Neocon rag National Review purges John Derbyshire

It’s official, the neocon rag National Review has fired John Derbyshire for writing an entirely reasonable and realistic article. I only ever visited National Review Online to read Derbyshire’s posts at the The Corner, but now I suppose I’ll have no reason to visit NRO at all.  They’ve already either purged all their other good writers (such as Peter Brimelow and Steve Sailer) or gagged the rest (such as John O’Sullivan).

If you haven’t been following the development, Derbyshire’s article at TakiMag, “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” is a play on the “talk” that black leaders tell blacks to have with their children:  don’t trust whitey.  Looking at mundane crime statistics, Derbyshire wrote a piece advising white parents to tell their kids not to visit black neighborhoods, etc.  The leftist and neocon media went ballistic.  Derb was first attacked by PC leftists, who were quickly joined by Trotskyite neocons like Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru.

Why now?  Derbyshire has written controversial pieces previously.  Is the MSM now pushing for a final pre-election purge of all unacceptable thought from mainstream press?  First Buchanan and now Derb?  Is it because it’s on the heals of the Trayvon Martin story?  Is it because Derb, undergoing chemotherapy, is now most vulnerable?  Or is it because what he says hits so close to home?  Although one may disagree with a few points in Derb’s piece, who’s going to disagree with its main premise?  How many white suburban liberal parents do you know that tell their kids to go hang out with gangbangers in the inner city?  Everyone knows what Derb writes is true.  Perhaps that’s his real crime.  In a state of totalitarian political correctness, telling the truth is the greatest crime one can commit.

 

Updates:

Derbyshire is now unemployed, undergoing chemotherapy, and asking readers for donations as he lives “somewhat precariously, by the pen.”

Patrick Cleburne on incident here, on defenses of Derbyshire here, and on Derbyshire’s necessary work here.

Steve Sailer on “the talk,” on the irrelevance of National Review, and on Josh Barro at Forbes pointing and sputtering.

Paul Gottfried compares National Review to the communist Daily Worker.

Federale on Rich Lowry.

James Fulford on neocons Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru’s tweets.

Nicholas Stix calls it a “high-tech lynching.”

Paul Kersey defends Derbyshire.

Jared Taylor writes Derbyshire was fired for writing the truth no one is supposed to say.

Richard Spencer argues that Derbyshire is a truth-teller, not a race-baiter.

Peter Brimelow writes on Derb’s financial situation, and notes that what’s going on is similar to the journolist hysteria.

Thomas Fleming  writes that Derbyshire was too intelligent for National Review.

Taki defends Derbyshire.

Joseph Kay writes about the rationality of firing Derbyshire.

Paul Gottfried discusses the reality of black crime.

Jared Taylor notes the Atlantic Wire’s obsession with Derbyshire.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

26 thoughts on “Neocon rag National Review purges John Derbyshire

  1. Sean Scallon

    It strikes me that Derbyshire, who I would imagine most would agree is an intelligent man, would know full well what the reaction would be writing what as he did. I’m sure he knew this would cost him his job. What other recourse would NR take considering its history? I don’t think he cared. This may well have been the final blaze for glory for a dying man, saying he felt needed said. Only he knows his own motivations but no one, most Derbyshire himself, should be shocked at what NR did. In fact it was utterly predictable. No doubt he was probably on watch list by Goldberg and Lopez for the nice things he was saying about Ron Paul.

    We can lament and be enraged NR’s hypocrisy considering what it has published in the past or political correctness or the fact that race played an important role in springing the neoconservative movement out of New Deal liberalism, but it’s simply spitting into the wind. NR is under no obligation to publish anyone’s work it doesn’t wish to and there will be more conservative publications who will not publish Derbyshire anymore either (including TAC). The power that Rich Lowry has in setting the tone for so-called “conservative” debate (or the limits of permissable dissent) he may well have inherited like the degenerate son who gets his father’s wealth, yet he wields this power in much the same fashion as William F. Buckley did. This power is based on NR and their writers’ proximity to the establishment and to television, particularly cable TV, in this day and age. Lowry would not have this power if continued to employ Derbyshire. Everyone knows it. No doubt this lesson was given from father to son (Buckley to Lowry). It is a proximity only NR and Weekly Standard and maybe a couple of other opinion publications have given where they are located, who funds them and who writes for them. They are not going to risk such status for one writer. Call it snobbish if you will but that’s why they are who they are. They sold out a long time ago and have not looked back in regret since.

