John Derbyshire gives a lesson in 'White Supremacy' but needs one himself
By Carolyn Yeager
I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO JOHN DERBYSHIRE'S PODCASTS AT VDARE.com since last August or so. I'm always looking for something to keep me company during mundane tasks and his low-key and often humorous commentary, without any commercial breaks, is quite to my liking. All was going well until his latest program of 12/01/16 that contained the segment “Who's a white supremacist?” Commenting on the furor over imagined White Supremacy in the Trump transition team and future Trump White House, Derbyshire vexed me no end with his description of what he considers the only true white supremacists – Nazis.
Now I have known for a long time that Derbyshire was a friend to Jews; therefore would not be a fan of Nazis. He seems pretty much on the same page with Jared Tayor on Jews – 'they look White to me.' However, seems to me that Taylor puts himself out there doing important, even difficult, racial work that somewhat makes up for it, that Derbyshire can't claim.
In the podcast, he begins the segment at 27m13s with mention of an article on the term “white supremacist” that appeared in Time magazine on Nov. 29. Derbyshire complains of the ambiguity of the term; that he himself can't figure out what a white supremacist is supposed to be. So he strolls through the various positions on race, from anti-immigrant to race-realist to arguments about IQ and successful civilization-builders. He doesn't find any supremacy in these positions. Then he says:
Further out on the spectrum, you meet people who want a homeland for White people with other races excluded. The definition of “other races” needs a lot of lawyering there. Jews? Muslims? How about Christian Arabs? Etc., etc. Leaving the lawyering aside, we're talking here about White nationalists.
Derbyshire is being very coy here and playing games. Clearly, Jews are not part of the White race, they're Semites, by their own reckoning. Which means they're middle-eastern, not European. Most Jews criticize Whites. But Derbyshire wants you to think of them as White (or some of them) so he's trying to see 'Jew' as a religion since he then says 'Muslim', and we all know Muslim is not a race. To confuse things further, he adds 'Christian Arab', as though being Christian can turn an Arab into a European. For someone who says he's against ambiguity, he's absolutely indulging in it. He goes on:
And then, way further out on the spectrum, you get to people who actually wish ill to non-Whites, who would oppress, enslave or massacre them if in power These are generally called neo-Nazis. Although that's not very accurate, as the actual Nazis counted a lot of Whites, notably Jews and Slavs, among the out-groups to be oppressed, etc. In the fevered imaginations of liberals, all the groups I've worked my way to here nurse malice toward non-Whites.
I've underlined some expressions I want you to notice. He is not denying there are Whites who “actually wish ill to non-Whites” and would “oppress, enslave or massacre them if in power.” These are the “actual Nazis” who even “counted a lot of Whites, notably Jews and Slavs among the outgroups they oppressed.” A couple of things here. Above he questioned whether Jews were White, now he slips in they are White. They are equally as White as Slavs. Also he claims they were “oppressed, etc.” He uses the 'etc' to take us back to the original three words 'oppress, enslave and massacre,' leaving us with the unmistakable picture of Nazis massacring Jews and Slavs. The only White people who hated other White people enough to enslave and masscre them were those damn Nazis.
It's not at all surprising that John Derbyshire is as British as they come, and proud of it. Far be it from him to question the WWII lore passed on to him during his schooling in England … the heroic Londoners, Winston Churchill and all that. What does he know of the real story of both WWI and WWII? Nothing, apparently. It's probably not possible to teach him, but I can tell him that he is totally wrong about the 'Nazis' enslaving and massacring non-Germans just because they had the power to do so ... or at all. In the case of the Jews, the National-Socialists were trying to prevent the Jews from enslaving the Germans(!) via taking control of all levers of power and areas of influence. A large chunk of Poland was composed of Jews who entertained malice toward Germany; the rest were Poles who felt the same way to varying degrees. I could tell him a lot about the British enslaving and massacring Germans for the purpose of exercising power over them. And after all, Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around … both times. What about the British naval blockade that caused a million Germans, mostly children and infants, to starve to death, even after the WWI armistice had been signed! These are just a few of the many, many realities that don't fit into his false picture of sole Nazi desire for supremacy over others.
It's sad, very sad, that so many White people insist on sticking with these lies and fables. It's bad enough we have to fight the communists and globalists, without having to get crap like this from our friends and fellow Whites. For my part, I try never to let it pass unremarked upon if I can help it. But I'll still listen to his podcasts and be glad for them.
P.S. Hadding Scott and I often find ourselves thinking along the same lines. He just posted a couple of things on his National-Socialist blog that bring up related ideas.