Chris Brand in sparklingly un-pc form this week :



As paedohysteria raged in Britain, with virtually no-one prepared to acknowledge that trim young teenagerettes had always been attractive for (and attracted to) men, a rare case came to light of academics doing their duty of discussing the facts of life. The Sunday Telegraph’s hawk-eyed reporter Andrew Gilligan got wind of a Cambridge University conference held in 2013 (6 vii):

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds....

Cognoscenti would note the new name for traditional paedophilia (which term had been grossly overextended to include paedosadism with babes in their cradles). Even so, Gilligan’s piece would probably have sent quite a few Cambriensians scuttling back under their stones for cover.


The democratic and lawful government of Australia found its tentative move to re-introduce a White Australia policy would require a fight with holy money-grubbing taxpayer-funded High Court überbabblers who professed themselves uncomfortable with Oz returning Tamils to Ceylon (where the astonishingly co-operative Buddhist government was willing to prosecute its feckless emigrants who got their country a bad name) (Sydney Morning Herald, 7 vii).

{The Oz High Court decision to appoint itself in charge of immigration policy had the merit of showing it was not just the European Court of Human Rights that was the source of all silliness; and another merit in bringing out Queensman PM Tony Abbott to defend the Commonwealth principle of the supremacy of Parliament (under the Queen).}

{In fairness to the ECHR, that ‘court’ had graciously decided in the same week to allow elected governments to ban the berker in public places if they were so moved. But this concession to parliamentary authority would be much aided in the West if a robust Australia insisted that its state-paid legal-eagles pipe down (or, preferably, expire entirely).}


As British witch-hunting of kiddyfiddlers reached a new high, with 115 top politicians, TV personages, military supremos, royals, sportsmen and civil servants being thrown on to the tracks for alleged hanky-panky in the 1970s, the exercise was at least doubted by one elite figure, the conservative-liberal ex-Cabinet minister David Mellor, writing in the Guardian (7 vii). Mellor, an ex-MP who had had his own experience of press persecution (over the details of his affair with an actress), properly pointed out that the 115 possible paedophiles had already been investigated and cleared in a 3-year effort by the Home Office which had met with satisfaction from the chief lynch-mobber of the time (one Geoffrey Dickens MP who could hardly pronounce ‘paedophilia’).

{That Britain should embark on multiple multi-month ‘enquiries’ into ancient possible naughtiness was beyond belief – except in so far as paedohysteria had become the major form of self-righteousness across two generations of socialism undermining the family and 50% of Brits obliging by divorcing, sodomizing, m*sturbating or just never marrying in the first place. Why could not just 5 of the 115 cases be re-investigated in a week’s work by a couple of cops, and – if they found nothing -- any dissatisfied puritans told to pay the bill for any fuller ‘enquiry’ themselves?

Where would it all end? Already the Queen was embroiled by her friendship with gifted and much-loved Oz knicker-fondler and neck-nibbler Rolf Harris; but, if the hysterics could not find more paedotolerance in the Royals (already Prince Andrew had drawn fire for his cavorting with distinctly youthful gals in America), perhaps the hysterics would demand ‘enquiries’ into and re-prosecution of Jesus – who was, after all, suggestively recorded in the Gospels as having spent the night alone with a naked boy whom He had resurrected and who subsequently was perhaps the boy with Him (in just a loincloth) in the Garden of Gethsemane [where Jesus was arguably nicked for paedophilia/pederasty with the boy and Judas] and (in white) at the Tomb of the Resurrection (Secret Gospel of Mark; Mark x 34; Mark xiv 50-52; Mark xvi 5; John xi)....}


At the risk of ‘re-inventing’ the wheel,’ researchers in Robert Plomin’s groups (at University College London and King’s College London) reported that attainments in reading and arithmetic among 12-yr children were strongly correlated and both 50% determined by the same genetic factors (Science Daily, 8 vii). However, new authority was given to such time-honoured claims by Plomin et al. drawing on no less that 2,800 British families – containing plenty of twins and children who had supplied DNA data. And the exercise provided a demonstration of just how much nature-nurture research could attract government funding so long as researchers agreed to talk up the importance of nurture and ‘education’ – and, of course, never to talk about eugenics or race (or indeed the g factor...).


