Over the weekend, my friend Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, was forced into a parting of the ways with his magazine’s and website’s long-time contributor, John Derbyshire. The dismissal was due to an article Derbyshire wrote for a site called Taki Magazine, taking off from the killing of Trayvon Martin.
I’m not going to rehash here the offense committed by the Derbyshire piece. Suffice it to say that this article, like much of what appears on that website and others like it, purports to take a “scientific” view of race relations according to which, inevitably, black people are helpless against DNA that supposedly causes them at once to be dumber and more violent than white people. These sorts of arguments are usually offered in a specious more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone or with an excruciatingly knowing world-weariness that serves as a secret club handshake with all those who know and are willing to accept the uncomfortable truths revealed by “science.”
What I think is worth discussing is the issue of what will be inevitably be raised in the days and weeks ahead by people discomfited by National Review‘s decision. First, they will say NR is violating Derbyshire’s freedom of speech. That is simply incorrect; freedom of speech in the United States is freedom from government coercion. It does not guarantee anyone access to a private organization’s ink and paper and server space, especially not when that private organization pays him. As Rich said in the post in which he announced the severing of NR‘s relationship with Derbyshire: “It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.”
Nonetheless, there will still be those who believe an injustice is being done to a writer who simply was telling the truth as he sees it. But websites and magazines do not exist solely to give writers a vehicle to speak to readers (though this is one of their primary intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic purposes). If they are not run to make money, but are mission-driven instead—as NR is and as COMMENTARY is as well—they exist to give shape and form and heft to a view of the world its writers and editors share. That view may be broad enough to contain contradictory opinions on various matters, but overall it is supposed to encompass a coherent vision of what the world is and what it should be. That is what we provide to our readers, and what our readers expect of us.
When a writer expresses an opinion about things that is not only different from, but in radical contradiction with the mission-driven institution’s view, that writer may be doing what he feels is necessary. But it is equally necessary for the institution to make clear whether that view can still be considered part of its overall vision or it is a pathogen that, left undisturbed, will destroy the institution’s own health.
Finally, they will say NR acted in a cowardly fashion and fell sway to political correctness; that Derbyshire was only exploring questions that discomfit the Establishment. This game of saying “I am only raising questions” has become the three-card monte of the intellectual world in recent years—a way of bringing up things in a glancing and suggestive way without taking responsibility for it. It has been deployed most egregiously by a blogger who has generated millions upon millions of page views “raising questions” for rage-fueled readers about whether Sarah Palin was in fact the mother of her own child.
Everybody makes mistakes. Writers make mistakes. Lord knows I’ve made plenty, and I am mindful of the notion that “there but for the grace of God go you.” What Derbyshire did was not a mistake. It was a coming-out. The noxious seeds that finally blossomed into full poisonous flower with his latest piece had been scattered throughout his writing for years. Recognizing his raw talent and interesting perspective on a variety of issues, Rich Lowry and National Review gave him the benefit of the doubt until there was no longer any doubt.
Derb said: n n1. On average, blacks are less intelligent than whites. n2. The rate of violent crime among blacks is significantly higher than among whites. n3. A small but significant minority of blacks displays violent hatred against whites. n4. Black neighborhoods and venues can be dangerous to whites. n5. Black politicians are significantly less competent and more corrupt than white ones. n nThese statements are all true. What's more, you no doubt live by them. When you wander back tipsy to Anacostia or Bed-Stuy, and send your kids to public schools dominated by non-Asian minorities, let me know. n nDerb's offense was that he told truths that must not be told, not that he was mistaken.
1. Citation?r n2. Citation?r n3. A small, but significant minority of whites display violent hatred against blacks.r n4. White neighborhoods/venues can be dangerous to blacks — just ask Trayvon Martin.r n5. Citation?
If you read the original Derbyshire piece, you will see the annotations. He and Steve Sailer, among others, have discussed these issues, with annotations, at length. n nAs for Nos. 3-4, there may be some truth in what you say, buf white-on-black crime is rare enough to make it a cause celèbre when it does happen. Law enforcement is different. I tell my kids the same thing black parents tell theirs: When accosted by the cops, shuffle.
#auspol #teaparty @FoxNews nGood God Almighty! What have we come to when a man as without prejudice and as loving of his fellow Man as is John Derbyshire may, for having both the integrity and the courage to write Truth, be sent beyond the pale by a poofy girlman. n nShades of Lucianne Goldberg's little boy similarly so shuffling of the incomparable Miss Coulter. (Forgetting, for the minute, that she jumped the shark on Mittens, Massachusetts' mobbed-up moderate)
You don't get it Grumps. John Derbyshire starts, but only starts by writing off the African American population. John, who cannot help but twitter (in the old school meaning) as to how he absolutely must have his intellectual springs refreshed by delving into the intricacies of the Riemann hypothesis has laid it out, and not too deeply between the lines, that for him there are actually two races of people. The first can peruse languorously articles on prime theory in abstruse mathematical journals in the original German. The second trace comprises unredeemable Mongoloid idiots. Guess which class you fall into?
Pat Moynihan laid out the situation almost fifty years ago: the disintegration of the black family, which had already begun, is now far advanced. The black community is not only full of fatherless children, but of young men who will not abide discipline from any source, except maybe gang-leaders. Discursive reasoning is not a strong point among community opinion leaders; just listen to the like of the Reverend Wright and his protege, the president. When he clashes with someone like Paul Ryan, who has put in his 10,000 hours in policywonk-town, he soon finds that the game of intellectual bluff doesnu2019t work. Obama reminds me of William Jennings Bryan, of whom it was said, he had a mind like the River Platte: a mile wide and and an inch deep.
Oh, and purchase that dream house in Camden, New Jersey. Or Detroit. Or East St. Louis.
"Suffice it to say that this article, like much of what appears on that website and others like it, purports to take a “scientific” view of race relations according to which, inevitably, black people are helpless against DNA that supposedly causes them at once to be dumber and more violent than white people. These sorts of arguments are usually offered in a specious more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone or with an excruciatingly knowing world-weariness that serves as a secret club handshake with all those who know and are willing to accept the uncomfortable truths revealed by “science.” n nI didn't read the Derbyshire piece and I have no position on whether he deserved to get canned by NR. (I will miss his provocative writing.) However, I have read his pieces for many years and, whatever is in his heart of hearts, he always struck me as someone who cited to the "science" (such as we can interpret it) when it comes to the topics that got him fired. I therefore question whether the characterization quoted above actually applies in this instance.
I don't see why this post had to happen. It only elicits the types of comments written above mine. Why do you have to weigh in on this? You're not alone but I think most of these posts contain a bit too much self-righteousness.
