Another incoherent quota queen.
Just like Derbyshire debated Taylor on miscegenation (it’s all good, according to the Derb, at least for him, and if you don’t like it, come to his house and he’ll punch you in the face – his essential position), he is now opposing Taylor on racial separation: No Sale, says Derb, it’s impossible, simply impossible.
Hmmm…why would a White male (not man) married to a Chinese woman with half-Chinese children, oppose the idea of people in America actually separating, in a political sense, on the basis of race? Just like we can productively speculate why such a person would be so opposed to criticism of miscegenation, and we know why he insists that the major racial dividing line is Blacks vs. non-Blacks as opposed to Whites vs. non-Whites. We just can’t acknowledge the bizarre alien nature of Mrs. Derbyshire and the kids now, can we?
Anyway, and predictably, Derbyshire’s self-interested position is incoherent. He’s all for “freedom of association” don’t you know (so, we can be free to eschew him and his family?), but actual separation is “no sale” because Blacks need Whites
Of that fraction of blacks with something on the ball, all but the most saintly and self-sacrificing will decamp to the nearest nonblack area, as you see happening today across the Mediterranean. Jared’s white enclaves are going to need some very serious border control. His proposed multicultural enclave, where people who want diversity can enjoy it, will get way less diverse really fast. It’ll just turn black.
There is simply no stable solution here. Whites don’t need blacks, but blacks need whites, if they are to have any kind of civilized life.Jared’s second clip is similarly flawed, even setting aside the mayhem that attended the breakup of Yugoslavia. The racial gap in what was formerly Soviet Central Asia is nowhere near the size it is between American blacks and nonblacks.So, sorry to Jared and those of his followers who emailed in, but on the matter of separation: no sale.I do, though, fully agree with Jared on the desirability of striking down all legal constraints on private freedom of association. Forced racial integration is an outrageous assault on our liberties.With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.
Look, if Blacks need Whites, and if we cannot have racial separation because there is no way to keep Blacks out (but doesn’t Derbyshire think that Europe can and should prevent the migrant invasion?), then how can we have freedom of association? Blacks are going to want to live in the “non-Black” areas formed by “voluntary separation.” How are you going to keep them out? You can strike down “legal constraints on private freedom of association” but you still need some way to ENFORCE that separation. If Blacks start coming into Derb’s pristine White-Yellow neighborhood paradise, what’s the solution? Call the police? The National Guard? Will law enforcement be segregated as well? In the last analysis, how is enforcing voluntary separation easier than involuntary separation, if we accept Derbyshire's basic premise of unrelenting racial pressure of Blacks wanting to living among Whites?
The other incoherent aspect of Derbyshire’s stupidity is his idea that we can have racial peace if we can all just accept HBD race realism and enjoy our voluntary separation and “cool down the racial temperature.” As if Blacks, with their militancy and low intelligence and inflated self-esteem (all HBD-approved factoids, no?), will just accept being viewed as dumb and violent sub-altern Americans and if they would just accept being eschewed by “voluntary separation.”
Just like Sailer’s citizenism fails because it is no more realistic than racial nationalism (Trump’s citizenism didn’t last past the election) and won’t accomplish anything, Derbyshire’s idea that acceptance of racial differences and freedom of association will solve the race problem is ludicrous.
Derbyshire’s position is self-contradictory, and is reflective of his personal situation, his cognitive deficiency, or both.