polities possible include, include, according to Fraser:

“Only a people such as the English, characterized by the ‘non-kinship based forms of reciprocity’ associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a ‘society of strangers.’”

Fraser speculates that these attributes have genetic roots. While that’s certainly possible scientifically, we’re still a number of years away from being able to test that idea empirically.

But even if the roots of our civic societies were purely cultural in origin, as they may well be, these are not tendencies that immigrants can or will choose to adopt immediately—especially in our era, which glorifies multiculturalism and denigrates the host culture’s traditional values.

Fraser argues:

“This exposes a fundamental paradox built into the free and open societies of the West: The only racial groups able to fit seamlessly into the society of strangers constituting a civic nation are those whose members can easily shed the deeply-ingrained ethnocentrism and xenophobia characterizing most non-European peoples.”

For example, the extended family values of Asian newcomers often serve them well economically in English-speaking countries. But they can place a burden on the host country’s civic virtues.

Fraser argues, borrowing from Amy Chua‘s book World on Fire:

“At the high end of Australia’s immigrant intake, a growing cognitive elite of East Asians threatens to become similar to ‘market-dominant minorities‘ such as the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa. Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned: Western-style ‘old boy’ preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and, thus, permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or ‘ethnic nepotism‘ practiced by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians.”

This is somewhat more of a danger for white Australians than white Americans, due to the Australians’ greater proximity to Asia, smaller numbers, and traditional working class aversion to entrepreneurialism. But it could happen here too.

Whether the threat to the economic position of native Australians is as dire as Fraser warns, I couldn’t say. But it’s certainly something that should be studied in quantitative detail in Australian scholarly journals.

Oh, except that the topic apparently isn’t allowed to be studied in Australian scholarly journals.

So the country is flying blind into an uncertain future.

Best of luck, Aussies.

You’re going to need it.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Andrew Fraser 
🔊 Listen RSS

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

If Voltaire were alive today, he’d be spinning in his grave.

The latest collision between diversity,” the highest ideal of the present age, and such outmoded concepts as academic freedom has a contributor, Australian law professor Drew Fraser, as the victim.

For having the temerity to write a letter to a local newspaper.

“A Sydney university has banned a controversial law professor from teaching after he publicly aired his views on non-whites and Africans in Australia. Canadian-born Associate Professor Andrew Fraser was cautioned by Macquarie University last week over a letter he wrote to a suburban newspaper…University vice-chancellor Professor Di Yerbury responded with a three-page memo to staff announcing that Professor Fraser would not teach until further notice…” [Outspoken Academic banned from teaching, Tamara Mclean,, July 29 2005][VDARE.COM note: The original letter, published in theParramatta Sun , is not online. Professor Fraser posted the text of it as a comment on (scroll down)]

Connoisseurs of irony will treasure the university’s justification:

“Professor Fraser yesterday rejected an offer by the university to buy out his contract and launched a bitter attack on Vice-Chancellor Di Yerbury, describing her as an ‘intellectual coward’. Professor Yerbury responded by suspending Professor Fraser from teaching, citing a report in The Australian yesterday in which he claimed a group called Smash Racism was planning to disrupt his classes… ‘We have a duty to act decisively to protect his safety and that of others on campus,’ she said. Professor Yerbury told The Weekend Australian late yesterday that she would seek legal advice if he made further unauthorized public statements…. Yerbury said she was not bothered by Professor Fraser’s personal attack on her. ‘I will wear that as a badge of honour,’ she said. ‘I made the apology because I was distressed and ashamed he had associated the university with views which so fundamentally contravened its position.’ [Lecture ban for 'racist' professor , Greg Roberts , The Weekend Australian,July 30, 2005]

Okay, let me see if I have this straight: The university must keep their professor from saying that immigration raises the risk of criminal violence—to safeguard him from criminal violence from immigrants and their supporters?

R-i-g-h-t [Email Macquarie University Vice-Chancellor Di Yerbury].

Perhaps not coincidentally, this was happening at the same time that police were arresting several East African immigrants in the attempted July 21 terrorist bombings in London.

In effect, Fraser is being prevented from expressing views on politics—although professors pontificating about politics is a much-loved feature of public life throughout the Anglosphere.

So what about Professor Fraser’s statement that Africans tend to have low IQs and high testosterone levels?

Here at, unlike at almost every other outlet (and, apparently, Macquarie University), our first question is not whether it’s politically correct to say something. Instead we ask: Is it true?

And it is true. Africans do tend to have low IQs.

The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans in Africa has been studied many times over many decades. It keeps coming out almost two standard deviations below that of Europeans and nearly two and half standard deviations below that of Northeast Asians.

Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s landmark book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002) summarizes 32 published studies of representative samples of individuals in black African countries: No researchers found an African average national IQ higher than 80.

Of course, a selective immigration system—which we don’t have—could mitigate part of this IQ shortfall by picking unusually talented applicants, of which there are certainly some from all countries.

For example, a friend of mine who was getting his Ph.D. at UCLA came from a family of nine children in Cameroon in West Africa. Eight of the nine earned advanced degrees from Western universities, and the oldest was a surgeon and oncologist who had shared in the prestigious Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research.

(Naturally, the West’s brain-draining of Africa’s smartest people just contributes to the continent’s poverty. But that’s another story.)

