National Review: Blacks too Inferior to Be Capable of Listening to Criticism; so NR Fires John Derbyshire

National Review: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire

Lara Johnstone | Radical Honoursty | 08 April 2012

The following African Problem Solving Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Email and letter were sent to National Review to challenge them to adopt Dr. Gedaliah Braun's definition of Racism: What is Racism; or How Philosophy can be Practical; as the pre-requisite for firing John Derbyshire. However National Review appears to have declined (perhaps due to Masculine Insecurity issues) and decided to fire Mr. Derbyshire.

Here follows the email and pdf letter to National Review.

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 1:09 AM (GMT+2)
To: John Derbyshire (**@nationalreview.com), (**@takimag.com)
Cc: The Observer (**@observer.com); Observer: Drew Grant (**@observer.com); NY Daily News: Alexander Nazaryan (**@edit.nydailynews.com); Atlanticwire: Elspeth Reeve (**@nationaljournal.com); Gawker: Maureen O’Connor (**@gawker.com); Daily Caller: Matt Lewis (**@dailycaller.com); Proteinwisdom: Jeff G (**@proteinwisdom.com)
Subject: National Review: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire

Mr. John Derbyshire
National Review

CC: National Review: Rich Lowry; Ramesh Ponnuru; Jonah Goldberg; Jon Henke
The Observer: Mr. Drew Grant
NY Daily News: Mr. Alexander Nazaryan
Guardian: Paul Harris
Atlanticwire: Elspeth Reeve
Gawker: Maureen O’Connor
Forbes: Josh Barro
Think Progress: Faiz Shakir
Daily Caller: Matt Lewis
Little Green Footballs: Charles Johnson
Proteinwisdom: Jeff G

RE: Challenge NR & Critics: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire

My Honourable Problem Solving suggestion on the matter is as follows: Challenge those who demand Derbyshire be fired for ‘racism’ with the following conditions.

1. They must provide their personal or publications definition of racism.
   
2. If their defintioin of racism is not the same as that of Dr. Gedaliah Braun’s philosophical definition, then the National Review can – if appropriate - publicly acknowledge that “According to ‘X’’s definition of ‘racism’, which is “XYZ’; Mr. Derbyshire is indeed a racist; however according to Dr. Gedaliah Braun’s definition of racism, as adopted by the National Review as its official ‘racism’ definition; it is the conclusion of the National Review that Mr. Derbyshire is not a racist’.
   
3. In the spirit of Dr. Gedaliah Brauns’ Practical Philosophy definition of ‘racism’, should any publication wish to challenge any of Mr. Derbyshire’s facts and unequivocally prove such facts to be in error; and additionally Mr. Derbyshire refuses to impartially enquire into, or engage in such enquiry into the true facts of the relevant ‘racial’ matter; then Dr. Gedaliah Braun shall be enquired to determine whether Mr. Derbyshire is indeed a racist; according to his definition and if so decided, then Mr. Derbyshire shall be fired, as a racist according to the National Review’s definition of racist.

Full letter attached in PDF

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
African Radical Honoursty Problem Solving EcoFeminist

07 April 2012

Mr. John Derbyshire (c/o letters@nationalreview.com)
National Review

CC:

National Review: Rich Lowry (@NRO); Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru); Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO); Jon Henke (@JohnHenke)
The Observer: Mr. Drew Grant (editorial@observer.com)( dgrant@observer.com)
NY Daily News: Mr. Alexander Nazaryan (voicers@edit.nydailynews.com)
Guardian: Paul Harris (@paulxharris)
Atlanticwire: Elspeth Reeve (ereeve@nationaljournal.com)
Gawker: Maureen O’Connor (maureen@gawker.com) (@Gawker)
Forbes: Josh Barro (@jbarro)
Think Progress: Faiz Shakir (@fshakir)
Daily Caller: Matt Lewis (matt@dailycaller.com)
Little Green Footballs: Charles Johnson (@Lizardoid)
Proteinwisdom: Jeff G (jeff@proteinwisdom.com)

RE: Challenge NR & Critics: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire

I have read all the hysterical emotional reactionary responses by writers whose writing on this matter reminds me of white guilt dogs with rabies, as opposed to rational reasoned cognitive thought about racial differences and issues of race.

