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Over the past few years notable conservatives have publicly withdrawn from their conservative labels and organizations, rebranding themselves as independents, moderates, or preferring to just affix no labels whatsoever.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

‘Terrific’: Trump Defends Kristi Noem After Shooting Her Dog to Death

Published

8 hours ago

on

May 14, 2024

By

Donald Trump came to the aid of embattled Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, whose story about shooting to death her 14-month old German wirehaired pointer named Cricket has been denounced by Americans on the left and right for weeks.

Gov. Noem not only chose to put the story in her memoir, but has repeatedly defended her decision to drag the dog into a gravel pit and shoot her, killing her with one bullet without even warning her child, who asked when they returned home from school, “Where’s Cricket?”

Trump, speaking Tuesday on “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show,” the successor to the late Rush Limbaugh’s talk radio program, did not appear to have a full grasp of the story or the massive outrage and upset Gov. Noem caused.

“I’m sure you’ve seen some of the Kristi Noem story. She might be the only person getting worse press than you on the left right now with the dog shooting story,” Clay Travis told Trump. “Is she still in the mix as a VP? Have you thought maybe she’d make more sense in a cabinet? How do you analyze stories like that as you go about making a choice?”

READ MORE: Johnson Would Contest 2024 Election Results Under the Same ‘Circumstances’

Noem, until the dog shooting story came out, was widely believed to be on Trump’s short list as a vice presidential running mate.

“Well, until this week, she was doing incredibly well and she got hit hard, and sometimes you do books and you have some guy writing a book and you maybe don’t read it as carefully,” Trump offered as a defense of the governor whose dog-shooting story came out weeks ago. “You know, you have ghost writers, do they help you? And they this case didn’t help too much.”

“Now, she’s terrific,” Trump continued, lavishing praise on Noem. “Look, she’s been a supporter of mine from day one. She did a great job of governor, as governor. And you know, you look at South Dakota numbers. She’s really done a great job.”

Trump did not say what numbers specifically, nor did he say on what Governor Noem did a great job. he also did not answer the question Travis posed about North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, nor did he bring up any of the other controversies surrounding the book.

“And in some form, I mean, I think I think she’s terrific. A couple of rough stories. There’s no question about it. And when explained the dog story, you know, people, people hear that and people from different parts of the country probably feel a little bit differently, but that’s a tough story. And, but she’s a terrific person. She said she had a bad, she had a bad week.”

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Mouths of Sauron’: Critics Blast ‘Mobster Tactic’ of Trump Surrogates ‘Violating’ Gag Order

Continue Reading

News

‘Mouths of Sauron’: Critics Blast ‘Mobster Tactic’ of Trump Surrogates ‘Violating’ Gag Order

Published

11 hours ago

on

May 14, 2024

By

In his remarks outside the courtroom Tuesday, Donald Trump demanded Judge Juan Merchan rescind the tailored gag order placed on him that was designed to ensure the sanctity of the trial and the safety of witnesses, jurors, court staff, and their families.

“The gag order has to come off,” Trump told reporters Tuesday morning, adding his frequent “never been anything like this in the history of our country” claim.

Judge Merchan just last week reportedly cited Trump’s own words from his own book when defending his decision to keep the gag order in place and not modify it.

“When you are wronged, go after those people, because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it. Getting even is not always a personal thing. It’s just part of doing business,” Trump’s book passage reads.

But as The Washington Post reported Monday, Trump’s surrogates are saying “the forbidden stuff for him.” They “have helpfully stepped forward to offer a timely and convenient service: lodging those same attacks, while appearing at the trial in support of him.”

READ MORE: Trump Wails His Judge Was Appointed by ‘Democrat Politicians’ – That’s False

“Republican lawmakers have appeared at Trump’s trial — even entering and exiting the courtroom with him — and proceeded to say precisely the kinds of things he’s not allowed to.”

Because the “kinds of things he’s not allowed to” say violate the gag order.

Politico reports, “Trump’s surrogates continue launching verbal attacks that would violate gag order if Trump said them himself.”

But according to the text of Trump’s gag order, he is “directed to refrain from”:

“Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding; Making or directing others to make public statements” about attorneys “in the case other than the District Attorney,” “members of the court’s staff and the District Attorney’s staff, or the family members of any counsel or staff member” or “any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.”

The prosecution has not indicated it will, but it could ask the judge to examine the “directing others to make public statements” portion of the gag order.

On Tuesday, one of the most powerful elected Republicans in the country, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, became the most high-profile Trump surrogate on the planet.

RELATED: ‘Campaigning for Trump at His Criminal Trial’: Johnson Blasted for Going to NYC Courthouse

Critics are blasting Speaker Johnson, who is second in line to the presidency, for attending the trial Tuesday and for delivering remarks some are calling false, in support of the indicted ex-president and 2024 GOP presumptive nominee.

“When asked for his worldview when Mike Johnson became Speaker of the House and nobody knew anything about him he said, ‘you want to know my worldview? Go read the bible, that’s what I stand for,'” MSNBC’s Willie Geist said Tuesday. “And now today he’s at the courthouse defending the guy who’s on trial for allegedly paying off a porn star for the alleged affair he had while his wife was home with their infant son.”

Johnson and U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) are among those who went and said what the judge told Trump he could not.

Johnson strongly defended Trump Tuesday morning. And following the Trump playbook, he attacked the prosecutor, the judge, and the judge’s daughter, which could be deemed a violation of Judge Merchan’s gag order against Trump if he decides Johnson’s remarks came at Trump’s request.

Award-winning journalist Laura Bassett, the former editor-in-chief of Jezebel, responded to that video, writing, “The guy who admitted that he and his son monitor each other’s porn intake is out here publicly lying on behalf of a man who cheated on his wife with a porn star and paid to cover it up.”

