Connect with us

John Derbyshire: I’m Even More Of A Homophobe Than I Am A Racist

Published

on

John Derbyshire, the National Review writer who has been excoriated the past 24 hours for a racist screed titled “The Talk: Nonblack Version” which he published on a white nationalistic website, in a 2003 interview admitted not only is he a racist, but he’s also a homophobe, and said he’s even more homophobic than he is racist. For anyone who read Derbyshire’s article, two dozen warnings to his children about how to handle black people, you can only imagine how homophobic Derbyshire really is.

READ: What Does Right Wing Intellectual Racism Look Like? Like John Derbyshire

The 2003 interview, excerpted below, was written by Kevin Holtsberry, but all the words below are direct from John Derbyshire’s mouth. Or keyboard.

Over the past few years notable conservatives have publicly withdrawn from their conservative labels and organizations, rebranding themselves as independents, moderates, or preferring to just affix no labels whatsoever. Many say, “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.” It’s safe, certainly for our purposes, to call a conservative a Republican, and so I’ll point to David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Charles Johnson, just for starters — and that short list does not even include Republican politicians themselves, who, frankly, often leave the GOP only because they know they cannot get reelected in this environment as a “RINO” — Republican In Name Only, but whose positions shift in the wind anyway.

John Derbyshire, although a British American, is an excellent example of where conservatives are today.

He’s made clear he’s been a racist and a homophobe all his life — but now, he’s merely made it very clear. These are the people Michelle Malkin and Andrew Breitbart and Glenn Beck have given license to be “Not Racist, Not Violent, No Longer Silent,” but in fact, are racist — they just were hiding it until now.

John Deerbyshire didn’t hide it very well, but he was deeply entrenched in the conservative fold and didn’t advertise his racism much — until yesterday.

So, from his 2003 interview, here’s what National Review writer John Derbyshire really thinks about gay people and black people:

 

The reason I hang out with paleocons is that on a lot of topics they speak more honestly than “respectable” conservatives can, and I find that very refreshing. Don’t get me wrong: there are good reasons for the self-imposed restraints that “respectable” conservative journalists like me accept–mainly, that we would be crucified byt the liberal media establishment if we broached those limits, and have to give up opinionating and go find some boring office job somewhere. (This is probably going to happen to me sooner or later, actually. I am not very careful about what I say, having grown up in the era before Political Correctness, and never having internalized the necessary restraints. I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going. Of course, people will still be that way in their hearts, but they will be afraid to admit it, and will be punished if they do admit it. It is already illegal in Britain to express public disapproval of homosexuality–there have been several prosecutions. It will be the same here in 5-10 years, and I shall be out of a job. Fortunately I have marketable skills.) It’s nice to know that there are people braver than we are, though. Kind of like watching the U.S. Marines in action.

(Emphasis ours.)

Derbyshire, the interview’s author noted, wanted to provide “some clarification on these contentious issues” and so offered this explanation — which only digs himself in deeper:

Preface: I am strongly hostile to the hysterical approach to these matters, which unfortunately is the prevailing one at this time. We are all supposed to declare ourselves absolutely free of any negative feelings towards other groups whatsoever, or else we are EVIL! RACIST! HOMOPHOBIC! etc. etc.

Well, fiddlesticks. My model here is the British writer Sir Kingsley Amis.
An interviewer asked him whether he was antisemitic. Sir K replied: “Very,
very mildly.” Asled to explain, he said: “When I’m watching the credits
roll at the end of a TV program, I say to myself–’Oh, there’s another
one.’”

I grew up in England where that level of antisemitism was pretty well
universal. It was perfectly harmless. Jews thrived and prospered.
(Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet was full of them.) Negative feelings on that
level are, I believe, perfectly normal and healthy. I doubt any human being
is free of them. So long as the laws are firm–if you beat me up, you get
arrested for assault and battery, regardless of any group you or I might
belong to–and so long as public authorities do not practice favoritism in
state-supplied goods and benefits, I think people’s prejudices should be
left alone.
I do not support laws against private discrimination. If I do
not want to hire black people (or white people), that should be my right.
If I do not want to let a room in my house to a homosexual (or a
heterosexual, or a Muslim, or a Christian), that should also be my right.
These things are no proper business of the public authorities.

