What Self-Imposed Blindness Looks Like

     I can’t help it; I have a scientist’s preference for data over opinions. I have another preference as well: for life, limb, and property. So I respect data about crime. In particular, I respect data about where the majority of crimes against person and property are committed. I avoid those districts to the extent possible – which these days means just about all the time.

     No region on this planet is completely safe, of course, but using “statistical common sense” helps to reduce the risks to life, limb, and property as far as they can be reduced. So I respect the sort of advice John Derbyshire gives in “The Talk – Nonblack version:”

     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.
     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:

1. Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
2. Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
3. 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).
4. Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
5. If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
6. Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
7. Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
8. Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
9. If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

     It’s a mini-sermonette about our present-day culture that the great majority of whites who read the above recoil from it in a kind of horror. Yet the great majority of them behave in accordance with Derbyshire’s advice. It’s hard to draw any inference other than the one I drew in this essay:

     The essence of the taboo in American society is linguistic: not to speak the forbidden thought or attitude.

     Any knowledge, however well confirmed, that a white American possesses that illustrates differences among the races as statistical aggregates must never be expressed in words. However, one may make use of the knowledge encapsulated in Derbyshire’s brief essay, as long as it’s never articulated where the shamans can hear.

     Here’s something else I can’t help: contempt for those who knowingly lie about what they know full well. Thus, this piece at Chicks On The Right distressed me greatly. I shan’t excerpt it here. Read it and form your own opinions.

     Perhaps “Martin” had an ulterior motive for his query. It doesn’t matter. As a white woman “Mockarena” would know that she’d be in elevated danger were she to blithely disregard Derbyshire’s counsel. She must know it. She probably behaves in accordance with it. But it’s plain from the exchange she presented that she would never, ever say so.

     It’s cowardice and worse than cowardice, for it tacitly promulgates a falsehood. That falsehood could cause young, more impressionable Americans to take serious, unnecessary risks…probably out of a sense that it’s their duty to express “solidarity with the marginalized.” That’s worse than distressing; it’s contemptible.

     It’s one thing to vow, privately or publicly, always to treat individuals on their individual merits. That’s praiseworthy. It’s what’s expected of us as decent persons. But when people act in and as groups, disaggregating the group into individuals and treating with each of them on his merits is flatly impossible. In such circumstances it’s the path of prudence to go with what you know. Thereafter, it’s the path of candor to own up to it – and never, ever to deceive others, whether directly or by implication, about the reasons for one’s decisions and actions.

     America needs more than a return to the rule of law. We need a return to candor and sincerity as well – and no mincing about simply to avoid “hurting their feelings.” It’s high time. Charles Murray will tell you.