National Review Throws John Derbyshire Under The Bus After Provocative Column On Race In Takimag; American Renaissance Stands Tall For Derbyshire

Conservatives tend to hold each other to higher standards of behavior than liberals do their own. I've never seen classical and fundamentally honest liberals like Mark Begich and Les Gara disavow unprincipled progressive extremists like Shannyn Moore and Linda Kellen Biegel; in fact, John Aronno, a notorious anti-Prevo bigot, serves as an aide to Anchorage Assemblyman Patrick Flynn. In contrast, Governor Sean Parnell stood aside when two of his proposed nominees for a couple of commissions, Mark Fish and Dr. David Eichler, were pressured into withdrawing from consideration for their posts over politically-incorrect remarks made in the past.

But sometimes conservatives eat their own unnecessarily and with only marginal provocation. Such a case occurred when National Review fired John Derbyshire from their staff on April 7th, 2012 over a racially-provocative column he penned on April 5th for another conservative publication, Takimag. National Review editor Rich Lowry published a brief explanation for his decision; here's the pertinent excerpt:

...His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.

So just what was this great sin that John Derbyshire committed? He wrote a rather frank column on race which was uncomplimentary towards Blacks, or, more specifically, the misogynistic and predatory Black underclass. The column, entitled "The Talk: Nonblack Version", was designed to be a White version of "the talk" that Black parents sometimes have with their teenagers counseling them to avoid stereotypical behavior that might provoke a racist reaction. Only Derbyshire's version of the talk was about how Whites should avoid Blacks, although he does note that only about five percent of Blacks are ferociously hostile to Whites and will go out of their way to inconvenience or harm us. But Derbyshire adds that a much larger percentage of Blacks will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. However, paragraph 10 is probably the specific passage that got Derbyshire fired; here's the excerpt:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) 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).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

You can also read an exclusive interview with John Derbyshire at Gawker, conducted shortly after his firing.

Yeah, it's definitely profiling, but the links embedded in each statement provides support for his conclusions, and Derbyshire is insistent that the advice can save our kids' lives. Although much of it doesn't particularly apply to Alaska yet, it applies in many parts of the Lower 48.



American Renaissance has really taken up the baton of support for John Derbyshire, publishing three separate articles in a two-day period.

-- Why Derbyshire Had to Go: Published April 7th, this was the big kahuna, attracting nearly 300 comments so far. Jared Taylor notes that this is just the latest in a trend of sanctioning conservatives for speaking frankly on racial issues, and wonders what it says about our country when even conservatives — and only conservatives — suffer from such hair-trigger nervousness about race?

-- The Rationality of Firing John Derbyshire: Published April 9th, Joseph Kay notes that, put into a larger perspective, killing the messenger is all part of today’s management program. He suggest this program frankly acknowledges the hopelessness of making blacks into whites (which is done by endlessly throwing money at the latest miracle solution advertised to "close racial gaps") and so instead just settles for a semblance of domestic tranquility. If anything, it resembles how primitive people once managed the ever-present threat of droughts and plagues—an occasional human sacrifice to placate the easy-to-anger gods.

-- The Decline of National Review: Originally published in 1999, it was republished on April 9th. Until the 1970s, National Review spoke up for white people far more vigorously than Pat Buchanan would ever dare to today. The early National Review heaped criticism on the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, and people like Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King, whom it considered race hustlers. Some of the greatest names in American conservatism — Russell Kirk, Willmore Kendall, James Kilpatrick, Richard Weaver, and a young Bill Buckley — wrote articles defending the white South and white South Africans in the days of segregation and apartheid. National Review attacked the 1965 immigration bill that opened America up to Third-World immigration, and wrote frankly about racial differences in IQ. There were always hints of compromise, but passages from some back issues could have been lifted right out of American Renaissance.

But today’s National Review is no longer the journal that fought forced integration and tried to keep America majority-European. It is not yelling "stop” to multiculturalism and the displacement of the country’s founding stock by aliens. That, as Mr. Ponnuru explains, would be to play “tribal politics.” And by jettisoning John Derbyshire, they've sold out once again.

Occidental Dissent says you can also make a donation to John Derbyshire through his website for exposing the girly men at National Review as a bunch of submissionists who take their marching orders from the Left.

Other Reaction: The Council of Conservative Citizens also added its voice to the chorus of critics, also noting that National Review dismantled Radio Derby, which was Derbyshire's online radio program. Stormfront praises Derbyshire for giving sound advice, and characterizes National Review as a trojan horse in the conservative movement. Forbes Magazine condemns Derbyshire's article, but uses it to suggest a brewing conflict within the conservative movement (a conflict which actually has been simmering for years and which prompted Pat Buchanan to bolt the Republican Party and run as the Reform Party presidential candidate in 2000).