Having lived and owned a house in Detroit and Gary and lived in East St Louis, I know too many decent, intelligent hard working African-Americans to go along with Grump_Old_Man. I have found that corruption and venality among politicians knows not a color boundary and the most important character trait of a crook it that he is one.
There are plenty of decent black folks and indecent white folks. They should have the same rights as any other citizen.There are aggregate differences between the two groups, as well as between other groups in our country. The question is whether we are allowed to mention them. n nThe same people who enforce the taboos on mentioning these truths, on the whole, live by them. Another nude Emperor.
Nobody's asking you for permission to breathe or "have the same rights as any other citizens." But that's besides the point. John's article said over and over that he was afraid, literally, of black folk, square one. Forget the statistics, or individual vs anecdotal vs normed differences. The man is afraid of negroes. Afraid to help them on the road, afraid to go to *any* place that black folk congregate–not the war zones of urban conflict but any.place. Cities, neighborhoods, blocks, offices, once the pigment goes two degrees north of melanin free he picks up his petticoats and skeedaddles. Since he also suffers from dysepsia ranging from a bemused twinge in the gut to nausea and panic reactions when faced by the possible approach of gays or Jews one has to suppose he lives a very cloistered and cocooned existence. But promoting the politics and theory of Caucasian enclaves is really not the business of National Review.
We take it you don't have any sustained social interactions with non-white/maybe Asian Americans.
Derbyshire has been speaking in code, dog whistling, whatever you want to call it, for years. n nA few years ago I wrote to him, and asked him why he persisted in tangentially getting into biological determinism almost every chance he had (Never got a response). n nThat even if true, or partially true, it served no purpose, because there was nothing to be done about it, and for better or worse, it alienated not only the target group of his criticisms (generally non Asian, non whites) but also those who simply did not want to dance on that slippery slope. n nNRO is the single best avenue for converting borderline liberals into right of center thinkers. While there may have been defections from NRO to the left, there are probably more from the left to the type of right NRO represents. n nIs Derb was a paleo-conservative? As far as immigration and foreign policy is concerned (with the exceotion of topics relating to Jews and Israel) he is very much like Pat Buchanan. He is also, if you review his body of work, particularly his writings on IQ, a racist, or rather racialist, in the vein of Victorian, colonialist England. n nThat simply will not fly today, and he did more damage to NRO than good, assuming NRO’s goal is to present a reasonable Republican perspective that actually has a chance of winning elections and shaping this country for the better, rather than lead it into a cultural civil war. n nHe should have kept his thoughts to himself. n nJonathan, your post on this topic is right on. n
John D. follows Pat in being sensitive to the vapors of oppression emanating from the Jewish Lobby and has declared himself to be an anti-Semite in the English manner.
"Derbyshire has been speaking in code, dog whistling, whatever you want to call it, for years." n nThat's horse manure. Derbyshire has been quite open about his views for some time. He even admits to being a "racist" — although a benign one. n n"A few years ago I wrote to him, and asked him why he persisted in tangentially getting into biological determinism almost every chance he had (Never got a response)." n nPerhaps he didn't respond because he found you ignorant in the basic details of what you wanted to discuss. I think you'll find most intellectuals prefer more formidable interlocutors.
There are real problems with taking a small-bore statistical comparison of racial groups (or any other groups) and then drawing sweeping categorical comparisons and in turn devising categorical imperatives for how to live. The statistics themselves are subject to distortion. In turn, the tendency to make a categorical ethical and moral guidance statement, like "don't be a good Samaritan" (as Derbyshire concludes) is deeply offensive.
Although I like Derb and thought his piece largely on the money, I found Derb's 'good Samaritan" advice a bit off-putting. I'd say, "Exercise care when you have a Good Samaritan impulse in what may be an unsafe setting." n nHowever, we have pretty good statistics on IQ and race and crime and race. Genetic (in whole or part) or not, remediable or not, those are present facts. In 1959, the college authorities warned the Columbia freshmen to be sure to change to the local subway at 96th St. so they wouldn't end up unexpectedly in Harlem. That was good advice to give then, even for Bolsheviks. In mixed-race cities, even liberals (and neocons) live by such things.
Don't consider the Stanford-Binet standard deviations of symbolic manipulation to be the last word on "Intelligence" or cognitive acumen. It is snobbery, and snobbery alone, that distinguishes the genius of, say, a poet, from the genius of a truly flash basketball player, as somehow a "higher" expression of intelligence.
While I agree with the squeamishness of biological determinism a lot else he wrote is consdiered common sense outside the pc bubble, and is what parents all over tell their kids. Everywhere I've worked we have had different standards for behavior for African Americans; for example, we don't expect them to be on time for meetings; instead, we shrug and just say they are running on CPT (colored people's time); and yes, there is something racist about this, but this other standard has developed due to a reality that includes the fact that it is more difficult to fire African Americans, and so we put up with lower performance from them. I don't know anyway out of this, but not talking about the issue seems like it won't accomplish much.
Not where I work.
I've worked for plenty of African Americans and had a good number work for me. I'm not African American. My experience has not been one of a unique tendency toward lateness among groups based on skin pigment. By chance, perhaps, the African Americans I've worked for seem to have been rigorous and exacting in their standards. By chance, perhaps because I'm a decent boss, the African Americans who work for me seem excited to show up on time and do work that meets my standards, not really any different from anyone else of any other color. n nSo, what does one tell a child, and is there any lesson that would be particularly useful to a child? In regard to the workplace I'll probably say, "there probably are places where people who have darker or lighter skin wind up with low standards of work behavior. Try to keep your own standards up and resist the temptation to assume that pigmentation is itself driving work behavior." n nThere are indeed some toxic workplaces that make firing bad employees difficult. It often entails a mixture of patronage-based job allocations and wimpy management. Where the local patronage structure is African American, that is going to mean a meaningful number of African American employees. You have to decide for yourself if the observation merits a conclusion of "African Americans are…" or (my personal inference) "some poorly-run organizations tolerate lousy work product, and in some situations they decide to tolerate bad work more from blacks than whites or more from whites than blacks". Employers should demand good work. People, white or black, align with what they come to understand is rewarded and valued.
All I wonder is if Rich Lowry learned the “prevent your readers from commenting on controversial topics” stunt from J-Pod.
To be a bit more fair to Mr. Derbyshire, remember his article in Taki was in response to commentary post-Trayvon Martin controversy regarding "the talk" that black parents have with their sons. This "talk" is supposedly about race relations and how to deal with the police and other supposed racists (shopkeepers, landlords, teachers perhaps?) lurking out there in a hostile to blacks world. So as a counter-point to this obviously race-related "heads-up" for blacks, Derbyshire felt the same "talk" was required of white parents to their children as well. The problem is, Derbyshire got carried away and let it all hang out, so to speak. You can state certain facts (incarceration rates, graduation rates, etc) but when you delve into generalizations about the suspect character of all black politicians, you've pushed the envelope well over the edge.
