1 March, 2007

Curbyshire Classic: I Fear the Jews

Posted by alex in Alex Linder, Britain, conservatives, media criticism at 12:45 am | Permanent Link

Classic article, absolute classic, in which Brit ex-pat John Derbyshire admits he’s basically a cur content with table scraps. What good is the truth if telling it lowers your social status? Reasoning doesn’t get any more British than that.

He rationalizes to himself that avoiding the truth about the evil kikes running our nation somehow allows National Review to keep alive the conservative flame. To anyone who’s read NR in the last twenty years – i.e., since the neocons took it over for good – that statement must be as bizarre as his open admission of cowardice is contemptible.

There ain’t one thing on the jews’ agenda — aggressive  war on Muslims abroad and on Whites at home — that is conservative.

What a coward. What a cur. What a Briton.

And the funny part is, he’s on the wrong side of history. The jews are going down. And when they’re on the ash heap, their appeasers like Curbyshire will be looked at by re-normalized Whites as exactly what they are: cowards and collaborators.

Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You

Criticizing Jews is professional suicide.

by John Derbyshire, February 28, 2007

ENTRIES: Is Kevin MacDonald Right? | Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law | There is No Cabal | Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You |


From: John Derbyshire
To: Joey Kurtzman
Subject: The flame of thoughtful conservatism burns low

All right, Joey, I will indulge your curiosity.

If tomorrow I submitted a piece to National Review saying, “Kevin MacDonald is really onto something. He’s doing great work and I think everyone should read him,” the editors would reject the piece, and they would be right to do so. I don’t think I would be canned for submitting such an article, but if it happened, I would not be much surprised.

You forget how lonely conservatives are. The flame of thoughtful, responsible American conservatism burns low, and needs constant careful attention. In the folk mythology of present-day America, conservatism is associated with Jim Crow and the persecution of racial minorities. I have not the slightest doubt that many millions, probably tens of millions, of Americans believe that, say, Pat Buchanan is a secret member of the Ku Klux Klan.

I live in an ordinary middle-middle-class New York suburban neighborhThis is Not Conservatism: American conservatives can't shake Jim CrowThis is Not Conservatism: American conservatives can’t shake Jim Crowood. My neighbors all know I am a conservative commentator. A couple of them will not speak to me on that account. The others just think I am mildly nuts—a thing associated in their minds, somehow, with my being British-born. They regard me with a sort of amused sympathy. The nearest conservative I know lives about eight miles away.

Anyone running a mainstream conservative magazine has to constantly demonstrate ideological purity in matters of race. They have to show repeatedly, by indirect means of course (I mean, it would be no use to just stamp “THIS IS NOT AN ANTISEMITIC MAGAZINE! WE DO NOT FAVOR THE RETURN OF JIM CROW LAWS!” in Day-Glo letters on the cover) that they are ideologically pure in this zone. Otherwise, they won’t be taken seriously by the cultural establishment.

And that matters. In America, persons who have, or are suspected to have, incorrect opinions on race, are low-status. Human beings are primarily social animals, and we are intensely conscious of status rankings within the groups we belong to.

The best guide here is novelist Tom Wolfe. Recall that passage in The Bonfire of the Vanities—I don’t have the book on hand so I’m working from memory here—where the young New York district attorney and his wife have hired a British nanny to look after their baby. This makes for an uncomfortable situation at first, because British people get status points in urban U.S. society just on account of being British. (Yes, of course it’s absurd, but I assure you it is the case.)

So this struggling, ill-paid young DA and his wife, both from modest backgrounds, have an employee with more status points than a domestic servant ought to have. The status structure of their household is out of joint. Then one day the nanny makes some mildly un-PC remark about Black people, and the DA and his wife fairly weep with relief. The nanny is low-status after all! Nothing to worry about!

So if National Review were to print unqualified praise (or even praise not severely qualified) of a guy who argues that Jews have a “group evolutionary strategy” that involves the transformation—I think in The Culture of Critique MacDonald actually says “destruction”—of Gentile society, they would have done what that nanny did: dumped several status points down the toilet.

A conservative magazine simply can’t afford to do that. Its hold on the attention of the U.S. public is too precarious. A conservative magazine can’t afford to let a writer say anything nice about MacDonald without putting it under some such title as “The Marx of the Antisemites.”

There isn’t any kind of chicanery or dishonesty there. That’s just how the world is, how America is, under what Bill Buckley calls “the prevailing structure of taboos,” and the prevailing system of status perception, both of individual human beings and of easily anthropomorphizable entities like opinion magazines.

National Review wants to get certain ideas out to the U.S. public—ideas about economics, politics, law, religion, science, history, the arts, and more. To do that, the magazine needs standing in our broad cultural milieu. It needs status. That’s hard at the best of times for a conservative publication. To lose status points—to lose standing—just in order to draw readers’ attention to some rather abstruse socio-historical theories cooked up by a cranky small-college faculty member, would be dumb. Ergo, as I said, NR would reject a piece of the kind you suggested, and they would be correct to do so. I would do so if I were editor of NR.

To your next point (I am working from the bottom up again) that my professed fear of ticking off Jews is some kind of affectation or pose, I can only assure you that this is not so. Almost the first thing you hear from old hands when you go into opinion journalism in the U.S. is, to put it in the precise form I first heard it: “Don’t f*ck with the Jews.” (Though I had better add here that I was mixing mainly with British expats at that point, and the comment came from one of them. More on this in a moment.)

Joe Sobran expressed it with his usual hyperbole: “You must only ever write of us as a passive, powerless, historically oppressed minority, struggling to maintain our ancient identity in a world where all the odds are against us, poor helpless us, poor persecuted and beleaguered us! Otherwise we will smash you to pieces.”

Though if you look up the William Cash affair I mentioned in my last post, Sobran’s quip is really not all that hyperbolic. When the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the CEO of United International Pictures, Barbra Streisand, assorted other media bigshots, and of course the ever-vigilant Mr. Leon Wieseltier, all denounce you in public, you are in pretty serious trouble.

(Since that is the second time I have mentioned the “Kings of the Deal” brouhaha, and since a great many readers will not know what I am talking about, I have put the whole thing on my website here.)

This may be characteristic only of conservative journalism—I don’t know, never having done the other kind. A person doing liberal-oriented opinion journalism surely needs no such cautions, having completely internalized all the “blank slate,” egalitarian, and victimological tenets of the majority culture, and the status-ordering precepts I sketched above. (And this is even leaving aside the high probability that a liberal commentator is anyway Jewish himself!)

The place of Jews in modern American conservatism is a deep and fascinating story, with of course the conversion of the neocons at its center. You have to bear in mind the overwhelming dominance of Jews in every kind of leftist movement in the U.S. until about 30 years ago. Yuri Slezkine has the astonishing numbers. (Did you know that of the four student protesters shot by National Guardsmen at Kent State in 1970, three were Jewish? So says Slezkine, anyway. If you take four people at random from the U.S. population, the chance that three or more of them will be Jewish, given the most generous estimate of the proportion of Jews in the population, is worse than one in four thousand.)

In any case, it was a great achievement, and a great boost, for American conservatism to have peeled off a platoon of articulate, energetic intellectual heavyweights from the great socialistic mass of American Jewry.

Generally speaking—and I certainly include myself here—American conservatism is proud of its Jews, and glad to have them on board. Not that there aren’t some frictions, particularly on mass immigration, the mere contemplation of which just seems to make Jews swoon with ecstasy (American Jews, at any rate. Israeli Jews have a different opinion…). MacDonald gives over a whole chapter of The Culture of Critique to the Jewish-American passion for mass immigration.

There is also some odd kind of bonding going on between Jewish conservatives and evangelical Christians. I say “odd” because of how, I imagine, this bonding would have looked to the grandparents of today’s Jews. The explanation I have most commonly heard is that Jewish conservatives want to be accommodating towards evangelicals because the latter are friendly to Israel. Hence you get prominent Jewish intellectuals saying nice things about nutty evangelical preoccupations like intelligent design.

The Israel explanation doesn’t seem particularly convincing to me. Don’t evangelicals want all the Jews to return to Israel so that the End Times can commence, in the course of which the Jews will be annihilated? Nevertheless, once or twice a week I read something that leaves me thinking that in the mind of this or that Jewish conservative intellectual, evangelical Christianity is “good for the Jews.”

At any rate, these minor frictions and divisions are inevitable in a movement as broadly defined as conservatism. Jews are welcome in the American conservative movement. The great energy and intelligence of Jews, and their strong sense of group identity, do, though, sometimes lead to the same kinds of pathologies in the conservative movement as Kevin MacDonald logged in the Jews’ self-created movements (such as Freudianism, Boasian anthropology, and the New York intellectuals).

In particular, they are under the same temptation to defer to charismatic intellectual “rabbis,” and toThe Rebbe of Psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud was brilliant, charismatic, and authoritarianThe Rebbe of Psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud was brilliant, charismatic, and authoritarian enforce rigid standards of orthodoxy, with vituperation and expulsion for dissidents. I’d emphasize that these are occasional tendencies, and I believe they are much less marked among Jewish conservatives than among, say, Freudians (or for that matter among Jewish liberals). They are there, though; and if you get on the wrong side of them, you are in deep doo-doo.

And in the larger culture, a Gentile conservative who riles up Jewish liberals is really asking for trouble. You could ask William Cash.

Let me deal with your point about the British, and the larger point about group identification.

On the Brits: You are certainly right that the correct approach here is anthropological; though I don’t think your insufferable tone of sneering moral superiority would be tolerated in professional anthropological circles today.

So far as I understand modern theories of the mind, a great deal of our brainpower is given over to processing social information. The theory that seems to me most plausible involves three different modules in the brain: a relationship module, a social module, and a status module.

The relationship module manages our one-on-one relationships with other human beings. It includes a sort of lexicon of all the persons we know, tagged by their attributes as we see them. (Not just common attributes like “fat” or “red-haired,” but me-centric attributes like “enemy” or “borrowed my copy of The Culture of Critique and never returned it.”)

A second, the social module, manages our behavior in our group, and our attitudes to our group and to outside groups. Group stereotypes, for example, which perform very valuable social-psychological functions, dwell in this module.

A third, the status module, computes our status within our group, either by objective criteria, or by attempting to “read” the entries about us in other people’s relationship-module lexicons, via those people’s external behavior. This status module has algorithms for computing status. The code of the algorithms, and the data we input to them, differs from one society to another, and from one group to another in a given society. (We all belong to several groups, of course.)

Among the Masais, a male’s status in his village is measured by the number of cattle he owns. An American academic who belongs to the groups “mathematicians,” “dedicated amateur hang-gliders,” and “opera lovers” will measure his status in the first group by how many papers he has published, his status in the second by how long he has managed to stay aloft, and his status in the third by how many donations he has given to his local opera company.

Now, in the broad and general group “respectable middle-class Americans,” one’s attitudes toward other races are very, very important criteria in determining one’s status. A person like the nanny in that Tom Wolfe novel, who reveals incorrect attitudes on race, suffers massive loss of status thereby.

As criteria for status-in-group evaluation, these attitudes are less important in Britain. In many subsets of modern middle-class British society, mildly negative remarks about black people, like those uttered by the nanny, would not lose you any status points at all.

This does not mean that Americans are morally superior to Britons; still less does it mean that Britons are more sophisticated, more worldly-wise, than Americans. All it means is that for historical reasons—mainly because the U.S. once had legal race slavery, while the British Isles (as opposed to the British territories overseas) never did—British people compute status-in-group slightly differently from the way Americans compute it. The nanny’s error was to assume that her employers’ status modules were running the same code as British people’s. Coming from Britain to the U.S., I made many such errors myself, and still occasionally do.

So far as it is possible to make generalizations about such things, British behavior in this regard is closer to the norm for modern humans than is American behavior. The critical importance of racial attitudes in middle-class American status rankings is extraordinary. This has been the case for decades. Agatha Christie’s 1939 novel Ten Little Niggers was deemed unpublishable under that title by U.S. publishers even then; they changed the title for U.S. audiences. Yet the play version was being performed in provincial British theaters, under Christie’s original title, well into the late 1960s.

As I said, this is not a question of moral superiority on the part of Americans, nor of superior worldliness on the part of Brits; it’s just that our thinking is slightly different, probably as a result of different national-historical experiences. (Though as always nowadays, group genetic peculiarities cannot be ruled out. Recent studies indicate that the population of the British Isles has been very little disturbed for tens of thousands of years. The successive invasions of Celts, Romans, Teutons, and Normans only slightly altered a common Paleolithic genome, likely derived from a small, and therefore distinctive, founder group.)

The exquisite sensitivity of Americans in these matters causes no end of misunderstanding and bad feelings, as the William Cash episode shows. I am sorry to say that it often makes Americans look like hypocrites to foreigners, making rather a mockery of all our pretensions to moral superiority. House hunting in the New York suburbs in 1992, my (Chinese-born) wife and I were once sitting in the office of a realtor, an American lady, trying to spell out just what we were looking for. We had no kids at the time, but were moving to the burbs precisely to raise a family. Well, chatting with the realtor, I said that of course we wanted to be in a good school system, one with not too many black kids. The realtor’s reaction was similar to the one described by P.G. Wodehouse when he wrote: “Ice formed on the butler’s upper slopes.”

You don’t say things like that. You just do them: practically no white Americans, looking for a place where they can settle down and raise a family, will seek a school district that is majority black. In fact, that realtor, when she had thawed some, carried out what I am sure is her normal procedure of steering us well away from heavily black school districts. Patterns of housing segregation in the U.S. speak for themselves, very eloquently. This is, however, the only way in which honest speech about race in America is allowed. (I believe, in fact, that if the realtor had said: “Don’t worry, I won’t waste your time and mine by showing you properties in heavily black neighborhoods,” she would have been breaking the law. Her behavior, however, was indistinguishable from what it would have been if she had said that, and meant it.)

And if you are not raised in the U.S., you are sometimes totally nonplussed by the stuff native-born Americans come out with in this area. For example, I stared hard at the following paragraph of yours, struggling to get some sense out of it:

Like Irishman and other antiquated coinages, it suggests that ethnicity is a fundamental feature of a person’s identity[….] American Jews, like other Americans, dislike that implication, and we once dealt with it by insisting on wacky constructions such as “Americans of the Hebrew faith.”

“Irishman” is an “antiquated coinage”? This is news to me. What, then, am I supposed to say this week? “Person of Irishness”? And does calling someone an Irishman really “suggest that ethnicity is a fundamental feature of a person’s identity”? All it suggests to me is that the guy comes from Ireland.

And if American Jews “dislike” the notion that “ethnicity is a fundamental feature of a person’s identity,” then why are we having these exchanges? And why is “Americans of the Hebrew faith” any more risible than “persons of the Hibernian ethnicity,” or whatever damn fool thing it is you want me to say instead of “Irishman”?

I once wrote a novel about Chinese people. My first-person narrator, a Chinese immigrant in America, refers to himself once or twice as “an Oriental.” The book reviewer for USA Today took me to task for that. “Oriental,” she told me sternly, was a word that could only be used for carpets and furniture. For people, the correct term was “Asian American.”

So I guess Confucius, Li Po, and Mao Tse-tung were all “Asian Americans.” And then, of course, there was that wonderful moment in the 2002 Winter Olympics when a Black American woman won a gold medal, thereby becoming the first Black woman from any country to win a winter gold. The announcer for the NBC network could not bring himself to say it as I just said it, though. God forbid anyone should think he had noticed the lady’s blackness! The only way he could bring himself to say it was: “She’s the first African-American woman from any country to win a winter gold medal.” I’m sorry, but this stuff just makes me fall around laughing.

Now to the very interesting question of whether or not ethnicity is “a fundamental feature of a person’s identity.” I think the only honest answer is that for some people, including some Jews, it surely is, at least some of the time, and for others, not.

Look: My ethnicity (white English) is part of what I am. It is one of the groups I identify with. This is not deplorable, or wicked, or exclusivist of me; it is just human, dammit. We are social animals who organize ourselves into groups. An individual in a complex modern society identifies with several groups. These identifications have different weights in his mind; in fact, they have different weights (the term of art is “salience”) in different circumstances.

I had occasion to remark recently, in a discussion elsewhere about whether or not I am a racist, that I would feel much more at ease in a room full of black African mathematicians than I would in a room full of white English soccer hooligans. In the first group my salient identification would be “mathematician,” and I would be a mathematician at ease among mathematicians.

My identification with the group “white English” would not be very salient in that group—definitely not as salient as it would be if I wandered into a bar on 125th street in Manhattan. In the second group I would be very uncomfortably aware of my membership in the group “bookish types who dislike physical violence and have little interest in sport.” That would be my salient group identification in that milieu; and as the only person in the room nursing that group identification, I would be exceedingly ill at ease.

Membership in the group “Jewish people” must be something every Jew is aware of at least some of the time, even if it is only rarely his salient group identification. Jewishness is, after all, as group identifications go—compared with “white English” for example—exceptionally well defined and historically rooted.

To draw from Slezkine’s fine book again, those Russian Jews who consciously de-Judaized themselves in the late-19th and early-20th century, and moved from the Pale into metropolitan Russia, and became such an important part of the Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet state, suddenly found their Jewishness—which they thought they had shucked off, left behind in the shtetl!—very, very salient when Hitler’s Panzers rolled across the border. It’s situational, see.

The idea you seem to be retailing—that these group identifications, with all their inner complexities of status, and all their situational vagaries of salience is all some airy figment of our imaginations, or some relic of a barbarous era we (or at any rate, the most morally advanced of us) have left behind—strikes me as bizarre and preposterous to the furthest degree. Do you really believe that? Good grief!

The beginning of wisdom is to look at humanity as it is, with its arms and legs, its eyes and tongues, its livers and kidneys, and its brains organized into modules, in some way like I sketched above, those modules busily processing information—information about light and temperature, visual and aural information, and above all (for we are social animals) social information.

I may choose, freely choose, to treat my fellow human beings well or badly; but my interactions with them are governed by my brain, which has evolved with the ability to do some things but not others. Utter indifference to group identity is a thing the brain cannot do. The denial of human nature gets us nowhere.

Whatever we think of Kevin MacDonald and his theories about Jews and their “group evolutionary strategy,” he is at least talking about a real human personality, one that I recognize when I look at myself and other people. It’s a personality that is aware of belonging to groups, that vies for status in those groups and that nurses negative feelings of various degrees to at least some other groups. Even when it wishes no harm to any other group, if given the choice between advancing the interests of a group it belongs to, versus advancing the interests of a group it does not belong to, will choose the former action nine times out of ten.

That is humanity as I know it, and as the great novelists and dramatists have portrayed it, and as the human sciences are beginning to uncover it in fine detail through such disciplines as evolutionary history. The bloodless, deracinated, group-indifferent, “blank slate,” omnisympathetic creature promoted by the merchants of Political Correctness is one I do not recognize as human. Those merchants are human, though, for all they seek to deny it. Their lofty pretensions to have risen high above us grubby group-identifying lesser beings strike me as just another form, a particularly obnoxious form, of in-group status-striving.



Thursday: “The Jew-wrought Armageddon of your overactive imagination…”

ENTRIES: Is Kevin MacDonald Right? | Wrestling with Derbyshire’s Law | There is No Cabal | Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You |

print delicious delicious digg it digg it reddit reddit technorati technorati

John Derbyshire is a columnist for National Review. His most recent book is Unknown Quantity, a history of algebra, published by Joseph Henry Press in May 2006.

so are you for it or against it?

“So if National Review were to print unqualified praise (or even praise not severely qualified) of a guy who argues that Jews have a “group evolutionary strategy” that involves the transformation—I think in The Culture of Critique MacDonald actually says “destruction”—of Gentile society, they would have done what that nanny did: dumped several status points down the toilet.”

As a Jew who has no trouble with his identity as a Jew, I agree with much of what John said above.

However, I still don’t know if he agrees or disagrees with old MacDonald’s thesis when he writes:

“So if National Review were to print unqualified praise (or even praise not severely qualified) of a guy who argues that Jews have a “group evolutionary strategy” that involves the transformation—I think in The Culture of Critique MacDonald actually says “destruction”—of Gentile society, they would have done what that nanny did: dumped several status points down the toilet.”

I believe that MacDonald’s thesis is demonstrably false and malicious (since if Jews have been “programmed to destroy gentile society then those societies have a right to destroy the Jews and in effect the theses argues that the Nazis were right to wage war on the Jews.) for that reason would never publish it. Is this a case of infringing on someone’s freedom of speech? I don’t think so.

Hence, while I have no problems with John or anyone else criticizing Jews (and Jews are experts at self criticism) I do have a problem with false criticism.


Submitted by Anonymous on February 28, 2007 – 8:41pm.

  • 22 Responses to “Curbyshire Classic: I Fear the Jews”

    1. alex Says:

      While Channon Christian is getting sodomized repeatedly, having her breasts cut off, having chemicals poured on her still-live body, and then getting cut up and put in garbage bags by a gang of niggers set free by the jews Curbyshire cowers before, he’s at pains to distance himself from the very laws that would have protected her.

      John Derbyshire is a living, breathing piece of shit. He is coward by his own admission and deserves the scorn of all White men. The blood Channon Christian and the millions of Whites raped, robbed and murdered by blacks because of the jew-passed so-called civil-rights laws is on his hands.

    2. alex Says:

      The flame of thoughtful, responsible American conservatism burns low

      This guy is a sick joke. If conservatism means anything, it means kith and kin and traditions. There is no American tradition of irrationality, racelessness and multiculturalism. That is all come in from the jews, and the price of it is the destruction of the posterity the Constitution was designed to protect.

      Thoughtful? Try alchemical. Responsible? The coward’s favorite word.

    3. alex Says:

      Translation: If I tell the truth about race, I’ll be out a paycheck. So I’ll pretend that race doesn’t matter, even though every conservative ever heard of knew it did. But my readers are a Fox-fed fools, so they won’t know the difference, even if their neighborhoods are being destroyed around them.


    4. alex Says:


      Derbyshire grovels before a Jew who wants more public discussion of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique. The link was brought to my attention by a reader of andrewsullivan.com – who actually has done something brave by bringing this to a larger audience. Seems like only yesterday Sullivan was slobbering in anticipation over Goldhagen’s new book.

      The editor of jewcy feels that uncriticized Jews grow complacent and careless. To this end, he calls on Derbyshire, (whose review of CoC in The American Conservative covered the spectrum, from tepid to cowardly) to tell the assembled Chosen: is there anything here we need be aware of?

      He tells Derby that, now within the Royal Presence, he may speak the truth. Is there anything to Kevin MacDonald? The Derb bows low and mumbles otiosities. It could be, your highness. The use of the word ‘Jewess’ is restored to him as a gesture of goodwill on the part of his leige.

      As in courts of old, the fool alone is granted free speech, but only the better sort of fool provides it. John Derbyshire is from an isle of shopkeepers, not an isle of fools.

      The rights (and dignity) of Englishmen being quite forgot, the Derb makes some noises about being thought an antisemite, about how how Slezkine disproves any lingering suspicions about the utterly de-Judaified Soviet overclass, and other sovereign-pleasing bleats.

      The Holodomor, the Sulzburgers and Duranty’s Pulitzer, the oligarchs, Marc Rich, Marranos, Hate speech laws and hate crimes, the Polish Secret Police, Prague Spring, Ilya Ehrenberg, “the Holocaust” and associated saturation marketing, Sasoon, Rothschild, the Boer War, the NKVD, the Wilson Administration, Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermeyer, The Roosevelt Administration, “the Brain Trust”, the character assassination of Lindbergh, forcing Ford to recant, postwar German Expulsion, Ben Freedman, Versailles, AIPAC, Gollancz, Pound, the CPUSA, Steinam, Dworkin, Freidan, Shulamith Firestone, media control, financial collusion, Soros, NGOs, the ADL and its spying scandals (against American citizens), World Federalism, Judith Miller, the WMDs, the Office of Special Plans, Feith, Frum, Abrams, Shulskey, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Podhoretz, and the rest are, of course, not mentioned.

      The upcoming attack on Iran, pushed for by ‘New York money men’, according to Wesley Clark, also remains undiscussed.

      A good summary of the relationship between the two: in a rare moment of truth telling, The Derb confesses as to why there isn’t going to be any National Review piece on Kevin MacDonald:

      To lose status points—to lose standing—just in order to draw readers’ attention to some rather abstruse socio-historical theories cooked up by a cranky small-college faculty member, would be dumb.

      He is reminded by the August Presence he addresses:

      I’m disappointed, though, to hear you discuss the catastrophic consequences of crossing the Jews. I think of it as the Robert Fisk conceit, and it’s a very old line. Guys like Fisk or Norman Finkelstein sell themselves as martyrs to world Jewry, as people who love truth so much that they are unwilling to bend to our intellectually totalitarian demands. That’s a neat marketing ploy, and it certainly gets them a ton of attention and the adoration of a certain type of intellectual groupie. But is it true?
      No, it’s bullshit, is what I think.

      His August Presence has no word on the Solsenitsyn’s book, now waiting seven years for its English translator. Titled Two Hundred Years Together, it is a history of the past few centuries between Russians and Jews. Perhaps His August Presence is unaware of it – reading the newspapers and various “journals of opinon”, there would be no way to know about it at all.

      HAP also has no words regarding Hollywood behavior towards the Passion, or the absence of all films dealing with the brutal realities of Communism. It would probably be too much for the NKVD to be portrayed as it was – 80% Jewish.

      Catastrophic consequences of crossing the Jews? If that were true, Fox news would be acknowledging, six years on, that it ran a 2001 piece on the high fiving Israelis that were filming the towers collapse, the massive “art student” spy ring (largest in American history), the Odigo scandal (an Israeli company, they were paged to evacute the towers beforehand), the Amdocs scandal (phonetaps in the US are outsourced to Israel with some surprising results for the DEA), plus the pitiful on-screen whining by representatives of the major intellgence agencies telling us that to pursue any of these leads would be ‘career suicide’. Instead, Fox has claimed, from a few days later right up until the present, that this story ‘does not exist’. In addition, not one disgruntled employee has come forward to explain what happened to the story in the intervening six years.

      Thankfully massive and thorough coverage of all of these stories was provided by the American and international press. Thank Goodness.

      You can always count on a journalist for exemplary cowardice, but Derb’s obsequiousness is exceptional. It deserves a Pulitzer, to go right alongside the other great Jewish mass murder Pulitzer for what they did in the Ukraine (seven million, if you’re curious).

      At any rate, I thought you might find the story of some interest.


    5. Chris Says:

      John Derbyshire is a living, breathing piece of shit. He is coward by his own admission and deserves the scorn of all White men.


    6. sgruber Says:

      You’ve heard of house nigger. He’s NR’s house goy. His writing characteristically includes or consists in apologia for being white, trying to explain his exotic whiteness to tutting Freuds or grimacing dinks. Married to a gook.

      He acts like he’s in South Africa, like he’s a minority! Because he put himself in the minority (no pun intended)!

      If Mexicans transplant Mexico here, and niggers transplant Africa, what do Britons transplant? Such places as the aforementioned SA. NR HQ is like Johannesburg with zhids as nigs and the Curb Cornered. Disgusting.

    7. jimbo Says:

      this pommie cunt is a fckn brain-dead TWAT!

      he’s too fckn stooopid to see which way the ‘tide of history’ is running…..if he WAS smart…he’d be ditchin’ the yoo & proclaiming White Nationalism from the roof-tops: his ‘conservative-shy’ neighbours be DAMNED!

      yr ‘acceptability’ with a ZOG rag like ‘National Review’ won’t count for a dead dingoe’s donger once the RACIAL HOLY WAR starts!

      the only future you will have is swinging in the breeze when the Day of the Rope arrives!

      kosher conservatives like Derbyshire wil be the first on the funeral pyre!

      DEATH! to all jews, jew-lovers & race traitors!

      (people like Alex Linder are the true conservatives!)

    8. alex Says:

      The above is by Wintermute.

    9. N.B. Forrest Says:

      The slit-mouthed whore must’ve worn his lips away by giving knobjobs to countless kike johns.

    10. fdtwainth Says:

      Mr. Linder once again offered an interesting example of the deconstructionist’s opinion. Deconstruction by its definition is relaxation of principles and structures that condition behavior in a given social system. Deconstructionists argue that the relaxation of fixed foundational principles and structures makes a system more accessible, responsive and reflective of a social community around it. In practice, deconstruction of an institution generally leads to loss of direction, reduced efficiency, alienation of stakeholders, and eventual collapse of an institution.

      Elaborate reasoning, Derbyshire employs to rationalize his lack of principles and deficiencies of character, is based on a wrong premise: man is not a social but a rational animal, for its cognition that differentiate man from other species of animal kingdom. Thus Derbyshire’s whole line of reasoning is based on a long disproved theoretical premise, and must necessarily fall with it.

      The evolutionary strategy of “blending in” to command prestige and attract followers Derbyshire advocates may be beneficial in the short run, yet it is highly detrimental in the long run. It is a loosing strategy, and not even European in nature: the European culture code encourages a man to seek and verify the Truth, and then to act on it strongly and courageously, not to define as “truth” the most popular concept and blindly adhere to it. The practical results achieved by employing this strategy are also dismal: we are aware, to give a relevant example, of attempt of Stormfront’s JJT to engage a deconstruction “blend in” strategy only to suffer large loss of reputation, influence, posters and visitors; the dwindling performance of American public school system is another commonly referred example.

      Thus intellectual dishonesty of Derbyshire is worthy of contempt, yet I feel a dose of pity for this highly educated and unquestionably intelligent European man. By going with the crowd and obliterating his mind (as well as his genetic heritage) he has denied himself an intellectual and moral satisfaction of seeking, finding and defending the objective Truth, and immense joy of acting on and objectively verifying his convictions, the loss of which the meager remuneration of his non-European masters is hardly able to compensate.

      The only objective I could raise to Mr. Linder’s comment concerns the alleged conservatism of Derbyshire or absence of it. In my humble opinion, Devonshire is indeed a conservative; for conservatism is by definition conserving the existing social structures, even if they are detrimental to survival and advancement of a nation as a whole, and this is precisely what Derbyshire does. Derbyshire is not a republican, however, for republicanism, ancient and modern, has always been a set of strong convictions, to which men adhere on their own free will and act resolutely. The Republican Party in the U. S. historically included three main ideological fractions: social conservatives, free marketers and anti-liberals/socialists/communists. The deconstruction of the party effectuated by the elites of the Western states that started in the 1950s alienated first and second fraction, and more intelligent part of the third: they were replaced by influx of White moderately liberal voters, and the leadership of the party co-opted jews instead. Currently we are witnessing implosion of the Republican Party, and organizations associated with, including the National review: they lost trust and respect of all three historical Republican fractions, and in my humble opinion it is the task of White Nationalist movement to work with the responsible and more racially-conscious element within them to form new political organizations that would be able to give these disgruntled White people a voice.

    11. Bolg Says:

      I take it none of you bigots has been in a room full of black mathematicians, then?

    12. Chris Says:

      I take it none of you bigots has been in a room full of black mathematicians, then?


    13. Jim Says:

      OY! It took him so long to say ” I FELLATE JEWS – ITS A STATUS SYMBOL”. Really, I can’t believe I wasted my time reading this shit. It makes no logical sense at all. Unless, you are a part of the sellout WASP elite. In which case, I could see them nodding in agreement while on their knees.

    14. Timothy Says:

      These Derbyshires are 1,000 times more despicable than even the most despicable nigger. The jews would not make their way through the world like the locusts they are without WASP Brown Nosed Bagel Retrievers aiding and abetting them.

      Do these WASP fools imagine they are going to be immune to the horrors unleashed upon our society by jewry? Or are the WASPs so consumed with their o so precious and all-important status that it renders all other considerations moot? If so, then they are a bunch of ridiculous and worthless goddamned fools.

    15. Glenn Says:

      Another pasty-faced, bed-wetting, limey faggot. What a shock.

    16. okieredust Says:

      At the risk of sounding a stray note among the peanut gallery and failing the challnge once again, I must wonder if anyone has actually read the article(s) by Derbyshire or are just expressing your preexisting notions about him, who admittedly I tend to share. Its not an article that would probably get published in VNN, but it wouldn’t get published in TAC, let along NRO, either.

    17. Gerald E. Morris Says:

      Nice double-barreled expose’ Alex. Exposing scabby- kneed anglo-sucksome kahnservative kollabo katamites rates as the most effective work an Aryan can do to free the minds of his fellows, who want to and can be, freed. Let us act further on the basic truth: cuntservatism sux jew jissom. Our Race will be saved by Aryan Revolution, ergo, the more clearly we separate ourselves from the limp-wristed, hand wringing conservative WASP, the more quickly will we be able to organize the real Aryans without these jew-hireling snitches sabotaging our work. Good job Alex. Keep it up!

    18. Gerard MontBlanc Says:

      This pseudo intellectual spittle dovetails quite nicely with Fred Reed’s earlier “National Character” (AKA Ellul’s The Technological Society in “redneckese”). Though his estrogen level are astronomically high, Derbyshire is little more than a one each issue lemming willing to trade freedom for safety. So, what’s new? Lemmings will always be the vast majority, and as Pierce said, this is right and proper. Given that one or two percent (at most) actually run things, and that Derbyshire is self admittedly not amongst the anointed, why bother with him or others like him? It’s a waste of time. The system is rotting, the chosen are scared, and the smell of revolution is in the air. Many formerly naive White men are awakening. The community of listeners to “warts and all” truth programs like Goyfire and Free Talk Live will skyrocket, and we can benefit hugely by proliferating such unvarnished pro-White agitprop. We need to incessantly hammer home racial truth, teach men how to extricate themselves from economic slavery, and to prepare themselves physically and mentally for unconventional armed struggle. Like Metzger says, worse it better, and if it gets much worse, it’s going up. Either uncontrolled immigration or an unprovoked nuclear war against Iran could push it over the edge. Let’s work the evolving paradigm shift to our advantage and stop getting distracted by Chihuahuas nipping at our heels.

    19. Agis Says:

      Despite Derbyshire’s personal failings, he rather drily and artfully manages to spill the beans. These coutier gymnastics titilate the paleos. Respectability and employment are foremost on their middle-class minds.

    20. eNZedBlue Says:

      I used to have Derbyshire’s attitude but these days White people disgust me so much that I favour a “tell it like it is, consequences be damned” approach. Deep down I think that Derb is not a self-serving coward like many say he is, but rather he knows that White people will simply turn off and ignore him altogether if he crosses a certain line, and believes it is better to tell a half-truth than for the conservative/traditional message to not be heard at all, leading to even worse consequences for the White people he cares about. The problem with Derb is that he respects ordinary White people, when they don’t deserve it.

      My attitude is that if White people hear the truth stated plainly and can’t handle it because it’s too “hateful”, then they deserve whatever comes to them, be it rape, murder or genocide. That’s the ONLY way we’re going to learn, and if it ends in our exitinction, well so be it. It is richly deserved, because those are the laws of the universe. Survive, or perish. There is no obligation to pander to their neurotic psychological self-validation needs in order to bypass their socially-conditioned filters against “hate” and “bigotry”. Just tell the truth.

    21. Mark Says:

      Derbyshire is married to an Asian woman and has halfbreed kids. He’s already sold out his own heritage. It’s a done deal.

      Johnny boy refers to himself as “white English.” Is there any other kind? How ridiculous.

      I like John’s personality, he’s intelligent and funny. Unfortunately courage, loyalty, and having principles is too much to ask of him, as it seems to be of too many of our people.

    22. Joe Says:

      I spell it Lymey! In Shiton everyone shits down, and all the classes mimmick the one directly above them. This is partly why the Founding Fathers of the US broke away from England, despite how well colonists had it in many ways. Because that sort of system is doomed to fail when you have jews at the top. What they conducted was a racial revolution as well, but I fear they did not totally understand what was making Britain so bad. Now you can look and see how sick fairy ol England is. It is totally jewdified, its imune system is nearly defeated and it is being overwhelmed with parasitic bugs let in by the jew. The US is not too far behind, but the English are much worse, and have had the jew working on them much longer.

      Fairy ol England did not cover itz arse. The seed of Satan got in through the one celled backdoor, has penetrated the royal blood, polluted the immune system and infected it with every other parasite and paralized the nerve center, and made it braindead. Now the White blood cells, and Whites know not how to act. Sick Lymey faggots, this is what happens when you dont defend yourself from jews. Muslims and Mexicans are clearly just the symptom.