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Over the past few years notable conservatives have publicly withdrawn from their conservative labels and organizations, rebranding themselves as independents, moderates, or preferring to just affix no labels whatsoever.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.

 

Related Topics:
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.

News

DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

Published

15 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

Standing behind a sign that says “Freedom Month,” Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on Tuesday blasted efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in the Sunshine State to make recreational use of marijuana legal. DeSantis also denounced efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would make abortion legal in his state.

“Look what’s happened in Denver, Colorado. Look what’s happened in Los Angeles, New York City. You know, I’ve talked to people that have moved from New York and they’re like, they used to have, you know, an apartment somewhere and it used to (smell differently). Now, what does it reek of? It reeks of marijuana. I don’t want the state to be reeking of marijuana,” DeSantis said (video below), as Florida Politics reported.

The Florida governor’s remarks come on the same day the Biden Administration announced plans to decrease the classification level of marijuana, which is currently listed in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines, and LSD. The proposed reclassification, which NBC News reports is expected to be approved, would move marijuana to the same category as Tylenol, codeine, and steroids.

In 2022 and 2023, President Joe Biden pardoned thousands of people serving time in prison for simple pot possession.

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

DeSantis’ remarks also come just days after he met with Donald Trump in a private meeting designed to “bury the hatchet,” and help the ex-president’s re-election efforts. The Florida governor ran in the Republican presidential primary against Trump, and both unleashed strong attacks. DeSantis, who is term-limited and cannot run again for governor in 2026, is expected to help Trump with fundraising and help him try to win the state of Florida.

“DeSantis kisses the ring in Miami meeting with Trump and it might just pay off,” the Miami Herald Editorial Board noted Tuesday. “Kissing the ring — to America’s detriment — has worked in the past, and it might work again for Florida’s ambitious governor.”

The Biden campaign believes Florida is in play, and political analysts say with both abortion and marijuana on the ballot there, Florida is a battleground state and one the President could win. NBC News reported earlier this month the Biden team sees Florida as “winnable.”

“’Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,’ Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Biden’s campaign manager, wrote in a memo,” NBC News had first reported.

READ MORE: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Calling it “a sign that he is serious about winning the state,” Axios reported last week the Biden campaign is opening a field office in Florida.

On Tuesday the Associated Press reported that “Florida Democrats hope young voters will be driven to the polls by ballot amendments legalizing marijuana and enshrining abortion rights. They hope the more tolerant views of young voters on those issues will reverse an active voter registration edge of nearly 900,000 for Republicans in Florida, which has turned from the ultimate swing state in 2000 to reliably Republican in recent years.”

Watch DeSantis’ remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Published

18 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

Donald Trump claimed he has “pretty strong views” on the medication abortion drug mifepristone, vowed he would make a statement on it in two weeks, and when he missed his self-imposed deadline the ex-president said he would do so in one week, according to a TIME magazine cover story interview and transcript published Tuesday.

Abortion has become a critical election issue, with Democrats fully supporting a woman’s right to choose and most Republicans strongly opposed. Some Republicans and those on the far-right support a ban, are attempting to ban, or refusing to protect in-vitro fertilization (IVF), as well as mifepristone, which is widely-used, safe, and available by mail in many states.

In the wide-ranging interview with TIME’s Eric Cortellessa, Trump made clear he would not weigh in on a national abortion ban, insisting it could not happen because the Supreme Court sent the issue to the states. Several Republicans and far-right activists have openly promoted national abortion bans.

Trump, according to a transcript of his interview TIME published, also appeared unfamiliar with – or unable or unwilling to discuss – some issues that have been an important part of the national conversation, including IVF, mifepristone, and attaching legal “personhood” status to fetuses, or embryos, in the womb.

RELATED: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

“Your allies in the Republican Study Committee, which makes up about 80% of the GOP caucus, have included the Life of Conception act in their 2025 budget proposal. The measure would grant full legal rights to embryos. Is that your position as well?” TIME’s Cortellessa asked Trump.

“Say it again. What?” the ex-president replied.

“The Life at Conception Act would grant full legal rights to embryos, included in their 2025 budget proposal. Is that your position?” Cortellessa explained, asking again.

“I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Texas is different than Ohio,” Trump replied, ignoring that the bill is a federal bill sponsored by Republicans in the House and Senate.

“Would you veto that bill?” Cortellessa pressed.

“I don’t have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states,” Trump insisted, not giving a direct answer. “They’re gonna make those determinations.”

Cortellessa’s next question: “Do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone?”

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Again, Trump refused to give a direct answer.

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week,” he said, unwilling to even engage in any conversation about it.

“Well, this is a big question, Mr. President,” Cortellessa pressed, “because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?”

“I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days,” Trump vowed.

“You will?” the reporter again pressed.

“Yeah, I have a big statement on that. I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue,” Trump claimed, refusing to discuss it further.

TIME reports the original Trump interview took place at Mar-a-Lago on April 12, and a follow up interview was conducted by phone April 27.

“Last time we spoke, you said you had an announcement coming over the next two weeks regarding your policy on the abortion pill mifepristone. You haven’t made an announcement yet. Would you like to do so now?” Cortellessa asked Trump.

“No, I haven’t,” he acknowledged. “I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. But I don’t think it will be shocking, frankly. But I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. We’re for helping women, Eric. I am for helping women. You probably saw that the IVF came out very well. And, you know, I set a policy on it, and the Republicans immediately adopted the policy.”

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

 

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears, by NCRM’s count, nearly 200 times.

Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.

Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.

In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.

The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.

“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.

“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”

TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.

But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”

“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.

Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”

That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:
– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”

Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.

“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.

Trump apologists: No way, calm down.

Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.