Gawker interviews Derb
This is a surprisingly straightforward interview of John Derbyshire by Gawker's Maureen O'Connor:
I was also pleased to be informed that unlike his fellow NROniks, Mark Steyn was bold enough to openly defend Derb and oppose what he refers to as Lowry's "summary execution". Since I no longer link to the National Review site, I shall simply quote the relevant bits from Steyn here:
Is racism—yours or other people's—a problem?It's not hard to see that Derb's position is either reasonable and wholly unobjectionable or unthinkable. Those who conclude it is the former are driven by facts and observation of the real world. Those who conclude it is the latter are driven by ideology and the myth of equality. That is how we can be confident that Derb is correct, because the emptiness of ideology that is contradicted by observation will inevitably be exposed sooner or later. As Derb himself notes, 50 years ago it was possible to credibly subscribe to the equalitarian position. He once did. I once did, although always with some degree of suspicion that something wasn't quite right. But after five decades of the orthodox racial model's complete and unmitigated failure, it simply isn't possible for any thinking individual to do so any longer.
Depends what you mean by a problem. The mild and tolerant racism I've owned up to, and which seems (from these Implicit Association studies) to be very common, is not usually a problem in people's personal social lives. It's never been a problem in my life. I've always got on pretty well with persons of all races, excepting those individuals nobody can get along with—we've all met 'em. But then, of course, as an individual, one can "navigate" through life, making choices that avoid difficult quandaries, by just the kinds of strategies outlined in my article.
Those irenic results don't scale up. Entire societies don't have the "navigational" freedom of individuals. The natural preference most people have for some races—usually their own—over others means that multiracial societies are plagued with stresses that you don't see in monoracial societies. The tendency in modern times is to separation. Look at residential and educational patterns in the U.S.A. I discuss these issues at length in my book We Are Doomed.
A friend of mine who is an academic social scientist likes to say that if you want to know what people believe, there are two methods of inquiry: (A) ask them, or (B) observe their behavior. It's a depressing fact about human nature that if you apply both (A) and (B) to a given situation, the answers you get will not necessarily be the same. Whether we are, as our current Attorney General said, a nation of cowards about race, I don't know; but looking at those residential and educational patterns, it's awfully hard to deny that we are a nation of liars.
The big question is whether these problems, as they manifest themselves in the U.S.A., are solvable. Current orthodoxy is that they are, and offers a laundry list of solution methods. Fix the schools! End poverty! Stamp out racism! Affirmative action! Fifty years ago a thoughtful person could sign on to those prescriptions. I know: I was around: I did. Yes (we said) once unjust laws had been struck down, and some social massaging of that sort been done for a few years, the races would merge in happy harmony, and the word "race" and its derivatives would drop out of the language. We all believed that. I believed it.
Plainly this hasn't happened, except of course in the upper classes, which go by their own rules. For a thoughtful person today to believe that these social-engineering nostrums will (for example) bring black crime rates to a level indistinguishable from white crime rates, involves a strenuous act of what Orwell called "doublethink"—massive self-deception. Does anyone, after all those decades, all those trillions of dollars, all those failed social-engineering experiments, does anyone really, honestly still believe in the nostrums? I don't.
My own sense of the thing is that underneath the happy talk, underneath the dogged adherence to failed ideas and dead theories, underneath the shrieking and anathematizing at people like me, there is a deep and cold despair. In our innermost hearts,we don't believe racial harmony can be attained. Hence the trend to separation. We just want to get on with our lives away from each other. Yet for a moralistic, optimistic people like Americans, this despair is unbearable. It's pushed away somewhere we don't have to think about it. When someone forces us to think about it, we react with fury. That little boy in the Andersen story about the Emperor's new clothes? The ending would be more true to life if he had been lynched by a howling mob of outraged citizens.
Have you given your children any of the advise outlined in your "The Talk: The Nonblack Version"? If so, how did they receive it?
They have, as I said in the article, had bits and pieces of it, though never in a formal let's-sit-down-and-have-a-chat [links to video] kind of way. Both took it with some skepticism, even some disgust in my daughter's case. Both have been through the public-school system and taken in a lot of the left-liberal PC indoctrination in which that system is marinated. So I'd have to say they weren't very receptive. Was there ever a time when kids listened to their parent's advice? But at least they've heard it, and know that there's another point of view besides the PC flapdoodle, a point of view held by non-crazy persons. One does one's best.
I was also pleased to be informed that unlike his fellow NROniks, Mark Steyn was bold enough to openly defend Derb and oppose what he refers to as Lowry's "summary execution". Since I no longer link to the National Review site, I shall simply quote the relevant bits from Steyn here:
I didn’t agree with Derb on many things, from Ron Paul and talk radio to God and science. For his part, he reckoned I was a bit of a wimp on what he called “the Great Unmentionables.” He thought that neuroscientists and geneticists’ understanding of race trumped my touching belief in “culture.” I’m not so sure: Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados? Why is India India and Pakistan Pakistan? Skin color and biological determinism don’t get you very far on that.Good for Steyn. It was well and bravely done. Of course, he, along with Victor Davis Hanson, is widely considered to be one of the leading contenders for NRO's next purge.
But I almost always learned something from his columns, and, at a time when punditry is increasingly parochial, I appreciated his range of historical and literary allusion (his recent “Duke of Marlborough moment,” for example). He will be impossible to replace on that front....
The net result of Derb’s summary execution by NR will be further to shrivel the parameters, and confine debate in this area to ever more unreal fatuities. He knew that mentioning the Great Unmentionables would sooner or later do him in, and, in an age when shrieking “That’s totally racist!” is totally gay, he at least has the rare satisfaction of having earned his colors. Yet what are we to make of wee, inoffensive Dave Weigel over at Slate? The water still churning with blood, the sharks are circling poor old Dave for the sin of insufficiently denouncing the racist Derbyshire. Weigel must go for not enthusiastically bellowing, “Derbyshire must go!” Come to think of it, I should probably go for querying whether Weigel should go.
NR shouldn’t be rewarding those who want to play this game. The more sacrifices you offer up, the more ravenously the volcano belches.
PS If Derb’s piece is sufficiently beyond the pale that its author must be terminated immediately, why is its publisher — our old friend Taki — proudly listed on the NR masthead?
