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”Â 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… whisperÂ –) 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 aÂ list of contributorsÂ that reads like a whoâ€™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 Internetâ€™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 doesnâ€™t toss around the N-word with abandon (although Derbyshire does complain in this article that as a white man, heâ€™s not allowed to say it).
In the wake of the Trayvon Martinâ€™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. Derbyshireâ€™s talk, on the other hand, is about how to avoid being harmed by a black person.
Derbyshire also recommends befriending some â€œintelligent and well-socialized blacksâ€ (IWSBs, for short) so that you can deflect charges of racism by noting that some of your best friends are black. Alas, he adds â€œthe 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.â€
Elspeth Reeve atÂ The Atlantic Wire goes one step further, exploring “Why John Derbyshire Hasn’t Been Fired (Yet)“:
Gawker’sÂ Maureen O’ConnorÂ asks, “How can John Derbyshire even have a career?”Â The reason is because John Derbyshire is very valuable.
Or at least up to now he has been. On Friday,Â fellowÂ National ReviewÂ contributorÂ Josh Barro, writing forÂ Forbes, is shocked that Derbyshire hasn’t been fired yet.Â In the last hour or so, more of hisÂ National ReviewÂ colleagues, have been criticizing the piece. Responding toÂ 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 PonnuruÂ responded, “I know I don’t.” And Jonah Goldberg, the editor of National Review Online,Â 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 orÂ contributionsÂ — while still maintaining an air ofÂ 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.Â Here are a few excerpts fromÂ “The Talk: Nonblack Version“:
(7)Â Of most importance to your personal safety are theÂ veryÂ different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance,Â school disciplinary measures,Â political corruption, andÂ criminal convictions.
(9)Â A small cohort of blacksâ€”in my experience, around five percentâ€”isÂ ferociously hostileÂ to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacksâ€”around halfâ€”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)Â Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b)Â Stay outÂ of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c)Â 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 meÂ the closest I have ever gottenÂ to death by gunshot).
(10d)Â Do not attendÂ events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e)Â If you are at some public event at whichÂ the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f)Â Do not settle in a district orÂ municipalityÂ run by black politicians.
(10g)Â Before voting for a black politician, scrutinizeÂ his/her characterÂ much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h)Â Do not act theÂ Good SamaritanÂ to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i)Â If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite butÂ keep moving.
(11)Â The mean intelligence of blacks isÂ much lowerÂ than for whites. TheÂ least intelligent ten percentÂ of whites have IQs below 81;Â forty percentÂ of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white;Â five whites out of sixÂ are more intelligent than the average black. These differences showÂ in every testÂ of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countlessÂ everyday situations. â€œLife is an IQ test.â€
(12)Â 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 areÂ very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement,Â ceteris paribusÂ the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, thereforeâ€”for example, at a government officeâ€”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. â€œThe DMV ladyâ€œ 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 donâ€™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 themÂ someÂ version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves.Â 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 Derbâ€™s appalling view of what parents supposedly should tell their kids about blacks in this instantly notorious piece here.
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.
Watch: Dr. Oz Says Legalizing Marijuana Is ‘Giving Them Pot So They Stay Home’
Dr. Mehmet Oz was asked about his position on marijuana and appeared to believe making it legal means everyone in the state of Pennsylvania would be given the drug, which would force workers to “stay home.”
Oz, endorsed by Donald Trump in the race for a seat in the U.S. Senate for Pennsylvania, is in an extremely tight primary race against Republican Dave McCormick. The “celebrity doctor” is barely ahead currently, as ballots from Tuesday’s vote are still being counted. The winner will face Democrat John Fetterman, currently Pennsylvania’s Lt. Governor.
“Fetterman has won statewide in Pennsylvania,” Newsmax’s Greg Kelly told Oz. “He wants to legalize marijuana I believe.”
“What is your stance on that by the way?” Kelly asked Oz.
“You know there are not enough Pennsylvanians to work in Pennsylvania,” Oz responded, twisting the question into a labor shortage issue.
“So giving them pot so they stay home is not an ideal move,” he said, as if making it legal would endanger the economy of the state.
“I also don’t want to breed addiction to marijuana,” he added. The CDC says one study has shown about a ten percent addiction rate in those who choose to use the drug.