Calling it “Craven,” and “lawless,” Bloomberg Opinion Senior Executive Editor Tim O’Brien remarked, “House Speaker Mike Johnson is outside the NY courthouse right now and essentially helping Trump sidestep the court’s gag order by acting as his proxy by attacking the integrity of the trial and judicial process. He’s even targeting Justice Merchan’s daughter.”

READ MORE: Johnson Would Contest 2024 Election Results Under the Same ‘Circumstances’

Congressman Donalds, who is on the short list to become Trump’s vice presidential running mate, also attacked the judge’s daughter on Tuesday, from outside the courthouse.

Political commentator Bob Cesca observed, “If you’re wondering why Vance, Tuberville, and Johnson are there, it’s because of the gag order. They’re Trump’s voice. The Mouths of Sauron,” he wrote, referring to the near-entirely evil creature from J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.”

“BTW, asking surrogates to attack witnesses and the judge’s daughter is a violation of the gag order,” he added.

Former Denver Chief Deputy District Attorney Craig Silverman remarked, “Note how Trump gets Vance and Johnson to violate the gag order for him. Mobster tactic. Make your Trump champions violate the law right along with you. Once they are in for a dime, they are in for a dollar and stuck with MAGA.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Continue Reading

News

‘Campaigning for Trump at His Criminal Trial’: Johnson Blasted for Going to NYC Courthouse

Published

15 hours ago

on

May 14, 2024

By

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is the latest high-profile Republican to travel to the Manhattan Criminal Courts Building in New York City to show his support for Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee facing a total of 88 criminal charges, including 34 felonies in his election subversion, falsification of business records case, better known as the “hush money” trial. Johnson holding a news conference Tuesday morning from the courthouse in support of the indicted ex-president.

Earlier Tuesday morning from the courthouse (video below) Trump was asked by a reporter, “are you directing surrogates to speak on your behalf?” Trump avoided the specific question but claimed, “I do have a lot of surrogates and they are speaking very beautifully, and they come from all over Washington and they’re highly-respected and they think this is the greatest scam they’ve ever seen.”

Johnson’s grip on his job has been challenged by the far-right extremists in his own caucus, led by U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) but his travels to Mar-a-Lago to see and be seen with Trump have fortified his hold.

As NCRM reported Monday, during the early days of the Trump New York criminal trial many noted the ex-president was alone. He was sitting, and at times, snoozing, alone in court, unsupported by family members or friends. That changed as the weeks went by, and now his son Eric Trump is a regular face in the courthouse, and GOP lawmakers, generally in twos, are showing up daily to act as campaign surrogates inside and outside the courthouse.

RELATED: ‘Grave Danger’: Trump’s ‘Raw Display’ of Power at Court Alarms Conservative

On Monday, U.S. Rep. Tommy Tuberville (R-GA) and U.S. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) were the latest pair to attend the trial. Sen. Vance attacked the judge’s daughter, which prosecutors may decide to bring up to the judge as it may have violated Trump’s gag order if the ex-president directed him to do so. Congressman Tuberville, a white Christian nationalist, followed the Trump playbook, attacking the judicial system, and the jurors, whom he suggested were not U.S. citizens.

And now the Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in line to the presidency, is at the Criminal Courts Building in lower Manhattan, effectively stumping for the indicted leader of his party.

Critics are expressing outrage.

Former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob, who comments on politics and the media on Substack, blasted Speaker Johnson.

“MAGA Mike Johnson is showing up at the Trump trial today to show his support for cheating on your wife with a porn star, paying her hush money, and then falsifying business records so the voting public doesn’t find out the truth,” Jacob wrote, adding: “This is Mike Johnson’s version of Christianity.”

Jared Ryan Sears, who writes The Pragmatic Humanist at Substack, lamented, “This is what half of American politics has become. It is embarrassing. There could be bills trying to solve price gouging, the border, poverty, homelessness, worker pay, or addressing any other real and current issue.”

“Instead members of Congress waste their time making a show of going to a trial for someone who had affairs, paid hush money, and covered it all up to mislead the public ahead of a close election,” Sears continued. “Then they will get in front of the cameras and say phrases like ‘weaponized justice’ and ‘lawfare’ when they know full well no such thing is happening. All so that their dear leader doesn’t mean tweet about them.”

READ MORE: Johnson Would Contest 2024 Election Results Under the Same ‘Circumstances’

Journalist Marcy Wheeler, who writes about civil liberties and national security, served up a damning indictment of Speaker Johnson: “It is newsworthy NOT just [because] the entire GOP is pro-crime, but ALSO that a man who would dictate reproductive choice and other life choices to others is backing a guy whose cover-up for f*cking multiple sex workers (without a condom!!) was charged as crime.”

Appearing to focus on the media, she added: “Speaker Mike should be GRILLED about whether he supports extramarital affairs during pregnancy. Don’t give him this stunt for free.”

Journalist Jonathan Ford of Ford News called it “an absolute disgrace,” while observing, “You don’t see Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries showing support for Senator Menendez.”

“Last week,” The Nation’s John Nichols notes, “most House Democrats voted with most Republicans to save Mike Johnson’s speakership. This week, Johnson is in a NYC courtroom to support Donald Trump. Democrats need to STOP providing cover for the most extreme Speaker in American history.”

Former Obama chief strategist and senior White House advisor David Axelrod commented, “As if this weren’t already a bizarre reality show, now we have celebrity guest courtroom gallery appearances of acolytes looking to punch their card with the Boss.”

Watch Trump’s remarks, with Speaker Johnson in the background, below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Wails His Judge Was Appointed by ‘Democrat Politicians’ – That’s False

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.