08 April 2012

Let’s Be Honest

For whatever reason, it is unfashionable to be realistic about reality.  Even among conservatives.  John Derbyshire is being lambasted for this article.  Most people practice what Derbyshire preaches, yet everyone seems to be offended by him making simple observations about a reality which most people not only acknowledge, but practically live by.  Since Derbyshire’s accurate assessment of reality offends so many, I feel compelled to link to it and quote it:

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed bymethodical inquiries in the human sciences.
(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measurespolitical corruption, and criminal convictions.
(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior isa degree more antisocial yet.
(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—isferociously 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. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.
(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:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) 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 (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her charactermuch more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.


  1. They want a "frank discussion on race." It's a start.

  2. I heard a quote which I think is from George Orwell, although I have not been able to confirm it, which is apropo to Derbyshire, the National Review Online, the mainstream media, etc: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

  3. You can't be a conservative if you don't care about the truth.

  4. The first few sounded reasonable; the last several get rather severe.

  5. @Southern Man- It sure is.

    @Anonymous- I've also heard it attributed to Orwell, and it is certainly apropo here.

    @SP- And that's why I say conservatives (or perhaps more correctly, American neo-conservatives) are no different from liberals.

    @Jennifer- veracity is more important than severity. Spend some time, say, on the east side of Detroit and then see how applicable Derbyshire's advice seems to be.

  6. The comment about politicians was total BS. I know well about black violence, greatly linked to poverty and the foolish acceptance of government handouts, but he linked that particular claim to Barack Obama's book. Seriously?? There have been far more corrupt white politicians than black, and making blacks sound less intelligent and more politically corrupt does nothing to help "protect" his children.

  7. Jen,
    Does he really have to fit all of that in one article? Is it a pro-forma requirement of all such articles to first issue the disclaimer that "they aren't all like that" and "Whites can be pretty bad too"?

    There are already plenty of other people already writing about political corruption in general. This article was specifically about blacks.

    "Frank discussion on race" is code for "it's all Whity's fault and he needs to pay us".

  8. Actually that was my point, Hale: he did NOT need to fit in nearly all the stuff that he did. Explaining that blacks are known to be more violent and are currently better known for racism would have been more than enough in the department of protecting his kids. The claims of intelligence and morality? Not so much; THAT was what offended me.

  9. @Jennifer

    The claims of intelligence and morality? Not so much; THAT was what offended me.

    The question is not is it offensive, but is it true?

    Are your feelings more important than his statement of reality?
    Think carefully before you reply, because it will determine on what side of battle between right and wrong you're on.

  10. Statement of reality, lol. No, quite obviously I think that's purile nonsense. Now whites are superior in morality as well as everything else; right. I cannot take anyone seriously if they promote this and then speak to me on right and wrong.

  11. @Jennifer- You are conflating terms. Derbyshire referenced "character," not "morality" (10g), as it relates to Obama. The two, though similar in many ways, are not identical. For example, Reagan was not exactly a moral man, but he was a man of character. Obama, though, is neither a moral man nor a man of character.

    Furthermore, Derbyshire said nothing of political corruption (10f). He leaves it to the readers to infer his meaning, making it more of a Rorschach test than a clear arguable assertion. One's response to this item reveals quite a bit about the person responding. (FWIW, I usually focus on the economics of the situation, which I generally find wanting in cities with black mayors.)

    Also, consider that some of Derbyshire's advice may have been concerned with protection over a long time frame.

    @Prof. Hale- You would think those sort of things would go without saying. General statements are being qualifie out of existence.

    @SP- Please note that Derbyshire makes no claims on blacks' morality.

  12. True Simon, but his words that black politicians need more wary character analyzation that whites, and that well-socialized and intelligent blacks are like rare commodities that the elite brag about, came off very offensively. He didn't offer any explanation for why so many blacks might be doing badly on tests, or even might be more prone to violence right now, so his views seemed to be that they possess an innate inferiority pretty much all the way around.

  13. @Jennifer- I believe the track record of black politicians vs. white politicians speaks for itself (which is not to say that white politicians don't deserve scrutiny; they do). The book Stuff White People Like, written by a liberal hipster, has made the same observation about socialized, intelligent blacks, and confirms that elite whites enjoy having certain types of black friends to prove to their other white friends that they are not racist. The fundamental reason why blacks do poorly is unknown, though second-level research indicates that they are, on the average, less intelligent than whites. The predilection to violence can be partially explained by genetic factors (higher testosterone levels, e.g.) and cultural factors (the pathologies of government dependence, as outlined by Theodore Dalrymple, among others; the pathologies of single motherhood; etc.)

    Beyond this, you need to understand the limits of blogging/writing online. Derbyshire was not writing an academic paper, nor was he writing a book. He was writing a short post explaining his take on race. There are limits to depth and citations in such a genre, and you need to be cognizant of them. Also, he was writing for an e-zine, so it would not be unreasonable for him to implicitly expect readers to do their own research to prove or disprove his assertions.