Most black politicians run in racially gerrymandered districts, where once elected they face little competition, and don't have to attract non-black votes. The black vote is generally a captive of the Democratic Party. Those facts, plus the vices of parvenus, don't help very much. n nThe "clean, articulate" types, who have to appeal to whites (Ed Brooke, Tom Bradley, Douglas Wilder), are a different breed of cat.
Why was my previously submitted and published comment on this article deleted??
John Derbyshire had to be fired. He was no longer merely a hard hitting politically incorrect commenter. He has now slipped into outright racism. The fine line cannot be crossed.
While you were not looking, the civil rights community is also taking that path. The sheer hysteria generated by an out of control President has served no purpose except to shore up his electoral support in the black community. A man elected on the slogan of hope, is now encouraging dispair.
Like all historical runs, race in America is not even close to finishing its marathon. PO said, and rightfully so, that you’ll know racism is at the worry-free point when a mediocre black man or woman is hired as readily as a mediocre white man or woman. More is expected of the black man. n nWhatever statistical truth is to be found in Derbyshire’s piece, and except for satisfying jaw-jawing among equals, what use can it be put to? n nI think that Derbyshire is offended that he can’t make the argument he wants to make because it’s deemed unsuitable and an impediment to moving past our past. He wants to be able to write and discuss freely. He can do that at Taki’s place. It's not like he's now forced to work the cane fields, which I don't think he'd be very well-suited for, and without someone to do the work required to build up the wealth, how do you build up the wealth and institutions? n nPaul Johnson says that of the Founding Fathers, only Alexander Hamilton in entitled to be labeled a genius.
Hamilton may have been a genius, but like another genius, Napoleon, he was a dangerous man. If Washington had not died in December, 1799, Hamilton would have led the country into a disasterous war. Whatever his gifts, he was lacking in what the English call judgement. He could never forget that he was indeed, the bastard brat of a Scottish peddler.
A national past, as de Tocqueville remarked, that positioned the black man who wanted to take possession of his own person as one involved in a “sort of larceny” is not going to fade away just because we’ve recently elected our first Black President. n nThere is no way a white American can know what that “sort of larceny” means. The white politician who wants to appeal to black constituents need only begin with a few heartfelt words that show he knows he has no idea of what that means. It doesn’t even have to be a direct appeal. Something, though. "The soft bigotry of low-expectations" won't work. n nBut, if the Southern Strategy was or remains real, how is that going to be possible? How is it going to be possible with mob oratory directed at the President? n nCould the Constitution, via amendment process alone, have ever freed the black slave? No. Interests beat liberty every time the battle is engaged.
I am very familiar with the writings of Charles Murray and Thomas Sowell—and neither man has slipped into racism. They are very well aware the debate over IQ is intrinsically nebulous. How do we distinguish precisely between nature vs. nurture? This mystery will never be completely resolved. John Derbyshire has unfortunately concluded that black people are innately inferior.
You offer no evidence, not argument, nothing but name calling and character assassination. Murray is not a "racist" while Darbyshire is one – why? Because Derbyshire has "concluded that black people are innately inferior". Are you sure these are his words or are you putting them in his mouth? Has he really ever written "inferior"? And, whatever he did write, did he apply it to all black people, most of them, or perhaps something else?. How is this different from what Murray's writings on the subject? Or are these too minor details to bother about when there are bigger fish to fry?
John D is a racist because he said he is one. Claiming that racist presuppositions are not "racist" because the innate inferiority of black folk as a genetically determined and statistically normed entity is a "fact"–is not to reject the charge of racism but to embrace it. And yes, stripped of the precious posturing he is making the claim of innate inferiority. John states explicitly that he runs away from black people. On that level. Avoids eye contact and flees when the ratio of colored to white plus asian exceeds a very very low thresh hold of intolerance. True, John feels that Derbyshire is superior to the mongoloid cretins he meets day by day. But he only runs away from black folk. Run run run. Bwak! Bwak! Bwak!~
You have distorted Derbyshire’s views by removing all the context and replacing it with emotionally overcharged rhetorics. The context is not of black skin or negroid features per se, but what they signify in the inner cities of your (presumably) country, particularly in relation to personal safety. Besides, skin colour or features are not the only relevant considerations here, for example, what people are wearing (e.g. dinner jackets or hoodies) and the location (a fancy restaurant in the business district of Gaborone,Botswana or a Detroit backstreet) are in fact much more so. To prove Derbyshire a “racist” you would have to demonstrate that race is the overriding factor in making the decision to flee. In its proper context, his is the rational advice, one that is in fact silently followed by the majority of your countrymen. n nAs you can deduce from the above, I am not an American. I have however lived for long periods in several countries of very different political, cultural and racial makeup. One of them was the United States, where, in fact, I worked as a professor at a major public university located in the center of one of the cities that regularly vies for the title of the “murder capital” of the country. The city, of course, was then over 80% black. Having arrived from a country where the chances of meeting a black man are still only slightly higher than seeing a snowman in July I naively asked on of my colleagues about the quickest way to walk between the campus and the main shopping area. The colleague, a typical “liberal” (in your American sense of the word) explained that walking was not an advisable thing to do because of the presence of people who were “down on their luck”. It did not take me long to grasp that he did not refer to their poverty, for they were all far richer in every material sense than my mother’s peasant family in my country of birth (e.g. they had no electricity or running water ) and yet where me and my sister could be left in prefect safety for weeks during summer holidays. I then realized that in what I had thought to be the freest country in the world, there were some (actually quite many) things to which you could refer only through euphemisms. I could never get used to this, which is one reason why I decided it was not temperamentally suited to live there. I think this is also true of John D, but unfortunately for him he did not have the choice I had, his own country of birth having been turned into a parody of the US in this particular respect.
Gee, don't you have the keen collectivist's view of everything. Buy or borrow a dictionary and then look up "presupposition"
You forget that Derbyshire is English. My guess is that if you were to ask him, he would agree that blacks in this country and the working class English and –witness Murray’s new book–the blue collar workers in this country, suffering from the negative affects of too much paternalism and too little freedom of action.
