Is VFR’s expansion of Derbyshire’s list a grotesque recipe for dhimmi-like surrender?

(Many comments have been posted.)

Jerry Z. writes:

Your ongoing expansion of Derbyshire’s cautions is becoming a bit grotesque and dhimmi-ish. You and your readers are adding updates that approximate the lengthy restrictions imposed on non-Muslims in a Muslim country. However, in the case at hand involving white avoidance measures under stress of violence from the black intifada, we have whites setting up their own rules of survival—none of which involve actually removing or neutralizing the threat. Certainly a necessary first step at self-defense, yet …

I find it humiliating to respond to black crime against whites with just another rule of avoidance. It’s a step up from the time several decades ago when the popularly proffered method of dealing with a criminal confrontation was to “cooperate” and “give them what they want” to avoid harm. In the current situation, “harm” is what the black criminal seeks. Derbyshire’s list made a powerful statement, but your fixation on its expansion is a demeaning gesture. Are we so impotent as a threatened population that we cannot take the appropriate steps to remove and neutralize the threat? I don’t see a lot of anger here, which would be the natural response.

- end of initial entry -

Beth M. writes:

In response to Jerry Z.:

Whites are increasingly fed up with blacks, and this resentment will boil over at some point in the next few years. Whites have made significant sacrifices of their own well-being since the 1960s, in hopes that blacks would be integrated into American society, but at some point between 1995 and 2005, the hope of racial reconciliation began to die. Partly this is due to growing race realism—for example, when large numbers of blacks are included in a school, the curriculum must be completely bastardized to prevent black disengagement and failure. But in large part, the ’60s dream of full inclusion is dying because blacks are violent and filled with hatred against whites, causing whites to move, move, and move again when blacks arrive in their neighborhoods.

If blacks ever get the race war that they are always fantasizing about, they will be utterly destroyed, as they will be the one racial group that all other groups will be shooting at. In the meantime, sensible white people just want to avoid both becoming a crime victim AND being incarcerated for brandishing a weapon, etc. What I find when talking to my own friends and relatives is that white people are sick of having no true home, and no true neighborhood, because they know that at some point they may have to give way to incoming minorities. And, increasingly, when blacks show up they want to stomp on your head until you are dead or disabled.

Dave T. writes:

The answer to Jerry’s question is: “Yes, we are that impotent!” In fact, we are so impotent that we can longer control meanings of words that have been central to the foundation our culture for many centuries (e.g. “marriage”). The reason why we aren’t more upset at the realities of black dysfunction is that such a display would do no good. So, as long as our present situation continues, resignation will be the order of the day, as it should be.

If Jerry wants to live in a country in which we can effectively respond to black dysfunction then he will have to find himself a new country as this country is no longer our country. In my opinion, the conservative/traditionalist movement will not get anywhere politically until it fully appreciates this fact.

Paul K. writes:

Contra Jerry Z., I see the Derbyshire “Talk” not as defeatism, but rather as the self-defense dictum of Avoiding the Three Stupids:

Don’t go to stupid places.

Don’t hang out with stupid people.

Don’t do stupid things.

Derbyshire gives examples of how to identify stupid places, people, and things, and, unfortunately, most involve blacks. The outraged response from liberals and conservatives alike was not due to a suggestion that whites surrender to black violence, but to the assertion that black violence is a serious threat at all! I see Derbyshire’s “Talk” as a necessary consciousness-raising exercise before we can have a meaningful conversation about removing or neutralizing the threat.

There is another self-defense dictum: “Be polite and professional to everyone you meet, but have a plan to kill them.” It is not inconsistent with Derbyshire’s message. It means you should avoid confrontation if at all possible, but be prepared to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary. The people who legally carry a concealed weapon have adopted this plan and their numbers are ever-increasing.

LA replies:

I would just say to Paul that Jerry Z. was not criticizing Derbyshire’s original list, but my ongoing expansion of the list. He said: “Derbyshire’s list made a powerful statement, but your fixation on its expansion is a demeaning gesture.” It’s not clear what, in Jerry’s mind, differentiates Derbyshire’s powerful list from my demeaning additions.

Jeanette V. writes:

While I agree with Jerry Z.’s point, the problem is that we are living in a liberal culture which seeks to destroy whites. If a white defended himself against such attacks with deadly force he would end up in jail. In fact you can count on it.

I believe it is our duty as white Christians to have as many children as possible and to raise them up in a way the preserves Western Civilization and Christian morals. There will be a time when there will be a mass uprising against such oppression.

Irv P. writes:

Jerry Z. writes:

“Are we so impotent as a threatened population that we cannot take the appropriate steps to remove and neutralize the threat?”

