So When is National Review Going to Fire This Guy?

I not only find the rhetoric here to be indefensible, it’s outright racist worthy of the worst the Nazis and eugenicists could be capable of producing. John Derbyshire is a writer for National Review, and my only question to them is when they are going to fire him? I am not at all opposed to honest discussions about problems in the black community. Rates of black-on-black violent crime are a serious national problem, and not a topic that should be regarded as beneath discussion, lest we offend someone. But what Derbyshire has penned at the above link just screams the kind of racism that would make Dr. Mengele proud. The worst part is, when it starts to get really bad, it just keeps going downhill. Here’s a smattering of his advice to his children in regards to race relations:

“Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.”

Well, hell, I don’t know how anyone could attend a meeting of the NAACP, or an evening at the Apollo Theater, and come out alive! I must also be hallucinating that I’ve attended protests where the majority of protesters were black, and protesting against what I was in Harrisburg to advocate, and got not so much as a suspicious look. I had to have dreamt all that!

“If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date.”

Yeah, cause you know, I regularly do this. I regularly plan to go places, but have second thoughts when I call ahead to find out what the melanin is averaging at the location that day. When the folks on the other end go silent like I’ve grown two heads, I know it’s a place to stay away from.

“Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.”

Because we know that blacks never end up in any kind of trouble where they might need help. Just doesn’t happen. Clearly robbery is always the motive with “those people.” Those hapless negroes can take care of their own, right, Mr. Derbyshire?

“If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.”

I’d suggest this advice regardless of skin melanin content, given the word “accosted.” Anyone accosts me on the streets is going to have me in condition red, regardless of whether they are black, white, red or purple.

“The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low.”

And my phrenologist assures me that my skull proportions ensure my just and deserved membership in the master race.

“There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black.”

Because those poor, stupid blacks can only compete with the master race when pity is taken on them? I mean, if this were really true, and you believe in equal protection in the eyes of the law, wouldn’t this justify affirmative action? Shouldn’t arguments against affirmative action be that it is inherently racist, by suggesting people with too much melanin can’t compete unless the playing field is forcibly leveled?

“In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks.”

Not racist at all! Not at all! We can even make “Intelligent and Well-Socialized Blacks” into an acronym IWSB. We’re glad for the intelligent and well-socialized ones. I’m sure Derbyshire’s neighbors compliment him on the same character in his dog.

“Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSB”

“Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous.”

Yeah, because the neighbor on the next plantation always gets the best house slaves. He has money to win auctions, you know. Always have to settle for the field hands, because those house slaves are in short supply since they are a “luxury good.”

John Derbyshire’s words here certainly do not speak well of him, and the underlying thoughts they expose are among the worst instincts in human kind. If he still has a job by Monday, my opinion of National Review will take a permanent downturn. There’s a lot of authors I like over a NR, so it upsets me to see this. Taki’s Magazine should likewise be ashamed for publishing this claptrap and NR should be ashamed for every minute they continue to employ this jackass beyond the publish date of this article.

UPDATE: Looks like they’ve done the right thing.

57 thoughts on “So When is National Review Going to Fire This Guy?”

  1. … Well, we won’t need to wonder why we can’t have nice things for some time.

  2. Looking at the rest of that site, there’s a ton of racist stuff on it. Just most of it isn’t as blatant as “AVOID BLACK PEOPLE, THEY’LL SHOOT YOU.”

  3. Here is my post on the “Talk” that I saw last night…

    I am not sure what prompted John Derbyshire to pen and then post that article. I do not care for it and disagree with many of the points. But before we join the left’s lynch mob that will undoubtably call for his head and job and try to vilify all republicans and conservatives by association, I would suggest we just disagree with him civilly.

    1. Sometimes the left is right, like a stopped clock. This is one of those instances. I am generally a believer in polite disagreement, but the ideas espoused by Derbyshire here are not polite ideas. Racism has been a scourge in this country since its inception, it is our original sin as a nation. I think virtually all reasonable people would like to move on as a country, and put this behind us. That necessarily means having no tolerance for those ideas in polite society.

      So I’ll politely disagree. If National Review doesn’t fire Derbyshire, they are tacitly signaling that it’s OK to express these kinds of ideas… that they are a valid line of argument. I don’t think they are, nor should they be.

    2. Its not mutually exclusive. There are some things that are just indefensibly. We don’t have to always do the opposite of the left just because they are the left.

      “Avoid black people you don’t know”- Really? Come on that’s horrible.