One last thing, JPod, when the Romans subdued my Samnites (Ovid is one of my homeboys) we were the last to fall. Il Sangro, a river that runs through my area, is called that because it received the blood of numerous battles. n nBut the Roman centurions openly mated with us almost immediately. Additionally, there were never 8×10 glossies that testified to our degradation and humiliation. n nAT's Democracy In America covers the topic of race and that includes our Red man honestly, dispassionately and yet with the heart of a godly man. n nOur imbroglio will continue until, as Shelby Steele put it, the black man and woman are exhausted by attempts at righting wrongs that must be accepted because they can never really be righted.
OK, then get on with it and stop whining
Derbyshire did not explicitly posit a genetic genesis in the behavior and IQ disparities, but the tone of his argument, the sweeping racial generalizations and the rather flippant selection of links throughout the article suggest an active racial animus. nThis is understandable from any white man who's had to watch and hear the repeated and dishonest discussions of "the talk" that black parents give to their boys. Anyone not acquainted with the social pathologies in many black communities would listen to the media coverage of "the talk" and conclude that most whites are irrational bigots. Derbyshire's defensive reaction to the media's unfair treatment of this issue was understandable but inexcusable.
New meme: Derbyshire was right.
"It has been deployed most egregiously by a blogger who has generated millions upon millions of page views “raising questions” for rage-fueled readers about whether Sarah Palin was in fact the mother of her own child." n nIt does not take great intelligence to recognize that this is begging the question — is the child in question her own child? I am a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, my outlook is moderately conservative, I have looked at the evidence, and I think it has been proven at least by a preponderance of the evidence, if not beyond a reasonable doubt — that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's child. I dislike Sarah Palin, but I resent the imputation that I am "rage fueled" and thus somehow mentally incompetent to opine on the subject.
The chronology doesn’t lend itself to such a conclusion, but believe what you will. Palin’s ascendency was certainly an inconvenience to “moderate” conservatives.
It should be noted that the "publisher" of Taki Magazine, where Derbyshire chose to expresse himself, is "Taki" Theodoracopulos, co-founder along with Pat Buchanan of The American Conservative. Buchanan is a contributor to Taki Magazine along with the likes of Steve Sailer. (Some will remember that William Buckley, founder of the National Review, called Buchanan out very publicly as an antisemite in an NR issue devoted entirely to the subject of antisemitism. Buckley cited as two other exemplars of antisemitism Gore Vidal and Joseph Sobran, and he fired the latter who had been a regular NR contributor in the same manner, and for much the same reason, as Lowry has Derbyshire.) Taki proudly identifies himself as a "soi-disant antisemite," and "in March 2010 Taki, in an article in Chronicles magazine, said of the last Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld that 'he's a very homely, simian-looking Jew." Lovely people that Derbyshire has teamed up with. n
But then look at it the other way. Nobody has ever accused John Derbyshire of antisemitism – indeed it would be impossible for him to be one and remain consistent with his other views if for no other reason than the fact that one third of all of Field's Medals have been won by Jews (I am, by the way, a mathematician of Jewish descent and I have corresponded with Derbyshire on some of these matters). Actually, he is not only far from anti-semitism but he has always been a firm supporter of Israel – not so common these days in his country of birth. He has even publicly scolded Ron Paul for his stand on this issue although he supports him on most other matters. So, if what you say is true, why are these anti-Semites so keen to have him at Taki's Magazine?
BTW, of what relevance is it for these purposes that you are "a mathematician of Jewish descent an…have corresponded with Derbyshire on some of these matters"? Or that "one third of all of Field's[sic] Medal have been won by Jews"? Do you imagine that is "proof" of something, because antisemites (which "nobody has ever accused John Derbyshire of" being) would never acknowledge Jewish intellectual prowess, let alone express admiration of it?
The relevance of my comment (on being a mathematician, about the Fields medals etc) was to point out that I know John Derbyshire and his real views on various relevant matters, a lot better than you do. n n But what I did not say, and will say now, is that I am certain I also know a great deal more about antisemitism than you do, having experienced it in a very direct and personal form, and having been forced to leave my country of birth for exactly that reason. n n You brought up this bogus subject (about which you seem to know nothing) in connection with John Derbyshire and that is the reason for my response.
You allude to "various relevant matters," but don't say what they are. What I noted was that the website tainted where Derbyshire chose to express himself is one tainted by antisemitism and racism. You think that is an irrelevancy? n n"But what I did not say, and will say now, is that I am certain I also know a great deal more about antisemitism than you do, having experienced it in a very direct and personal form, and having been forced to leave my country of birth for exactly that reason." You assume that which you do not know, since you have zero knowledge of the person you are addressing, that is me. And you are getting exercised about a charge you acknowledge has not been made by anyone ("Nobody has ever accused John Derbyshire of antisemitism"), including me. But if you are going to claim special authority to speak about antisemitism, feel free to tell us why we ought to defer to your opinions on that subject, especially as you would relate it to what is under discussion here.
(continued) n n"You brought up this bogus subject (about which you seem to know nothing) in connection with John Derbyshire and that is the reason for my response." I joined the conversation to point out what I think is noteworthy about Taki Magazine. Is that the "bogus subject," and what would you tell me/us about it, or whatever you see as the "bogus subject" here?
The entire issue of antisemitism is bogus in this context, and in fact is simply an attempt at the old device of “guilt by association”. n nI also don’t think you have any idea of what real antisemitism is, since you so easily misuse the word. In fact I used to read Taki for many years in the Spectator and I still don’t consider him a real anti-semite. The problem with him is anti-semitism but the fact that he is not very bright (this might also be a problem for John, who is). In fact I far more objectionable than his dislike of certain Jews I find his hostility to Israel, but that is not due to anti-semitism but to stupidity (it usually is). n n If disliking certain Jews is the criterion of antisemitism that I too am an anti-semite, for I dislike the majority of American Jews. I dislike them because they are leftists, because they betrayed us (East-European Jews) during the Holocaust and after, and because given a chance they will betray Israel in the same way. But I like Israelis, Russian Jews, Indian Jews, and even Ethiopian Jews (even though they have an average IQ of 90 while Ashkenazi Jews have 115 – a fact o life whether one likes it or not).
Just to be clear, you "don't consider (Taki) a real anti-semite" just someone who is "not very bright"? Can you tell those who may be less expert than you consider yourself on the subject of antisemitism how you arrived at that conclusion? You did "reason" to it, didn't you, it isn't something your gut tells you, is it?
