Brooks1
David Brooks Is Just Trolling Us On “Integration”
Thumb anonymous
March 30, 2018, 11:43 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Earlier, by Steve Sailer: “Speaking as a White Male …”–Poor David Brooks Is Just Trolling Us Now

In a sign that the journalistic forces of race-difference denial are cresting toward peak insanity, the New York Times' David Brooks has a column with the headline, apparently unironic, Integration Now, Integration Forever. [March 29, 2018]

We're as racially divided as ever, Brooks says (true) but must combat this, because by doing so we will close the poverty gap (false).

Brooks makes the absurd contention that we should have tried forcibly integrating neighborhoods before forcibly integrating schools. Sure, good idea. Because having the whole family subjected to crime and blight around the clock is going to persuade whites of the joys of integration much better than simply having their kids subjected to it during school hours.

Brooks calls it a "moral necessity" that we kick-start another push toward more racial integration.

We might ask what steps Brooks has taken to integrate himself. He doesn't say in his column. I assume his level of hypocrisy is as scorchingly hot as any other New York Times liberal. (Pictured right—the $4.5 million dollar home he used to live in Washington—it's within walking distance of Sidwell Friends school.)

His oldest son serves in the Israel Defense Forces, so he has obviously hasn't passed on integrationist ideas to his children.

What baffles is that no other social engineering project has proved a more spectacular failure than racial integration. It has proved a bigger failure than communism.

And for the same reasons. Inherent human characteristics make it unworkable. Characteristics that can't be wiped away by guilt trips, rules or rulings.

I observe that Brooks for years has made a career of being a "responsible conservative" voice, toiling under William F. Buckley, Jr. and appearing on NPR as the one on the right. But a conservative does nothing if he does not reckon immutable facts with policy goals. Actually, I think that's the most important qualification of a conservative.