Labels: society
118 Comments:
and still, no one is talking about Derb's source material for "the talk". His article was an obvious counter point to the equally racist remarks in the black version or "the talk". you know what we need? we need some bored housewives and hippies to become white equality activists and to take up the full time mantel of arguing for the cause.
"Both took it with some skepticism, even some disgust in my daughter's case. Both have been through the public-school system and taken in a lot of the left-liberal PC indoctrination in which that system is marinated. So I'd have to say they weren't very receptive. Was there ever a time when kids listened to their parent's advice?"
Homeschool or Die, Part Something or other
The comments there made me sick. It is an uphill struggle when so many unthinking morons have been brainwashed by liberal schooling. And of course they think they are the enlightened ones.
Thought you guys might appreciate this. I don't know what the etiquette for posting links is, and I hope it stays. Too bad there aren't more like Taki Theodoracopulos around...
http://thesharpeningstone.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/a-formal-rebuttal-of-john-derbyshire/
Takeaway quote of the post:
"The more sacrifices you offer up, the more ravenously the volcano belches."
Starve the beasts. All of them.
Ah! But will Rush drop Steyn?
The black version of "the talk" is advise against authoritarian systems like ordinary police who profile black youths. Derb's white version of "the talk" went even beyond a credulous overview of race realism and into his own normative views on how one should behave around groups of black, or blacks you might meet on the street, or blacks in need of help. All intermixed with controversial and inflammatory theories about black inferiority or the inevitability of race conflict. The most disgusting part is how he casts it all in terms of attempting to teach racism to his children. Thank God at least his daughter seems nauseated by it. Unfortunately, people like Derb are so far gone that they're probably never going to understand why what they think is morally wrong. The same can probably be said about most of you.
If you guys think Derbyshire's article is something, check out Fred Reed's current piece "We are Doomed". Link on Vox's page.
I live in an area that is, mostly, monocultural. The percent of blacks is very low (only a hundred or so out of 18,000). We have however been a victim of the recent Mexican invasion. We have a few thousand of these, all undocumented and mostly harmless. I say 'mostly' because I have recently noticed a few of them with lots of bling, driving sharp, tricked out cars (a la Los Angeles), which tells me that the gangs are here and are using our area as a waypoint and safe area for drugs and transport of illegals. Since none of our local law inforcement speak Spanish and prefer to not die on the job, little to nothing is done.
Derb: A lot of the PC left is just deranged. Why read stuff by deranged people?
Those are the words that should be inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
Anon (pick a name) 7:23
So, Derbyshire was wrong because his view was
1. Inflammatory
2. Controversial
3. Disgusting
I wouldn't recommend trying to win a debate by picking out negative adjectives. If only Christianity had it that easy.
"You shouldn't abort babies. I won't really tell you why; only a far-gone monster would dare to disagree. Also your opinion produces in me much illness."
Facts v. ideology indeed. Half the fun of Derb's original article was having an easter egg hunt for opposing arguments. Alas, they were wanting.
Talk about irony. "Gawker" actually has a meaningful interview with Derb while NR fires him immediately after Lowry gets the vapors. Strange times.
Well Anon convinced me, damn those racist FBi stats!
Unfortunately, people like Derb are so far gone that they're probably never going to understand why what they think is morally wrong. The same can probably be said about most of you.
Do feel free to actually offer a justification for your claim that what Derb wrote was "morally wrong" instead of simply attempting to morally preen. Furthermore, it would be interesting to learn what moral standard serves as the basis of your claim.
Of course, there is always the possibility that you are simply blathering and making use of words and concepts you don't actually understand.
"Facts v. ideology indeed. Half the fun of Derb's original article was having an easter egg hunt for opposing arguments. Alas, they were wanting."
There are plenty of responses. Much of Derb's article was normative and had nothing to do with scientific racism or any "objective truths." Beyond that, nobody is willing to winch a train that has gone that far off the rails. It's not worth the effort. Sell it for scrap.
Then why are you even posting here ANon?, mocking us by withholding your enlightened morality and truth
No Vox, I think you're smart enough to figure it out for yourself. And I'm not into dragging dead weights.
And I'm not into dragging dead weights.
Is that why you left your brain at home, sweetie?
I think you're smart enough to figure it out for yourself. And I'm not into dragging dead weights.
You mean, you're smart enough to realize that you're in over your head and you prefer to run away rather than attempt to defend your position. You can't appeal to a moral standard because you don't have one. And your claim that his statements were "morally wrong" is entirely empty. Derb has no shortage of statistical and scientific evidence on his side whereas you have nothing but your equalitarian fairy tales and PC ideology.
When the elite opinion switches back, as it is in the process of doing, no doubt you'll be as openly racist as anyone.
Just to tempt you with a couple tidbits: it's immoral to advocate abandoning a person in trouble purely on the basis of race. This doesn't leave out the myriad other reasons and cues that might dissuade one person from helping another. Each person must decide based on intuition, etc. Derb was advocating a single, hateful principle. That one should avoid black gatherings: funerals for a person you cared for? Southern jazz concerts? Again, Derb is being hatefully general. Honestly Vox, you're smart enough to figure this shit out.
But again, I'm not going to stick around here and be abused by goons. In many ways, you and Derb are similar in that you're the architects of your own isolation. The years of nastiness toward people who might otherwise have been willing to haul your hulking ass back on its tracks can't but have had effect. You wonder why there are so few contenders, or why nobody bothers to even attempt to refute the Derbs of the world, but it's no mystery. Come to think of it, maybe Derb's right about that one. It's not worth it trying to help some people.
Steyn is guilty of discussing how immigration and demographic change result in negative changes to the target country and culture. Ditto VDH. VDH also regularly uses "Mexifornia" as an example to describe the negative changes to his home state. The lynch mob is already gathering.
Just to tempt you with a couple tidbits: it's immoral to advocate abandoning a person in trouble purely on the basis of race.
No, it's not. There is nothing immoral about not helping another individual for any reason. You are confusing moral neutrality with immorality; the Parable of the Good Samaritan merely asks who was a friend to the waylaid man. It does not condemn those who chose not to assist, much less those who are unable to do so.
