Connect with us

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

Published

on

In its day, William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review was highly admired and influential — regardless of your personal political stance. That was in the early second-half of the twentieth century. Today, the National Review is home to pseudo-intellectuals, bigots, and, now, we learn, rabid right wing racists.

The National Review’s John Derbyshire this week wrote “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” although frankly I have no idea why he felt it was needed. “The Talk: Nonblack Version” is a 24-point list of some of the most vile and 1950’s-like racist passages you could ever read outside of a white nationalist publication.

Apparently, Derbyshire wanted to make sure his kids — and you — are warned about (shhh… whisper –) black people.

And so, let’s meet the National Review’s John Derbyshire. A 66-year old British American, Derbyshire is the National Review’s resident racist. Derbyshire also writes at Taki’s Magazine, where he chose to publish “The Talk: Nonblack Version.”

“Often described as ‘libertarian,’ TakiMag.com is in reality an extreme right, openly racist website, with a list of contributors that reads like a who’s who of white nationalists, white supremacists, and upper-class pseudo-intellectual bigots, including Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and of course, Robert Stacy McCain,” writes Little Green Footballs founder Charles Johnson, adding:

TakiMag.com is often cited at the Internet’s most vile sites such as Stormfront, because they put a thin veneer of academic pretension over the racist sludge. Neo-Nazis think it makes them look smarter, because TakiMag doesn’t toss around the N-word with abandon (although Derbyshire does complain in this article that as a white man, he’s not allowed to say it).

Forbes responded by calling for the firing of Derbyshire, who “published a kind of unbelievably racist piece for Taki’s Magazine, describing ‘the talk’ he gives to his children.

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin’s shooting, many black parents have discussed the advice they give to their male children about not getting themselves shot in a misunderstanding with a white authority figure. Derbyshire’s talk, on the other hand, is about how to avoid being harmed by a black person.

Derbyshire also recommends befriending some “intelligent and well-socialized blacks” (IWSBs, for short) so that you can deflect charges of racism by noting that some of your best friends are black. Alas, he adds “the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous.”

Elspeth Reeve at The Atlantic Wire goes one step further, exploring “Why John Derbyshire Hasn’t Been Fired (Yet)“:

Gawker’s Maureen O’Connor asks, “How can John Derbyshire even have a career?” The reason is because John Derbyshire is very valuable.

Or at least up to now he has been. On Friday, fellow National Review contributor Josh Barro, writing for Forbes, is shocked that Derbyshire hasn’t been fired yet. In the last hour or so, more of his National Review colleagues, have been criticizing the piece. Responding to The Atlantic‘s Matt O’Brien’s question on Twitter, “Does @NRO want to be associated with someone who publishes racist trash like this?” senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru responded, “I know I don’t.” And Jonah Goldberg, the editor of National Review Online, tweeted, “For the record, I find my colleague John Derbyshire’s piece fundamentally indefensible and offensive. I wish he hadn’t written it.”

But that has not been the case with Derbyshire’s body of work up to now. And we have a theory why: The truth about intellectual magazines is that not all of their readers are as enlightened and forward-thinking and clear-eyed as the people who produce them imagine themselves to be. So the trick to pull off is how to give what those less enlightened readers’ want — and thereby secure their money either through subscriptions or contributions — while still maintaining an air of respectability. Think of how your PBS station always trots out the stars of the 1970s concerts and River Dance whenever pledge drive comes around. That’s where Derbyshire comes in.

There’s a lot more good stuff in Reeve’s article — go take a look.

Oh, and by the way — you know who else writes at the National Review? Maggie Gallagher.

That said, now on to our show. Here are a few excerpts from “The Talk: Nonblack Version“:

(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

(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.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

And, Derbyshire’s final paragraph. Be sure to click on the link. Because, you know, all blacks…

You don’t have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives.

Of course, the National Review can’t fire Derbyshire — that would be bowing to the left. And besides, anti-racism is just being “PC.”

