Race Differences, Immigration, And The Twilight of the European Peoples

I want to examine the
changing nature of Britishness
resulting from the

immigration non-Europeans
, particularly in the light
of IQ differences between immigrants and the native
white population. My approach differs from
current debates about immigration which
are normally concentrated on whether it is good or bad
for Britain, and whether we need more of it or less, and
not on the quality of the immigrants or their racial
identity.


Race And IQ

In my recent review
of the research on race differences in intelligence

that has been carried out over the last eighty years I
have set the British IQ at 100 and shown that other
Europeans have the same average IQ, except in the
Balkans where it drops to around 93. Outside of Europe,
the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the
highest mean IQ at 105. The South Asians and North
Africans have an average IQ of 84, the Caribbeans an IQ
of 71, and the blacks of sub-Saharan African an IQ of
67.

These racial IQs appear to be about fifty per cent genetically
determined and about fifty per cent environmentally
determined. This means that when these peoples migrate
to Britain they enter a much better environment,
particularly as regards nutrition, health care and
education, so their IQs increase by about fifty per
cent. Thus the IQs of South Asians and North Africans
increase to around 92, while the IQs of Caribbeans and
African blacks increase to around 86.

The
low IQ of blacks was been understood from everyday
observation long before it became established by
intelligence tests. For instance, in the eighteenth
century David Hume

wrote
that "I
am apt to suspect that Negroes are naturally inferior to
whites. There is no ingenious manufacture amongst them,
no arts, no sciences"
. The first explorers of Africa
reached the same conclusion. Mungo Park, who visited
west Africa in 1795 and made his way up the Gambia and
Niger rivers, noted that the African peoples had no
written language and little that could be described as
civilisation. He

described
the Africans as living in
"small and
incommodious hovels: a circular mud wall about four feet
high, upon which is placed a conical roof, composed of
bamboo cane, and thatched with grass, forms alike the
palace of the king and the hovel of the slave"
.

The explanation for these race differences in intelligence that has
become widely accepted is that humans evolved in
equatorial East Africa. About 100,000 years ago some
groups migrated northwards into North Africa and then
into Asia and Europe. These groups encountered a more
challenging environment in which there were no plant or
insect foods for much of the year, so they had to hunt
large animals like mammoths to obtain their food. They
also had to keep warm and for this they needed to make
clothes and shelters. These problems became much greater
in the last ice age that began about 28,000 years ago
and lasted until about 11,000 years ago. All these
challenges required higher intelligence. Only the more
intelligent were able to survive in these harsh
environments while the less intelligent perished. One
result of this was that the brain size of the European
and East Asian peoples increased to accommodate the
greater intelligence required to overcome these
problems.

 These racial differences in
intelligence are one of the most important reasons for
the differences in the wealth and poverty of nations
that are present throughout the world (the other main
reason being the presence of a market economy or of some
form of socialism or communism). Intelligence is a major
determinant of competence and earning capacity, so
inevitably the European and Far Eastern peoples whose
populations are intelligent achieve higher standards of
living than other peoples who are less intelligent.

This is often called the North-South divide, consisting of the rich
north of Europe, North America and Japan, and the poor
south consisting of South Asian, Africa and Latin
America, but this is just a euphemism for the rich
European and Far Eastern peoples who happen to live
mainly in the northern hemisphere and the poor South
Asians, Africans and Latin Americans who live in the
south. These differences in wealth are largely caused by
racial differences in intelligence.

Because of this the idea that they can be eliminated and that we can
"make poverty
history"
by writing off debts and providing more aid
is
doomed to failure
.

 When non-European peoples migrate
to Europe and North America their lower IQs make it
difficult for them to cope in economically developed
societies. The effect of race differences in IQ on the
ability to cope was shown for the United States by
Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their book


The
Bell Curve
.

Here they showed that blacks with an average IQ of 85
perform poorly in education and earnings, while they
have high rates of crime, welfare dependency and
unemployment. Hispanics with a somewhat higher average
IQ (typically found to be about 89) do somewhat better,
while whites and Asians ("the model minority") do best.

Similar racial differences have been found in Britain. The Chinese East
Asians perform best in educational attainment and have
the lowest percentage of school exclusions and crime.
The native British come next, followed by the South
Asians from the Indian sub-Continent, while the blacks
perform worst. We see this for educational attainment in
A levels in Table 1 (the scores are calculated by
counting A grades as 10, B grades as 8, etc. and are
published by the Department for Education and Skills).

[Vdare.com note:
A Levels
are the British equivalent of American

Advanced Placement
courses.]

It will be noted that the

Indians do better than the

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

The main
reasons for this are that the

Indians have been longer established in
Britain while the

Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis are more recent immigrants, and that the
Indians are a more selected group.


Both groups of Blacks from the

Caribbean
and

Africa
do much the worst.        
 

Table 1. A level scores,
1996-2000




Group



A level score



Chinese



16.8



Whites



13.8

Indians



11.3


Pakistani/ Bangladeshi



 6.4



Africans



 2.8



Caribbeans



 1.7


Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murray`s demonstration in The
Bell Curve
that in the United States racial IQs are
related to crime rates is equally true in Britain. Table
2 shows the U.K. Home Office figures for the crime rates
whites, Chinese, South Asians and Blacks. These
statistics are for men in prison in relation to their
numbers in the population and are expressed as odds
ratios in which the white rate is set at 1.0 and the
rates of the other groups are expressed as multiples of
this. Thus the Chinese rate is 0.7 of the white rate,
while the South Asian rate is 1.3 times the white rate,
and the Black rate is 8.1 times the white rate.

These
race differences in crime are well known to authorities
in this field. For instance,

Professor
Sir
Michael Rutter


writes that
"there are substantial differences in the rates of crime
among ethnic groups",

although he goes on to say that
"these
differences are exaggerated by small (but cumulative)
biases in the ways in which judicial processing takes
place…"
.

This
implies that racial prejudice in the police and judicial
system are partly responsible, although Sir Michael does
not offer any explanation for why the South Asian crime
rate is only marginally higher than the white, or for
the much lower crime rate of the Chinese.

Table 2. Crime rates
(Men)




Group



Crime: Odds ratios



 



Whites



1.0



 



Chinese



0.7



 



South Asians



1.3



 



Blacks



8.1



 

[Home
Office. Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice
System
. London: Home , 1998

PDF
]

 Blacks also have much higher
crime rates than

Whites in the United States
, and also in the

Caribbean
and
South
Africa
. High rates of crime seem to be a

universal characteristic
of Blacks.

There appear to be three reasons why racial IQs are related to crime
rates.


  • First, those with low IQs are less able to
    understand the adverse cost of being caught and
    punished.

     

  • Second, boys with low IQs do badly at school and
    typically live with others who also do badly at
    school. As a result the whole subculture becomes
    alienated from school and society and sees little
    prospect of earning a good living by gainful
    employment. Crime seems to offer an attractive
    alternative.

    Alienation from school
    leads to disruptive
    behaviour that eventually leads to expulsion or
    exclusion.

Thus the race differences in school exclusions published by the
Department for Education and Skills are similar to those
in IQ, educational attainment and crime. Figures for
recent years are shown in Table 3. We see here that
Chinese are only excluded at one-fifth the rate of
whites. The South Asian exclusion rate is about the
same, while the Black rate is 4.4 times greater.

Table 3. School exclusions




School exclusions



Odds ratios



Whites



1.0



Chinese



0.2



South Asians



0.9



Blacks



4.4

  • A third reason for the high rates of crime and
    school exclusions of Blacks seems to be that, in
    addition to their low IQ, Blacks have short time
    horizons such that they do not look ahead at the likely
    future consequences of their actions.

This characteristic has frequently been noted. For instance, John Speke
who explored East Africa in the 1860s and discovered the
source of the Nile,
described
the typical African
as
"a creature of
impulse – a grown child"
.

At about the same time Anthony Trollope, the British novelist, visited
the Caribbean and wrote up his impressions in his book

The West Indies and the Spanish Main.

Here he described the characteristics of the
Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians and Mulattos, and

wrote of the Blacks
that
"they have no
care for tomorrow, but they delight in being gaudy for
today. Their crimes are those of momentary impulse".