Homophobia: I described myself as “a mild, tolerant homophobe.” This means that I do not like homosexuality, and I think it is a net negative for
society. As a conservative, inclined to give the benefit of the doubt (when
there is doubt) to long-established practices, I cannot help note that there
has never been a human society, at any level of civilization, that has
approved egalitarian (that is, adult-adult) homosexuality. Male-male
buggery has been proscribed in every society that ever existed. I am
inclined to think that there are good reasons for these universal
prohibitions. To say the least of it, male homosexuality is very
unhealthy–much more so than, for example, cigarette smoking.A lot of the
people who howl “Homophobe!” at me whenever I write anything about this
topic are people who have to swallow a bucket of pills eight times a day
just to stay alive. Is it any wonder I have trouble taking them seriously?
Homosexuality both male and female is also antisocial, in a profound sense.
I do not believe that any stable society can be founded on any basis other
than heterosexual marriage. Under modern conditions, I think you would have
to add “monogamous,” too.

That’s the “homophobe” part. Now here’s the “mild, tolerant” part. I think
homosexuals should be left alone by the state. While I do not think, as I
have said above, that private discrimination against them (or any other
group) should be outlawed, I do not believe that homosexuality should be
criminalized. Where it currently is criminalized, I should like to see it
de-criminalized. I think homosexuals who are willing to give normal life a
try should be offered all possible encouragement and support, public and
private. Those who are determined to live as homosexuals, or who feel they
have no choice in the matter, should just be left alone. It goes without
saying–I hope–that I would like to see anyone found to have beaten up a
homosexual to be charged with assault and battery, and dealt with
accordingly.

Racism: All I mean there is that I believe that race is real, and
important. Nowadays, that makes you a “racist.” Again, I consider myself
mild and tolerant here–I don’t believe in any discrimination by public
authorities, and of course I am familiar with the awful historical record of
the United States in the matter of race slavery. I take individual people
as they come, as I believe every sane person does. I can imagine
circumstances where I would certainly practice private discrimination; but,
as I have said, I don’t see anything wrong with that.

It seems obvious to me that race is a fact of human life, and that in
certain situations it needs to be taken into account. Races are just
common-ancestry groups. In the words of that Belgian author whose name
escapes me, they are “extremely large extended families that interbreed to
some extent.” They are, of course, very fuzzy around the edges–I see that
across the breakfast table every morning. (My children are, as they are
sick of hearing: “Half English coal-miner, half Chinese peasant, one hundred
percent American.) But that is true of all sorts of common categories:
“age,” for example, or “height.” It doesn’t stop those categories being
real, and even occasionally useful. (There is a good article in the current
Scientific American about how racial classification is useful in guiding
doctors towards proper drug treatments.)

Unfortunately, most of the truths about race are statistical truths. This
makes them hard for ordinary people to grasp, as most people can’t
understand statistics, even at the most elementary level. If you stand up
in a room full of people and say: “On average, men are taller than women,” I
guarantee–I GUARANTEE!–that some person will stand up and say, in great
indignation: “What about Jenny? She’s taller than you, she’s taller than
most men.” People just don’t GET statistical truths. Statistics makes them
angry. (Let me tell you, as the author of a pop-math book, there are people
made angry by just ordinary math!) You see this in the obloquy that now
attaches to the word “stereotype.” In fact, stereotypes are very useful as
a way of organizing the world. Human life would not be possible without
them! I wrote an article about this.

To take an actual example from the world of race: I have spent most of my
life mixing with Chinese people. It seems obvious to me that Chinese people
are, on average, a bit smarter than white Europeans. A great deal of work
by professional psychologists seems to confirm this impression; I don’t know
of any that contradicts it.

What are the consequences of a truth like that? (Supposing it IS a truth.)
Well, if East Asians are indeed smarter, on average, than the rest of us,
they will be disproportionately represented in our best colleges and
universities (as they are). They will gravitate towards certain high-paid
jobs demanding high intelligence (they do). Since they are, as a group,
distinguishable by the naked eye, this will lead to a certain amount of
social grumbling and demands for quotas–to social friction and political
demands.

I don’t have a pat solution to this. I do, however, feel sure that our
current approach–which is, to deny that race exists, and that there are
differences between races in things other than mere physical appearance–is
wrong-headed and counter-productive. I don’t believe you can get anywhere
by denying reality. You have to find some way to face it, to deal with it.
We haven’t. We haven’t just haven’t, we seem to have made a collective
decision to pretend that there is no problem, or that the problem is
“cultural” (whatever that is supposed to mean). This isn’t going to get us
anywhere.

