Is the Right Really Breaking Up with Its Racists?

Alex Pareene, Salon, April 16, 2012

The National Review this month is having one of its semi-regular “purges,” in which formerly welcome members of the conservative establishment are declared distasteful and relegated to the “fringes.” It began when self-declared racist and longtime National Review contributor John Derbyshire wrote a piece (not for the NR but for “Taki’s Mag,” an online magazine devoted to lighthearted racism) that went well beyond the bounds of “acceptable” race-baiting. He was canned. Shortly thereafter, another National Review contributor, Robert Weissberg, was fired for having given a presentation at a conference devoted to white supremacy last month.


{snip} The National Review’s rejection of the overt racists is actually a fairly new phenomenon. Joan Walsh recently wrote of how the magazine was a strong supporter of racial segregation in its early days, and while that support didn’t last long, prejudice against black Americans and crank “racialist” beliefs were welcome in the magazine long after the 1960s ended.

In September of 1997, the magazine published a lengthy attack on Steven Jay Gould by white supremacist psychologist J. Philippe Rushton—another “American Renaissance” conference speaker—in which he argued that “Mongoloids average about a cubic inch more [brain mass] than Caucasoids and over three cubic inches more than Negroids.” This, again, was in 1997, not 1897. In 1997 the magazine also published a lengthy attack on interracial marriage by Steve Sailer, who’s made a career out of pseudo-academic nativism. {snip}


There are a few more recent examples of American Renaissance conference participants popping up at the National Review: a link to a “revelatory” video chat with Paul Gottfried, a past American Renaissance speaker. Stanley Kurtz (he who regularly paints a dramatic picture of our moderate president’s “radical” ties) linking to a “deeply frightening” post on Iran written by “Path to National Suicide” author Lawrence Auster, who spoke at the very first AmRen conference and describes himself as a “racialist.” {snip}


The “race and IQ” controversy is largely a lot of bullshit. IQ is partly heritable, and “race and IQ” obsessives draw from that fact the conclusion that black people are genetically inferior to whites (and, often, Asians as well). Then they crow about how liberals are “anti-science” for disputing their methodology and conclusions, because they are essentially trolling.

Let’s deal with this as swiftly as possible: “IQ” measures one variety of cultural literacy—are you good at taking a specific kind of test?—not innate “intelligence.” IQ generally correlates to economic advancement, because, as Malcolm Gladwell wrote in one of his least annoying pieces, it measures “modernity.” Plenty of things are “heritable” but not genetic—like taste in music. An Ireland-born person of South Asian ancestry is almost certainly more likely to enjoy Jedward than an Indian-born person of Irish ancestry, so while the Irish can be said to be more likely to have shit taste in music on that account, it is by no means determined by their genes.

The fact that IQ has been steadily increasing for as long as we’ve been measuring it—the famous Flynn effect—indicates that the test measures a characteristic determined primarily by environment. “Heritability” of IQ is higher in more prosperous classes than in lower classes. In other words, ”for the poor, improvements in environment have great potential to bring about increases in I.Q.”

Race itself is socially and culturally constructed; basic visual “racial” markers are genetically dictated but any randomly selected white person may be more genetically similar to any randomly selected Asian or African person than another randomly selected white person. “The great majority of genetic variation … [is] within the so-called races, not between them,” according to Jan Sapp.

Between 5 and 7 percent of human genetic diversity is between subgroups within the classically defined races; 6 to 10 percent of the total human variation is between those groups that we think of as races in an everyday sense based on skin color. The remainder of the variation occurs at the individual level and cannot be categorized by group or subgroup.

If IQ were primarily or even marginally genetically determined, “race” would be about as useful a rubric for analyzing differences in intelligence as hair color or nose shape or any other cosmetic difference. If our society had a history of oppressing red-haired people, there would be researchers manipulating statistics to prove that gingers are simply genetically inferior, and John Derbyshire would be warning his children to avoid large gatherings of Scottish people.

What liberals find obnoxious about the conservative obsession with IQ and its heritability is that it’s a patently obvious smokescreen for racism. Charles Murray and his ilk pose as disinterested scientists, but they are political actors. The people who care deeply about the supposed innate genetic differences between “the races” also almost invariably use those supposed innate differences to justify attitudes and behaviors that are indistinguishable from “classic” American racism.

Derbyshire’s lessons to his children don’t even make sense if you suppose that intelligence is genetically determined, because the “races” are not genetically distinct enough for you to draw useful conclusions about people based solely on those visual cues. It is much more “useful” to draw inferences based on purely cultural signifiers; that group of drunk guys in New Jersey Devils apparel staggering down 35th Street toward Madison Square Garden may seem like people you should avoid, but not specifically because they are white people unknown to you.


Phi Beta Cons, the aforementioned higher education blog where Weissberg was published, is edited by Robert VerBruggen, who, while declaring himself “agnostic” on the issue of genetically determined race-based IQ heritability (hmm), has certainly demonstrated an interest in the subject.

VerBruggen, for example, defended DNA co-discoverer James Watson, who has revealed himself in his old age to be a racist, sexist crank.

Watson isn’t a “racist” but a “racialist”; in other words, he believes that genetic differences between the races might explain differences in ability and behavior, and that’s a travesty.


To be clear, I’m not calling VerBruggen a “racist,” or accusing him of anti-black bias—I just think that his repeated need to defend practitioners of racialist IQ hogwash is ill-advised, and it certainly helps explain how a white supremacist found a welcome home at the National Review without anyone (apparently) noticing.

If conservatives seriously want to understand why the “cudgel of racism” is still wielded against them, they may want to try to picture how actual black people interpret their fascination with “proofs” (or even just “interesting arguments”) that blacks are genetically inferior.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • RJS

    The leftists always have a funny way of trying to ignore or dispute the historical and empirical evidence everywhere.

    Without calling me a racist or white supremacist, I challenge this author to disprove any of the following:

    History has proven that no black african society has ever developed:

    an alphabet

    a written language or written

    a sophisticated communication

    a sophisticated transportation

    a sophisticated military

    a space program

    a system of measurement

    a multi-story building


    History has proven that no black african society has ever made major
    contributions to advanced civilization in the areas of medicine, science,
    architecture, law, physics, mathematics, philosophy, psychiatry, computer
    technology, astronomy or space exploration.


    History has proven that no black african country has ever flourished
    and has always desperately depended on outside aid from white countries for
    food, clothing, housing, medical care and other basic necessities.


    Blacks continually blame the whites and racism for all their
    problems in the United
    Blacks in other countries throughout the world also have the same
    problems: poverty, illiteracy, disease, crime and a horrible third world
    standard of living.   

    • Mainstreaming_Diversity

      Blacks have always had the potiental to do those things, but racist White privilege prevented their success.  Euclid, Shakespeare, Newton, and Wagner stole all their ideas from the Congolese.

      • Heinrich24

        I had always suspected this…

  • ed91

    is the left really breaking up with it’s racists?

    not hardly, they have several in the white house, not to mention eric NBPB holder

    • Oil Can Harry

      The Left isn’t breaking up with its racists ( Sharpton, Holder, La Raza, Black Panthers, etc.) because they agree with them and usually take their backs.

      •  You guys are far too sparing with the “racism” whip.  ALL leftists are racists, because LEFTISM is racist.  And by “leftist,” I mean pretty much everybody.

      • Mainstreaming_Diversity

        “If it helps the blacks, it’s good. If it helps the blacks and hurts Whites, it’s even better.”

        -Rev. Jed DeValleysim explaining the hidden meaning behind “Diversity is our greatest strength.”

      • Anonymous

        The Left expects the Right to be tolerant and ‘not racist’ meanwhile they create policies that are anti-white and we are the victims of anti-white discrimination. 

  • Fakeemail

    Which is it, White Man?  Do you want the label of “respectability” from or do you want to live? 

  • JohnEngelman

    The degree to which IQ is determined by genetics and varies between the races is a topic on which decent people can have honest disagreements. The debate is not enhanced by destroying the careers of those who argue for the primacy of genetics. 

  • Whiteman

    I’ve got news for this writer. The racists are deep within every organisation in America. They won’t allow whites to associate as  a group, and they think it’s just great when any skin color that isn’t white does so, and this ‘racism’ is entirely subsidized and promoted. If they think all these ‘right wing’ authors are racist how would they feel if white journalists of all types were meeting to form numerous white journalist associations? Why are they Ok, then, for every race that isn’t white?

  • Oil Can Harry

    I chuckled when the clueless author whined about NR printing an expose of Steven Jay GHOUL’s  bogus “brain size” research. He apparently doesn’t know Ghoul’s research was shown to be a hoax.