Immigration Into The White World

 The numbers of non-Europeans in
Britain have been growing steadily since the


British Nationality Act
of 1948

conferred the right of citizenship and abode on all
members of the British Commonwealth and Empire.

This trend is shown in Table 4 taken from the census returns of 1951,
1961, 1971 and 2001, and projected forward in time to
2031 and 2061. We see that the non-European population
increased around ten fold from 1961 to 2001, and about
4.5 fold from 1971 to 2001. The projections extrapolate
the 4.5 fold increase over the 30 year period from 1971
to 2001 forward to 2031 and again to 2061. We see that
the numbers of non-Europeans are projected to reach
around 15.5 million by 2031 and 70 mi1lion in 2061.

Over the same period the numbers of white can be projected to decline
because whites have approximately 1.6 children per
couple. The effect of this is likely to be that the
numbers of whites will decline from around 55 million in
2001 to around 34 million in 2061. Hence by 2061 about
two thirds of the population of Britain will be of
non-European origin, while about one third will be
white.

Table 4. The numbers of non-Europeans in Britain




Year



Non-Europeans



1951



 
138,000 



1961



 
360,000 



1971



 
751,000 



2001



 3,450,000



2031



15,550,000



2061



69,862,000



 
These projections are
"guesstimates"
– reasonable or perhaps not so
reasonable guesses about what the future may bring – and
perhaps some people will say that this could not
possibly happen.

But
why not? There is little reason to suppose that the
principal factors responsible for the growth in the
numbers of non-Europeans in Britain is likely to change.


Consider the reasons for growth of non-European
population.

  • First, they
    are entering Britain as asylum
    seekers and this is likely to continue.

The
number of asylum seekers from Africa in 1981 was
108,000. By 2001, it was 480,000, an increase of more
than fourfold over a period of only 20 years. As word
spreads through Africa that entry to Britain is easy and
life much better than in Africa, the numbers are likely
to increase further. Most

asylum seekers
are refused asylum, but very few are
actually deported. This is because of the problems of
finding them and when they are found they often refuse
to disclose where they have come from, so it is not
possible to deport them.

Once
they are in Britain they have little difficulty in
finding somewhere to live, often provided by local
authorities, and they either find work or obtain social
security unemployment payments. This also is very
difficult to stop.

  • Third, many enter Britain legally as visitors and
    students, and stay on indefinitely.


     

  • Fourth, many more enter Britain legally through arranged
    marriages.

This
is especially common among the
Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis, more than half of whom marry spouses from
their
home country and bring their spouses to Britain. Other
illegals simply pay someone to go through a marriage
ceremony with a British national through which they
acquire citizenship.


  • Fifth, non-Europeans (except for the Chinese) have
    more children than whites.

The
numbers of children of various immigrant groups found in
the 2001 census are shown in Table 5. It will be seen
that the white fertility rate is 1.6 children per woman,
while blacks and the Indians have about 30 percent more
children than whites at 2.2 and 2.3. The

Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Somalis have 5.0, more than
three times the number of
children as whites.

The
higher fertility of non-Europeans tends to decline in
the second and third generations but not to the low
level of whites.

All of these five causes of the growth of the growth in the numbers of
non-Europeans in Britain would be very difficult to stop
or even to reduce
.

The problem lies in the nature of democracy. In democracies, politicians
think short term. Their objective is to win an election
in two, three or maybe four years` time. Politicians
cannot afford to antagonize minorities with votes for

the sake of long term benefits for the nation.

Immigrant minorities want more immigration of people like themselves.
When the immigrant vote becomes sizable, politicians can
no
longer afford to antagonize it
. This point has been
reached in Britain, where

the new compassionate Conservative Party
no longer
puts the control of immigration among its priorities. It
has likewise been reached in Western Europe and the
United States. Theoretically immigration could be
stopped but the cost in terms of votes, the opposition
of a
largely liberal media
and the likelihood of

civil unrest
among

immigrant communities
has become too great.

Hence
the projections shown in Table 4 appear entirely
realistic. The time scale for whites becoming a minority
of the population may be longer. Alternatively, it could
be shorter, if for example
Turkey
is admitted to the European community
and
65
million Turks with their children
acquire the right
of abode in Britain.  