A new popular book on the enduring plight of Black people in America was called simply Stop Helping Us! Its Black author, Jason Riley, detailed the striking argument that the efforts of Whites to solve the USA’s embarrassing racial gap, even if well-meaning and not just self-serving (to make comfy jobs for leftists), were actually counter-productive. That the ‘minimum wage’ kept young Blacks out of work and turned them to drug-dealing and crime and sexual fecklessness, and that ‘affirmative action’ pushed Blacks into university courses and jobs where they had high failure rates and dropped out were just two of the observations picked out from the book by (Black) Thomas Sowell in his welcoming summary (for star libertarian and race realist Lew Rockwell’s homepage, 9 vii).


A day after Britain won a £250M deal to supply rockets to India, the quid pro quo was announced by Chancellor George Osborne: India’s national hero Gandhi, a pacifist, was to be honoured with a statue in London’s Parliament Square – alongside the war-winning Lloyd George, Lincoln, Smuts and Churchill. Still, the oddity of this had been matched in Gandhi’s own life by his wanting to hand India to the Japanese and his getting a million killed in the frantic partition that followed his insistence on democracy (which left Muslims in a permanent minority – so millions of them fled to what became Pakistan).

Gandhi was also was an avid supporter of discrimination in South Africa. He only protested at it in so far as he thought Indians should be treated on the same level as the Whites, not the African natives. He also stated that the White race of South Africa should be the predominating race and many times stated that Blacks were no better than the Untouchables in India, where he intended to preserve the caste system (Daily Mail, 10 vii).

(Whether Gandhi shared paedophilia with another left-loved figure having his statue outside Parliament, Saint Martin Luther King, was a moot point – Gandhi usually had a lissome and nubile naked girl share his bed but always insisted nothing ‘happened.’)


As pressures for more high-level action against long-dead ‘establishment’ paedophiles and Parliament produced two ‘inquiries,’ an inquiry into inquiries, and a threat by PM Daft Dave that he would criminalize any who failed to report suspicions of kiddyfumbling, columnist Sue Cameron bravely brought the terms ‘witch-hunt,’ ‘McCarthyism,’ ‘febrile atmosphere’ and ‘hysteria’ into play and especially mentioned an Australian warning [from Labour PR man John McTernan] that criminalizing non-reporters there had led to officials being “overwhelmed” by gossip as teachers, priests, TV celebs etc realized they had to cover their own backsides by generating a mountain of paperwork for legal contemplation (D.Telegraph, 10 vii, ‘Witch-hunts thrive in a climate of fear’).

(Meantime, Britoid paedohysterics went on their frothing way, complaining that the 80-yr senior judge [Lady Butler-Sloshed] appointed to run one of the inquiries was too much of an establishment figure herself and that her own 30-yr-dead brother [Sir Michael Havers, Attorney-General in the early Eighties] had once declined to prosecute a diplomat suspected of paedophilia who had a ‘connection’ with the Paedophile Information Exchange [a body which may have received as much as £.5M from the Home Office in those far-off days of sexual liberalism and research].)

{The idea of dealing with the multi-million pound mess by quickly passing a ‘statute of limitations – like most European countries (and which I had re the Gajdusek case) – apparently had no appeal to Westminster’s big spenders and their learned friends.}

Happily, Sue Cameron was joined two days later by the mighty Charles Moore. He not only attributed Mrs May’s planned footling ‘inquiries’ to fear of the paedohysteria which parliamentarians had unleashed and of the public cynicism about politicians (on perpetual half-time, have handed Britain over to the EUSSR); but added that much of the interest in trying to track down unspecified historic paedophilia in high places by un-named figures with unknown results arose from a crude desire to link gropings of the Eighties to Mrs Thatcher.


After a half century of primatologists preferring to avoid talking about the dreaded ‘general intelligence,’ let alone showing the intercorrelations between cognitive tests run on their animals, researchers in Atlanta, Georgia (led by William Hopkins of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center) bit the bullet and reported a clear, strong and human-like g factor among 13 mental tests given to 99 chimpanzees ranging in age from 9 to 54 (New Scientist 11 vii). Hopkins et al. measured ability in four broad categories: spatial memory and ability; tool use; communication skills; and establishing causality. Tests to remember which of three beakers hid food, for example, helped measure spatial memory, while challenging chimps to obtain visible but otherwise inaccessible food by attracting attention from humans helped measure communication skills.

By combining results from all the categories, the researchers calculated values for g. And, lo, chimp g turned out to be 53% heritable – just like the g factor in man, the authors observed. (The research group had genetic and other data on the animals’ likely relatedness.) "The historical view is that non-genetic factors dominate animal intelligence, and our findings challenge that view," said Hopkins. Chimp IQ differences could not, of course, be attributed to the socio-economic differences envisaged as so crucial by Western social scientists; and being reared by humans yielded chimps no advantage in g.


The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, announced that he had come to support ‘assisted dying’ – in cases of ‘terminally ill’ patients being within six months of death for which they positively pleaded (Guardian, 12 vii). He thus broke with the preachments of most Christian churches (eager to dissociate from Hitler as once from imperial Rome) on the eve of a debate in the House of Lords on assisted dying. Empirical support for him came from Oregon, where assisted dying for mentally competent near-death patients had been legalized in 1997 – with one person thus suiciding per week, entirely unproblematically.

Religious support came from the South African CofE Archbishop, Desmond Tutu. {But the real problems were that low-g people – including many previously normal-g people who had contracted senile dementia [aka ‘Alzheimers’] – were not considered legally competent to choose death or anything else; and that low-g’s often had even no clear wish to die, living as they did (with the help of modern medication) from one ice cream or Teletubby episode to the next [as in the case of philosopher-novelist Iris Murdoch in her dotage].

In truth, the only way out of these problems was to give absolute guardianship of anyone with a Mental Age of less than 5 to a panel [composed of, perhaps, the chief inheritor, the ward’s GP [or deputy], and a close friend (agreed by the heir and GP)] which would be fully competent (by majority decision) to make life-or-death decisions, perhaps once per year. Only by taking g/IQ/MA seriously could the real dilemmas of euthanasia/mercy killing/assisted dying be confronted and handled. Obviously, the panel’s expenses would be met from the ward’s estate.}


Leading psychologist Dr Noreen Tehrani, who advised specialist child abuse detectives in the Metropolitan, Surrey, Thames Valley and Hampshire forces, said police were under colossal strain from the escalating demands to investigate ancient paedophilia, requiring her to spend her entire time soothing cops’ frayed nerves.

She added that pressure from Westminster politicians forced police to divert attention from children at risk to historical cases. "They are just completely inundated with work, they are beginning to collapse. What I am getting are more and more exhausted officers. There aren't enough officers in these specialist teams and they are overwhelmed," Tehrani said.

The psychobabbler – whose own views on the merits of investigating past paedofiddling remained unknown -- said officers were on the point of collapse, with many going off sick as a growing number of historical claims of abuse increased pressure on already busy teams. She told the Guardian (12 vii) that she would be writing to PM David Cameron and Theresa May, the home secretary, to express her deep concern at the pressures the teams were under.


Attempts to encourage more girls to study the sciences ‘completely deny human biology and nature’, a male academic claimed. Schools should stop trying to close education gender gaps because innate differences between the sexes mean they will always be drawn to different subjects and careers, according to a Glasgow University psychologist (addressing a beano of British educashunists, and reported in Times Educational Supplement).

Defying conventional peecee wisdom that had infected most psychologists, politicians and physicists themselves, Dr Gijsbert Stoet argued that Britain ‘probably needed to give up on the idea that we will get many female engineers or male nurses’ (Daily Mail, 12 vii). “Do we really care that only 5 per cent of the programmers are women?” asked the brave heretic psychologist. “I don’t care who programs my computers. A wealthy, democratic society can afford to let people do what they want.”


Stephen Fry is a good guy, as I always suspected. And proving as well that there's at least one homosexual left in the UK after all with balls and integrity.


Stephen Fry left an audience in shocked silence at a Labour fundraiser attended by Ed Miliband by publicly criticising the Operation Yewtree investigation into historic sex abuse.

The Labour-supporting comedian, who was hosting the event, complained that less than 50 per cent of those people held under Yewtree have been found guilty and that those who make false accusations should be prosecuted.

But last night Mr Miliband’s office issued a rebuke to Mr Fry by insisting that the party fully supported Yewtree and making clear that Mr Miliband’s ‘thoughts were with the victims’.

Mr Fry singled out for criticism Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who was present at the gala dinner last Wednesday.

Mr Starmer was the architect of the successful prosecutions under Yewtree – the Scotland Yard operation spawned by the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal – of entertainer Rolf Harris, publicity guru Max Clifford and TV presenter Stuart Hall.

But Yewtree has also led to failed prosecutions against entertainers including Coronation Street star William Roache. And cases were dropped against comedians Freddie Starr, Jim Davidson and Jimmy Tarbuck after months of destructive publicity.

...After citing Magna Carta, the 799-year-old foundation of British constitutional rights, Mr Fry said that ‘fewer than half’ of the people held under Yewtree had been found guilty – before identifying Mr Starmer in the audience.

The comedian then launched into what one guest described as a ‘rant’ about how the law should be toughened up to deter people from inventing claims about sex abuse.




Fresh from paying dotty, daft and murderous Arabs to return to their Middle East, which they were busy destroying (q.v.), Australia took on the Britoid establishment as Rolf Harris, CBE, OBE, MBE, Officer of the Order of Australia, 84, and Queen Brenda’s favourite painter, was jailed for his ‘manipulative’ ‘paedophilic’ gropings of forty years previously (he even kept one pleasantly speckled young girl – a “spiritual healer” -- in the boathouse at the bottom of his multi-million Thameside garden, where she gratefully lived rent-free) (D.Mail, 1 vii).

The Irish ex-convict Republican media of Oz could (surely) be relied on to condemn the hounding of a great Ozzie who had never harmed a fly – and whom the hysterics of Murdochized Britoidia planned to prosecute further for yet more happy and harmless malfeasances.

Ooops! The Oz press too had succumbed to paedohunting and ‘defended’ the Workers’ Republic’s best-known and most honoured export only by making little mention of RH’s case. So RH’s only published defence would be in the UK Daily Mail, insisting he was a thoroughly good egg who could go for years without conspicuous hanky-panky.


The modern Britoid fashion for hounding and jailing elderly ‘paedophiles’, beginning with popstar Gary Glitter (and failing – except in E’bro’ -- to defend adoptive father-of-46, Nobelist Carlton Gajdusek), in order to demonstrate the saintliness of knicker-flashing newspapers, reached a high point as precisely no-one came forward to defend Welsh-parented Australian bottom-pincher celeb Rob Harris, 84. Even HMQ Brenda went into hiding with the (wide-mouthed) portrait that the much-loved moustachioed Ozzie had made of Her in 2005 (D.Mail, 2 vii).

And fresh rumours circulated of knicker-naughtiness in the House of Commons of the 1980s – possibly involving the later-promoted Lord Brittan, who may have consigned files on 114 high-flying paedofumblers to the shredder.

{Heaven forfend! Soon Queen-Empress Victoria would be hauled up for her Scottish assignations of the 1880s – accusations driven by self-righteousness, lack of printable news (about Britain’s abject failures in Afghooniland, Eyeraq and Euroland) and total cowardice about discussing Britain’s failure to deal with its own Bleck and Muesli problems.}

{Would Oz step up and defend its illustrious Groper Harris? No chance! – Australian independence, humour, tough-mindedness and scorn for Britain’s elite had their limits!}

* One ‘victim’ complained she had been “abused” and “attacked” by the genial Harris for sixteen years, during which the two of them had sometimes engaged in oral sex – all this ‘molestation’ having never led her once to complain to her doctor, her father or a policeman. – She was of course, in the paedohysterical jargon of the day, ‘traumatized.’


A year of dire British failure (at rugger, cricket, soccer and tennis; and with the EUSSR united against it after 500 years of every schoolboy – perhaps not those at Eton – knowing Britain had to divide the Continent), the country – long thought a bastion of common sense, freedom and good humour – disgraced itself by jailing for SIX YEARS a much-loved and honoured Australian celebrity, 84, while not producing a shred of evidence of real harm from the venerated Ozzie’s attentions (one girl had let the ‘attacks’ continue for 16 years).

Meanwhile, short of news because no-one could explain the 2008-10 financial crash (in fact due to America compelling over-lending to Blacks), MSM busied itself with the possibiility of a ‘paedophile ring’ in Westminster of the 1980s – though all details had been properly shredded as unevidenced idle rumours by officials.

{Having netted such celebs as Gary Glitter, Max Clifford, Cyril Smith, Stuart Hall, Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, how much further could tabloid paedohysteria go? Could deceased U-turning EUrophile PM Ted Heath (bachelor choirmaster and sailor) be the next victim? In fact, there was probably not a man in the country who could not be slung into clink for ancient ‘abuse’ if desperate pressmen – fearing the ever-growing internet challenge to their peecee ‘news’papers – were so minded.}

And, no, the SIX YEAR sentence proved entirely insufficient to the paedohysterics of the Guardian, D.Mirror and BBC. Criticizing RH for putting his victims on the witness stand (where the worst the women could recall was RH having made them feel ‘dirty’ and ‘anxious’ as they returned for his next advances forty years ago), the hyperpunitive frothers appealed against the ‘leniency’ shown to RH (who had not left any tangible injury from his fumblings) and wanted him re-sentenced under any ‘guidelines,’ ancient or modern, which could at least double the length of his imprisonment and ensure he died in jail.

