The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Rich Lowry Does the Right Thing

By on 4.8.12 @ 5:24PM

Over the weekend the news emerged that National Review’s editor Rich Lowry had fired longtime NR writer John Derbyshire for writing — in another publication, the online Taki’s Magazine -- advice on race Derbyshire said he had given to his children.

Here’s the link to Rich Lowry’s posting and another link to a Huffington Post story on the issue.

We’ve had our differences with Rich Lowry and our friends at NR, primarily on what many perceived was an abandoning of conservatism for the old bromides of the GOP Establishment.

 But unequivocally, what Rich Lowry did in separating NR from the racial nonsense of Mr. Derbyshire was 100% correct.

We discuss race on occasion here, and our repeated and central point is the historically obvious, not to mention the politically incorrect: racism, the judging of others by skin color, has never had anything whatsoever to do with conservatism from Burke to Reagan. On the contrary, it is well and long recorded historical fact that in terms of American history it is the American Left that is not merely attracted to racism but is in fact addicted to it. The progressive movement… as evidenced in this latest episode with Trayvon Martin’s killing (noted in the Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele) and the rush for the lynch mob led by MSNBC’s Al Sharpton… needs racism as a drug addict needs drugs.

Facts… history… the law… the idea of America as a colorblind society with equal opportunity and individual liberty for all — does not matter to the left. Judging by skin color (or class or gender or gender orientation) is all. It is nothing other but the American version of Marxism’s murderously collectivist dictim that all thought proceeds from an “ideological superstructure” springing from class. Or, in this case, race.

Leftists are unalterably opposed to a colorblind America for the most fundamental of reasons: without the ability to use race as a weapon, progressivism is a political dead duck. Without the ability to instill fear of The Other… in this case racial fears…. the left has nothing saleable. Whether it was the progressive whites running the Democratic Party from underneath the sheets of the Ku Klux Klan or the progressive black Al Sharpton leading virtual lynch mobs from his MSNBC show, the left must fan the flames of race to advance the progressive agenda.

Mr. Derbyshire’s appalling recorded sentiments on race have nothing whatsoever to do with National Review or its superb writers — much less with conservatism itself.

 Rich Lowry did the right thing.

View all comments (134) |

Very disappointed| 4.8.12 @ 8:14PM

No, Mr. Lord, Rich Lowry of National Review did NOT do the right thing by knee-jerk removing John Derbyshire.

You pine constantly here in these recent weeks for Rush and non-PC speak, but, when we come to another issue, John Derbyshire offering up what is advice for teens on smarts in this life, well, you also want to throw John Derbyshire under the bus.

Yet just twice in the last two weeks you've been extolling Mark Stevens for not cratering to PCesque America.

Mr. Lord, has anyone every accused you of Jekyll and Hyde like behaviors?

FYI:
1. I've read the John Derbyshire piece on Taki and would only personally edit two or three phrases tops.
2. I've lived in four of America's largest cities and others that are just about half a million or less. All that Mr. Derbyshire is saying on the real dangers of crime, blacks, gangs, and thuggery is 100% TRUE.
3. I've worked with blacks in inner cities (mostly youth) but we frequently have to do intricate planning to avoid any danger to those who volunteer to help.
4. Remember -- Mr. Derbyshire is offfering up advice to loved ones, to TEENS -- who do not yet have the gray & wrinkles experiences of life.

The leadership at National Review just made a huge mistake. Mr. Lord, you do not need to compound it.

Count me as one standing beside Mr. John Derbyshire.

Sean| 4.8.12 @ 9:27PM

National Review is not a conservative publication. One of their few good writers was Derbyshire. Derbyshire's article was basic common sense that is already know and practiced by most of America.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.8.12 @ 9:48PM

I read what he had to say.

He looks at individual human beings and sees not individuals but "blacks."

I've lived in a heavily "black" section of Washington, DC. I saw my neighbors as individuals...not as "black".....The business of judging by skin color is a trade mark of leftist thinking. If even a "conservative" is going to live by leftist standards on race...Big Problems.

Bob K.| 4.8.12 @ 10:16PM

"He looks at individual human beings and sees not individuals but "blacks."

A thoughtless, nonsense, knee jerk comment one would likely find in a letter to the editor of "The New Republic."

Maybe room for it can be found in "Current Wisdom" in the May issue of "The American Spectator."

Chris| 4.8.12 @ 10:19PM

Yea gads, you link to the HuffPo and don't even provide a link to the article about which you are criticizing Derb? I'm not a fan of the man but most of what he said is true.

Just like Lowry, you throw out accusations but don't indicate where you disagree with him. Which points does he have wrong? It is hard to debate your accussation if all you are going to do is claim he is only looking at blacks as a group and not individuals. What he is saying is treat blacks as individuals but in certain situations you should avoid blacks due to this little thing called reality. Maybe you are confused about the difference between psychology and sociology. To paraphrase Heinlein, sociology is not the sum of individual psychology.

Why do I think your heavily black section of DC was full of middle to upper level government employees? In other words, your sample is slanted to a specific minority as Derb was pointing out. I can tell you that I wouldn't travel in some heavily black areas of DC without an armored car.

In general, I will avoid travelling through black sections of any town. Getting a bottle thrown through your window in the middle of the day will start to remove any naive notions. Getting treated as an interloper when you stop at a nearby black run business to call the cops doesn't help.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.8.12 @ 11:39PM

Chris....

Respectfully, I assumed you would follow the links supplied in the HuffPo piece...which do indeed take you here:
http://takimag.com/article/the.....z1rJPlABLB

I have lived in a Washington neighborhood where there were gun shots at night, cars broken into etc. I was fine. Totally. People...individuals...do these things. Not "blacks" "whites" "Latinos" .....again....this is the same race-based thinking that bequeathed racial quotas and every race-based "solution" since slavery. There is not a thing in the world "conservative" about it. It is a form of collectivism. You are welcome to it.

Chris| 4.9.12 @ 12:10AM

Why would I go to the trash that is the HuffPo? I'm reading your post, not theirs.

You lived in a neighborhood with gun shots at night and vandalized cars and you were fine? No, you were lucky. That's why I'm sure you live in a much nicer nieghborhood now. That's why I moved out of the city after my wife came home to the black guy going out the back door with some of our electronics. Being unlucky 3 times in 2 months will do that to you. Keep your luck, I'll stick with reality.

You're confusing I will deal in private/professional situations with blacks in a way that I would deal with anyone else, when there a large number of blacks around that I don't know, I'm going to be smart and move along.

The radical individualism you espouse is just as ignorant as the Marxist collectivism of the Left. To deny that people voluntarily and involuntarily belong to certains groups and those groups have certain characteristics is to deny reality. Just like it is to deny reality that people aren't individuals as well making individual choices. Recognizing that does not mean that there have to be racial quotas or race-based solutions. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't all be equal before the law. But, it can mean, as individuals we might deal with certain groups in different ways than other groups. Mormon day at the zoo is going to be, in general, safer and more enjoyable than African-American day at the zoo.

Should a black person feel safe if they live in a neighborhood full of KKK members. I mean they should treat them all as individuals right?

IQ test for Mr. Lord -- needed| 4.9.12 @ 12:14AM

But that is "lived" in Washington, D.C. -- past tense. You do not live in(side!) Washington, D.C. now, now do you?

Why?

A single man under 40 or maybe 45 can live just about anywhere. All the while, consciously or unconsciously developing very real street smart, street survival skills.

But...get married.

Let life change, have a wife who does not like to hear gunshots all the time, sirens, watch police nervously call for MORE BACKUP before they proceed, or have to wait for you to come home just so that you can be beside her when she wants to walk, stroll, or take the dog out.

I don't know too many good women who want to wait for you to come home just so they can safely go out to get a box of donuts or some milk.

And...then....children.

When children arrive, or just one newborn, things change, now don't they?

You seem to forget that Derbyshire is making it clear that this is advice to teens. This is about a "talk" from parent to child.

PLEASE TELL US WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE OR WILL BE ENROLLED IN COLLEGE, MR. LORD. I'll bet you a lifetime supply of the beverage of your choice that a daughter of yours will not be enrolled or enrolling in a predominantly black college. Or a predominantly Hispanic one.

You make choices all the time with whom you associate, where you go, how you spend your time, and where. I bet if we could track your life, you would not be hanging out much with the black scene.

Why?

ALSO: What does this have to do with "conservative." That word is not the be-all, end-all. This is about father to child advice on how to be safe and smart in modern America.

Mr. Lord, you should view the articles on Washington, D.C., former D.C. major Marion Barry's recent comments about Asians, and the current (and 10 year ago) demographics of Ward 8 in Washington, D.C.