I don’t know if you are a racist or not; according to my definition of racism, which is that of Dr. Gedaliah Braun (What is Racism; Or How Philosophy can be Practical). I am not offended by any of the statements you made, because my definition for love and respect is that someone really loves and respects you, when they consider you worthy of their brutal honesty and sincerity, no matter how difficult to hear. Conversely my definition of hatred and contempt is an individual who considers me as too intellectually retarded to provide me with their brutal honest constructive criticism, and instead lies to me and tells me I am equal and thereby denies [me] the opportunity to confront my inadequacies and overcome them and become a better person.

I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, although on any given issue, if liberal or conservative ideology effectively solves the relevant problem for the relevant individuals combined, I am most happy to apply that ideology. For example, I consider Delancey Street Foundation’s communist Radical Transparency Tough Love Each One Teach One communist socialist policy to be the most effective program for helping criminals rehabilitate themselves. But should any other ideology have similar or better ‘it works’ results; I’d be happy to endorse that ideology for that circumstance. An effective overview of my ideology, which I refer to as among others focussed on Problem Solving (Encl: Draft of Rule of Law Radical Honoursty Party), not Parasite Leeching (getting a fanclub to leech upon) is described in: My ideology is HONOUR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY; Whats Yours?

My Honourable Problem Solving suggestion on the matter is as follows: Challenge those who demand Derbyshire be fired for ‘racism’ with the following conditions.

1. They must provide their personal or publications definition of racism.
   
   
2. If their defintioin of racism is not the same as that of Dr. Gedaliah Braun’s philosophical definition, then the National Review can – if appropriate - publicly acknowledge that “According to ‘X’’s definition of ‘racism’, which is “XYZ’; Mr. Derbyshire is indeed a racist; however according to Dr. Gedaliah Braun’s definition of racism, as adopted by the National Review as its official ‘racism’ definition; it is the conclusion of the National Review that Mr. Derbyshire is not a racist’.
   
   
3. In the spirit of Dr. Gedaliah Brauns’ Practical Philosophy definition of ‘racism’, should any publication wish to challenge any of Mr. Derbyshire’s facts and unequivocally prove such facts to be in error; and additionally Mr. Derbyshire refuses to impartially enquire into, or engage in such enquiry into the true facts of the relevant ‘racial’ matter; then Dr. Gedaliah Braun shall be enquired to determine whether Mr. Derbyshire is indeed a racist; according to his definition and if so decided, then Mr. Derbyshire shall be fired, as a racist according to the National Review’s definition of racist.

I suggest the National Review acknowledge that the majority of white guilt liberals and conservatives shall find any discussion about facts and evidence in a conversation about racial differences and similarities as ‘credible’ as the Catholic Church considered Galileo’s evidence that the earth was not flat.

Employing intellectual Galileo’s – especially in racially neurotic America -- is not for sissy’s! ;-)

Observer: “how tongue-in-cheek is this John Derbyshire essay…[..] It’s…well…bold, we guess you can say…[..] How Taki…er…tacky!”

NY Daily News: “Unfortunately, in the case of John Derbyshire's "The Talk: Nonblack Version," no joke is evident, which makes me dishearteningly conclude that this racist junk is actually meant in all seriousness - or such a lead-footed joke that it simply lacks all humor.”

Guardian: “National Review writer ignites firestorm over 'disgusting rant' on race”

Atlantic Wire: “Derbyshire does effectively demonstrate, year after year, exactly how racist you can be and still get published by people who consider themselves intellectuals. Derbyshire has shocked the internet -- even the conservative internet -- with an essay for Taki's Magazine about how he had a talk with his children warning them about the danger of running into black people in public places and the necessity of befriending the few nice ones out there for the public relations benefits.”

Gawker: “Yesterday political web magazine Taki published a stunning work of overt racism by John Derbyshire, a man so racist (and sexist) that even his colleagues at the National Review think he sucks. In Taki, Derbyshire offers the "nonblack version" of "the talk" that some black parents say they give to their children, warning them how to survive in a racist world. Derbyshire's "talk" is a bullet-point list of every racist thought he's ever had about how dumb and dangerous black people are. Come, bear witness to the hideous monstrosity that is John Derbyshire's deeply racist mind.”

Forbes: ‘Unbelievably racist… And this is the problem for Lowry and other conservatives who want to be taken seriously by broad audiences when they write about racial issues. Lowry wrote a column containing advice for black Americans. Why should black Americans take him seriously while he’s employing Derbyshire? If Lowry wants NR to be credible on race, he should start by firing John Derbyshire.”