Here in America, the massive National Longitudinal Study of Youth found that the mean IQ of blacks who were the children of immigrants was 90, about five points above the norm for African-Americans. The logic of regression toward the mean suggests that their immigrant parents probably averaged even higher IQs.

One little-discussed reason why American political and media elites in Washington D.C. favor immigration so much more than the rest of us is because they prefer the fairly well-educated, polite, and hard-working immigrants from Africa’s best families who flock to the D.C. area over the capital’s native-born African-Americans, whom our leaders privately view as ignorant, surly, lazy, and crime-prone.

(Naturally, importing immigrants to out-compete our black fellow citizens doesn’t solve their problems. It just makes them worse. But that’s another story too.)

Unfortunately, the African immigrants’ kids often assimilate toward the values expressed in the most charismatic force in African-American culture: gangsta rap.

Will the children of African immigrants to Australia hip-hop down the same disastrous trail? The Israeli example is not encouraging. According to the Associated Press, the young Falasha Jews whose parents were airlifted from Ethiopia have found

“an unlikely source of solace, pride and identity—America’s black culture. The fact that most of these Ethiopian teens have never visited the United States or even met a black American doesn’t prevent them from embracing rap music and hip-hop fashion, along with sometimes misguided stereotypes gleaned from MTV, movies and news reports.”

What about Fraser’s contention that blacks have more testosterone on average?

This hasn’t been studied as much as IQ. But the scientific evidence supports Fraser once again.

Andrew Sullivan, a prescription testosterone user, has written a long article in the New York Times Magazine (The He Hormone, April 02, 2000) about the powerful effect of his prescription testosterone injections on his behavior. In it, Sullivan pointed out:

“Even more unsettling is the racial gap in testosterone. Several solid studies, published in publications like Journal of the National Cancer Institute, show that black men have on average 3 to 19 percent more testosterone than white men. This is something to consider when we’re told that black men dominate certain sports because of white racism or economic class rather than black skill.”

The relevant question is not just hormone levels in the bloodstream, but the varying power of the male hormone receptors. Men with stronger androgen receptors tend to behave as if they have higher levels of testosterone and other male hormones. A team of geneticists led by Rick Kittles of Howard U. documented that race accounts for 20 percent of the variations in the gene that controls the strength of the body’s androgen receptors. Men of African descent tend toward the high end, men of East Asian descent toward the low end, whites generally near the middle.

Keep in mind that 80% of the variation observed was within racial groups. Which is about what you’d expect from observing the world around you. In every racial group, there exists a wide variety of physical and personality types among men, from the most hyper-masculine to the most gentle.

Still, few who watch sports on television, follow Olympic running results, or examine interracial marriage patterns, will be surprised that blacks on the whole score highest on those androgen receptor gene alleles associated with greater masculinity.

Let’s discuss the larger issue: Why is truth-telling important? What’s so useful about free speech? Wouldn’t it be better just to bury our heads in the sand about things like race and IQ?

No—because everything that is true is causally connected to something else that is true. In contrast, lies, ignorance, and wishful thinking are dead ends.

If, as National Review’s Austin Bramwell kindly suggested recently, my articles are more interesting and insightful than those of the better-paid purveyors of the conventional wisdom, the main reason is simply because I follow the chains of cause and effect wherever they lead.

The promotion of ignorance is cruel, not kind, because facts are useful while twaddle is just a dead end.

Two examples:

“African-American men are at substantially higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer than Caucasians in the United States. African-American men living in the San Francisco area have a risk of developing prostate cancer that is 120 times that of Chinese men living in China… A systematic study of black men in Nigeria found that prostate cancer incidence was actually much higher than previously reported and may be as high as that noted among black men in the US (Osegbe 1997, Prostate cancer in Nigerians: facts and nonfacts,Journal of Urology, 157(4):1340-1343.).”

  • Tony Blair and Sir Bob Geldof did their considerable all to make African poverty a big deal at the recent meeting of the G8 countries. But little good will come of it—for the simple reason that nobody in polite society is allowed to talk about sub-Saharan Africa’s most fundamental problem—its average IQ of around 70.

Because African-Americans score around 85, and they share about 80% of their genes with their African cousins, it seems likely that the difficult environment in Africa (malnutrition, disease, disorder, poverty, and so forth) depresses the typical African’s IQ substantially below his or her genetic potential.

Perhaps the most cost-effective way to raise IQs in Africa is to attack the IQ-lowering medical syndromes caused by a lack of micronutrients, such as “endemic cretinism,” which stems from too little iodine in the diet. Western countries started fortifying salt with iodine and flour with iron back before WWII, and that quickly eliminated what had been a substantial problem here.

UNICEF issued an important study of poor countries’ micronutrient deficiencies last year. I wrote in about what we could be doing to help the Third World raise its average IQ, here and here.

But almost no one else in the press was interested—because they know they will get in trouble, like Professor Fraser, if they mention African IQ.

See, “nice” people think it’s more moral to let endemic cretinism and the like ravage Africa than to bring up IQ in polite society.

Only EVIL people try to get the world to notice the problem…and dosomething about it.

But we can’t make problems go away by pretending they don’t exist.

As Enoch Powell pointed out in his continually-denounced but never-refuted 1968 immigration speech:

“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature…. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: ‘if only’, they love to think, ‘if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.’

And Powell’s conclusion is equally valid today:

“All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Andrew Fraser 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?