Focus less on the inane (as always) Marion Barry remarks, focus instead on the now Asian flight out of the District.

Note what Asian businesses which stay have to do to better prepare for the eventualities of crime in Washington, D.C.

You are really full of malarkey today, Mr. Lord.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.8.12 @ 11:19PM

Very...

You say: "John Derbyshire offering up what is advice for teens on smarts in this life, "

This is the basis for racial quotas, for affirmative action etc etc. What he's saying is..."Let's all judge people by skin color...not by their individual qualities." Whatever else this is, this is decidedly not conservative thinking...this is Sharpton, Sherrod, etc etc etc. NR is free to choose who writes for them.....And somebody who is quite visibly agreeing with the Sharptonian world view may be many things.....but it was obviously a liberal bridge too far even for NR. Not, I guess, for you. Fair enough.

zombyboy | 4.9.12 @ 12:05AM

Absolutely right. And I second your opinion: National Review is better for having fired Derbyshire. This is not the first time he's come close to that line; this is just the first where he has publicly gone so far past that line as to be unendurable.

Your posting is spot on here.

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 12:24AM

'Unendurable'! The poor dear can't stand to hear anything negative about black people -- it's not that he's a pussy who kowtows to liberal pieties, he's just too darn conservative to be racist. Right.

zombyboy | 4.9.12 @ 12:40AM

"Unendurable" in the sense that if I employed the man, I would feel that I had no other choice than to fire him.

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 1:16AM

That would still make you a pussy, I'm afraid.

zombyboy | 4.9.12 @ 2:29AM

You back up your thoughts with such insight, such command of facts, such depth.

You're more than welcome to support racists like Derbyshire if you'd like; you're more than welcome to call me names if it makes you feel special; and you're more than welcome to share your special brand of idiocy. The truth is that in the marketplace of ideas, you simply can't compete.

If you ever want to enter the grown up world and have a conversation that doesn't involve calling other people "pussies" when you don't have anything meaningful to add, then I'll be happy to pay attention. Until then, it's obvious that you're just another keyboard warrior who thinks that name calling equates to scoring debate points. Utterly useless.

Poppakap| 4.17.12 @ 7:17PM

Well said Zombyboy. Anyone whose comment amounts to calling another various genitalia is the all-too-obvious efforts of a feeble mind trying to express itself forcibly.

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 12:23AM

If you had a shred of honesty you'd admit that Derbyshire's views are a little more radical than your own self-satisfied and lukewarm establishment 'conservatism', but instead you prefer to disingenuously redefine terms like 'liberal' to mean the opposite of what they're commonly taken to mean. Then again, there's a very good chance you're being earnestly stupid when you say that Derbyshire's racial realism is a 'liberal bridge too far'.

Poppakap| 4.17.12 @ 7:21PM

Sorry Kiri, you lost all credibility with your childish name-calling above. Your attempts at redemption through trying to sound rational simply show your willingness to jump into the rhetorical gutter when unable to formulate a cogent argument.

Yips| 4.9.12 @ 1:04AM

Can someone explain to me why Mr. Jeffrey Lord is giving a shout-out to the Huffington Post? He wants us to link there so we can....

Up/increase the Huffington Post web traffic.

That's why.

So why?

Jeffrey Lord has done what, "jump the shark" today?

A real Benedict Arnold today, he is.

Dai Alanye | 4.9.12 @ 1:10PM

The score per Jeff Lord:

Political corectness, 1
First Amendment, 0

Sad but true.

Occam's Tool| 4.8.12 @ 8:22PM

Well, Taki's Magazine is problematic in many areas. Taki himself is a felon and a vicious antisemite.

That being said, as I've stated many times, problems with behaviors in various segments in American Society are rooted in Cultural issues, not genetic ones, and Liberal solutions have resulted in many, many minority group deaths and tremendous suffering, and are now transferring those problems to lower class White groups. The solution for problems in Black America is very simple (not to be confused with easy): emphasize education and emotional stability/willingness to assume parental burdens as the most important societal values for reproductive fitness and socially stigmatize men who father children but don't marry their mothers and work to raise the kids. That is the way to reduce crime, drug abuse, and male violence. It works in any culture, with any skin color, from any background.

John's problem was that he assessed outcomes while seemingly making the assumption that the problems were genetic and not cultural in nature.

Jack in Wi.| 4.8.12 @ 9:41PM

By the way, Occam is a vicous racist and continually calls for nuclear genocide on millions of Muslims and others. I don't especially like Derbyshire because he hung around National Review which is really should be called Neocon Review. Taki is no antisemite. He wrote for years for both National Review and this magazine. He just believes in telling the truth about the kleptocrats in the Middle East. He calls out the Saudi's out just as much as the Israeli's. He was a very long time friend of William F. Buckley right up until his death.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 1:44AM

No., I don't. I point out that before Teheran gets a nuke we should hit them as hard as possible. Teheran is seeking nuclear weapons, is the greatest exporter of terrorism on earth, and captured our embassy in 1979, opening up a 32 years war. They need a spanking. Taki is an antisemite---his anti-Jewish comments go far beyond Israel. Look up the Spectator's article from him--the London one---copies should be under your tinfoil hat, Jack.

Given your vicious anti-Jewish screeds, Jack, you're a fine one to be calling me out. By the way--it is "vicious."

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 2:30AM

Yeah, and the vicious racist here has two kids who are Mayan Indians. I just have problems with people who want to enslave my daughter and throw her in a burqa. By the way, since when is Islamic sharia a race?

C Bowen | 4.9.12 @ 8:22AM

Occam;

Here is what you wrote:

http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....tcontainer

Quote:

"They should be suffering and inconvenienced---not us. Without pity, remorse, or mercy. At minimal cost in American dollars and lives. Leave them poisoned, deformed, crying, and broken in spirit, soul, and mind. Make their survivors build the Mexican wall for us, without pay, under the lash. Let their future be a boot crashing down on a human face, forever."

Occam's Tool 6/18/11"

Skippy| 4.9.12 @ 3:47PM

I like it!

Jack in Wi.| 4.9.12 @ 8:55AM

You have called for the nuclear leveling of Tehren, a city with 10 million people. All that over a non existant nuclear program that even the Israeli security services admit does not exist. You are a disagraceful genocide advocate. Taki has been a voice of truth and honesty for decades. I have been reading him for many years starting with both this publication and National Review. Considering that he and Buckley were such close friends are you calling Buckley an anti semite as well. Occam are you sure you are not Abe Foxman writing in disguise.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 1:06PM

I'm not Abe Foxman. And Jack, you and Bowen are cool with the levelling of Tel Aviv and Haifa.

People who threaten my children deserve to be broken and feel the lash. Sorry, but my daughter is worth more than the ten million in Teheran. I don't expect you to understand this, since catamites, by definition, don't tend to have kids.

Glad to hear that you think that nuclear levelling , as opposed to nation building, could work, though. If it couldn't work, I would not advocate it.

Taki is a coke head, a felon, and a thug.

C Bowen| 4.9.12 @ 2:01PM

"...Tel Aviv and Haifa."

I never said anything like that--why did you lie about what you said though?

Occam's Tool| 4.8.12 @ 8:23PM

By the way, John himself is a very nice and decent fellow.

RR| 4.8.12 @ 8:32PM

Mr. Lord, it is a very slippery slope you choose to live upon. Just how far do you think you are from being dumped on a whim? If we apply this same standard to you, well, then you walk a very thin writer's/journalism tightrope, yes?

And that is lunacy.

For readers unacquainted with John Derbyshire's work, just try this very short article he did a week ago for National Review Online:

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....derbyshire

Having listened to John Derbyshire on "RadioDerb" for about four years now and getting the chance to sometimes read his "Straggler" articles, I like the man. Do I agree with 100% of what he says? Of course not. But I value greatly his observations, his insights, his wit, and his love for this America, his adopted country.

In his articles and RadioDerb talks, he deals with truths that we need to confront. Like in the link article above. The topic is drunks behind the wheel of automobiles who are illegals who seem all too often to skate free of law enforcement penalties.

This is information that American readers appreciate. John Derbyshire is a GOOD MAN. And a really good writer.

Mr. Derbyshire is not a racist (and we should be more properly using the terms of "bias" and "prejudice" not the hobgoblin of all -- "racism") Mr. Derbyshire is offering up points of advice that everyone needs to be street smart in our lawless streets of America. See the story of the tourist beaten by blacks in Baltimore on St. Patrick's Day -- just three weeks ago.