Yes, Jerry, right now we are. I’m as angry as you are and eager to “do” something about it. As much as I hate to admit it, “we,” our bloc if you will, are not ready to take action. Let me relate a recent anecdote that proves this to me.

I attended the American Renaissance conference in Tennessee in March. One of the reasons I went was that I thought it would be an opportunity to network and perhaps get some like-minded people working at the task we face rather than just talking about it. I wrote the following intending to distribute it:

Most of the people here at the American Renaissance conference have known or heard about others who have lost their livelihoods because of opinions they have expressed or voluntary associations they have had. Recently, a former speaker at an AmRen conference, Frank Borzellieri, was fired from his job as the principal at a Catholic elementary school in New York. Last August, and award winning teacher in Florida was suspended because he wrote on his Facebook page that he felt like throwing up when he saw the news on T.V. that the New York legislature had passed homosexual “marriage.” These horror stories are but two examples of what can be termed a reign of fear. American citizens, in the “Land of the Free,” are severely punished for voicing opinions on topics which by their very nature cry out for the voicing of strong arguments. People are coerced into keeping silent lest they find themselves financially and professionally ruined. You want to keep your job? Shut up! Don’t dare go against the liberal orthodoxy! Indeed, American Renaissance has had to keep the location of this very meeting a secret! Free men should not have to live like this. We stand on the shoulders of men who gave their lives to protect America from the very things that have now become commonplace. Our inaction dishonors those brave Americans and ourselves.

Conferences are great. Intellectual understanding is great. Petitions, involvement in political parties, and letters to the editor can be effective. But some things must not be allowed to stand! And sometimes a fight is the only remedy. I’m not calling for law breaking or violence. I am calling for an army of citizens who will stand together to protect those that have been persecuted for their beliefs. I propose the creation of a “National Freedom Action Network,” that would picket and demonstrate outside media and governmental offices when a fellow citizen needs our help, when things we believe in are under attack.

One thing you have got to give Martin King credit for. He was willing to take a stand, to risk his safety for what he saw as the right. Well, folks, we are now the minority, like it or not, that is the truth. And we have got to be willing to take a stand for ourselves, our fellow conservatives, and our beliefs.

I will not attempt to describe an organizational scenario here. The first step is simply to make a commitment to joining an activist cause that will protect white conservatives when they come under attack. Standing with brothers and saying “This must not stand.”

I could be the least well read person at this conference. My knowledge level in history, law, anthropology, political theory and all the rest is low. I don’t see myself as a leader. I simply see myself as a person who knows right from wrong, the truth from a lie.

My vision is of an organized movement that will give honorable men the chance to stand together and fight the good fight when the need arises.

There is a lot of brilliance at this conference. A great deal of expertise and knowledge about how to get things done. My card is attached to this flyer. Contact me if you are interested in sharing ideas and making plans.

[end of flyer.]

Instead of putting the flyer on the table in the rear of the conference room, I decided to hand out a few, to people I already knew and to a few new acquaintances I thought I had established a rapport with. Of the fifteen people who I personally asked to read this, not one gave me even an ounce of feedback for the remainder of the weekend. It was as if I never mentioned it to them or gave it to them.

So now I ask you, Jerry. If I couldn’t ignite even a conversation about action in a peaceful way at an AMREN conference, do you think you are going to organize a “militia” to “remove and neutralize” the threat that millions of American citizens with extra protected status pose?

VFR is correct to keep adding to Derbyshire’s list even if you are theoretically right in what you say. Unfortunately, right now, that’s about all the fight we have in us.

Rick Darby writes:

Taking sensible precautions isn’t incompatible with more proactive steps on behalf of white interests. If battle (literal or metaphorical) is on the way, we need to lose as few “soldiers” as possible. It could be argued that whites who are so foolish as not to take precautions aren’t really on our side. That may be true for the present. But if the racial situation continues developing as it is, the time may not be far off when any white who is today saved from black crime will be an ally later.

Also, I have a reply to Jeanette V., who wrote:

I believe it is our duty as white Christians to have as many children as possible and to raise them up in a way the preserves Western Civilization and Christian morals. There will be a time when there will be a mass uprising against such oppression.

Jeanette is speaking from frustration, and not wisely in my view. Contributing to the world’s and the country’s overpopulation by having “as many children as possible” is incompatible with quality-of-life considerations. It will not help Western civilization, and there is no reason to think it will preserve Christian morals. Most whites will not, and should not, produce children as a weapons system, or have children they can’t afford. (How many whites can afford “as many children as possible”?) Many members of other races have no such scruples or awareness of consequences. We cannot outbreed them.

Numbers do matter in this struggle, but strictly limiting immigration and encouraging non-whites to return whence they came will be far more effective and responsible tactics.