(continued): In 2010, Theodoracopulos wrote in The Chronicles, a magazine which welcomes bigots like Taki and his soulmate Pat Buchanan, a piece titled "Sachs of Gold" about "avaricious and reckless bankers" and other financial titans. He wasn't expressing real antisemitism there? Instead, he was only showing himself to be "not very bright" because he could not come up with any non-Jewish names (e.g., Ken Lewis, Franklin Raines, John Thain, Angelo Mozilo, VIkram Pandit, Stanley O'Neal, Jamie Dimont, John Paulson, etc.) to excoriate, only "Greenspan, Cohen, Blankfein, Rubin, Fuld" And there was no antisemitic intention when he added, "the list goes on. If ever you hear of some Anglo-Saxon name taking over Wall Street, make sure to plunge in. But don’t hold your breath."? Nor was he expressing rank antisemitism when described Richard Fuld as "'a very homely, simian-looking Jew who couldn't punch his way out of a nursery"? (BTW, did Taki ever serve in this country's military, as Fuld did?) n
(in conclusion): "The entire issue of antisemitism is bogus in this context, and in fact is simply an attempt at the old device of 'guilt by association'." Too ridiculous on its face to warrant a response, other than to point to what was said earlier. n n"…I dislike the majority of American Jews." Thanks for outing yourself. n n"…even Ethiopian Jews (even though they have an average IQ of 90 while Ashkenazi Jews have 115" And leaving no room for doubt. n nNow, dcdoc has no more time for the likes of you, so howl into the wind.
Considering how much importance you attach to the thoroughly unserious character that Taki is in this whole matter, you seem to be remarkably ignorant about him (and everything else you write about). So the following is purely for you education. n n1. Taki could not have “served in this country’s military” because he is a Greek who spent most of his life in Switzerland and the UK. He was once convicted of illegal possession of cocaine and even (if I remember correctly) actually sent to for a short time to prison, after which for some time he was not allowed to enter the US. He has only lived in the US in his later years and he is over 70 years old. n n2. When Taki talks of “fighting” he means something like karate, in which he is an expert (at least when he hasn’t got a hangover, which I understand is not very often). He has always been what they call a playboy and I am sure he never served in any military. Playboys don’t do that. n n3. Taki inherited his millions from his shipping-magnate father, and he has been spending it ever since on what some call “high life”. He is an amusing writer who nobody takes seriously (except like you). Moreover, his reaction any criticism is to either try to kick the critic, if he he within kicking reach or to do its verbal equivalent. In particular, if you point out that his IQ can’t be very large he will say the same about your penis. That is exactly the level of seriousness of Taki. n n4. He has actually had many Jewish and philosemitic close friends, including the financier Sir James Goldsmith (a good Anglo-Saxon name this) and Paul Johnson, who wrote, among other things, the famous history of the Jews. So it is unlikely he is quite what you think it is. n n5. Chronicles was founded as “Chronicles of Culture” by Leopold Tyrmand, a brillinat Polish Jewish writer and a refugee from communism. I used to be an early subscriber, and continued for a while after Tyrmand’s death. After that the magazine changed its name and, sort of, “went of the deep end”, so I stopped reading it. n n6. The reason why Jews are so prominent on Wall Street is exactly the same why they they have received more than half of all the Nobel prizes in economics, or while they are prominent in everything that requires intellectual powers – their much higher average IQ than everyone else, and an exceptionally high incidence of very high IQ (over 150) . In fact, they are even prominent among anti-Semites, e.g. Vladimir Zhirinovsky. nThat is the kind of thing John Derbyshire understands extremely well and Taki does not, because, well, his own IQ is not high enough. n nNow, dcdoc has no more time for the likes of you, so howl into the wind. n nSound like the typical Taki reaction to me.
Lucretius123, n nYou poor tortured soul. All you are suited for is being "best friends" with those who would deny their antisemitism by saying, "Some of my best friends are Jews." And you the self-proclaimed expert on antisemitism, you're too obtuse to appreciate the irony of it all. n n(The late Sir James Goldsmith whose mother was Catholic and who was baptised a Catholic, you count him as one of Taki's "Jewish" friends? Not even the Reform would consider him Jewish, though Jews for Jesus would no doubt have been glad to have him if only for his father's last name.)
Good grief, you are ignorant aren't you? You seem to get all your facts form the Wikipedia and don't even realise that not only was Chronicles of Culture founded by a Jew but the paleo-con movement, of which it is one of the leading organs, contains quite a few Jews that satisfy all your requirements, Paul Gottfried being the one that most immediately comes to mind. n nAs for me, I am not a pale-con (if anythingI am the original neocon and proud of it, as you Americans like to say) but I have nothing against "Jews for Jesus" and I think they are much better Jews than those Haredim that terrorise little girls. In any case, we obviously differ not only on what it an anti-Semite but also on what is a Jew. For me, religion is of no importance and John von Neumann, who was baptised, was one of the "best" Jews I can think of. By the way, his IQ was 180, which would make him an honorary Jew if he wasn't one for other reasons already. nOne thing that most anti-semites believe in is that all Jews have something in common but you and are a perfect proof that this is nonsense.
Wow, you are really an impressive thinker and formidable debater – NOT! ("I am certain I also know a great deal more about antisemitism than you do…I also don’t think you have any idea of what real antisemitism is, since you so easily misuse the word…you seem to be remarkably ignorant about him [and everything else you write about]…Good grief, you are ignorant aren't you?) n nBut you are a remarkable piece of work, pronouncing yourself a nonpareil expert on antsemitism because you say you were born in Eastern Europe and decamped from those parts on account of antisemitism, while also proclaiming that you hate the majority of American Jews, denying that someone can be an antisemite if they can point to any Jews with whom they are friendly, giving passes to self-declared antisemies, etc. Since for your tendentious purposes you would count as Jews those who by no stretch of anyone else's imagination, and certainly not according to any religious authority, who are "Jewish" for Hitler's purposes, intelligent conversation with you on the subject of antisemitism is effectively impossible.
John: let's assume Derb had to go. OK. n nWhy is Taki still on their masthead at NR?
Yes, excellent question. Why?
This has been misstated again and again and again. No the Derb piece DID NOT take off from Trayvon Martin, rather it is in explicit reply to a rash of blog/media posts about The Talk that black parents say they have with their children, especially sons, explaining that racism, in law enforcement and generally, is a dire and vile threat to them. Essentially UNmentioned is that all white on black violence is about 1/10th of the total. Guess who is doing the 90%. It is a bit of pushback on the narrative that has made Sharpton and Jackson wealthy men and Zimmerman a hunted man.
And John D took this as the opportunity to tell us that he responds to the statistics on black violence by fleeing the shadows of black folk. If you want to live your life by seeking the shelter of white faces good luck to you.