Atlantic Wire: “Derbyshire does effectively demonstrate, year after year, exactly how racist you can be and still get published by people who consider themselves intellectuals. Derbyshire has shocked the internet -- even the conservative internet -- with an essay for Taki's Magazine about how he had a talk with his children warning them about the danger of running into black people in public places and the necessity of befriending the few nice ones out there for the public relations benefits.”

Think Progress: “After the National Review’s John Derbyshire penned an unbelievably offensive and racist screed in Taki’s Magazine advising white Americans to stay away from black Americans, a firestorm has predictably erupted over whether his views will be sanctioned by the larger conservative movement.”

Little Green Footballs: “Riehl then explains, with his inimitable total lack of style, that “the left” should really be thanking John Derbyshire instead of trying to “silence him,” and yes, they should also stop falsely accusing the right of racism.”

ProteinWisdom: “Eric Holder famously noted that we’re afraid to talk about race in this country. Derbyshire proved he, at least, isn’t. And his comrades are crawling over themselves to gain distance. And the reason is, Holder, the left, the “pragmatic” right — they don’t really want to talk about such things. They only want to talk about the need to talk about such things, while simultaneously demonizing any real attempts to do so. An easier way to bank some cheap grace you won’t find in a PC-soaked society. [..] Derbyshire set his article up by noting that in any large population, there will be trends; he sought to take a look at the trends and reach conclusions based on them. Whether or not you believe the conclusions he reached are valid or not is almost immaterial. Because what was truly important about his article was the citation of the trends —- which, sad to say, we’ve been taught studiously to ignore. Funny how people who yell “SCIENCE!” and want to put conservatives in re-education camps fear actual data, isn’t it? [..] If we are really interested in “having the conversation,” we need to have somebody who is willing to start it. Derbyshire did. And the reaction has been to denounce it or run from it.”

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
African Radical Honoursty Problem Solving EcoFeminist

CC: David Frum (@davidfrum); Glenn Greenwald (ggreenwald); Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery); Ben Adler (@badler); Dara (@DLind); LOLGOP (@LOLGOP); Adam Weinstein (@AdamWeinstein); Julian Sanchez (@normative); Jon Lovett (@jonlovett); Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith); Krison Capps (@kristoncapps); Michael Demmons (@mldemmons); Tony (@TonyinOKC); Jesse Taylor (@jesseltaylor); netw3rk (@netw3rk); Cam O’Connor (Koncoction); Wilda Heard (@drWilda); Altocumulus (@ShutThyTrap); Mark Hirschfeld (@MDHirschfeld); Lee Rosenberg (@Lee_Rosenberg); David Roberts (@drgrist); Pamela Zuppo (@PZuppo); Justin Stayshyn (@UnionSt); B. Justice (@zefirotorna); Dr. Jamie Mitchell (@ProfessorChic); James Gibson (@JamesAGibson3rd); Martin A Kupel (@MAK7591); Bob Lyle (@boblyle); Mediate (@mediate); John Podhoretz (jpodhoretz); Oliver Willis (@owillis); Dan Riehl (@DanRiehl).

» » » » [PDF]

Encl. RULE OF LAW RADICAL HONOURSTY PARTY

‘Honour Contract Oath’

I __________, swear under oath that I:

[I] Am honourably sincere and seriously concerned about solving our nations problems

[II] I understand that the party adheres to a management theory known as ‘radical transparency’: a management or communication theory and practice that calls for total honesty as the foundation of accountability. All members are encouraged to sincerely and openly criticize each other; and behind the back gossiping and sycophancy is totally verboten.

[III] Radical Transparency Benefits : Brutal sincere honesty, and most importantly a commitment to remain in the honest conversation with each other, until all emotions are spent and both have achieved understanding of each others points of view, leads to: (A) overcoming individual fragile ego's; (B) building trust and intimacy; (D) empowerment of freethinkers: opportunity for true freedom of thought and problem solving; (E) abolishing office and party politics and ego-stroking sycophancy to 'climb the ladder', and finally (F) a true meritocracy.

Versions of Radical Transparency are currently practiced by three organisations we are aware of: (1) Delancey Street Foundation (www.delanceystreetfoundation.org): the worlds most successful rehabilitation program, where over 14,000 former drug addicts, murderers, felons, criminals and delinquents have rehabilitated themselves by means of Delancey Street Foundations radical transparency brutal honesty each-one-teach-one program; (2) Bridgewater Associates (www.bwater.com): the world’s indisputably weirdest largest and best- performing hedge fund in the world; with 2010 returns greater than the profits of Google, Amazon and eBay combined. It is managed according to CEO Ray Dalio’s Radical Transparency Principles; (3) Radical Honesty (www.radicalhonesty.com): founded by bestselling author Dr. Brad Blanton based upon this principles of Radical Honesty About Anger and Forgiveness, as detailed in his book: Practicing Radical Honesty.

