The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Fear and Loathing At Williams College (But Mostly Fear)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
aguide-672x372

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There have been some later developments in the storm-in-an-academic-teacup over Williams College President Adam Falk [Email him] canceling a talk I was invited to give to the “Uncomfortable Learning” student group.

The National Association of Scholars national_association_of_scholars(of which I am a member) has been on the case. NAS is, to quote their mission statement, “a network of scholars and citizens united by our commitment to academic freedom, disinterested scholarship, and excellence in American higher education.”

Anthropologist Peter Wood, the President of NAS, has posted a long (4,400 words) account of some exchanges he’s had with President Falk, embellished with Dr. Wood’s own commentaries.

The piece defies compression, though I shall pull out some quotes below. If you are interested in academic freedom in general, and the stifling power of the Antiracism cult in particular, I urge you to read the whole thing.

diversityinventionI should say that I have some slight personal acquaintance with Dr. Wood. Some years ago I reviewed his book Diversity: The Invention of a Concept. My review was for the most part favorable. I only added some gentle chiding towards the end:

For all its delights, this is a flawed book, with a hole at its center. Peter Wood is an inhabitant of the Respectable Right, and so is scrupulously deferential to what William F. Buckley, Jr., the leading light of this faction, has called “the prevailing structure of taboos.” This book began, in fact, as an essay posted on the National Review Online website. As one so often finds these days with books that seek to challenge current sociological pieties while staying within the bounds of acceptable comment—bounds drawn and vigilantly patrolled by left-liberal opinion elites—this approach weakens Peter Wood’s case. Why, after all, is the diversity racket so persistent? Intelligent people everywhere scoff at it and constantly make jokes about it. Even TV sitcoms do so. A recent episode of Fox TV’s Andy Richter Show revolved around a workplace diversity wrangle, and had characters uttering lines like: “So I am supposed to celebrate your difference while at the same time totally ignoring it, right?” (I note, however, that this show seems to have been canceled.) Why, when wellnigh everybody—including, very likely, some large subset of the diversicrats themselves—knows that it is all nonsense, do we let it go on?

We all know the answer …

[E pluribus plurimum by John Derbyshire; The New Criterion, March 2003.]

Of course we do.

Since then I have met Dr. Wood at academic gatherings, and he seems to harbor no hard feelings. At our last contact, a few weeks ago, relations were perfectly cordial.

To Dr. Wood’s March 1st piece at Nas.org: He focuses on the “line” that President Falk claimed to have found in the February 18th email announcing the cancellation of my talk. From President Falk’s email:

We have said we wouldn’t cancel speakers or prevent the expression of views except in the most extreme circumstances. In other words: There’s a line somewhere, but in our history of hosting events and speeches of all kinds, we hadn’t yet found it.

We’ve found the line. Derbyshire, in my opinion, is on the other side of it. Many of his expressions clearly constitute hate speech, and we will not promote such speech on this campus or in our community. [John Derbyshire’s Scheduled Appearance at Williams by Adam Falk; February 18, 2016.]

Dr. Wood tells us:

When I wrote to President Falk I explained:

I do not write as a defender of Mr. Derbyshire’s views. Rather, I write as the head of an organization that is deeply interested in—to use your phrase—where “the line” should be drawn between permissible free speech on campus and impermissible forms of expression.

[A Guide to Disinvitation: My Conversation with Williams College President Adam Falk by Peter Wood; nas.org, March1, 2016.]

His attempt to get some clarification on this point was unsuccessful.

President Falk’s answer does not really address the question of where and how he draws the line.

Later in his post Dr. Wood tells us where he would draw the line:

I have a few suggestions for where such a line might be drawn. Among those who should not be invited or, if invited should be disinvited, include:

  • Advocates of criminal violence
  • Spokesmen for or advocates of nations or movements engaged in armed hostility with the United States
  • Figures who are fugitives from the law of the United States
  • Figures publicly identified as leaders of organized crime

It is certainly imaginable that even in these cases students could benefit from a first-hand encounter with such speakers, but in these instances the college has a higher responsibility to the rule of law.

That seems to me very sensible, far too sensible for a hysterical ninny like President Falk.

*

If you are detecting a certain detached indifference on my side of this, your detector’s working fine. I really can’t engage with people like Falk, who speak—and apparently think—in the cant words and phrases of a shallow ideology.

In one of his responses to Dr. Wood, for example, Falk writes:

As for Derbyshire’s views on white supremacy, I would point you to the following passage that appeared on the website VDare:

Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think “White Supremacist” is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.

Frankly, this is the kind of material I would expect to see distributed by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan.

220px-Theklansmanfilm[1] Leaving aside President Falk’s utter, obvious lack of any sense of proportion (has he ever read any Ku Klux Klan literature?), just ponder briefly those three sentences of mine that he quotes.

My latter two sentences make an assertion about the human world by way of parsing the cant phrase “White Supremacy.”

Here is how my thinking goes when I am presented with statements of this sort.

First question: Is the assertion true, or is it false?

If it’s true, as in this case it obviously is, there is no more to be said. If it’s false, we advance to …

Second question: Is the writer honestly mistaken, or has he knowingly written a falsehood?

The default charitable assumption should be that he’s honestly mistaken. Then you should try to correct him, if only in your own mind as a reader.

If, however, you have reason to think he has knowingly committed a falsehood to paper or pixels, we advance to …

Third question: Was the falsehood committed with a good intent, or a bad one? (It is of course possibly to lie with good intent. I doubt it is possible to raise children without doing so.)

Those, it seems to me, are the thought processes of a rational person evaluating written assertions about the world. We apply our own judgment, knowledge, and experience, and work through the questions.

President Falk’s thought processes are nothing like that. They operate in a different realm, one that seems strange—alien—to me.

What they are like is the mentality of a witch-hunter or KGB interrogator, rooting out thoughtcrime. Aha!—so you favor White Supremacy! Confess!

The truth or falsehood of the printed statements is of no interest to such a mentality. What is interesting is Bad Thoughts, and the tagging of them with the approved cant word or phrase.

*

There may be something else going on here, too: fear. Most academics are timid, highly-strung types who cherish the hope of tenure (if they haven’t got it) or a quiet life (if they have).

Dr. Wood touches on this:

I don’t know the situation at Williams first hand. I’ve visited the college half a dozen times over the years. My nephew is a graduate, and I attended his graduation some years ago. More recently I was an invited speaker at Williams after the NAS published What Does Bowdoin Teach? How a Contemporary Liberal Arts College Shapes Students. [PDF] And I have had some contact with current Williams students and faculty members. But from what I do know, I would venture the guess that President Falk is apprehensive about the possibility of strong campus protest rooted in racial grievance. Perhaps he foresaw something like what happened at California State University, Los Angeles on February 25, when student protesters violently disrupted Breitbart news editor Ben Shapiro’s talk on “When Diversity Becomes a Problem.”

Many elite colleges have been roiled by such protest in recent months, including nearby Dartmouth. And Williams itself has a history in recent years of racial grievance protests. In at least one case, many Williams students believed the precipitating incident was staged—another one of those “hoax crimes” that are epidemic on college campuses.

That chimes with things I myself have heard from inside the academy. Most of those I have heard it from are of course (of course!) afraid to speak publicly.

badstudentsNot all, though. Following the cancellation of my Williams talk I had some email exchanges with a wise man who has had decades of experience teaching in colleges. This is my friend Bob Weissberg, former professor of political science, and author of the excellent book Bad Students, Not Bad Schools (reviewed by Steve Sailer here).

Now retired, Bob has given permission for me to quote his comments. Here they are, slightly edited:

Having been in the academy for nearly forty years, this doesn’t surprise me. It’s hardly new.

I began my teaching career at Cornell University in 1969 and saw similar anti-free speech events back then. Let me suggest the unspeakable motivating factor: fear of violence, particularly from black thugs.

The University and its faculty is virtually defenseless against such violence for the simple reason that those attacked will not fight back. They will instead apologize and call for “dialogue.” The thugs sense that and are emboldened.

I can recall Walter Berns, a distinguished professor of constitutional law, hiding in a cheap motel under an assumed name. Such is the life of the mind.

ORDER IT NOW

On today’s campus, being a macho male is an automatic disqualification for faculty position. Such traits will be judged intimidating. This is far less true for the thugs—for them, being violent is a sign of authenticity. That almost no male faculty member ever served in the military is also a factor.

Cornell during the late 1960s was ground zero in the “blackening” of the campus via thuggery. Ithaca had a small and well socialized black population left over from the Civil War era. For the people who ran Cornell, these were typical blacks. They had no contact with the “New Men” of the Revolution.

When I was there I heard stories of random anti-white violence—blacks just showing up at a campus gym and seriously injuring a white in the wrong place at the wrong time. The random nature of the violence made it especially terrifying. There could be no escape. [Wave of Drug-Related Robberies Hits Campus and Collegetown Area | Top Safety Division Officials Suppress Details of Cases, By Daniel Margulis And Joel Rudin, Cornell Daily Sun, November 21, 1972]wave

The whole affirmative action enterprise was corrupt. The black head of the program—Delridge Hunter—stole lots of money and was caught. He agreed to resign only after Cornell agreed not to prosecute him for the theft and write a letter of recommendation on his behalf. Black students were issued Cornell credit cards for their book purchases and instead they spent the money on knick-knacks or clothing. [See “Colleges are Skipping Over Competent Blacks to Admit ‘Authentic’ Ghetto Types,” New York Times Magazine, By Thomas Sowell, December 13, 1970]

Almost a half century has passed since then and we have learned nothing, or at least nothing we can say in public.

Racial PC, at least in political science, has a long history. I can recall it during my graduate student days in the mid-1960s. There were very few blacks in the profession back then and no school had a Director of Diversity and all that, but the party line was reasonably clear. One just did not say anything “hateful” about blacks, particularly their cognitive capacities.

For example, if a city government run by blacks was a disaster, the official explanation was that the “white downtown business interests” were responsible for the city’s decline …

Dr. Wood’s careful remarks, and Bob’s more straightforward ones, touch on what is perhaps the greatest, the most unmentionable, of all the many Unmentionables about race in America: that whites, in the generality, are scared of blacks, in the generality.

It is very unusual to hear any acknowledgment of this fact from native-born Americans, but foreigners are more forthright. (One of the benefits of immigration?)

Hungarian-born historian, Holocaust survivor, and self-described reactionary John Lukacs, for example. Lukacs came to the U.S.A. in the 1940s.

In one of the sketches in his 1998 book A Thread of Years, Lukacs reports a conversation with the wife of a “middle-upper-class” New York stockbroker who has left the city to live in rural Maine.

Why (asks the narrator)? Was he mugged? No, says the wife (the narrator tells us), he was not mugged …

…though he witnessed something like a mugging. It happened in broad daylight, at a shining noon hour in mid-town Manhattan, on Forty-Fifth Street, between Madison and Park. A black deliveryman and a white deliveryman were fighting on the pavement while shouting obscenities. People watched. Another black climbed down from a truck. Together they kicked and pummeled the white one; in the end they pushed him down to the pavement, laughed and spat at him, then jumped into the truck and drove away. No one stopped them. He wanted to stop them (he had been in the Navy), but his wife screamed and held him back. What upset him was not the brutality and ugliness of the scene. He suddenly realized that whites are now afraid of blacks. That hit him in the craw—

“That this was racism in the reverse, because in the past blacks used to be afraid of whites?”

This was something new. Blacks are a minority, just as Jews were a minority in Germany, but were there any Nazis afraid of Jews? And there was this in his mind too: that somehow these white people in New York were hopeless because they were responsible for what was happening, though not only because of the former mistreatment of blacks by white Americans. They were responsible because of their own acceptance of the cult of brutality and of ugliness. The law of the jungle had broken to the surface here, in midtown Manhattan, and the people there were not up to it. [A Thread of Years by John Lukacs (1998), pp. 466-467.]

*

Dr. Wood says of me, clutching at his Respectable Right pearls:

He publishes on a very marginal website called VDARE (named for Virginia Dare, the first white born in North America), and he lives, by his own account, “entirely, and somewhat precariously, by the pen.” Disinviting him was unlikely to unleash storms of protests from outraged conservatives.

“Conservative” here, of course, means Conservatism Inc. or “cuckservative.” Dr. Wood is right about that!

But Virginia Dare was not “the first white child born in North America.” I am surprised, and somewhat dismayed, to find an accredited academic—an anthropologist, yet!—making such a common error. The first white child born in North America was Snorri Thorfinnsson. Virginia Dare was the first child of English parentage born in North America.

VDARE.com may be “very marginal” compared to Williams College—although it had 1.2 million page views this month and did predict the rise of Trump, unlike the MSM. That does not mean, as Dr. Woods should know better than anyone, that it wrong.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived atJohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 53 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Blobby5 says:

    Very ‘troubling’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Troubling, but very predictable. That's the product of cowardice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/fear-and-loathing-at-williams-college-but-mostly-fear/#comment-1348986
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. JackOH says:

    Thanks for this update. We’re expected to believe that at one and the same time Mr. Derbyshire’s views are, well, y’know . . . marginal, but nonetheless persuasive and potent enough to rouse the elite Williams campus from its collegial slumber into what? A state of wakefulness, maybe, or how about some modest questioning about the PC slop that’s dished our way?

    Not off-topic, but a bit askew: a childhood friend of mine, Bobby, died a few days ago. His father, Merle, served as a young combat sergeant under Gen. Patton in WWII. By the late 1980s, Merle and his wife, Carrie, still lived in their paid-up house in the old neighborhood, which had been informally annexed into Gangbangerland. Bobby, whom I saw every few years, said it was okay, as long as his parents didn’t venture out after dark, or accidently diss a gangbanger. FWIW-a society that can’t summon the moral wherewithal to even recognize the wickedness in the situation forced upon Merle and Carrie may not be worth a damn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Sorry to hear about your friend.

    And I'm sorry to hear about Merle who risked his life to defeat a "racist" regime only to return home and become a second-class citizen by his old age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @Blobby5
    Very 'troubling'.

    Troubling, but very predictable. That’s the product of cowardice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Never cared much for the “VDARE” moniker, but it’s certainly catchier than STHORFINNSSON.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Aw, Derb! It’s not enough to cross the line … you have to dance on it?

    As I said in an earlier comment to the original story on Unz, I had more than a few very lacklustre intern candidates from Williams, and it is not hard to imagine why they were uninspiring, though the one who dared to sugget bringing you in for a talk does give one hope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. I’m not sure it’s so much that whites are afraid of blacks — in the sense of physical fear — as that we understand that the social status game that used to be weighted against them is now weighted against us. George Zimmerman was a cautionary tale for a lot of us. Shoot a black guy who’s beating your head against a sidewalk, and you get tried for murder, vilified as a “stalker” and “profiler” in the national press and subjected to death threats that are never going to be investigated? The President of the United States uses his bully pulpit to take the side of your attacker? That sort of thing can happen because there’s all manner of social stigma attached to “being a racist” or “acting racist.” The object of the fear is polite society, not blacks as such.

    It’s a bit analogous to saying that parents who don’t spank their children are afraid of their three-year-olds. Of course they’re not. They’re afraid of what the busybody-industrial complex will do if they’re found, especially in public, to be “hitting” or “beating” a poor defenseless child. Spanking isn’t quite as low-status as having impure thoughts about racial equality, but it’s getting there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Zimmerman had the bad luck to have his situation selected (from among who knows how many other candidates) for the Narrative, same as the students at Duke University. It's rare, but it happens.

    It was a relatively rare confluence of events; it seems unlikely that had Zimmerman simply been a bystander and Martin been somehow (more) spontaneously hostile the event would have attracted any attention at all.

    The takeaway? For me, it's be observant but uninvolved, and if trouble comes calling, respond proportionally. That absolutely can include how Zimmerman responded. Life is a gift, ones most precious possession, and anyone who seeks to take it should be stopped accordingly.
    , @WorkingClass
    An armed Zimmerman followed an unarmed Martin AGAINST instructions from the police. When Martin turned and stood his ground Zimmerman killed him. Was Martin a threat to Zimmerman? No. Was Martin breaking the law? No. Is Zimmerman a white guy? Maybe he thinks he is.

    You chose the wrong story to make your point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. dearieme says:

    “parsing the cant phrase “White Supremacy””. Oh no you weren’t: you know perfectly well that you were construing it.

    What’s the name for the ideology that people with a decent education should attempt to hide the fact?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    An objective and accurate reading of history is not the same thing as White Supremacy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. The University and its faculty is virtually defenseless against such violence for the simple reason that those attacked will not fight back. They will instead apologize and call for “dialogue.” The thugs sense that and are emboldened.

    So today’s detente is long-running, but I don’t think it will survive an end to the last 30-50 years of monetary debasement-inspired illusory asset mania and credit bubble.

    Black bullying of whites and black-on-white crime is rare enough that few whites encounter it personally, and those who do are overwhelmingly leftist, PC cultists who are the last people in American who’ll arm themselves. There are a lot of others who will Trayvon anyone dumb enough to go hands-on. Even particularly invasive pan-handlers court a lead infusion these days. [I wonder if they recognize a strong-hand sweep to the belt-line as incentive to get scarce.]

    I’ve always assumed that the reason black rioting never moves toward white suburbs and white enclaves because doing so would pile up rioters’ bodies like cordwood. YT isn’t going to turn the other cheek if the Orc Horde floods, Molotov Cocktails in hand, toward his home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I’ve always assumed that the reason black rioting never moves toward white suburbs and white enclaves because doing so would pile up rioters’ bodies like cordwood. YT isn’t going to turn the other cheek if the Orc Horde floods, Molotov Cocktails in hand, toward his home."

    Probably because that type of black rioting will not reach the type of levels that sparks the much ballyhooed notion of race wars between whites and non-whites.

    Besides, whites in white neighborhoods usually lack the stomach for anything violent. The local police department and National Guard would take care of the riff raff, so Mr. and Mrs. White wouldn't be getting out their shotguns and body bags.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Wilmingtonian
    I'm not sure it's so much that whites are afraid of blacks -- in the sense of physical fear -- as that we understand that the social status game that used to be weighted against them is now weighted against us. George Zimmerman was a cautionary tale for a lot of us. Shoot a black guy who's beating your head against a sidewalk, and you get tried for murder, vilified as a "stalker" and "profiler" in the national press and subjected to death threats that are never going to be investigated? The President of the United States uses his bully pulpit to take the side of your attacker? That sort of thing can happen because there's all manner of social stigma attached to "being a racist" or "acting racist." The object of the fear is polite society, not blacks as such.

    It's a bit analogous to saying that parents who don't spank their children are afraid of their three-year-olds. Of course they're not. They're afraid of what the busybody-industrial complex will do if they're found, especially in public, to be "hitting" or "beating" a poor defenseless child. Spanking isn't quite as low-status as having impure thoughts about racial equality, but it's getting there.

    Zimmerman had the bad luck to have his situation selected (from among who knows how many other candidates) for the Narrative, same as the students at Duke University. It’s rare, but it happens.

    It was a relatively rare confluence of events; it seems unlikely that had Zimmerman simply been a bystander and Martin been somehow (more) spontaneously hostile the event would have attracted any attention at all.

    The takeaway? For me, it’s be observant but uninvolved, and if trouble comes calling, respond proportionally. That absolutely can include how Zimmerman responded. Life is a gift, ones most precious possession, and anyone who seeks to take it should be stopped accordingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I think that police are following your advice (I certainly would in their position): be observant but uninvolved in black criminality, at least as long as it's confined to the black community. I think that it's called Ferguson Effect.
    , @Wilmingtonian
    That's what I do too (i.e., stay observant but uninvolved, with a pistol just in case), but I'm not sure the situation is all that rare. In any event, it's an illustration of the broader social problem.

    Nobody wants ghetto youth wandering around the neighborhood. Today for normal people (excluding the rich and connected) the social expectation is you just put up with it until they actually start committing crimes, then you call the cops if possible, you use force only as a last resort, and you hope you haven't done anything that could be construed as provocative (e.g., getting out of your truck, calling the cops on previous occasions, being a wannabe-cop, etc.). A century ago, the social expectation would have been very different, and society and the police would have backed a white homeowner in telling the unfamiliar black kid to get back where he belonged, double quick, before resort to rifles and/or dogs became necessary. We're supposed to feel very guilty about what our great-great-grandparents thought utterly normal.

    Result, lots of broken windows and ungovernable cities, but at least we can flatter ourselves that we're equal. Sort of.
    , @guest
    Zimmerman was selected for his name more than anything else. If it had been seen as brown on black, which it was, instead of "White Hispanic" on black, there'd be no story. Most of the other elements that got the story play were beyond Zimmerman's control: the "gated community," the cops being perceived as derelict in their duty, the fact that Stand Your Ground (not that it applied, Zimmerman being on his back) was in the news at the time, the fact that Zimmerman was an adult and Martin wasn't, etc.

    Not that none of Zimmerman's actions contributed to the story, if not to the ridiculous prosecution. Apparently you're just not supposed to follow black people, ever, lest it seem like you're entrapping them into attacking you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Insofar as whites being afraid of blacks is concerned, I recall a lot of good advice dispensed in “The Talk,” the four-year anniversary of which is imminent. One of them (paraphrased) was if you see a group of black unknown to you personally arriving at an event, leave as soon as possible. I don’t recall a college exception. Some of the surveillance camera and cell phone footage that is becoming available shows how quickly blacks can become angry and violent. One minute they’re standing there and the next they’ve thrown a punch. Wariness, which is a form of fear, around blacks strikes me as a normal, healthy means of self-preservation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @dc.sunsets
    Zimmerman had the bad luck to have his situation selected (from among who knows how many other candidates) for the Narrative, same as the students at Duke University. It's rare, but it happens.