Table 5. Fertility of different racial groups




Group



Number of children



Chinese



1.3



Whites



1.6



Blacks



2.2



Indians



2.3



Pakistanis/Bangladeshis



5.0



Somalis



5.0



 
The growth of the numbers of non-Europeans is not peculiar to Britain. It
is taking place throughout Western Europe, in the United
States, Canada and Australia.

Professor David Coleman
has given figures for the
percentages of non-Europeans in six European countries
in the year 2000 and projected figures for the year
2050. These are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Percentages of non-European peoples in six European countries, 2000 and 2050



Country


   
% Population

 


 
2000


 
2050

Austria


  3.9


  5.1

Denmark


  6.0


 
11.5

Germany


  6.6


 
18.2


Netherlands


  8.9


 
16.5

Norway


  3.4


 
14.3

Sweden


  6.2


 
10.7

 The figures for the percentages
of non-Europeans in six European countries in the year
2000 are underestimates because they are taken from
census returns which do not include third generation
immigrants (these are counted as indigenous), and
because a number immigrants do not fill in census
forms—especially illegals, for obvious reasons. The
projected figures for the year 2050 are also probably
underestimates because they assume that the fertility of
immigrants will soon fall to that of whites, which they
may well not.

Coleman has given the statistics on the fertility (Total Fertility
Rates) of Europeans and non-Europeans in France, the
Netherlands and Sweden shown in Table 7.

It will be seen that in all three countries the non-Europeans have about
fifty per cent more children that the indigenous
populations. Inevitably, the proportion of non-Europeans
in the population will increase from higher fertility
alone.

Table 7.
Total
Fertility Rates of Europeans and non-Europeans, 2000



Country


   
Fertility

 



Europeans



Non-Europeans

France


  1.9


  2.8


Netherlands


  1.7


  2.5

Sweden


  1.5


  2.3

 Non-Europeans
are also increasing as a percentage of the population in
the United States. Most of these are from Mexico and are

Native American Indians or Mestizos
(mixed race
European and Native American Indian), but there are also
substantial numbers of Blacks from Africa and the
Caribbean, and of Asians. Altogether these entering the
United States at more than 1 million a year.

The Bureau of the Census estimates that the percentage of Europeans in
the population, which stood at 90 per cent in 1940, had
fallen to 71 per cent by 2000 and is projected to be 40
per cent by the year 2100 (these projections assume that
the
fertility of immigrants
will fall to almost the same
figure as that as of whites, which may well be
considered improbable).

Patrick Buchanan has recently written on this huge demographic
transformation which he calls

"the Third World invasion".


 


The Twilight of the European Peoples

Only one conclusion is possible. The rate of increase of the
non-European population could be slower or it could be
faster than the projections given in Table 4 but the
broad picture is clear and inescapable: at some point in
the foreseeable future the white British people will
become a minority in

these islands,
and whites will likewise

become minorities t
hroughout the economically
developed nations of European peoples.

As the proportion of non-Europeans grows in Europe and in the United
States (and also in

Canada
and

Australia
) and eventually become majorities, the
intelligence of the populations will fall. The strength
of the economies will equally inevitably decline to the
level of developing nations.

World leadership will pass to Russia and Eastern Europe, and to China
and Japan, if these manage to resist the invasion of
non- European peoples.

 We are living in an extraordinary
time. Nothing like this has ever occurred in human
history. Mass immigration of non-Europeans will
inevitably result in the European peoples becoming
minorities and then increasingly small minorities in
their own countries, as they are in most of Latin
America and the Caribbean islands. Throughout the
Western world the European peoples are allowing
themselves to be replaced in their own homelands by
non-Europeans.

What is even more remarkable is that the European peoples have become
quite complacent about their own elimination. Some even
welcome it. Hardly a week goes by without some
intellectual or politician declaring that immigration
has been good for the country, that
"in our

diversity
is our strength"
and
"we must

celebrate our differences"
.

Others announce that they look forward to the day when

whites become a minority.

This is the first time in the whole of human history that a people has
voluntarily engineered in its own destruction.


Richard Lynn [Email
him
] is Professor Emeritus, University of Ulster and
the author of

several books on IQ,

Including The Global Bell Curve
and IQ and Global Inequality.