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

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

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

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

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News Psycho Analyst Keith Ablow Delivers Another Demented Diagnosis Of Obama

This is rapidly devolving into surreal comedy. Keith Ablow, a member of the Fox News Medical “A” Team, keeps showing up on Fox properties dispensing the most absurd opinions about President Obama’s psychiatric profile.

Keith Ablow

Remember, Ablow is the same “doctor” who wrote an editorial for Fox News praising Newt Gingrich’s infidelity and serial matrimony as proof that he would make America stronger were he president. And no one should be surprised that Ablow has separated from the American Psychiatric Association due to “ethical differences.” His opinions are devoid of any professional substance or reason. They are merely excuses to vent his political biases couched in cliche jargon and twisted logic.

Ablow has never examined (or even met) the President, so his opinions are about as credible as my evaluation of quantum physics. But that doesn’t stop him from continuing to embarrass himself on television by spreading puerile nonsense. His latest excursion into idiocy took place yesterday on Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs Show in a discussion of the President’s remarks about the Supreme Court. Here is the exchange that Ablow thinks passes for psychoanalysis:

Dobbs: Joining us now to talk about the psychology behind this confrontation between the administration and the judiciary, Dr. Keith Ablow. […] What would possibly be motivating the president to get into this mess, and seemingly he’s unable to let go of it.

Ablow: Well, he’s seemingly unable to let go of it because I think we finally have to start taking him at his word. And you know this is a favorite theme of mine, that people want to try to find some other explanation than the obvious. The obvious explanation is that the President has contempt for that branch of government, is egocentric, and believes that any form of authority, perhaps other than that vested in himself, is untrustworthy. Particularly the longstanding authority associated with branches of government of the United States. That’s literally the most obvious explanation.

The one part of that statement that’s true is that this is one of Ablow’s favorite themes. He has been relentlessly pushing his delusional theory that the President is acting out some sort of suppressed rage as a result of a deprived upbringing. It’s a good thing that more children are not crushed by such childhood traumas or the country would be overrun with kids who excel academically, graduate with honors from Ivy League law schools, and enter careers in public service that lead to the White House. It must have been awful for young Barack.

Ablow’s “obvious explanation” is fraught with fantastical apparitions. There is simply no way that he can justify the assertion that Obama has contempt for the judiciary or that he rejects its authority. Why on earth would Obama have dedicated his adult life to law and constitutional scholarship if he did not have a profound respect for it? The entirety of Ablow’s theory is that the alleged contempt grew out of Obama having been raised by a single mother with help from her parents. But Ablow never connects the dots to show how that could have resulted in animosity toward authority. Is Ablow suggesting that every kid from a broken home is averse to authority? And what about all the young rebels from intact families (like mine)?

Simply said, Ablow’s analysis is bullshit. He is incapable of forming a coherent argument to support his wild notions, and he never even bothers to try. The “obvious explanation” for Ablow’s frighteningly comedic bluster is that he is petulant and partisan right-wing schizoid whose impersonation of a doctor has failed miserably.