[IV] I understand that problem solving requires that:

[A] the root cause of the problem be accurately defined and identified

[B] citizens and politicians require the political will to act to eliminate the root cause of the problem

[C] If or where a root cause of a problem is identified, and my behaviour contributes towards the problem; then I must be willing to confront my own behaviour and to find the will to amend my behaviour

[D] If I am repeatedly not willing to amend my behaviour, which is a contributory factor to the problem, I shall receive a notification from the party that the party is withdrawing from this ‘Honour Voting Contract’, due to my lack of honour and will to practice what I preach.

[E] The termination of the ‘Honour Voting Contract’ shall mean that I am no longer a member of the party, and that the party has no obligation whatsoever to consider my ideas, suggestions or criticism as credible or serious, since I have deemed myself as lacking the honour and political will to practice what I preach.

[V] Accurate Identification of Problems:

[A] I understand that:

[1] Root cause problem solving is impossible in a politically correct environment

[2] If I question or dispute, any issue identified by Radical Honoursty as an alleged ‘root cause’ for any problem in this ‘Honour Voter Contract Oath’; I must attach the alleged root cause issue I dispute, including my written evidentiary reasons, attached to this ‘Honour Voting Contract’ Oath.

[3] I may be contacted to provide further evidentiary reasons or witness testimony, in the event that it is determined that the party’s root causes were inaccurately identified. I shall be permitted to submit such evidence in a radically transparency hearing that is totally free from any notions of political correctness and interested purely in scientific evidence. If or where I require ‘due order’ of radical transparency proceedings policies to be broken in order to make any particular point; such proceedings may be so broken, if I present relevant evidence for the need to do so.

[4] The party may also decide that the evidence I have submitted is not sufficient to alter the party’s policy on said problem issue; and decline to enter into this ‘Honour Voting Contract’ with me. I may subsequently submit further evidence for reconsideration.

[5] If the party accepts my ‘Honour Voting Contract’ with full understanding of my dispute on particular problems root causes, I may continue to oppose – by any honourable legal advocacy means I choose - the resolution of the problem as identified by the party.

[VI] Masculine Insecurity is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to (A) obstructing sincere communication problem solving; and (B) being the root ideological cause for ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation. Put differently:

[A] Masculine Insecurity is not necessarily a masculine phenomena; but because the majority of the worlds cultures have and continue to be patriarchal, the drivers of those cultures were men.

[B] Masculine Insecurity is the psychological and intellectual inability to constructively and sincerely listen and engage in a search for the truth, with individuals whom you may disagree with. A desire to silence and ignore ideas which threaten the insecure masculine identity.

[C] Masculine Insecurity’s Greatest Weapon: His Brood Sows ‘wombs’:

[1] Robert McElvaine: In Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History, and Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History, McElvaine described it thus:

“Karl Marx had it wrong. Class has, to be sure, been a major factor in history; but class itself is a derivative concept that is based on the ultimate causative power in history: sex. Marx’s famous formulation must be revised: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles based on the division of our species into two sexes, jealousies emanating from this division, exaggerations of the differences between the sexes, misunderstandings about sexual reproductive power, and metaphors derived from sex. Together, these closely related matters constitute the most important, but largely neglected, set of motive forces in human history. Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of reproduction has been even more fundamental to history than has control of the means of production.”

[2] Former Judge Jason G. Brent, Humans: An Endangered Species:

“We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population, an ACT OF WAR.”

[3] Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974:

“The wombs of our women will give us victory.” [“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” (Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and SWAPO)]

[4] Yasser Arafat: Palestinian Womb is his people’s greatest asset

[Arnon Soffer, a geography professor at Israel's Haifa University and a lecturer at the Israeli Army's Staff and Command college, first warned of the impending Jewish demographic minority in the 1980s, but was widely dismissed. He predicted Arabs would outnumber Jews in both Israel proper and the occupied territories by 2010. In February 2001, the night of his election, Sharon sent an aide to ask Soffer for a copy of his 1987 treatise about the demographic threat to Israel; it was the same study that had led Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to declare in the late 1980s that the "Palestinian womb" was his people's greatest weapon.]