Shame on you, Mr. Lord. Let's see, when will history repeat itself when you phrase a paragraph or two wrongly and Mr. E. Tyrell dumps you? We'll see how you judge and opine then.

zombyboy | 4.9.12 @ 12:18AM

Derbyshire is an admitted racist. His words: "I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one..."

Derbyshire is, I agree, a good writer. This is actually one of the reasons that I am not particularly willing to imagine that he simply used poor language to describe his thoughts. He's a careful writer, he knows what he is saying, and what he wrote most definitely was racist (that is, by the dictionary definition of racism, the writing was racist). This is why I don't understand why you might characterize it as being fired "on a whim." That's laughable: he's was fired for cause.

National Review's various contributors espouse quite a wide variety of beliefs and that's one of the things that I enjoy about it. I often disagreed with Derbyshire, but I appreciated the view that he brought to the magazine. But he bought this by his own actions; the magazine, believing that he could no longer act as an effective voice for their mission, was well within its rights to sever the relationship.

As to whether he is a good man, I have no specific opinion. He might be a wonderful man; I've known many wonderful racists who live good lives. But he most certainly is a racist-- by his own admission.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h.....-a-racist/

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 12:35AM

"National Review's various contributors espouse quite a wide variety of beliefs and that's one of the things that I enjoy about it."

Yes, the spectrum of opinion at National Review is quite astounding. From the partisan hysteria of Ranesh Ponnuru to the mindless GOP boosterism of Rich Lowry -- and everything in between! Yes, NR's ideological diversity is so vibrant (much like the minorities we pander to) that Derbyshire became superfluous. He'll be replaced by someone who is truly an iconoclast -- maybe even Jeffrey Lord himself.

zombyboy | 4.9.12 @ 12:47AM

Krauthammer, McCarthy, Mona Charen, Michelle Malkin, Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg-- these are all contributors to the magazine. Are you seriously telling me that these names represent such a narrow view as you suggest? Do you seriously suggest that there aren't writers in there that you can't find common ground with?

Your comment is nothing more than hyperbole.

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 1:02AM

Wow, you're right, I hadn't considered that before. For instance, there's Michelle Malkin, who is pro-Israel and anti-tax, then there's Krauthammer who is slightly more pro-Israel and a little bit less anti-tax, and then there's Jonah Goldberg who thinks that anyone who isn't pro-Israel and anti-tax is a 'liberal fascist'.

I was wrong for thinking that NR was the mouthpiece of party hacks and not a bustling lyceum where intellectuals engage each other in verbal combat. They even have Victor Davis Hanson! I hear he sometimes mentions the ancient Greeks in his columns about Israel and lower taxes. Clearly all of these thinkers are unique and interesting.

C Bowen | 4.9.12 @ 8:24AM

VDH has a book called Mexifornia, and writes on the topic frequently. Lowry should check it out and do the right thing--LOL.

Yips| 4.9.12 @ 8:41AM

By VDH, you mean Victor Davis Hanson, also a National Review writer, correct?

Yes, I read a very telling piece at NRO (National Review Online) about life in the breadbasket valley of California about July or August of just last summer, summer 2011. The Mexican large enclaves in agricultural Caly, their wiring schemes to get electricity and TV, their unregulated instant "stores" beside the road, etc.

Was that from VDH or from Jay Nordlinger? One of these regular NR authors offered a long piece of (not so favorable at all) observations on illegal Mexicans, their Mexican-American aiders, and the California government that obviously looks the other way on a whole host of issues.

The piece was long and decidedly anti-Mexican.

Will NR and Lowry and Jonah Goldberg also be looking to remove Mark Steyn very soon? After all, he really hammers those who follow islam. I don't hear Mark Steyn looking at allah followers as "individuals" as Mr. Lord here preens.

Ah...consistency....

C Bowen | 4.9.12 @ 9:02AM

Lowry and Lord are just waiting for instruction from Huff Post.

Skippy| 4.9.12 @ 4:04PM

It must suck when your pets(Mexicans and other illegals, Muslims, Occupiers)crap all over the floor.
Especially when everyone told you they would.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 1:46AM

He personally helped me choose a mathematics curriculum for my children when I started homeschooling. I like John very much, even when I disagree with him, as on this article.

Taki, on the other hand, IS antisemitic and IS a Coke head AND is a felon.

rem| 4.8.12 @ 8:54PM

You must have really hastily written this short article, Mr. Lord. (Maybe you should not be working -- It is Easter, after all. Maybe a time to give, to better render unto the Lord Himself?)

Well, work and write you did, and write very poorly on this piece above. Other than agreeing with Rich Lowry, not much else is clearly worded thought in the three main paragraphs above.

If by writing, "Facts… history… the law… the idea of America as a colorblind society with equal opportunity and individual liberty for all," well, I am not sure what you are getting at.

Sure, the point that liberals use and WILL ALWAYS USE "race issues" for their personal and agenda advancements is probably obvious to 9/10's of all readers here. All of us know the M.O. of the leftist race industry.

But that is not what Mr. Derbyshire is talking about in his advice points to 16 and 19 year old teens.

But what has that got to do with what John Derbyshire was writing in this online article? Derbyshire is saying in the article, "You've got to keep your thinking cap on when out in public, in busy intersections, in crowds, and when around what appear to be situations that could escalate."

Let me take you through the streets of South and West Chicago, Mr. Lord, and let me see just how colorblind your real behavior is. Let's go. Right now. The sun is setting. Perfect. These neighborhoods of Chicago are all the more "real" at night. Or maybe you'd prefer the streets of Detroit? Cleveland?

Sure! We all want a colorblind America. Yes, we do! But that does not mean that we avoid the real truths of where danger, crime, drug-dealing, violent gangs, property destruction, rapes, and muggings come from.

Good readers and good Americans are interested in the truth, not varnished lies. Why you wish to nod agreement at Rich Lowry for firing Mr. Derbyshire is beyond me.

My guess is you've not had to ride the NYC subway system much at 10 p.m. or later at night. Or that you don't live near inner city Baltimore, or the same in Memphis or have NEVER lived anywhere near New Orleans.

I don't see you factually refuting any black violent crime in America (and Toronto, I might add) statistics, here, Mr. Lord.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.8.12 @ 9:59PM

rem...

But I have ridden the NYC subway after ten at night because I lived in New York...Ditto Washington, DC..........bad "sections" of town, and I have lived in them, are about people, not skin color.

Sorry.

noname| 4.8.12 @ 10:41PM

Yes. It was a young black person who killed those two British "people" in Florida who walked into a bad section. Like so many other innocents.

I have met many fine blacks. But I also was told by a woman who marched with King (in the 90's, in Los Angeles, where you would have been a fool to walk through black areas of town) who said that the current generation had thrown everything that she had worked so hard for away. I looked at the scars on the back of a fellow student (asian) who also was stupid enough to go into a black part of town, and ended up with a bullet half an inch from his heart. My roommate's boyfriend (who was black) warned us both to stay in during the riots, as black people were going to go "hunting" for whites. What happened instead was that the city was put under a curfew which probably stopped things from getting worse (some 51 people died). My education on violence in black culture occurred in those years, and although when I meet an individual black, I will get to know him or her on his merits - as a group I will use the statistical average when I wander into an area I know nothing about. And beware.

noname| 4.8.12 @ 10:46PM

I should have said innocents, black and white. But many more black. It is a carnage that black culture has had on itself. From abortion to random violence to drugs, it is the result of govt programs that have destroyed their family. I do not share Derb's views on the genetics (other, equally good studies have shown that nutrition and environment are strong co-indicators). I will put the blame on others as well. The US government, liberals, and the founder of planned parenthood - the racist Margaret Sanger, who wanted blacks eliminated. They have done a fine job of destroying and degrading an entire group of individuals, and I know they have eyes on the rest of us.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 1:13PM

I worked in LA during the riots. I went to pick up my gorgeous Japanese girlfriend and take her to a hotel where we rode out the riots. Her landlord came up to her apartment with a crowbar just in case she didn't want me there, was reassured by her, and then I shook his hand for defending her and thanked him profusely. It was the only time I missed a clinic in 4 years in residency at UCLA, because I didn't know what was going on in the streets and I wasn't going to move my car away from the tourist safety zone.

John Derbyshire, by the way, has lymphoma and is on difficult chemotherapy. Can we leave the poor bastard alone?

By the way, Teheran deserves to be bombed, and hard. Why are we playing tiddlywinks with psychopaths who broke diplomatic law and still have a war declared on us?

rem| 4.9.12 @ 12:26AM

Mr. Lord, okay, then let's be totally upfront -- give us the years you lived in NYC and D.C., the parts of town - specific, and your marital status at the time and if your wife was living with you in the same place. And, if during these periods of your life, you had not just a wife but children also in those places in NYC and D.C. (By the way, I trust you truly mean inside D.C. Being in bordering areas in Maryland or Virginia can be similar, especially on the Maryland side, but it is not the same)

Very curious to know.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.9.12 @ 9:32AM

Southeast Washington DC.
Ward 6.
1978-2004

Poppakap| 4.17.12 @ 7:30PM

What the hell difference does it make rem? Your questions are beginning to sound like the Inquisition.

Instead of being obtuse, just say what you're too cowardly to say: "you're lying Jeff Lord, you never lived in dangerous parts of DC and NYC."

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 1:14AM

"bad 'sections' of town, and I have lived in them, are about people, not skin color."

Right, it's just a coincidence that Detroit, Camden and Compton are majority black. If those cities were populated by Norwegians they'd still be violent urban armpits. That's exactly the kind of illogic I'd expect from a middlebrow columnist who has been cocooned in the beltway most of his life (as opposed to someone who has actually lived in 'bad sections of town').

Poppakap| 4.17.12 @ 7:32PM

You're still talking Kiri? After your juvenile outbursts above, I'm sure many had hoped you'd get your binky and take a nap.

Bart| 4.8.12 @ 9:01PM

I look forward to writers being fired in a few years by "conservative" publications for saying that women ought not be in combat and homosexuals are promiscuous. "Sexism!" "Homophobia!" "Unacceptable!" Whether factually accurate or not.

Teflon93| 4.8.12 @ 9:28PM

Homosexuals of both varieties are many times more promiscuous than heterosexuals; look up the data. We're getting a new rash of it as the first gay "marriages" collapse.

And women ought not be in combat, as anybody who's been through SERE knows. You haven't served, have you, Bart?

Bart| 4.8.12 @ 9:34PM

I don't think you understand sarcasm, '93. I agree with your views on both these topics. But I've noticed that the National Review crew is more and more willing to sling around terms like "sexist" and to treat lightly with those who advocate putting women in harm's way. Give it a decade, they'll be firing people for this stuff too.

RR| 4.9.12 @ 12:23AM

Bart, we other readers understood you the first time, your first post. Somehow Teflon93 missed it.

Your point is correct. I don't think that Mr. Jeffrey Lord, as a man who makes his living from writing, understands that he is just one paragraph away from being "offed" in this skizzoid journalism world.

That many not occur this year or next to Mr. Lord, but it surely will.

He'll then want to claim, "But look at all the great stuff I wrote for the last 10 -12 years that you praised me for....." And no one will hear him in the barrage & cacauphony of PC-superior-than-thouisms.

Teflon93| 4.9.12 @ 8:58AM

You're right, I did miss it. I apologize, Bart.

Occam's Tool| 4.8.12 @ 9:01PM

Personally, I think an apology for hurting anyone's feelings would have been appropriate, rather than a "firing." Letterman wasn't fired for his outrageous comments made about Sarah Palin's kid, and Andrew Sullivan and a host of others have grieviously insulted Trig Palin and still have their jobs.

Hell, Taki still writes for the London Spectator, and he is only barred here from writing about Jews. Perhaps the prohibition on writing on things racial might have applied. Look what happened to the Black Sportwriter who commented on Jeremy Lin in the most hideously obnoxious way---an apology.

We take ourselves too seriously here.

PCP Smoker| 4.8.12 @ 9:21PM

Derbshire's was one of those assholes trashing Limbaugh and Levin in 2009, referring to them as "low brow conservatives", his brand and NRO's being, obviously, high brow stuff. Well, some much for that BS. He's a creep, a racist, a bigot, and someone who did not favors to his children by spouting his racialist teachings. To hell with Derbshire. Send him back to England. He has no place in conservatism, and he was no place in this country.

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 12:45AM

Limbaugh and Levin are entertainers. No shit they're 'low brow' -- they're trying to appeal to a mass audience. Derbyshire can afford not to.

This is what conservatism in America has come to -- anti-intellectuals who screech about 'racism' and 'bigotry'. Pathetic.

Teflon93| 4.8.12 @ 9:26PM

The problem is that Derbyshire had been doing this for years. His anti-Christian---indeed, anti-religious---screeds in particular were bigoted and devoid of facts. None of that bothered Lowry and his Ruling Class buddies at NR because it didn't offend the liberals with whom he associates.

This latest article did---and thus Derbyshire had to go.

Unfortunately for Lowry, he's got a whole nest of ignoramuses over there and the next outbreak won't be long in coming.

This is what happens when you abandon respects for time-honored truths---and when you abandon the founding principles of the magazine.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:15AM

Exactly.

Derbyshire is an atheist, and from what I've gleaned from reading him, he's a biological/genetic determinist.

Which means he's always looked at peoples as members of herds, occasionally migratory, occasionally static, but nonetheless herds, and these herds have various propensities because of their genetic predispositions.

This explains why he tried to dress up his conclusions with made up various percentages on this and that, percentages by the way that had no basis other than his own observations and suppositions.

I've always found Derbyshire tremendously depressing, demoralizing. I've always thought the guy slightly touched, morbid in a way.

Now for whatever reason NR found it fit to retain his services, and they're tolerated his writing.

So why now this feigned outrage.

The guy is, and has been, a determinist.

For him there's no light of the eternal inside the breast of men, nor is there a divine spark unique to each. He's a rather hopeless case.

BUT,

and there is a BUT, --------- are we to pretend that criminality in the inner city isn't appalling.

Are we to turn a blind eye to what transpires in America's prison system?

Are we to pretend that the criminal statistics are not in some way, at the very least, suggestive?

Lowry denounced Derbyshire, but who here thinks that Lowry hasn't occasionally turned his steps in a different manner because of some sixth sense tingling, some discernible, slightly discernible detail that told him his safety required him to change his course.

Who here believes that?

Likewise Jeff Lord's protestations about living in a crime ridden Washington, as well as NYC?

Please.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 1:52AM

Yes, he is a biological determinist. Many of my arguments with him have revolved around the fact that I'm a Cultural determinist who believes that Environment can trump genetics.

But Derb was always gentlemanly in those arguments. Derb, by the way, is extremely weak from his chemotherapy for his lymphoma. I dunno, should I plead for Christian mercy and grace on Easter?

The day will come when we will all do something stupid and irretreviable (Jack, above, does that every damn day.), if it hasn't already.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 2:02AM

Damn. "Irretrievable."

By the way, Red, Derb is a strong supporter of Jews and Israel. Interesting that you call him a "paleocon." This "neocon" (bullshit label, as I never was Liberal) writes to him regularly.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 2:48AM

Derb is closing in on his latter days, and he's about to get an education that his fixation on genetic determinism will leave him little able to understand.

That there is a God.

Red Phillips | 4.9.12 @ 2:26PM

Why is this addressed to me Occam? I didn't write the comment above. I don't remember calling Derb a paleocon. I probably wouldn't because of the atheism thing. I think it is generally understood that paleos are sympathetic to Christianity. I might call Derb paleoish.

mikhail silo| 4.8.12 @ 9:33PM

Derb's advice may be good in practice but it will never work in theory. This is his real sin.

Chris| 4.8.12 @ 10:21PM

Um, not sure what you mean here. If it works in practice, then the theory doesn't matter.

mikhail silo| 4.9.12 @ 2:19AM

You are precisely right.

However, the usual way expressing this thought is "that's OK in theory but not in practice." In a sorry attempt at irony, I inverted the usual expression to point out that, to the pointy heads, conforming to theory is all important regardless of the consequences.

Bob K.| 4.8.12 @ 9:36PM

It was an Editorial decision by NR.

I would like to hear comments from the Editor or Publisher of American Spectator on this. Not an opinion from a writer.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:19AM

Who here believes that RET is about to step into the breach for Derbyshire?

Not bloody likely!

Derbyshire knew there were taboos, and he went there anyway.

Perhaps he wearied of pulling back, perhaps he had enough of censoring himself, perhaps many things, but one thing is apparent, and that is Derbyshire blurted out some stuff during a presidential election year, right in the midst of this tortured drama about an innocent Zimmerman and a not so innocent Martin, and his commentary was seized upon by leftists who fashioned it into a bludgeon, to bash the rest of us.

Eric Rasmusen| 4.9.12 @ 4:09PM

I second that request--- does TAS really admire NR for its political correctness? And does its leadership claim that walking at night in a black neighborhood doesn't make them nervous?

Phillip McKann| 4.8.12 @ 9:48PM

I am a conservative and I agree with John Derbyshire. Any other opinion is a blind rejection of reality and a disservice to your children.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.8.12 @ 10:32PM

Interesting. Which means you guys are all on the same side with Al Sharpton.