    So, sadly, Derbyshire now joins a commitariat-in-exile for ex-NR writers, put there for something they wrote which was unpopular with those having to make decisions about what they believed was respectable opinion. And we’re in the same boat at CHT because have banned similarly in our comments sections posts we thought in poor taste or violated certain standards.

    So Derbyshire guilty such guilty of such crime? In part no. In some part he tells truths we don’t want to tell ourselves. In other parts I believes he’s just downright mean spirited and resentful for whatever reason. I suspect the clue lies here:

    “If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

    If this is the case then it’s going to greatly affect one’s thinking about the group they just encountered. Having grown up in an integrated neighborhood in mixed, industrial city like Beloit, Wisconsin, and having black neighbors and friends means my experiences are going to be different than someone who was mugged in a black neighborhood. That’s the reality. And Derb wrote his reality in raw, unvarnished terms.

    As therapy this may well a relief but as a career move its utter suicide because it’s obvious from these posts, working for Taki Mag doesn’t pay the all the bills (although Taki just might, you never know). But it also points conservative’s “Negro Problem” as one CHT reader pointed out to us. “The Right simply doesn’t have any constructive reaction to black America anymore. They’re not just an immigrant group one deports or puts restrictions on or guards against on the border.

    Thus, for who don’t wish for any experienced with Negroes, you know where you can go. The Empty Quarter awaits! But for those left behind, the more a post-racial society with an emphasis on economics and class can be promoted, the better

  2. RedPhillips

    I just recently read the essay which I was having trouble until now accessing due to the overload on Takimag’s servers. I actually found the article somewhat grating and gratuitous myself. In hindsight it does seem like Derb should have known this was pushing the edge, but I doubt he knew it would lead to his firing. Derb has been pushing the edge for a while now at outlying websites, and I suspect he figured he could get away with it.

    That said, Sean it goes without saying that National Review has a right to hire and fire whomever they please, but saying that and throwing up our hands strikes me as a bit of a cop out. If there is an uproar calling for his head from the Cultural Marxist left then it seems to me that there is a responsibility on the non-PC right to rise up and scream opposition to that. This isn’t about employment at will. It is about resisting the power of the PC thought police.

    Also, I don’t think this will make Derb anathema to TAC. In fact, if TAC was smart they would take advantage of this and start publishing a lot of Derb or even give him a blog.

  3. Sean Scallon

    Red, considering the criticisms of Ron Unz and Scott McConnell made here at CHT, I would find it hard to believe they consider publishing Derbyshire’s latest piece. Now I could be wrong and maybe they would continue to publish other pieces from him that are less controversial. But I have a feeling Derbyshire passed a point of no return in his work that makes it more suitable for those outlets (Takimag, VDARE or Alt. Right) still willing to post them online.

    And in a larger sense, every opinion website or magazine has lines they will not allow to be crossed, us and NR included. Is that PC? Nobody publishes everything which comes across their desk. Firing a man for one article as compared to his body of work I don’t believe is a fair thing but no opinion media outlet is going to employ a writer who makes opinions completely opposed to what said outlet believes in or write material which beneath the writer’s ability and winds up embarrassing the outlet. And as I said, parts of what Derbyshire wrote were such things that would obviously be PC to a Cultural Marxist but certainly containing some truth which makes it worthy for discussion (there’s a reason why people avoid certain neighborhoods) and other parts which were just loaded diatribes of bitterness (so white politicians should not have their character scrutinized?) which spoiled the whole piece and made it unpublishable from my own editor’s point of view. Others may disagree and that’s fine but that’s where I stand.

    To conclude my thoughts before retiring to bedlam, whether we like it or not whites will be a sharply reduced or no longer a majority in not too distant future (2040 perhaps). This course was set in the early 1990s when something could have been done about immigration which would have halted present trends right in their tracks. It did not happen. So the reality of the world we live seems to me the less race is a question in American society the better because whites are going to wind up losers in that game. The Cultural Marxists and the “It’s All About Race!” crowd are two sides of the same coin who are just begging for some kind of “showdown” whether its RAHOWA or slave reparations. You cannot have discussions about race with persons who believe that no matter how poor you are or where you are in life that somehow you have a “special benefits” because you are white nor can you have discussions with persons whose experiences with crime become a fear of black persons in general.

