Reflections From a Murky Pond

John Derbyshire is a British-American writer, journalist and commentator who worked at the National Review until he sparked outrage from Blacks and their Liberal enablers by penning an article for Taki’s Magazine called “The Talk: Nonblack Version.”

The article in question was his singular response to the overblown reports in the lamestream media of “talks” given by Black parents to their children warning them against White authority figures.

His version of the talk for non-Black children is a mixed bag of reasonably pragmatic, if overly security-minded, advice for non-Black, especially White, children and outright racism. This is not surprising since Derbyshire describes himself as a “mild and tolerant racist.”

What is more shocking than surprising is what Derbyshire’s detractors have focused upon in their outrage against him. By and large, they focus solely or primarily on point 10 of his 15-point list:

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

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

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

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

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

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

(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.

In points 7 & 8 Derbyshire described Blacks as more and more dangerously antisocial, especially towards Whites, and in point 11 he described Blacks as being on average significantly less intelligent than Whites. Both of these statements can easily be classed as truly racist and point 11 in particular would certainly be worthy of condemnation by most people.

These points aren’t focused upon by the Liberals and their minority tenants though. Instead they focus upon the 9 subpoints of point 10 which are, in point of fact, pragmatic advice for non-Black, especially White, children and teens in these times.

Frankly, Derbyshire’s advice in point 10 if his version of “The Talk” are, if one changes up the races, quite similar to the attitudes Blacks pass on to their children are in many ways good advice to live by irrespective of race, if one is most concerned with one’s safety. But this is what they complain about instead of other points in Derbyshire’s article.

Why Is That?

So why do they focus on those sections of Derbyshire’s “The Talk: Nonblack Version” which are pragmatic though harsh safety advice for non-Black youths instead of those parts that are classically and definitively racist in tone and character?

It’d be all too easy, especially for the frustrated and/or more nasty-minded people, to decide that the Liberals and Blacks were simply conceding those points and accepting that Blacks were more antisocial and were more violently so, and that Blacks were on average less intelligent than Whites. I sincerely doubt that’s the case though and believe that’s a line of reasoning and argument that is less than worthless to pursue.

No, I don’t think that they’re conceding those points. I think they just don’t care enough to argue them. In their ideology it doesn’t matter whether those points are true or false. Whites are not “allowed” to counsel one’s children to avoid perceived danger if, by doing so, one is seen as disadvantaging the outcomes of Blacks. The risks, real or imagined, are immaterial to them.

Isn’t that what the modern corruption of Liberalism comes down to? The consequences to unprotected peoples never matter in their quest to improve the results of specially protected groups.

As has been discussed here before, there’s little or truth in any statement blaming a POTUS for high fuel prices or handing them credit for lowering fuel prices. No President has as any real power to affect such prices in the short-term.

That being said, it’s not truly unfair to chastise Obama over this issue because he has repeatedly “no quite called for” exactly a drastic rise in fuel prices in order to make it seem that he wanted to make the Liberals’ dream of “green energy” a reality, however Dystopian.

As Obama “Promised,” Skyrocketing Fuel Prices Are Here

H/T to Soylent Green for the image.

Words have consequences and throughout the boy’s 2008 presidential election campaign Obama made statements endorsing a massive, though gradual, rise in fuel prices. So too does the choice of whom one surrounds themselves with have consequences and Obama appointed Steven Chu as his regime’s Secretary of Energy – a man who has been quite open about his desire to spike US energy cost up to European levels in order to make “green energy” commercially viable.

Given the above, while it’s untrue that Obama has raised or failed to lower gasoline and other fuel prices, it’s not unfair to chide him over them since their what he seemed to want his base to believe that he wanted. It’s a case of “Beware what you wish for,” especially if you wish out loud on an open microphone.

There’s more than a little talk about Conservatives actually being regressive rather than merely conservative and there is, or at least should be, some truth to that claim because the opposing force to the Liberals and Progressives march to dissolution and dissipation cannot be an attempt to merely “hold the line.”

What Passes For Progressive Progress

It’s natural law that change is almost always entropic in nature and that most mutations are lethally negative. This, judging from Man’s history, holds true for societal functions as well.

One need only look at what the agendas of the Liberals and Progressives have wrought so far in order see the objective truth of this.

Go Back! We Fucked Up Everything!

Progress to a better societal state, as opposed to change for the sake of change in the hope that it’ll be better somehow, sometimes means accepting that you’re on the wrong road and turning back before you run off a cliff or become mired in a foetid swamp or tar pit. 😉

When you’re this far off course and heading towards disaster, you don’t just stop; you turn around and move the other way at speed. If that means refusing to be relegated to the backseat and taking the reins by force, so be it.

Fish Is Rape!

As ridiculous as it is to scream, “Fish is rape!” it makes almost as much sense as what the ever-annoying and self-righteous vegans rant, scream, jabber, and whine on an almost daily basis. 😉

Venus – The Roman Goddess of love and beauty has been the subject of much art throughout history. So much and firmly was Venus associated with love, beauty and sexuality that, over time, “Venus” came to refer to any artistic depiction in post-classical art of a nude woman, even when there was no indication that the subject was the Goddess.

Of course, in this lesser, modern age, retouching Venus would be needed for Her to meet society’s standards of female beauty.

Yes, the works of the Great Masters would have to retouched and photoshopped before they would be acceptable as anything more than an admonition to young girls showing how “wrong,” “stupid,” and “unhealthy” are ancestors’ views of beauty were.

It’s so much better to focus on our more “enlightened” of health and beauty and showcase a more modern Venus.

The Modern Venus – Venere di Anoressia

And yes, in order to maintain her weight and beauty, that hibiscus flow is her food ration for the day, along with a little cocaine during the day and a bit of heroin in the evening.

Of course, this is the evil that one must expect these days. The devolution of standards of beauty has followed the normal, entropic course.

It’s just accelerated towards dissolution faster than before because society has really never had an intersection of political forces, the weight-loss industry, the fashion industry, drug dealers, and terrorists driving this sort of degeneration before.

This is a correctable situation though. It just takes society – and individuals within society – putting in the effort to change things and exercising a willingness to put a permanent end to those people, no matter who they are, who are fostering, enabling, and profiting from this entropic spiral.