    It was a relatively rare confluence of events; it seems unlikely that had Zimmerman simply been a bystander and Martin been somehow (more) spontaneously hostile the event would have attracted any attention at all.

    The takeaway? For me, it's be observant but uninvolved, and if trouble comes calling, respond proportionally. That absolutely can include how Zimmerman responded. Life is a gift, ones most precious possession, and anyone who seeks to take it should be stopped accordingly.

    I think that police are following your advice (I certainly would in their position): be observant but uninvolved in black criminality, at least as long as it’s confined to the black community. I think that it’s called Ferguson Effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @dc.sunsets
    Zimmerman had the bad luck to have his situation selected (from among who knows how many other candidates) for the Narrative, same as the students at Duke University. It's rare, but it happens.

    It was a relatively rare confluence of events; it seems unlikely that had Zimmerman simply been a bystander and Martin been somehow (more) spontaneously hostile the event would have attracted any attention at all.

    The takeaway? For me, it's be observant but uninvolved, and if trouble comes calling, respond proportionally. That absolutely can include how Zimmerman responded. Life is a gift, ones most precious possession, and anyone who seeks to take it should be stopped accordingly.

    That’s what I do too (i.e., stay observant but uninvolved, with a pistol just in case), but I’m not sure the situation is all that rare. In any event, it’s an illustration of the broader social problem.

    Nobody wants ghetto youth wandering around the neighborhood. Today for normal people (excluding the rich and connected) the social expectation is you just put up with it until they actually start committing crimes, then you call the cops if possible, you use force only as a last resort, and you hope you haven’t done anything that could be construed as provocative (e.g., getting out of your truck, calling the cops on previous occasions, being a wannabe-cop, etc.). A century ago, the social expectation would have been very different, and society and the police would have backed a white homeowner in telling the unfamiliar black kid to get back where he belonged, double quick, before resort to rifles and/or dogs became necessary. We’re supposed to feel very guilty about what our great-great-grandparents thought utterly normal.

    Result, lots of broken windows and ungovernable cities, but at least we can flatter ourselves that we’re equal. Sort of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none. The blacks might have been the ones calling for the police but the police would likely have been relatives of the homeowners and their sons who confronted the blacks in the first place. That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs.
    , @Corvinus
    "Nobody wants ghetto youth wandering around the neighborhood."

    Some people, yes. But not all, or even most, "ghetto youth" are violent.

    "A century ago, the social expectation would have been very different, and society and the police would have backed a white homeowner in telling the unfamiliar black kid to get back where he belonged, double quick, before resort to rifles and/or dogs became necessary."

    Depends, actually. If the neighborhood was a Polish enclave, for example, and an Italian was around, there would also be a stare by locals as to get out of Dodge quick. What, you don't think that Polish and Italians got along merely because they were white 100 years ago?

    We've come a long ways since that time. No need to resort to guns and mutts, since darkies may even live in those neighborhoods,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Wilmingtonian
    That's what I do too (i.e., stay observant but uninvolved, with a pistol just in case), but I'm not sure the situation is all that rare. In any event, it's an illustration of the broader social problem.

    Nobody wants ghetto youth wandering around the neighborhood. Today for normal people (excluding the rich and connected) the social expectation is you just put up with it until they actually start committing crimes, then you call the cops if possible, you use force only as a last resort, and you hope you haven't done anything that could be construed as provocative (e.g., getting out of your truck, calling the cops on previous occasions, being a wannabe-cop, etc.). A century ago, the social expectation would have been very different, and society and the police would have backed a white homeowner in telling the unfamiliar black kid to get back where he belonged, double quick, before resort to rifles and/or dogs became necessary. We're supposed to feel very guilty about what our great-great-grandparents thought utterly normal.

    Result, lots of broken windows and ungovernable cities, but at least we can flatter ourselves that we're equal. Sort of.

    Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none. The blacks might have been the ones calling for the police but the police would likely have been relatives of the homeowners and their sons who confronted the blacks in the first place. That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilmingtonian
    Yep. The social fabric then (and even today in a few receding ethnic Fishtowns) mostly didn't even require intervention by the law, everyone was operating from the same script. There's still a common script, it's just a different script. If the old script was titled "White Supremacy," then the title of the new one is...?
    , @Corvinus
    "Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none."

    Likewise, if it was a Polish in an Italian or Irish neighborhood, or an Italian in a Polish or Irish neighborhood, they would be told to go on their merry way.

    "That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs."

    It was ETHNIC solidarity. Today, generally speaking, whites and blacks and Asians and Hispanics live in their own neighborhoods. They interact with different groups on a daily basis, and live life accordingly. In some cases (gasp), the various races are mixed up in the same neighborhood. The audacity of some people!
    , @Rohirrim
    DH - As the son of a first-generation Irish-American mother from Boston's Southie I agree with your analysis. I'd go a step further and mention that working women also goes a long way in explaining the deterioration of the ethnic enclaves. It was the stay-at-home mothers who ruled the roost and knew EVERYTHING that happened in the neighborhood. They were the eyes and ears and everybody knew everybody else and who your parents were. Almost everytime my friends and I were up to no good it was almost a certainty that my mother knew about it by the time I got home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Diversity Heretic
    Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none. The blacks might have been the ones calling for the police but the police would likely have been relatives of the homeowners and their sons who confronted the blacks in the first place. That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs.

    Yep. The social fabric then (and even today in a few receding ethnic Fishtowns) mostly didn’t even require intervention by the law, everyone was operating from the same script. There’s still a common script, it’s just a different script. If the old script was titled “White Supremacy,” then the title of the new one is…?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    White suigenocide
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    The University and its faculty is virtually defenseless against such violence for the simple reason that those attacked will not fight back. They will instead apologize and call for “dialogue.” The thugs sense that and are emboldened.
     
    So today's detente is long-running, but I don't think it will survive an end to the last 30-50 years of monetary debasement-inspired illusory asset mania and credit bubble.

    Black bullying of whites and black-on-white crime is rare enough that few whites encounter it personally, and those who do are overwhelmingly leftist, PC cultists who are the last people in American who'll arm themselves. There are a lot of others who will Trayvon anyone dumb enough to go hands-on. Even particularly invasive pan-handlers court a lead infusion these days. [I wonder if they recognize a strong-hand sweep to the belt-line as incentive to get scarce.]

    I've always assumed that the reason black rioting never moves toward white suburbs and white enclaves because doing so would pile up rioters' bodies like cordwood. YT isn't going to turn the other cheek if the Orc Horde floods, Molotov Cocktails in hand, toward his home.

    “I’ve always assumed that the reason black rioting never moves toward white suburbs and white enclaves because doing so would pile up rioters’ bodies like cordwood. YT isn’t going to turn the other cheek if the Orc Horde floods, Molotov Cocktails in hand, toward his home.”

    Probably because that type of black rioting will not reach the type of levels that sparks the much ballyhooed notion of race wars between whites and non-whites.

    Besides, whites in white neighborhoods usually lack the stomach for anything violent. The local police department and National Guard would take care of the riff raff, so Mr. and Mrs. White wouldn’t be getting out their shotguns and body bags.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    Besides, whites in white neighborhoods usually lack the stomach for anything violent.
     
    You must live in a place far removed from where I live.

    so Mr. and Mrs. White wouldn’t be getting out their shotguns and body bags.
     
    A neighbor who has since moved away might disagree. He had an HK 91 (semi-auto version of Germany's 7.62x51 battle rifle) among quite a gun collection and made no bones about what would happen if someone was dumb enough to do a drive-by. You may believe such people are all talk, but in my experience they would be very quick to step up the moment "the local police and national guard" don't take care of the riff raff.

    Lurk for a few days at arfcom (ar15.com) and see if you think America is full of all-hat, no cattle whities.

    I stand by my position; the "riots" will never spill into predominately white areas because if they do, by definition the cops will be home taking care of their own families and those content to let the cops suppress the riff raff will simply load up and mow down.

    There are a whole lot of angry middle class people about to be non-middle class. Any scapegoat will do when that time comes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Corvinus says:
    @Wilmingtonian
    That's what I do too (i.e., stay observant but uninvolved, with a pistol just in case), but I'm not sure the situation is all that rare. In any event, it's an illustration of the broader social problem.

    Nobody wants ghetto youth wandering around the neighborhood. Today for normal people (excluding the rich and connected) the social expectation is you just put up with it until they actually start committing crimes, then you call the cops if possible, you use force only as a last resort, and you hope you haven't done anything that could be construed as provocative (e.g., getting out of your truck, calling the cops on previous occasions, being a wannabe-cop, etc.). A century ago, the social expectation would have been very different, and society and the police would have backed a white homeowner in telling the unfamiliar black kid to get back where he belonged, double quick, before resort to rifles and/or dogs became necessary. We're supposed to feel very guilty about what our great-great-grandparents thought utterly normal.

    Result, lots of broken windows and ungovernable cities, but at least we can flatter ourselves that we're equal. Sort of.

    “Nobody wants ghetto youth wandering around the neighborhood.”

    Some people, yes. But not all, or even most, “ghetto youth” are violent.

    “A century ago, the social expectation would have been very different, and society and the police would have backed a white homeowner in telling the unfamiliar black kid to get back where he belonged, double quick, before resort to rifles and/or dogs became necessary.”

    Depends, actually. If the neighborhood was a Polish enclave, for example, and an Italian was around, there would also be a stare by locals as to get out of Dodge quick. What, you don’t think that Polish and Italians got along merely because they were white 100 years ago?

    We’ve come a long ways since that time. No need to resort to guns and mutts, since darkies may even live in those neighborhoods,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none. The blacks might have been the ones calling for the police but the police would likely have been relatives of the homeowners and their sons who confronted the blacks in the first place. That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs.

    “Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none.”

    Likewise, if it was a Polish in an Italian or Irish neighborhood, or an Italian in a Polish or Irish neighborhood, they would be told to go on their merry way.

    “That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs.”

    It was ETHNIC solidarity. Today, generally speaking, whites and blacks and Asians and Hispanics live in their own neighborhoods. They interact with different groups on a daily basis, and live life accordingly. In some cases (gasp), the various races are mixed up in the same neighborhood. The audacity of some people!

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    As you don't dispute, we've lost a lot of ethnic solidarity. We're told not to have racial solidarity, at least whites are told that.

    I just point out to white people that every other racial group is acting as a team, and it makes sense for them to do the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    “the greatest, the most unmentionable, of all the many Unmentionables about race in America: that whites, in the generality, are scared of blacks, in the generality”

    This formulation doesn’t go far enough. After all, PC allows one to admit that whites do have fear of blacks.
    But the explanations are historical and/or social, i.e. blacks attack whites because of historical grievance/vengeance or because blacks are poor and naturally rob others who got more.

    Now, there is some degree of legitimacy to these views. Surely, blacks have historical grievances, especially as black rage is kept alive by media and academia. And by pop culture of rap and sports culture of black thuggery.
    And surely, most blacks who commit crime tend to be economically depressed blacks.

