FORUMS > News & Politics Forum Rules

John Derbyshire is a regular commentator on the National Review, and a respected thinker/activist in conservative circles.

Now before you get your panties wadded up, I will stipulate that not all Republicans or conservatives think this way. But a significant portion do. This repugnant screed was posted on the National Review's website. It is probably the most nakedly racist thing I've ever read from a supposedly mainstream source (e.g. not 'stormfront' or 'freerepublic'

Here it is, if you can stomach it.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/06/459961/derbyshire-avoid-concentrations-of-blacks/

JPtheBITCH saidJohn Derbyshire is a regular commentator on the National Review, and a respected thinker/activist in conservative circles.

I think his respect just ran out.

The actual article:

http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz1rC3fsLMv

And WOAH! Read this!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/06/why-national-review-must-fire-john-derbyshire/ Even Barro is disgusted!

Growing up in the most conservative county in Texas, i believe from personal experience that most conservative whites would agree with this author's commentary. Would be iteresting to hear what the conservaposse has to say.

Wikipedia describes John Derbyshire as a "racialist British-American writer". It should be noted that his writings and thinking are an exception, certainly not the norm. I personally cannot relate to this sort of thinking at all. In fact, upon reading this latest piece by Derbyshire, I wondered if it was some sort of satire and not to be taken seriously. Sadly,I think the guy is actually serious.

CuriousJockAZ saidWikipedia describes John Derbyshire as a "racialist British-American writer". It should be noted that his writings and thinking are an exception, certainly not the norm.

Lol i strongly disagree. More the rule than the exception In my personal experience.

CuriousJockAZ saidWikipedia describes John Derbyshire as a "racialist British-American writer". It should be noted that his writings and thinking are an exception, certainly not the norm. I personally cannot relate to this sort of thinking at all. In fact, upon reading this latest piece by Derbyshire, I wondered if it was some sort of satire and not to be taken seriously. Sadly,I think the guy is actually serious.

Read my post. I did stipulate that not all rightists agree with this.

JPtheBITCH said
Read my post. I did stipulate that not all rightists agree with this.

I saw that...was just reiterating. I think most people (certainly anyone I know) would find that article just as repugnant as you and I do. It's very disappointing that the NATIONAL REVIEW would even print something like this.

CuriousJockAZ said

JPtheBITCH said
Read my post. I did stipulate that not all rightists agree with this.

I saw that...was just reiterating. I think most people (certainly anyone I know) would find that article just as repugnant as you and I do. It's very disappointing that the NATIONAL REVIEW would even print something like this.

Todd, thankfully the national review did NOT print this.. it was another site that he wrote it for. The NR just took alot of heat because he is a regular contributing writer for the NR.

CuriousJockAZ said

JPtheBITCH said
Read my post. I did stipulate that not all rightists agree with this.

I saw that...was just reiterating. I think most people (certainly anyone I know) would find that article just as repugnant as you and I do. It's very disappointing that the NATIONAL REVIEW would even print something like this.

Most conservatives i know would approve of the authors commentary. This is the only rule he left out (which just happens to be the basis of the GOP presidential election campaign and widely held by conservatives as common knowledge):

You can be friendly to blacks but dont actually befriend one (or trust them). Blacks are lazy, dont want to work, and are leaches to society always expecting free handouts. If they havent committed a crime, it is only a matter of time until they do so.

TropicalMark saidTodd, thankfully the national review did NOT print this.. it was another site that he wrote it for. The NR just took alot of heat because he is a regular contributing writer for the NR.

Ahhhhh, okay...good to know, because I really couldn't imagine why the NR would print something like this. I hope the NR takes some sort of action and refuses to use this writer ever again. The writer really crossed a line and the NR should take a stand.

catfish5 said
You can be friendly to blacks but dont actually befriend one (or trust them). Blacks are lazy, dont want to work, and are leaches to society always expecting free handouts. If they havent committed a crime, it is only a matter of time until they do so.

Sad that you know people who think this way.I don't, nor have I ever known people who think like this. Very sad.

CuriousJockAZ said

catfish5 said
You can be friendly to blacks but dont actually befriend one (or trust them). Blacks are lazy, dont want to work, and are leaches to society always expecting free handouts. If they havent committed a crime, it is only a matter of time until they do so.

Sad that you know people who think this way.I don't, nor have I ever known people who think like this. Very sad.

You must be kidding, blind to reality, or have very limited contact with the general public.

I like how one person = "the right". Nice one!

catfish5 said
You must be kidding, blind to reality, or have very limited contact with the general public.

