Maggie Gallagher’s contribution to Derb’s firing is the most perverse example yet of the type of “conservatism” that you will find on display at National Review:
“As a literal child of the Sixties (I was born in 1960), I have always accepted cultural taboos on racist talk as a social good.”
As a literal child of the 1960s hippie counterculture, Maggie Gallagher has always accepted that radical leftwing social revolution is a social good.
“Race is different from anything else. A whole race of people was enslaved in my country — imported from other countries in order to systematically deny their basic human rights and American guarantees of civil rights, which stem from God not government.”
Actually, the “American guarantees of civil rights” stem from Supreme Court precedents like Brown vs. Board of Education and laws passed by Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There isn’t a word in the Bible about the sinfulness of “racism” or “basic human rights” or “civil rights.”
“When slavery was overthrown, a whole set of other barriers, formal and informal, to the exercise of basic human rights by African-Americans was created and imposed to sustain a racist legal and social order, a system which lasted roughly 100 years after slavery.”
This is false.
The Jim Crow system was created in the 1890s and 1900s. It was also limited to the South. If this silly woman knew anything about history (she obviously doesn’t), she would know that the North has been generally integrated since the 1880s.
“Dismantling this government-imposed and encouraged racism was a gargantuan undertaking. Social taboos against racist language or genuinely racist ideas were part of this process.”
It was a gargantuan undertaking that was launched by communists in the 1920s. “Conservatives” are not in the business of destroying ancient traditions in the name of utopian social planning.
“At the same time, taboos against racism ought not to be allowed to shut down legitimate political or intellectual debate generally.”
“The tendency of the Left from the beginning to redefine “racism” to mean “any conservative idea or person we don’t like” is obvious.”
The Left is the dominant force in our culture. It controls the news media, the entertainment media, the universities and other culturally sensitive institutions.
The way this works is that the Left determines who represents the sock puppet Right by hand picking its “conservative” opposition and by excommunicating anyone from “respectability” that violates its norms.
Professional conservatism is on the same level as professional wrestling. In order to be a “mainstream conservative,” you are required by definition to renounce conservatism and embrace liberalism, and respect the “prevailing system of taboos” that has been established by the Left.
“Because taboo-setting on racist speech became a pathway to power, including the power to exclude and marginalize the taboo-breaker as racist — the inevitable incessant temptation concerning this taboo is to politicize it, to use its power to exclude and marginalize not those who are genuinely racists, but just one’s political opponents.”
As previously noted, the Left is culturally dominant in America, and the official Right is merely its sockpuppet. That’s why there seems to be a “double standard” when it comes to race.
It is not really a double standard because there is no equality in the power relationship. The Left is dominant. The sockpuppet Right is submissive. Its owes its very existence to recognition of its legitimacy by the Mainstream Media.
“Because power corrupts, I do not see any way around this temptation except to honestly attempt to draw and sustain an important moral line. And to resist efforts to politicize it, or worse, to expand it to ever new categories of victims. The story of race in this country is sui generis. Nothing else is like it.”
(1) Who drew the “moral line”? The Left drew the moral line.
(2) Why did the Left draw that “moral line”? The Left drew that “moral line” because it reflects its own political self interest.
(3) How did the Left draw that “moral line”? Through its control of the mass media in the 1950s and 1960s.
“I don’t know in the post-web era if “respectable” opinion exists or means anything anymore.”
What does “respectable” mean? It means “respectable” in the eyes of the dominant liberal media. Sufficiently close enough to their point of view to prove useful and non-threatening.
“I do know the conservative movement I joined is profoundly pro-individual, pro–human rights, and ideologically opposed to racism.”
This is just bizarre.
In what sense can you possibly describe the radical overthrow of ancient traditions by utopian social engineers using the centralized power of the federal government as “conservative”? Besides the sense in which Hulk Hogan, Triple H, and the Undertaker are wrestlers?
What is meant by a conservative movement that is “profoundly pro-individual”? How can you be “profoundly pro-individual” while demanding absolute conformity to BRA’s racial etiquette? If you were really “pro-individual,” the existence of contrary opinions wouldn’t bother you.
“For NR to kowtow to outside pressure would be weak, but drawing the moral lines we are willing to stand on as a movement is leadership.”
If National Review didn’t kowtow to outside pressure, it wouldn’t be recognized as “respectable” or “legitimate” in the eyes of the Left. It wouldn’t be playing its assigned role in the system. Some other “conservative” magazine would be recognized as the official opposition and you wouldn’t be an employee in a New York City office.
Why does NR kowtow to outside pressure? That’s exactly like asking: what’s the original recipe of Kentucky Fried Chicken?
“… the game is rigged by the Left.”
Of course it is: that’s why you work for the “flagship” of American conservatism, not Derb or Jared Taylor.
“But the views expressed by John Derbyshire in this one piece are in fact, racist, if that word means anything.”
“Who are we as a movement? Does the U.S. conservative movement include genuine honest racism, openly (however politely) expressed?”
A sockpuppet of the Mainstream Media? A laughingstock? The false opposition? The biggest racket in America?