A “Scientific” Racist Breaks it Down

By Sikivu Hutchinson

Word has it that the murderer George Zimmerman will finally be charged in the killing of Trayvon Martin.  But the fight for Trayvon has rightfully exposed the polecat underbelly of lynch mob justice in the U.S.

Exhibit A is John Derbyshire, swinging his balls to the breeze for whites fed up with “nonstop” coverage of the lynching of Trayvon.  Derbyshire, a former National Review columnist and mathematician recently broke down a white peoples’ guide to navigating the violent criminal subhuman tendencies of inner city Negroes.  Entitled “The Talk: The Non-Black Version,” Derbyshire’s neo-Birth of A Nation piece offers rich insight into the depth of the white nationalist backlash and the politics of the New Jim Crow.  Martin’s murder elicited a national conversation amongst black parents about how to counsel black youth on public conduct given the realities of racial profiling.  But Derbyshire wanted to set seditious black folk straight about who the real victims were.  Evoking the image of the scary bestial black spook, the post is a mini-primer on black depravity, advising whites and other non-blacks to steer clear of black neighborhoods, avoid events with large numbers of black people, and anticipate situations where they could potentially become victims of black violence.  So if we just arm ourselves to the teeth, make sure those spooks stay in their ghettoes and neutralize race card-playing black politicians we can divide Negro-hood into a neat taxonomy of hostile blacks and domesticated intelligent blacks:

(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.

As with any good quasi-academic white supremacist, Derbyshire cherry picks pseudo science and sociology to reinforce his belief in the innate intellectual inferiority and moral depravity of blacks:

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much  lower than for whites. The least  intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent  of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the  average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the  average black. These differences show in  every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or  nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday  situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

Derbyshire’s link to “everyday situations” tracks back to an article on mortgage lending discrimination.  Nationwide, black and Latino homeowners have been disproportionately targeted by predatory and subprime lending practices (Disgraced mortgage lender Countrywide having been the subject of a major lawsuit and settlement thereof); practices which implicitly benefit white homeowners and hence constitute the very preferences (i.e., affirmative action) that Derbyshire decries as corrosive to the racist fantasy of “pure meritocracy”:

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by  affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of  blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the  proportions are higher. In government work, they are very  high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive  engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent  than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government  office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a  black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play,  you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The  DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

(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…

Although the National Review fired Derby last week the post merely expresses what segregated American television, film, neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and polls bear out — that separate, apartheid inequality is still as Americana as apple pie.

A “Scientific” Racist Breaks it Down
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

20 thoughts on “A “Scientific” Racist Breaks it Down

  1. 2

    One of the interesting things about the Dreb is that he was often cited by a self described Rethuglican conservative over at Panda’s Thumb as an example of a conservative who accepts the theory of evolution. That particular individual is no longer citing the Derb.

  2. 4

    “Word has it that the murderer George Zimmerman will finally be charged in the killing of Trayvon Martin. ”

    Isn’t that slander until his guilt is proven?
    How is that helpful?

    1. 4.1

      No, it is not slander as Zimmerman himself has already admitted to killing Martin. The trial is to determine whether or not it was justifiable. I would take the word ‘murder’ as an opinion.

      1. “No, it is not slander as Zimmerman himself has already admitted to killing Martin.”

        In what he calls self defense. Self defense is not murder (not that I belief him, but that’s what it is until proven otherwise).

        “The trial is to determine whether or not it was justifiable. I would take the word ‘murder’ as an opinion.”

        An opinion can still be slander.

        Hey, I am not defending Zimmerman. But determining guilt is the court’s job.

        And calling someone a murderer for killing a human being – without any clarification – is rather silly, especially on this site (abortion debate?).

          1. OJ’s a public figure. They have a lot fewer protections. In general though, libel needs to meet six criteria:

            1. defamatory
            2. published
            3. false
            4. plaintiff was identified
            5. publisher knew it was false or recklessly disregarded veracity
            6. plaintiff suffered damages

            3 and 5 would be the issue here. If Sikivu had a good-faith belief that Zimmerman was a murderer, she’s covered. I think it’s pretty clear she did.

    2. 4.2

      “Word has it that the murderer George Zimmerman will finally be charged in the killing of Trayvon Martin. ”

      It may seem like splitting hairs, but the proper way to state the above legally would be:

      “Word has it that the killer George Zimmerman will finally be charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin. ”

      He’s a killer, he’s admitted killing Martin, so you can call him that, though he claims it was self-defense rather than murder.
      He’s being charged with murder, and legally, though charged, he is to be considered innocent of that until proven guilty in court.

  3. 5

    Shorter Derbyshire Talk:

    “Hey kids, your Dad is a racist scumbag. Here are some unfounded assertions and ugly stereotypes backed up by misrepresented statistics. See, it’s Science! Now watch out for those scary black folks!”

  4. 6

    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…

    Pro tip: If you’re using people as a shield against accusations of racism, you’re not a friend to them.

  5. 8

    The National Review has fired him, but FIRST they PUBLISHED his screed. I do think they need to think about going a little higher up the food chain to see who let the article slip by in the first place, if they want their actions to be seen as credible.

  6. 9

    Some of the “research” Derbyshire cites was done (for very specific values of “done” equalling roughly “cherry-picked, manipulated, and rectally excavated”) by J. Phillipe Rushton, who notoriously used to teach at the university where I did my undergraduate degree. This was the guy who used rigged samples to “prove” that blacks had smaller heads and larger penises than whites, and so on. (Why are scientific racists so wrapped up with penis size anyway? That seems totally creepy to me.)

    About 20 years ago or so, they almost fired him for academic misconduct, and then somehow it got conflated into a free speech/academic freedom debate, and he wound up simply being removed from teaching. It would still be fair to call Rushton a “disgraced former academic,” though.

    I personally find it kind of surprising that The National Review fired Derbyshire, given that TNR was founded by William F. Buckley, a pro-segregationist white supremacist who openly espoused such things in the magazine. My feeling is that Derbyshire got fired not because of his racism, but because he went too far in Buckley’s rhetorical direction for 2012, and caused them some of what business types call “optics problems.”

    1. 10.1

      I would love to see Derbyshire’s advice to his son on marriage.

      “When deciding which young lady to court, consider a woman of Northeast Asian background. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of marriage, an interracial relationship will protect you from career-destroying accusations of prejudice. Unlike other foreigners, especially Africans, Northeast Asians are at least as intelligent as Europeans. Unlike white American women, they have not been brainwashed by feminism into becoming ugly, disobedient, masculine abominations.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *