In Oklahoma, this story has been unfolding for the past few days:
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Two men were arrested Sunday in a shooting rampage that left three people dead and terrorized Tulsa’s black community, and police said one of the suspects may have been trying to avenge his father’s shooting two years ago by a black man.
Police identified both suspects as white, while all five victims in the rampage early Friday were black.
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.
The thinking of the latter leads to the actions of the former. Of course, I’m not blaming Derbyshire himself for the murders in Tulsa this past weekend, but this not-so-thinly-veiled “intellectual” racism, Derbyshire’s eugenics 2.0 or whatever you want to call it, is the same strain of thought that leads people to much more lethal, tragic outcomes.
Why did it take the editors of National Review so long to fire Derbyshire, whose beliefs on race have been public knowledge for years now? That he was a fine writer is not a good enough answer; that he spoke what “everyone else was thinking” is impossible to prove or, frankly, to believe.
Of course, Derbyshire is a heterodox conservative, hardly representative of the mainstream conservative movement, much like Taki’s Magazine is. Taki’s is like a much-less politically correct version of The American Conservative, a paleo-conservative publication that has all but shirked off the racist elements of that movement. But Taki itself, along with publications like Chronicles, are far more mild than some of the other paleo rags out there, such as VDARE, or The Occidental Quarterly.
And of course it only gets worse from there. This is without even dipping into some of the European nationalism one encounters.
I suppose Derbyshire’s exit from National Review will simply mean he’ll write at one of the many other publications I’ve listed (among others) that would be only too glad to have him. Precious “whiteness” motivates many things in this country, and Derbyshire has been a stalwart voice of the “human biodiversity” movement for a long time. For some, the culture wars are not merely slogans, they are the political battlefields of racial decline. It’s frightening stuff, and thank goodness that the mainstream right, however else I may disagree with them, has largely disavowed much of this.
I think that the real problem with someone like Derbyshire is that he provides a somewhat more clean-shaven face to the white supremacist movement in this country, an intellectualism if you will that he and others in his cohort are only too happy to supply. These other publications provide the real red meat; Derbyshire is doing outreach work to the mainstream. The editors of National Review have allowed this to happen for years, to their shame and embarrassment.
Thank goodness they finally wised up.
Unfortunately, the ideas Derbyshire represents will not be so easily dispatched.