Each person must decide based on intuition, etc. Derb was advocating a single, hateful principle. That one should avoid black gatherings: funerals for a person you cared for? Southern jazz concerts?
Ah, so we should all just act on intuition - probably racist - than develop general principles from observation. That's certainly an interesting and inefficient approach to life. Anyhow, Derb was quite clearly referring to amusement parks, rap concerts, and the sort of summer events that have been in the news for the last few years; there are probably more white people than blacks at the average jazz festival anyhow.
You wonder why there are so few contenders, or why nobody bothers to even attempt to refute the Derbs of the world, but it's no mystery.
I don't wonder at all. You guys have no arguments to offer; you lost the intellectual battle and now you're losing in the area of public opinion every single day. The deportations have already begun across Europe and France is even threatening to pull out of Schengen; hopefully these matters will be addressed effectively do so before the mass violence they are meant to stop erupts.
The Tulsa killings, where a part-white, part-Indian kid shot five blacks as payback for his father's murder by an African, should be a warning sign.
The issue here isn't "racism", as "racism" is simply a tried-and-true trojan horse. The issue in fact is latter-day marxist "reconstruction" and vanquishing what little that hasn't succumb to it.
"Liberal Fascism", indeed.
But again, I'm not going to stick around here and be abused by goons.
Beezle? Is that you?
> But after five decades of the orthodox racial model's complete and
> unmitigated failure, it simply isn't possible for any thinking individual
> to do so any longer.
VD, you often use this language - "complete and unmitigated" - when I doubt you mean that.
To call the social programs of the last 50 years "complete and unmitigated" failures is not factual.
They are not successes, they have not done what was advertised. But there are many other outcomes that are between "total success" and "unmitigated failure".
Enough with the hyperbole. Mr. Derbyshire has appropriately spelled out his objections, but your attempted amplication is poor.
No, it's not. There is nothing immoral about not helping another individual for any reason. You are confusing moral neutrality with immorality; the Parable of the Good Samaritan merely asks who was a friend to the waylaid man. It does not condemn those who chose not to assist, much less those who are unable to do so.
Yes, it is, even ignoring all the various permutations of immoral neglect, it is morally wrong to not help a person in dire need when there is no material reason for you not to do so. Even the law recognizes this moral principle.
Furthermore, I note that Derb's advice is for young people and children. They have no more Christian duty - and it is Christian duty, not a general moral obligation - to put themselves in harms way by offering assistance to those who purport to be in distress than they have to serve as deacons of the Church.
The Good Samaritan was able to help the waylaid man because he was a man with sufficient wealth and strength to transport the man, care for him, and pay for his lodging. I would, and have, stopped and helped people that I would never want my wife or my children to assist. But then, I am capable of defending myself in ways they are not, so I can afford to take the relatively small risk of false distress.
And it is simply dishonest to claim that there is not more risk in helping a large black man than a small female child or argue that everyone should feel an obligation to help the former.
Anonymous, you lack basic reading comprehension. Sometimes it's wise to read things twice before commenting. The particular points you mention are subsets of Derb's rule 10 which states:
"(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense: "
So no, he wasn't advocating never helping a stranded black person; or, never attending a black funeral. All he is saying that if one applies statistical reasoning to a given situation, it is wise to avoid that situation with race being a key variable in the decision making process. In other words, it's more acceptable to stop and help an elderly stranded black woman with a flat tire instead of a group of four twenty-something black males in an Escalde with spinners and and 7 oucnes of gold teeth. It's fine to go to a funeral of a black friend who you have ample personal knowledge of, probably wise to avoid the Trayvon Martin vigils. lern to reed.
Yes, it is, even ignoring all the various permutations of immoral neglect, it is morally wrong to not help a person in dire need when there is no material reason for you not to do so. Even the law recognizes this moral principle.
On the basis of what moral standard? You are still avoiding that question. And first, law is not morality. Second, you are simply wrong as you are confusing Good Samaritan Laws with duty to rescue laws. Your level of knowledge doesn't even rise to the level of Wikipedia:
In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.
"When the elite opinion switches back, as it is in the process of doing, no doubt you'll be as openly racist as anyone.' VD
I saw a perfect example of this a few years ago (in Georgia) with a neighbor (Matt) who excoriated me for pointing out a few observations about our prez.
He said I was a racist who hated black people and thought all blacks should be picking cotton and cleaning toilets. (he made all that up)
Matt helped out at the local charity, mostly handing out monthly allotments of free food to extremely obese, and very dullwitted blacks.
Long story short, one of these nasty women apes told Matt he was lucky to be having a job there...and he told her he wasn't being paid...he was a volunteer.
(!!)
The fact that the ape did not even understand the concept of charity had an impact on ol' Matt. She wuz just gittin some a dat free food - no whut i'm sayin.
After further discussion on the veranda, and a few drinks on his part, Matt soon quit the charity gig, and launched into one of the ugliest racist tirades I've ever heard. Truth is he simply believes that blacks are too stupid to take care of themselves.
It was inside him all the time, but he was trying to hide it with his volunteerism and support of Ohbumma.
Boy when that cognitive dissidence comes out, it can be ugly.
I would, and have, stopped and helped people that I would never want my wife or my children to assist. But then, I am capable of defending myself in ways they are not, so I can afford to take the relatively small risk of false distress. ~VD
Vox makes a good point here. Anon, do you support the right to bear arms? I know I am more willing to help people now that I carry then in the past when a much larger person/black person could have the potential to kick my ass and me with no recourse.
Anonymous said: "Just to tempt you with a couple tidbits: it's immoral to advocate abandoning a person in trouble purely on the basis of race."
You don't get out much, do you? Or you live in the country like I do. In most cities in the eastern US you will see 'broken down' cars on the freeways with black folk, usually a woman, trying to wave down a passing car for help. If a white driver stops, he/she is usually robbed at knife or gun point, is occasionally beaten, and usually has their car stolen also. No, in my book, not stopping in a city to help a black person counts as 'good sense'.
Should have said "enforcement". Its what I get for posting prior to 10:00 AM.
" Anonymous April 10, 2012 8:41 AM
...
But again, I'm not going to stick around here and be abused by goons. "
You don't even know what a goon is.