Just because you hangout among racists doesn't mean I do. I wouldn't even want to associate with anyone who thinks like that. Maybe you just need to get out of the south.

CuriousJockAZ said

catfish5 said
You can be friendly to blacks but dont actually befriend one (or trust them). Blacks are lazy, dont want to work, and are leaches to society always expecting free handouts. If they havent committed a crime, it is only a matter of time until they do so.

Sad that you know people who think this way.I don't, nor have I ever known people who think like this. Very sad.

Do u know Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum?
Both have made blatant references to the last rule i mentioned. Gingrich's reference to "food stamp president" and Santorums rant "i dont want to make black peoples lives better by giving them other peoples money" have blatant racists undertones referencing the rule i mentioned.

These types of statements are meant to mobilize the GOPs base.

Something more interesting for those with much time on their hands:

http://www.ipadintouch.com/watching-or-playing-movies-on-ipad/
Deliberately off-dumbass topic

CuriousJockAZ said

catfish5 said
You must be kidding, blind to reality, or have very limited contact with the general public.

Just because you hangout among racists doesn't mean I do. I wouldn't even want to associate with anyone who thinks like that. Maybe you just need to get out of the south.

He doesn't "hang out" with these people, he just assumes that they are.

socalfitness saidSomething more interesting for those with much time on their hands:

http://www.ipadintouch.com/watching-or-playing-movies-on-ipad/
Deliberately off-dumbass topic

Sure. Because you don't want to have to address the blatant racism in your midst since you're spent the last several weeks pretending it doesn't exist, while propagating it yourself.

catfish5 said
Do u know Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum?
Both have made blatant references to the last rule i mentioned. Gingrich's reference to "food stamp president" and Santorums rant "i dont want to make black peoples lives better by giving them other peoples money" have blatant racists undertones referencing the rule i mentioned.

That actually would be left up to interpretation. Just because YOU, and perhaps others, interpret the statements of Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum as having "racial undertones" doesn't necessarily mean they were intended that way.

mocktwinkie saidI like how one person = "the right". Nice one!

Dont be so smug.. you have been known to do exactly the same thing.

CuriousJockAZ said

catfish5 said
Do u know Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum?
Both have made blatant references to the last rule i mentioned. Gingrich's reference to "food stamp president" and Santorums rant "i dont want to make black peoples lives better by giving them other peoples money" have blatant racists undertones referencing the rule i mentioned.

That actually would be left up to interpretation. Just because YOU, and perhaps others, interpret the statements of Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum as having "racial undertones" doesn't necessarily mean they were intended that way.

Ru denying the racist undertones in both statements?

CuriousJockAZ said

catfish5 said
Do u know Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum?
Both have made blatant references to the last rule i mentioned. Gingrich's reference to "food stamp president" and Santorums rant "i dont want to make black peoples lives better by giving them other peoples money" have blatant racists undertones referencing the rule i mentioned.

That actually would be left up to interpretation. Just because YOU, and perhaps others, interpret the statements of Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum as having "racial undertones" doesn't necessarily mean they were intended that way.

Please, Todd, calling Obama the "food stamp" president isn't event a racist dog whistle. It's just racist.

As is Santorum's not wanting to give money to "bla" people and calling the president a "government nig..."

catfish5 said

Ru denying the racist undertones in both statements?

I get that they can be interpreted that way, but am merely making the point that the words may not have been intended to be "racist".

Christian73 said
Please, Todd, calling Obama the "food stamp" president isn't event a racist dog whistle. It's just racist.
Of course it is --- in the world according to YOU anyway. I don't see it that way, nor do I think Newt Gingrich intended it that way.

As is Santorum's not wanting to give money to "bla" people and calling the president a "government nig..."

Rick Santorum NEVER called, or even intended, to call the President a "Government Nig..." regardless of how many times you, or others, insist on repeating it.

I will just lob a couple of things into this thread, and don't expect to participate further.

1) Racism is going to be discussed with increasing frequency in coming months in an attempt to stop criticism of Obama. It won't work, in my opinion. It has been used too much, too broady, too indiscriminately, and too dishonestly. All it will do is backfire among independents and conservatives, and probably even moderate Democrats who want fair debates.

2) The Democrats in the know are not confident about Romney's current poll numbers, also in my opinion. Most of the polls that show a gap favoring Obama are of registered voters. The polls of likely voters show a different story.

3) Aside from the poll type, Romney's numbers are at their lowest and will go up. He has been damaged by the primary process. The effect will be eliminated in time. The entire party has been damaged by the negative impact of Santorum. Even many people who share his social opinions have been put off by his sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, in your face moralizing. Most except for the far right don't want politicians preaching. His impact will quickly recede, also in my opinion.

