What do you think?
Rate this book
From the Dissident Right #1
From The Dissident Right
This book is mainly a collection of essays I published between 2001 and 2013. Most of those essays appeared on VDARE.com, an online magazine dedicated to frank discussion of the National Question. The penultimate essay in this collection defines the National Question and offers an answer to it. That essay also describes the work of VDARE.com in more detail. It concludes with an unofficial VDARE.com mission statement.
- GenresPolitics
224 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 15, 2013
13 people are currently reading
101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 4, 2014
Derbyshire, much like Chesterton G.K. or Nietzsche Friedrich Wilhelm, is at his best when submitting another's ideas to his withering analysis and criticism, though, like the afore-mentioned, he is unable to construct anything positive that could also withstand similar review. Derbyshire engages in well thought-out criticisms of both the contemporary right and left in the United States (he includes policies in European countries as well). His attacks on the tyrannical "political correctness" madness that censors not only expression but thought itself, are spot on. He highlights much of what is terribly broken in education today, especially at the university level. He accuses both "right" and "left" of being almost the same party, both of them supporting big central government at the expense of federalism and small government, differing only in the details as to how that big government is used. He noted particularly that the right clove to anti-Communism during the Cold War and permitted every other kind of excess in its zeal (location 1646-1648).
Derbyshire posits repeatedly that "The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b. who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list." (location 1826-1828 and elsewhere) He quotes Nietzsche along those lines, "We would rather believe than know." (location 1788) He explores how people impose taboos on themselves, because "by collapsing complex issues into simple moral formulas, they prevent us having to think, encouraging us to feel instead." (location 1123) Derbyshire himself favors "liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism," (location 293-294 and elsewhere) hard to argue with on those terms.
So what's wrong with it? Despite Derbyshire's superficial fascination with "science" and statistics, his understanding of these topics seems to be superficial and sophistic. He uses batteries of statistics to show that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, but his use of such statistics does not hold up to rigorous review (if you can believe it). While he cites black criminality as proportionally greater than black poverty, what he fails to address in this instance is that poverty measures the person, while criminal statistics measure acts of crime. One person can commit multiple acts of crime, all at once, and/or serially over time. Just so, one criminal can drive up the crime rate for any given demographic considerably, the way divorce rates in America are high because certain individuals tend to divorce serially, vice half of everyone getting one divorce. While I agree with Derbyshire's tenets of "liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism," he himself opines that blacks and other unspecified groups would be disadvantaged under such a system, making group preferences for a welfare state, set-asides, and similar measures a rational group preference. As Thomas Sowell has shown repeatedly, blacks closed the socio-economic gap with whites at a far greater rate before the civil rights legislation of 1964 and beyond than after, showing that they are more than capable of competing in the kind of society Derbyshire claims to support (and this with unquestionable odds stacked against them in the form of formal and informal discrimination and a general starting position of great socio-economic disadvantage).
If the purpose of Derbyshire's "Non-black Talk" was to highlight the ridiculous dimensions of the racist "Black Talk" and other unfortunate by-products of the Trayvon/Zimmerman controversy, as well as society's acceptance of such racism, it would have served a useful purpose. But, in fact, Derbyshire appeared serious and sincere that such a talk would be a useful way to educate non-black children as to the "dangers" of associating with groups of blacks. He tries to use the caveats that his advice is based on "statistics" (though, as I noted above, Derbyshire's use and/or understanding of statistics is dubious at best) and that he does not venture to guess at causes, only to focus on effects. But if an adult were really to school a child in all the things Derbyshire mentions, without once explaining why things were that way, it is hard to imagine that a child's conclusion would not be, "Well, all blacks must be like that just because they're born that way." They would, thereby, become life-long racists if they didn't stop to reflect on such childhood training, which might be just fine as far as Derbyshire is concerned.