    But there is more to this.
    After all, Japanese-Americans and American Indians may have grievances too due to ‘internment’ or being forced off their ancestral land. (I heard this joke: Why did Indians lose America? Because they didn’t make reservations.)
    And there was indeed collective grievances that led to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and American Indians making raids on whites. But those were collective wars. Japan fought US, and American Indian tribes attacked whites.
    But once the dust settled, individual Japanese-Americans and individual American Indians were no threat to Americans. Even if they may feel hatred for whitey, your average Japanese American isn’t very big or tough. Same goes for the American Indian. So, whatever rage they feel, it remains inside them. Also, even if they feel the rage, they are not a very aggressive or wild-ass people.
    In contrast, blacks are aggressive, wild-ass, bigger, and stronger than white folks. Evolution made them this way. Also, most of black interracial violence isn’t against rich whites but poor whites. Economic reasons fail to explain this. Indeed, you often see more affluent blacks kicking the asses of poorer whites.

    [MORE]

    The hot temperature in Africa made for leaner muscle(as people in colder climes needed more fat for insulation). And disease and mosquitoes weeded out the weaker Negroes. And there were tons of dangerous animals in Africa that were chasing Negroes not least because Negroes chucked spears at them.

    Just think. Imagine if white folks had to obtain food by chucking spears at hippos and cape buffaloes.
    In our world, white folks can just go shopping. Even fat, slow, and weak whites can get plenty of food. (And for 1000s of yrs, white folks had surplus food thru agriculture.)
    But suppose all the Walmarts disappear, and the only way whites can get food is by chucking spears at hippos, rhinos, crocodiles, gorillas, and buffaloes. First of all, it will have to be a stronger white guy since a weaker guy will have to get nearer to hit the beast with the spear. But even before he lobs the spear, he could be attacked and killed.
    Now, suppose some tough white guy chucks the spear from far. The angry hippo is gonna charge the whiteys, and a bunch of slow weak whiteys are gonna get mauled and trampled by the hippo.

    So, if white folks had to obtain food only by chucking spears at hippos, a whole bunch of whiteys are gonna killed and weeded out, and only the tough ones will survive and mate.
    That is why Negroes are tougher. When they were hungry, they couldn’t just go to Walmart and buy a bag of drumsticks for $8.99. They had to chuck spears at big strong animals that fought back. Any weakling Negro would have gotten killed and been weeded out of the Negro gene pool. Someone like J.J. of GOOD TIMES wouldn’t have made it. Arnold of Diff’rent Strokes would have been weeded out too.

    Also, as Africa was wild and crazy, tough men went with tough women. There was no room for femininity and ladylike behavior. It was a world of tough men and tough women who had to take a big rock and beat it over a gopher’s head to prepare food just in case the men didn’t bring back a hippo or got bitten in two by it. So, big tough Negro males were having kids with horrible ho’s like Serena Williams.

    In contrast, the ideal of feminine grace took hold in the West, and even tough white men began to favor the Heathers over the Helgas, so their kids got dorkier and dweebier though nicer and more civilized. Why did so many British guys end up looking and acting like Benedict Cumberpatch who makes my skin crawl. Or look at Ken Burns. Ewwwww. While I find black brutishness gross, white cuckaroo whoopeepeepoo qualities also rub me the wrong way.

    Anyway, the point is there is a biological and genetic component to what might be called the THUG SUPREMACISM among blacks.
    If Americans had enslaved a whole bunch of Japanese, would whites be having this problem? They would surely have some problems with Japanese-Americans due to history, but the fact would remain that Japanese-Americans would still be smaller than white Americans. Thus, whites would not fear them. To be sure, Japanese-Americans could try to get back at whites through economic and other means. Jews certainly have done this. As Jews are not big and strong, they cannot whup whites physically. But they have used intellectual, financial, and cultural means to subvert and harm the white race. That’s how Jews get even. By using their brains.

    We see in Europe that much of black violence owes to biology than history. Blacks in Europe arrived as immigrants and are showered with all kinds of goodies. But in many cases, they whup white boys and take white girls. They dominate sports.

    Now, there used to be a time when white women stood by white men even when white men lost. When Jim Jeffries lost to Jack Johnson, both white men and white women shared in the disappointment. They still sided with their own race and stood by their own race.
    But such loyalty is now gone for reasons of nature and ideology.
    Over time, women will favor the winners over the losers. As white girls see black guys winning in sports, funky music, and violence, they will go with black men and look down on white men. They will be like Teresa the ho in THE WILD BUNCH.
    But there is also the element of ideology. With Jews controlling media and academia, they’ve instilled whites will ‘guilt’, ‘self-loathing’, and betrayal-as-new-ideal.
    Under this conditioning, if a white girl sees a Negro whup a white boy, she is to choose the Negro and have his baby and laugh at the white boy, and the white boy, like the character in SPECTACULAR NOW, is to just accept it and be a ‘good sport’ loser.

    Of course, Jews would never tolerate such reality in Israel. If an Arab whupped a Jewish guy, do you think Jewish media and academia would IDEALIZE a Jewish woman mocking the loser Jewish guy and going with the winner Arab guy and having his kids? No way Jews would celebrate such behavior.
    Israeli military is about Jewish men and Jewish women serving side by side to kick Arab/Muslim ass. Unity of Jewer and Jewess. Unity of men and women of the race is the MOST IMPORTANT unity.
    That is why Jews have promoted feminism and interracism to undermine the white race. 90% of feminism is about making white girls see white boys are evil rapist-’racist’ thugs to blame for everything. And most of interracism is about encouraging and celebrating white girls shutting their wombs to white men and having babies with Negro men who whup white guys. The Jewish message to white women is “If you see a Negro guy kick a white guy’s ass, laugh at the white boy and go with the Negro.”
    That is what American sports are all sport. Should be called Cuckorts.

    So, it is about time we got serious about this. The main problem with Negroes is NOT about intelligence. I say THANK TODD they aren’t as intelligent because if blacks were both stronger and more intelligent, white race would be over. This is what Chanda Chisala is saying has to be paid much heed. Something is happening in Africa. Modernization has allowed black Africa to select the smart Negroes and these Negroes are having kids with tons of women cuz Negroes just love to hump everything in sight without inhibition.

    The real problem for white Americans is blacks are tougher and more aggressive. It is the THUG SUPREMACISM of Negroes that scares white folks to death.
    And it’s not mainly about history and sociology.
    Take Japan. Japan didn’t enslave the Negroes. But suppose Japan were to take in 10 to 20 million big-ass Negroes from West Africa. Most of the violence in Japan will be black Africans whupping Japanese butt. It comes down to biology.

    Given this problem, it is understandable why white folks actually prefer immigration as most immigrants are mongoids. Both Asians and mestizo/Indian ‘Hispanics’ are mongoidian. The natives of the Americas are closely related to East Asians as they crossed the Bering Sea during the Ice Age.
    Asian mongoids are smarter than mestizo mongoids, but both peoples are physically smaller and emotionally guillermo-like. Sort of ‘lame’ and ‘square’. There are also dotkins from Asian-India, but many of them are like dark-skinned whites or Arabs. They don’t pose a physical threat to whites and aren’t particularly violent though awful gabby and annoying at times.

    In some ways, diversity-via-immigration hurts white folks cuz of wage pressures, increased competition, and reduction in white numbers. But it also benefits whites to an extent of providing them with a buffer between themselves and Negroes.

    Also, the Democratic Party fears becoming the Black Party. If Democrats just cave into crazy blacks, more whites will leave and GOP will win. So, in order for Democratic Party to remain a defacto white/Jewish party(or white elite party), it has to become an immigrant party. That way, whites and affluent Jews can rule the party, the immigrants will make up the bulwark, and black votes will become less important as time goes on. White elites of Democratic party know that Asian and Mexican mongoids won’t make too many demands like the crazy Negroes do. They’ll just play ball, and as both groups are less troublesome than the Negroes, the Democratic Party will be appealing to affluent whites.

    The main reason for some blacks supporting Trump has to do with immigration. Blacks are beginning to sense that immigration is turning the Democratic Party from an ‘equality’ party to a ‘diversity’ party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Lmao I enjoy your comments. There are a lot of lucid sociological insights in them but then you often go off the rez and it makes for an amusing read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    We’ve gone beyond political correctness.

    We are now in the stage of Political Coercion.

    It is not enough to silence certain kind of speech.

    They now force people to voice support of the PC consensus.

    They say torture is worthless as a method since the torturee will say ANYTHING to please the torturer. If the torturer wants you to say A, you will say A whether A is true or not because you fear the pain. Forced confession is BS.

    Likewise, Political Coercion is worthless on moral grounds since people will say ANYTHING just to get the PC inquisition off their backs.

    In the US, you don’t physically torture people, but there are ways to apply such pressure on them socially and economically that most people bend under pressure. They will say just about anything to avoid being denounced, shunned, fired, and blacklisted.

    Coerced consensus is as worthless as forced confession.

    Colleges have become Libbyankas.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubyanka_Building

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Wilmingtonian
    I'm not sure it's so much that whites are afraid of blacks -- in the sense of physical fear -- as that we understand that the social status game that used to be weighted against them is now weighted against us. George Zimmerman was a cautionary tale for a lot of us. Shoot a black guy who's beating your head against a sidewalk, and you get tried for murder, vilified as a "stalker" and "profiler" in the national press and subjected to death threats that are never going to be investigated? The President of the United States uses his bully pulpit to take the side of your attacker? That sort of thing can happen because there's all manner of social stigma attached to "being a racist" or "acting racist." The object of the fear is polite society, not blacks as such.

    It's a bit analogous to saying that parents who don't spank their children are afraid of their three-year-olds. Of course they're not. They're afraid of what the busybody-industrial complex will do if they're found, especially in public, to be "hitting" or "beating" a poor defenseless child. Spanking isn't quite as low-status as having impure thoughts about racial equality, but it's getting there.

    An armed Zimmerman followed an unarmed Martin AGAINST instructions from the police. When Martin turned and stood his ground Zimmerman killed him. Was Martin a threat to Zimmerman? No. Was Martin breaking the law? No. Is Zimmerman a white guy? Maybe he thinks he is.

    You chose the wrong story to make your point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Discard
    What trade do you follow, WorkingClass?
    , @MarkinLA
    Martin threw the first punches unprovoked, that isn't "standing your ground". You should understand the law before you try and distort it. Martin was perfectly free to call the cops on Zimmerman or tell him where to go. The minute he assaulted Zimmerman he was no longer the innocent victim.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Boy, working class, you'd better get your story somewhere else than the NYT.

    All evidence agrees that Martin was on top of Zimmerman in a "ground-and-pound" MMA-style beating. Martin didn't stand his ground, he moved to confront a man he resented for following him.

    It was Martin who closed the distance. It was Martin on top of a man beating him in the head.

    He got shot for very good reason.

    We need to get something straight; real life isn't like TV. Being struck in the head, even once, can be fatal. A person who puts hands on another has completely rejected the social contract, and merits whatever personal catastrophe that befalls him.

    A man who dies by the hand of his victim while he's committing a violent crime is adjudged a suicide from a traditional view of Christian theology.