    So again, society would be much better off if the discussion and politics focused on matters of economics, class, civil liberties and foreign policy than on race because there no winners in that discussion and no good outcomes. Put it this way: After spending an entire campaign denying he wrote his infamous newsletters, do you think RP would have been better off taking credit for them and saying he stood by what he wrote? Do you think he would be able to draw crowds in thousands, especially young persons if so? I doubt it and there really would be no future for his movement. Ron Paul advanced himself largely because he rejected the politics of the “newsletters.” Derbyshire basically wrote one.

  4. Walter Post author

    The point is not whether a publication is obligated to publish anyone’s work but whether people should complain when one of their own has been purged. If the right controlled the media and purged, say, Tim Wise or Al Sharpton, do you think the left would be quiet? Hell no. Your strategy of sticking your head in the sand and pretending x isn’t happening isn’t really a strategy at all.

    Sean: “So the reality of the world we live seems to me the less race is a question in American society”

    You have this backwards. In homogenous societies, race doesn’t matter (and often class does). In multi-racial societies, race does matter. There’s a ton of data to support this view.

    Sean: “So again, society would be much better off if the discussion and politics focused on matters of economics, class”

    You want to return to the Marxism on the early 20th century? The first wave of Marxists, late 19th and early 20th century, wanted to focus on class, but were quickly disillusioned by WWI when ethnic solidarity trumped class. The lower-classes joined with the upper-classes of their ethnic groups to fight.

    But you see, leftists are realists. They realized that class identity wasn’t very strong, so the next wave of Marxists, the Cultural Marxists, focused on race because they knew that was the strongest identity. (They may not have known it at the time in pure scientific terms, perhaps more in instinctual terms, but people are probably hard-wired to think in terms of racial groups.)

    There is no way the left will drop race is a strategy — it’s just too powerful — so by saying that by doing x you’re joining the left is essentially advising people to bring swords to a gun fight. It’s like saying “leftists popularized guns but traditionally conservatives used swords so we should be using swords too so we don’t copy them.” And the left has even devised its own convenient strategy: in terms of whites and minority underachievement, “race doesn’t exist,” but in terms of realpolitik for non-whites it’s racial advocacy 24/7. As long as the “right” plays by these rules the left has devised it will always lose.

    In reality, racial identity is much older than the left. It’s ancient. The ancient notion of nations was predicated upon notions of ethnic groups.

    Sean: “This course was set in the early 1990s when something could have been done about immigration which would have halted present trends right in their tracks. It did not happen. ”

    Actually, history is full of examples of mass exoduses and mass deportations. In fact, looking at the data, one could say that mass expulsions are the historical norm, not the exception. Clearly, something must be tried, if even attrition, which is a sound strategy. Throwing up your arms is not a strategy. Do you think that people should just eagerly accept their own dispossession from the institutions and country that their ancestors built?

  5. roho

    Walter…….Good Points!

    George Bush Jr. constantly ran that mouth about “They hate our way of life.”(Islam)………..Duh?………….What about whites recognizing that “Our way of life is worth fighting for?”

    Conservatism in America is and always will be like two brothers with different fathers. You really have to have lived through Southern Reconstruction, remember Jim Crow, segregation, and what life was in the Fifties and sixties. We assumed that when the negro migrated from the South to Detroit, etc, the North might actually catch on?………But, it’s not going to happen and you can’t fix stupid! Conservatism is a disfunctional family.

    Shortly after the Trayvon Martin incident, another local incident took place.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os_two-arrested-seminole-beating-20120402_1_victim-arrest-affidavits-crimeline

    Derbyshire wrote the truth, and NRO is and for a long time has been a rag!

  6. roho

    Obviously, the hammer beating of a 51 year old white male by two black teens has been purged.

  7. RonL

    Derbyshire should have known that he was committing career suicide. He said politically incorrect things on race in a flippant and puerile manner. He could have gotten away with about half the list with no problems. The way he dealt with serious issues in #10 doomed him.
    Had he brought these up with cogent analysis based on data and in a less inflammatory manner, he might have survived.

  8. Matt Weber

    I doubt he could have survived. NR cares about war and electing republicans, they’re not interested in fighting the social battle for racial superiority.

  9. Gerry T. Neal

    It’s unfortunate that VDare chose to begin their latest pledge drive this week because all links to the commentary about this incident on their website now hop to the funds appeal page.

  10. Sean Scallon

    “Actually, history is full of examples of mass exoduses and mass deportations.”

    I’m curious to know who you think should be deported. Assuming you mean “illegal” aliens, even if you do get rid of everyone in the U.S. here illegally, you still have to deal with the question of legal immigration which no politician has even thought about let alone talk about. And legal immigration levels from all over the world to the U.S. is quite considerable.

    I know what you’re going to say, repeal the 1965 Immigration Act. I have no problem with this but since it’s just us talking and no one in Congress, then I’m afraid it isn’t going to happen anytime soon if at all.

    You’re “throwing up hands” is my dealing with reality. Yes mass deportation is an historical norm but since we’re in the 21st Century and not 596 BC when the Jews were deported Babylon, I’m afraid it’s little tougher to pull off these days. And as for attrition, hey if white women start having 21 kids like the Duggar family, then maybe it might be feasible. And no baby farms not an option.

    You have my answer for person wishing to preserve homogenous communities.

    You wish to take up the “Left’s” race strategy? The “Left’s” racial strategy has been a political disaster quite frankly. Because of the “Left’s” race strategy, the Democrats’ percentage of the white vote has dropped to between 35-45 percent. It is only because of mass immigration that Democratic Party remains a viable political party. But that’s not just the “Left’s” doing. Apparently a lot of people on the “Right” needed maids, lawn mowers, construction workers, field hands, meat cutters, you name it, because they refused to pay middle class wages for such occupations after 1980 due to 18 percent inflation. So when white workers refused to do such work because it did not pay, a entire labor force was “deported” from around the world into the U.S. That’s not the “Left’s” doing. They had no power to do such things. But they did benefit from it. But that’s not a strategy, that’s just sheer blind luck. Yet even you would agree such a strategy is the Left’s biggest Achillies heel, because it cannot satisfy the cultural demands of every ethnic/sex/religious group. Picking and choosing will lead to their downfall.

    But I will tell you what unite such groups, the perception that politics is taking from the “rich” white man to be distributed even though there aren’t as many around as they might think. It’s a fantasy but as would agree a powerful one to bring together people who absolutely nothing in common. Why you wish encourage it is beyond me. The only way you’re going to be able to preserve those institutions is to keep race out of the question by making all persons believe they have something at stake preserving those institutions.

  11. Matt Weber

    One of the interesting aspects of the backlash is that no one has even bothered to say that Derbyshire was wrong about any of the statistical claims he made. Apparently he is right but you just don’t say that. It’s further ammo for my suspicion that liberalism has become degenerate and now functions on the level of prejudice. There’s a lot of denunciation, but not really as much argument anymore.

  12. Kirt Higdon

    I’m praying that Mr. Derbyshire will recover from his cancer. If he is, as Sean Scallon states, a dying man, this might explain his willingness to write the article in question but it seems to me he has written similar articles before without such explosive reaction.

    I’ve never read NRO and I think it’s been at least 45 years or so since the print version was worth anything, excepting the occasional article. I’ve even heard the theory that NR was created for the purpose of policing opinion on the right to keep it within limits acceptable to the regime, which of course is what it has been attempting to do for decades. This particular conspiracy theory is based largely on Buckley’s CIA/Skull and Bones connection combined with the Trotskyism of some of NR’s earliest figures, a sort of premature neo-conservatism. Like most conspiracy theories, this one can’t be proved, but it fits a lot of the known facts.

    As far as the content of the article is concerned, most of it is true, but as Millman points out in his TAC analysis, needs to be set in the context of life in general. There is no such thing as a risk-free life and I think my long career in the insurance industry gave me a better appreciation than most for how to handle relative risks. If one were to avoid cars (a statistically far greater risk to the average person than blacks) the way Derbyshire advocates avoiding blacks, one would scarcely dare to step out on the sidewalk let alone actually drive a car in traffic. For a different take I’d recommend Goad’s article just recently put up at Taki’s. Goad’s rant is far more offensive than anything Derbyshire wrote but it is a lot of fun and in the final analysis makes more sense.

