Despite its firing of John Derbyshire and stated practice not to feature the writings of white supremacists, the National Review is now featuring David Yerushalmi, Pam Geller’s buddy, who thinks we should make it illegal to be Muslim in America and that we should return to a time when only white male landowners voted.
Charles Johnson has a post about it, including a link to a copy of a Yerushalmi article that he has tried to scrub from the internet because of its blatantly racist content. He makes the “scientific” case that blacks are “the most murderous of peoples” and that we should return to the time when they didn’t have the right to vote:
There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we “know” it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically?
Yerushalmi is absolutely nuts.

28 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
slc1
June 22, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wonder what Mr. Yerushalmi, who is, apparently, an orthodox Jew, would say if it were proposed that only Caucasian Christian males be allowed to vote?
matty1
June 22, 2012 at 11:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Several reasons I should think, off the top of my head.
1. It was against their personal economic interests, many of them relied on slavery and couverture to keep them comfortable.
2. They did not want their revolution to be seem as too radical in case they were dragged down in turn.
3. Like everyone else the American founders were limited by the society they came from and would have found modern concepts of equality hard to even understand.
mrbongo
June 22, 2012 at 11:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed said “David Yerushalmi … who thinks we should make it illegal to be Muslim in America and that we should return to a time when only white male landowners voted.”
Not to defend Yerushalmi, but wow, Ed has really descended into hysterics here.
Also Ed, when are you going to make a correction for your Johny Bontas error last year? Remember that hilarious case that is now know to have been made up. No laws suit, police say it didn’t happen, FBI won’t even open a file…..
raven
June 22, 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why stop there.
Why not go back to the time not so long ago when Jews like Geller and Yerushalmi were forbidden from voting, owning property in many places, forced to live in ghettos, and frequently massacred in pograms.
The good old days weren’t really good at all. The average US lifespan a century ago was 47 years.
mrbongo
June 22, 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
speaking of past mistakes – remember when Ed claimed Pakistan was different because the majority of people were … hhahahaaa!! “peaceful sufis” – that was literally the day before they murdered the minority affairs ministers and then let his murder off while the bar members threw flowers on him – what was the minster’s crime you may ask? he simply wanted the country’s blasphemy laws repealed because they were being used to put innocent women like Asia Bibi (a person who Ed refuses to even mention) on death row.
You see, Ed is a hypocrite, he will blog on and on about some nobody here in the U.S., but utterly ignore a women on death row in Pakistan for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. What a hero he must be! He usually automatically deletes any posts that include Asia Bibi – he hates her that much. What a pathetic blog Ed when you don’t have the courage to stand up for the real issues, just snipe and small fish.
raven
June 22, 2012 at 11:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yerushalmi seems to be an equal opportunity hater.
He hates Moslems and wants an all out war against them. I can see how a war between 2 billion xians and 1.4 billion Moslems might not be too popular though.
He hates liberal Jews, progressive elites, blacks, and illegal immigrants.
Well, at least I fall into several categories on his To Hate list. Which isn’t that big a deal. His To Hate list seems to be the vast majority of the world’s population.
slc1
June 22, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re mrbongo @ #3
Apparently, fucken asshole mrbongo doesn’t even have the man’s name right. Its Johnny Bonta.
jamessweet
June 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wow, that’s the easiest question I’ve heard in a long time!
d cwilson
June 22, 2012 at 12:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nice to know that while republicans are pushing absurd conspiracy theories about how Pres. Obama is supposedly planning to get rid of the 2nd Amendment*, their fellow travelers are openly calling to get rid of the 1st.
*Their primary proof of the conspiracy, is fact that Obama has done nothing at all to curtail gun rights
Michael Heath
June 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I always found William F. Buckley to be even more of a twit than George Will, another twit. I also do not understand why so many liberals respected WFB while acknowledging their disagreements with him. Specifically due to his inability to make logically sound sufficiently framed arguments. The word poser always comes to mind when confronted with him in old TV clips.
abb3w
June 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@5, mrbongo:
Actually, no. Google’s also not helping; search of both ScienceBlogs and FreethoughtBlogs comes up negative prior to today for the phrase “peaceful sufis”. Searching freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches for (Pakistan sufis) turns up you making a similar allegation back at the beginning of March and a mention of a Sufi-influenced band by another commenter, but nothing like such remarks from Ed. It sounds an awful lot like the time you admitted to being arrested for raping a dead sheep in Rawlins, Wyoming.
[Citation Needed].
slc1
June 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re mrbongo @ #3
A Google search fails to turn up any information that Mr. Bonta’s claim was fraudulent. Would mrbong care to supply a link to a reputable source of this information?
Budbear
June 22, 2012 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I guess they call him mrbongo because he’s obviously been hit on the head numerous times.
subbie
June 22, 2012 at 12:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How silly of all those liberal sciencey types to not realize that actual science fully supports right wing racist stereotypes. And it’s not hateful because science says it’s true.
Area Man
June 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, they had a reason. They didn’t do it just for the heck of it, they actually did have a deliberate purpose for restricting the franchise only to people like themselves. It’s not a very good reason, but it is, indeed, a reason.
Also people, DNFTT.
DaveL
June 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am a member of a demographic group that is responsible for the majority of crime, the vast majority of violent crime, and virtually all sex crimes. Would Yerushalmi agree that people from my demographic group should be denied the right to vote?
In case you haven’t guessed, the demographic group I’m referring to is “men”.
uncephalized
June 22, 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whoa, Ed, what’s going on with the site formatting? It’s all crazy and ugly-looking right now…
W. Kevin Vicklund
June 22, 2012 at 12:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s what Ed wrote about the Johnny Bonta situation:
Shocking, isn’t it?
It should be noted that many searches no longer work for ScienceBlogs. But by my l33t skillz, I bring you the post mrbongo is referring to. Here is what Ed said:
Note that, contrary to mrbongo’s assertions, Ed never claimed that Sufis were peaceful, merely that they were the enemy of Al Qaeda.
The claim of peacefulness was made by someone else that Ed quoted. When the innaccuracy of the peacefulness of Sufis was brought up, here’s what Ed said in response:
Comment 37, archived by the Wayback Machine
Also note that the minority affairs minister wasn’t murdered until March 2011.
Michael Heath
June 22, 2012 at 12:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It should be noted that Ed’s blog posts at Scienceblogs.com were temporarily not available several days ago but now are, but not the comment posts, just Ed’s blog posts. It also appears that they censored Ed as well since I can’t find via Google any of his blog posts with the word fuck in the blog post body.
National Geographic does a disservice to human knowledge. There’s a large treasure trove of citations to useful information in those comment posts no longer available to the public.
W. Kevin Vicklund
June 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Note that I have a detailed fisking of mrbongo’s claims in moderation at a 12:56 timestamp.
imrryr
June 22, 2012 at 1:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
mrbongo could use an avatar, might I suggest a picture of a crying baby?
W. Kevin Vicklund
June 22, 2012 at 1:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed talking about Asia Bibi
So far, every claim mrbongo has made this thread is at best a gross distortion.
W. Kevin Vicklund
June 22, 2012 at 1:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
More Ed on Asia Bibi:
Sucks to be mrbongo.
matty1
June 22, 2012 at 2:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I assume the peaceful Sufi’s bit is a reference to this post in which Ed quoted someone called Fareed Zakaria who argued that Sufi’s are as much ‘the enemy’ to Jihadi extremists as non Muslims are and tend towards tolerance.
I can’t get into the comments now but I do remember that someone smart (not Mrbongo) pointed out that this was oversimplified and there are both violent and peaceful groups within the Sufi movement. Ed’s response was not to ignore this but to reply to it urging everyone to read the commenters linked article on the diversity of Islamic views for more information.
thisisaturingtest
June 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
matty1, @#2, got it, I think, with this:
Exactly right- they were realists dealing with, and in, a cultural norm and context that not only would never have countenanced such a thing- it would never have even considered it. What’s (kind of) funny is that Yerushalmi answered his own question, when he said “as we “know” it today”- but, since he’s thinking in a vacuum devoid of context, although he apparently sees the context, he must ignore it in favor of vacuity.
Chris from Europe
June 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Put up or shut up.
sidhe3141
June 22, 2012 at 8:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chris from Europe (#26):
Sarcasm. Probably. I hope.
Chris from Europe
June 23, 2012 at 6:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@sidhe3141
Okay, while re-reading the comment, the last sentence convinced me.