No thanks.

Very D| 4.9.12 @ 12:32AM

"Which means you guys are all on the same side with Al Sharpton."

Jeffrey Lord cannot have written this. Someone is impersonating him today. Seriously. American Spectator Online Site Administrator, please examine this and remove this impostor poster. Thank you.

(The calendar does read April 8, right? Not April 1.)

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 12:38AM

Nah, this is the same Jeffrey Lord who claimed that Santorum was pissing on Reagan's legacy because he criticized Gingrich's 'conservative' proposal for a billion dollar moon base right out of Heinlein's fantasies. He's just that stupid.

Poppakap| 4.17.12 @ 7:37PM

After your asinine posts above, you have the gumption to call someone else stupid? You are the embodiment of irony.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:26AM

Such heaping of scorn upon people fearful for the safety of themselves and their loved ones is unworthy.

Conservatives, as conservatives, value experience, hard won, often dearly purchased, and they don't discard such experience merely because of the baying of a mob.

Derbyshire's fixation on determinism, genetics, DNA and the like I believe to have always been misguided, because of the type of wideranging, overbroad conclusion he was always likely to draw therefrom.

But his greatest fault has always been his atheism.

Not this column.

All we've done here by throwing Derbyshire to the wolves is validate the narrative of the left, and validate as well their claim to "morality" on all issues regarding race and multiculturalism.

Validating the left is hardly the business of a conservative pundit, now is it?

Longview| 4.9.12 @ 3:35AM

NR is the one siding with Sharpton. Regardless of the merits of this position--to wit, that paternalistic deference to the political sentiments of a certain subset of cable-news black commentators is an overriding imperative for American society--you're an exceedingly mixed-up old columnist if you actually believe your critics are the ones being zealously PC here.

C Bowen | 4.9.12 @ 9:30AM

Lowry was on Sharpton's side not a week back over the Martin-Zimmerman affair--what are you talking about Lord?

Red Phillips | 4.8.12 @ 10:04PM

Rich Lowry is a pathetic PC coward. Instead of defending his writer when he was attacked by the Cultural Marxist Gestapo, he threw him under the bus and joined in the attack. How do PC thought slaves like Lowry look at themselves in the mirror in the morning knowing the SPLC tells them what they are allowed to think? Have they no self-respect? National Review is a pathetic shell of its former self.

And I'm not the least bit surprised that PC boy Lord is endorsing Lowry's despicable and cowardly behavior.

If Derb should have been given the axe he should have been given it for his anti-Christianity, given that anti-Christianity is actually not consistent with American conservatism.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.8.12 @ 10:10PM

Red....

Hmmmm...."PC boy"? Moi? LOL! EXCELLENT sense of humor!

Red Phillips | 4.8.12 @ 11:26PM

Mr. Lord, read my entry below (10:19). You really don't have a clue.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:29AM

Jeff,

you've validated the narrative of the left, by joining them in this unnecessary running down of Derbyshire, a guy I never liked, and never much enjoyed reading.

Since when is it the business of a conservative pundit to validate the narrative of the left regarding race and multiculturalism?

I must have missed that memo..........

Red Phillips | 4.9.12 @ 1:41AM

BTW, I called you PC boy because you nave a history of this sort of thing. You also PC grandstanded on the Ron Paul newsletters. The moniker is well deserved.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 1:59AM

Red---if a man makes millions from his racist newsletters because they have his name on the cover, he should be willing to stand by his writers, or fire them.

Paul did neither. Now, I happen to believe that Derb deserved a thrashing for helping Obama out with his article, but the guy has lymphoma and is on chemotherapy and makes his living as a writer. He also is, personally, a nice guy and a gentleman. We will get no kudos from the Left for throwing our boy to the wolves. he should have apologized for being offensive, NR should have fish slapped him, and it should have gone on. What he did was as offensive as the Black Sportswriter who implied that Jeremy Lin was underendowed below because he was Asian. OK?

Red Phillips | 4.9.12 @ 2:14AM

Occam, in several different threads I said that Paul handled the newsletter issue poorly. By so abjectly disavowing and distancing himself from them he validated the accusation that they were objectively racist which they weren't. He should have apologized for insensitive and over-the-top language and tone and moved on.

But my comment wasn't about Paul, it was about Jeffrey Lord empowering the PC though police by carrying water for them. Instead of validating the current Cultural Marxist zeitgeist, conservatives should resist it.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 2:26AM

Read my comments below, Red. And above. I happen to agree with you that people shouldn't be piling on a guy who is getting chemotherapy for lymphoma so aggressive that he can only work 2 weeks a month. I also happen to like Derb, personally--he did me a personal favor once. I also feel that he shouldn't have been fired for this---reprimanding would have done nicely.

But Paul is an odious slime who represents a district whose major city is a hellhole that I lived in for 4 years. I will never overlook a chance to kick him when possible. I was a Constituent.

Again, you and I disagree on the term "antisemitic" and "racist." All that being said, Derb is an interesting writer who engaged in mild pooch screwing here. As I warned him before in our private correspondence, TakiMag was a bad venue to write in. One does not listen to Doc Ock's advice at one's peril. The Ock is wise.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 1:15PM

By the way, Jeff, I don't disagree with your comments that Skin color is really immaterial to anything. Culture does rule all. But, you know, Derb may be dying here. Two columns on this?

W| 4.9.12 @ 1:46PM

Using the word culture instead of race when discussing crime in "certain areas of the city" is just a politically correct or acceptable way of saying race. When you use the word culture in the context of crime in the cities you are saying crime committed primarily by blacks. Just be honest about it. Is there any question of what you mean when you say culture? But that is not the same as saying that race determines how you act. It is just describing facts without acribing the cause of the facts or "culture."

Lowry also fired Ann Coulter for her saying after the 9/11 attacks that we should bomb the Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity.

W| 4.9.12 @ 1:55PM

PS,
This was not directed to anyone, just a general comment.
Ascribing not acribing.

Southern Agrarian| 4.8.12 @ 10:31PM

NR has been hoping to get rid of Derb for years. He was the last remaining traditional/paleoconservative on staff. The Neocons were just waiting for their chance. He will still be welcome at The American Conservative.

mikhail silo| 4.8.12 @ 10:50PM

Do you remember Lani Guinier? She was Clinton's pick to be Assistant Attorney General. In an interview with Ted Koppel the discussion turned to racial politics, Guinier said that there were not enough blacks in high office.

Koppel responded: "What about Clarence Thomas?" Guinier rejoined that Thomas was only "descriptively black." One can only conclude that Guinier meant that there was another type of black person, a real black person 0r, as it is now spoken, an "authentic black." This is, of course, the fig leaf that diguises the black social agitator.

Just who are these black social agitators? In short, they are black Marxists peddling racial discrimination by whites as the cause of all black woes. This, of course, is the subterfuge they use to sow racial dissention in their divide and conquer strategy to undermine America and, by extension, Christianity and capitalism, Marxism's chief rivals.

Now we have an emerging resentful black underclass that, by and large, rejects thrift, hard work, self discipline, and honesty and embraces violence as a means to an end, the end being social justice for blacks.

Having two definitions of what it means to be "black" is an intellectual sleight-of-hand that snares all kinds of people who find black Marxism hateful but are not careful to distinguish between those blacks who are "descriptively" black and those who are "authentically" black.

The Derb was careless in his language and has paid a price. Let this be a lesson to us all. But let us not shy away from the severe criticism of the "authentically black" agitators that we have in our midst.

As has been said in another context: John Derbyshire may be an SOB but he is our SOB. Lowry sacrificed him to placate the enemy and to the false sensibilities of political correctness. I will never forgive him.

Et tu, Lord?

Red Phillips | 4.8.12 @ 11:19PM

Also, Jeffrey Lord demonstrates his utter cluelessness regarding history and political philosophy.

There isn't a more ignorant canard than the idea that racism is inherently leftist. Racism, whatever that even means, is a term of relatively recent origin. (See the Oxford English Dictionary) Belief that there is such a thing as race and that the races differ on average in certain ways was taken for granted historically. Ethnocentrism, the idea that people inherently favor their own, is as old as mankind and is most likely programmed into our genes. (Many people never even saw someone of another race before the advent of mass travel.)

What the left does is encourages and exploits this perfectly natural ethnocentrism in "minority" and "oppressed" groups, but condemns it as the worst of all possible thought crimes in white people. (I put minority in quotes because it is whites who are in the minority globally speaking.) This is the essence of Cultural Marism. It is not anti-racist, it is anti-white. The goal is to disillusion and undermine Western society.