“I don’t want young people to think they have to smoke a joint to get out of their house in the morning,” Oz added, which contradicts his claim that those who use marijuana will not go to work.
“We need to get Pennsylvanians back at work. You got to give them their mojo. I don’t want marijuana to be a hindrance to that,” he says, contradicting his earlier claim that there are not enough workers in the state.
Pennsylvania has a relatively low unemployment rate of 4.9%.
Mehmet Oz says he disagrees with Fetterman’s position that marijuana should be legalized because Pennsylvanians need to get back their “mojo” and get back to work pic.twitter.com/0G7tiMIyYZ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 19, 2022
Georgia GOP Rep. Who Denied Tours Were Given Now at Center of Investigation Into Who Led Pre-Insurrection Capitol Tours
One U.S. Congressman led a tour of the United States Capitol on January 5, 2021, the day before the January 6 insurrection when thousands of Trump-supporting MAGA activists, including many with weapons, breached the building that is the center of American democracy.
Representative Barry Loudermilk, Republican of Georgia, was caught in video surveillance footage leading a tour Jan. 5, according to a letter sent to him by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.
The Select Committee has requested that Representative Barry Loudermilk provide information for the committee’s investigation.
The Select Committee has discovered evidence that Rep Loudermilk may have info regarding a tour through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021. pic.twitter.com/dm6HtRp1Y9
— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) May 19, 2022
“Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021,” the letter from Chairman Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney reads.
Loudermilk’s leading a tour is not in itself illegal, but it is complicated by several factors.
First, Loudermilk sits on a committee that point-blank told the House Select Committee no one led any tours on January 5.
“Republicans on the Committee on House Administration—of which you are a Member—claimed to have reviewed security footage from the days preceding January 6th and determined that ‘[t]here were no tours, no large groups, no one with MAGA hats on,’” the Jan. 6 Committee tells Loudermilk. “However, the Select Committee’s review of evidence directly contradicts that denial.”
In fact, as attorney Luppe B. Lupen notes, Loudermilk himself filed an ethics complaint against U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) – who is a former federal prosecutor and former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot – urging the Ethics Committee to investigate her and 33 Democrats for claiming “without evidence” there were reconnaissance tours conducted.
Just over a year ago, Loudermilk himself filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Sherrill for making a similar allegation, and put out this statement. https://t.co/fWABJ2TY1K pic.twitter.com/aK3n09RuPw
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) May 19, 2022
If the evidence bears out the allegation that Loudermilk truly led a tour that fits this description—what he calls an “accusation of treason”—this ethics committee gambit will go down in the all time chutzpah hall of fame. pic.twitter.com/o7wa0zRotS
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) May 19, 2022
Second, Loudermilk was one of the Republicans texting White House chief of staff Mark Meadows during the insurrection. CNN published this transcript:
Rep. Barry Loudermilk to Mark Meadows
It’s really bad up here on the hill.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk to Mark Meadows
They have breached the Capitol.
Mark Meadows to Rep. Barry Loudermilk
POTUS is engaging
Rep. Barry Loudermilk to Mark Meadows
Thanks. This doesn’t help our cause.
Third, Loudermilk has run interference for Donald Trump numerous times.
“He didn’t have anything to do with January 6. I think that’s a far-fetched idea,” Loudermilk said last year, causing Esquire magazine to literally ask if the Georgia Congressman was “insane.”
One year earlier Loudermilk “criticised the process of impeachment and drew a comparison between the current inquiry into President Donald Trump to the trial of Jesus,” the BBC reported.
Political scientist Norman Ornstein weighs in:
I have spent countless hours over five decades in the Capitol. I have been in the hideaway offices of leaders of both parties– unmarked offices one could never find without advance knowledge. The violent insurrectionists knew. How? Ask Barry Loudermilk, MTG and other GOP members
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) May 19, 2022
Kellyanne Conway Accuses Husband George of ‘Cheating’ on Her – With Twitter
Kellyanne Conway’s forthcoming memoir accuses her husband, George, of having an affair with a social media site, People Magazine reported on Thursday.
While some couples might feel their partner spends too much time on the internet, Conway went to the extreme.