Behold, the world of the modern goon.
"On the basis of what moral standard? You are still avoiding that question. And first, law is not morality. Second, you are simply wrong as you are confusing Good Samaritan Laws with duty to rescue laws. Your level of knowledge doesn't even rise to the level of Wikipedia:"
I wasn't basing the moral imperative on law, and even that wiki article is enough to make my point if you read all of it. Legal systems clearly recognizes the point, even if you don't. I don't base it on any single moral system or standard, as you seem to be basing your interpretation off Christianity. It is simply wrong based on moral intuition, backed by what almost anyone will say if you ask them, to abandon a person for no material reason when you could have helped them. The fact that you, personally, feel more secure and able to help than others you know, doesn't help your argument at all.
"Vox makes a good point here. Anon, do you support the right to bear arms? I know I am more willing to help people now that I carry then in the past when a much larger person/black person could have the potential to kick my ass and me with no recourse."
For the sake of argument, let's say I do. But you're losing sight of the argument. Derb is making a blanket statement, which is why all the talk of martial ability or the lack thereof isn't going to salvage his argument. He didn't even have the finesse to state "black male" (check and see). So presumably even a black child in distress might be a ruse to be cornered by a vicious pack of blacks.
Anon....I thought you said you were going away.
Apparently you cannot be trusted.
I wasn't basing the moral imperative on law, and even that wiki article is enough to make my point if you read all of it. Legal systems clearly recognizes the point, even if you don't. I don't base it on any single moral system or standard, as you seem to be basing your interpretation off Christianity. It is simply wrong based on moral intuition, backed by what almost anyone will say if you ask them, to abandon a person for no material reason when you could have helped them.
No, you were attempting to cite nonexistent laws as the basis for your nonexistent moral standard. That Wikipedia article doesn't make your point, it completely destroys it. There is no obligation to help anyone unless a) their distress is your fault or b) it is your job. And even in the case of the latter, there are significant exceptions; the British police not only let someone drown in a small pond recently because they didn't have any rescue equipment with them, but they even prevented anyone else from going in and helping them. The subsequent inquest found that they were fully justified in doing so.
Your entire argument is based on nothing more than your own "moral intuition, or in other words, your subjective feelings.
But you're losing sight of the argument. Derb is making a blanket statement, which is why all the talk of martial ability or the lack thereof isn't going to salvage his argument.
Derb's blanket statement was made in the context of advice to children and young people. You're completely wrong. His choice of the words "apparent distress" make it perfectly clear what he meant, especially in combination with the subsequent caveat about using one's judgment.
The problem with Derbyshire's talk is that it didn't go far enough. The problem isn't young, black men. The problem is with places where young men congregate, men between the ages of 14 and 35, who have nothing constructive to do, who have no rules or close supervision, and are interested in proving their masculinity to one another. Avoid these places and your personal safety will increase.
Herds of young, wild, male mammals playing dominance games are incredibly dangerous. I would avoid them in Glacier National Park and I would avoid them on the streets of Orlando.
> Even the law recognizes this moral principle.
No, it doesn't. It's not a criminal act not to help someone.
> It is simply wrong based on moral intuition,
I.e., by your feelings and nothing else.
> ...backed by what almost anyone will say if you ask them...
Do you have any studies to back this up? If not, what is your basis for saying "almost anyone"?
Anon,
If you come across a person in distress, you are the only person who can decide whether to risk offering help.
My wife and I were driving along and an attractive, mid 20's lady flagged us down alongside a car on a gravel road.
She began babbling and motioning with her arms. I thought she had been in and accident of some kind, as there were slide marks on the road.
She picked up a rock and made a large X in the gravel and laid the stone in the middle.
By then my wife was out and was trying to comfort her.
Suddenly, the hair on my neck stood up, and I told my wife to get in the car immediately, and we left. I called the police. The woman was later arrested but I never did hear the whole story.
I was prejudiced against her because of her behavior, and my gut feeling, not her skin color. (she was white)
> dullwitted
There is a problem here, related to:
> The fact that the ape did not even understand the concept of charity had an > impact on ol' Matt. She wuz just gittin some a dat free food - no whut i'm > sayin.
The fist comment, dullwitted, stems from what the conversation is about.
The second comment, speaks to a lack of educational attainment.
I am noticing it's very hard to separate the two?
I dug this up from the comments in the article, and it was most definitely not a featured comment:
"Julian Joyce
Tue 10 Apr 2012 9:04 AM
I'm a black man who's been following Derb's column for many years. And for all those seasons felt nothing but admiration for his mental powers and stylistic flourish. Most of those vilifying the man have never read his work beyond the hysterics generated by his most latest offering, much of which is simply manufactured outrage given the unrelenting assault by National Review on Arabs, hispanics and Muslims. I disagree with his conservative politics for I'm a progressive, but of all the scribes employed by National review he's the most pro-science and the most rational.
His books on mathematics and the history of science are the best primers I've read by anyone. To paint him as some kind of neolithic caveman as some are keen to is akin to describing the Nobel Laureate James Watson as a Nazi for his remarks on the racial differential in IQ. A bad way to assess a man's body of work.
And let's not pretend that racism is unique to those Big Bad Rightwingers. A good chunk of Obama's fanboys will defend the Great Man's drone attacks on brown women and children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia with contempt for the many thousands of civilians killed by "collateral damage". Bombing foreigners is fine, but saying mean things about them is very, very bad. Uh-huh.
For many left-leaning people the sole justification for reading National Review was to linger on Derb's polemical talents and his good humour. The rest of the Nuke-Iran-Gang there led by Rich Lowry are gifted bores without sense or dignity.
Derb was not perfect and he did not have his finger always to the wind, but he was something even better: Unboring. Like the late Joe Sobran his appeal extended beyond the flag-waving, gun-toting, war-loving base of the GOP. He was a Renaissance man of culture with a keen eye for the elegant style. I dig that.
It's a curious position to be in when a black socialist has to defend the Derb from the onslaught of what he might call the feminised, sissified, pansified, skirt-clutching wardens of PC orthodoxy. But such is life. I don't need my feelings protected by warmongers, left or right, who think nothing of dropping bombs on darkly hued foreigners, but grow suddenly squeamish about some remarks on a subset of the black underclass. Gimme a break.