White PC thought slaves like Lord contribute to this dynamic by accepting the Cultural Marxist paradigm that it is an unpardonable thought crime for whites to believe in inherent population group differences. In order to avoid being labeled a thought criminal one must (especially conservatives who are guilty by default) mouth slavish fidelity to the dogma of zero group differences. Of course this is an ideological belief, not one backed up by science or observation, but when it comes to prostrating themselves before their enemies who hate them and avoiding the charge of wrong think facts matter not at all.

Enforcing this destructive paradigm strengthens the current dynamic. That is why cowards like Lord and Lowry who enforce Cultural Marxist rightthink are foolish.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.8.12 @ 11:47PM

Red...

You are the one here looking at groups...I believe in individuals. You are the one taking the side of Cultural Marxists...not I. Obviously you must support racial quotas, affirmative action....a world in which there are "whites" "blacks" etc etc. This is the Sharpton left's view of the world...and as you quite clearly indicate...you seem to share this view. Not I.

Bart| 4.8.12 @ 11:58PM

I believe in individuals too, and I'll give anyone I meet in a safe environment a fair shake; but I wouldn't walk alone through downtown Detroit.

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 12:13AM

'I believe in individuals' is a maxim fit for a Hallmark card...in the real world it's not possible to distill down a person's essential individuality and ignore his affiliations, memberships or appearance, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a gnostic idiot.

Pseudoconservatives like yourself who pretend that race doesn't matter out of pusillanimity and misguided politeness are shooting themselves in the foot, because whites are finding out for themselves that race very much does matter -- and they are going to reward and punish according to whomever acknowledges this truth.

Red Phillips | 4.9.12 @ 12:57AM

First of all, Jeffrey, people have been "looking at groups" since the dawn of man. Societies were tribal and clannish and made up of extended families long before anyone read Locke or Rousseau. It is a perfectly natural and expected tendency and is easily understandable from a Darwinian fitness perspective. It would be surprising if it were otherwise. (I'm not endorsing molecule to man evolution, just making a micro-evolutionary point). Man is an inherently social/communal being. Conservative recognize this when Ayn Rand is babbling about the virtue of selfishness, but slavishly parrot ideological individualism when they are trying to avoid the taint of being labeled a wrongthinker.

Pathologizing the perfectly natural and historic tendency of people groups with some ideological vision of pristine egalitarianism is something alright, but conservative it ain't.

Second, I don't think you even got my point. You were too busy rushing your lame response. Read James Kalb's essay "Anti-Racism." The left encourages group self-awareness in officially designated minority groups because it serves their goal of attacking and undermining whitey, who in their warped world view is the source of all the world's inequality and despair. But any sort of similar white self-awareness is both morally reprehensible and dangerous. (Pogroms are sure to follow.)

"Conservatives" who plead colorblindness are simply attaching themselves to the most "conservative" permissible expression of a clearly leftist ideological vision (pristine egalitarianism).

I just read the Derb essay because Takimag's servers have been overloaded, and it has been hard to access. Note that Derb doesn't say a word about government policy, except by implication to condemn affirmative action which allows blacks to disproportionately fill government jobs. He is offering advice to his kids based on statistics and observation. I actually think the article comes off a bit grating and gratuitous, but he isn't suggesting any non-colorblind public policy. His thought crime was to publicly dissent from the ideological dogma of zero group differences, which I guarantee you Lowry and Goldberg and Ponnuru and the rest of his cowardly critics at NR don't accept either, they just keep their mouths shut about their dissent and mouth slavish acceptance. Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful.

Red Phillips | 4.9.12 @ 1:11AM

Here is the James Kald "Anti-Racism" essay I referenced above. read it and educate yourself Mr. Lord.

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1447

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:32AM

Sure, we believe in individuals.

But since when does that blind us to what experience suggests to us about groups?

Did not Churchill draw some conclusions, harsh conclusions about what he termed "the Prussian menace?"

Or was Churchill completely out of it because he allowed his eye to lose sight of the individual German, and took in what all of Germans, and previous Germans, had done and were presently doing?

Come on here!

If you think that you're helping yourself by patting yourself on the back about how you look to the individual, you're not.

By the way, Derbyshire himself allowed that same out for allowing for exceptions, which will appear.

tsmslf| 4.8.12 @ 11:41PM

I've been around a long time; over 80 years now. Grew up in NYC, been in LA nearly 50 years; I'm a city-boy, wouldn't live in the boonies.
Derb's advice is correct, historically and currently. I would never go to a black event, neighborhood or concert. Had a handful of black guys in the Marine Corps when I was a kid but not many and pretty normal guys but not particularly bright, even then. Lord can talk about living among the federal workers who may be black but the truth is that most blacks are not very bright, don't like whites and show it by living among other blacks. They'd be much more politically effective were they distributed around the country in white neighborhoods rather than be concentrated in Harlems and get Maxine Waters type representation. That's why we have no black senators btw.
Blacks war among themselves and on any weak opportunity they can find. Why give them the opportunity and be the proximate cause of black criminal behavior? Besides, as Derbyshire correctly pointed out, you can get killed for that stupidity.
Is this all blacks? Of course not but it's a high percentage and you can't tell who you're dealing with until it's too late. So what do you do? What Derbyshire said: avoid black people, places, events and don't put yourself or your family at risk. I'll bet Lord doesn't or didn't send his kids to a school with lots of blacks or browns for that matter. Asians? No problem but black and brown is out for the Lord kids. And I doubt he lives in a black neighborhood if he has a family and I doubt he or his wife hang out with black couples. Why would anyone do that? It's not worth the risks.

bobmontgomery| 4.9.12 @ 12:15AM

I jusat skimmed some of the Derbyshire remarks, so I'll pass for the moment on who is ultimately right/wrong/offbase/stupid. For now, it's about a rush to judgement - by everyone. Who knows what is/was in Derbyshire's heart?. There was a rush to judgement about Zimmerman and we STILL don't know the facts.
As far as Lowry and NR - a case in point: NR first rushed to agree with Breitbart on Shirley Sherrod; then at the first indication of a lengthier tape, rushed to CONDEMN Breitbart and called for him to apologize. At that point, NR played into the hands of the MSM and the racialists, and everything that came out later about Charles and Shirley Sherrod and the whole Pigford scandal got put on the back burner, shelved and forgotten - except by Breitbart. Because for Breitbart, it wasn't about race, except to expose hypocrisy and greed. It was about corruption, pandering, race-baiting, and fraud.
Ultimately, Lowry may be justified - but I do not think enough time has passed for the issue to have been fully vetted and once more the libs will seize on it and you will see the R's in Congress getting picked off one by one and switching their votes to 'social justice', gun control and more.

Doing the right thing, when you haven't had time to ascertain what the right thing is, may ultimately be the wrong thing.

Unger| 4.9.12 @ 12:52AM

Readers here have been treated to Mr. Lord (the writer of this short piece) singing the praises of Rush Limbaugh in the highest of tones in the last weeks. The genesis of this is the backlash Rush received for his radio airwaves talk about Georgetown U. Law School student Fluke.

Well, maybe Mr. Lord needs to then be consistent. The one he is praising wrote two books, "The Way Things Ought to Be," and "See, I Told You So."

As I write this, I am holding Rush Limbaugh's "The Way Things Ought to Be" in my hands and I am scanning the pages, to include the table of contents.

I think Mr. Lord now has a reading assignment. Both books by his hero. Cover to cover.

In several places in these two books Rush talks about the very same things that John Derbyshire talks about in this "inflammatory!!!!" Derbyshire article.

Maybe Jeffrey Lord will also be calling for Rush to end all EIB Media operations?

NOTE: Folks, let's not be silly. Once Jeffrey Lord hears Rush Limbaugh comment on this in the next three or four days, Rush offering up radio comments in support of Mr. Derbyshire (Yes, supporting Derbyshire), Jeffrey Lord will be seeking to "walk back" his comments here, "walking back" being the new insider Northeast doubletalk for slither.

Lesser Weevil| 4.9.12 @ 1:37AM

Derbyshire is a brave, if foolhardy, man who has forthrightly stated beliefs that are in fact held across the ideological spectrum. Is there anyone so naive that he feels perfectly at ease in a "bad" inner-city neighborhood, or who is so obtuse as not to observe that such neighborhoods are invariably predominantly black? Whether the causes are purely cultural is irrelevant: Derbyshire is stating an empirical fact. The statistics on violent crime speak for themselves. Lowry's treatment of him is exceedingly shabby, and NR has seen the last of this 35-year subscriber.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:42AM

Derbyshire's depressing comments, in this piece and in others, represents the mind of man run amok without the light of the Almighty to guide him.