"websites and magazines do not exist solely to give writers a vehicle to speak to readers… If they are not run to make money, but are mission-driven instead…they exist to give shape and form and heft to a view of the world its writers and editors share" — all pretty self-evident stuff amounting to a hill of verbiage to block an argument nobody's making. Getting fired by National Review or Commentary or the Daily Beast or the Daily Kos is no big deal in 2012, and Lowry certainly didn't belabor the point. The disappointment and backlash is driven not by the existence of ex cathedra denunciation but rather its overall shabbiness and sentimental-theatrical tenor. That is the MO of the shrill leftist and smug city liberal. Your tacked-on aspersions toward Derbyshire's inner motivation are similarly self-abasing, John.
You speak in ignorance. I live in a very black part of Atlanta and have for years quite happily and peacefully but black, white or other, you are unlikely to do so if you contravene the Derbyshire Cautions. And again you ignore the provocation; The Talk that indicts white America as rabid, murderous racist. So hug a Panther for me, will ya?
__Try as I might, I cannot escape the conclusion that N.R.(and to some extent Commentary) has caved in to that most terrifying of threats – that of being labeled racist. As a long-time subscriber, I am quite distressed by this timidity. ____Einstein wrote that:____"The right to search for the truth implies also a duty
Hamilton as the man of poor judgment by English standard means very little. He was an abolitionist because of what he had witnessed on the Islands. n nHe had enough discernment to know that continuing to import the black slave to work and build up wealth he could share so little of was one means of committing national suicide. The Christian Englishman, being Elect, thought the black slave -more likely than not, non-Elect- unharmed, even aided by his enslavement. n nThe importation of a foreign people at such cultural odds motivated solely by gain resulted in civil war and disinclination to fully accept or assimilate. Maybe that’s what Eric Holder meant when he referred to us as “cowards.” n nDerbyshire lived to tell his tale of meeting a gun-barrel. Emmett Till, mutilated and shot dead, did not.
Derb would advise his kids to avoid black congregations like The Million Man March? We’re they really thinking of going? n nHis piece isn’t really that bad, IMO. It's mainly a defensive return volley. He's part of an alienated and dying way of thinking and living, though, and if Republicans are to lose the Southern Strategy mindset and embrace their true heritage, eliminating excrescence is not optional. n nDerb and his compatriots advance a type of liberty that is privilege bound and presently out-of-bounds.
Get on with what? The sympathetic, open mating? Accomplished centuries ago: n n n
n n n
You speak of "Jewish origins" without going into any detail of those "origins" except to suggest that at least one of your grandparents may have been Jewish. And you use "us" in speaking of East European Jews, nd say that you were forced to emigrate on account of antisemitism. To confuse matters, you go on to say you are not "not a Jew by any 'religious authority'," adding "but I am a staunch Zionist." If your matrilineal line was continuously Jewish, that is your mother, your maternal grandmother, your maternal great-grandmother, and all the way back to times immemorial, then you are a Jew whether you chose to identify as one or not, end of story. (OK, there is the possibility of conversion to Judaism, and in the US the Reform would regard you as a Jew if either your mother or father were halachically Jewish.) So-called Jews for Jesus, the vast majority of whom can't even identify Jewish relatives, are not Jews in anyone's eyes except there own.
(continued): "Popular" antisemitism has always been there in Poland, but there was a spike in "official" state antisemitism in 1968, prompting many of the few remaining Jews in Poland to emigrate. I know someone who left with her family for Israel then.
(continued): At our first night seder, and on other occasions over the past couple of years, we have enjoyed the company of a man born in Kotovich and now in his late 70s who was saved by a Catholic farm family, the story told in a book about "Righteous Gentiles" published by Yad Vashem. He too was hidden for a couple of years in a pit dug out beneath a pig's stall after his family could no longer make it living in the forest. It was an unbelievably horrific existence, but not as bad as suffering in a concentration camp and going to the gas chambers, and with him at the seder were his American-born wife, two lawyer children, and seven grandchildren. n nAs for "you have no idea how complicated this issue of anti-semitism," you still haven't said what exactly you think is so "complicated," especially with regard to expressions like those of "Taki" Theodoracopulos, Pat Buchanan, and their ilk. I trust you don't think the only people who count as "antisemites" are those who intensely hate every single person who qualifies as a Jew, let alone that they must endorse Hitler's approach to Jews.
nI don’t really like to discuss my own life on fora like this, particularly when it is clearly off topic (although it seems to me that nobody else is reading this any more, which may be a good thing) but you seem to misunderstand all the points I try to make and miss information that I have included that I would not have thought possible to miss. You wrote: n“except to suggest that at least one of your grandparents may have been Jewish”. nI did write that my father could only speak Yiddish as a child (actually only learned Polish in high school). Did you really think that Hasidic Jews in Western Ukraine before the war intermarried with Ukrainians or Poles? Of course my father was 100% Jewish even by the strictest religious standards (in fact his grandfather was apparently even considered a Tzadik). My mother, on the other hand, was born in a Polish peasant family so there is a probability of near 0 that she has any Jewish blood. Normally I never call myself Jewish and , in fact, I don’t even call myself Polish or British (I have a British passport) or Japanese (I lived in Japan for more than 20 years and have a Japanese permanent residence permit). So I referred to myself as Jewish purely for the sake of the argument – I have always been perfectly aware of the Jewish religious laws on this matter and the Israeli “Law of Return”. Officially my family did actually emigrate to Israel in 1968 – with a one way Polish exit permit, but my parents chose to settle in Britain (which is one of a number of reasons why I feel quite close to John Derbyshire). On the other hand my Israeli relatives are one 100% Jewish although entirely secular. They always wanted us to settle in Israel but there were many reasons why we never did. Anyway, this is not a place for writing about this. But I am used and quite comfortable being an outsider everywhere. I have a powerful emotional attachment to Israel, which also something that would take too long to explain, but I have only a detached interest in Jewish religion and tradition. Becoming a “real Jew” does not hold any attraction for me. n nNow turning to the subject of anti-semitism. As a child I was brought up without the knowledge that my father was a Jew, and without any religion. I am neither baptized not circumcised. As a child I knew that we had some relatives in Israel, I even met them once when I was very young, but somehow I managed not to connect the dots. I sometimes wondered why my uncle (my father’s brother) had a different surname (they both kept after the war their false and different Polish surnames, which they got in order to hide form the Germans and some Poles ) but nobody was seemed keen to explain this so I did not insist. It’s hard to understand now but it was all very natural then. Of my mother’s family only her father (who was illiterate) knew that his son in law was Jewish (my mother’s mother was already dead as were, of course, all my father’s relatives except the ones I mentioned). My own attitude to Jews was typical of the sort of “enlightened” and secular upbringing I had had, i.e. it a mixture of sympathy for the victims of centuries of mindless percussion and the horrors of the Holocaust with an admiration for the Jewish cultural and scientific achievement. But I also then thought that any religion, including Judaism, was a superstition and a relic of the past (I don’t see it like this now, but that is again a different topic). Of course I met with all kinds of antisemitic statements very frequently, usually from the other kids (who had never seen a Jew) – but it did not hurt me personally for the reasons that I have explained. Instead I took it as another example of the general ignorance and stupidity that still prevailed in the country but would disappear in the future.
