Mark Steyn writes:
Andy, for what it’s worth, I regret the loss of John Derbyshire to National Review. Short version: Didn’t like the piece, but don’t think NR should have hustled him into the drive-thru guillotine on the basis of 24 hours of hysteria from the Internet’s sans-culottes. Longer version:I didn’t agree with Derb on many things, from Ron Paul and talk radio to God and science. For his part, he reckoned I was a bit of a wimp on what he called “the Great Unmentionables.” He thought that neuroscientists and geneticists’ understanding of race trumped my touching belief in “culture.” I’m not so sure: Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados? Why is India India and Pakistan Pakistan? Skin color and biological determinism don’t get you very far on that....NR shouldn’t be rewarding those who want to play this game. The more sacrifices you offer up, the more ravenously the volcano belches.PS If Derb’s piece is sufficiently beyond the pale that its author must be terminated immediately, why is its publisher — our old friend Taki — proudly listed on the NR masthead?The NR, whatever value it had in the past, has only one value now. It might act as a gateway, for those who are too timid to read anything else -- a waystation they pass through on their way to sterner stuff.
It is not very courageous, nor intellectually stimulating, nor, what is worse, very honest. It is like a kept slave. It might merit some tender memories for some, or even a momentary cheap thrill for those who've never been on the Right side of the tracks, -- more likely a bit of entertainment and above all a bit of indulgence -- rather like visiting Uncle Remus, the trusted family slave, for good story. Or Uncle Tom.
Is NRO the new Uncle Tom?
Blog entry posted by Macrobius, Apr 9, 2012.