Derb could have got along just fine if he kept his mouth shut about the black underclass like the good social climber others are keen to be and stick with the Party line. He declined. Not his style. Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of his column, and I think it does not begin to compare to the avalanche of pro-war racism other publications run daily, it could certainly have been handled with more grace than it was. And right on the heels of his chemotherapy no less.
Derb is a keeper. Whether he writes for NR or for Taki or for some other venue, I will follow his column. Not so with the rest of the neocon lot . Cheerio."
Fascinating, but not surprising in the least.
My own sense of the thing is that underneath the happy talk, underneath the dogged adherence to failed ideas and dead theories, underneath the shrieking and anathematizing at people like me, there is a deep and cold despair. In our innermost hearts,we don't believe racial harmony can be attained.
And this is the real reason. We all know that, well, people are different. The Irish will never be 100% like the Germans. That is life. However, it violatest the state religion to say so, and violating that commandment must be punished. Steyn will be the next to go.
Like I said in the previous blog post, Human Biodiversity is the new progressivism. But you have to whisper it softly, lest you be burned.
Dr. James Watson conjectured on Africa having lower human capital than other continents due to genetics. He go too close. He got burned.
Harvard president Larry Summers mentioned mathematical differences between the sexes at the high end. He got too close. He got burned.
What a timely article.
The longer students are in college, the less they care about diversity
Good news on the horizon?
That one should avoid black gatherings: funerals for a person you cared for?
Very good advice based on what funerals have been shot up. Miami just had one the largest mass shooting in its history at a black funeral. I'm sure you read about it. It was just a week ago. Funeral shootings have become a regular occurrence in black communities.
You've got towns so broke they're discontinuing the traditional police escort for funeral processions while at the same time setting up security and placing plain clothes cops at these funerals to dissuade shootings and catch gang members.
Derb was advocating a single, hateful principle. That one should avoid black gatherings: funerals for a person you cared for?
A bit of thought would be in order.
1. What kind of person was the deceased?
2. What kind of family did they have?
3. What was the manner of their death?
4. What is the current political climate?
5. Where is the funeral being held?
I attended a funeral for a respected, older, black woman who died of natural causes years ago. Very safe. I wouldn't hesitate to do so again. I wouldn't hesitate to be somewhere far away if she had been a young black man who was killed by a stray bullet from one of his peers or by any cause at all if a white person was somehow involved.
Most blacks are emotional children and even more so in groups. They don't think, they just feel. Then they act according to whatever they happen to be feeling. This is just irritating when you're talking about adolescents. It's extremely dangerous when you're talking about adults with guns (or tire irons and chains).
Someone else already mentioned this, but it bears repeating -- the law does not compel assistance. There are exceptions, such as the duty of a parent to help his child, or the duty to help someone you yourself have endangered, but the common law we adopted in the United States reflects the moral truth that a man minding his own business cannot be punished for doing so.
Bombing foreigners is fine, but saying mean things about them is very, very bad. Uh-huh.
Oh yeah, the left will never consider that the most "virulently racist" among us, have been almost universally opposed to our foreign wars of occupation.
In fact they can even twist it into proving how horrible we are that WNs like myself and nearly almost all others, have no urge to rain hell down upon non-Whites in their homelands. They'll say we hate them so much we won't even support "killing them to make their lives better".
Anon, I'd be happy to take you to Compton this weekend, drop you off at 11 PM and you can pretend to be a white man in distress... assuming you are a white man. Of course, it probably won't matter what your skin color is. They do equal opportunity mugging down there anyhow.
underneath the happy talk
I have not heard any happy talk on this subject for many years.
Logos ironically wrote: Someone else already mentioned this, but it bears repeating -- the law does not compel assistance
Vox wrote: And first, law is not morality.
If the "law is not morality", then why are Logos and Vox citing the law as a guide to what a person ought to do?
If the "law is not morality", then why are Logos and Vox citing the law as a guide to what a person ought to do?
It's a pretty understandable argument. They're saying his basic assumptions are wrong but if we humor you and assume your basic assumptions are true, your argument is still wrong.
If you say a ball is blue therefore it bounces and the ball is actually red I can refute the logic of blue ball bounces even giving you your assumption of the ball being blue because the color of the ball has nothing to do with its bounce ability.
But there are many other outcomes that are between "total success" and "unmitigated failure".
If all of the metrics are worse now than they were when the programs started, (and they are) how is that not an "unmitigated failure"?
In fact they're worse than failures,(failure would be no progress)they're regressive.
Scott wrote: It's a pretty understandable argument. They're saying his basic assumptions are wrong but if we humor you and assume your basic assumptions are true, your argument is still wrong.
Oh, I understand what they're trying to do. The problem is that they are sawing off the branch they're sitting on, too.
For example, Anonymous could cite a law that prescribes helping one's neighbor. Deuteronomy 15:7 comes to mind: "If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor."
Now, one might argue, "but this only applies to Jews, or it only applies to a certain piece of real estate". So far, they're following the principle that "law is not morality".
But now we're in the position where one law says that there is no mandate to help; another does. Which one should apply? Apart from law, Vox has long said that there is no mandate to help. Since he can't defend this via law, what is the standard -- that Anonymous is accused of not having -- by which this position is defended?
Well, if NRO does purge Mark Steyn, at least he'll be in good company.
"thesharpeningstone April 10, 2012 7:14 AM
Thought you guys might appreciate this. I don't know what the etiquette for posting links is, and I hope it stays. Too bad there aren't more like Taki Theodoracopulos around...
http://thesharpeningstone.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/a-formal-rebuttal-of-john-derbyshire/"
Thanks for the link. I assume you are the author. The most important point you make, in my opinion is this, "I think this trend will only accelerate as the economy worsens, and the unexamined tendency to feel bad for the downtrodden black man will be replaced by a need to feed one’s family."
And you can substitute any PC Cause or belief in for "downtrodden black man." Harder times are coming, and people will remember that family and neighbors were very important back in the day for a reason. Survival generally trumps all other considerations.
