They're NOT Hanging Daneesha Deever In The Morning (And Other Aspects Of Negro Fatigue)
Print Friendly and PDF
[Based on the latest Radio Derb, now available free on]

A photograph buzzing around the internet this week shows sixteen black and mulatto female West Point cadets, in uniform, posing with their fists raised in an apparent tribute to the Black Lives Matter Soros-funded anarchist group.

Where there should be comradeship and institutional loyalty, these troublemakers have introduced rancor, division, and victimological whining. That's not to mention being in clear violation of Department of Defense directives and every traditional conception of military dignity and honor.

In a country that had not lost its collective mind on the subject of race fifty years ago, these malefactors would be shamed before their comrades, then sent to the brig for five years each, then dishonorably discharged. In the country we actually live in, where blacks are the pampered pets of a fawning elite class, they will probably be decorated for valor.

Blogger John Burk, who has some inside information from the US Military Academy, comments:

The ladies before you are class seniors and have been making their voices heard more and more on an app called "Yik Yak" where users are kept anonymous, yet no one dares speak up in public against them due to them being accused of being racist and risk being expelled from the Academy for hurting someone's feelings. [Racism Within West Point,, May 37, 2016]
To think that brave, patriotic Americans in combat might find themselves under the command of these self-obsessed harpies! Far as I'm concerned, Hell can't be hot enough for the cowards and time-servers in our senior military leadership who tolerate, and even encourage, this lunacy.

The story has, though, put me in mind of military punishments in general:

Needless to say, they are not hanging Daneesha Deever in the morning. And let me make it clear that I do not think that dishonoring the Military Academy and spitting on its code rises to the level of a capital offense. A spell in the brig will meet this case.

But did I say five years in the brig? Make it ten.

On a related topic…here's another microaggression. At the White House correspondents' dinner in 2011,  goodwhite comedian Seth Meyers jeered at Donald Trump for saying he has a great relationship with the blacks. Said Meyers: "Unless the Blacks are a family of white people, I bet he's mistaken."

So apparently it's now microaggressive to refer to the blacks as "the blacks." Don't you get tired of having to overhaul your vocabulary every time CultMarx Central issues a directive?

I wish I could tell you that Donald J. Trump has given the New York finger to these nuisances, but I'm sorry to report that in his most recent remarks he's switched to saying "African Americans." Let's be thankful for small mercies, though: At least I have not so far spotted him saying "the African American community," as if they all live in one town.

And if it's so flagitious to refer to blacks as blacks, why is there a Black Lives Matter movement? And that is not, of course, even to mention Historically Black Colleges, the National Association of Black Everythings, the United Negro College Fund, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

All the cognitive energy we waste trying to keep track of this stuff must surely be contributing to Global Warming.

And also on the Black Lives Matter front: the Washington Times ran a story about a research study carried out in 2012 and 2013 by Washington State University:

An examination of shooting errors found that the officers were "slightly more than three times less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects," the article said … What's more, officers took "significantly longer" — 200 milliseconds on average — in deadly force scenarios to shoot armed black suspects than armed white suspects, controlling for variables such as "demeanor, language, dress, distance from participant, movement, location, sound and light levels."

Police More Reluctant To Shoot Blacks Than Whites, Study Finds.  By Valerie Richardson, May 2, 2016

That's interesting, but in apparent contradiction to a different study, this one a joint effort by the University of Louisville and the University of South Carolina, reported in the April 7th Washington Post. (That other one was the Times, this one was the Post. Pay attention, please!)
In the study, researchers wrote that their analysis of the 990 fatal shootings in 2015 "suggests the police exhibit shooter bias by falsely perceiving blacks to be a greater threat than non-blacks to their safety."

Study finds police fatally shoot unarmed black men at disproportionate rates, by Wesley Lowery, April 7, 2016

That word "falsely" strikes me as sly, but let it pass.

Note, please, that the Washington Times study — the one that found police more reluctant to shoot blacks than whites—while it used real police officers with real handguns, was carried out experimentally, under controlled conditions, with those handguns firing laser beams at volunteer test subjects. The Washington Post study, on the other hand, was based on actual police shootings, analyzed after the event.

My function here is like that of the Gods of the Copybook Headings, limping up to explain it once more.

Blacks and whites are different races, whose ancestors for thousands of generations took different paths through evolutionary space. Of course they exhibit different statistical profiles on all kinds of behavioral, cognitive, and personality traits, leading to different statistical outcomes in all kinds of social situations, including cop-perp confrontations.

There's plenty of overlap between the statistical profiles of whites and blacks. Statistical differences are no excuse for cruelty or rudeness.

They do, though, make it essential for honest citizens to scoff at the frauds and snake-oil merchants who pretend that they can, by some social engineering scheme or other, eliminate statistical differences that can't, in the nature of things, be eliminated, and change things that can't be changed.

They also make it perfectly right and proper to push back — or better yet just ignore — those who try to make us feel guilty about facts in the world that are the fault of nobody but Mother Nature.

I guess my Negro Fatigue is showing. Why do we have to keep fussing about this stuff? Can't we all just get along?

Rather than enlarging further on that, though, I'm going to refer you to my old friend Fred Reed's May 5th column, "The Case for Separation."

You think I'm showing Negro Fatigue? Fred's had a chronic case for years.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He's had two books published by FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at

Readers who wish to donate (tax deductible) funds specifically earmarked for John Derbyshire's writings at can do so here.

Print Friendly and PDF