      1. “Avoid black people you don’t know”- Really? Come on that’s horrible.

        Indeed. So is this statement:

        A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us….

        Especially when combined with his statements on the feedback that’s associated with this behavior. Not to mention the unquestioned statistics on interracial violence.

        And if the latter statement is true and you don’t take it into account when dealing with random black people you don’t know you’re a fool. Doubly so if you can’t legally carry concealed, which we have to assume is the case with Derbyshire given where he lives and the culture he grew up in (by the time he came of age the U.K. had judicially nullified self-defense).

        And if you can and do legally carry concealed and ignore this, again, if true, you’re potentially setting yourself for the Emmanuel Goldstein treatment George Zimmerman is now experiencing.

  4. Blah Blah Blah Hitler Blah Blah Blah

    I have preempted any degeneration of this comment section into fulfilling Godwin’s Law, by mentioning Hitler immediately. Hopefully, this will be enough.

    1. Chemo could explain the clouded judgement. It does fucked up things to you. It also could be why NR doesn’t want to fire the guy. But generally speaking, I’d be fine with them just dismissing him as a writer, even if they agreed to keep paying his health benefits.

  5. I’m not familiar with Derbyshire. Could this be a Poe? Otherwise, maybe he just thought it would be noble to jump on a Career Grenade?

    Well, if he’s serious, he’s a bad guy.
    If he’s not serious, he’s made an enormous, life-altering mistake.

  6. I agree with Derbyshire. It matches my life experience exactly. I actually grew up around blacks and it was not a lot of fun. Get off your high horse. The world is not all sweetness and light and political correctness.

    1. I’m sorry about your experiences, but racism is wrong. That has nothing to do with sweetness or political correctness. I get there’s racism among blacks too, but we don’t do our country any favors by using that fact to justify our own racism.

      1. It’s not racism. It’s a rational response to actual facts of proven behavior. I had a sgt in the army (black) I would have taken bullets for. I never forget the actual facts Derbyshire presents because they were proven out first hand. When I was 5 I was attacked by a black kid at knife point and had to fight him off with a branch. I was beaten twice in High School because I was white. My car was stoned by a crown of black teens later that week. (68). My future wife was attacked by two black teens during the same period because she was white. I have seen this time and time again. Derbyshire is not saying he hates anyone. He is telling you to warn your kids of the danger that is real. A white walking into Compton, or Kansas City Ks Quivera neighborhood is going to be attacked. I doubt you have lived in places like I did because of everyone I know who has, well, they see it my way.

        1. Really? I think it is racism. Avoiding every black person because you had a few bad experiences with them is just wrong.

        2. Compton is only about 30% black, but if you spend a lot of time listening to old rap music, you’d think more blacks lived there. About 30% of Compton is white!

  7. Wow, this whitey stopped and helped a black family alongside the road with a flat tire.

    They were all in their Sunday go to meeting clothes. I was in my “go play with cows” clothes with a floor jack and a T-Wrench in the back of my suburban.

    I walked away alive with a big Thank you from the couple and their kids. What is wrong with people today?

    Glad I live in the midwest and not the northeast.

    1. It’s kind of funny… Bitter is from Oklahoma, which is kind of part southern and a dash of midwest. It was a slave and Jim Crow state (though abandoned a lot of its segregation laws earlier than other states) She’s been living in the northeast since college, and thinks our race issues up here are a lot more acute then they are back home.

      Northeastern racism tended to manifest itself more in employment discrimination, which is arguably more destructive to the black community than of many forms racism took in other parts of the country.

      1. As someone who grew up in Herdey, now lives in Virginia, went to college in Tennessee, and spends up to 1/4 of a year in Georgia I have to agree with Bitter. Racism is far uglier and prevelant in the NE than it is in the south. True, there’s still plenty of bigoted Shithead but 1) most are dying off and 2) the rest make themselves readily known. In the North racism is everywhere and segregation is out of control, but no one admits it (and even worse simply denies it and points to the South).

  8. An observation and some advice to conservatives…

    I give John Derbyshire credit for his bravery (some would call it foolishness) and honesty. He had to know what would result from this and he took it on. I do not agree with all his points. But I know people of all races, sexual orientations, political persuasions, and socioeconomic classes say stuff like that all the time in private (usually after a couple of drinks).

    It will be revealing to see the reaction to all of this. Hypocrisy, thy name is faux outrage. And it will be, sadly, very predictable.