    Ours would be a healthier society if people prone to violent criminal acts were uniformly taken out of the gene pool, prior to reproducing, by their victims. It doesn't have to be by death. They can just get their gonads blown off (like the guy who killed a couple people last week and traded shots with a licensed person CCW.)
    , @guest
    You are remarkably ignorant, in which case why are you bothering to post on the subject, or are a liar. What does it matter if an armed person follows an unarmed one? What instructions from the police? He wasn't talking to the police. It was suggested he stop following Martin, and he did. Martin was gone for several minutes (remember the moment of silence the defense had the court sit through) before popping back up. Zimmerman didn't go to his car, but he also didn't stay a pace behind Martin, or anything of that nature.

    Your scenario about Zimmerman killing Martin as Martin turned to stand his ground is a complete fantasy, and is contradicted by the testimony of the girl Martin talked to on the phone. It's also contradicted by Zimmerman, not that you'd believe him. And we'll never know what precisely took place. But what seems obvious to me is that after almost getting home a fuming Martin decided "Aw, hell naw," and circled back to confront the nosy gentleman, a confrontation in the form of ambush, takedown, and pummeling. During which he either did or didn't reach for Zimmerman's gun. In either case, in fear for his life Zimmerman used his gun.

    Martin was a threat to Zimmerman, obviously. Did you see Zimmerman's bloody head. Martin was breaking the law, by attacking Zimmerman. Not even angelic sons Obama never had can attack people for having the gall to follow them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Discard says:
    @WorkingClass
    An armed Zimmerman followed an unarmed Martin AGAINST instructions from the police. When Martin turned and stood his ground Zimmerman killed him. Was Martin a threat to Zimmerman? No. Was Martin breaking the law? No. Is Zimmerman a white guy? Maybe he thinks he is.

    You chose the wrong story to make your point.

    What trade do you follow, WorkingClass?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Blobby5
    The 'rough trade' by the sound of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Blobby5 says:
    @Discard
    What trade do you follow, WorkingClass?

    The ‘rough trade’ by the sound of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. iffen says:
    @dearieme
    "parsing the cant phrase “White Supremacy"". Oh no you weren't: you know perfectly well that you were construing it.

    What's the name for the ideology that people with a decent education should attempt to hide the fact?

    An objective and accurate reading of history is not the same thing as White Supremacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. MarkinLA says:
    @WorkingClass
    An armed Zimmerman followed an unarmed Martin AGAINST instructions from the police. When Martin turned and stood his ground Zimmerman killed him. Was Martin a threat to Zimmerman? No. Was Martin breaking the law? No. Is Zimmerman a white guy? Maybe he thinks he is.

    You chose the wrong story to make your point.

    Martin threw the first punches unprovoked, that isn’t “standing your ground”. You should understand the law before you try and distort it. Martin was perfectly free to call the cops on Zimmerman or tell him where to go. The minute he assaulted Zimmerman he was no longer the innocent victim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Rohirrim says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none. The blacks might have been the ones calling for the police but the police would likely have been relatives of the homeowners and their sons who confronted the blacks in the first place. That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs.

    DH – As the son of a first-generation Irish-American mother from Boston’s Southie I agree with your analysis. I’d go a step further and mention that working women also goes a long way in explaining the deterioration of the ethnic enclaves. It was the stay-at-home mothers who ruled the roost and knew EVERYTHING that happened in the neighborhood. They were the eyes and ears and everybody knew everybody else and who your parents were. Almost everytime my friends and I were up to no good it was almost a certainty that my mother knew about it by the time I got home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Good point! I hadn't thought of the stay-at-home mom surveillance angle, but it was very much a factor in small-town Iowa where I grew up. A world that, sadly, no longer exists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    What we have is a problem of

    for/form.

    Intellectual institutions need two basic qualities for meet their true goals.

    (1) absolute freedom to consider all views, ideas, theories, narratives, facts, etc.

    (2) the proper manner by which the various, competing, contradictory, and divergent views and visions are put forth, discussed, and debated.

    An intellectual institution must allow all sorts of FOR arguments. For this, for that, for whatever that the thinker believes has value.

    But the institution must also enforce the propriety of certain forms by which the many ‘for’ arguments are made.

    There has to be an agreed-upon process, a set of rules, a way of manners, a way of mutual respect, and etc. People may disagree, indeed very strongly, but the disagreements must be aired in a civilized manner. Otherwise, the institution will just turn into a barbarian shouting match and bully pulpit where volume and threat of violence win the day. Rhetoric, as important as it is, must not trump reason on the academic setting.

    So, a college should be FOR anything but must enforce the proper FORM by which the FOR arguments are made and discussed.

    But US colleges have been going in the opposite direction since the 60s.
    The so-called ‘free speech’ movement was bound to work against genuine free speech since it was more a free sCreech movement. The radical students and activists didn’t want to put forth their argument logically and coherently and debate them with the other side. They were into shouting, screaming, taking over buildings, using violence, shouting slogans, using intimidation, making threats, and acting like barbarians at the gate. They didn’t want to win debates with logic, facts, and reason. They just wanted to out-shout and overpower the competition. And when these freaks eventually took over colleges in the late 80s, they began to institutionalize what they’d really been fighting for in the 60s and 70s. It was about control more than freedom. Freedom was only for their side to destroy, a weapon to destroy the other side. Is it any wonder that radical boomers came up with the notion of ‘free speech’ vs ‘hate speech’. These radicals and their Gen X puppets hate true free speech. The only love their own speech and hate any competing speech and seek to ban it as ‘hate speech’.

    So, the current PC university has a strange way of “for/form” dynamics. It doesn’t protect the freedom of ‘for’ arguments, no matter how congenially and civilly they are made. John Derbyshire isn’t a boor. He doesn’t act like Mr. T, Big Boss Man, Sam Kinison, Bluto, or Yosemite Sam. He doesn’t even act like Lou Grant. He has the proper collegiate form and is willing to make his argument in the proper manner that may be agreed or disagreed by others. But no matter how good, decent, and reasonable his ‘form’, what he is ‘for’ makes him a persona-non-grata.
    So, the present college policy is that no ‘for’ argument, however rationally made with proper form and gathered facts, is permissible if it is ‘for’ the wrong kinds of views.
    But, if the ‘for’ argument is approved by PC, the ‘form’ can be as gross, ugly, vile, demented, retarded, hysterical, loony, delirious, insane, rabid, virulent, putrid, bullying, threatening, and infantile.

    Just look at the current state of college debates. Just because the ‘for’ arguments by Negroes are favored by PC, their ‘forms’ can be wild, savage, and gross as can be.
    In other words, if you have the right ‘for’ argument, your can carry on with the ‘form’ of an anti-civilizational savage. It’s the narcissism of the stupid and savage, as long as the message is approved by the armchair radical class. This is why Allan Bloom left Cornell. The administration caved to black thugs. Once radicals and thugs smelled the blood of weakness in the 60s, colleges have been losing more and more ground to the radicals and thugs.

    So, if the classic ideal of higher education was “you can say anything but you have to put forth your argument in proper form”, the new way is “you can only say what we approve but you can say it it in the most hysterical and demented manner.” The wild antics of SJW and Negroes give the impression of freedom and lively discourse on campus but it is really the kind of climate of fear and intimidation used by Mao with Red Guards.

    As for Conservatism Inc., it is useless and irrelevant. While folks at National Review and New Criterion are indeed into proper ‘form’, they don’t have the courage to make the controversial ‘for’ arguments. Just because the ‘form’ should be civil, Conservatism Inc. assumes that ‘for” arguments must be ‘respectable’. But truth is often dark, disturbing, and troublesome. So, even though Jason Richwine made his argument in a civil manner, he was purged. Conservatism Inc. is also hypocritical because, even as it derides the ‘vulgar’ style of Trump, it looks the other way when it comes to the ethno-vulgarity of Neocons who throw fits about people they don’t like.

    True higher education is not about nice tea parties and congenial get-togethers, though there are occasions for that. It is about dealing with tough, hard, dark, and difficult topics BUT in the with the proper form so that reason and open debate will prevail over intimidation, threats, violence, tempers, and rage. It’s about coming with a skullful of mush and leave thinking like lawyers.

    Higher education should be “you can go anywhere but you must obey the traffic signals”. But in the current situation, it is “you must drive on the approved highways but you can do all the road rage you want.” Limit the ‘for’ and barbarize the ‘form’ by which the approved ‘for’ is promoted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Dear Dominique Francon Society:
    I agree with all the statements you make.
    Somehow I do not see among your statements
    anything about honest STEM education.
    I think John Derbyshire’s original education was in mathematics.
    On the other hand, it was, AFAIK, in 1962-1966 in London.
    Your I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @Rohirrim
    DH - As the son of a first-generation Irish-American mother from Boston's Southie I agree with your analysis. I'd go a step further and mention that working women also goes a long way in explaining the deterioration of the ethnic enclaves. It was the stay-at-home mothers who ruled the roost and knew EVERYTHING that happened in the neighborhood. They were the eyes and ears and everybody knew everybody else and who your parents were. Almost everytime my friends and I were up to no good it was almost a certainty that my mother knew about it by the time I got home.

    Good point! I hadn’t thought of the stay-at-home mom surveillance angle, but it was very much a factor in small-town Iowa where I grew up. A world that, sadly, no longer exists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Corvinus
    "I’ve always assumed that the reason black rioting never moves toward white suburbs and white enclaves because doing so would pile up rioters’ bodies like cordwood. YT isn’t going to turn the other cheek if the Orc Horde floods, Molotov Cocktails in hand, toward his home."

    Probably because that type of black rioting will not reach the type of levels that sparks the much ballyhooed notion of race wars between whites and non-whites.

    Besides, whites in white neighborhoods usually lack the stomach for anything violent. The local police department and National Guard would take care of the riff raff, so Mr. and Mrs. White wouldn't be getting out their shotguns and body bags.

    Besides, whites in white neighborhoods usually lack the stomach for anything violent.

    You must live in a place far removed from where I live.

    so Mr. and Mrs. White wouldn’t be getting out their shotguns and body bags.

    A neighbor who has since moved away might disagree. He had an HK 91 (semi-auto version of Germany’s 7.62×51 battle rifle) among quite a gun collection and made no bones about what would happen if someone was dumb enough to do a drive-by. You may believe such people are all talk, but in my experience they would be very quick to step up the moment “the local police and national guard” don’t take care of the riff raff.

    Lurk for a few days at arfcom (ar15.com) and see if you think America is full of all-hat, no cattle whities.

    I stand by my position; the “riots” will never spill into predominately white areas because if they do, by definition the cops will be home taking care of their own families and those content to let the cops suppress the riff raff will simply load up and mow down.

    There are a whole lot of angry middle class people about to be non-middle class. Any scapegoat will do when that time comes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “You must live in a place far removed from where I live.”



    Your exception is not the general rule.

    “You may believe such people are all talk, but in my experience they would be very quick to step up the moment “the local police and national guard” don’t take care of the riff raff.”

