National Review Writer’s Racist Notion of ‘Intelligent, Well-Socialized Blacks’ (IWSB)

The excerpts below are from an article titled “The Talk: Nonblack Version” by John Derbyshire. It is presented by Derbyshire as a rebuttal to the conversation many African-American parents have with their kids to help them avoid trouble with racist people or institutions they may encounter. However, the only thing that Derbyshire accomplished was to expose his nauseating prejudice and ignorance. Be prepared, as you read this, for some of the most repulsive rhetoric you will ever hear outside of a Klan lynching.

(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.

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

Derbyshire is a writer for the conservative National Review. It is incomprehensible that they could keep him on the payroll after publishing this disgusting piece of trash. While some of their staff and editors have criticized Derbyshire, there is no indication that he will be terminated, suspended, or otherwise held accountable.

The first consequence for this atrocious column should be for Derbyshire to be forced to forfeit any IWSB’s he may have acquired. Then he should be forever associated with an acronym that better suits him: Ignorant Racist White Fuckwad (IRWF). [Note: African-Americans are not required to collect IRWF’s as amulets or for any other purpose.]

[Update] National Review does the right thing and fires Derbyshire.


7 thoughts on “National Review Writer’s Racist Notion of ‘Intelligent, Well-Socialized Blacks’ (IWSB)

  1. This would be downright funny if it weren’t so sad. And of course, the only people who would take him seriously are already susceptible to his way of delusional thinking and hate. Because he will be viewed by the addle brained as having some authority, it justifies their hate.

  2. I’m glad you posted something on this. I read about it on Raw Story. It is inconceivable to me that something like this could be published in a serious periodical in the 21st century. I commented on the Raw Story article about this that Allen West and Herman Cain should take note because this is what their right-wing conservative friends think of them. Of course, those two Uncle Tom’s don’t have a clue and never will.

  3. Just read Derbyshire has been terminated by National Review. What else could they do if they have any shred of integrity. Good riddance!!! I thought the article had been published in National Review, which it had not. I know they are a conservative publication but this is way over the top and at least they severed their ties with him for this outrageous article. Now if Fox would start severing ties with people like this they could become a new network with a new mission to practice real journalism.

  4. “…there is no indication that he will be terminated, suspended, or other wise held accountable…”

    Hey Mark, I suggest you draw lines through that sentence, like some other bloggers do. At least you acknowleged in an update that National Review fired him.

  5. I happen to have met John Derbyshire three times in the last ten years or so and to have corresponded with him occasionally as well as having read his brilliant books “Prime Obsession”, “Unknown Quantity” but not “I Saw Calvin Coolidge in a Dream”. He is delightfully erudite and above all witty company and I know black friends who have the same view of him although he is a nerdy polymathic eccentric whom it requires a few more IQ points than appear on this blog to appreciate.

    Someone directed me to his follow up in Taki Mag where he rightly explains that his reference to Good Samaritan behaviour requires at least elaboration. But what does he say that is not factual?
    Very rude to speak the truth of course, sometimes. If I tell a stupid person to his/her face that he/she is stupid it is most likely unnecessary and therefore unjustified offensiveness (though not always). To tell people generally that there are generally unspoken truths about the statistical averages of the African-American population which might give offense to an African-American who thinks he/she might suffer from being classified according to those stats as having certain undesirable characteristics obviously requires justification beyond the need to publish something that one is paid for or which keeps oneself before the public. But are there not such possible justifications? E.g. encouraging people to speak frankly about important matters instead of burying them and leaving unspoken thoughts to fester and spread poison subtly? Or just helping busy parents with confused thoughts to say sensible things to their children – who do after all deserve to be protected from naivety….

Comments are closed.