    This article just prove’s Jared Taylor’s prediction that NR, rather than getting applause for their purges, are instead being lambasted and presented with new lists of heretics to purge.


    • Mainstreaming_Diversity

      Look at his pictures.  He could stand in for that mannish Rachel Maddow, but he’d be the girlish version. He looks like the kind of Whiteys they put in all the TV commercials as the doofus to the dignified blacks.

      • robinbishop34

        He looks like the kind of Whiteys they put in all the TV commercials as the doofus to the dignified blacks

        You took the words right out of my mouth.

    • sbuffalonative

      ” He apparently doesn’t know Ghoul’s research was shown to be a hoax.”

      He probably knows but choses to ignore it in the hopes that he can help keep the lie alive and no one cites the articles debunking Mr. Gould.

      You and Mr. Taylor are correct. Appeasement has done nothing but paint a larger bullseye on  the forehead of any and every white race realist.

      The left is now pushing the buttons and pulling the strings at the National Review. It’s a shame but they did it to themselves. How long before these self-inflicted wounds become terminal?

      So, so very sad…

  • NorthernWind

    Sounds like the same old tired leftist arguments. A lot of words with little worthwhile content.

    • Heinrich24

      Well, it’s what they’re best at!

  • Space4jan

    It really is a chore having to read these same old fallacious arguments – stale buns reheated by someone who hasn’t read a new recipe book.

  • The Right has nobody considered a White Separatist or White Nationalist. The GOP has had numerous presidents and presidential candidates who have either passed amnesty or proposed amnesty and “paths to citizenship” like Reagan, GWB and John McCain. Not one candidate is campaigning on something that is race realist or White Nationalist, like a moratorium on all immigration and a deportation program.

    It is pretty astonishing how people like John Derbyshire get turned into these White Pride World Wide boogeymen. Derbyshire is married to a Chinese chick and even has a couple of kids with her and he was still out on his “intolerant and indefensible” rear in 2 day’s flat.

    Racism is the thought crime of the 21st Century. It is completely meaningless but it has been allowed to become a career-ending slur.

  • kjh64

    Mr. Derbyshire simply speaks the truth.  I read some of the comments on the original article where many are blasting Mr. Derbyshire. How many of those criticizing him live in  a Black neighborhood? Send their kids to a Black school? How many of them avoid large groups of young Blacks? My guess would be 99 percent. Have they ever heard of White flight? Mexicans and Asians also avoid Black neighborhoods.

  • Robert Binion

    If I were able to finagle a degree out of some swell university, I could land a government gig and hire a ghost writer, maybe from Tupelo or Topeka, to craft a book for me.  Since full disclosure is never required from our sensitive elites, I would claim it mine and make a fortune.  But my IQ would not be one WHIT higher.

    The Left is “waging a war” against science.

  • Mainstreaming_Diversity

    I am shocked, saddened, and disappointed. Not once did he use any of the required attack words, such as “vile, ignorant, hateful, toxic, disgusting, odious, pernicious.” Nor did he avail himself of this important opportunity to remind us that “Diversity is our greatest strength.”
    I conclude that he may have some doubt about his premise and probably has the secret Derbyshire Talk with his own kids.  He is likely one of ramZpaul’s most avid fans.

    •  LOL.  You forgot “invidious,” “virulent,” and “noxious.”

  • Hirschibold

    Alex Pareene is still smarting because Taki  has done several epic take-downs of this milquetoast  beta male: “People who deny reality for too long have a way of getting trampled under its feet. This is what Salon’s Alex Pareene looks like. And here’s Gawker’s John Cook.
    Don’t they ooze the hot sticky sap of Ghetto Knowledge? They are prime
    specimens of what has become The Only Acceptable Kind of White
    Male—feminized, soaked in historical guilt, and so consummately
    weak-looking, they’d be the first to get cold-cocked by any stampeding
    black flash mob, even an all-gay one.”

    That’s just a tiny excerpt from one article. They’ve zinged this Rachel Maddow lookalike several times, and his only compensation is that he can commiserate with other weaklings (in both the physical and intellectual sense) over at Salon. He is an insulated, privileged, hypocritical waste of mommy and daddy’s money.

    • geraldmartin

      So that’s it…wondered why Pareene sounded like he was screeching. Also, the fellow doesn’t seem aware that his arguments about race, genetic variations between individuals and between races as meaningless or minor got swatted down decades ago and that the evidence against them keeps piling up.