UPDATE: 10:05 PM — National Review Editor Rich Lowry writes at NRO:

Needless to say, no one at National Review shares Derb’s appalling view of what parents supposedly should tell their kids about blacks in this instantly notorious piece here.

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.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT

‘Contempt of Congress Is Illegal’ Declared One of Trump’s Newest Attorneys – Just Days Before the House Voted to Impeach

Published

on

One of the lesser-known names on the new list of lawyers President Donald Trump approved to defend him during the Senate impeachment trial delivered a damning remark last month – damning for President Trump, that is.

“Contempt of Congress is illegal,” said Robert Ray, who served as the final Whitewater independent counsel after Ken Starr.

The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent report Ray made the stunning remark – one of the Articles of Impeachment essentially is contempt of Congress, or technically, obstruction of Congress – to The Daily Signal, a right wing website run by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Senate could force Hunter Biden and others to testify or face prosecution for contempt of Congress, said former independent counsel Robert Ray, who was involved in the investigation that led to Clinton’s impeachment.

“The Senate has the power to compel witnesses. So, subpoenas would be enforceable. Contempt of Congress is illegal. I don’t know that they have the votes, as a political question,” Ray told The Daily Signal. 

That’s problematic for Trump, given his attorney has said the actions for which he is being charged are illegal.

Related: Internet Mocks Trump’s Choice to Have Pam Bondi, Alan Dershowitz, and Ken Starr Defend Him at Senate Impeachment Trial

Also problematic are these words: “No person is above the law, even the president of the United States.” Ray made that damning statement, as The New York Times reports, 20 years ago when Bill Clinton was the impeached president being tried by the Senate.

But if all that weren’t enough, proving just how bad a defense Ray has been spinning for Trump, his appearance on Fox News Business should have been an automatic “no” when Trump considered him.

On September 26, Ray told Maria Bartiromo there were not enough votes in the House, “yet,” to impeach Trump. Less than three months later Trump was impeached.

He also said, “impeachment to me is two things. You have to show both the high crime and misdemeanor, and you have to show an abuse of power.”

Trump was literally impeached for an abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Remember, Ray said “contempt of Congress is illegal,” and “you have to show an abuse of power.”

He seems to have been making the House’s arguments for them.

 

Continue Reading

WTH?

‘Obsessed’ Trump Blasted for ‘Craven’ Decision to Gut Michelle Obama’s Healthy School Lunch Rules on Her Birthday

Published

on

This Friday, the Trump administration announced that it will be rolling back school lunch standards on vegetables and fruits that were championed by former First Lady Michelle Obama, The Hill reports.

The Agriculture Department said in a statement that the new standards will allow schools more flexibility “because they know their children best.”

But according to President Trump’s critics on Twitter, the move is just another vindictive attempt to reverse any and all accomplishments that came out of the Obama White House:

 

Image by The White House via Wikimedia

Continue Reading

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING WITH?

Watch: Reince Priebus Reveals Trump’s Impeachment Defense Will Be ‘So What?’

Published

on

Fired former Trump White House chief of staff Reince Priebus has revealed what the president’s main impeachment defense will be starting next week when he is tried for the high crimes and misdemeanors of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“So what?”

That’s literally going to be the summation of all the allegations against a sitting president of the United States of America, the supposed leader of the free world.

“Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what?’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about,” Priebus, who Trump fired in 2017, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Thursday night.

Of course, Priebus is wrong. Constitutional scholars and legal experts will have no problem refuting that argument.

Related: Internet Mocks Trump’s Choice to Have Pam Bondi, Alan Dershowitz, and Ken Starr Defend Him at Senate Impeachment Trial

Call it the 21st century version of disgraced President Richard M. Nixon’s infamous “Well when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

(That is actually false. Illegal is illegal, regardless of whether or not the president is committing the crime, with very few exceptions – like disclosure of classified information.)

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent calls the new “so what?” defense “particularly ugly.”

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.