The unusual frankness of this dialogue is really delightful. It also highlights how rare such candor is.

Anyone who is reflective enough to have thought about Jewish influence and the taboos surrounding it in America is also the type of person who would never feel comfortable discussing the matter, for reasons of decency or of prudence. Watching Mr. Derbyshire broach these topics, I feel the same interest and giddy fascination that would come from watching someone trying to defuse an extremely complicated bomb with minimal protective gear. I admire the skill and dexterity, but I'm still waiting for the explosion.

And I fear we will see that explosion unfold in the blogosophere -- that people will cherrypick phrases for misunderstanding Derbyshire's comments, that this will leave a Google trail defaming Derbyshire for a couple years, and that, in general, he has transgressed Derbyshire's first law much recklessly than he imagines. The first rule of taboo is it is unspoken. Yes, it violate a taboo to discuss Jewish influence. But it violates it even more severely, and produces a much more reflexive reaction, merely to discuss the taboo restriction itself!

I think this is the reason for Kurtsman's instant skepticism, and also for the character of some of the comments. For instance, to the comments of jdyer, that MacDonald's thesis is "malicious": First, if some group is "programmed to destroy" some other group, that does not justify the behavior morally -- nor it does justify retaliatory destruction by the other group. "Destroying" social groups is never justified! The scientific fact of a tendency does not imply moral sanction for it. Second, yes, tendentious phrases like "programmed to destroy" do suggest malice on MacDonald's part, which Derbyshire was at pains to flag and distance himself from. His whole point was that it would be nice to able to discuss the matter of fact, but that MacDonald's motives seem suspect.

Derbyshire's comments make up only the second time in my life that I remember someone make a comment critical of the Jews in any way. The first was from an old teacher of mine, a very civilized man. He suggested that many Jews were so absorbed in their ethnic identity that they mistook many problems which were existential and generically human for being specifically Jewish and unique to them. This worked against the general effect of their cultivation and intelligence; it tended to limit their vision, and ultimately their growth as human beings. I was so startled to hear him criticizing Jews I didin't really process it at the time, but I have come to think there is some truth in it.