4) If anyone doubts the desperation in this administration and the fear of the election, consider the tactics of Obama, as the article points out, pathetic.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-our-pathetic-president_635461.html

5) Some points by Shelby Steele, who some of you will immediately label as an idiot and an Uncle Tom. He is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Among his books is "White Guilt" (Harper/Collins, 2007). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323691134926300.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

Shelby Steele: The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

Wall Street Journal, Opinion Section, April 5, 2012

The absurdity of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.

Two tragedies are apparent in the Trayvon Martin case. The first is obvious: A teenager—unarmed and committing no crime—was shot dead. Dressed in a "hoodie," a costume of menace, he crossed paths with a man on the hunt for precisely such clichés of menace. Added to this—and here is the rub—was the fact of his dark skin.

Maybe it was more the hood than the dark skin, but who could argue that the skin did not enhance the menace of the hood at night and in the eyes of someone watching for crime. (Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black though we are only 12% of the population.) Would Trayvon be alive today had he been walking home—Skittles and ice tea in hand—wearing a polo shirt with an alligator logo? Possibly. And does this make the ugly point that dark skin late at night needs to have its menace softened by some show of Waspy Americana? Possibly.

What is fundamentally tragic here is that these two young males first encountered each other as provocations. Males are males, and threat often evokes a narcissistic anger that skips right past reason and into a will to annihilate: "I will take you out!" There was a terrible fight. Trayvon apparently got the drop on George Zimmerman, but ultimately the man with the gun prevailed. Annihilation was achieved.

If this was all there was to it, the Trayvon/Zimmerman story would be no more than a cautionary tale, yet another admonition against the hair-trigger male ego. But this story brought reaction from the White House: "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," said the president. The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, ubiquitous icons of black protest, virtually battled each other to stand at the bereaved family's side—Mr. Jackson, in a moment of inadvertent honesty, saying, "There is power in blood . . . we must turn a moment into a movement." And then there was the spectacle of black Democrats in Congress holding hearings on racial profiling with Trayvon's parents featured as celebrities.

In fact Trayvon's sad fate clearly sent a quiver of perverse happiness all across America's civil rights establishment, and throughout the mainstream media as well. His death was vindication of the "poetic truth" that these establishments live by. Poetic truth is like poetic license where one breaks grammatical rules for effect. Better to break the rule than lose the effect. Poetic truth lies just a little; it bends the actual truth in order to highlight what it believes is a larger and more important truth.

The civil rights community and the liberal media live by the poetic truth that America is still a reflexively racist society, and that this remains the great barrier to black equality. But this "truth" has a lot of lie in it. America has greatly evolved since the 1960s. There are no longer any respectable advocates of racial segregation. And blacks today are nine times more likely to be killed by other blacks than by whites.

If Trayvon Martin was a victim of white racism (hard to conceive since the shooter is apparently Hispanic), his murder would be an anomaly, not a commonplace. It would be a bizarre exception to the way so many young black males are murdered today. If there must be a generalization in all this—a call "to turn the moment into a movement"—it would have to be a movement against blacks who kill other blacks. The absurdity of Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.

So the idea that Trayvon Martin is today's Emmett Till, as the Rev. Jackson has said, suggests nothing less than a stubborn nostalgia for America's racist past. In that bygone era civil rights leaders and white liberals stood on the highest moral ground. They literally knew themselves—given their genuine longing to see racism overcome—as historically transformative people. If the world resisted them, as it surely did, it only made them larger than life.

It was a time when standing on the side of the good required true selflessness and so it ennobled people. And this chance to ennoble oneself through a courageous moral stand is what so many blacks and white liberals miss today—now that white racism is such a defeated idea. There is a nostalgia for that time when posture alone ennobled. So today even the hint of old-fashioned raw racism excites with its potential for ennoblement.

For the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, for the increasingly redundant civil rights establishment, for liberal blacks and the broader American left, the poetic truth that white racism is somehow the real culprit in this tragedy is redemption itself. The reason Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have become such disreputable figures on our cultural landscape is that they are such quick purveyors of poetic truth rather than literal truth.

The great trick of poetic truth is to pass itself off as the deep and essential truth so that hard facts that refute it must be dismissed in the name of truth. O.J. Simpson was innocent by the poetic truth that the justice system is stacked against blacks. Trayvon was a victim of racist stereotyping—though the shooter never mentioned his race until asked to do so.

too long for one post, continued on next one