The problem is that Derbyshire did make the argument in a rational sober tone. No matter how much the message is sugarcoated, the Left and their dog robbers in the Republican party will cry r-r-racist! Self censoring to avoid hurt feelings is just one of the effeminate intellectual shackles that Marxism has foisted on public debate.
People, with few exception are extremely maladapt at probabilistic thinking. A lack of intelligence doesn’t make anyone a bad person. But chances are they will be extremely poor decision makers, have lower inhibitions, poor impulse control, etc. Derbyshire did not say that Blacks are stupid, corrupt, corrupt, and to be avoided. He said that a significant number were stupider, more corrupt, and more dangerous than the national (non-black) mean and those to be avoided. People have the freedom of association and there are plenty of non-black individuals I would write off ever interacting with. It just so happens to be that there are plenty more blacks on that list (Disparate Impact!). Why take the risk at all when the opportunity costs of avoiding it are so negligible.
“The problem is that Derbyshire did make the argument in a rational sober tone.”
No, you see, I don’t really think he did.
The tone of the piece is sneering, the crack about the Fields Medal and the instruction not to help black people are two rather glaring examples.
I grew up in NYC in the 1960s and 70s and I’m well familiar with black people, the pathological problems they create (for themselves and others), my father was a welfare case worker, I attended public schools, I’ve lived in a couple of the worst neighborhoods NY has to offer. Family members and friends have been on more than 3 occasions crime victims and yes, always by black perps. I daresay I know a at least as much, if not a good deal more about American blacks (at least those in the NY Metro area) than Mr. Derbyshire does.
To be perfectly frank I’ve searched in vain for a white pride organization that is not neo-Nazi and anti-semetic, because if I could find one, I’d join it.
But I’m sorry, I think this piece was over-the-top. I think the tone was very dehumanizing in general, especially as it is written in the guise of advice one should give their children.
For another example, I would never advise my child to make friends with someone as a prophylactic against criticism. How phony would that friendship be?
I did, in fact, tell my kid that I didn’t want her to date any black guys until she was at least 25 because I did not like what I saw as the “body language” of the black teens I saw with white girls in our town. It was very much “look at me whitey” and nothing at all about “I like this girl”.
Her response: oh ma, you don’t have to tell me that, I know just what you mean.
(FWIW I pretty much begged her on my hands & knees to never go to Mexico and I think I finally convinced her. She hasn’t gone there yet, anyway!)
I am aware, very aware, that the white race is under assault around the globe. I very much think that we need to stick up for ourselves. Absolutely white people need to have MORE CHILDREN. I regret I only had one, but such were my circumstances.
Bottom line: I think JD blew a good opportunity to tell the world how it looks from “our side” by writing with an attitude that he had to know would be inflammatory.
Or maybe he didn’t know, because he really seems to lack some comprehension of human feelings.