So I believe race is a real thing, that races differ–statistically–in
important ways, and that private racial discrimination is not immoral, and
certainly should not be illegal. In the current American climate, I think
that makes me a “very mild, tolerant racist.”

(Emphasis ours.)

Derbyshire demonstrates the real ignorance and small-mindedness of some of today’s conservatives — sadly, and dangerously, the ones who control the Republican Party, internally or externally.

Rather than try to understand what goes into making a person gay (genetics) or able to perform better than others (genetics, upbringing, socio-economic factors, schooling, a million other factors) he just deals with what’s on top, what’s on the surface, what he can see, what he’s been told and has confirmed through his racist, homophobic lenses.

I, for one, am glad Derbyshire has “marketable skills.” He may need them soon. Of course, the National Review doesn’t seem in a rush to fire him. Which speaks volumes to their brand’s credibility.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Impeach Biden, Fire Fauci and Expel Waters in Red-Meat Alabama Speech

Published

on

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke Friday night to the Alabama Federation of Republican Women, an event for which the media had been told to leave after a press availability beforehand.

But the conservative Alabama website www.yellowhammer.com managed to be in position to report on Greene’s remarks. It happily described the event as one that “went off with no disruptions and instead, spells of raucous applause from the attendees.”

The reporting did offer a glimpse into what Greene says behind closed doors when tossing out the rarest of the red meat. Here’s how that went:

“Greene kicked off her speech by reiterating three of her ‘favorite things’ she often says while speaking before crowds,” Yellowhammer reports.

“That’s like three of my favorite things: impeach Joe Biden, expel Maxine Waters — we’ve got to take out the trash in Washington, D.C. — and fire Dr. Anthony Fauci,” she said to applause.

“I’m not going to apologize for saying what I’m about to say, but I’m a big fan of President Donald J. Trump,” she continued. “That’s how I always test my crowd. Then I’m going to tell you something else: I believe Trump won the election.”

The website added, “Greene spoke for an hour and hit some highlights of her first seven months in the U.S. House of Representatives, including her interactions with U.S. Reps. Marie Newman (D-IL), Cori Bush (D-MO) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

What she had to say about those three was left to the imagination. But Yellowhammer did report that Greene reiterated her comments from earlier in July distancing herself from fellow wacko Mike Lindell’s claims that Donald Trump would be reinstalled as president in August.

That’s not news: Greene pushed back against Lindell publicly earlier in July. But unbiased observers would have been choking on their fried green tomatoes listening to Greene impersonating a sober voice of reason in Alabama:

“I will tell you this: Sometimes you hear people saying crazy things like, ‘President Trump is going to be back in the White House in August,'” she said. “That is not going to happen. Please don’t believe anyone who is telling you those kinds of things. I get so frustrated with that. There are three members of Congress sitting right here that will tell you that’s not going to happen. The process for putting President Trump back in the White House — it’s not there.”

“We don’t have a constitutional process for that,” Greene continued. “So, I don’t want anyone to get their hopes up over something that is not going to happen. What we’ve got to do is reveal the fraud that took place in the 2020 election — reveal it, then hold people accountable that made it take place, make sure we have good election laws, get rid of this crazy absentee ballot voting, make sure our machines are OK. Then we win in 2022 and 2024.”

Somehow, hearing Greene use the phrase “crazy things” when discussing someone else’s conspiracy theories is a bit much. She gets “so frustrated” with people becoming misinformed by this one? Really?

Greene is just a few short years away from spreading the grossest of QAnon craziness, from 911 denial to Pizzagate to Frazzledrip to Jewish space lasers and more. She was not some QAnon apologist: She was full Q.

Here’s how that was recaptured in a Business Insider analysis laying out the litany of Greene’s wildness:

“Greene said “Q” is “someone that very much loves his country, and he’s on the same page as us, and he is very pro-Trump.” And she said, “There’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it.”

That was four years ago, not four decades. Within a year came Greene’s unspeakably cruel deceits claiming that mass shootings at Parkland, Sandy Hook and Las Vegas were “false flag” events staged to promote gun control.

As Business Insider noted, “A recently resurfaced video from earlier that year shows Greene accosting David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting, who was 17 at the time, in Washington, DC. Hogg was in town to advocate for gun control at the Capitol. Greene followed the teen down the street, calling him a “coward,” just weeks after the shooting at his high school killed 17 people.”

