Yesterday I sent a very silly article about a very silly man to a friend of mine, commenting that I could imagine what my father would have said about this “academic” – he would have called him a “Fathead!” and then said that he had been “educated beyond his intellectual capacity.” I don’t think anyone would disagree with that:
‘I would lower the voting age to six, not 16, and I’m serious about that,’ he said. ‘I would want people who vote to be able to read, so I would exclude reception.
‘The old thing about voting for people like you wouldn’t happen, 9-year-olds aren’t going to elect 9-year-olds to Parliament and even if they did they’d be outvoted.
‘What’s the worst that could happen? At least it would be exciting, it would make elections more fun. ‘
Prof Runciman said the system of only allowing voting at 18 but having no cut-off point at the other end left young people vastly outnumbered.
He did not suggest stripping older people of their votes but said including young children was necessary to correct the ‘structural imbalance’.
What a total balloon! But where is the outrage? Where are the calls amongst his fellow academics to “burn the witch”? No, there are none, because in the intellectual vacuum of Cambridge University controversy is fine as long as it suits the general agenda of the Left.
When it doesn’t, then the calls for “burn the witch” are as shrill as can be, as in the case of this poor unfortunate fellow who has discovered that there is a link between race and intellect as well as race and criminality. This is not new, but 200 of his fellow intellectuals from as far away as Princeton are determined to destroy him:
The phrase “ethically suspect” is particularly amusing and pertinent – it tells me that it’s unethical, in their minds, to even look at the issue. It’s only ethical to ignore the issues caused by “diversity” and not address them scientifically. Because they don’t like it they label him a eugenicist, which he may or may no be, and call his work “pseudoscience” which it is not. This is a subject which has been studied over and over and the conclusion is that there is a definite difference in intelligence between races, on average. But we mustn’t say so, or we will fall foul of the thought police.
They said that they are ‘deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge.’
They added: ‘This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented.
‘Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric…this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.’
Yes, because immigrants are vulnerable, but the populations they join are not. The immigrants must be allowed to enter and destroy our countries (because destroy them they will) because otherwise it’s racist.
Take a look at Ethiopia:
When Africans make Africa great they will be far more welcome here. The men of Africa should be at home building up their countries, but that is not the plan. As we know the plan is the Kalergi Plan: Kalergi plan – advertised, yet ignored by the masses
Remember folks, it’s not the immigrants fault in all this – our leaders are to blame. Diversity is our destruction, and intellectual rigour will not be applied unless you want to lose your career.