I was 14 or 15 when I was with my parents and we saw a movie in the theatre called "Menace 2 Society." At one point in the movie, a scene played in which one of the main characters, who was black, shot a Korean store owner in cold blood. When the rest of the audience loudly cheered and laughed, it became starkly apparent that we were the only whites in the audience. That was a valuable life experience.
Fifteen to twenty years ago I would have laughed if someone had said that in that time that passed, NR would become only interesting and newsworthy... in it's demise. Sad, really. But at least it is interesting to talk about, for a while, again. Bah!
Like I said in the previous blog post, Human Biodiversity is the new progressivism. But you have to whisper it softly, lest you be burned.
Dr. James Watson conjectured on Africa having lower human capital than other continents due to genetics. He go too close. He got burned.
Harvard president Larry Summers mentioned mathematical differences between the sexes at the high end. He got too close. He got burned.
Burned...at the stake....like heretics ought to be treated.
Anti-raciss is a central bit of dogma in whatever we want to call the official religion of our time (which isn't Christianity, even if Christianity is the most popular amongst the rabble).
Nigger
Fuck
Which word is more vulgar, especially if our metric is the degree to which good and decent folks aren't sent into hyperventilating fits upon its utterance?
An image of a black man eating fried chicken, and really liking it...
An image of a crucified Jesus Christ floating in a jar of piss.
Which of these is more likely to be considered art, and which is likely to get the 'artist' expunged from polite society?
Raciss is our religious taboo, and hence to say something like 'black people aren't quite as smart as white people' is the modern equivalent of walking through Victorian England in assless chaps.
When people like Anonymous above not only use the word "normative", but use it twice in one discussion, that's the tip-off that their whole worldview is built on moral preening and denial of reality. I have yet to meet a person using such a word who a) lives in or near a ghetto, b) has any black acquaintances besides the token artist or PhD student and c) has ever attended a black Baptist church, or actually had dinner at a black family gathering.
I (white male with IQ at least on par with any random doctoral student), on the other hand, have done all of the above, and more. In fact, I played guitar in a black gospel/jazz/reggae band for several years. If you saw me during those times, you might have seen a tall blond-haired white youth guiding a middle-aged black man around by the shoulder, as he was blind. We formed a good friendship. I also recall D~~~, possibly the best bass guitarist I have ever met--who started dealing and smoking crack, murdered his girlfriend, and ended up in jail for life. Do you think I felt racial superiority on hearing that, or do you think I felt only sorrow?
The fact is, other than a few bad incidents like the above, I had a perfectly great social time mixing with Jamaican black and American blacks at various events, dinners, parties, churches, etc... But I was rarely invited into the inner circle of friendship with any of them, save the blind sax player I mention above. And I respected that. It would have been the height of lame liberal neediness to try to "become" one of them. In the end, my life's course took me well outside of this social milieu, and they all knew that was coming.
The world has always had places where the races meet, even where they mingle. This has occurred through trade, the arts, religious outreach, even war, but never has the world had a place where the races mix in equanimity. In fact, such a thing is anathema to the very idea of cultural "vibrancy". Let the differences be differences! Let those who wish to stay with their own, in fact do so! It is truly only the rare individual of any race or culture who reaches across those barriers, but those people (especially those people!) realize the necessity of the barriers. You have to have a way of knowing who and what you are dealing with.
A couple of points need to be made here;
First of all, as several people here have pointed out, Derbyshire wrote "The Talk - Nonblack version" because he was rightly infuriated by "The Talk - Black Version", and he had every right to be. The implication of the black version of the talk is that white racists, especially white racist policemen, are an unusually large threat to young blacks, and this is either deeply delusional or an egregious attempt at white-guilt inducement. The largest threat to young black men, far and away, is other young black men, and I'll bet that every black person in America knows it. For every black kid killed by racist cops, hundreds are killed by other blacks. Derbyshire had a right to be ticked.
Secoondly, whether or not one is obligated under the moral law to help others in a general way, there is no obligation to help another person at the risk of one's own life, according to both Christian morality and the Natural Law. It should be remembered that prudence is a Christian virtue as well. Whether you should stop and help a stranded motorist depends very much on the circumstances, your own personal vulnerability, surroundings, etc. Under normal circumstances, one is never required to give or risk one's life for a stranger. Don't take my word for it - read Thomas Aquinas.
Toddy Cat
So, shall we start a pool on who will be the NEXT NRO contributor to be purged? My money's on VDH...
Tschafer
I understand that John Fund is Derb's replacement.
> If all of the metrics are worse now than they were when the programs started, (and they are) how is that not an "unmitigated failure"?
You're assuming the stated goals were the real ones.
> If the "law is not morality", then why are Logos and Vox citing the law as a guide to what a person ought to do?
They're not. Anonymous started the law arguments with this statement: "Even the law recognizes this moral principle." Which, of course, it doesn't.
You white boys gots little peckers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bless him for not apologizing. Good piece. I've linked and commented on it here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/04/lynching-of-john-derbyshire.html
Interesting...I Googled "The Talk - Black Version", went 4-pages in, and all it would talk about was The Talk - NON-Black Version.
For example, Anonymous could cite a law that prescribes helping one's neighbor. Deuteronomy 15:7 comes to mind: "If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor."
This is not bible study, and biblical passages are not the law being discussed, as you well know.
Speaking of the idea of "equality" does anyone have the link to that cartoon VD posted about here some months back?-- the one in which one person was arguing with an atheist about equality in the same manner which atheists argue against matters of faith? Anyone remember that? It was badly drawn but had some good points.
(sorry about the anonymous-- haven't commented for a while and didn't know there was a switch)
Scintan wrote: This is not bible study, and biblical passages are not the law being discussed, as you well know.
All you're doing is reinforcing the "the law isn't morality" mantra. That mantra works just as well against the laws you like as it does against the laws you don't. So, what is the non-law standard by which it is moral to render/not render aid?
All you're doing is reinforcing the "the law isn't morality" mantra. That mantra works just as well against the laws you like as it does against the laws you don't. So, what is the non-law standard by which it is moral to render/not render aid?
No, that's not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is applying a little something known as language comprehension. If you would try that on occasion, perhaps in conjunction with actually reading the initial post and the entire subsequent comment thread, rather than just spouting off blindly, we'd all be better off.
