After the National Review made the decision to shit-can him for publishing a bullet-pointed list of racist things to teach your white children about black people, John Derbyshire has apparently been liberated in the sense that he can now share the beliefs he has held all along, such as the belief that white supremacy is a force for good in the world.
Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think “White Supremacist” is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.
Derbyshire dismissively glosses over the fact that the societies of other ethnic groups have been less than stable because they're still sorting out the mess left behind by centuries of white European colonialism. You know, because that was a "better arrangement."
In the history of the world, self-rule is still a relatively new concept to many impoverished nations who were previously under the rule of the white saviors Derbyshire refers to, and I'm sure the hundreds of millions of non-white people oppressed by men like him throughout history would disagree with his assessment.
Derbyshire contributed to The National Review for over a decade. Did he hold these beliefs the entire time? How many other conservative columnists out there are barely-suppressing their true feelings?