[5] Nelson Mandela’s ANC: ANC ‘Operation Production’ Policy: African women forced (I) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Contravention meant detention, 'Apartheid agent' People’s Court trial & sentence of Necklacing, incl. broken bottles shoved up their vagina.

[Johannes Harnischfeger, Witchcraft and the State in South Africa (*German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/ 2000, S. 99-112): “Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)”]

[D] New Black Panther Party: Dr. Khalid Muhammad: Kill the White Woman as the White Man’s Military Manufacturing Center rolling out reinforcement from between her legs: In Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad’s 1993 'Kill the White Man' speech , at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, he stated among others:

“Kill the women cause the women are the military manufacturing center; cause every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center, by killing the white woman.”

[VII] Overpopulation (as a result of a planet inhabited by a majority of patriarchal masculine insecure leaders focussed on control of the means of reproduction) is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of our national problems: exponential resource use and decline, local national and international resource wars, local resource wars: crime, poverty, political correctness, etc:

[A] I understand that:

[1] Solving the overpopulation problem to reach a state of ecological sustainable carrying capacity requires massive population reduction

[2] Humane Personal Responsibility Policy: Every male has the right to father only one live child, and every woman has the right to one live birth

[3] The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth can be sold or transferred; and a process shall be implemented to monitor such.

[4] If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child.

[5] Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.

[6] Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under Judge Jason Brent’s proposal (Humans: An Endangered Species) any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed.

[7] Since the policy is applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child.

[8] Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would be approved.

[VIII] Overconsumption is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of our nations ecological problems, of which the political and economic problems are simply symptoms of the deeper ecological problems: exponential resource use and decline, local national and international resource wars, local resource wars: crime, poverty, political correctness, etc (Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter : A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences):

[A] I understand that:

[1] Solving the overconsumption problem to reach a state of ecological sustainable carrying capacity requires massive consumption reduction

[2] Further research shall be conducted to establish guidelines on reducing consumption. All suggestions are welcomed.

[3] The final decisions shall be applied to all: no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would be approved.


[IX] Welfare Problem: Contributes to Dependency on State:

[A] I understand that: All Individual and Corporate State Welfare will be abolished

[1] Children are the responsibility of their parents and family.

[2] Children who – as a result of austerity measures and hardship, or for whatever personal reasons – object to their parents having brought them into the world, may act to honourably depart, by informing their parents of their intentions, arranging a farewell with their friends. Their parents are obliged to provide for the funds to enable their honourable euthanasia/suicide. If you brought them into the world, and they don’t want to remain here; it is your duty to provide them with the opportunity to leave in dignity.

[3] Should their parents object to the child departing by euthanasia or suicide, the parents may offer to take care of their children in their home, which the children may accept, or not, as their preference.

[4] Corporations are the responsibility of the capitalist or communist ideologically orientated managers and employees and if they cannot survive on their own hard work, values and ingenuity, then they must go bankrupt and learn from their mistakes.

[5] No business is too big to fail.


[X] Corporate Ecological Predation: Legal Standing for Corporations to be Abolished:

[A] I understand that:

[1] Legal Standing for Corporations shall be abolished

[2] A system shall be established – after hearings heard on the matter – for severely simplifying the role of corporations in society.


[XI] Professional Ethics and Pragmatism:

[XII] I understand the party’s policy on (A) professional ethics is to follow the truth wherever the truth leads us, which can only be done in a radical transparency environment; and (B) pragmatism, is to measure problem solving by what works, rather than emotional or ideological standards or intentions.

[XIII] I understand that the party will require any individual interested in voting for the party to sign an Honourable Voter Contract Oath. The party is looking for practice what we preach personal responsibility committed problems solvers, not sycophantic ignorant cannon fodder zombies.


[XIV] Intentions: Honourable Free Society of Men Who Rule Themselves:

[A] I understand that this ‘Honour Voting Contract’ Oath is intended to:

[1] Raise citizens consciousness about conducting their affairs with their fellow citizens honourably: face to face, not like gutless cowards by backstabbing, deception and fraud.

[2] The party’s intentions are to solve as many problems as quick as possible to the point where the smallest possible government can be achieved, that provides citizens with the greatest level of possible personally responsible (not anarchic) freedom

[3] Mutual Coercion, Mutually Agreed Upon is the absolute Necessary Requirement for Freedom; to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons.

[XV] Notification of Interest to Join the Party:

_______________________________
Signed.

________________________
Date.

» » » » [PDF]