  9. John Derbyshire had the right to say what he said. National Review has the right to fire him or not over it.

  10. My life experience mirrors Kansas’s. I don’t necessarily avoid blacks, but rather I avoid large concentrations of “ghettoness”, which usually (but not always) means black people. And I would advise anybody else to do the same. Sorry, but this is the reality we face.

    1. I don’t think there’s anything inherently racist about suggesting people avoid wandering around in the ghetto. But that’s different than suggesting to avoid gatherings of black people. Clearly there are many gatherings of black people in many places that are not a hair’s breath from turning violent.

  11. To quote Walter Russell Mead, “Wars on arithmetic never end well”. Based on your quotes, Derbyshire has made one falsifiable statement on population intelligence distributions which you aren’t interested in the truth or falseness of (I do know it’s in that direction, don’t know if it’s that bad), added some back of the envelope extrapolations based on that and the selection pressures of Affirmative Action and provided some specific advice illuminated by a lot of framing you excluded, such as:

    (9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event….

    Etc. … and I wonder “Where’s the beef?” How is this practically or philosophically different that the “Avoid armed conflicts at almost all costs” advice that you’ve been freely dispensing WRT to L’affaire Trayvon? If one takes that to heart and extends it just a little bit, advice like:

    “Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.”

    Would seem to be only prudent. After all, haven’t you been alerting us to many instances of the new wave of black on white wildings and wondering what’ll happen when the white victim is legally armed?

    And to do a little synthesis, if we’ve learned anything from L’affaire Trayvon, all incidents of white self-defense against blacks have the potential to become part of the country’s larger racial mess, with massively worse outcomes for the white. For those of us who legally carry concealed, isn’t much of this advice only plain wisdom?

    1. I only included the worst of what he said. There are a few things in there that aren’t necessarily racist. But “Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally,” was included because it is racist. Several examples of such gatherings have been pointed out that would not present a danger. It’s not a color issue, it’s a context issue. Would I tell my kids to stay out of the ghetto? Sure. Would I let my kids attend a gangsta rap concert? Of course not. But it’s the venue, and the kind of people who are attracted to that kind of venue. Would I let my kid to go a black church with a black friend’s family? Sure. Different context.

      1. I only included the worst of what he said.

        The New Media on the right refers to this as Ransom Note Editing. That phrase does less for me than, say, the economists’ “rent seeking”, but it’s a valid criticism.

        1. Well, first off, reprinting the whole thing would be a copyright problem. I try to stick pretty clearly to fair use and only copy the parts I’m criticizing.

          But aside from that, I don’t really agree, because I don’t think the rest of the work really helps put the worst parts in a better light. I don’t think the full context redeems Derbyshire here.

        2. No its not. RNE is taking thing out of context. IE using “I hate all black people” from a sentence that is “I hate all black people who throw punches at me.”

          He did not take anything out of content. Avoid shady looking groups after midnight? Sure. Avoid all blacks in concentration? Really? What about at a church? Or at the mall?

            1. I pretty regularly only copy the parts I’m criticizing. I tend to think it’;s RNE when I’m trying to make things look worse than they are. I don’t think that’s the case here.

    2. Yes, it does seem to be reasonable for us who are armed whites to avoid random contact with blacks, not because of racist prejudice but because of the simple fact that if you get into deep do-do with another white and you end up shooting him to save your own life you will mostly just have to deal with the legal system, but if he is black you got the additional burden of the media, NAAPC, Obama, and every other Black only organization (which is in and of it’s self a racist organization) out there clamoring for your head on a pike. Whether you did anything “wrong” or not, but simply because you are a white who dared to defend himself from an attack by a person who had darker skin than you. (which is also racist in my book)

      Whether you are more likely to be assaulted by a black or not really isn’t even the question, the fact that your life is likely to become a living hell simply because you committed the ‘crime’ of protecting yourself while white is more than enough reason to avoid random contact with blacks nowdays.

      It’s a sad statement of our society, but it’s the way it is.

  12. I took this as satire. Some truth mix with over the top extrapolations.

    However I will avoid black rap concerts for example not only because I dislike the animosity of rap but because it is dangerous not to be part of the group.

    I saw what happen in DC when the conservatives were attacked by the occupiers. The animosity is quite real. It does not apply to whites fearing blacks but also to conservatives attacked by liberal and union goons.

    The liberals and black hate mongers whipped up a lynch mob mentality over Trayon Martin and Zimmerman.