During summer holidays my parents would often leave me and my sister for a couple of weeks with my mother’s peasant family in the country. One day I heard from my mother’s brother’s wife a diatribe filled with such unbelievable hatred agains “the Jews” who were responsible for all the evils of life, that I was stunned. Of course she know nothing about my father being Jewish (and neither did I). I tried to reason with her (I must have been no more than 10 at the time) but it was no use. Even then I knew that, having been born after the war, she had never knowingly seen a real Jew, but according to her they were everywhere. The one that she actually did see unknowingly (my father) she rather liked. n nThis was of course, a straight-forward, primitive anti-semitism of the uneducated and the ignorant. There is also an “educated version” of it – basically conspiracy theories of varied degrees of subtlety. Both of these types have diminished but still survive today in Poland. They are of course directed toward non-existent Jews (as even counting the purely secular ones and “half-Jews” the number is tiny.) If one applied religious standards there would be only a few hundred in a country of 40 million. Yet quite a few Poles believe that the government, the businesses, the financial institutions etc. are all run by “Jews”. There is even an ironic saying “before the war a Jew was an enemy but now an enemy is a Jew”. nBut this kind of anti-semitism, whereby one Pole calls another one “a Jew”, however distasteful, does not concern me. In any case, it is only a minority of Poles that have anti-semitic opinions and among the younger ones there is a growing number of those who are positively “philo-semitic”. In fact a clearly distinct Jew is much safer on the streets of any Polish city the almost any Western European one. nI am much more interested in their attitude towards Israel and this is a very different and interesting issue. But I can’t write more about it here. n
But let me finally return to Taki, Buchanan, Sobran and others of this kind. Of course, each is an individual case and my opinion is not quite the same in each. I don’t want to get involved in any debates about the semantics of the term “anti-semite”. So I only want to say a few things. n nFirst of all, these are all civilized men and not savages, and they have no harmful not to mention murderous intentions towards anyone. It is not discreditable to retain cordial social relations with them without agreeing with their opinions, and even to publish articles in journals which they publish or edit – as long as one does not allow then to dictate what one writes. I am sure John Derbyshire is not one to be dictated. n nLot’s of people that I admire, (e.g William Buckley, Paul Johnson) have maintained amicable and friendly relations with all or some of them, and have defended their character. Generally I am prepared to take their word for it. n nAs for their views, I think they are totally wrong, and, the way I see it, influenced mainly by two factors. One is politics, about which I will say something later. The other, particularly in Taki’s case, is a rather childish desire to retaliate against those who you feel have attacked you unfairly, in the way that will hurt them or annoy them the most. Added to that is also the desire not to allow your enemies o put you on the defense. If you know they will call you an “anti-semite” you don’t try to explain why you are not one, because you would be accepting the terms of battle dictated by them. Instead you say “OK, yes, I am one” – and trust that people who know you well will know the truth. n nThe other issue is politics. There are people for whom politics is one of the main factors in how they view other people. In fact, I admit to belonging to this category. When race is being debated I often point out that I much prefer a black conservative like Thomas Sowell to a white Jew like Paul Krugman. It is for this reason why I mentioned “disliking most American Jews”. I dislike them because of their politics – which is left-wing. When they change their politics, I like them. (Of course, even this should not be taken 100% at its face value). I think this is true not just of me. There is such a thing as “political anti-semitism”. You can see it very vividly in Europe. In the past, Jews were seen as overwhelmingly leftist and “rootless” cosmopolitans, in particular as enemies of all forms of nationalism. As a result anti-semitism existed almost entirely on the right (the most notable exception on the left being Karl Marx himself). The changes that took place is the Middle East and Europe after the war: the Holocaust and the resulting disappearance of Jewish communities from central and Eastern Europe, the creation of Israel, Muslim immigration and the rise of Islamism etc, have produced a visible “realignment”. The Jews or at least Israelis are no longer seen as overwhelmingly leftist or anti-nationalist. From being an idol of the left Israel has become the principal enemy. n n The far left is now as anti-semitic as the much less numerous Neo-Nazis. The center-left is largely anti-Israel and moving towards anti-semitism. There has been just as much change on the right – in the opposite direction. In Scandinavia Holland end even Germany, it is populist parties of “the far right” (actually usually fairly leftish on everything but immigration and Islam) that are now pro-Israel and, correspondingly, “philo-semitic”. In Poland the situation is somewhat different in that all parties represented in the current Parliament are pro-Israel. There is still a great deal of antisemitism on the far right and in a large section of the Catholic church, but it is countered by the almost uniformly pro-Israel views of the leadership of the main-stream nationalist and catholic right. n nI think a somewhat different but related version of the same phenomenon has taken place in the United States. It seems to me that the kind of anti-semitism that you can find on the pages of Chronicles or The American Conservative is essentially political – it does not involve a general hostility to Jews but a hostility to Jews with certain political opinions. In Taki’s case there is also a personal element – note that he quite readily uses other “ethnic slurs” against people he dislikes – I don’t see in this anything more than a substitute of actually kicking your opponent. n nIn any case, I got involved in this argument, not because I wanted to defend Taki or even less Buchanan (I actually hold Buchanan’s view that the US should have stayed out of the World War II much more reprehensible than anything Taki has ever written – and by the way, Taki most certainly does not share this view although he is partly of German extraction) but only to say that I don’t see anything wrong with John Derbyshire writing for his magazine and I actually prefer him doing so than the other choice (becoming a butler) that he mentioned in his Gawker interview.
Far too much and too wide-ranging to respond to all of it, so just a few quick whacks: n n"Did you really think that Hasidic Jews in Western Ukraine before the war intermarried with Ukrainians or Poles?…My mother, on the other hand, was born in a Polish peasant family so there is a probability of near 0 that she has any Jewish blood. Normally I never call myself Jewish…" No, I didn't think that before the war that Hassidic Jews in Western Ukraine started marrying non-Jewish Ukraines and Poles, and think marriages between them, like that of your parents, must have been a great rarity in the years after the war too.
