The libs sure have their knickers in a knot and are doing their best to fuel racial tension.
Can Jim sue for libel?
Remember the “Baghdad Diarist”?
=============================================
Remember Scott Thomas Beauchamp, that soldier who wrote candidly about the dehumanizing effects of the war for The New Republic while pursuing a passionate affair with the TNR intern fact-checking his pieces until the conservablogosphere began campaigning to get him shitcanned?
=====================================================
Hmmmm, now just who was that TNR intern having a "passionate affair" with Scott, while fact-checking (NOT) his pieces?
Why, I believe it's Elspeth Reeve herself!
National Review Online got 850K.
Freerepublic.com got 930K.
I'd say that 10b is life-saving advice based upon the past 50 or so years. I recall events in Cincinnati -- where I was in the 1960s -- of whites taking their usual routes home some of which went through the Avondale section.
Whites were dragged from their cars, beaten, and a few murdered. Some who were not killed were left with permanent scars.
So I hope this employee of the magazine is true to his convictions and fears not to drive through his city's black neighborhoods at all times this summer as Obama and his sons crank things up -- cause Obama been laudin' that martial law and suspended elections and that's what he's plannin' to do. I bet.
I have never seen a pic of obama with a bone through his nose on FR.
I have a problem with 10c but the rest 10 seems like good common sense.
I’m convinced the Atlantic pays for its articles by the word.
Dry, uninteresting and non-original.
Then again the author, Elspeth, has been fired for being a non-fact checking fact checker.
Is Elsbeth Reeve the dink pictured at the bottom right of the Trayvon collage, over `Associated Press National Review’?
He looks like a piece of work.
So it’s OK for persons of color to race-bait, but not OK for, uh, non-persons of color to speak the truth? Screw that ...
“(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.
“(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
“(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
“(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
“(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
“(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
“(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.”
Derbyshire’s statements quoted in the article are unremarkable in the sense that they are demonstrably true. (Even the “Rev.” Jesse Hi-Jackson would agree with many of them, just not on the record.)
The only thing remarkable about Derbyshire’s statements is that they were published. And we all know that while you can publicly promote infanticide, homosexuality, euthanasia, and expropriation of the wealth someone has worked for all their lives, and can loudly demean whites and Christians, the one great sin you can’t commit is to speak truthfully about racial differences, inherent differences or behavioral differences.
Commit that great sin and pantywaists like Rich Lowry will throw you overboard faster than you can say “white privilege studies.”
Damn, I didn’t ever think of Derbyshire like that. If he’s going to write columns like that, good for NR that they canned him.
The Derb (as he is called) is OK with me and for those who don’t know, his two children are bi-racial because his wife is Chinese. His condemned TakiMag column can be filed under “race realism”. The biggest grasping greedy propagandizing racists these days are black and that’s a fact jack. Who feel they are owed to the max due to slavery yet not a single one would want to live in Africa which their ancestors were taken from. All I see is a lot of nutbag acting out and ripping off “the system”
I must've missed that picture. Was it anything like the pornopimping child selling Village Voice network of hippie liberal sex ad papers like LA Weekly that ran this picture of Condi Rice without criticism of racist overtones?
(shrug) A couple of Derbyshire’s suggestions seem a little paranoid to me:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
Those decisions should be made on a case by case basis rather than blanket “no-nos”.
But most of what Derbyshire writes makes perfect sense. I am not the slightest bit surprised that the cowardly NR and NRO have turned tail and run like scared little bunny rabbits from the Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms.
Ya know...I just went over and read the whole piece, and I have to say that I agree with Derbyshire 1000%.
It cost him a writing gig, but he speaks the gospel truth. I don’t give a flyin’ fiddler’s damn how politically incorrect it is to say it, either.
Too many in this country prefer self-delusion. Sad.
Doesn't Derbyshire's article at least deserve a serious line by line critique? "THAT'S RAAAACIST!" is not a serious critique. Much of what he says is inarguably if uncomfortably true. I disagree with some of his points, and I certainly would not have written that article if I had a couple of kids to support. Still, I think the article is sufficiently reasonable that it should provoke conversation, not end it.
I applaud Derbyshire for his willingness to spotlight black racism and its consequences. I am fed up with minority anti-white bigotry and feminist anti-male bigotry being taboo topics. Put this stuff on the table, shine a light on it.
I'm sorry that NR fired him without at least giving him a chance to defend himself in print.
Andrew Sullivan must be giggling himself sick.
As for the author's assertion that FreeRepublic is racist, and that this is proved by one hotlinked photoshop of Obama with a bone in his nose, perhaps she should try actually reading some race-related FR threads. After my years here I have concluded that some Freepers are thugs, some are stupid, some are insane, most are none of those things, and very few are racist. Then again, I suppose I am using an archaic definition of "racist." My version actually means something.
I will cancel my NRODT subscription.