    But the talk of parents to their children and their friends is very real. I went over the do and dont’s with my son and his friends with police. Be polite and don’t give the cops any reason to arrest you. Why? Because the teenagers and young people are the most likely to be targets for no reason to be hassled by cops. Plus most crime , vandalism, drunkeness and drug use is among the 16 – 25 age group.
    I made sure that my son saw the video ” Know your rights”

    Recently I talked to a young women who was in a friends car and the police stopped the car for traffic violation and then took all the licenses and requested to search the car. Permission was refused and dogs were brought to the scene . There was pot in the car and the case was thrown out due to lack of cause. She knew not to give permission to search due to the “talk”.

    The world is dangerous and young people are at danger from both cops and other young people. Giving advice to avoid those situations is good.

    If Martin had not attacked Zimmerman he would be alive. He let his anger goad him into attacking Zimmerman. Or perhaps Martin was a young thug starting on the path to thuggery and attacked Zimmerman, because Zimmerman was Hispanic or white.

    I will never know, but if I was on the ground with my head shoved into the sidewalk , I would shoot also.

    Agitating race animosity as Sharpton has done is dangerous.
    Many whites do fear young blacks for good reasons since most crime is committed by young blacks. However I have been helped many time by adult black men on the highway and they have been the best that a human could be.

    I prefer to treat people as individuals and not on their color of their skins. But i will avoid groups of young boistrous black, hispanic, white kids because they are likely to do something stupid and I don’t want to be involved either to defend myself or call for the arrests.

  13. “my phrenologist assures me that my skull proportions ensure my just and deserved membership in the master race.”
    You win.

    Wow. I thought this was going to be another storm in a teacup, but I was facepalming by the third sentence, and it kept getting worse!
    Sometimes you just can’t disagree with people civilly; satire is the only way to respond to them while maintaining your own sanity.

    1. Yep, definitely someone else to read out of Movement Conservatism as T Coddington Van Voorhees VI and his heirs have done from the very beginning. Speaking truth to power will never get you invited to the cool parties.

        1. You don’t use the antonym “false” but use “wrong” which adds all sorts of moral connotations.

          Your case would be stronger if you actually pointed out something that he said that was flat out false.

          1. I’m not sure what you mean by “false”? Much of this are racist opinions, which aren’t really strictly falsifiable. Some studies have borne out the IQ stuff, but IQ is a poor science, and certainly not something we ought to base our opinions of others off of. What if someone required an IQ test as a condition of employment? Would it be fair? I tend to think not, and there’d probable be a good discrimination case to be made.

            The “Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally,” can be held false, as several examples of its falsehood have been provided.

            “If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.” This is not false, but why isn’t it racist? Is there a race of someone if you are accosted by, that you shouldn’t follow the same advice?

            “Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous.”

            Speaking of a race of people who are here only because they were once enslaved as “good” specifically a “luxury good?” Again, I’m not sure how this has to be falsifiable not to be construed as racist. What if someone said that smart gun owners were “something of a luxury good?” Wouldn’t that display a certain cultural bigotry as well?

  14. Politeness means usually not telling the truth. Good manners means not telling your real feelings.

    Derbyshire dispensed with being polite. Regrettably the agitating for a race war by the Sharpton’s of the world does lead to people revealing their real feelings. We have seen the hate and misogynists on the left for a while. Now John Derbyshire reveal his true views. A lot of what he says is rational but disturbing. He is English and has views on class that most Americans do not have. His diatribe on IWSB seemed to reflect that class consciousness.

    I worry what this is leading to. Violence is never pretty yet those who are pushing this seem oblivious to the dangers. They keep expecting the enemies to restrain their fire.

    It is like the young idiots in CA pushing their way into a meeting and getting pepper spray saying they won.

    No one wins if blacks in their anger riot and burn not their own homes but other dwellings and businesses like that happen in London recently.

    I recall the riots of 1968. Gun control laws came from that.

    However underneath many have been expecting violence and they may not be as restrained in their response.

  15. I recall the riots in Miami over a police officer being acquitted about an incident with a young black male. The rioters did a lot of damage and they stopped when the hit Red Rd where the Cubans sat out on their porches with their guns and the rioters melted away.

    Are race baiters out to start riots so that Obama will win in November?

    1. Are race baiters out to start riots so that Obama will win in November?

      Note that this makes sense. I’m in the middle of reading a great applied political science book, The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs – and Who Will Take I and I’m just getting into the detailed analysis of the 2008 election, but between what I’ve read and what Team Obama are doing it’s clear they’re trying to repeat what happened in 2008. One of the many requirements of this is a very big “minority” turnout, I forget exactly what it was referring to but Obama raised some relevant rate from 11% to 13%.