Derbyshire is a lost soul, and his spiritual darkness reflects itself in his frequently depressing comments.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:37AM

I'm of two minds on this.

I don't like Derbyshire, with his anti-Christian fixation on determinism.

But I'm not about to join in with the left, especially when that left arrogates to themselves the authority to define what is, and what is not racism.

Lord is validating the left.

Now if you're validating the left, it's usually the case that something is amiss.

Lord needs to go back to the drawing board and articulate a conservative reason for throwing Derbyshire under the bus.

Because so far such a reason hasn't really emerged from him.

All of us look to the individual, ----------------- does that mean that we are REQUIRED to ignore propensities, traits and characteristics of groups?

Of course not!

Such a willful blindness would be demonstrably anti-conservative, for the conservative values experience!

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 2:12AM

Derb pointed out to me that he attributes no causation to his findings. Not genetics, not anything.

But, given that Moynihan clearly laid out the problem decades ago, and that destruction of family has proceeded apace thanks to liberal social policies, I think the reason is fairly clear that it is nurture not nature causing the problems. Allow me to enter the "Harlem Knights" as my introductory evidentiary point. As I pointed out to Derb, had he noted this, he would have done better.

We are killing our Native American and Black Populations in this country, and wasting their human potential, by allowing Social Policies that reduce the importance of men in these cultures, and those contributing to fatherless families, which, in turn, do not allow for proper socialization of young males and appropriate sublimation of aggressive drives for adult males.

Reversing this, by focusing on the importance of fatherhood in Black and Native American families, is essential to preventing their destruction.

But you know what---I grew up in Chicago and trained in Los Angeles. You damn well believe I was always careful where I went, and if it was potentially dangerous, I was on very high alert.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 2:18AM

Drek---yeah, I have noticed the atheistic strain in Derb's writing and in Dalrymple's writing (which is better than Derb's---Dalrymple is actually Anthony Daniels, a Conservative British Jewish Psychiatrist who worked in South Africa and in British indigent hospitals and British Prison Hospitals. He just isn't religious. As a Conservative American Jewish Psychiatrist who does have faith and worked in New Zealand Maori settings and in American Prison and indigent hospitals, I found his work resonated with me.

But Drek, you are right---in the absence of a true religious faith it is hard to keep one's Conservatism from degenerating into nihilism.

But I feel sorry for Derb getting shat on while in the middle of chemotherapy for Cancer. His novels and books are available on Amazon.com. His mathematical works are quite good, especially.

Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 2:19AM

I should have closed the parenthesis after "resonated with me." Sorry.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 2:44AM

I don't know about you guys, but I always found the guy overwhelmingly depressing, and then he dared to claim that such depression was but another proof of his conservatism.

He was a godless atheist run amok at NR, and he should have been canned sometime back about his anti-Christian rants.

But I've got probs with him being canned over this, because it validates the narrative and the claims of the left.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 1:39AM

How many times have we conservatives uttered: "PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!"

How many times?

Isn't that a conclusion we think dictated by hard experience, isn't that a conclusion we believe to be dearly purchased by former generations?

Since when is it conservative to jettison experience?

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 1:55AM

Liberals have a motto: no enemies to the left. Conservatives have nothing similar, and in fact that trample all over each other in their hurry to ostracize their fellow members of the tribe.

When people wonder why conservatives always lose, you can point to that observation.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 2:41AM

And that is something else truly sickening about this drama, the sight of conservatives falling over themselves trying to ingratiate themselves with a left that despises them, and deems them either idiots or anti-social elements.

JmsA| 4.9.12 @ 2:15AM

I read Mr. Derbyshire's subject essay. I cringed a couple of times, but I also see him as a caring individual, who exposes lies, including those spouted by various tyrannies, and the hypocrites who support them.

ejp| 4.9.12 @ 2:20AM

I never liked Derbyshire at NR. His constant out-front love of Darwin made him come off as a "conservative" not to my liking and this piece of junk he wrote is a nice example of what happens when you get a Darwinist taking his ideas into real nutty territory.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 2:40AM

He was a lost soul, whose mind was darkened as an inexorable consequence of that a priori decision.

That guy didn't have much light to cast upon any subject, and that's a fact.

And for the life of me I don't understand why NR provided opportunity for him to rant, and that's what he did, he ranted about his determinism.

But I don't cotton to this idea of allowing the left to define what racism consists of, and I don't like the left being able to define certain subjects taboo for conservatives, but not for themselves.

Kirillov| 4.9.12 @ 2:45AM

Creationism usually comes in two varieties -- race denial and evolution denial. You apparently don't have to choose. What is 'Darwinist' about acknowledging black criminality?

dj| 4.9.12 @ 2:27AM

I applaud Lord's article and his insistence on seeing people as individuals and never as members of groups. I think part of the problem with Derbyshire was his desire to look at things mathematically and think about statistics and probability which is a very dangerous and not at all OK way to think about the world.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 2:37AM

His prob was that he was an atheist, and it all went south from there.

His determinism was his inane attempt to make sense of his universe without the light of the Almighty guiding his steps, illuminating his mind.

I don't like the guy.

But allowing the left to define what is and what is not racism, while they indulge such sentiments all day long, is simply an outrage.

Derb may have been the wrong "hill" on which to wage that battle, but sooner or later that battle is going to have to be taken up.

dj| 4.9.12 @ 2:58AM

No way I think you are wrong. His problem was that he didn't want to just think about people as people, as just folks. Like somone like him would say that men would be more violent than women on average maybe so you should think about that. Or that BLACKS are more violent than whites on average. People fought in the 60s to make sure that we would stop thinking about things that way and I'm glad that MAINSTREAM conservatives are all aboard on that train - its the most important thing to CONSERVE.

I'm not sure what 'on average' and stuff even really mean, it's hard to think about so I really like Lord and up to date conservatives like NR who keep it simple - we're equal! That's all the worrying about this that I need to do - I guess you could say I hold it to be SELF-EVIDENT.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 3:07AM

DJ,

think of it this way, when you refer to "up to date" conservatives, you've just allowed the left to define the kind of conservatism that is acceptable to them, and allowed them the ability to banish and rule out of bounds any conservatism they deem unacceptable.

In short, "up to date" conservatism means a neutered, impotent politically correct conservatism.

Are we to have a true choice between agendas and parties, or are we to have but an echo of the dominant leftist theme?

dj| 4.9.12 @ 3:22AM

Well it's the kind of conservatism that should be acceptable to YOU too unless you agree with DerbySHIT that we shoud think about what GROUP someone belongs to like man or woman or black or white or young or old.

What's so bad about this "dominant leftist theme" that ALL ARE EQUAL? Do you think what Derbyshire said was RIGHT?

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 2:51AM

I remember just a little while ago there was a scandal, and that involved colleges and universities, in the cities, misrepresenting the incidence of violent crime on their sites, because such statistics tended to drive away parents from allowing their kids to attend those schools.

Now were all those parents who were concerned about the crime rates at those colleges racists?

Were they anti-social by being concerned about the likelihood of violence visiting their loved ones?

Has LORD thought about the vast numbers of people he's effectively damned right along with Derb because they too are worried about violent crime?

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 2:56AM

It is a CONSERVATIVE attitude to make provision against that which can be foreseen, or anticipated.

That's why many conservatives possess weapons in their homes, ------- against the odd chance that violence might descend upon them and those they love.

The idea that race can be driven out of such considerations is simply bizarre, because it flies in the face of crime statistics, anecdotal horrors, and the horrors that most of us see any given night of the week merely by turning on the local evening news.

Drek| 4.9.12 @ 3:02AM

I remember JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, in an interview, confessing to severe pain caused by the consideration of the vast numbers of black youth moving through the criminal justice system. In Baltimore the numbers, last time I heard, were one out of every four black men goes through the criminal justice system.

Lord's comments are exactly the kind of support thrown forward to prevent our country using profiling to stop would-be terrorists boarding our aircraft.

It's exactly the kind of self-censorship that the boarding agent at Logan Airport displayed when confronted with Mohammad Atta, a monster, who struck him as a monster, but who nonetheless stifled his own qualms about letting him board and sent him through.

WE know this because that's what the boarding agent himself told us.

Lord would have us emulate the folly of that boarding agent, and all the while we're supposed to be patting ourselves on the back for our lofty morality.

This is nuts!

I don't like Derb, he's a morbid, lost soul.

But Lord's positions entail dangers for us all, as we have all seen to our horror on 9/11!

Political correctness has got to be destroyed, before it gets more people killed.