What really seals the deal for Derbyshire and his viewpoints on race are his flirting with the idea of white supremacism. Even Derbyshire's frequent inclusion of northeast Asian peoples among the "successful races" point to the contradiction inherent in such a point of view. Add to that the simple refutation of Nazi (or any other formulation of) "master race" ideas, which is to say, if there were one race that really were superior, it would have been ascendant over the others during all of history, not just a century or two here and there. Clearly, the "white" people of Europe (if that can even be considered a scientifically useful category, as Derbyshire pretends it is, given the wide diversity of people even inside historic Europe) were not "supreme" during the Dark Ages. They were under the sword from the "Asiatic" Huns and Middle Eastern/North African Muslim invaders, just to give a couple of notable examples. One could try to give Derbyshire the benefit of the doubt for his Non-black Talk, but once one encounters his dalliance with white supremacy, pretty much the game is up for Derbyshire's credibility on race. Too bad, because as I noted, his criticisms of current trends and prevailing PC totalitarianism is otherwise worth considering.
Derbyshire also tries to cite The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life as support for his genetic/racial ideas, though Herrnstein himself concluded that the "overwhelming case" was that American blacks were at an "environmental disadvantage." It's too bad that books like the Bell Curve are quoted far more than read, thereby creating unnecessary and artificial controversy (not to mention, being misused as Derbyshire does).
In short, one could read Derbyshire for his criticism of both left and right, as well as some of his provocative ideas about age, class, education, etc. However, as his infatuation with science and statistics exceed his understanding of these subjects, he is unable to proceed from criticism to construction of anything useful. Further, his ideas on race do not hold up to scrutiny, and therefore are useful only for stirring up ill will and controversy. While I do not regret having read it, I can easily recommend many better works on virtually any of the topics Derbyshire covered here (may I humbly suggest The Thomas Sowell Reader as the best first place to start?).
Derbyshire posits repeatedly that "The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b. who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list." (location 1826-1828 and elsewhere) He quotes Nietzsche along those lines, "We would rather believe than know." (location 1788) He explores how people impose taboos on themselves, because "by collapsing complex issues into simple moral formulas, they prevent us having to think, encouraging us to feel instead." (location 1123) Derbyshire himself favors "liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism," (location 293-294 and elsewhere) hard to argue with on those terms.
So what's wrong with it? Despite Derbyshire's superficial fascination with "science" and statistics, his understanding of these topics seems to be superficial and sophistic. He uses batteries of statistics to show that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, but his use of such statistics does not hold up to rigorous review (if you can believe it). While he cites black criminality as proportionally greater than black poverty, what he fails to address in this instance is that poverty measures the person, while criminal statistics measure acts of crime. One person can commit multiple acts of crime, all at once, and/or serially over time. Just so, one criminal can drive up the crime rate for any given demographic considerably, the way divorce rates in America are high because certain individuals tend to divorce serially, vice half of everyone getting one divorce. While I agree with Derbyshire's tenets of "liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism," he himself opines that blacks and other unspecified groups would be disadvantaged under such a system, making group preferences for a welfare state, set-asides, and similar measures a rational group preference. As Thomas Sowell has shown repeatedly, blacks closed the socio-economic gap with whites at a far greater rate before the civil rights legislation of 1964 and beyond than after, showing that they are more than capable of competing in the kind of society Derbyshire claims to support (and this with unquestionable odds stacked against them in the form of formal and informal discrimination and a general starting position of great socio-economic disadvantage).
If the purpose of Derbyshire's "Non-black Talk" was to highlight the ridiculous dimensions of the racist "Black Talk" and other unfortunate by-products of the Trayvon/Zimmerman controversy, as well as society's acceptance of such racism, it would have served a useful purpose. But, in fact, Derbyshire appeared serious and sincere that such a talk would be a useful way to educate non-black children as to the "dangers" of associating with groups of blacks. He tries to use the caveats that his advice is based on "statistics" (though, as I noted above, Derbyshire's use and/or understanding of statistics is dubious at best) and that he does not venture to guess at causes, only to focus on effects. But if an adult were really to school a child in all the things Derbyshire mentions, without once explaining why things were that way, it is hard to imagine that a child's conclusion would not be, "Well, all blacks must be like that just because they're born that way." They would, thereby, become life-long racists if they didn't stop to reflect on such childhood training, which might be just fine as far as Derbyshire is concerned.
What really seals the deal for Derbyshire and his viewpoints on race are his flirting with the idea of white supremacism. Even Derbyshire's frequent inclusion of northeast Asian peoples among the "successful races" point to the contradiction inherent in such a point of view. Add to that the simple refutation of Nazi (or any other formulation of) "master race" ideas, which is to say, if there were one race that really were superior, it would have been ascendant over the others during all of history, not just a century or two here and there. Clearly, the "white" people of Europe (if that can even be considered a scientifically useful category, as Derbyshire pretends it is, given the wide diversity of people even inside historic Europe) were not "supreme" during the Dark Ages. They were under the sword from the "Asiatic" Huns and Middle Eastern/North African Muslim invaders, just to give a couple of notable examples. One could try to give Derbyshire the benefit of the doubt for his Non-black Talk, but once one encounters his dalliance with white supremacy, pretty much the game is up for Derbyshire's credibility on race. Too bad, because as I noted, his criticisms of current trends and prevailing PC totalitarianism is otherwise worth considering.
Derbyshire also tries to cite The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life as support for his genetic/racial ideas, though Herrnstein himself concluded that the "overwhelming case" was that American blacks were at an "environmental disadvantage." It's too bad that books like the Bell Curve are quoted far more than read, thereby creating unnecessary and artificial controversy (not to mention, being misused as Derbyshire does).
In short, one could read Derbyshire for his criticism of both left and right, as well as some of his provocative ideas about age, class, education, etc. However, as his infatuation with science and statistics exceed his understanding of these subjects, he is unable to proceed from criticism to construction of anything useful. Further, his ideas on race do not hold up to scrutiny, and therefore are useful only for stirring up ill will and controversy. While I do not regret having read it, I can easily recommend many better works on virtually any of the topics Derbyshire covered here (may I humbly suggest The Thomas Sowell Reader as the best first place to start?).
February 18, 2018
Disappointing, I'm afraid. I like what Derb stands for, but these shirt essays are really just blog post quality and very chatty. You feel like he might have just dashed them off on the way to work each Monday morning.
December 30, 2025
The only worthwhile element in the book is Derbyshire having been early to certain policy issues. The writing, however, is positively uninspired and at times borders on annoying. There are more interesting ways to read about race and race relations than this book
August 13, 2015
When Derbyshire is on his game, he's one of the most piercing and entertaining voices on the Right. I'd recommended -- though with little success -- "The Future of Elite Attitudes on Race" before its inclusion in this eBook as one of the most humane and intelligent short works on the subject, and intend to keep pushing it.
About half the essays in here are of similar caliber -- including "Nice Guys Get Illegal Immigrants," "What's So Scary About Darwin," "The Root of (White) Ethnomaschism" -- but the others are much weaker and seem to be more about Derb embracing the persona he's been accused of ever since he published "The Talk." The first three essays revolve around that infamous work and I can't say it's improved with time. As Noah Milman said in his critique of it -- which, to Derb's credit, is the second essay in the book -- the piece can be described as a series of sloppily-reasoned risk assessments that call for flight when caution might well do.
Curiously, given his dissident status, there's a strain of Derb's thinking here that I think is both very common on the Right and rather dangerous: to see any attack of conservative speech as evidence of the Lefty PC Police. That the Lefty PC Police exist and are quite dangerous I wholly concede, but conservatives need to learn to be smarter about their battles. Derb's "The Talk" essay and Phil Robertson's comments last month -- different though they might be otherwise -- weren't worth either the two-minute hate the received, nor conservative apology. Valor isn't the only thing discretion calls for.
About half the essays in here are of similar caliber -- including "Nice Guys Get Illegal Immigrants," "What's So Scary About Darwin," "The Root of (White) Ethnomaschism" -- but the others are much weaker and seem to be more about Derb embracing the persona he's been accused of ever since he published "The Talk." The first three essays revolve around that infamous work and I can't say it's improved with time. As Noah Milman said in his critique of it -- which, to Derb's credit, is the second essay in the book -- the piece can be described as a series of sloppily-reasoned risk assessments that call for flight when caution might well do.
Curiously, given his dissident status, there's a strain of Derb's thinking here that I think is both very common on the Right and rather dangerous: to see any attack of conservative speech as evidence of the Lefty PC Police. That the Lefty PC Police exist and are quite dangerous I wholly concede, but conservatives need to learn to be smarter about their battles. Derb's "The Talk" essay and Phil Robertson's comments last month -- different though they might be otherwise -- weren't worth either the two-minute hate the received, nor conservative apology. Valor isn't the only thing discretion calls for.
February 16, 2016
Bloody well-written essays!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews