Thread: The Talk: Nonblack Version -- The article that got John Derbyshire fired from the National Review

A "conversation" about race now means a either a leftist lecturing or screaming at you.

I was beginning to think that Chris Hayes was black and all.

National Review fires John Derbyshire

By DYLAN BYERS | 4/7/12 7:27 PM EDT

The National Review has fired longtime columnist John Derbyshire following an article he wrote for an online magazine that was widely viewed as racist.

"[Derbyshire's] latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible," National Review Editor Rich Lowry wrote in a statement posted late Saturday night. "We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways."

In the highly controversial column, written for Taki's Magazine on Thursday, Derbyshire suggests white and Asian parents talk to their children about what makes black people different and the threats posed to their safety by black people. Five percent of black people are "ferociously hostile" to whites, according to Derbyshire, and most are willing to be hostile. Derbyshire advises parents to tell their children not to live or stay long in predominantly black communities.

"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," Derbyshire concludes. "It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives."

"Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation," Lowry wrote. "It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer."

The outpouring of criticism was quick, with The Atlantic's Ta-Nehesi Coates calling Derbyshire a racist, and Forbes's Josh Barro calling for Derbyshire to be fired.

Lowry's full statement is as follows:

Anyone who has read Derb in our pages knows he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer. I direct anyone who doubts his talents to his delightful first novel, “Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream,” or any one of his “Straggler” columns in the books section of NR. Derb is also maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative. His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...re-119887.html

More Defenses Of John Derbyshire - But Not On Google News

By Patrick Cleburne on April 8, 2012 at 1:54am

I see Jared Taylor – who himself holds a suppression experience record of some type – has joined the defenders of John Derbyshire with Why Derbyshire Had to Go American Renaissance, April 7, 2012

John Derbyshire has now joined the roster of brilliant journalists who have been fired by publications that call themselves “conservative.” Mr. Derbyshire’s April 5 columnfor Takimag.com committed the usual crime of pointing out something that is not only true but that everyone knows to be true. He noted that blacks are on average less intelligent than whites, that many of them hate whites, and that when they gather in large numbers they can be dangerous.

Of course, anyone not a tourist from Iceland learns by about age 10 to avoid crowds of blacks, but it is considered “racist” actually to say so.

Taylor recalls the squalid recent history of National Review:

...National Review has a history of firing people who write honestly.

In the late 1990s, the magazine was saying sensible things about immigration, multiculturalism, and even race and IQ. It defended The Bell Curve, called for serious immigration reform and published Philippe Rushton. This was too much for the NR’s founder, William Buckley, who removed the two men most responsible for honesty. He forced out Editor John O’Sullivan in December 1997, and in February 1998 exiled Senior Editor Peter Brimelow and moves on to note examples elsewhere culminating in theliquidation of Patrick Buchanan. He asks

When was a “liberal” ever fired for calling whites “the cancer of the human race” or demanding “the abolition of the white race”? It doesn’t happen. There is no such thing as “liberal” excess. You can say the vilest things about white people and be a hero.

Why is this?

His theory:

John Derbyshire… must be fired, silenced, and disgraced because everyone—from the mooncalves at Huffington Post to the “conservatives” at National Review—lives by the very rules Mr. Derbyshire put into print. I have no doubt at all that Rich Lowry avoids crowds of blacks, does not live in a black neighborhood, and would never send his children to a black school. He may babble racial moonshine to his children, but the real “talk” he gives them is exactly the one Mr. Derbyshire wrote about. Mr. Lowry’s real “talk” is the way he lives his life.

Occidental Dissent has returned to the fray too:

It goes without saying here that National Review is a faileocon magazine that isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. This was seen in spades during the Trayvon Martin shooting when Rich Lowry jumped on the MSNBC bandwagon and published a ridiculous essay called “Al Sharpton Is Right” that called for the arrest of George Zimmerman.

National Review publishes a stable of worthless, mediocre Beltway writers like Jonah Goldberg, Ramesh Ponnoru, and Kathryn Jean Lopez to represent conservatism who churn out nothing but unreadable garbage. The comments that have been posted on blogs and forums in reaction to “The Talk: The Nonblack Version” show that Rich Lowry and the clowns who write for his website do not represent the views of ordinary conservatives on this subject.

In his comments thread proprietor Hunter Wallace notes

The comments at American Thinker and Free Republic are almost 100 percent anti-Lowry.

This is refreshingly true – see here and here.

The refreshment is needed. As of this writing, all of the 68 Google News items on “John Derbyshire firing” are from leftwing outfits ululating with triumph, except for a handful of more or less bland news reports. Some of the Leftwing sources are quite obscure.

What a funny thing

Link to original article . . .

Why Derbyshire Had to Go
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, April 7, 2012

John Derbyshire has now joined the roster of brilliant journalists who have been fired by publications that call themselves “conservative.” Mr. Derbyshire’s April 5 column for Takimag.com committed the usual crime of pointing out something that is not only true but that everyone knows to be true. He noted that blacks are on average less intelligent than whites, that many of them hate whites, and that when they gather in large numbers they can be dangerous. Mr. Derbyshire’s column was framed as a white parent’s “talk” to his children about the facts of race.

Of course, anyone not a tourist from Iceland learns by about age 10 to avoid crowds of blacks, but it is considered “racist” actually to say so. It took National Review two days to fire Mr. Derbyshire—an eternity in the age of the Internet, even if it was Easter weekend—and lefty publications like Atlantic Wire and Huffington Post were yelling for blood long before the ax fell.

National Review’s editor Rich Lowry’s public notice of dismissal started with fluff about Mr. Derbyshire’s “delightful first novel,” but called his Takimag piece “nasty and indefensible.” This is another way of saying Mr. Derbyshire was writing honestly about race, and National Review has a history of firing people who write honestly.

In the late 1990s, the magazine was saying sensible things about immigration, multiculturalism, and even race and IQ. It defended The Bell Curve, called for serious immigration reform and published Philippe Rushton. This was too much for the NR’s founder, William Buckley, who removed the two men most responsible for honesty. He forced out Editor John O’Sullivan in December 1997, and in February 1998 exiled Senior Editor Peter Brimelow to the powerless position of Contributing Editor. Mr. O’Sullivan’s replacement was none other than the Mr. Lowry who now finds Mr. Derbyshire’s work “nasty and indefensible.”

Buckley was jumpy about anyone who got frisky. In 1993 he had already fired Joe Sobran for writing columns Buckley called “contextually anti-Semitic.” Anyone who violated what Buckley liked to call “the prevailing structure of taboos” was out the door.

Just two years later, another “conservative” publication, the Washington Times, fired Sam Francis for remarks he made at an American Renaissance conference:

The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.

It was the usual sin: writing something obviously true.

In 1997, it was Scott McConnell’s turn to be bounced from a “conservative” paper, this time, the New York Post. In a July 14 column he pointed out that Puerto Ricans are poor, live on food stamps, are often hostile to English, and that it was therefore a bad idea to make Puerto Rico the 51st state. He suggested that instead of going on about how wonderful statehood would be for Puerto Ricans we should actually talk about whether it would be good for us. Thirty Puerto Rican “leaders” had a meeting with Post publisher Martin Singerman, and Mr. McConnell was gone.

A more recent example of “conservatives” turning on their own was Human Events’ 2005 firing of Kevin Lamb for editing a magazine the Southern Poverty Law Center called “racist.” All it took was one phone call from the SPLC and in just a few hours Mr. Lamb was out of a job.
In January of this year, the Maine Heritage Policy Center, which bills itself as a “conservative” advocacy group, fired political reporter Leif Parsell after it discovered that he had written that “cultural diversity combines with our increasing racial and ethnic diversity to degrade our society” and had recommended a video by me in which I point out that diversity is not a strength.

And, of course, in February, Patrick Buchanan was fired from MSNBC for his book Suicide of a Superpower, in which he made such common-sense observations as:

Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being overturned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution—to ‘insure domestic tranquility’ and ‘make us a more perfect union’? Or has our passivity in the face of this invasion imperiled our union?

MSNBC’s president explained that such ideas were not “appropriate for the national dialogue.” Mr. Buchanan’s case is slightly different, since he was fired from a “liberal” network, but where is the “conservative” network that is rushing to take him on?

Clearly, as an ex-journalist who violated “the prevailing structure of taboos,” Mr. Derbyshire adds his own indisputable luster to a distinguished group. But what does it say about our country that even “conservatives”—and only “conservatives”—suffer from such hair-trigger nervousness about race? When was a “liberal” ever fired for calling whites “the cancer of the human race” or demanding “the abolition of the white race”? It doesn’t happen. There is no such thing as “liberal” excess. You can say the vilest things about white people and be a hero.

Why is this? Part of it is the vicious double standard that protects every group but whites from “negative stereotypes,” but it is also because no one is afraid of obvious foolishness. Even crazed, ethnomasochist whites who say hateful things about their own race clearly do not believe them. They do not repent of “white privilege” by giving up their jobs to pet minorities. They do not “celebrate diversity” in their own lives.

What people like John Derbyshire say is different. He must be fired, silenced, and disgraced because everyone—from the mooncalves at Huffington Post to the “conservatives” at National Review—lives by the very rules Mr. Derbyshire put into print. I don’t even know Rich Lowry but I’m sure he avoids crowds of blacks, does not live in a black neighborhood, and would never send his children to a black school. He may babble racial moonshine to his children, but the real “talk” he gives them is exactly the one Mr. Derbyshire wrote about. Mr. Lowry’s real “talk” is the way he lives his life.

And that is why Mr. Derbyshire had to go. There is nothing cowards and hypocrites hate more than brave men who live by their convictions.

Link to original article . . .

A lot of people are saying this, but it's true. Being fired from the National Review is a great badge of honor. Cowards and hypocrites are best ignored.

One of the benefits of a serious movement that truly represents us as white Americans is that publications and organizations which abandon our interests or punish those who stick up for us will be left behind.

The multicultists are starting to get scared. White people are not falling for it any more. As whites become aware of our own dispossession, it will be increasingly difficult for the leftists to make us feel guilty. There will soon come a day when the word "racist" will have no meaning.

But for now, our response must go something like this.

Leftist: "You're a racist."

White person: "You're anti-white!"

Tragic news out of southern New Jersey and my suspicions were confirmed as the media were extremely vague on who the alleged murderers were.

What makes this tragedy worse is that The New York Post "conservative" rag printed an article by BETH DEFALCO and TIM PERONE that began, "A New Jersey mom ratted out her teen sons for the murder of a 12-year-old girl after reading a Facebook posting hinting that one of them wanted to go on the lam, law-enforcement sources told The Post."

Ratted out?

Definition of ratted out: Slang To betray one's associates by giving information.

Definition of rat: A despicable person, especially one who betrays or informs upon associates.

This mother was not a rat. Praise not scorn should be given to this mother. However, once again a young white girl murdered at the hands of blacks simply for being naive enough that she could offer help in the way of bicycle parts. The innocent face of Autumn Pasquale killed by Dante Robinson and his brother Justin Davidson is another tragic reminder of the war on white women by blacks.

Mom of teen 'slay sibs' tips off cops after NJ girl, 12, killed for bike