      Bottom line: based on how he won in 2008 and how he’s trying to win in 2012, if blacks don’t turn out in very high numbers for him again he’s not going to win.

      That’s one of a number of necessary conditions, the current “Republican War on Women” kerfuffle is also part of it as I recall from earlier in the book when the author was speaking in general terms; right now I’m reading region by region about how Dems following Clinton lost the Jacksonians.

  16. Political analysis indicates that Obama has given up on the mushy middle and appealing to his base. The Black vote and the women vote. Hence his upping the war on women rhetoric. However war on women will never start an actual violent confrontation. The Race lynch mob mentality can start an actual violent confrontation.

    Getting 98 % of the black minority vote gives Obama 19 % of the population, which is not enough. Obama won on the idealistic white Americans who thought voting for a black man would absolve them from any racial guilt. Even many in the GOP bought that assumption. However I don’t think that may happen now.

    We are devolving into tribalness. In American that is coming down to race. Whites and Asian versus Blacks and Hispanic. Regrettably our post partisan President increased the divisiveness rather than uniting us.

    The riots of 1968 caused a lot of fear in normal urban and suburban white America and they voted in Nixon.

    As a previous poster indicated that any self defense action against a black person has the potential to fuel the race war rhetoric.

    As people who are concerned about retaining our ability to be arms and be protected from the assumption of guilt on self defense the case hit very close to home. Despite Zimmerman actions looking for Martin, we better support him since this case is the excuse to get rid of stand your ground, castle doctrine and CCW in general.

  17. I would suggest that the posters here might want to read some of Mr. Darbyshire’s previous writings before making up their minds regarding his position in this particular piece.

  18. Derbyshire is noted for his misanthropy. I found this on the blog for his book “We Are Doomed”.

    It seems his criteria is he doesn’t like to associate with folks different from himself, but not in a necessarily racist way. Though you could construe his method of determining his preferences as racist if you wanted to.

    I found this last part to be interesting and true:
    “To judge from the data in my education chapter [122.9 etc.], my preferences in this regard are shared by most Americans. I certainly don’t see anything wrong with such preferences. If you think there’s something wrong with them, tell me what it is. Then, go tell the couple of hundred million Americans who, to judge by patterns of voluntary residential and educational segregation noted in by book, share my preferences.”

    Derbyshire’s article reminded me of this from Jesse Jackson:
    “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating. ”

    It will be interesting to see if he walks back from this or if he defends it. I mean its not like he called someone gay, “not that there is anything wrong with that!”

  19. Although the comments here are buzzing, part of me wonders why Sebastian would even point out this Derbyshire article?

    There is all manner of inane, vile, and misguided bullshit in people’s minds and on the internet. There are many boneheads out in the world … what makes Derbyshire special? What’s the motivation for even pointing this out?

    1. what makes Derbyshire special?

      Because he’s a writer for one of the most esteemed conservative publications in country. Conservatives already have to deal with bullshit from the left about being racist assholes, and then this guy has to go prove them right.

      1. I sincerely doubt his writing this or not would have made the slightest difference in the left holding us to be “racist assholes”. We’re of the right, we’re by definition racist. Doubly true if we’re white, “white Hispanic”, etc.

        At this point, it’s become a label to wear with pride; if you aren’t being called racist you’re doing something wrong. How has your maxim “Don’t scare white people” been received?

        1. It’s not the left I worry about, it’s the middle, without which you can’t win elections. If they side with the left, we lose. If they side with us, we win. A lot of people in the middle don’t want to side with racists.

          How has your maxim “Don’t scare white people” been received?

          That’s an Uncleism. I don’t take credit for coming up with that one. But it’s the general admonishment that you need the middle to win elections, stated in a different way.

  20. Racist assholes always go ruining a perfectly good point by dragging race into what is actually an a-racial continuing sub-cultural problem. A problem exacerbated by Progressive nonsense that reinforces tribalistic and thuggish behavior regardless of color.

    As a 6th generation in the US, 1st generation non-Boston, lace-curtain light-blue collar Irish-American I’d feel no safer walking in white Irish Southie on a late Saturday night than I would in black or Spanish Harlem (or a lot of little backwoods towns from the Atlantic to the Yukon for that matter). What matters in places like that is “do you belong?”; color is just an easy identifier until you open your mouth and don’t know the right names to claim for the turf you are standing (intruding) in.

    The curb your head will be meeting at the behest of the local “5%” won’t care what color you are.

Comments are closed.