David B. writes:

My point about John Derbyshire’s advice on avoiding black violence is that most black-on-white murders I’ve read about took place in a “safe” area. For example, Anne Pressly was beaten to death in her own house, in her own bed.

What should be added to Derbyshire’s advice is that black predators can show up anywhere, and you always have to be alert and prepared to defend yourself.

Jeanette V. replies to Rick Darby:
Doomsayers from Thomas Malthus to Paul Ehrlich have warned of “overpopulation” leading to depleted resources and mass starvation. In reality, more people have generated to more prosperity and higher standards of living.

What the world faces in the 21st century is another type of demographic crisis, but one that is painfully real: falling fertility rates and aging populations which could ultimately endanger civilization.

The average woman has to have 2.1 children during her lifetime—just to replace current population.

In less than 40 years, fertility rates have fallen by over 50 percent worldwide. In 1970, the average woman had six children during her lifetime. Today, the global average is 2.9. The United Nations Population Division predicts a further decline to 2.05 by 2050. In much of the industrialized world, the crisis can be discerned even now.

See this.

June 1

Rick Darby replies to Jeanette:

How typical of the “breedist” advocates. You trot out the standard clichés—Paul Ehrlich (who we can probably agree was a self-serving con man) and Thomas Malthus (who was not so wrong: two hundred years later, much of the world cannot feed itself adequately), and other “doomsayers.” I am not a doomsayer, but I am concerned with quality of life, which apparently doesn’t enter into your thinking.

For the species Homo economicus, only economics and numbers are real. Dull-witted, unimaginative economists think that prosperity must come through ever-growing numbers of customers. Again, quality of life is irrelevant to them. So what if people the world over will live in Tokyo-like boxes? Who cares if a city dweller can’t get away from crowds without traveling 150 miles? What does it matter if you have to make a reservation five years in advance to visit the Louvre? It’ll be great for corporations, just think of all the marketing opportunities with a few billion more people!

As far as I’m concerned, if it is true that worldwide fertility rates are dropping (I don’t much believe your source), that is wonderful news.

June 2

Hannon writes:

I have the impression that Mr. Darby is one of the few conservatives who freely elucidates his valuation of quality of life in the sense of nature and environment. I share his thoughts in this regard wholeheartedly, and I am not a doomsayer either. But even the orderly and tech-savvy Japanese have yet to demonstrate how an ethnically cohesive, shrinking population can make an end run around a population systems crash via technology and efficiency alone. They are in trouble, even in economic terms, principally because there are not enough Japanese in Japan. They need to have more children or break the hermetic seal that keeps out immigrants.

In speaking of quality of life, Mr. Darby seems to refer mainly to keeping natural or semi-natural areas protected from urban sprawl and perhaps other activities like mining, forestry, etc. People flock to urban centers and this may provide respite for outlying areas that can then in principle be preserved more effectively. I expect most people will care most about their immediate environment and right now most Americans live in big and medium size U.S. cities, a continuing trend. Overpopulation is a real concern, if arbitrary, but it does not apply to the U.S. overall. I am aware of only a few countries that have been environmentally obliterated because of overpopulation; most are small and began with very limited natural resources.

Any group that fails to increase its numbers, even if very slowly, or to split up and invade new territory, will go extinct. Reduction over time equals zero population. Encouraging a reproductively emaciated ethny to have more kids I think is sound advice in light of these observations. Whites are artificially depauperate in this regard and we have been conditioned, perhaps fatally, to believe that having more than one or two children is some kind of planet-destroying sin. We must robustly question that belief at the very least. One result of whites “under-reproducing” in the U.S. and elsewhere is that there has been irresistible pressure to import cheap labor en masse from foreign cultures. How’s that been working out for us?

Quality of life includes the perceived quality of those you choose to associate with. I see that choice being eroded every day because my people choose not to have children and their place is being taken by the Other, reproductively and otherwise. If it is a rare individual who values and will keep alive Traditionalism, whether Burkean principles or the ideals of the first and finest national park system in the world, how much rarer does Mr. Darby expect they will be as our European heritage dims, soul by soul?

LA replies:

I don’t understand. You say you wholeheartly agree with Mr. Darby. I thought he was arguing for population reduction or stabilization. You are arguing for population increase.

Hannon replies:

I do not agree with Mr. Darby that unqualified population decrease is something good. I agree with Mr. Darby regarding the necessity of placing importance on quality of life, which we both seem to agree includes a significant environmental aspect. One could say (and perhaps I should have said it) that fewer people does not by any means necessarily equate to better treatment of nature or natural resources. My argument is that it is too simplistic to say that a bare consideration of population increase threatens such values.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 30, 2012 02:30 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):