    Vigilante justice. It ain’t for breakfast anymore.

    “Lurk for a few days at arfcom (ar15.com) and see if you think America is full of all-hat, no cattle whities.”

    It’s a gun site. There’s plenty of those on the Internet.

    “I stand by my position; the “riots” will never spill into predominately white areas because if they do, by definition the cops will be home taking care of their own families and those content to let the cops suppress the riff raff will simply load up and mow down.”

    You can double down if you like. But against an Ace up, chances are the down card is a ten.

    “There are a whole lot of angry middle class people about to be non-middle class. Any scapegoat will do when that time comes.”



    Just because someone is angry does not mean they will pull triggers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @WorkingClass
    An armed Zimmerman followed an unarmed Martin AGAINST instructions from the police. When Martin turned and stood his ground Zimmerman killed him. Was Martin a threat to Zimmerman? No. Was Martin breaking the law? No. Is Zimmerman a white guy? Maybe he thinks he is.

    You chose the wrong story to make your point.

    Boy, working class, you’d better get your story somewhere else than the NYT.

    All evidence agrees that Martin was on top of Zimmerman in a “ground-and-pound” MMA-style beating. Martin didn’t stand his ground, he moved to confront a man he resented for following him.

    It was Martin who closed the distance. It was Martin on top of a man beating him in the head.

    He got shot for very good reason.

    We need to get something straight; real life isn’t like TV. Being struck in the head, even once, can be fatal. A person who puts hands on another has completely rejected the social contract, and merits whatever personal catastrophe that befalls him.

    A man who dies by the hand of his victim while he’s committing a violent crime is adjudged a suicide from a traditional view of Christian theology.

    Ours would be a healthier society if people prone to violent criminal acts were uniformly taken out of the gene pool, prior to reproducing, by their victims. It doesn’t have to be by death. They can just get their gonads blown off (like the guy who killed a couple people last week and traded shots with a licensed person CCW.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Ours would be a healthier society if people prone to violent criminal acts were uniformly taken out of the gene pool, prior to reproducing, by their victims. It doesn’t have to be by death. They can just get their gonads blown off (like the guy who killed a couple people last week and traded shots with a licensed person CCW.)"

    Why just violent acts? Would it not also be prudent to also take out those who commit "anti-white" crimes? Or those individuals who are "white collar" criminals who steal billions of dollars from "honest whites"?

    Praytell, what gives you the liberty to simply take people out of the gene pool?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Besides, whites in white neighborhoods usually lack the stomach for anything violent.
     
    You must live in a place far removed from where I live.

    so Mr. and Mrs. White wouldn’t be getting out their shotguns and body bags.
     
    A neighbor who has since moved away might disagree. He had an HK 91 (semi-auto version of Germany's 7.62x51 battle rifle) among quite a gun collection and made no bones about what would happen if someone was dumb enough to do a drive-by. You may believe such people are all talk, but in my experience they would be very quick to step up the moment "the local police and national guard" don't take care of the riff raff.

    Lurk for a few days at arfcom (ar15.com) and see if you think America is full of all-hat, no cattle whities.

    I stand by my position; the "riots" will never spill into predominately white areas because if they do, by definition the cops will be home taking care of their own families and those content to let the cops suppress the riff raff will simply load up and mow down.

    There are a whole lot of angry middle class people about to be non-middle class. Any scapegoat will do when that time comes.

    “You must live in a place far removed from where I live.”



    Your exception is not the general rule.

    “You may believe such people are all talk, but in my experience they would be very quick to step up the moment “the local police and national guard” don’t take care of the riff raff.”

    Vigilante justice. It ain’t for breakfast anymore.

    “Lurk for a few days at arfcom (ar15.com) and see if you think America is full of all-hat, no cattle whities.”

    It’s a gun site. There’s plenty of those on the Internet.

    “I stand by my position; the “riots” will never spill into predominately white areas because if they do, by definition the cops will be home taking care of their own families and those content to let the cops suppress the riff raff will simply load up and mow down.”

    You can double down if you like. But against an Ace up, chances are the down card is a ten.

    “There are a whole lot of angry middle class people about to be non-middle class. Any scapegoat will do when that time comes.”



    Just because someone is angry does not mean they will pull triggers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets
    Boy, working class, you'd better get your story somewhere else than the NYT.

    All evidence agrees that Martin was on top of Zimmerman in a "ground-and-pound" MMA-style beating. Martin didn't stand his ground, he moved to confront a man he resented for following him.

    It was Martin who closed the distance. It was Martin on top of a man beating him in the head.

    He got shot for very good reason.

    We need to get something straight; real life isn't like TV. Being struck in the head, even once, can be fatal. A person who puts hands on another has completely rejected the social contract, and merits whatever personal catastrophe that befalls him.

    A man who dies by the hand of his victim while he's committing a violent crime is adjudged a suicide from a traditional view of Christian theology.

    Ours would be a healthier society if people prone to violent criminal acts were uniformly taken out of the gene pool, prior to reproducing, by their victims. It doesn't have to be by death. They can just get their gonads blown off (like the guy who killed a couple people last week and traded shots with a licensed person CCW.)

    “Ours would be a healthier society if people prone to violent criminal acts were uniformly taken out of the gene pool, prior to reproducing, by their victims. It doesn’t have to be by death. They can just get their gonads blown off (like the guy who killed a couple people last week and traded shots with a licensed person CCW.)”

    Why just violent acts? Would it not also be prudent to also take out those who commit “anti-white” crimes? Or those individuals who are “white collar” criminals who steal billions of dollars from “honest whites”?

    Praytell, what gives you the liberty to simply take people out of the gene pool?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    You know why just violent acts. Because those acts justify violent response. What might give the above poster the liberty to take people out of the gene pool is the principle of self-defense.

    Wait until somebody posts about castration for bad table manners before you get all high and mighty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Figures publicly identified as leaders of organized crime

    That doesn’t seem to occlude the Bush and Clinton mobsters from speaking to colleges. And many of the 9/11 traitors, like Condi Rice.

    Discrimination for sure. Maybe you should go out and commit some war crimes, then you’d be ‘one of them’ and acceptable!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Rehmat says:

    Mr. Derbyshire – could you please enlighten your readers on which White country has ‘academic freedom’, except the freedom to insult Islam and Christianity?

    No, I’m not talking about the notorious Danish Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo magazine or US media portraying Muslims as “terrorists” while ignoring the fact the FBI claimed in its 2006 report that 6% of terrorist activities involved Muslims as compared to 7% by Jews and the rest by Christian, White supremacists and atheists.

    “Why discredit, defame and silence those with opposing viewpoints? I believe it is because the Zionist Lobby knows it cannot win based on facts,” – Dr. Joel Beinin (Jewish professor at Stanford University in his article “Silencing critics not way to Middle East peace”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 2007).

    “I grew up as a White girl in the Jim Crow South and I have spent my adult life in the study of racism, what I see when I go to Palestine is Jim Crow on steroids,” – Tema Okun, a Jewish academic in ‘A Jewish state – or Jewish values?’, Mondoweiss, July 12, 2009).

    “How tragic that in our own time the very state established by the Jews in the aftermath of this evil has become a place where racialism, religious discrimination, militarism, and injustic prevail; and that Israel itself has become a pariah state whin the world community. Events taking place today are all too reminiscent of the pogroms from which our own forefathers fled two and three generations ago – but this time those in authority are Jews and the victims are Muslim and Christian Palestinians,” – statement from 18 prominent American Jews, The Nation, February 3, 1988.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/08/30/zionists-academic-terrorism/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You completely misunderstand the concept of academic freedom. I don't suppose it had any relevance in the engineering school or faculty that presumably you once studied at. Interesting thought for someone who does understand academic freedom: think of an engineering issue where the concept could be important. I suppose continued insistence on the danger of certain techniques could cause problems with some donors/sponsors.

    Another thought about academic freedom: it is meant to protect the truth seeking of scholars and researchers; how far and how do the principles apply to undergraduate students and their extracurrricular activities?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Thanks for the clarification about Virginia Dare, Derb. Missed the reference to “North America” ’till I re-read it the second time. Though off the subject, this raises the following question: Do we know who the first WHITE person was who was born on American soil?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. He suddenly realized that whites are now afraid of blacks.

    I’m sure this may be true for some whites. But for a great many of us the fear is of our government. We know that if we act to defend our neighborhoods and our society, *we* wind up unemployable and perhaps imprisoned where we are of no help to our families. This is our *only* fear. Sam Francis’ anarcho-tyranny is at work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. guest says:
    @dc.sunsets
    Zimmerman had the bad luck to have his situation selected (from among who knows how many other candidates) for the Narrative, same as the students at Duke University. It's rare, but it happens.

    It was a relatively rare confluence of events; it seems unlikely that had Zimmerman simply been a bystander and Martin been somehow (more) spontaneously hostile the event would have attracted any attention at all.

    The takeaway? For me, it's be observant but uninvolved, and if trouble comes calling, respond proportionally. That absolutely can include how Zimmerman responded. Life is a gift, ones most precious possession, and anyone who seeks to take it should be stopped accordingly.

    Zimmerman was selected for his name more than anything else. If it had been seen as brown on black, which it was, instead of “White Hispanic” on black, there’d be no story. Most of the other elements that got the story play were beyond Zimmerman’s control: the “gated community,” the cops being perceived as derelict in their duty, the fact that Stand Your Ground (not that it applied, Zimmerman being on his back) was in the news at the time, the fact that Zimmerman was an adult and Martin wasn’t, etc.

    Not that none of Zimmerman’s actions contributed to the story, if not to the ridiculous prosecution. Apparently you’re just not supposed to follow black people, ever, lest it seem like you’re entrapping them into attacking you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. guest says:
    @WorkingClass
    An armed Zimmerman followed an unarmed Martin AGAINST instructions from the police. When Martin turned and stood his ground Zimmerman killed him. Was Martin a threat to Zimmerman? No. Was Martin breaking the law? No. Is Zimmerman a white guy? Maybe he thinks he is.

    You chose the wrong story to make your point.

    You are remarkably ignorant, in which case why are you bothering to post on the subject, or are a liar. What does it matter if an armed person follows an unarmed one? What instructions from the police? He wasn’t talking to the police. It was suggested he stop following Martin, and he did. Martin was gone for several minutes (remember the moment of silence the defense had the court sit through) before popping back up. Zimmerman didn’t go to his car, but he also didn’t stay a pace behind Martin, or anything of that nature.

    Your scenario about Zimmerman killing Martin as Martin turned to stand his ground is a complete fantasy, and is contradicted by the testimony of the girl Martin talked to on the phone. It’s also contradicted by Zimmerman, not that you’d believe him. And we’ll never know what precisely took place. But what seems obvious to me is that after almost getting home a fuming Martin decided “Aw, hell naw,” and circled back to confront the nosy gentleman, a confrontation in the form of ambush, takedown, and pummeling. During which he either did or didn’t reach for Zimmerman’s gun. In either case, in fear for his life Zimmerman used his gun.

    Martin was a threat to Zimmerman, obviously. Did you see Zimmerman’s bloody head. Martin was breaking the law, by attacking Zimmerman. Not even angelic sons Obama never had can attack people for having the gall to follow them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Silly boy. Don't you know that black men have an inalienable right to attack creepy-ass crackers for any reason they may deem fit?? You're so blinded by your white supremacist beliefs that you would seek to deny this birthright of African kings. Bigot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. guest says:
    @Corvinus
    "Ours would be a healthier society if people prone to violent criminal acts were uniformly taken out of the gene pool, prior to reproducing, by their victims. It doesn’t have to be by death. They can just get their gonads blown off (like the guy who killed a couple people last week and traded shots with a licensed person CCW.)"

    Why just violent acts? Would it not also be prudent to also take out those who commit "anti-white" crimes? Or those individuals who are "white collar" criminals who steal billions of dollars from "honest whites"?

    Praytell, what gives you the liberty to simply take people out of the gene pool?

    You know why just violent acts. Because those acts justify violent response. What might give the above poster the liberty to take people out of the gene pool is the principle of self-defense.

    Wait until somebody posts about castration for bad table manners before you get all high and mighty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You know why just violent acts. Because those acts justify violent response."

    Are not the machinations of billionaires, banksters, and corporate welfare cheats just as "violent", i.e. their actions aggressively attack the middle class and the masses?

    "What might give the above poster the liberty to take people out of the gene pool is the principle of self-defense."

    Why not those who have yet to commit crimes? You know, those groups of people who are allegedly more prone to heinous acts? Why stop with only known offenders?

    "Wait until somebody posts about castration for bad table manners before you get all high and mighty."

    Well, that wouldn't surprise me if dc.sunsets or yourself would make such proposals.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Corvinus says:
    @guest
    You know why just violent acts. Because those acts justify violent response. What might give the above poster the liberty to take people out of the gene pool is the principle of self-defense.

    Wait until somebody posts about castration for bad table manners before you get all high and mighty.

    “You know why just violent acts. Because those acts justify violent response.”

    Are not the machinations of billionaires, banksters, and corporate welfare cheats just as “violent”, i.e. their actions aggressively attack the middle class and the masses?

    “What might give the above poster the liberty to take people out of the gene pool is the principle of self-defense.”

    Why not those who have yet to commit crimes? You know, those groups of people who are allegedly more prone to heinous acts? Why stop with only known offenders?

    “Wait until somebody posts about castration for bad table manners before you get all high and mighty.”

    Well, that wouldn’t surprise me if dc.sunsets or yourself would make such proposals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    By all means argue that the Bernie Madoff genes should be taken out of the pool with the same priority as genes conducive to physical violence but please spare us the pomo perversion of language which already requires me to say "physical violence" for perfect clarity. "You do violence to the language [or facts]" is the kind of old metaphor that was clearly marked as metaphor and therefore not open to the same objection as your use of "violent". Try "dangerous" or "harmful".
    , @AndrewR
    What is so lacking in your life that you feel the urge to spend so much time trolling this site, picking fights and arguing in bad faith?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Rehmat
    Mr. Derbyshire - could you please enlighten your readers on which White country has 'academic freedom', except the freedom to insult Islam and Christianity?

    No, I'm not talking about the notorious Danish Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo magazine or US media portraying Muslims as "terrorists" while ignoring the fact the FBI claimed in its 2006 report that 6% of terrorist activities involved Muslims as compared to 7% by Jews and the rest by Christian, White supremacists and atheists.

    “Why discredit, defame and silence those with opposing viewpoints? I believe it is because the Zionist Lobby knows it cannot win based on facts,” – Dr. Joel Beinin (Jewish professor at Stanford University in his article “Silencing critics not way to Middle East peace”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 2007).

    “I grew up as a White girl in the Jim Crow South and I have spent my adult life in the study of racism, what I see when I go to Palestine is Jim Crow on steroids,” – Tema Okun, a Jewish academic in ‘A Jewish state – or Jewish values?’, Mondoweiss, July 12, 2009).

    “How tragic that in our own time the very state established by the Jews in the aftermath of this evil has become a place where racialism, religious discrimination, militarism, and injustic prevail; and that Israel itself has become a pariah state whin the world community. Events taking place today are all too reminiscent of the pogroms from which our own forefathers fled two and three generations ago – but this time those in authority are Jews and the victims are Muslim and Christian Palestinians,” – statement from 18 prominent American Jews, The Nation, February 3, 1988.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/08/30/zionists-academic-terrorism/

    You completely misunderstand the concept of academic freedom. I don’t suppose it had any relevance in the engineering school or faculty that presumably you once studied at. Interesting thought for someone who does understand academic freedom: think of an engineering issue where the concept could be important. I suppose continued insistence on the danger of certain techniques could cause problems with some donors/sponsors.

    Another thought about academic freedom: it is meant to protect the truth seeking of scholars and researchers; how far and how do the principles apply to undergraduate students and their extracurrricular activities?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Wyrd says:

    Corvinus is tedious by a thousand cuts.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Corvinus
    "You know why just violent acts. Because those acts justify violent response."

    Are not the machinations of billionaires, banksters, and corporate welfare cheats just as "violent", i.e. their actions aggressively attack the middle class and the masses?

    "What might give the above poster the liberty to take people out of the gene pool is the principle of self-defense."

    Why not those who have yet to commit crimes? You know, those groups of people who are allegedly more prone to heinous acts? Why stop with only known offenders?

    "Wait until somebody posts about castration for bad table manners before you get all high and mighty."

    Well, that wouldn't surprise me if dc.sunsets or yourself would make such proposals.

    By all means argue that the Bernie Madoff genes should be taken out of the pool with the same priority as genes conducive to physical violence but please spare us the pomo perversion of language which already requires me to say “physical violence” for perfect clarity. “You do violence to the language [or facts]” is the kind of old metaphor that was clearly marked as metaphor and therefore not open to the same objection as your use of “violent”. Try “dangerous” or “harmful”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Corvinus says:

    “By all means argue that the Bernie Madoff genes should be taken out of the pool with the same priority as genes conducive to physical violence…”

    Whether it be physical violence or “white collar crime”, BOTH equate to a person who is psychopathic.

    “but please spare us the pomo perversion of language which already requires me to say “physical violence” for perfect clarity.”

    There is no perversion here. Madoff clearly demonstrated that his Ponzi scheme was a violent crime without a tangible weapon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. AndrewR says:
    @JackOH
    Thanks for this update. We're expected to believe that at one and the same time Mr. Derbyshire's views are, well, y'know . . . marginal, but nonetheless persuasive and potent enough to rouse the elite Williams campus from its collegial slumber into what? A state of wakefulness, maybe, or how about some modest questioning about the PC slop that's dished our way?

    Not off-topic, but a bit askew: a childhood friend of mine, Bobby, died a few days ago. His father, Merle, served as a young combat sergeant under Gen. Patton in WWII. By the late 1980s, Merle and his wife, Carrie, still lived in their paid-up house in the old neighborhood, which had been informally annexed into Gangbangerland. Bobby, whom I saw every few years, said it was okay, as long as his parents didn't venture out after dark, or accidently diss a gangbanger. FWIW-a society that can't summon the moral wherewithal to even recognize the wickedness in the situation forced upon Merle and Carrie may not be worth a damn.

    Sorry to hear about your friend.

    And I’m sorry to hear about Merle who risked his life to defeat a “racist” regime only to return home and become a second-class citizen by his old age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Thanks. It seems to me a natural that an enterprising writer would investigate the theme of elderly WWII veterans living in fear in their own neighborhoods, and what that means.

    I was sickened by Bobby's mention of how Merle and Carrie had to rationalize their adjustments to a neighborhood controlled by gangbangers. I can only imagine if America had succumbed to a successful foreign invasion we might hear people saying it's not so bad, just don't go out after dark, and make sure to show proper respect to the occupation authorities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. AndrewR says:
    @Wilmingtonian
    Yep. The social fabric then (and even today in a few receding ethnic Fishtowns) mostly didn't even require intervention by the law, everyone was operating from the same script. There's still a common script, it's just a different script. If the old script was titled "White Supremacy," then the title of the new one is...?

    White suigenocide

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. AndrewR says:
    @Priss Factor
    "the greatest, the most unmentionable, of all the many Unmentionables about race in America: that whites, in the generality, are scared of blacks, in the generality"

    This formulation doesn't go far enough. After all, PC allows one to admit that whites do have fear of blacks.
    But the explanations are historical and/or social, i.e. blacks attack whites because of historical grievance/vengeance or because blacks are poor and naturally rob others who got more.

    Now, there is some degree of legitimacy to these views. Surely, blacks have historical grievances, especially as black rage is kept alive by media and academia. And by pop culture of rap and sports culture of black thuggery.
    And surely, most blacks who commit crime tend to be economically depressed blacks.

    But there is more to this.
    After all, Japanese-Americans and American Indians may have grievances too due to 'internment' or being forced off their ancestral land. (I heard this joke: Why did Indians lose America? Because they didn't make reservations.)
    And there was indeed collective grievances that led to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and American Indians making raids on whites. But those were collective wars. Japan fought US, and American Indian tribes attacked whites.
    But once the dust settled, individual Japanese-Americans and individual American Indians were no threat to Americans. Even if they may feel hatred for whitey, your average Japanese American isn't very big or tough. Same goes for the American Indian. So, whatever rage they feel, it remains inside them. Also, even if they feel the rage, they are not a very aggressive or wild-ass people.
    In contrast, blacks are aggressive, wild-ass, bigger, and stronger than white folks. Evolution made them this way. Also, most of black interracial violence isn't against rich whites but poor whites. Economic reasons fail to explain this. Indeed, you often see more affluent blacks kicking the asses of poorer whites.

    The hot temperature in Africa made for leaner muscle(as people in colder climes needed more fat for insulation). And disease and mosquitoes weeded out the weaker Negroes. And there were tons of dangerous animals in Africa that were chasing Negroes not least because Negroes chucked spears at them.

    Just think. Imagine if white folks had to obtain food by chucking spears at hippos and cape buffaloes.
    In our world, white folks can just go shopping. Even fat, slow, and weak whites can get plenty of food. (And for 1000s of yrs, white folks had surplus food thru agriculture.)
    But suppose all the Walmarts disappear, and the only way whites can get food is by chucking spears at hippos, rhinos, crocodiles, gorillas, and buffaloes. First of all, it will have to be a stronger white guy since a weaker guy will have to get nearer to hit the beast with the spear. But even before he lobs the spear, he could be attacked and killed.
    Now, suppose some tough white guy chucks the spear from far. The angry hippo is gonna charge the whiteys, and a bunch of slow weak whiteys are gonna get mauled and trampled by the hippo.