  13. Walter Post author

    Sean, I’m afraid what you’re envisioning is a-historical. It’s a basic truism of history that in homogenous societies race doesn’t matter but in multi-racial societies racial identity is important. As the US becomes more multi-racial, racial identity will become more pronounced.

    Sean: “keep race out of the question”

    In other words, whites need to keep race out of the question, because we know sure as hell that non-whites aren’t going to keep race out of the question, as non-whites have everything to gain from racial advocacy. Even Asians are getting in on it.

    I’ll tell you what, when blacks get together and decide to disband the NAACP and when mestizos get together and decide to disband La Raza, then maybe you could ask whites to keep race out of the question?

    Why is it when people want to lecture about “keeping race out of the question” they always lecture whites, currently the least ethnocentric people on the planet? You should stop the conversation right here and go over to the NAACP or La Raza websites and tell them to keep race out of the question.

  14. Sean Scallon

    “You should stop the conversation right here and go over to the NAACP or La Raza websites and tell them to keep race out of the question.”

    Believe me I would be more than happy to because it is half the problem.

  15. thaddeus

    Spencer at Alternative Right nails it.

    Unfortunately, no he does not:

    “The conservative movement deserves to die. And it must be fully de-legitimized before we can build something new in its place.”

    Rather the opposite. Something new must be built in its place first, so that when/if the conservative moment is de-legitimized, the alt movement is ready to step in.

    Until alt righters begin appearing on national television programs (assuming, reasonably, that we will never have the money to create our own networks), we’re not there yet.

  16. Sean Scallon

    There is no “conservative movement”. There’s a conservative establishment which Spencer I’m sure wishes would die but it has too much money and clout i.e. television to do so. They’re all the masses see and hear which gives them the power to decide what they see and hear.

  17. P.B.N.

    “Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.”

    – Nat’l Review’s mission statement

  18. TS

    this is a little silly. you say you agree that the article was problematic, but hell, it’s National Review, goddamn neocon central, so fuck ‘em. for being the allegedly more “principled” conservatives the paleocon mentality seems like a neverending, onesided grudgematch a bunch of the time.

    for what it’s worth i probably agree with a handful of the anti-NR criticisms, and didn’t find the article faint-worthy, but when all something like this is gonna do is cause a bunch of pundits (“respectable” conservatives included) to dredge up old segregation-sympathizing NR editorials in an attempt to discredit the magazine you can see why they’d feel their hands are kinda tied here. that, and it’s probably not worth going to bat for an article the valid points of which every sane white person (and probably buppie blacks for that matter) follows.

  19. Not Libertarian

    The race obsessed right needs to turn to secession or throw in the towel. There is no other alternative for them, unless they favor a police state dedicated to racial hegemony. They are free to call for that sort of thing, but I suspect the majority of folks who agree with them on racial matters would find the notion of living in a Stalinist ethno-state unpleasant.

  20. TS

    “Stalinist ethno-state”

    why is there this need to turn everything Bad into something ideologically on The Other Side? it reminds me of leftists saying Communist states weren’t *really* communist. all 100 of ‘em.

  21. Not Libertarian

    I only used the term “Stalinist” because “Hitlearian” regularly invites the whining from race obsessed righties that the language being used is needless, dismissive, et.

    The historical example cited is largely irrelevant. The point is that no serious conservative desires to live in a state, with a massive and draconian police force that is able to steal land, trample rights and demand to see anyone’s papers at any time. Since that is a very limited accounting of the things that would be necessary to ensure a majority white nation in future years, the white nats have three choices…

    1. Acknowledge defeat, and try and create enclaves of whiteness independent of multicultural influence, perhaps paving the way for a secessionist project as American society continues to implode

    2. Acknowledge defeat, bitch and whine a lot, but do nothing.

    3. Reject their values and beliefs and join the MultiCult.

    I suppose one could naively cling to the belief that Americans will rally around a totalitarian dictatorship/police state of epic proportions so as to “cleanse” this land of blood. But of course those people are simply deluded.

    As someone who has no use for White Nats or race realism, I am largely indifferent, though I do believe option one is the most sensible for them (and the rest of us).

  22. Bradley

    Not Libertarian,

    Almost all WNs today are secessionists. If you read WN sites, you would know this.

  23. Pingback: Trotskyite purges continue at National Review | Conservative Heritage Times

  24. Pingback: Race Is Still The Issue For The “PC” Culture : Veracity Voice

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>