Now, instead of stalking some poor young survivor on the streets outside the nation’s Capitol, Greene works in the building. In another time, Greene was the sort of individual who might have been housed in an institution for troubled souls.

In 2021, tragically, that’s the Republican caucus in Congress.

 

Continue Reading

NUTS

100 Minutes of Whining: Here Are the 7 Most Absurd Moments From Trump’s Arizona Grievance Festival

Published

on

Donald Trump spoke for over 100 minutes during a long-winded speech at a “Rally to Protection Our Elections” in Phoenix.

Much of Trump’s speech was focused on repeating his debunked lies that he won the 2020 presidential election, when in reality he was defeated by Joe Biden.

But he also found time to bash much of America while praising the local extremists behind Arizona’s audit of the vote in Maricopa County and listing his many perceived grievances.

Trump attacked Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), all the Republicans who are “worse than Democrats,” Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Basketball Association (NBA), soccer’s United States Women’s National Team, and said his supporters have to “fight” against everyone who said he lost the election with language that echoed his speech that preceded the January 6th insurrection.

Much of the speech was just bizarre due to the combination of Trump brazenly lying about things that happened while also pontificating on the delusions that populate right-wing media.

Here are the seven most ridiculous moments from the speech.

7. Trump is so out-of-touch you thinks Americans must show their papers to purchase groceries

Despite being ridiculed when Trump spoke of this delusion in the past, Trump falsely claimed Americans need to show identification to purchase groceries as he pushed voter I.D. laws.

6. Trump imagined what he would do if he were Native American

Trump complained about the Cleveland Guardians baseball team and praised the racist logo the team retired. “If I was an Indian, I’d sue. Sue them Indians,” he said.

5. Trump argues America is becoming a communist country

“Like it or not, we are becoming a communist country. That’s what’s happening, that’s what’s happening,” Trump said without providing any evidence. “We are beyond socialism.”

4. Trump explains how it hurts Republicans at the polls when his supporters believe his election lies

Trump repeatedly mentioned during his speech his belief that when his supporters believe his false claims of election fraud, it makes them less likely to turn out to vote. Trump said this is how Republicans lost control of the U.S. Senate.

3. Trump explains how a politician repeating lies creates disinformation

During a speech that will keep fact-checkers busy, Trump explained disinformation in a way that seems to perfectly describe why he traveled to Arizona to repeat his “Big Lie” about election fraud.

2. Trump describes his unconstitutional fantasy of being reinstated as president

Despite both the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department warning this conspiracy could fuel more violence by Trump supporters, the former president discussed being reinstated.

1. Trump gaslights America by lying about his attacks on democracy and voters

Of the many lies Trump told, one of the most absurd had to be his claim that, “I am not the one trying to undermine American democracy— I am the one trying to save American democracy.”

 

Continue Reading

DISASTER

Republicans Boot Only Person With Elections Experience From AZ GOP’s $9 Million ‘Audit’ Fiasco: Report

Published

on

Republicans once referred to Ken Bennett as the “director” of their widely-panned audit of votes in Maricopa County, but he has reportedly lost his privileges to even enter the building where the fiasco is taking place.

Bennett, who served as Arizona’s Secretary of State and president of the state Senate, was the one person associated with the recount with experience in elections. He was officially listed as the liaison to the state Senate, which paid $150,000 of the $9 million the audit is reportedly costing.

“Questions are mounting about who is in control of the long-running partisan review of Maricopa County’s 2020 election results — the Arizona Senate, which ordered it, or the outside firms that are running it,” The Arizona Republic reported Friday evening. “On Friday, Ken Bennett, the Senate liaison to the audit, was not allowed into the building at the state fairgrounds where the audit is taking place, a day after he shared data with outside critics from an ongoing ballot count.”

“While this work is supposedly being overseen by Senate representatives, many times that oversight is not there,” the newspaper noted. “The Cyber Ninjas have for weeks resisted getting outside checks of the audit, insiders say.”

Reporter Ryan Randazzo explained why the outside review is threatening.

“The data Bennett provided to outside analysts, Larry Moore and Benny White, showed the results of the ongoing machine count of the ballots tracks very closely with the the county’s tally,” the newspaper reported. “If that trend continues, it may call into question the results of Cyber Ninja’s count, because [Senate President Karen] Fann has said that the Cyber Ninjas’ count did not match the county’s.”

The newspaper reported Cyber Ninjas spokesperson said any decision to ban Bennett was made by Fann’s office.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.