      But Pareene is right about one thing: the mainstream right has turned against the hereditarian basis for IQ, and even the idea IQ itself means anything. The consequences of confronting this reality are now too terrible for conservatives to contemplate: it would require a complete repudiation of the past 50 years and a re-structuring of a society the establishment right has grown comfortable in. Therefore, the suppression of race realism in “conservative” venues can be expected to increase.

      I think the egalitarians see what they believe is an opportunity to finally crush any expression of racialist views outside of the AltRight blogosphere, and perhaps end once and for all scientific research into racial differences.

      This is going to get very interesting.

    • Andromeda

      Is there such a thing as a Gamma male? If so, he’s the poster child. I could see myself wanting to slap this “guy” if I ever saw him in person.

  • Unperson

    “Taki’s Mag,” an online magazine devoted to lighthearted racism

    Mr. Taki, if you’re reading this, you might just want to trademark that slogan. I think it’s a good one.

  • MAJ

    Wow, what a poorly reasoned piece.  It’s all liberal personal opinion, false facts, and tortured thinking to explain his beliefs.

    So, next time Alex gets sick we’ll take him to Affirmative Action General Hospital. After (if) he comes out of the coma we’ll ask him to take a second look.

    Even with the science behind the studies you clearly do not need anything more than casual observation to see that blacks are born with low IQs. Seriously, is this guy an idiot or what?

    It’s not my fault blacks function in a semi-retarded range. I didn’t create evolution. However, it is my problem and my fellow Whites that blacks, living with a different mindset, have corrupted a country founded for WHITE immigrants.

    He (and his friends) can dump all they want on IQ tests – for now, that’s what we have. And really, if it’s not an IQ test it would be some other test.

    What I find most offensive is how he slides in very derogatory and inflammatory remarks as if they are basic truths:
      –  “crank ‘racialist’ beliefs”
      – “pseudo-academic nativism”
      – “The ‘race and IQ’ controversy is largely a lot of b******t”
                [note the modifier “largely” – what does he mean by that?]
      –  “a racist, sexist crank”
       – “genetic differences between the races might explain differences in ability and behavior, and that’s a travesty”
                [why is it a travesty?]
       – “the conservative obsession with IQ and its heritability is that it’s a patently obvious smokescreen for racism”
                [the “R” word again – the last refuge of a broken argument]

    Finally, just step back for a minute. By having to write so many paragraphs to refute what he doesn’t believe, Alex basically acknowledges the very facts he is trying to destroy.

  • NYB

    The author gets it wrong, in that the attention given to measurable race differences is a direct result of decades of propaganda stating “all are the same”, rather than an obsession with justifying an irrational dislike.

    If the message of equality wasn’t such a bedrock of multicultural thought,  the scientists, researchers and writers he names wouldn’t feel the need to step up and refute it.

  • Anonymous

    I read the first paragraph and that all I needed. 

  • Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a recent scientific article here on Amren that showed that the genetic differences between the various races was previously larger than we thought?  I can’t for the life of me find it, though.

  • Mainstreaming_Diversity

    Dear DOJ, $PLC, ADL, NAACP, NBP, and AntiFa Online Hate Speech Monitors,

    I have a confession to make, and I make it to you as a desparate plea for help:  I AM AN IGNORANT RACIST.

    I am reaching out to you, because you are known leaders and have earned respect and accolades for your vital work in promoting social justice by fighting hate. Can you please offer me the Deep Therapy and Behaviour Correction Techniques that will awaken me out of the darkness of my ignorance and cure me of my vile, pernicious, virulent, hateful, noxious racism?

    Everything I’ve tried has failed.

    I said, “All Men are created Equal,” but then natural inequality, racial differences, and the Achievement Gap didn’t disappear.

    I said, “Diversity is our greatest strength,” but then vibrant Diversity kidnapped, robbed, raped, tortured, vaginally mutilated, and murdered Channon Christian.

    I said, “I atone for the sins of slavery and segregation by holding myself accountable to the beloved community of color for my unearned White privileges,” but then enriching Diversity blew Eve Carson’s face off with a shotgun blast.

    I said, “We’ve come far, but we still have much more work to do,” but then a Diversity security guard shot Brittny Watts to death in an Atlanta parking deck while he was being paid to protect her from Atlanta’s Diversity.