> So, what is the non-law standard by which it is moral to render/not render aid?
For Christians? "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Keeping in mind who is and is not your neighbor, as clarified in the parable of the good samaritan.
A random stranger in a bad part of a strange town is probably not your neighbor.
The first part of that Steyn defense is the best part:
[NRO] hustled him into the drive-thru guillotine on the basis of 24 hours of hysteria from the Internet’s sans-culottes.
That is EXACTLY what happened, and probably why I'm so disgusted with the whole affair.
But, as Vox said yesterday, squishy-centerdom is not to be unexpected from National Review these days and that just explains why I don't read much over there any more.
That and their fawning over Rick Santorum and their rampant dismissiveness of Ron Paul.
James Dixon wrote: For Christians? "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Keeping in mind who is and is not your neighbor, as clarified in the parable of the good samaritan.
The whole point of the parable of the good samaritan is that your neighbor is whoever you're near. After all, the the purpose of the parable was to answer the question "and who is my neighbor?"
A random stranger in a bad part of a strange town is probably not your neighbor.
Showing once again that Christianity is too radical, even for Christians.
"PS If Derb’s piece is sufficiently beyond the pale that its author must be terminated immediately, why is its publisher — our old friend Taki — proudly listed on the NR masthead?"
Indeed, it was funny that Derbyshire was listed on the NRO cruise ad until Monday. HotAir's Ed Morrisey had his say yesterday and a couple of people posted there that Derb was linked on their side page under Audio podcasts.
McCarthy did/will toe the line, but not surprising since he's an ex Fed lawyer, who's schtick is anti-Islam.
I have, and will, help people. I will protect my family first. That is my job.
Growing up outside a Rez, I have seen many of the same ploys. In this day and age, you have cell phones to call in a vehicle in distress. I have done so, and watched the would be con become enraged when a cop and a tow truck show up.
> The whole point of the parable of the good samaritan is that your neighbor is whoever you're near.
Your reading comprehension obviously differs greatly from mine.
You're not the only one I've heard interpret it that way though, so I shouldn't be too surprised.
> After all, the the purpose of the parable was to answer the question "and who is my neighbor?"
And equally importantly, who isn't. That's the part you're leaving out.
I remember Jesus saying, "Whoa! I'm outta here. If I don't leave now, they'll kill me." Well, not exactly in those words.
But no. See, Jesus should have been a good Samaritan and stayed, despite the Pharisee's, per chance there was SOMEONE there who could have been saved by his preaching if he had continued to do so.
wrf3 - knock it off. If you can't stay on topic then keep your fingers away from the keyboard.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Toddy Cat, the anti cop point of the Talk-Black version is right but not so much for racism but that cops are mostly jack booted thugs these days.
In any talk I had with kids on this, avoiding cops is the smartest path. And very rarely should you talk to them.
Another Flash mob robbery... in lily white Portland Oregon.
Nothing to see here
@VOX,
I thought we weren't going to engage with anonymous posters who can't figure out how to self-identify? My 12 year old nephew could pick a name on this blog with his eyes closed.
Also, you left out the tastiest bit of Steyn's post: his description of JDerb's firing as a "drive-thru guillotine"
College Seniors care less about racial understanding than Freshman
Link also has some commentary. Apparently the more people are exposed to racial friction (promoted in college) the more, er 'racist' they become. Derbyshire's going to be proven right sooner rather than later.
"who are Christians allowed to not love?" - wrf3
The man who brutally raped and beat your 12 year old daughter?
No?
Of course, you would invite your new son-in-law over for dinner to meet his new pregnant wife.
@ IdleSpectator
Thanks for posting the article about from the "Inside Higher Ed " website. I was disappointed that the article didn't include what students--especially male-- think of feminism after 4 years of indoctrination.
After 4 years of shrill angry women push/shoving sh*t into my ears,I just couldn't listen to them anymore. I've been avoiding liberal/leftist women ever since I graduated 25 years ago. My life has been very peaceful since then. In my quest for a good life, I also avoid blacks (always have). Thanks,Joe
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry, SB. I'll drop the subject.
I'm glad to see that Derb is not doing that which one witnesses so often in thought-controlled society like today's Banksta Banana Republick - the pathetic craven whining drooling "apology" demanded by leftists like Rich Lowry (after which they would simply stomp on him anyway). Scales are starting to fall from eyes - one by one.
So now the last, desperate argument against Derb is some higher "morality." So they clumsily extrude the parable of the Good Samaritan into a previously-unknown-in-any-faith principle of compulsory association.
Derb's opponents are idiots.
My problem with Derb is his commentary on Religion, which I felt distorted Religion. Nonetheless, his comments on racism is off the mark where helping others is discussed. It is not an issue of racism if I choose to not help a stranger. It is just good advice. As for self segregation, I think the train has long left a long time ago. Liberals are still trying to integrate people, yet they are the ones living in the hills, commuting in private cars and planes and sending their kids to private schools and colleges. Everyone else has to do what they can if they can afford it.
Here's the equality comic post
Apparently my hot link didn't work
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/equality-vs-science.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fvoxpopoli+%28Vox+Popoli%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Redsash use to drive 25 miles into Nashville every day to go to work. Once, once, redsash decided to be polite, courteous, and a safe driver. He decided to keep a safe distance of three car lengths between him and the car in front of him. He also decided to allow other drivers to cut in front of him. After 20 minutes of drive time, redsash was 27 miles from his work. The moral is that there are always those who abuse good deeds.
As for Anon watch the first few minutes of "The Devil's Rejects" and get back to me about helping people in distress.
"No good deed goes unpunished." -- Not one of Murphy's Laws, but it should have been.
You people are irritating!
I am totally against what Derbyshire did.
But I totally agree with what Derbyshire wrote. Everyone in South Africa or bad neighborhood knows you have to be very careful if you see a black person on the road. It could be a set up. Everyone knows you avoid black crowds.
That being said, I've attended black funerals, black church, been asked out by black men (said no) and attended an all black high school in a very bad neighborhood for several days.
Nothing bad happened to me. But I've also been physically attacked by a black man, chased and insulted by another, and harassed by countless others both male and female in other situations.
Here's where I think Derb fucked up....
