Anyone who seriously questions this has not traveled very much, and betrays a particular type of ideology based on what they think things should be instead of the world as it actually is. A lot of these nonsensical equality ideas are from very naive urban dwellers who in fact do not get out much, and are very likely to hang out with those who are deracinated – cut off from their roots – and have no particular sexual morality. Sexual immorality naturally leads to egalitarian ideas about race, and homosexuality, and thus usually serious anti-racists are usually people who have had numerous sexual partners in their lives and are singed in their minds with the effects thereof. Chaos is private life usually leads to this type of nonsensical thinking. An orderly life produces much more sensible thinking than ideological equality among race or any other quirky ideas.

Sorry guys. Derb disturbs, but Derb cannot be seriously disputed overall.

I have one thing to say to this: knowing that “races differ–statistically” and knowing that these differences are innate are two very different things; if the differences are due entirely to, say, past racial discrimination, then people like Derbyshire, who see nothing immoral in “private racial discrimination”, only serve to perpetuate the very differences they use to justify discriminating. Most convenient – if one happens to be on the side doing the discriminating, which Derbyshire happens to be. The potential victims might be forgiven for feeling differently.

John Derbyshire claims to have a mathematics degree from UCL, yet I fail to see that mathematical sophistication in evidence whenever he gets around to floating one of the quack theories hatched up by Murray and Herrnstein or one of his buddies at the euphemistically named “Human Bio-Diversity Institute.” The statistical difficulties involved in teasing apart the influence of culture and genetics are immense, particularly when we’re trying to do so across groups of widely varying cultures and environments, and if Derbyshire ignores these difficulties to champion provocative armchair theories that are unsupported by little in the way of rigorous evidence, he has no right to complain if he is publicly lambasted for so doing. Freedom of speech does not and cannot mean freedom from criticism, and if John Derbyshire is free to indulge the pseudo-scientific fancies of his imagination at the expense of blacks and gays, the rest of the world is free (and right) to call him a bigot.

Just got back from Denison University where we heard John Derbyshire speak about his book Prime Obsession (my review here,

John Derbyshire has provided clarification regarding his description of his feelings about homosexuality and race during his interview with Kevin Holtsberry. My original criticism is here, and despite (or perhaps because of) his clarification, I think …