Unger| 4.9.12 @ 8:58AM

ASO Website Administrator -- Who is Drek and why can he post here 16, 18 times in the space of three/four hours? Saying the same thing? Over and over. Surely this does not enhance the readership or the helpful post-article discussion.

Drek -- please cease. We've got it; we grasp your points. Just two things: You write of Mr. John Derbyshire in the past tense as if he is deceased. And you seem to revel in JD's "lost soul," you really do. Well, if you have a heart and a soul of your own, then pray for him and his soul. That is written sincerely.

Longview| 4.9.12 @ 3:25AM

Weren't you the one who wanted to boycott Rush Limbaugh's boycotters? Or some other bit of potluck "movement" busybodyism. I often enjoyed Derbyshire's articles at NR (never really cared for yours at the TAS site) and believe the new Buckleyites have made themselves look like schmucks and possibly useful idiots. It's no skin off my back when an "opinion journalist" has to look for more needful work or if his/her mother publication sinks or swims; however your gibbering little post has removed any doubts remaining as to the herd mentality and fundamental tackiness of these self-appointed arbiters of right-wing respectability.

Jeffrey Lord = just another AWW* and pundit-macher. God help us, as if we didn't already have enough of those.

(*cf. Andy Ferguson for definition)

Amused| 4.9.12 @ 5:10AM

You posit and position yourself as an "individualist", but are so innumerate that you have no concept of the baseline formula and factors here: namely and numerately, that individuality only exists as a sub-strata of any given collective or societal structure.

You might as well argue that you can live without oxygen!

Further, this is shown by the very facts of your existence: I assume you call yourself an American -- and if you didn't, whether you identified as a Canadian, Iranian, Israeli, citizen of the world or a human, purely and ironically, you would still be a part of a collective -- well what do you think that implies? A standard of content and identity: a societal standard and a collectivist one, inherently.

You also attack the "left" while identifying as being on the "right"? Well, collectivism!

And again, how would society exist without collectivism? How does an ethos exist without it?

it appears such issues -- i.e. logical constructions, syllogisms, rather than poor man's sophistry -- is above your station. The sad part is that you are paid at all for this drivel, but totally unsurprising: your a copy machine from a major manufacturer.

How did and does "racism" exist by your standard, by the way? The prevarication and contradiction being argued as common sense by you is inherently dedicated to absolving black people -- as a group -- lest you be called "racist", while attacking whites for group-think.

Not only is collectivism a baseline that is inescapable -- as you subscribe to individuality you're still carrying a societal argument, standard and 'ism' as truth -- but it is a standard that you ignore when it is convenient for your PC standards of selfsame. Hence, we know that whites were guilty racists that mistreated blacks in the past -- as collective standard -- whether in the Old South or South Africa, yet when a white individual notes the high number of black crimes against whites it's not a pox on black people but, simply, a white person for ever having noticed.

How, from that, have black people, as black people, ever been societal victims? They were just individuals abused by other individuals, as you expect us to now believe about black crime stats and poor mean IQ.

The further problem is that, by blaming whites for mistreating blacks and dominating them, you admit that this was also a white country at one point, not too long ago. But again, I'm sure that's a simplistic heuristic or equation that, by ignoring, you think doesn't exist.
Your standard is heterodox and prototypical Marxism: constantly contradicting itself, only making sense as an attack on whites for blacks. Fairness as anathema. The Derrick Bell Standard.

You're a clown. A white minstrel that, instead of wearing blackface, goes in for whiteface idiocy as ethos.

By your idiotic "standard" there was never a European people, a Roman Empire or an American Century -- all concepts are "collectivist" after all. But also, just, true.

In other words, your argument is predicated on ignoring reality. It seems you're fool enough to do it, but the key is that you don't seem smart enough to pass it off on others. At least not many on this site.

If only individuals exist, then what was Derbyshire's crime, anyway? By your own standard, you should be unable to even identify a black! You attack him on, again, a collectivist basis: after all, this is not acceptable speak in this Orwellian nightmare of a society. National Review -- collectively -- is to be applauded for firing this "racist". Wow, that's some celebration of the individual. Again, you don't seem clever enough to get the irony.

I get the feeling that you'd have trouble identifying a square root. You get paid for this? Really? Mediocrity is a promotion to management, as you do a great job proving out.

What we have here, gentlemen, is a company man and, thus company, that is part of the larger structure of Control. "Right versus Left" is the Hegalian Dialectical, offering false choices while the outcome is predetermined.

Time to blow up the system.

tyn| 4.9.12 @ 9:05AM

Is this short Jeffrey Lord article in support of Rich Lowry's decision just an attempt to aid Lowry in his hour of need & to best position Lord for NRO "space" and National Review copy space for future print editions?

Nothing wrong with a man seeking to improve his work situation, find more work, have more honest work successes, and earn more pay for a job well done. But is this the way to do it?

Help knock off one columnist; makes room for me, right? Dog eat dog. The world we live in. Even amongst conservative "friends."

Mike W| 4.9.12 @ 10:19AM

Mr. Lord and TAS are in the same class as NR - race cowards. The tiresome refusal on the part of some conservatives, to see the current racial strife in the appropriate political context is tiresome. The Sanford issue was a media propaganda campaign that had bigger agenda.

Derb spoke the truth. Spoken or un-spoken, we all try to live by these rules.

It is a good way for TAS to become increasingly irrelevant.

2Anglico| 4.9.12 @ 10:28AM

Sorry Mr. Lord, racism is NOT "judging others by skin color"! Racism is believing YOUR race is GENETICALLY and BIOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR to another or other races. This belief is usually accompanied by action, you know, like putting people in ovens or burning crosses in their yards. It is the action that is the crime, not the thought.
The LEFT uses the word to SHUT US UP! Mission accomplished!

2Anglico| 4.9.12 @ 11:28AM

I am going to concede a point here. After reading Mr. Derbyshire's post, I have to admit he gets very close to real racism by talking about a supposed IQ gap. While there may be an IQ gap, Mr. Derbyshire should have made it clear that that gap, if real, probably has to do with culture, not biology. If he believes the gap is due to biology, then he is a racist.
I stick by my main point that racism is FAR, FAR more than "judging others by skin color".

Amused2| 4.9.12 @ 11:39AM

Blacks have low IQs across the globe, and actually do better in the supposedly oppressive first-world cultures than the third-world their ancestors came from.

Mediocre test scores in this country are weighted to two sides: the high-level is taken by whites and Asians, with blacks leading the way on the downside. But compared to blacks in the third world? They are above average.

You can debate the reason, but to pretend that's obviously NOT genetic is PC sophistry. More Orwellian agitprop, where it's "racist" just to look at things logically.

The question needs to become why we would even want more of these low-achievers, while the elite celebrate the death of a White majority.

And by the way, by the standards of the UN, what is now happening in most every European country -- otehr races taking over -- is GENOCIDE.

But it's hate to note this?

dj| 4.9.12 @ 7:27PM

"If he believes the gap is due to biology, then he is a racist."

This! Amen! The major thing is to know that whatever are gaps there are it is not biology and I would also say that if YOU think gaps between mena nd women in VIOLENCE have to do with BIOLOGY than YOU are a SEXIST!

dks| 5.21.12 @ 1:44AM

yup, culture has nothing to do with biology. so why do women do most of the work in Africa? Why is that? You wouldn't know would you. climate, IQ, evolution. they all are tied together and give you culture. you think that if NIgerians are educated into "American values" they'll have the IQ's of the jews or the chinese? really?

JRC| 4.9.12 @ 8:34PM

Derbyshire's essay, and the blog posts here that defend him, is all ultimately eyewash, the atavistic scream of a moribund movement. The fact is simple: demographic change means that, in a national election with a voter turnout greater than 52-53%, the Democrat wins. It needn't have been this way, but the GOP has proven itself incapable of forming conservative coalitions with even "natural" allies like rich Chinese, or Mexican Catholics, or Nigerian technicians, all of whom now vote +60% Democrat. But it's just as well: any party or political movement that requires (or even intimates) its members to be of the Aryan race can't descend into irrelevance soon enough.

dks| 5.21.12 @ 1:36AM

i love how Mr. Lord pretends he's "politically incorrect" and then proceeds to attempt to prove how "edgy" he is by saying something entirely PC. All that matters to Mr. Lord and Mr. Lowry are tax cuts. The survival of europe? That's not interesting to them. They just want tax cuts. Forget immigration and demography. Their fine turning France into Brazil. Just give them tax cuts. Worthless in other words.

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/08/rich-lowry-does-the-right-thin

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

Latest Headlines

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer|6 comments

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|132 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|60 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr | 5.22.13

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell | 5.22.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Wimps Versus Barbarians

Thomas Sowell | 5.21.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.