For the last month the Media has been looking for a White person to charge with Racism. They didn't find it in Zimmerman, They didn't find it totally in the Kansas shooting....
But thanks to Derb they now got what they were looking for.
And that's why he messed up. He should have waited until the current witch hunt was over, until the left had burned itself out on the current topic du jour.
Those who want to keep reading Mark Steyn's writing for all periodicals, without having to click on the National Review site, can simply go to Steyn's own website, www.steynonline.com.
JDerb "should have waited until the current witch hunt was over"???
The next one begins the day after the current one ends, and repeats ad nauseum.
"...until the left had burned itself out..."
Are you mad?
Anonymous:
For the last month the Media has been looking for a White person to charge with Racism. They didn't find it in Zimmerman, They didn't find it totally in the Kansas shooting....
But thanks to Derb they now got what they were looking for.
The mainstream media is 'one'. It thinks alike, talks alike and rarely ventures 'outside'. For instance, ex-pres Clinton calls for reappraisal of Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law, but has a personal body guard paid for by the tax payers. No need for him to worry, eh?
The MSM may have been looking for a racist story but they're finding that yelling Raciss is a bit like the boy yelling 'wolf'.
Writing about Bill's bodyguard...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/298462/All-the-ex-presidents-men.html?print=yes
@Toddycat
Secoondly, whether or not one is obligated under the moral law to help others in a general way, there is no obligation to help another person at the risk of one's own life, according to both Christian morality and the Natural Law. It should be remembered that prudence is a Christian virtue as well. Whether you should stop and help a stranded motorist depends very much on the circumstances, your own personal vulnerability, surroundings, etc. Under normal circumstances, one is never required to give or risk one's life for a stranger. Don't take my word for it - read Thomas Aquinas.
Hi TC - could you tell me where I can find this stuff in Acquinas? I would definitely be interested in finding his perspective on this...it seems unusual to me (you would think that at least in some cases a Christian would be obligated to help) but I will definitely keep an open mind and would like to read further.
@Rycamor
This is OT, so hopefully the mighty Spacebunny doesn't strike me down for this...but a few weeks back you mentioned some exercise program that you found particularly effective - what was it again?(Was it Peak 8?) I ask because now the previous comments are deleted so whatever you wrote there is gone... :-(
Thanks to both of you!
All the white, or black, bleeding hearts in this thread should watch this video.
thesmokinggun.com/buster/assault/videotaped-baltimore-street-beating-879234
This is how niggers act in this country when their undisciplined asses have no fear of white men taking a stand to defend their place in society. May all of you pussy whites experience this kind of humiliation and degradation at the hands of some homies out on the town. Derb didn't go far enough in explaining to his children how truly wretched this race of people in this country are. And to blacks attacking Derb, please justify this behavior and the other "beat whitey" videos on HipHopWorldStars.
Those who want to keep reading Mark Steyn's writing for all periodicals, without having to click on the National Review site, can simply go to Steyn's own website, www.steynonline.com.
yeah? and WHERE do you think Steyn's website sends you when you want to read his commentary at NRO?
And that's why he messed up. He should have waited until the current witch hunt was over, until the left had burned itself out on the current topic du jour.
Yah. Don't piss off the MUslims. Au contraire....piss off the Muslims every chance you get.There strategy is to create a silence in which they can operate. Make them continually defend themselves, dhimmi.
Derb's column on TAKI now has over 4000 comments. I guess when your worldview is assaulted with "reality", there has to be some kind of reaction. The argument has been forever altered just by the backlash and what it reveals. We are definitely headed for a new political paradigm, for better or worse.
Derb's column on TAKI now has over 4000 comments.
The guy did a public service. Showed how it is done. Changed the paradigm. Stuck it to the racist demagogues. Let it be a template for the future.
Kudos.
I had started putting down I was mixed race (I'm Lilly white Euro-American) in hopes it would get me some affirmative action help in my job search. But, now, I think I better just play it straight before the pendulum swings back full force.
"No, you were attempting to cite nonexistent laws as the basis for your nonexistent moral standard. That Wikipedia article doesn't make your point, it completely destroys it."
Then you must be reading the Swahili version because it clearly shows that the wrongful nature of abandoning people in distress without justification is recognized in various forms and degrees throughout the world. You're just focusing on one particular lax interpretation in American criminal (not tort) law because it appears to support your belief.
"But again, I'm not going to stick around here and be abused by goons."
The only person I have ever seen self-identify as a "goon" (tattoo and all) was a black thug by the name of Creepa, as seen on the MTV reality show "G's to Gents."
I suggest you find a less disparately impactful epithet for your insults, sirrah.
An image of a black man eating fried chicken, and really liking it...
What is so wrong with liking fried chicken? Why is that insulting? I don't get it.
"Then you must be reading the Swahili version"
So what, God's Holy Word can't be translated into black people's native monkey talk?
How can you call yourself a Christian?
Mind you, I remember a conversation I had with a young chap who got all agitated when I casually referred to the fact that White people here in SA tend to like Rugby, while the Blacks like Soccer.
Which just about everyone here in this country knows to be true.
Some liberals get upset when anyone notices that different cultures even exist!
The thinking seems to be along the lines of "If people different from us existed, we would have to hate them and try to kill them. But that would be wrong. So therefore other people do not exist!"
@ PCGeek
@Rycamor
This is OT, so hopefully the mighty Spacebunny doesn't strike me down for this...but a few weeks back you mentioned some exercise program that you found particularly effective - what was it again?(Was it Peak 8?) I ask because now the previous comments are deleted so whatever you wrote there is gone... :-(
Peak 8 is one of the variations I use, but I don't stick with any one system. Main idea is low-carb (paleo/atkins) eating, and at least 15-20min high intensity exercise a day.
My handle @ gmail if you want any more specifics.
Belated thanks for the link, Scott
FCie
My handle @ gmail if you want any more specifics.
@rycamor
I don't want to annoy you so I will ask you (via email) for just a few quick things. (mainly for some good/reliable sources to look at - anyone can do a google search, but especially about health there is a crapton of crackpots out there...and of course I can read about the specifics of these diets and exercises on my own without bugging you for those details.)
I will use the address unsigned_integer at excite.com
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home