    So in despair, I did just what Catherine Meeks told us Whiteys to do, which was “make more sacrifices because we have benefitted the most from systemic privilege,” but then Diversity Eric Holder told Congress that hate crime legislation should not protect all Americans, but only “his people”.

    And then, I saw something from Rev. Jed DeValleyism on a Christian Kinist website that made sense of everything and sent me spiraling back down into my dark hole of ignorance:

    “They tell you that, ‘Diversity is our greatest strength,’ but what they really mean is that if it helps the blacks, it’s good, and if it helps the blacks and hurts Whites, it’s better. As bad as lynching, Jim Crow, and segregation were, the integration, civil rights, and Diversity are worse. Anti-racism is codeword for anti-White.”

    So here I am, cast back down into the black pit of ignorance by that hateful reality. Somebody please throw me a lifeline and pull me out. Please cure me of my ignorant racism. Please give me proof, not platitudes, that racism is wrong and inclusive tolerance is right.

    Outdated and discredited pseudoscience, such as “Race is just a social construct because there is no such thing as race- there is only the human race, and we are one family,” just won’t work on me. I’m immune to lies.

    But don’t give up on me, because if you can cure me of my ignorant racism, you can heal humankind of those hurtful stereotypes that only serve to divide us away from each other’s valuable uniqueness and love.

    Let’s start with this. True or false: “Making White babies is a hate crime against global dignity”.

    Or this: “Telling the truth is hate speech to those who hate the truth; free speech is hate speech to those who hate freedom.”


    Please Don’t Give Up On Me Just Yet

    P.S. I’m hot for Heidi B.

    “Did you notice that during all the outpouring of shock, grief, and sadness at UNC over the murder of Eve Carson, not once did you hear screams of outrage and demands for social justice, institutional change, immediate action? The ignorant Whites at UNC simply accepted that her death by Diversity was within the realm of acceptable tragedies, just like getting killed in a car wreck or when smokers die from cancer. Chapel Hill is too close to Durham for any White student to go unarmed. As much as they refuse to admit it, racist hatred isn’t so bad if it saves your life.”

    -Rev. Jed DeValleyism, “What Eve Carson’s murder tell us about the blacks,” 2008

    • haroldcrews

      You had me going there and I was concerned about the state of your mental health until you said you were hot for Heidi.  LOL Good one.

  • sbuffalonative

    “…he argued that “Mongoloids average about a cubic inch more [brain mass] than Caucasoids and over three cubic inches more than Negroids.” This, again, was in 1997, not 1897.”

    It’s extremely likely that the cranial capacity of Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids haven’t changed in the last 100 years so the year in which the statement was made seems irrelevant.

    The left obviously sees charges of ‘racism’ as the key to destroying Republicans and white racial self-identification. The actions of the National Review only feeds their hope and power.

    “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. ”

  • Tim in Indiana

    VerBruggen, for example, defended DNA co-discoverer James Watson, who has revealed himself in his old age to be a racist, sexist crank. 

    Yeah, the co-discoverer of DNA. What would HE know about genetics?  He must just have lost his mind because he’s old (ageism).

  • Chris

    A few weeks ago, there was a story in the national media about how conservatives IQ’s were lower than Liberals IQ’s.  For years the Left has made fun of the likes of Dan Quayle, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, etc. for being, shall we say, intellectually inferior.  All of these people are college educated, so calling them dumb is a smoke screen for saying they have low IQ.  Liberals serve up intelligence arguments when it serves them, and deny IQ when it doesn’t.  They continue the cognitive dissonance of arguing that race is a construct, then accusing the Right of racism.  That’s like saying there is no such thing as books, but accusing someone of being a reader. 

  • Whiteman

    “Look at his pictures”  – posted by Mainstreaming Diversity
    I’m kind of tired of looking at Your picture, Mainstreaming Diversity. Yer one ugly dude, black, white, whatever, yer photo is kind of ugly. Can’t you take a better photo of yourself?

  • Ingsoc

    What an obnoxious, risible diatribe.  Does this idiot think such “lofty” phrases as,  “race and IQ” is largely a lot of b*******”, “Irish can be said to be more likely to have s*** taste in music” lend gravitas to his screed and make his writing profound and important? 
    From the first two paragraphs:
    self-declared racist, devoted to lighheated racism, race-baiting, white supremecy.
    overt racists, racial segregation, racialist beliefs.
    Why bother to read any more?

  • Beloved Comrade

    “Race itself is socially and culturally constructed.”

    At this point with all the evidence, the best response is laughter and scorn.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    ” If our society had a history of oppressing red-haired people, there would be researchers manipulating statistics to prove that gingers are simply genetically inferior, and John Derbyshire would be warning his children to avoid large gatherings of Scottish people.”

    Of course this is nonsense.  All racial/ethnic groups have been oppressed at some point in their history, but thankfully “oppression” cannot be passed down genetically. 

    But what would the author make of these counter-arguments?  Jews and Orientals have also had times of “oppression” in the West (think of the Holocaust or the conditions of early Chinese laborers) but both groups do relatively well, usually better economically than the Gentile Whites.  Why have Jews and E. Asians been able to do so well where W. Africans have not?

    Furthermore, why have blacks who immigrated to countries that never held slaves tend to be poorer and more violent than whites, whereas E. Asians are less violent than the native whites? 

    Does the author have an answer as to why descendents of W. Africans always win sprints in the Olympics, or why Kenyans seem to always win the Boston Marathon?  Obviously genetics has something to do with this.  But then it follows that intelligence and other traits can at least theoretically be different between the races.  So why is the author singling out intelligence?

    Does the author have any counter-argument to the fact that blacks overwhelmingly make up a disproportionate amount of violent criminals in the United States?  Blacks today are much better off than Whites were 50 years ago (economically), so you can’t point to poverty. 

  • tacheles

    This Pareene fellow is an ignorant fool. In an American Thinker article he is shown to have no clue.

    “Pareene goes on: “this world of race riots and constant violent attacks on
    innocent Caucasians exists only in the imaginations of Matt Drudge and the
    paranoid suburban and exurban white people he wants to keep terrified.”
    But Drudge is not generating the terror; black violence is. Yen Nguyen was
    terrified as she watched her 72-year-old husband being beaten to death by
    blacks in the senseless”knock out” game. Let Pareene find a story where whites did something similar andit was swept beneath the rug. Shaina Perry was terrified when she was being taunted and beaten in Milwaukee.
    Carter Strange was terrified while his skull was fractured in South Carolina,
    and Dawid Strucinski was terrified while being beaten into a coma in Bayonne.
    Anna Taylor, Emily Guendelsberger, and Thomas Fitzgerald were terrified as they were kicked on the ground in separate flash mobs. The 38 blacks who were arrested for four
    month’s worth of mayhem in Denver, including the murder of Andrew Graham, are the source of
    terror, not Drudge.”

  • KenelmDigby

    How can such a bad writer – let alone a man profoundly ignorant of the scientific method – get a position in such a hotly contested field such as journalism?

    “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.

  • geraldmartin


    Crikey! I was more right than I realized when I said things were getting interesting in my previous. In a post titled, “VDARE,” made at 5:47 P.M., April 17th, at the NRO blog,, John O’Sullivan – long considered on our side in immigration and one of the last real conservatives associated with National Review – announced that…he isn’t. On our side. In fact, he wanted everyone to know he had disassociated himself from VDARE ( years ago, thinks white nationalism is silly, and wants to show his loyalty to NR because VDARE and NR “are on a collision course in important issues.”

    Some background: John O’Sullivan is regarded as the last really conservative editor of NR, coming between William Buckley and Rich “Baby Stalin” Lowry. In the ’90s, he struggled against the growing influence of the neocons, and made sure NR defended THE BELL CURVE and opposed mass non-white immigration. It’s widely believed he was forced out (i.e., kicked upstairs) by Buckley to open the magazine to more liberal views.

    What to make of this? A volte face? Mea culpa? Et tu, Johnny? Seems like O’Sullivan was presented with the Bushian proposition by Baby Stalin: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the RACISTS. Decide.”

    This may not be a  continuation of the purge in letter, but in spirit, it certainly is.

    And it doesn’t say much for O’Sullivan’s character, either.

    EDIT: Just found out why O’Sullivan did this. He was scared into it by our friend Alex Pareene, who made yet another “Root out the racists!!” blog post at Salon, outing O’Sullivan as a one time VDARE board member publisher of notorious racists there like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis. I guess Alex is going for a hat trick. Stay tuned!

  • Fairfax33243

    The real hater bigoted racists  are all all on the left and this includes the new Black Panther revolutionary radical in the WH who prescribes to Rev Wright and the Black Muslims who keeps as his motto “curb your enthusiam” to avoid detection.

  • Rochester

    Nice try Salon and Alex Pareene. Everyone knows who the real racist bigiots are and their leader in Washington DC who never heard Rev mullah Wright who lives in a rich white country club neighborhood say anything bad about the rich white man or America in over 20 years sitting in his Chicago mosque every Sunday morning.

  • NaturalBornCitizen

    National Review has long been a neocon rag having nothing to do with real conservatism which can easily stand shoulder to shoulder with White Nationalism in America. Both share the same blood enemies.

  •  Alex Pareene is a hypocritical, leftist shithead: The Right hypocritically eats its own “racists”
    AND The Left hypocritically ELEVATES THEIRS.

    et, tu Reverends Jesse & Al?

  • elitist

    I cannot seem to post at Slate.

    the hurdles over there to commenting would explain why the discussion is beyond brain-dead.

    I get the feeling they woke up Pareene from a drunken stupor and gave him 10 min. to jabber something into a microphone – did someone announce a competition:

    “Who can sound craziest & stupidest on race?”

    admittedly, he did NOT say:

    “boycott the IQ test, it is part of a plan by the CIA to exterminate the inferior races, the number gets tattooed on your arm before you are gassed.” 

    but that’s only because he hasn’t thought of it yet.

    I tried to post the following.

    Pareene is
    peddling gross misinformation – literally nonsense – in the name of political

    Speaking as
    someone who was a progressive activist long before Pareene was even born, I
    would like to stress that IGNORANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE.

    Of course IQ
    measures innate cognitive ability fairly accurately, and of course it is
    largely heritable.

    That is what all
    competent scientists on earth believe.

    Of course, there
    are important genetic differences between the races, and of course these
    differences include psychological differences.

    By simply
    shoring up the firewall between scientific fact and politically correctness,
    you have consigned not just conservative racialists to oblivion, but science

    The evidence for
    racial differences in psychology keeps piling up, but it is not the work of
    racist fanatics.

    Any scientist –
    no matter how politically correct – who simply carries out her research in a
    matter-of-fact fashion will inevitably arrive at conclusions that are beyond
    the pale within the current political discourse.

    IQ tests will
    soon become obsolete, but not because intelligence is malleable, quite the

    institutions with no links to the “racialist right” are already using
    DNA tests to measure the future intelligence of toddlers.

    In other words:
    intelligence is so heritable that a simple saliva swab may soon be as or more
    accurate than an IQ test.

    As for taste in
    music not being heritable, also rubbish: an extraordinarily wide range of
    psychological attributes, including things like color perception, spatial
    memory, the ability to recall melodies, etc. are highly heritable, and moreover
    correlate with race as well.

    If progressives
    refuse to assimilate the flood of new science on racial differences in
    psychology and shape a coherent progressive discourse around it, then we have
    no right to complain if the right maintains to total monopoly on the issue,
    with progressives flailing helplessly and chanting their favorite slogans in
    the background.

    I was a
    progressive for 40 years, but I don’t recall agreeing to throw my brains out the
    window. If I have to choose, I will be politically independent with a
    functioning brain.

    Handy-dandy tip
    for all you “anti-racial lists” out there: try to avoid an “antiracist” bone
    marrow or organ transplant, it will kill you.

    • Mainstreaming_Diversity

      You can fix that formatting problem by editing- copy and paste into the original, and the new paste will be correct, and then you can delete the original part.

  • tobermory

    “What liberals find obnoxious about the conservative obsession with IQ and its heritability is that it’s a patently obvious smokescreen for racism.”
    More to the point, liberals must defend the orthodoxy on which their political faith depends.   Derb’s crime was to commit heresy,  very dangerous heresy for liberals. That is why Pareene and the others are frothing at the mouth.

  • Ken

    Gould’s ‘facts’ that formed the basis of his ‘Mismeasure of Man’ were shown to be outright distortions and lies in Discover magazine a few months ago….

  • No

    Good riddance to Conservatives.  The only good ones are the RCs . . . racial conservatives.

    I could even tolerate a few RLs . . . racial liberals.

    Race . . .  that’s the where it all starts and end.  Until you have blood KINSHIP with your fellow citizens, forget about having a “nation.”   The best you can have is a tyranny holding together angry, warring tribes.  The minute the tyranny ends, the warring tribes come apart like a hand grenade.

  • Mainstreaming_Diversity
  • Pandemonium

    In addition to the massive ignorance being shown by this writer, Pareene, he like so many of his ilk cannot distinguish between a White supremacist, a White separatist, and a White nationalist. 

    But that should not surprise us since he cannot distinguish amongst the races either thinking we are all alike.

  • Dunnyveg

    Pareene’s willful ignorance is easily explained.  The essential difference between right and left is that the left wants social and economic transformation in accordance with the ideology du jour; the right ostensibly relies on tradition–those things with a proven track record.  As such, for the leftist, how well something works, or if it works at all, is of no importance.  What matters is whether the idea in question deviates or conforms to their ideology.

    The data on race differences is a case in point.  As this is anathema to the currently fashionable Politically Correct ideology, it cannot even be considered as anything other than deviationist evil.  Instead, deviationist ideas are dismissed with–well–prejudice.

  • divideandrule

    Here in the UK I’ve never heard a politician say, Don’t vote for us if you’re a racist.  I can imagine them squirming if they were ever asked to do so live on air.  Language is very important in politics.  George Orwell understood this.  I think it’s time to reject the word ‘racism’ as an empty qualifier that can mean whatever you want it to.  For me the generally accepted definition of ‘racism’ holds no water.  The Chinese call us ‘big noses’.  I am not offended.  Why?  Because I don’t aspire to have a Chinese nose.  I am programmed to aspire to the average nose of my race.  A China man is not going to give me a complex.  However, if I was a member of an asylum seeking minority in China, being ridiculed as ‘big nose’ or anything else would bother me.  It would signal rejection, and rejection can lead to expulsion or attack.  What we are talking about is power.  Men can be sexist, not women.  Whites can be racist, not blacks.  In the UK we can call the Royals chinless inbreeds and get away with it.  ‘Racism’ is in fact ‘rejection of the weak’. 

    Now, as I understand it, we did not vote for mass immigration, therefore we are under no obligation to accept.  Rejection is our democratic right.  I have refined my argument to the following: blacks and Asians are not the future of the white race.  If a race is to have a future it needs its own territory.  No one can argue with these points and neither point is ‘racist’.

    I don’t wish to be boring but I have one more point to make.  As I see it, the purpose of mass immigration is divide and rule.  People waste energy fretting about an Islamic takeover.  That is not the plan (of the Royal Institute of International Affairs or the US equivalent, the Council on Foreign Relations).  In 20 years time, when the EU government no is longer making 75% of our laws but 99 %, and those laws are feeling extremely oppressive, people will want out.  They will look around them and see that their country has become a collection of ethnic cantons.  They will realise that unity is impossible. At this moment there will be a combined, collective feeling of hopelessness, powerlessness and fear.  Try to start trouble and the EU army will come and kick your teeth in.  But then, people get the government they deserve.     

  • geraldmartin

    I read Sapp’s review. He practically worships Lewontin – whose anti-white agenda is clear – and arrogantly refuses even to acknowledge the existence of research which contradicts his views.  Such people are the ones given access to venues to spread the propaganda that “race does not exist” while honest and objective scientists are vilified and sometimes even physically attacked. This is one reason why I think we may be moving towards outlawing research into racial differences, or simply making it career suicide for any bright graduate student to get interested in the subject.

  • Beloved Comrade

    It may appear asinine to you but the people who promote these “ridiculous” notions are deadly serious and they have a lot of political and legal power and influence.  “Race is a social construct” is taught at every level of academia from kindergarten through Ph.D level and is 100% supported by the media, despite mountains of evidence and facts to the contrary.

    One more lib on SCOTUS and challenging “race is a social construct” or any other lib lie will buy you an 8 X 10 cell and wipe out your retirement fund.

    Don’t think it could happen?  Ask the British,  upon whose “old” common laws our Constitution is based, the one Zerobama and his minions are in the process of shredding, while the useful idiots cheer.

    They cannot even fly their own national flag or show pride in being British because it might “offend” one of the Muslim colonists that have been imported to replace them.  We are well on our way down this road.

  • Beloved Comrade

    You are entirely correct! I had (dumb)Bell mixed up with “Skip” Gates, they certainly look alike, are dumb as posts and support the same kind of politics. Zerobama worships both of them and their views on race.