The art world, too, moved to dissociate itself from RH – even losing his portrait of the Queen. For the Telegraph (2 vii), Andrew Brown observed:

"But is it right that a lifetime's art should be obliterated from the public consciousness because the artist who made the work happens to be a bad man? I can see the emotional motives behind that policy, but it does not make any sense. Once a work of art is made it takes on a life of its own. It is separate from its creator, and appreciated as an object in its own right. You wouldn't destroy a car if a worker in the factory where it was made turned out to be a murderer, would you?

Caravaggio killed a man in a fight. Wagner had some horrid views. Eric Gill admitted, in his diaries, that he had sex with his two young daughters. He also conducted "experimental sex sessions" (in the words of his biographer Fiona McCarthy) with his dog. Yet his monumental sculpture of Ariel and Prospero is a London landmark above the entrance to [the Beeb’s] Broadcasting House in Portland Place. And Westminster Cathedral authorities have no intention of removing his limestone, low-relief Stations of the Cross despite periodic protests.

To which it could easily be added that the lives of many great artists left much to be desired: homosexuality (Michelangelo), paedophilic inclination (Shakespeare), underage girls (Vivaldi), brawling (J.S. Bach), polygamy (Schiller), V.D. (Schubert), unfaithfulness (Dickens), opium addiction (Baudelaire), self-harm (Van Gogh), pederasty (Wilde), drinking (Hemingway – and virtually all C20 American winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature), choirboys (Britten), smoking (Hockney), promiscuity (Lucian Freud) etc, etc.

Thankfully the celebrated RH – though a great child entertainer rather than an artist of any stature -- remained dignified and stoical throughout his ordeal, evidently accepting there was nothing he could do about the feminoid Inquisition. At least he had the satisfaction of witnessing such 100% hysteria that it could not possibly be right."


As explained endlessly by hereditarians to behaviourists (like M.J.A. Howe, e.g. in The g Factor, 2000, and in Brand et al., ‘Why ignore the g factor?’, 2003), even oodles of practice are correlated with only slight advantages in performance – perhaps 20% for sportsmen and musicians (some of whom practice all day long) but for only 2% in many other areas like arithmetic and reading (D.Mail, 4 vii).

The latest re-invention of the wheel ooops research to this effect came from Princeton and did not even control for the likelihood that superior performers were more motivated to spend more time practising. {Yes, Oxford of the 1960s educated me as a behaviourist so well that – helped by generous grants, pocket money for running rats for girls, and by a plum prison service job – it took me a decade to work out that behaviourism was largely rubbish.}




Welcome to the era of the permanent paedophile hunt. There’s no let-up. There’s no time to take a breath. Once one hunt for paedos is over, another will take its place, almost instantly. The speed with which the national attention turned from celebrating the slaying of child-assaulting Rolf to demanding the capture of child-assaulting MPs suggests the British obsession with paedophiles is not simply a recurring moral panic, like the ones over crime or youthful misbehaviour that come and go depending on what mood the police or the press are in. Rather, it is a permanent fixture in British political and moral life; an ever-present force; a neverending morality tale in which the characters might change – cloaked Satanists one day, old TV celebrities the next, wicked politicians the day after that – but where the story remains remarkably samey: that is, that dark, twisted forces are seeking to harm our children and thus we must always be vigilant, obsessively so, reorganising society itself in order to keep the monsters at bay and our children safe.

See also Barbara Hewson on 'Savile: Trawling for Scandal?'


Now we know why Paul Elam was so eager to boot out the masculinists...



To me it would seem his family has shown incredible strength and solace in the face of such public attention and media coverage. It would also seem that if he were such a bad person all of the time his family would not stand with him.

Dying in prison must be an awful thing when you think how it might play out for his family. My thoughts go towards his worry for his family and his families unreserved care, love and support for him. Yes that’s right, his family has done nothing wrong. Where is the compassion for them?

Demanding an old man dies in prison makes me feel uneasy as to the motive behind the entitlement. The desire to see him die in such an awful manner speaks volumes for the people who want it.

I would think that retrospective justice and a meeting between victim and felon would work better for the sufferers. Something that might help the victims to move on.

The only other thing I could add to this post is, if Rolf Harris was an 86 year old woman, would the feminist movement demand death by long term prison sentence?

Who dares comment on such a controversial post?