“Heading into the school year in the fall of 2018, all four Conway children were thriving,” the senior Trump adviser wrote in the book. “They were with me full-time in D.C. My mom had moved in with us to help with my Core Four. George was spending chunks of time in New York at the firm, where he voluntarily went from partner to an of-counsel role, spending his nights alone at our house in Alpine, New Jersey, 240 miles away from D.C. The numbers don’t lie. During this time, the frequency and ferocity of his tweets accelerated. Clearly, he was cheating by tweeting. I was having a hard time competing with his new fling.”
Instead of blaming Conway for being 240 miles away from her and the family, she says that his public disagreements with the president is what appears to have damaged their marriage.
“Don’t assume that the things he says and does are part of a rational plan or strategy, because they seldom are,” Mr. Conway wrote of Trump in 2019. “Consider them as a product of his pathologies, and they make perfect sense.”
Mrs. Conway refused to address it when asked by the media, but the president was eager to do so on her behalf.
“George Conway, often referred to as Mr. Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is VERY jealous of his wife’s success & angry that I, with her help, didn’t give him the job he so desperately wanted,” Trump responded, threatening Mr. Conway’s manliness by calling him Mr. Kellyanne Conway. “I barely know him.”
“I had already said publicly what I’d said privately to George,” wrote Mrs. Conway in the book. “That his daily deluge of insults-by-tweet against my boss—or, as he put it sometimes, ‘the people in the White House’—violated our marriage vows to ‘love, honor, and cherish’ each other. Those vows, of course, do not mean we must agree about politics or policies or even the president. In our democracy, as in our marriage, George was free to disagree, even if it meant a complete 180 from his active support for Trump-Pence–My Wife–2016 and a whiplash change in character from privately brilliant to publicly bombastic.”
She implies that something significant happened in 2018 to change her husband’s attitude so much toward the president that it was enough he switch sides.
“Whoop-de-do, George!” Mrs. Conway told him. “You are one of millions of people who don’t like the president. Congrats.”
“If I had a nickel for everybody in Washington who disagreed with their spouse about something that happens in this town, I wouldn’t be on this podcast. I’d be probably on a beach somewhere,” Mr. Conway said about his regular disagreements with the president in an extended Skullduggery podcast in 2018. “I don’t think she likes it. But I’ve told her, I don’t like the administration. So it’s even.”
Critics of Mr. Conway harken back to his desperation for a job with the Trump administration. But he has said that top Justice Department gig wasn’t something he wanted after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed.
“If I get this door prize, I’m going to be in the middle of a department he’s at war with,” Conway recalled thinking at the time. “Why would anybody want to do this?”
He went on to brag about his wife and that she was the one who got Trump elected. Prior to her, “he was in the crapper.”
By the end of 2018, Conway said he was so disgusted with the Republican Party that he was quitting.
“I don’t feel comfortable being a Republican anymore,” he said. “I think the Republican Party has become something of a personality cult.”
All of it circulated around Trump’s treatment of the Justice Department and the justice system. Mr. Conway said he was “appalled” when Trump tried to go after federal prosecutors for indicting GOP members of Congress before an election.
“To criticize the attorney general for permitting justice to be done without regard to political party is very disturbing,” he said.
Thus began the internal marriage war of the Conways.
- News3 days ago
Republicans Block Bill to Stop Price Gouging at the Pump as Gas Hits New Record High
- COMMENTARY2 days ago
‘Straight-Up Contradicting Plain Reality’: Chris Wallace, Mocked for Election Night Claim, Gets New Sunday Show on CNN
- News2 days ago
Steve Schmidt Calls for ‘Venomous and Dangerous’ Rupert Murdoch to Be Stripped of US Citizenship
- News2 days ago
Texas School District Under Fire for Punishing Minority Student Who Was Victim of Apparent Bullying Chokehold (Video)
- News2 days ago
‘Here We Go’: Legal Experts Discuss New DOJ Request for Transcripts From Jan. 6 Committee for ‘Criminal’ Investigation
- News1 day ago
House Votes Almost Unanimously to Condemn Antisemitism – One Republican Voted ‘No’
- COMMENTARY15 hours ago
‘Y’all Don’t Give a Damn’: 192 ‘Heartless’ Republicans Just Voted Against a Bill to Help Ease the Baby Formula Shortage
- News2 days ago
Trump’s Authoritarian Movement Is ‘Determined to Restore the Original Racial and Religious Foundation of America’: Columnist