    So, if white folks had to obtain food only by chucking spears at hippos, a whole bunch of whiteys are gonna killed and weeded out, and only the tough ones will survive and mate.
    That is why Negroes are tougher. When they were hungry, they couldn't just go to Walmart and buy a bag of drumsticks for $8.99. They had to chuck spears at big strong animals that fought back. Any weakling Negro would have gotten killed and been weeded out of the Negro gene pool. Someone like J.J. of GOOD TIMES wouldn't have made it. Arnold of Diff'rent Strokes would have been weeded out too.

    Also, as Africa was wild and crazy, tough men went with tough women. There was no room for femininity and ladylike behavior. It was a world of tough men and tough women who had to take a big rock and beat it over a gopher's head to prepare food just in case the men didn't bring back a hippo or got bitten in two by it. So, big tough Negro males were having kids with horrible ho's like Serena Williams.

    In contrast, the ideal of feminine grace took hold in the West, and even tough white men began to favor the Heathers over the Helgas, so their kids got dorkier and dweebier though nicer and more civilized. Why did so many British guys end up looking and acting like Benedict Cumberpatch who makes my skin crawl. Or look at Ken Burns. Ewwwww. While I find black brutishness gross, white cuckaroo whoopeepeepoo qualities also rub me the wrong way.

    Anyway, the point is there is a biological and genetic component to what might be called the THUG SUPREMACISM among blacks.
    If Americans had enslaved a whole bunch of Japanese, would whites be having this problem? They would surely have some problems with Japanese-Americans due to history, but the fact would remain that Japanese-Americans would still be smaller than white Americans. Thus, whites would not fear them. To be sure, Japanese-Americans could try to get back at whites through economic and other means. Jews certainly have done this. As Jews are not big and strong, they cannot whup whites physically. But they have used intellectual, financial, and cultural means to subvert and harm the white race. That's how Jews get even. By using their brains.

    We see in Europe that much of black violence owes to biology than history. Blacks in Europe arrived as immigrants and are showered with all kinds of goodies. But in many cases, they whup white boys and take white girls. They dominate sports.

    Now, there used to be a time when white women stood by white men even when white men lost. When Jim Jeffries lost to Jack Johnson, both white men and white women shared in the disappointment. They still sided with their own race and stood by their own race.
    But such loyalty is now gone for reasons of nature and ideology.
    Over time, women will favor the winners over the losers. As white girls see black guys winning in sports, funky music, and violence, they will go with black men and look down on white men. They will be like Teresa the ho in THE WILD BUNCH.
    But there is also the element of ideology. With Jews controlling media and academia, they've instilled whites will 'guilt', 'self-loathing', and betrayal-as-new-ideal.
    Under this conditioning, if a white girl sees a Negro whup a white boy, she is to choose the Negro and have his baby and laugh at the white boy, and the white boy, like the character in SPECTACULAR NOW, is to just accept it and be a 'good sport' loser.

    Of course, Jews would never tolerate such reality in Israel. If an Arab whupped a Jewish guy, do you think Jewish media and academia would IDEALIZE a Jewish woman mocking the loser Jewish guy and going with the winner Arab guy and having his kids? No way Jews would celebrate such behavior.
    Israeli military is about Jewish men and Jewish women serving side by side to kick Arab/Muslim ass. Unity of Jewer and Jewess. Unity of men and women of the race is the MOST IMPORTANT unity.
    That is why Jews have promoted feminism and interracism to undermine the white race. 90% of feminism is about making white girls see white boys are evil rapist-'racist' thugs to blame for everything. And most of interracism is about encouraging and celebrating white girls shutting their wombs to white men and having babies with Negro men who whup white guys. The Jewish message to white women is "If you see a Negro guy kick a white guy's ass, laugh at the white boy and go with the Negro."
    That is what American sports are all sport. Should be called Cuckorts.

    So, it is about time we got serious about this. The main problem with Negroes is NOT about intelligence. I say THANK TODD they aren't as intelligent because if blacks were both stronger and more intelligent, white race would be over. This is what Chanda Chisala is saying has to be paid much heed. Something is happening in Africa. Modernization has allowed black Africa to select the smart Negroes and these Negroes are having kids with tons of women cuz Negroes just love to hump everything in sight without inhibition.

    The real problem for white Americans is blacks are tougher and more aggressive. It is the THUG SUPREMACISM of Negroes that scares white folks to death.
    And it's not mainly about history and sociology.
    Take Japan. Japan didn't enslave the Negroes. But suppose Japan were to take in 10 to 20 million big-ass Negroes from West Africa. Most of the violence in Japan will be black Africans whupping Japanese butt. It comes down to biology.

    Given this problem, it is understandable why white folks actually prefer immigration as most immigrants are mongoids. Both Asians and mestizo/Indian 'Hispanics' are mongoidian. The natives of the Americas are closely related to East Asians as they crossed the Bering Sea during the Ice Age.
    Asian mongoids are smarter than mestizo mongoids, but both peoples are physically smaller and emotionally guillermo-like. Sort of 'lame' and 'square'. There are also dotkins from Asian-India, but many of them are like dark-skinned whites or Arabs. They don't pose a physical threat to whites and aren't particularly violent though awful gabby and annoying at times.

    In some ways, diversity-via-immigration hurts white folks cuz of wage pressures, increased competition, and reduction in white numbers. But it also benefits whites to an extent of providing them with a buffer between themselves and Negroes.

    Also, the Democratic Party fears becoming the Black Party. If Democrats just cave into crazy blacks, more whites will leave and GOP will win. So, in order for Democratic Party to remain a defacto white/Jewish party(or white elite party), it has to become an immigrant party. That way, whites and affluent Jews can rule the party, the immigrants will make up the bulwark, and black votes will become less important as time goes on. White elites of Democratic party know that Asian and Mexican mongoids won't make too many demands like the crazy Negroes do. They'll just play ball, and as both groups are less troublesome than the Negroes, the Democratic Party will be appealing to affluent whites.

    The main reason for some blacks supporting Trump has to do with immigration. Blacks are beginning to sense that immigration is turning the Democratic Party from an 'equality' party to a 'diversity' party.

    Lmao I enjoy your comments. There are a lot of lucid sociological insights in them but then you often go off the rez and it makes for an amusing read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. AndrewR says:
    @Corvinus
    "You know why just violent acts. Because those acts justify violent response."

    Are not the machinations of billionaires, banksters, and corporate welfare cheats just as "violent", i.e. their actions aggressively attack the middle class and the masses?

    "What might give the above poster the liberty to take people out of the gene pool is the principle of self-defense."

    Why not those who have yet to commit crimes? You know, those groups of people who are allegedly more prone to heinous acts? Why stop with only known offenders?

    "Wait until somebody posts about castration for bad table manners before you get all high and mighty."

    Well, that wouldn't surprise me if dc.sunsets or yourself would make such proposals.

    What is so lacking in your life that you feel the urge to spend so much time trolling this site, picking fights and arguing in bad faith?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What is so lacking in your life that you feel the urge to spend so much time trolling this site, picking fights and arguing in bad faith?"

    The same reason you are here--I'm getting my free stuff because I dindunuffin :)

    Listen, you're going to have to be more specific regarding the "picking fights" and "arguing in bad faith". What in particular bothers you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. AndrewR says:
    @guest
    You are remarkably ignorant, in which case why are you bothering to post on the subject, or are a liar. What does it matter if an armed person follows an unarmed one? What instructions from the police? He wasn't talking to the police. It was suggested he stop following Martin, and he did. Martin was gone for several minutes (remember the moment of silence the defense had the court sit through) before popping back up. Zimmerman didn't go to his car, but he also didn't stay a pace behind Martin, or anything of that nature.

    Your scenario about Zimmerman killing Martin as Martin turned to stand his ground is a complete fantasy, and is contradicted by the testimony of the girl Martin talked to on the phone. It's also contradicted by Zimmerman, not that you'd believe him. And we'll never know what precisely took place. But what seems obvious to me is that after almost getting home a fuming Martin decided "Aw, hell naw," and circled back to confront the nosy gentleman, a confrontation in the form of ambush, takedown, and pummeling. During which he either did or didn't reach for Zimmerman's gun. In either case, in fear for his life Zimmerman used his gun.

    Martin was a threat to Zimmerman, obviously. Did you see Zimmerman's bloody head. Martin was breaking the law, by attacking Zimmerman. Not even angelic sons Obama never had can attack people for having the gall to follow them.

    Silly boy. Don’t you know that black men have an inalienable right to attack creepy-ass crackers for any reason they may deem fit?? You’re so blinded by your white supremacist beliefs that you would seek to deny this birthright of African kings. Bigot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Corvinus says:
    @AndrewR
    What is so lacking in your life that you feel the urge to spend so much time trolling this site, picking fights and arguing in bad faith?

    “What is so lacking in your life that you feel the urge to spend so much time trolling this site, picking fights and arguing in bad faith?”

    The same reason you are here–I’m getting my free stuff because I dindunuffin :)

    Listen, you’re going to have to be more specific regarding the “picking fights” and “arguing in bad faith”. What in particular bothers you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. JackOH says:
    @AndrewR
    Sorry to hear about your friend.

    And I'm sorry to hear about Merle who risked his life to defeat a "racist" regime only to return home and become a second-class citizen by his old age.

    Thanks. It seems to me a natural that an enterprising writer would investigate the theme of elderly WWII veterans living in fear in their own neighborhoods, and what that means.

    I was sickened by Bobby’s mention of how Merle and Carrie had to rationalize their adjustments to a neighborhood controlled by gangbangers. I can only imagine if America had succumbed to a successful foreign invasion we might hear people saying it’s not so bad, just don’t go out after dark, and make sure to show proper respect to the occupation authorities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    According to a Forbes web-site,

    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/lmh45mlii/the-top-college-in-every/?nowelcome&utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=obtraffictier1

    Williams College is the best in Massachusetts:

    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/lmh45mlii/massachusetts-williams/

    (#2 out of about 500 total over USA).
    Where are MIT, Harvard ? By what criterion it is #2 ?
    However, University of Florida (public, in Gainesville ),

    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/lmh45mlii/florida-university-of-f/

    is indeed the top in Florida. But why it is #83 over the USA ?
    I would rate it higher.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. artichoke says:
    @Corvinus
    "Would the presence of an unfamiliar black person on no obvious errand or task in a white neighborhood have required the police? In an ethnically Polish, Italian or Irish neighborhood, the black(s) would have been confronted by a number of adults asking them their business and telling them to leave immediately if they had none."

    Likewise, if it was a Polish in an Italian or Irish neighborhood, or an Italian in a Polish or Irish neighborhood, they would be told to go on their merry way.

    "That type of neighborhood solidarity has been lost as whites fled the city for the suburbs."

    It was ETHNIC solidarity. Today, generally speaking, whites and blacks and Asians and Hispanics live in their own neighborhoods. They interact with different groups on a daily basis, and live life accordingly. In some cases (gasp), the various races are mixed up in the same neighborhood. The audacity of some people!

    As you don’t dispute, we’ve lost a lot of ethnic solidarity. We’re told not to have racial solidarity, at least whites are told that.

    I just point out to white people that every other racial group is acting as a team, and it makes sense for them to do the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS