That VDARE is getting the lion’s share of “movement” donations, and that some of that goes to Derbyshire, is absolutely disgusted. Not surprising tough. Not surprising at all.
Let’s delve deeper into this; this is important.
Let’s consider Derbyshire some more. Not only is all written above true, and documented in his own writing, but let us not forget: for years, Derbyshire was openly hostile to White nationalism. He wrote an insulting “hit piece” against Kevin MacDonald (it was when I wrote a riposte defending MacDonald that Derbyshire first came to my attention). He openly mocked WN’s as “crazy” and “nutty” and “obsessed with racial purity.” He publicly agreed with the assessment of Amren conference attendees as “latrine flies.” He challenged critics of his marriage to come to his home so he could greet them “in the appropriate manner” (i.e., an elderly fist in their face, I suppose). He sided with GNXP against WNs, and had one of the GNXPers at his home (welcomed, not attacked). He praised the likes of the anti-WN and anti-Salter “Jayman.”
But what happened when National Review kicked Derbyshire to the curb over his “the talk” article? Guess who it was who eagerly embraced Derbyshire and gave him new life – and money! – to spread his repellent views? You guessed it – the “movement.” The same “movement” Derbyshire attacked with relish for years now fell all over themselves to rescue him, including inviting him to address all those “latrine flies” he previously mocked in (digital) print. And, of course, he gets money and more money, supported via VDARE, etc. And he is praised by “movement” commentators on blog threads. This anti-WN race-mixer is propped up by the same WNs he’s always despised.
On the other hand, let’s look at how genuine WNs are treated. Let’s consider this Sallis fellow – a WN for over twenty years, someone who made a major contribution in popularizing Salter’s EGI concept in the “movement” (and defending it against critics), among many other contributions. Ted has essentially been “blacklisted” by Der Movement for the “crime” of questioning “movement” dogma and for criticizing “movement” leaders and for asserting that these “leaders” should be held accountable for their actions. The anti-WN Derbyshire embraced; the WN Sallis is persona non grata.
Explanation? I put forth two explanations, both of which are undoubtedly true.
First, many in Der Movement consider White nationalism as a money-making enterprise, as a way of earning a living (and living well). They may well be genuine activists, sincere in their beliefs, but they want their money. Derbyshire was never a threat to that – his attacks could easily be explained away by his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children. Criticism coming from a twenty plus year veteran of WN is a whole other story, potentially far more damaging. Let’s quarantine that “infection” before folks start getting the wrong ideas and the shekels stop pouring in. Yes, there is also the issue of bruised egos among the thin-skinned, but I would think the money is more of a factor here.
But that first explanation does not explain the extent of the discrepancy; it does not explain the fervor with which Derbyshire been embraced, and the alacrity by which Sallis has been, in contrast, blacklisted. Thus, second, I must invoke the “movement’s” affirmative action program. Derbyshire – even with his Chinese family connections – is “one of the boys” so years of extreme anti-WN activism is breezily dismissed; Sallis, on the other hand, is an “outsider,” so decades of contributions are flushed down the memory hole before you can even say the words “latrine flies.”
The “rock stars” may not want to hear any of this, but it’s true. And it’s a damning indictment of their poor character.