(continued): As someone born of an unequivocally non-Jewsh mother, and one who has never undergone conversion, and does not respect the religious beliefs of Jews or participate in their communal life, you are plain and simple NOT a Jew, though the Nazis would have treated you as one. So when youI "referred to (yourself) as Jewish," you were being less than entirely truthful with us and/or yourself. "(P)urely for the sake of the argument" doesn't explain away such misrepresentations, even if you see yourself as well-meaning and add that you are a staunch Zionist, which Christians and other non-Jews are welcome to be.
(continued): The business about who spoke Yiddish was a bit confusing since you didn't explicitly say who in your extended family was/wasn't Jewish, though you could have easily enough the first time around. But you're notion of who is/isn't a Jew is your own rather than a "standard" Jewish one, " – I have always been perfectly aware of the Jewish religious laws on this matter and the Israeli 'Law of Return,' – which seems to means little or nothing for your purposes. n n
(continued): "In the past, Jews were seen as overwhelmingly leftist and “rootless” cosmopolitans, in particular as enemies of all forms of nationalism. As a result anti-semitism existed almost entirely on the right (the most notable exception on the left being Karl Marx himself) …The Jews or at least Israelis are no longer seen as overwhelmingly leftist or anti-nationalist. From being an idol of the left Israel has become the principal enemy." n nWhat "Left" was there before Marx, Engels, and the other 19th century proto-communists to make for a Right vs Left? It is true that antisemitism has become an increasingly Leftist thing over the past 50 years or so, but you are very much mistaken in thinking that antisemitism wasn't very significant over on the Left, especially those parts that would become the Soviet Union, notwithstanding the prominence of many born into Jewish families (e.g., Trotsky) in the Communist movement.
(continued): Your defense(s) of Taki et al. against the charge of "antisemeiism" (i.e., just not "bright;" it's all "political" rather than "racialist") may persuade you, but they are at best nonsense. But clearly you are not to be reasoned with on this. n nThank you for the further elaborations. We more or less know where each other stands, so we can quit now.
lucretius123: "Lot’s of people that I admire, (e.g William Buckley, Paul Johnson) have maintained amicable and friendly relations with all or some of them, and have defended their character. Generally I am prepared to take their word for it." n nAre you unaware that Buckley devoted an entire issue of the NR to the subject of antisemitism, and two of the three people he specified as exemplars of that pernicious form of bigotry were Buchanan and Sobran?! (On Gore Vidal, the third of them, he was somewhat equivocal.) Buckley fired his friend Sobran when he couldn't cover for him after Sobran started writing for a neo-Nazi publication and lauding "Aryan" blond hair and blue eyes. But though you say you will, in fact you won't take Buckley's word for it, nor consider the actual evidence in support of his conclusion about BUchanan and Sobran. Too complicated?
lucretius123: "But let me finally return to Taki, Buchanan, Sobran and others of this kind. Of course, each is an individual case and my opinion is not quite the same in each. I don’t want to get involved in any debates about the semantics of the term 'anti-semite'." No need to do so. "Antisemitism" reduces in the end to hatred of Jews qua Jews. n n"First of all, these are all civilized men and not savages, and they have no harmful not to mention murderous intentions towards anyone." That in no way absolves them of the charge of antisemitism. That you think it does or can says a great deal about your claim of "expertise" where antisemitism is concerned.
Actually I have to retract what I wrote above convening Taki. I have not read anything of his for a few years and did not realise he managed to descend so low. I always thought of him as an amusing and harmless clown but I have to say he turned into a disgusting clown, though still quite harmless as I don't think there is any sane person he can possibly influence.
So though Taki was friendly with Sir Goldsmith (an individual you seem not to have known was born to a Jewish father and Catholic mother and converted to Catholicism), you have reluctantly concluded that the publisher of Taki Magazine is in fact an antisemite? You don't say what has brought you around to that conclusion about someone who is a "civilized man," "not a savage," and without "harmful or murderous intentions," criteria you told us argue against antisemitism notwithstanding untold millions of examples to show that is proof of nothing. But you still won't accept Taki's venomous calling out of Jewish names, in the way that his bud Pat Buchanan has done too, as a telling expression of antisemitism? (You said you were less convinced that Taki was an antisemite than that Buchanan was one, so are you now going to reassess where Buchanan is concerned?)
O.K. just a few more words. I can't imagine what made you think I did not know Goldsmith was (officially) a convert with a Jewish father. In fact, although you won't believe it, there is not a single piece of factual information in all your writing that "I did not know". Which is really why I am not very interested in continuing this discussion. But I will answer one more question. Who make me change my mind about Taki? Another Chrisitan, Lawrence Auster . In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have mentioned, but concerns other things which I already knew earlier, but I did not know had reached the sort of depths I discovered through Auster. However, I am still of the same mind as I was at the beginning – all these people turned into anti-semitites because of politics (hatred of so called neoconservatives) and personal grudges against them. This is quite different form the anti-semites I have known who praise Hitler and believe regret he did not succeed well enough. In fact, the thing that Taki keeps harping on and for which he bears the hardest grudge against some Jews is being called a Nazi. So in retaliation he has taken to comparing Israel to the Nazis and I can't forgive. nI don't think there is anything worth saying anymore on this matter so this is my last contribution to this debate.
(continued): No need to discuss Sobran, since you now allow that he is an out-and-out antisemite, notwithstanding that William Buckley counted him a friend before firing him from the NR? (What do you imagine it adds to put "classical" in front of "antisemite," as you do? Are you trying to distinguish those antisemites not inclined to support violence against Jews?) n nAnd you will acknowledge, won't you, that no one in the course of this thread, and certainly not me, has accused Derbyshire of being an antisemite. But I did follow on what John Podhoretz said in the OP about where Derbyshire chose to publish his provocative piece. ("…an article Derbyshire wrote for a site called Taki Magazine…this article, like much of what appears on that website and others like it…") My comment, the one to which you took such strong, and wrong-headed, exception was very much on topic. n nFinally, nice of you to say you like Ethiopian Jews, as you did above, though you claim they are decidedly your intellectual inferiors.
RWood – I agree with you fully. Mr. Podhoretz wrote: "I’m not going to rehash here the offense committed by the Derbyshire piece." It behooves Mr. Podhoretz to rehash the offenses committed by Mr. Derbyshire. I read the article and there was little I could with which I could disagree, especially the part about whites being fearful of blacks. (Indeed, Gregory Kane in the Washington Examiner today -4/9- pointed out that no less a black man than the 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson has such expressed such a fear.) The business about the IQ that Mr. Derbyshire mentions is found in Hernnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, and so Mr. Derbyshire is saying nothing new here. n nOf course, Mr. Podhoretz has still to justify his rush to judgment on George Zimmerman, but that's another matter.
So like John D you run away from any situation where blacks outnumber whites? You are that afraid? Curious.
besht2003: The short answer is: YES.